Meet the Press NOW – August 18

If it's Friday, President Biden hosts a historic summit. Camp David with the leaders of Japan and South Korea is the White House pushes for cooperation in covering aggression from China and North Korea. Plus, former President Trump has made the decision not to attend the first Republican debate, as much of the Republican presidential field heads to Georgia, the state at the center of Trump's latest indictment. And Maui's top emergency management official resigns one day after defending his decision not to sound sirens as deadly wildfire spread.

His federal investigators head to the disaster zone to determine the cause of the fires. And welcome to meet the press now on Ryan Nobles in for Chuktah. And we begin today at Camp David. The presidential retreat in the mountains of Maryland where President Biden is wrapping up a historic meeting with the leaders of Japan and South Korea.

The meeting comes as the U.S. looks to bolster its position in the Asia-Pacific region in the face of an increasingly assertive China. Moments ago, the three leaders announced a new agreement creating a framework that will deepen security relations between the three nations and potentially shift the security landscape within the region. Here's what President Biden said just moments ago.

Your leadership with the full support of the United States has brought us here. As each of you understands that our world stands at an inflection point, a point where we're called to lead in new ways to work together, to stand together. And today I'm proud to say our nations are answering that call. This is the first summit I've hosted at Camp David as president.

I can think of no more fitting location to begin the next era, our next era of cooperation. A place that has long symbolized the power of new beginnings and new possibilities. In the months and years ahead, we're going to continue to seize those possibilities together on wavering in our unity and unmatched in our resolve. Camp David, of course, has been the site of a number of historically significant diplomatic breakthroughs and that now includes today's meeting.

The three-way talk's mark, a significant step in following relations between Japan and South Korea. The two nations do share a difficult history following Japan's brutal 35-year occupation of the Korean Peninsula. But in recent months, both countries have taken steps to mend ties, something the U.S. has long advocated for.

And while this is a significant moment in relations between the U.S., South Korea and Japan, China is condemning the meeting calling it a quote exclusionary grouping. And we see news for correspondent Janice Mackey Freier has more from Beijing. There is some uneasy history between South Korea and Japan, but they do share these security challenges in China and North Korea. The U.S.

wants a united front in facing those challenges. The three countries are intertwined when it comes to security, not just rhetorically, but with actual military operations. The threats are there. They're looming.

China's military buildup and behavior in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. North Korea has just tested a solid fuel ICBM, which is not something they've done before. China is highly critical of this gathering at Camp David. In state media here, it's being described as a mini-Nato-style alliance.

They call it destructive. They say it will lead to more conflicts. Beijing has actually warned Tokyo and Seoul against getting too close to the West. And it will be some tricky navigating, given China's economic clout in the region.

China is the number one trading partner for both South Korea and Japan. But there is the sense this trilateral get together might not have happened even a year ago. The Ukraine war has changed the way leaders in this part of the world view their security. It's pushed China and Russia to forge closer ties.

And there are also signs of growing military cooperation between Russia and North Korea. So for the US, it's locking in its two main allies in the region and taking this trilateral cooperation and making it something more permanent. Alright, Janice and Naki Freire, thank you for that reporting. Let's go now to Kristin Welker, who is live at the White House.

So Kristin, this was a significant breakthrough for these three countries. Walk us through the details of what is in this new agreement. Well, this was a real show of force, Ryan. And there were some real deliverables that were announced today, including annual joint military exercises between the three countries, enhanced intelligence sharing and technology sharing.

And what's being referred to as a three-way hotline, which will effectively allow these three leaders to be in touch if there is, in fact, a crisis. Now, as Janice just mapped out, what is largely significant about this is that the meeting is happening at all, the fact that the leaders of South Korea and Japan came together for this trilateral summit, given all of the tensions in their history. And President Biden touted that fact when he was speaking during that news conference. Take a listen.

I want to recognize the important work that both of you have done and the political courage. And I mean, sincerely, the political courage that you both demonstrated to resolve difficult issues that were stood in the way for a long time of a close relationship between Japan and Korea and with the United States. Now again, the whole purpose of this is this united front, this show of force in the face of new aggressions by North Korea concerns that Russia could be aiding North Korea in its nuclear missile program and also a rising China. President Biden was asked about that.

And he said, yes, China was discussed during the meeting, but it was not the focal point of this trilateral summit. But again, this summit is the first of its kind. And it is the first time that President Biden is hosting foreign leaders at Camp David, all underscoring the significance of this for the president and the administration. And Chris, I want to go back to a point you made early in your report.

And that's the politics of all of this. We are, of course, on the verge of an election year here in the United States. South Korea's president has faced protests over his desire to improve relations with Japan. Given how much is at stake here, is there concern about how enduring this agreement will be?

