Hey Ontario. Come on down to BETMGM Casino and see what our newest exclusive the Price Is Right Fortune Pick has to offer. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show only at BetMGM.
Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games like Plinko, Cliffhanger and the Big Wheel into fun casino game features. Don't forget to download the BETMGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on the prices Right Fortune Pick Pull up a seat and experience the prices right Fortune Pick Only available at BetMGM Casino, BetMGM and GameSense. Remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus a wager Ontario only.
Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating Agreeing agreement with High Gaming Ontario. It's here.
The Fort is a big not yet. The Fort is a big deal. Oh guys, just wa the Ford It's a big Deal event is on. Really now?
Hurry until it's a 2026 Maverick XLT Hybrid all wheel drive for 197 BI weekly at 5.29% APR for 16 months with 2,995 down. That's like $99 a week. The Ford is a big deal event. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford CA if It's Tuesday, Hurricane Idalia intensifies and barrels towards Florida as local officials order evacuations and prepare for a potentially historic hit and catastrophic storm surge.
Plus the White House battle's growing concern about voters battles concern of the voters among voters about the President's age and fitness for office in 2024 as Biden makes a major push on the issue of prescription drug costs, betting that his record will be a prescription for reelection and the battle over Abortion on the Ballot Abortion rights advocates sue Ohio's Republican Secretary of State over quot objective language on our proposed constitutional amendment on abortion access. Hello and welcome to Beat the Press now on Rhino's in for Kristen Welker. At this hour, we are tracking Hurricane Idalia as it intensifies and as disaster preparations are well underway in Florida and beyond ahead of the storm's landfall, which is expected tomorrow. We will bring the latest on the Dalia's path and the state of disaster preparations in just a moment, but we begin here in Washington, where the White House appears to be searching for a prescription for the president's deep unpopularity and major concerns over his age heading in the 2024 campaign.
Part of that political prescription, well, actual prescriptions. This afternoon, President Biden delivered remarks on lowering prescription drug costs for Americans after the Department of Health and Human Services announced for the first time the initial 10 medic that will be a part of the government's new Medicare price negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. As mandated under the Inflation Reduction Act. The drugs include blood thinners as well as drugs to help treat diabetes, heart failure, arthritis and cancer.
President Biden celebrated the news as a victory over what he called Big Pharma and praise the legislation that led to it. For years, Big Pharma blocked this. They kept prescription drug prices high, increase their profits playing games and pricing so they could charge whatever they can. But this is finally, finally, finally, we had enough votes by matter one to beat Big Pharma.
By the way, negotiating drug price alongside of the bridges of this law isn't just going to put more money back in the pockets of millions of Americans across the country. It's also going to lower the federal deficit. The negotiated prices will go into effect in 2026. The announcement comes as the White House and the Biden campaign appear to be doubling down on the president's record as the key to his re election, rather than focusing on Donald Trump and his legal issues.
It is a notable development, and it signals a departure from the Biden campaign's message in 2020, which focused heavily on Trump as an existential threat to democracy. But it comes as President Biden's approval rating sits at just 42%, according to a new APNO RC poll. And what has to be even more alarming for the White House are the overwhelming majority of voters, 77%, who say that President Biden is just too old to effectively serve another term. And even among Democrats, that number is 69%.
Meanwhile, Congress returning shortly from recess, the White House is also preparing for potential impeachment inquiry tied to the president's son, Hunter Biden. Yesterday, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan said he would be surprised to see an impeachment resolution next month after Speaker McCarthy also called an inquiry a, quote, natural step forward. Now the effort has been dismissed by the White House as a, quote, crazy exercise rooted in partisan shamelessness. So what does it all mean for the fate of the presidency on shaky ground with voters?
Well, that's where we begin. NBC's Monica Alba. He's outside the White House and NBC Sahar Kapoor is on Capitol Hill. So, Monica, today's event was about prescription drugs, but it was in a larger sense about reelection.
What did we hear at the White House today? Yeah, and this was really a moment for President Biden to take a victory lap on that legislation that he himself has said he wished he had called it something different. The Inflation Reduction act, which of course was was aimed at trying to bring down some costs and prices for Americans, but it also included a whole bunch of other things. And this was one of the main things.
Now, the president initially wanted this to apply to medications for all Americans. In the end, he was only able to secure for Medicare participants. But it's a big win in the sense that millions who rely on those kinds of drugs that you talked about in the introduction will now be able to hopefully secure them for a far lower price. And they're not going to see the effects of that until after the 2024 election for sure.
Really, it's not until 2026 they're going to go to their pharmacy counter and get these cheaper drugs. But still it shows the president, the vice president, the White House argue how they're working in the administration is trying to deliver on campaign promises, on things that past presidents have tried to do to take on big Pharma and have failed in the past. So this is really something where the White House will say, look, if Republicans want to talk about potential impeachment inquiry, they want to be talking about 100 Biden investigations. They're okay with that.
