With Netscope, you don't have to choose between secure or fast AI. You can take the AI fast lane and keep total data control. Visit Netscope.com slash AI to learn more today. That's Netscope of the K dot com slash AI.
Plus Ukraine says it's thwarted a plot to assassinate President Zelensky, as officials from more than 40 countries meet to discuss ways to end the war. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Los Angeles, former President Trump today not letting up on his attacks on special counsel Jack Smith. It comes as we are now just one hour away from a 5 p.m.
deadline for Mr. Trump's legal team to respond to the Justice Department's request for a protective order. That order would bar the former president from publicizing sensitive documents in the 2020 election interference case. Prosecutors warned Mr.
Trump could use that evidence in a way that could have a quote, chilling effect on witnesses citing the social media post where he writes quote, if you go after me, I'm coming after you. Here's part of what former president Trump said over the weekend in South Carolina. Deranged Jackson. He said, deranged human man.
You take a look at that face. You say that guy is a sick man. There's something wrong with it. I was somebody said, why don't you be nice to him?
I said, yeah, wouldn't matter. Wouldn't matter. This guy's a maniac. They gave me a maniac.
Now we are expecting many court motions in the coming days, including a change of venue request. It comes as Mr. Trump's legal team is using a First Amendment argument to push back on allegations that the former president and properly pressured former vice president Mike Pence and others to overturn the 2020 election results yesterday on the press. Chuck press Trump's lawyer about pressuring Pence, whether Pence believes the former president broke the law.
Look at that exchange. One thing that Mr. Pence has never said is that he thought President Trump was acting criminally. Indeed, Vice President Pence is an attorney if he had any point said or thought that Mr.
Trump, President Trump was acting unlawfully or contrary to criminal law. He would have said that. No one ever suggested that. President Trump would exercise.
Actually, he has said that. By the way, there's another. He said the president asked him to violate the Constitution. He said the president asked him to violate the Constitution, which is another way of saying he asked him to write law.
He never said. No, that's wrong. That's wrong. A technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law.
That's just plain wrong. And to say that is contrary to decades of legal statute. Let's. That exchange making a lot of headlines today.
Congressman Jamie Raskin, former Trump impeachment manager, a member of the January 6th Committee, and a former constitutional law professor also spoke to Chuck on Meet the Press and responded to John Laurel. Well, first of all, a technical violation of the Constitution is a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution in six different places opposes insurrection and makes that a grievous constitutional offense. There's a whole apparatus of criminal law, which is in place to enforce this constitutional principle.
That's what Donald Trump is charged with violating. He conspired to defraud the American people out of our right to an honest election by substituting the real legal process we have under federal and state law with counterfeit electors. Essentially, the same thing is committing a crime. Well, let's start with the basic principle, Kristen, which I think will be helpful.
Mr. Trump is not charged with violating the Constitution and the indictment. He's charged with violating federal criminal statutory law. And so, Mr.
Raskin and Trump's attorney, Mr. Laurel, can have an interesting debate about whether there are provisions in the Constitution that set out crimes. There are, by the way, but that's not what Mr. Trump is charged with.
He's charged with violating federal criminal statutory law. And so this is a pretty easy one to fact check and to resolve. If you want to see the nature of the charges, read the indictment. By the way, if I may add one thing, speech is normally protected, except that speech designed to commit a crime to perpetuate a fraud is not protected speech.
If you and I wanted to try and swindle von Hilliard out of his harder money by telling him we were going to invest it in investment fund and we used it to gamble at a casino, that's a crime. That's not First Amendment protected speech. Chuck, I'm so glad you clarify both of those things. And obviously, that is a key part of the argument that we are hearing from the Trump team that he has the First Amendment protections that will basically be the reason why he does not ultimately reach conviction in this case.
So thank you for that fact. John, let me turn to you. We're not going to try to swindle you out of your money, but we are going to try to get the view from inside Trump world. What has the response been from the DOJ to President Trump's attacks on the special counsel?
Right. Well, the Department of Justice based out on this Friday filing to require this protective order on Donald Trump in that any of the evidence given by the special counsel's office to Trump's legal counsel would have to remain protected. The Donald Trump could not only not disseminate it, but not publicly talk about the evidence that is not yet available to the public at large before a jury is selected. I think it's worth noting that the judge here over the weekend rejected the Trump's legal counsel's motion to have more time to put forward their rebuttal to this request by the Department of Justice for the protective order here.