Absolutely, because as you know, President Biden campaigned on a promise to reinforce the United States alliances on the world stage with countries like South Korea and Japan, of course with the United States, European allies as well, particularly NATO. As Janice was saying, this summit was being criticized as a mini NATO. But this entire policy runs counter to that of his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, who's of course running for reelection. Again, he's the strong Republican front runner.

He, of course, has espoused this America first foreign policy. President Biden has said he in office will restrankhen these ties that were fractured during his predecessor. So there's no doubt that this will be front and center on the campaign trail as well. If in fact, we do see a rematch between President Biden and former President Trump.

These two very different visions for foreign policy and national security for the United States. Ryan. All right, Chris and welcome. I'm live at the White House.

Thank you so much for leaving us off. Chris and we appreciate it. And let's talk about this particular agreement that just came out. Joining me now is Dean Chang.

He's a senior advisor to the China program at the US Institute. Of peace, Dean, you're an expert in all of this. First, give us a reality check here. This isn't a formal alliance, but how does this change the security landscape in the region?

Well, clearly the ability of all three countries to sit down and meet together, as has been noted, this is unprecedented, which tells us something, right? We have had alliances with Japan and with South Korea since the 1950s. And yet these two countries, neighbors, haven't sat down together, war with us in all of that time. So yes, this is a huge step forward.

But to temper that expectation, the idea that this is a new NATO, that there will be a joint military command, joint requirement setting, joint military planning, I think that that is definitely putting the cart several miles before the horse. And obviously, China was in the back of everyone's minds over the course of this conversation. We heard Chris talk about it, but I believe we have President Biden talking about how this particular meeting wasn't about China. Let's play a bit.

Actually, we don't have a quite yet. But let's get into that. They can say all they want that it isn't about China. But is the situation with China perhaps one of the reasons that there was an urgency for these three nations to come together?

I don't know that it was the urgency presented by China, but absolutely. China is a factor. The Chinese military activities throughout the region, their efforts at in the South China is far from these two countries, but sits on the supply lines for both South Korea and Japan food and energy. The fact that Chinese military forces have circumnavigated Japan and regularly intruded into the South Korean air defense identification zone, that absolutely is a factor.

But again, North Korea, Russia, both of those are also considerations. When North Korea tests an ICBM, South Korea doesn't say, oh, well, it's only overflying us. And the Russians have actually been working with the Chinese in intruding into both South Korea and Japanese air and sea space. Well, let's talk about the relationship between Korea and Japan, South Korea and Japan, which is a big part of why this was such a big breakthrough.

Explain to us a little bit about the history between these two countries and why it was so significant that they were both at the table today. Well, it's not just South Korea, it's Korea in general. And when you talk to Koreans and their views of Japan, they have literally centuries of bitterness to go back on, dating back to the wars of the late 1500s when Japan invaded Korea then. You may have heard of Avno Yi and the turtle boats.

He is a major figure in South Korean history, and he fought the Japanese. Fast forward to the early 20th century when Korea became a colony of Japan and the Japanese were incredibly brutal. And since the end of World War II, the emergence of South Korea as an economic powerhouse where they see themselves as openly competing with Japan and everything from microchips to shipbuilding. So you see a lot of tension in that relationship.

Okay, let's actually now listen to what the president had to say about the impact that China had on this conversation. I'll just say this, this summit was not about China. That was not the purpose of the meeting. But China obviously came up.

And I have to say we don't share concerns about the economic coercion or heightened tensions caused by China. But this summit was really about our relationship with each other and deepening cooperation across our entire range of issues that went well beyond just the immediate issues we raised. And it is interesting that he specifically talked about the economic concerns that he has about China because you can understand from a security standpoint, a national security standpoint why Korea and Japan's interests may be aligned. But does it work the same way with their economies?

I mean, they both trade with China. We trade with China as well. I mean, how does the economics of all of this impact it? Well, China has demonstrated that it has no qualms, no hesitation in using its economic leverage to pressure South Korea, which it did over the fad, the deployment of an American air defense unit there, and with Japan over rare Earths.

So both of these countries, while they are major trading partners with China, also understand that this is a very large and very dangerous trading partner, not just in military, but economic terms. And then when you throw in the fact that these countries are major producers and microchips and the technology associated with it, and China is intent on becoming a world leader in microchip production, again, this is an economic competition, but it goes to the heart of both the South Korean and Japanese economy. And to that, and President Biden signed an executive order that was aimed specifically at US investments into the Chinese semiconductor industry and artificial intelligence. Could you see Japan or South Korea taking similar steps?

Not only that, but I think that probably one of the underlying agreements that will be talked about within this framework is the idea of increasing cooperation among all three. We know the Chinese have been doing cyber intrusions into Japan. They are almost certainly doing that into South Korea. So we're likely to see cybersecurity chip production cooperation exchange of that sort of advanced R&D that would really make this trilateral relationship go frankly beyond NATO in some ways.

Wow. Dean Chen, thank you for your perspective. We appreciate you putting all this into context for us. Thank you so much for being here.