We're going to let the president talk about what they argue he's doing for the American people on a daily basis and delivering things that really will have an impact on their lives. The vice president summoned up by saying Americans shouldn't have to choose whether they're going to fill up their refrigerators or fill their prescriptions. Ryan. So Sahil, you know, Democrats are pretty proud of the Inflation Reduction act as well.
Is this what they want to hear the White House talking about? Yes, it absolutely is, Ryan. They want to talk about this. They want to talk about chips and science.
They want to talk about manufacturing infrastructure. Prescription drugs is a big one because it's one of the most popular provisions. It's not the most popular provision in the inflation Reduction Act. It's a major issue for voters, especially older voters, most notably women above 50 who are crucial swing voting block could be decisive in the 2024 election.
This is a way for Democrats to try and show that they care about rising costs, that they work tackle inflation they also see as a way to boost their own approval. And President Biden's currently low approval on the economy. And as Monica's point out, Democrats like that contrast of them focusing on these policy issues that make the kitchen table versus some of the other drama that goes on Capitol Hill that doesn't ultimately directly impact people's lives. And to settle point Monica, if they're talking about prescription drugs and these other kitchen table issues, they're not talking about Donald Trump and his legal problems.
We heard Richmond over the weekend say that the Biden campaign wasn't really going to touch any of that legal information. What can you tell us about that decision? Yeah, it's interesting because that's their public posture and that is what we're hearing. But you really just have to look no further than the president's own reelection video when he said he was going to seek another term.
The first frames of that were about January six were about those threats to democracy. So it is a real key centerpiece to the entire argument that Joe Biden has made these last couple of years, why he feels he wants to continue to serve and why someone like Donald Trump, he argues, should not. So it's certainly hard to say that they're just not going to really reference it. I think they take that position because it allows them to make a rhetorical argument that they can focus on these other things like prescription drug price and implementation of legislation.
But this was something that the president really took on even in the 2022 midterms. He was giving speeches specifically about January 6th, again, those threats to democracy that he perceived. So I really think the president will address this later on in the campaign. What they're essentially saying is there's a time and place for it.
What they're not going to do is speak to the specifics of the Department of Justice and Special Counsel investigations in anything that would give any appearance that they somehow have any influence over that. The president's been crystal clear about that, and that's been a really important priority for him as well. So they have to kind of walk that fine line of having separation between the White House and the doj, while also laying out why they feel that this is an existential moment for 20. And you saw this a little bit how they responded to the GOP debate last week.
Even though Donald Trump wasn't on the stage. Their main argument was tying everybody who was to the ideology of former President Trump. So that's something they're certainly gonna be able to do, while maybe not saying it's gonna be their number one priority, which is a contrast with 2020. Ryan and of course, this is not gonna keep House Republicans from backing off.
We're already starting to see more and more Republicans and leadership walk closer and closer to the possibility of an impeachment inquiry. Where do we stand with that? Yeah, that includes Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who said an impeachment inquiry is a natural step forward for House Republicans based on the investigations that they've been doing so far. The problem is McCarthy faces real dissent in his slim House majority, including from the 18 Republicans who sit in districts that President Biden carried in the 2020 election.
You know, there are a lot of symbolic votes that happen around here that don't ultimately matter to the lives of voters that they won't pay a price for. But impeaching a president that their constituents voted for, that is a big deal that they have to defend. What McCarthy and his allies are trying to do to navigate this is presented an impeachment inquiry as simply an investigation to try to gather facts and saying we're not promising anything beyond that. Let's have a listen to what Congressman Darrell I told her colleague K.
On the Hill earlier. Frankly, the word impeachment, everyone should understand impeachment is not the goal. Impeachment is a way of saying this is not a legislative oversight, but in fact an oversight of possible wrongdoing. The outcome of this investigation could be criminal referrals to the Justice Department.
It could be impeachment and referral to Judiciary. We're not doing an impeachment. We're not looking at impeachment directly. But we are realizing, as the question implies, that there's enough there there that there should be a concerted bipartisan investigation.
Now, whether that actually translates to voters remains to be seen. There's not a single living American voter who's witnessed opening of impeachment inquiry that didn't result in actual impeachment or in case of Nixon, a presidential resignation to preempt Russia conviction. That's not gonna happen here, Ryan. Okay, thank you both of us bringing our panel now.
Eugene Scott is a senior politic reporter at Axios, Democratic pollster Margio Romero and Stephen Hayes, the editor and CEO of the Dispatch and an NBC News political analyst. So Eugene is for many Bernie Sanders rally in 2019 and 2020, the prescription drugs negotiated with Medicare almost always something that he brought up in every single speech. Is this a winning political pitch for the president? Is this his prescription to get a super rating out of the low 40s?
Well, he certainly hopes so. I was speaking with a healthcare administrator earlier today and she said that this is Bigger than I've realized. I did not understand just how common of a situation these singers find themselves in. Cutting pills in half so that they can stretch their medication.
When this into effect, which will be after the election, that'll be a game changer for so many Americans. And I think that is going to move some of them to do him a favor to be doing that. It's not going to be implemented until 2026. So can they make that message and have it be an effect of part of their campaign now?