Thanks for having me. So, become Donald Trump makes his decision not to debate. What will he do instead? Plus, as the top Republican presidential candidate who art named Trump, head to Atlanta, Christie takes his campaign to his rival's home turf of Florida.

You're watching me The Press Now. And welcome back. Turning to the campaign trail, we learned this afternoon that former President Donald Trump will not be attending the first Republican debate, at least for now. The stage in Milwaukee will be without the field's front runner who, according to two sources, will be counter programming the event by sitting down with former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson.

Well, this comes as Trump also says he won't not be holding an event on Monday like he promised to release what he called a quote, irrefutable report claiming election fraud in Georgia. Trump announced the plans for what he said would be a major news conference the day after he was indicted on felony charges in connection with alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. But it appears his legal team had other ideas. Trump's legal advisers were reportedly actively urging him to call off the event and arguing that continued claims of election fraud can actually add to his legal problems.

So while there won't be a press conference or a debate next week for the former president, what Trump will be doing is surrendering himself to authorities in Fulton County, Georgia ahead of Friday's deadline. NBC's Blaine Alexander is on the ground in Atlanta with the latest. So, Blaine, do you have any idea about when we're expecting to see President Trump surrender? Well, actually, Ryan, we do have at least a closer sense of when it is going to happen.

It happens when it's not going to happen. So, O'Kellie O'Donnell and I have been speaking with sources, three senior law enforcement sources tell us that they're currently preparing for the former president to surrender toward the end of the week. So, saying that it will likely not happen earlier than Thursday. So, you consider the fact that Friday at noon is the deadline.

You can look at that and say that it's kind of cutting it rather close to the deadline, right? So, he's only got half a day on Friday and then all the day on Thursday according to our sources. Now, it's important to note that nothing is set in stone just yet. Planning is still in the works, but that they're preparing for it to happen toward the later part of the week.

So, all of that, of course, is coming up as we're watching not only for the former president, but for the last 18 other co-defendants to come down and surrender as well. One of the big questions throughout this entire thing, of course, Ryan, is where are they going to be? Where are they going to go? We know that the sheriff's office is saying that they are planning for them to surrender at the Rice Street jail.

Now, it's very unlikely that Trump himself will spend very much time in the actual building, but it should be noted that the conditions of that jail itself have come under a lot of scrutiny recently. It's under investigation by the DOJ. The sheriff's office just announced a seventh inmate death this year just overnight. So, certainly interesting to watch as we wait for the former president to turn himself in, Ryan.

No doubt about that. So, Trump also promised this irrefutable report on his Georgia election theories that was supposed to happen Monday. What's gone away? Is the sense here that it was his lawyers that leaned on him to stop that from happening?

Certainly sounds like it. You know what's interesting? He's not backing away from the report. He's not backing away from what he essentially calls the validity of the report.

He's more so saying that his lawyers, and he did this in a social media post, but he's more so saying that his lawyers said, rather than put it out in a news conference, it's better for it to be entered into the record via legal filings. So, that's the route they're going to take. Therefore, the news conference is no longer necessary. But he's describing this report the same way, irrefutable evidence of election fraud in Georgia.

Now, it's important to point out. He's not giving any details on what's in that report, what this so-called irrefutable evidence may be. Of course, the results of the Georgia election have been counted, recounted, certified, and it's been found that there was no election fraud. But we, of course, are watching those filings to see what, if anything, is entered into the docket, that may resemble that report, Brian.

And of course, the state's Republican governor, Brian Kemp, also directly refuting Trump's claims as well. Now, to the situation with the members of the Fulton County Grand Jury. What's the latest on the threats against that group? Well we know that the Sheriff's Office was looking into it.

I heard from the FBI field office here in Atlanta earlier today. They're also looking into it, working with the Sheriff's Office. You know, it is very different the way that grand juries are handled here in Georgia than, of course, federal grand juries, and many other states. That's because the names of the grand jurors are actually listed in the indictment once they hand up an indictment.

So, once that indictment is unsealed, the names become public, the entire document becomes public. That's standard here in Georgia. The question, though, is that when you have a case of this nature, why wasn't there a change? Why weren't those names omitted or redacted?

Because as Ryan Rylie and I reported earlier this week, we have found evidence now that those names and addresses, personal information, in some cases, photos or screenshots of the social media accounts of the grand jurors have been posted online along with some threatening language accompanying it in some cases. So certainly, that's what the Sheriff's Office is looking into and cause we're concerned right now. But they'll be pushed to reform that particular policy. Blaine Alexander is always a thank you for your great reporting.

And while some of Trump's top rivals have tried to stay away from former President's various legal issues, the former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is putting them front and center. Here's what he had to say earlier today at a campaign stop in South Florida, just down the road from Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. By Wednesday night, the front runner for our party's nomination is going to be out on bail in four different jurisdictions. When are we going to stop pretending that this is acceptable?

Because let me tell you, everybody, whether you believe the criminal prosecutions are justified or not. Let's put that aside for a second. The conduct is unacceptable, whether it's criminal or not. NBC's Shaquille Brewster just escaped to a monsoon in Miami and is now joining us inside.

Shaquille thanks for the hustle as always. So Chris Christie really hasn't been shy to say the goal of his campaign is to take Trump ahead on in the debate stage. But now we're going to Trump back in a wait 10-minute debate. I know you push Christie on that.

How does it change his calculus? Well, for him, he says it doesn't change his calculus. He can expect to hear Christie still attack on that debate stage. You know, when he was at an earlier event, a breakfast town hall, so to speak here in Miami, he essentially made his pitch to voters there, he got the audience on that.

He essentially made his pitch by saying, in order for Republicans to be Biden in next November, then Republicans need to take down Trump now in this primary. He's saying that he's the only one on that stage who will be willing to do it. I spoke to him just before that news broke, that former president Trump will not be on the debate stage next week. But I asked him what his preference was there.

Listen to what he told me just before that news broke. Do you prefer that Donald Trump's on the debate stage to show him? I prefer that everybody who wants to be president of the United States and win the Republican nomination be on the stage, because I think Republican voters deserve the respect to show up and to argue the issues with the other candidates who are qualified. So if you've qualified for the stage, which Trump has, not showing up is completely disrespectful to the Republican Party, who has made you their nominee twice, and to the Republican voters who support your asking for again.

So I think everybody who qualifies should show up and be willing to stand up and defend their record and advocate for what they want for the future. Now one way we might expect to see Christie do that and draw that distinction with a former president on the stage is that he makes clear times of moving away from Trump, but Trump isn't. He goes after, for example, the war on what, because he doesn't even know what that means. It says the Republican Party should be about smart government, small government, and not having a legislature than a government that passes laws against people or groups that they're against.

So what you heard him do in front of audience earlier today is he went after not just Trump, but also a name drop, a DeSantis law to a name drop of the Vvekworm Slami. You're getting the things that he's going to talk to one other candidate too. All right, let's shy about talking about Trump, a lump post together as he makes that attack and that direct attack on Donald Trump. All right, Chuck, we're glad that you are nice and dry.

Thank you for that report, my friend. I would appreciate it. Let's talk now with our panel, NBC News Capitol Hill colleague, Sahil Kapoor, former Maryland Democratic Congresswoman and NBC News political analyst Donna Edwards, and Brendan Bakker, former adviser to Republican speaker John Boehner and Paul Ryan as well as being an NBC News political analyst. So we need to get to it with Chuck, but I want to talk about this campaign memo that was on Earth, that was kind of a way for the pack, the DeSantis super pack to talk to the campaign itself.

In Sahil, the highlights from this memo, Rhonda Santis, they suggest, they suggest, they take a sledgehammer to Vvek Ross and Swami, the political newcomer who's rising in the polls, and then he should actually defend Donald Trump when Chris Christie inevitably attacks the president and then needs to attack Joe Biden and the media no less than three to five times. What does this tell you about the campaign? It shows the extraordinary jam that the Rhonda Santis campaign is in right now. The fact that they have no answer for how to deal with Trump, they're leery of criticizing him for fear that the alienate Republican voters were loyal to him.

They are, there's some leery in us of ignoring him as well because he's above 50% and running away with the nomination. And we should, we should note that this was not a campaign product, this was by the super pack, the campaign has sort of distanced itself from this memo, but it does show that the DeSantis orbit, the campaign is not going the way they wanted it to go. And if Donald Trump is on the stage, one thing you can do is criticize him for not debating the way Chris Christie is doing. If you want to make your case, if you want to be president, at least show up, this memo suggests that they're leery of going down that road.

So from a strategic standpoint, Brendan, is Donald Trump making the right decision by skipping the debate and instead spending time with Tucker Carlson and whatever capacity that turns out to be? Yeah, I don't blame him at all for it. I mean, he's obviously far ahead in the race, but also he seems to be the only person actually trying to win the race. You know, we'll see what happens on the debate stage, but it really feels like we're not actually having a campaign.

And if you've run a Santis, the closest alternative is going to take a pass and is going to defend the person beating him, then what's the point? Why are we even doing this? And so if they're not actually going to run a campaign, if they're not actually going to come out, why submit yourself to be there in the first place? I actually think it's the perfect right.

And what do you think about the RNC's role in all this? We know that the chair went on McDaniel made a personal plea to Donald Trump. There's some reporting out there that the executives from Fox News made an entry to try and convince him to be there. And Trump doesn't seem to care.

Does the RNC have any power when it comes to the shepherding of this part? It's not a new thing either. I mean, it's been Donald Trump's party and infrastructure for a really long time. And she's tried to wrestle it back and give the at least the appearance that there is a primary going on here.