They're certainly going to try to. I mean, unless they are running against someone who can implement something that would make these changes happen faster. And we're not hearing anything close to that coming from so much you can overcome these bigger problems that Joe Biden has. You know, we don't usually see a poll that shows 77% of Americans agreeing on anything but this.
Eight people said that 77% say the president Biden is too old, that the Democratic number is pretty striking as well, 69% saying that he's too old. Is there anything he can do to change this perception that Americans have That's not translating to something in the vote. Right? I mean, Democrats are consolidated around the president.
And I think it's a mistake to think about the lowering prescription drug costs and negotiation for prescription drug costs as something just a political maneuver. This is something that truly have a real impact. This is something we hear in focus groups all the time when they say, what's on? What's on your mind?
The intro question. I ask, what's on your mind today? How are things going in the country? A lot of people just come to the table wanting to talk about healthcare.
They don't want to come to the table talking about how great they feel. Republican, you know, inquiries are because they see that as just political. The same political back and forth that they've been seeing now for years. Is that enough, Stephen?
Can Democrats just talk about policy and ignore the fact that there's real concerns about president's age? Well, they might be able to talk about policy in part because Republicans have a hard time pushing back against this. In a more traditional Republican moment, you'd have Republicans on Capitol Hill and elsewhere say, look, this is government overreach. This is too much.
We worry about big spending. This is the proper role of government telling companies what to do. Republicans are in a position to make those arguments because you look at the way the Republicans have spent over the past eight years. They can't very much pull the small government card now.
So I think they're a little bit compromised in their ability to attack that. The policy grounds. On policy grounds. We don't often see them even try to engage on policy issues.
No, really. I mean, when you and I run into each other in the hallways of Capitol Hill, it's usually tied to some drama. And I think that is something many Americans know right now. So when you have something like this, it reminds people that there are issues that need to be addressed during the campaign that aren't related to whether someone supports Trump or not or is trying to be vindictive when it comes to impeachment.
I think something that's really interesting today about the presser is that it actually started with Vice President Kamala Harris. And we will see, I believe, her taking more believably moving forward as we head to Election Day that is aimed perhaps at making some Americans who do feel like President Biden might be too old to remember that he's working with someone who is not. Is that a wise move, Steven? I hope she has high negatives, independent voters.
Is putting Kamala Harris out front a smart idea for her? I don't think it solves the age problem. Think about what the Biden White House, the Biden campaign has going against it right now. You talk about low approval ratings in most polls.
He's more than 10 points underwater. You talk about these questions about Hunter Biden, while they may not yet involve Joe Biden, they're more serious than I think a lot of people thought they were. If you talk about the other questions about his age, as you said, 70% of Democrats, almost 80%, almost 8 to 10Americans, these are huge numbers. If you could just separate those and say, here's the profile of candidate who's running for reelections.
President of the United States. Is this candidate going to win? We would all say no. The problem for Republicans is Donald Trump is the biggest story on the Republican side.
You know, it's hard for people to answer these kinds of hypotheticals. There was once a poll I asked of her, right? This was, I think, the 2008 election. Would you vote for someone who was divorced?
It was a woman. It was this. And the candidate, hypothetical candidate that people object to the most, smoker. So I think it's hard to ask about these.
Look, I mean, look, we have data. We have data. We have data on the election cycle so far. We have the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
We have the Ohio ballot. That just happened. Huge turnout among Democrats and among folks who support abortion rights, who are mad about erosions of democracy. So I think we have data that suggests that people are engaged and following that engagement is really benefiting Democrats, benefiting the president.
Okay, so I want to show you something that Dan Pfeiffer, the former Obama advisor, said about this coalition that the president needs to build if he's going to win in 2024. He says that Biden's task is more difficult because the anti MAGA majority is more diverse generationally, demographically, geographically, and ideologically than the MAGA minority. And communicating to younger voters Biden's accomplishments and the states of the stakes of this election are his top priorities. So if the goal is to bring back this 2020 coalition, Margie, why should the president talk about both his accomplishments and the stakes of the election?
Because a big part of his picture, voters in 2020, was, I'm not Donald Trump. I think absolutely. I think his, his agenda, his accomplishments are enormously popular. We just did something for that show.
The Inflation Reduction act is just as popular now as it was a year ago. That's not something that you saw, for example, with the Trump tax cuts and a whole variety, whether it's chips and infrastructure, those things continue to be popular. In addition to that, this is something that the President is uniquely able to do, and it's certainly something that Democrats as a group are doing, which is to demonstrate we want to get beyond this mess. And the other side is not offering that.
The other side is saying, let's have more mess. We're saying strategy for public to kind of drag President Biden into the same sort of controversies that President Trump finds himself in. That's part of why we saw Gary Ice a few minutes ago talking about impeachment inquiry and kind of talking around exactly what they mean by that. We did see the White House Counsel's office, of all people, or a group of people put out talking points pushing back against a potential impeachment inquiry.
Is that odd for that particular group to put out parts and talking points like that? And does it show perhaps that the White House is concerned about what could be the offing here in the next couple of weeks? Well, certainly think they aren't turning a blind eye. You cannot afford to, especially in an election that is going to be this close.
And so we know, all of us know how powerful disinformation is and what impact that can have on the electorate. And I think what we're going to see more from the White House is efforts to correct narratives that they believe are accurate with the hope that it will, you know, keep their base. This basic fight we're talking about as well as independent voters and perhaps even maybe some conservatives who don't want Donald Trump. And quickly from both of you, couldn't impeach McQuart, actually help President Biden could energize the base.
That hasn't quite been addressed yet. I think it complicates what Republicans are doing for the reasons that the package suggested. But no, I think if Joe Biden is struggling, if you look at the collapse of the plea deal, for instance, there are serious questions about that being asked, not bipartisan Republicans, independent legal analysts and even Democrats, if those grow. I think it's a problem for Joe Biden because it's hard for him to say these guys are crooks.
I mean, look, it will be another example of Republicans wanting to, you know, tie the government up in knots. But any, you know, I, I don't want to see any time taken away from Biden's agenda, which is really popular and aims to really helping people. Okay. We're gonna feel good there.
Thanks, everyone. Appreciate you being here. Eugene Scott, Margie Merrill, Steven Hayes, we appreciate you being here. And coming up, Florida Races for impact is working in Dalia barrels to the state's west coast.
We'll make the latest track and head live to where storm preparations are underway. Plus, this former President Trump's legal woes keep stacking up. New developments today and the effort by his former chief of staff to move his trial to federal court. You're watching Meet the President.
Welcome back. Floridians up and down the state's west coast are bracing for the impacts of Hurricane Idalia as it moved towards as it moves towards the state's northern Gulf coast where it's expected to make landfall tomorrow morning is a powerful Category 3 storm. The National Weather Service warned that could be a quote, unprecedented event for Florida's Appalachian Bay. The juncture where both the Gulf hits Florida's Panhandle and the panhandle and will be the first major hurricane to hit the bay in recorded history.
For a Governor Donna Santos gave multiple press conferences today warning his constituents to take the storm seriously and heed the warnings of local officials. And at the White House, the head of female reporters that federal resources are staged and ready to help following President Biden's signing of a disaster declaration. This allows me to pre stage people, equipment and resources in Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. And I've done just that.
We have pre positioned different types of resources across all three states to include several incident management assistance teams. Our urban search and rescue team Our disaster survivor assistance teams and they are all ready to pivot to the most impacted areas immediately after the storm passes. NBC1 Agassiz is on the ground in Crystal River, Florida as preparations are underway. And NBC News meteorologist Bill Karen has the latest on the Dahlias passport.
Let's start with you. What are you seeing on the ground Crystal river as people prepare for the hurricane to make landfall? Ryan? Well, this is a zone A.
The state of Florida has different evacuation zones that have been set up and this is one of the areas where there's a mandatory evacuation order. We got it in our phones earlier. The message that came to our phone said life threatening storm search expected evacuate Zone A, take action. Now you can see the water behind me.
There's a lot of water in these areas. These are channels where people have boats right up against the properties. Now I spoke of this other residents here who tell me that the buildings that are right next to this water can probably take about a six foot storm surge or the lancan before this water begins entering some of these buildings. There's a hotel here, there's a large home and many homes in this area.
So if we get a surge of more than six or seven feet here, then the water would be going into people's homes. Now the governor said that we expect more than 12ft of a surge in some parts of Florida. So this is why this is one of the areas that's under that mandatory evacuation. Now we've been driving around some of the stores here and seeing people prepare.
Most of the people have evacuated. But I did speak to some people who said they're going to write it out. They've been through this before. As always, we always talk to individuals who say we've prepared as best as possible, water, food, we've got the generator and we're just going to wait and see what happens.
Now when I spoke to the people at this hotel, I said, well, is there anything you can do to protect the building from the water once it rises, if it were to rise? And they said no, not really. We prepared as best as possible inside of it. But at this point it's just time for us to wait, wait and go.
Talk to us about this part of Florida. I mean the Gulf coast in general is used to deal with storms of this magnitude. But that particular area we're in now, the National Weather Service said that the hurricane would be unprecedented. You know, are people there ready for what could potentially hit them?
Right. So when they say unprecedented, they want people to make to understand that they can't compare it to anything else. Right. Because the people that live here have never experienced a direct hit of a hurricane.
So that's why they're saying you can't really compare it to anything else. Of course, residents in Florida prepare for hurricanes every year, but usually, you know, the hurricane will go in a different direction and the residents of a specific area might not have the experience of having that direction. So that's why they want everyone to be prepared. There's about 22 counties with evacuation orders in place.
There's different things that are creating danger here. Right. There's the hurricane with the wind, we've got the rainfall. But there's been a lot of talk about the possibility of a storm surge, especially for these communities right off the water.