I think we're squinting pretty hard to see an actual primary. And I think that he doesn't really need much of them. And I think all of those other people on the stage need Donald Trump much more than he needs them. And I think that he's other Republicans on the stage trying to put yourself in that place.

But how do you handle that? Obviously, even though he won't be there, Donald Trump will be the proverbial elephant in the room. How do these Republican challengers to him try and find a way to break through without him there but him being the most important topic? Well, there you have it.

Donald Trump is sucking up all the oxygen whether he's on the stage or not. And I think for some of these candidates to the extent, as Ren is said, that they are unwilling to go after Donald Trump, then it means that they're not willing to replace him. And I think voters will see that. And certainly, Mr.

Trump has seen that because he doesn't seem to show up on the stage. With them. So other than Chris Christie and Aisa Hutchinson who are not going anywhere in the polls, nobody else seems willing to take on the front runner who is Donald Trump. And to the extent that they don't do that, there is no space for them to win this nomination.

I mean, I'm a little curious if you decide you're going to run against Donald Trump. What is there to lose by going after him on this debate stage? You've already said that you want to challenge him. You've already said you don't think he's the best nominee for president.

Why is there any benefit to trying to just kiss up to him in a stage like this? Well, I mean, that is the question that everyone's asking. And I think for those Republicans, if you're a Republican voter, why would you vote for the real thing? And I think that that's the position that they're in.

And as long as those candidates, those other candidates occupy that space, this is Donald Trump's nomination to run away with. It's self-preservation. Ron is saying this might want to be president against him. Tim Scott probably needs to get reelected in South Carolina at some point.

So they all have to think about their future. And it seems like a lot of these candidates, campaigns, were really just banking on the idea that Donald Trump was going to self-disrupt. He was going to implode and then they'd be there. That's not happening.

I don't know why you would think that even the last eight years that would actually take place, but it's clearly not happening. And so now that I think they're just worried about their own futures. Some of them may also be running for vice presidents. Some of them also may be hoping that if they're nice to Donald Trump, he'll give them a position in what may be a second presidential term.

But this is an absolute gift to Donald Trump to have the candidate with 15% attacking the candidate with 8%. The sledgehammer to the guy who's polling less than you and the guy who's above 50% and climbing, I should add, is not on the debate stage. He's in a dominant position right now. It's sometimes it's hard to figure out who the more dominant candidate in their own primary is Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

Speaking of candidates that appear to remain insignificant in the Republican primary, let's see what the former vice president Mike Pence had to say. He was at an event in Georgia today. This is what he said when he got off stage. Take a listen.

What impact do those most things have on the Republican party going forward? Well, honestly, I think Republican primary voters aren't interested in looking at a rear of your mirror. There's too many challenges facing American families today. So he's obviously responding to Trump's false election claims.

He clearly had a hard time answering that question. He's the one that's been in the line of fire the most on this point. And how's he handling this? It's not seem to be helping him at all.

Well, he seems to be getting a little closer and closer to criticizing Donald Trump all the time. And that's the person I'm most interested in seeing on the debate stage. Does he sort of say, OK, this is my moment. This is not somebody who has to run for reelection for a later thing ever again.

Like, this is his one time to say, this is the person I stood next to for four years and I can tell you he is not the right person to lead it. That's why no one has made that point. People are giving economics speeches, people are running out energy plans. No one is giving a clear explanation for why Donald Trump should not be president.

No one is better positioned to do that than Mike Pence will say. OK, so let's talk about the great reporting that you had this week with our colleague Alan Smith regarding the standoff in the Congress and the Senate over the confirmation of military promotions. You guys picked up some audio of Kirsten Cinnamut in a private event in Arizona where she suggests and I remember she's an independent now, not a Democrat, but suggest that Tupperville and the administration need to find common ground when it comes to this DOD policy on paying for the travel of service members who are seeking abortions. What's her endgame here?

We know that she tries to be the great diplomat on the Senate floor. Can she pull it off in this regard? It's hard to see how she pulls it off. It's quite a bold move for Cinnamut to wade into the standoff, which is entirely 100% about the Pentagon's travel policy as it relates to abortion.

This has been going on for months now. The Secretary of Defense and Senator Tarbival has spoken on the phone several times. They have a irreconcilable difference over it. Now, Cinnamut at this private event, this was an invite-only event that Alan Smith and I obtained audio for.

She talks about the need for both parties or both sides here to step off from their positions and find that middle ground to solve the challenge that we're facing. It's very hard to know what this looks like. It is on brand for Cinnamut to, you know, presenters all of this independent voice to presenters all of this bridge between the two parties to help solve problems. It is off brand for her to break with Democrats on a fight that is ultimately about abortion for all the headaches that she's given her party.

She's been solidly in line with reproductive rights advocates on that issue. What her endgame is unclear. She's an independent now. She's not said whether she's running for reelection in Arizona.