And if you look at the map, there's a lot of communities off the west coast of Florida going north into the Gulf Coast. And these are those vulnerable communities that could suffer. If we see the storm surge that the forecast has been indicated could be as high as 12ft. Ryan.
Okay, thank you so much, Watson. Bill, let's go to you. What do we expect to make landfall and how much stronger is it going to get before it does? That's a million dollar question.
Hurricane center thinks it's high end category three. It wouldn't surprise any of us if it got up to a low end category four. I mean when I say low end, just a low end of the scale. Category four is devastating.
So here's how we're playing this out right now. Here's the center of the storm about 125 miles due east is if you went from the center of the storm, that's where you get to the Naples Marco island area. So the storm is moving quickly northwards and kind of paralleling the coast. So that's why you're not seeing a lot of, you know, really nasty weather on the coast of Florida.
If mostly a storm surge issue. There'll be some gussy squalls every now and then. But we had a few go through and one was heading over the top of near Moorhaven right now. But the storm center itself, the core of it, the worst winds, that's headed more north and we're going to watch our friends closely.
Tallahassee here all the way over to cross city in the Perry, Florida. That looks like now the window, I think the new update comes from hurricane center about half hour from now. They're probably going to move that forecast a little more west. That has been the trend and you see the black line, it's going due north in the center of the storm now located right about here.
So it's almost getting halfway through the Gulf of Mexico. We do think that landfall roughly around 8am tomorrow morning. So now we're starting to close in up now. We're about 16, 15 hours away.
There's the position. This is the center line they had as of 11am I think when the new one comes out, that sunlight will probably kick unfortunately for the people of Perry, Florida right over the top of them. And that would put the worst portion of the storm start still from Cedar Key here, all the way through this area here just south across the city. This is a swampy area.
This isn't beaches. There's not a lot of development here. It's extremely rural. But those little small fishing communities and inland communities, those are the ones we're most concerned with.
And you notice all our computer models, the center black line, that's the hurricane center's forecast. All of these other colored lines are from our different computer models. Most of them are to the west, including this purple one which is called our European communication model, typically one of our more accurate ones. That's the most far west.
The people of Tallahassee don't like that at all. We do not want the core of this hurricane heading over Tallahassee which pretty much sits in the middle of forest. It would just be devastating. You know, people wouldn't have power for weeks on end if that was the case.
Storm surge, we know that that's gonna be one of the huge issues, especially even for areas on the west coast of Florida that don't get hit by the core of the storm just because of the winds onshore. Flow here, 4 to 7ft possible tonight into early tomorrow morning, especially the high tide right around 4:20am that could be the high water mark around the Tampa Pinellas county areas. And as we go northwards here on Hernando Brooks and these coastal communities where we saw Glad, this is where he could get into nine foot tall. So yeah, he was where he was standing, where his feet were, that was probably down a water level picture, nine feet higher than where he was.
So yes, that water would go into the homes in that area and of course the wind isolated power outages, St. Pete, Tampa area, but extreme power outages possible to the north. Ryan, our friends in the National Weather Service in Tallahassee just sent out a statement saying that some of these areas will be uninhabitable for weeks. This is the real deal.
All right. Bill Carroll's will continue to track this over the next couple days. Thank you for that, Bill. Up next, the latest on the coming collision between former President Trump's legal troubles and the political calendar.
You're WATCHING ME THE PRESS now. Welcome back. It's now up to a federal judge to decide where former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows stands trial in connection with efforts to overturn Georgia's election results. But when he will is another question this afternoon.
Judge question additional information from both sides before issuing that decision. It comes the day after Meadows took the stand arguing that his case should be moved out of Fulton county to federal court because his actions were tied to his role as White House chief of staff. The judge hasn't given a timetable for the ruling indicating that as of now, Meadows should still plan to be arraigned alongside Donald Trump and all of their co defendants on September 6th. Alexander joins me now from Atlanta.
So, Blank, did the Jeff provide any guidance for when he's going to issue a decision on Meadows or he did indicate that he's not going to rush on this. We do know he's not going to issue any sort of ruling before Friday. That's because he said that both sides need to submit more information and he's giving them until Thursday, close of business Thursday at 5pm to submit that information. So because he's going to take that into account, we know that there's not going to be any sort of rule coming before then.
But he did kind of leave the door open for this possibly going into next week. Remember, September 6th is the day the rayments have been set. And he said that if he has not ruled before then, then the state process should keep going as scheduled and that Meadows has to go ahead with any sort of arraignment here in Fulton County. No, of course he could choose to wait that arraignment, but the judge on the federal side is saying he's not stopping it.
He's not stopping him from moving forward there. So he did, you know, give kind of a nod to the fact that he knows this could be predicated setting at least as far as the other 18 co defendants go as well. So he's going to take his timeless decision recognizing that time is of. Yes.
All right, first county, thank you so much. For now. For more, she's joined now by Carol lamb, a former U.S. attorney at former Judges now and NBC News legal Analysis.
So, Carol, do you think that Mark Metals made a legitimate case yesterday for moving his trial to federal court? Court, Ryan, I think the reason you see the judge in federal court taking his time to make this decision is because it is not a slam dunk for either side. This issue doesn't actually arise that often. It arises more frequently in civil cases between the state and the federal court system.
It doesn't arise that much in criminal cases. And in criminal cases, there is additional difference that's paid by the federal courts to state court prosecutions. So the facts here are such that Mr. Meadows is saying that, oh, everything I did was within my job scope as a federal employee.
Fani Willis is, of course, taking the opposite view, and she put on members of the Georgia state government to say, no, he was way outside the bounds. He was acting as a campaign official, and he was interfering with our state electoral system. The thing is that Mr. Meadows only has to meet a fairly low bar.
He just has to be able to make a colorable claim or a colorable defense. And what that means is basically a plausible defense. It doesn't require that he prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting within the scope of his federal duties. So the judges is going to take the time necessary to put out an opinion that he thinks is going to withstand appeal.
But that is the point. I think the point is that either side, I believe, can appeal immediately this decision, and that is going to slow the proceedings down even more. If Meadows is successful, how much of an advantage would it give him? It really depends.
And I think the reason you're seeing some defendants bring this motion to remove the federal court and some staying in state court is that there's some pros and cons to either position. I think Mark Meadows and his attorneys probably feel more comfortable in federal court. There's sort of one set of rules that apply to all federal courts. Whereas Georgia state law has some unique attributes, as do any of the other 49 states.
I think that they may be counting on perhaps a broader jury pool in federal court. There are some counties that they would draw additional jurors from, not just Fulton County. And the thinking is that there's some counties up there in northern Georgia that are a little bit more conservative than Fulton County. But one advantage he will not get.
And I think there's some confusion about this. Some people think, oh, if he goes to federal court, then if President Trump is reelected, he can then pardon Mr. Meadows. But no, even if this case moves to federal court, it will be tried on the Georgia allegations, not federal offenses.
So there is no presidential pardon power over a conviction in federal court on Georgia, on Georgia crimes. Right. Essentially just changing the playing field. Everything else remains the same.
So you have actually questioned whether or not it's a good idea media to try this case in Georgia as a RICO case. What are your concerns in that regard? It's not so much concerns. I think that's how Willis is well within her rights to bring a RICO case in Georgia.
I just think that folks should understand that Jack Smith's case against the former president in federal court is just as broad and has pretty much the same advantages that the RICO statute in Georgia has in terms of a broad conspiracy. Both Jack Smith and Fannie Willis have alleged a very broad scheme and that includes, that includes acts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Arizona. And they can do that under both conspiracy law and regal law. The one thing that regal law in Georgia does get, fanny Willis, is a presumptive five year minimum mandatory sentence.
But even there, there's another Georgia law that would allow a state judge to make part or all of that sentence. Prob. I think that both cases are legitimate, but they're both as broad as each other. The complication of finally, Willis's case is the number of defendants, and we can see that that has slowed the proceedings considerably.
And do you think it's realistic that the election conspiracy trial could begin and end before the Republican National Convention in July? Is that feasible? Are you talking about finalists or the special counsel? Yeah.
So, you know, things have actually started to sort themselves out. And I think that everyone is sort of acknowledging that Jack Smith's election fraud case is taking primacy for a couple of reasons. One is, of course, the importance of the subject matter, election interference in our federal elections. But the other reason is because it can be done very efficiently.
Even though it's a broad case in terms of subject matter, there's only one defendant, it's Donald Trump. And that, as you can see, makes things a lot more efficient. Only one set of motions, only one set of cross examinations. And so I do think that there's a possibility that this could be accomplished before the election.
Okay, Carol lan, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it. Coming up, emotional testimony from families of service members killed in the administration's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan two years ago. I'll be joined live by the house foreign affairs committee chairman Michael McCall to discuss U.
S. Foreign policy in the region well beyond. You're watching Meet the Press now. And welcome back.
Tomorrow marks the two year, two year anniversary since the last American soldiers withdrew from Afghanistan. And we're learning new information about some of the turmoil happening behind the scenes inside the White House amid that chaotic withdrawal. In an excerpt of his Coming book about the first two years of the Biden presidency. Franklin for a writer at the Atlantic recounts a moment in the aftermath of a deadly attack at Abbey gate that killed 13 US servicemen members.
He writes, quote, after the dignified transfer the family's pile onto a bus, a sister of one of the dead screamed in Biden's direction. I hope you burn in hell. Of all the moments in August, this was the one that caused the president to second guess himself. He asked for Secretary Chen Psaki Did I do something wrong?
Maybe I should have handled that differently. Meanwhile today the House Foreign affairs committee held a roundtable discussion with some of the gold star families of the Abbeygate attack. Take a listen. We need closure.