If she does, she would have a challenging path. I asked her office repeatedly, what does this compromise look like? They won't say it. Policy or process.

They won't say what they didn't respond. That's a snarky comment for those of the cover capital. Every day. But I want to finish out with, I was in Montana at the beginning of this month and had the opportunities to download Senator John Tester.

We talked about a number of topics. I asked him about the controversy surrounding the president's son, Hunter Biden. I want to play a little bit of that for you. I had to ask you about the president's son then too.

Do you view the situation with Hunter Biden in the same? Absolutely. Absolutely correct. If Hunter Biden broke the line, he's going to pay the price.

Do you think the current president has any connection to that from what you've been able to cover? That's for somebody else to figure out. But if that connection is there, then that's a problem. So, Donna, he said, if that connection is there, that is a problem.

That is what Republicans are really attempting to expose. They're filling the vacuum, the lack of information about possible ties between Hunter Biden's business dealings and the president. And trying to make it look nefarious and as a result, trying to damage the president politically. Does that have legs?

Do independent voters see Hunter Biden's legal issues as a problem for the president and whether or not they might support him in 2024? I don't think so. I mean, and I think to the extent that this never really touches Joe Biden, I mean, Republicans have been pretty aggressive at trying to figure out that connection. And it simply doesn't exist.

And I agree with John Tester and I think most Democrats do as well. That Hunter Biden's problems are his own legal problems and that they don't attach to the president. And I just sort of feel like if Republicans want to continue barking down that path, there's no path to proceed. And the legal issues are going to work themselves out.

And Hunter Biden is going to deal with those. But that doesn't mean that Joe Biden has a problem. Look, we've been through decades of presidents, relative sons and brothers and et cetera. And those things do not attach to the president and the president generally rises above all of that.

I mean, we've seen repeated examples of that over our history. I don't think that's going to happen now. Okay, we're going to leave it there. Don Edward, Spernibak, Spernibak, Spernibak, thank you all for being here.

We appreciate it. Next, the emergency response official responsible for not sounding Mowy's alarm system during those catastrophic wildfires to stepping aside as federal investigators step in. We're on the ground in Hawaii next. We're watching the press now.

Spernibak, Mowy's top emergency management official resigned last night. And mid-questions surrounding his office's response to the devastating wildfires that swept across the island last week. Hermann and Daya, who previously ran the Mowy emergency management agency, resigned just a day after he defended his decision not to sound warning sirens on the island, saying that he believed it would have driven people inland toward the flames. That lack of alarms is currently under investigation by the Hawaiian government.

And Daya cited health reasons for his resignation. NBC News correspondent Dana Griffin is in Lahana. So Dana, what do we know about this emergency official who resigned last night? And what have we learned about his actions during the fires and his history in the office?

Yeah, hey Ryan. So we've learned that he resigned on Thursday just a day after defending his reason for not sounding those sirens. He said he thought it would have forced people to go inland to see higher ground because that's usually what tsunami sirens are used for. But even the emergency management website says that those sirens can be used for other emergencies like a brushfire.

And many here are frustrated because they say those sirens could have warned people a lot sooner. We've heard from so many people who say they stepped outside their doors and within minutes they were engulfed in smoke and the flames overtook them very quickly. We know that according to NBC News exclusive reporting, he sort of repeatedly called those sirens last minute, last resort. And these were comments that were made in meetings dating back to 2019.

So he's kind of come under fire for those comments because people say what other situation could have been a last resort situation than this. And I also want to point out that he had been set to take part in a meeting involving the public safety commission that was supposed to happen Thursday morning. But we soon later realized that that meeting was canceled and he was out of a job. The mayor's office telling us that he is planning to feel that job as soon as possible considering the crisis that this town is facing.

But it's I'm sure how soon that will be. And Ryan, who will take over that position? And we do know now that federal investigators were dispatched there yesterday. What can we expect from their investigation and what specifically are they focusing on?

So they are specifically focusing on the cause of this fire. We know how Hawaiian electric has come under fire for possibly being the cause of the fire. We've seen videos of downed power lines and people have filed lawsuits. They're now for that say that Hawaiian electric should have deenergized the power grid to prevent a fire like this considering that there were strong winds that were forecasted.

Hawaiian electric has not commented on that litigation and has also pointed to the fact that an exact cause of the fire has not been determined. ATF will likely be here to finally make that determination. We're told that they are already on the ground so they will likely be combing through this entire town of Lahaina that you can see behind me where you see homes that are gutted, rooves burned and just the foundations of most of them. They will be looking for clues and hopefully will make a determination pretty soon.

But how soon that will be Ryan? We have no idea. The depth of this tragedy is still hard to wrap your mind around. Dana Griffin, thank you so much for that report.

We appreciate it. After the break, Montana's climate change game changer. I'll talk to one of the environmental activists behind this week's landmark decision that said for the first time that governments have a constitutional duty to protect people against climate change. That interview is next.