As a parents we need this administration to apologize for the awful decisions that lead to the death of our kids, admit the mistakes they made. We find ourselves here in the nation's capital supply for answers, answers that you would think would come naturally to ghost our fans, families, not only those of us present, but to all of those that came before us. President Biden and his executive cabinet must accept responsibility publicly for the chaotic withdrawal at the end of the 20 year war. Join me now is the chairman of the House Foreign affairs committee Congressman Michael McCall.
Texas Congressman, first tell me why did you feel that was necessary to hold this roundtable today and what was your big takeaway from what you heard from these families? Well, we want to give the parents of, you know, the children, the service members who were brutally killed in this massive suicide bombing attack. I want to give them a voice and let them know that the congress is listening to them, the American people are listening to them. I hope the administration will listen to them.
I think part of it is, you know, it's gripping, powerful testimony and the administration continues to still wall not provide them the answers that they I think are deservingly should have. You know we found out through our investigation that one of the snipers had the suicide bomber in his sights and then when he talked his commanding officer he was denied permission to engage the threat. We also found out that they knew the intelligence community knew of ISIS k staging events at a hotel room to plan the suicide bombing attack at Abby Gate and a request was made for an airstrike, that too was denied. So these parents are very frustrated with the fact that their children died and yet it maybe could have been prevented.
We went talk to the commanding officer who denied that permission. And yet we've been stonewalled by the Department of Defense. Finally, after pressure from the families and from myself, they will make him available in early September. But we need to get answers to these questions for these families.
And quite honestly, they do deserve better than this. They've not been treated well by this administration and I think they want, the administration wants to forget that this happened and sweep under the rug, but we're not going to forget about this. And I think they are entitled to these answers. In a statement from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Billy, at the beginning of your remarks, where he essentially says that he felt as though they had communicated well with these family members, they'd given them all the information that they could, but if there was some breakdown in communication, he wanted to rectify that.
Do you agree with that assessment from the general? And where's the disconnect between what the Department of Defense has thought about their interactions with these families and how the families feel about it? Well, you know, as a federal prosecutor, you have victims. You coordinate with him.
I don't think the Defense Department did a very good job coordinating with these gold star families. Having said that, Joe, Millie and I have talked. I was encouraged. He actually apologized in his email or text and I commended for that.
But you know, it's one thing to apologize and then assist us in this investigation. Since I talked to General Mill, they are gonna make the commanding officer, you know, available to testify. But you know, in leadership, when you make a mistake and you fail, you own it. And you know, President Truman said the buck stops here.
They feel like the buck is being passed on and forgotten about. And that's what really hurts them the most as they think about their children who lost their lives that actually could have been prevented had there not been so much chaos on the ground. Finally, Ryan, you know, the State Department is supposed to be in charge of this evacuation and yet they didn't seek an evacuation plan from the Defense Department until two days after Kabul fell. The president put them under enormous artificial deadlines was not necessary.
So the whole thing was chaotic on the ground and artificial deadlines and nobody knew who was in charge. And that's what led to the chaos and the suicide bomber that killed 13 servicemen and women, injured 45 and killed 170 Afghans. It was a massive suicide bomb attack. So the Pentagon did respond to the roundtable today and some of the comments that were made.
I want to play that for you and give you the chance to respond. Sure. In terms of responding to some of the comments that were made, I think you know that CENTCOM conducted a very comprehensive, credible and definitive investigation into abigate bombing following the attack. Our US Military commanders on the ground made the best decisions that they created could.
So, Mr. Chairman, she's a credible and definitive account of what went wrong there. I sense that you don't feel the same way. No, yeah, I don't.
And the families don't feel that way either. I mean, it was in their words, not mine. They're very upset and angry at this administration for not dealing with them in a straightforward manner and transparent manner. They can cooperate with me or they can try to, you know, I can do subpoenas and move to, you know, to hold them in contempt.
I would rather have them cooperate and be honest with these, these families and with the American people. And, you know, I've been stonewalled. I've had a subpoena documents, the after action report you're referring to. It took months to get that and I still can't get all the documents surrounding that.
So, you know, it's encouraging because we got the Gold Star families to speak up. Now. They're finally listening after two years. But that's two years too long.
Yeah. I just do want to ask you quickly what we have, sir, about the situation in Ukraine. There does appear to be a lot of skepticism, I should say, among Republican voters about continuing to aid Ukraine. It came up on the base stage last week with Republican candidates for president.
How do you convince people in your own party that supporting Ukraine is still in the U.S. national interest? Well, because what happens in Ukraine also directly impacts Taiwan. And I just got back from there.
You know, Chairman Xi and Putin are joined at the hip in the sun holy alliance. Having said that, going back to the debate, I was encouraged that really seven of the eight support the effort in Ukraine. And I think you'll see the majority of the majorities in Congress still support the effort. My criticism has been they haven't been given the weapons necessary for victory, but rather to survive.
And I think with the counter offensive, the administration did not serve Ukraine well. Having said that, you know, we're going to take a look at this, but they did not collaborate with us. I've talked to the Speaker. We are going to take a look at this, but this is going to be our supplemental bill with our ideas and we have the power of the person.