You're watching Meet the President. Welcome back. As we first reported earlier this week here, climate activists are sharing a court victory that they hope will pave the way for future litigation surrounding the environmental protections. A judge in Montana ruled in favor of a group of 16 young activists, one of whom is just five years old, argued that state agencies were violating their constitutional right to a clean and helpful environment.

The case was the first of its kind in the country. Environmentalists call the win a game changer case for climate change protections in the U.S. And I'm joined now by one of those young activists, Claire Velassis, as well as Matt DeSantis, who is the general counsel and managing attorney for our children's trust. So, Claire, thanks so much for joining us.

We appreciate it. Just first, tell me your reaction when you heard about the decision. How did that feel to come up with such a huge victory? Well, thanks for having me.

Yeah, it felt incredible to finally be heard. I guess we've been working on this for so many years. It's nice to have it finally come to fruition. We'll talk about that.

I mean, what led you to take this step? Why did you think that this was important? And why did you and your fellow plaintiffs decide to put yourselves out there like this? Oh, gosh.

Well, I grew up in Montana. Everyone cares a lot about the land and about protecting that. And so I wanted to do everything I could to protect the land that I love so much, whether that be my family is small farm or just the outdoors. It's really important to me.

Yeah, I just actually cut back from a reporting trip in Montana. I can understand why it's so important to you because that is some of the most beautiful country in the world, much less in the United States. So, Claire, I know that you had a lot of help from Matt and the legal team that was involved in this process. But talk a little bit about how you and your fellow plaintiffs, how involved you were in the loss of itself?

Yeah, we were, I was thinking, tips are really involved. With the help of the OCT team, we were able to share our story and talk about how climate change has impacted us personally. And I think that's huge. Yeah, Matt, add to that.

How important was their contribution and their passion associated with this issue in terms of the case that you and your team built? Yeah, you know, our children's trust is a nonprofit law firm that represents young people around the world who want to hold their governments accountable for their role in climate change. So at its core, these cases are about those young people like Claire and their stories and how they're being harmed when the state takes actions. So, Claire, I know that there are some members of this lawsuit, some of your fellow plaintiffs that are as young as five years old.

And it is somewhat remarkable to see that such a young group of individuals were able to take on such big, powerful interests. Do you think that you and your fellow plaintiffs would have been successful? Had you not been so young? Do you think that was part of what made your argument so effective?

Yeah, I think it is really relevant because as young people, we are most impacted by climate change considering it's supposed to continue throughout all of our lifetimes and into our children's lifetimes. So, I think the message is a little bit more powerful. And I also think as a young person, it's hard to find any power in yourself when it comes to government decisions or policy making since a lot of young people can't vote yet or run for office yet. And so I think this lawsuit represents even more to us as young people.

So, Matt, I'd like your take now on what the next legal steps are. I mean, a part of this is all tempered by the fact that it's now to the state legislature to determine how this all proceeds. How do you expect the, what I should say is the fallout from this legal ruling? Yeah, so while initially this order is only legally binding in Montana, really held to be State of Montana as a bellwither for constitutional democracies everywhere.

And we expect this landmark decision to be used by judges deciding cases here in the United States and frankly all over the world. Judge Sealy was crystal clear in her decision that all of plaintiffs' fundamental rights were intrinsically linked to their right to a stable climate. And these fundamental rights, like the right to life and equal protection under the law, are found in every constitution in the United States. And really, because young people today have grown up in a world where climate catastrophe is a near daily occurrence, they understand this very civil principle that in order to have the right to life or the liberty to pursue their own happiness, their governments must also protect their right to a stable climate.

So, Claire, obviously Montana has dealt a lot with the wildfires that are coming from Canada. It's made the air their difficult to breathe. I know I experienced that when I was there just a couple of weeks ago. And that is actually part of the argument for some of the critics of this ruling that said that Montana can't be solely responsible for its environmental conditions.

In fact, that there are aspects that Montana and its leaders have no control over. What would you say in response to that in terms of the critics that say that this isn't necessarily a state responsibility? Well, I think it's everyone's responsibility and that includes the state of Montana. So we have a responsibility to protect our environment.

And if that means limiting our promotion of fossil fuels as a government, then that is what we must do. And yes, climate change is an issue that impacts everyone around the world. But just because Montana can't do something about it means that we should. All right.

Regardless of how you feel about the outcome of this particular lawsuit itself, the idea that a group of young people could take action like this and be successful is pretty inspiring. So Claire Velasquez and Matt DeScentos, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. And up next my one on one interview with the Cherokee Nation's newly reelected principal chief as he looks to take on the tribe's biggest challenges and priorities. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.

Earlier this week, the Cherokee Nation, the United States' most populous Native American tribes were in its leaders in tribal council. The principal chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr., who's led the tribe since 2019 was re-enogurated for his second term. In his speech, Principal Chief Hoskin spoke of the promise of the future that he sees for the tribe and underscored the endurance of its longstanding democracy. The Cherokee Nation stands as one of the world's oldest democracies.