The executive can't force us into this. But I do think we are going to reach a resolution to continue to support Ukraine's Russian aggression. All right, Congressman Mike McCall, a very powerful roundtable that you hosted today. We appreciate having you on talk about it.
Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thanks, Ryan. Thanks for having me.
And in another bit of news from the Hill, the House Majority leader, Steve Scalise announced today that he's being treated for cancer. The Louisiana Republican said in statement that he was diagnosed with multiple melloma, which is quite a very treatable blood cancer. Scaly says that he has drink last for several months and he plans to return to work after the recess. And while working, he will receive the treatment and we, of course, wish him a speedy recovery.
After the break. Ohio is the latest battleground for abortion access. And now there's a fight over the language that will be used on the ballot on Ohio's vote on a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion rights. You're watching.
Welcome back. The group backing an Ohio ballot measure that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the state's constitution filed a lawsuit against Ohio's ballot board yesterday. The group Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights brought the case to Ohio Supreme Court, challenging the language the Republican led board plans to use for the measure when it puts it to voters in November and claiming that the changes are a, quote, deliberate attempt to mislead and sway voters. The group is asking that the full original ballot language authority approved by Ohio's attorney general be used in its place.
The most impactful change made by the ballot board has to do with the framing of the limits of access and the exceptions to those limits. The original measure assured abortion access up until viability, after which it would be prohibited unless the doctor deems medically necessary. Among the changes, the new ballot frames this as the ability to always access abortion at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability, if a doctor deems it medically necessary. NBC News's senior national political reporter Henry Gomez has the latest on this fight over abortion rights in Ohio.
So, Henry, break down this lawsuit from the proponents of the ballot proposal. What are the legal complaints and how critical are these changes? So, Ray, the central complaint here is that the ballot language doesn't properly reflect the substance of the constitutional amendment. The measure's proponents are arguing that the ballot board's language is driven by Republican Secretary of State Franklin Rose, who is publicly and vehemently opposed to the measure and that he's driven ballot language that is misleading and cases confusing to a voter who might step into the booth this November to weigh in on the measure.
You mentioned a little bit in the set of words like female viability have been replaced with unborn child. There's absolute language like always allow abortion when the actual text of the constitutional amendment employs more nuance when describing what could happen here. There's also more passive language with regard to how one can seek out medical treatment for themselves. And in all this, the proponents say, is an effort to muddy the waters and create confusion when a voter steps into the booth.
And then one last thing, you mentioned this as well, but the actual text of the constitutional Amendment is only 194 words. It's actually short than what the ballot board is prescribing here. And so the proponents have argued, and they're asking the court to intervene to just put that 194 word text onto the ballot, since it is the precise language that's at play here in November. I guess that's part of it, right?
Because the group had to gather signatures to place the measure on the ballot based on the language that they put together that was approved by Ohio's attorney general. Could the group argue that by changing it, this isn't what the public agreed to? That is part of the complaint, right? It's not the central part of the complaint, but they do go into detail about how this was the language that was on the petitions that were circulated.
This is the language that the attorney General Davies, who by the way, is a conservative Republican who is opposed to abortion, has already approved. And that by not allowing this language to go forward on the ballot or to allow this replacement language, that money the waters would be of disservice to all these previous efforts and decisions made. And of course, the clock's ticking, right? The votes are broken quickly.
Is there a deadline for getting this all sorted out? And is it likely that this lawsuit's even gonna be resolved before then? So there's no deadline per se. There is expedited track that this is on because we're within 90 days before the election.
There's not been a hearing set as far as I know. But here's a date that you should keep in mind. September 22nd is when the ballot's gonna be ready for military and overseas voters. So if this isn't resolved by then, we're gonna have an issue.
But it is on expedited track. And the expectation is that this will be dealt by the Supreme Court well enough in advance of that September 22nd data dissension. And I wonder just when we perspective covering this is just a back and forth about this, could that have an impact even if the original draft, the language is put into the actual vote is just a confusion over something that could impact the ultimate outcome of this On November and November, the statistics of off your election, people headed to the polls in November are going to be bombarded with ads on both sides of this issue. And I suspect that those who do go to the polls in November are already going to be well educated about what a yes, no, what yes vote means and what a no vote means.
One particular interesting thing in this complaint is that the proponents say they don't have to spend more money to properly educate voters about what is in this. So that's one thing to watch. Okay, Terrific. Reporter Henry Gman, thank you so much for being on.
Appreciate it. And before we go, we should know that just moments ago the National Hurricane center has upgraded Hurricane Dalia to a Category 2 storm. Thank you so much for being with us this hour. Check out will be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now.
Meanwhile, NBC News NOW coverage continues with more on that Category 2 storm with Hallie Daxton right now. I'm Craig Melt. Cheers. Cheers.
Cheers. I've always been a glass half vote kind of guy and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, challenges. Their stories are funny and mechanical.
So I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows, you might just come away with your own glass apple. Search Glass Apple with Craig Melford for today on YouTube. Everywhere you get your podcast.