Across three centuries of our democracy and our resolve as a free people, they've been tested and at times they've been suppressed. And through it all, I proudly say this as your principal chief, the Cherokee Nation has been, but it has never broken. And joining me now is the Cherokee Nation's principal chief, Chuck Hoskin. Chuck Hoskin, Jr., I should say he joins me now.

Chief, thank you so much for being here. You were, of course, inaugurated for a second term earlier this week. So just tell me what your priorities are for the Cherokee Nation over the next four years. Well, Ryan, thanks for having me on.

So in the next four years, we really have to hone in on really what's most important every day to Cherokee people. People should understand that in northeast Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation is really the most powerful force for good and investment in long-term thinking that there is. And one of our priorities is health care. So we have the largest tribal population in the country.

We've got to complete, we'll be at $400 million hospital, which will complete a health care system that is all new infrastructure, all new clinics. We're determining our own health care destiny. Along with that is a focus on drug treatment, because we have an issue with addiction across the reservation. We've got the resources to address it.

We're going to do it. And then there's bigger issues that really are going to span way beyond my term, which is protecting tribal sovereignty. We're at a point in the United States where the country needs to keep its promise to all of Indian countries. That can take the form of treaties, we're asserting treaty rights.

It can take the form of meeting historic trust obligations and funding obligations. We've got to do that. And then closer to home, we have our hands full with the governor of the state of Oklahoma from time to time who has decidedly anti-tribal sovereignty. But we've got a great many friends in this state.

So we're going to be busy the next four years building up the things that make a great society and protecting Cherokee sovereignty. That's what we'll be doing. And I want to go back to that clip that we played of your inauguration speech just a few minutes ago. And you talked about how the Cherokee Nation's sovereign, I'm sorry, the Cherokee Nation's democracy has endured for 300 years.

Why has it survived so long? How have you been able to protect it? And is there something that American leaders can learn from the example of the Cherokee Nation? Yeah, and to be clear, we're in our third century of our democracy.

We really decided to become a government based on the rule of law, democratic principles in the early 19th century. I think it survived so long. But what's really important is it survived notwithstanding that one of the world's great democracies, the United States, tried to crush it. And that's historically the truth.

And we have to say and we have to acknowledge it in this country that the United States, the great democracy, tried to crush another great democracy. But we've stood all of that suppression and we're still here. I think Cherokee people hold the democratic principles for the same reason that people worldwide are drawn to them because it's about equality. It's about liberty.

It's about making sure we are all one body politic. We're all in it together. But I think that last part is how we've survived. We look at the world not as every man for himself or you're on your own.

We look at it as we're all in it together that we owe something to each other. And that I think is what sustains democracies. I think the problem with democracies around the world, frankly, including in the United States, is we've gotten away from this idea that there's a social compact and we owe something to each other. We still have that at the Cherokee Nation.

And I think it inners to our benefit. I mean, it's the reason we stood COVID in a way that I think we should be very proud of. It's the reason that we face down a lot of threats because we do them together. As long as we have that sense that we're in this together, we owe each other something, the Cherokee democracy is going to withstand anything that comes its way.

Obviously, Native Americans are asserting their power in American elections as well. And they could play a big role in 2024. President Biden has pledged to prioritize Native issues early on in his term. As we look ahead to 2024, has he done enough to garner Cherokee support in the 2024 election?

Well, he's done a great deal. I mean, I can tell you from my perspective, when it comes to say healthcare funding, we're seeing record funding proposed. When it comes to engaging in meaningful consultation, in other words, meaningful dialogue with federal agencies that affect Cherokee Nation, we're seeing them across the board improving. And that's the reason we have the country's first, what we call self-governance agreement on transportation.

That's pioneering work we're doing in this Cherokee Nation, but we can't do it without our federal partners. So I'm seeing improvements. I said on committees with the U.S. Department of Human Services where there's a genuine dialogue.

Here's the truth. The parties have had their fair share of opportunities to fail Indian country. What we need to do in this coming election is not be taken for granted by either party, insist upon our priorities, not on a partisan basis, but on what is a righteous basis, and take those specific issues. And in most principal areas, health care, treaty rights, and a host of other funding streams that frankly the country has a bill do, and it needs to pay its bill.

We're going to remind them that the bill needs to be paid by responsible elected leaders. But I appreciate President Biden. He's going to find a job by Indian country. All right, Chief Hoskin, fascinating conversation.

I so much, I appreciate you being on with us. Thank you for being here. Thank you. And we'll be back Monday with more Meet the Press now.

And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your local NBC News station. Chuck will have exclusive interviews with North Dakota's Republican Governor and Presidential candidate Doug Bergam, as well as Democratic Governor Tim Walz. NBC News now coverage continues with Halle Jackson right now.