But for Donald Trump, just look over the course of these hours and over the course of the weekend, not only in his speech remarks, but repeatedly on his social media account, attacking Jack Smith, attacking the judge, making it very clear that he is going to continue to say what he so desires to say. He says that this is the first amendment right that he has, but ultimately, he'll be up to the judge here in these hours and days ahead to determine the extent to which he can openly speak about the evidence that he and his lawyers have obtained. What's notable about this moment, Vaughn, is that this could be potentially a moment where former President Trump's attacks actually do backfire politically speaking, typically he is emboldened. But here you have this crash course with the legal system.
Right, and just look at Mike Pence, I think is a specific example here. Mike Pence kept notes in those closing days ahead of January 6th about his conversations with Donald Trump and others leading up to the attack that day and around the efforts to overturn the election. Mike Pence, now his campaign is selling shirts with a quote, too honest on them because in that indictment, it was laid out that Mr. Trump had called Mike Pence to honest.
And to Chuck's point here, we're talking about charges of defrauding the United States. There was a pressure campaign as alleged by the Special Counsel's Office on the former vice president to take a fake slate of electors and overturn the election results there upon Capitol Hill. This is the former vice president is he was called to go before the grand jury, could very well be called to go before a jury in the actual trial. And at that point, which happens, he may not be the nominee in Donald Trump, maybe the Republican nominee for president.
But we are at here at the intersection of the campaign trail and these potential criminal legal proceedings against Donald Trump in real time in 2024. You're absolutely right. And very quickly, before I go back to Chuck, former vice president Mike Pence signaled that he is willing to testify against his former boss. Are alarm bells going off on?
Take us inside. What are people inside the former president's inner orbit saying about that? I think it's important, Kristen. I know you know this inner team and I think it's important for the public to understand who Donald Trump is surrounded himself by.
Unlike during his 2016 campaign in the four years of the White House, when top advisers and aides were essentially thrown off the cliff by Donald Trump, because he felt that they were trying to censor him or get him to say certain things, certain ways, or not say other things, this close tight-knit circle, they came on board of this 2024 presidential campaign with the understanding that they were going to let Donald Trump be let Donald Trump be Donald Trump, and that he, that there was no containing him or changing his messaging. And you have seen this hurt him on the legal front, because Donald Trump has already provided an array of defenses or explanations, not only in the classified documents case, but also here in the alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, that now his advisers, because he has been allowed to essentially go out and on social media and in speeches, say whatever he wants, is now up to his legal defense counsel, which there are great many of now, to try to untangle all those explanations and figure out a defense to bring to the courtroom here in the months ahead. Chuck, pick up on that point. What are you going to be watching for?
Obviously, the former president's team has until 5 p.m today to respond to that protective order. What do you anticipate happening? Yeah, so, Christian protective orders are pretty routine and routinely pretty uninteresting. The defendant is entitled to receive from the government discovery.
And here it'll be voluminous. It will include sensitive information, including identifying information about witnesses who have testified before the grand jury. There are many categories, but that's one of them. And all the protective order is designed to do, and it is fairly common, is to make sure that when the defense team gets their hands on this stuff, and they're entitled to it, that they treat it discreetly, that they treat it with some decorum, that they don't use it to go after witnesses, to threaten them, to intimidate them, and to harass them.
Judge Chutkin, like all the federal district court judges in this country, see these things all the time. And I imagine she's going to enter a protective order with these common sense restrictions on them. It's notable that the former president is asking for a change of venue, a change of a judge. Do you see either of those requests being granted?
What's the fact that they are, Chuck? Yeah, he may as well also ask for the son to rise in the west and set in the ace, because he would have an equally good chance at that. These are nonsense motions. There's no basis for the judge to be recused.
Recusal is normally based on a financial entanglement or a familial entanglement in a case, and none of that exists here. So let's just put the recusal aside. That's not going to fly. Change of venue is a notion I expect that the Trump team will make.
Normally, that's allowed in rare circumstances, either because it's more convenient for the witnesses, and I don't see how West Virginia would be more convenient for witnesses than Washington, D.C., or because you can't assure the defendant of a fair trial in the venue that's been selected originally. And that's not true here either. There are ways to do this, Kristen. In high-profile cases with notorious defendants, judges can enlarge the pool of potential jurors.
They can send out questionnaires. They can question them in court. They can do so carefully and scrupulously. The question is, can you get a fair jury in Washington, D.C., and the answer is manifestly yes.
So change of venue, recusal, those motions all fail, and the sum will rise in the east and set in the west as it normally does. Chuck, you always make us smarter. Thank you. Von Hill, your thanks for your great reporting.
Really appreciate both of you joining us on this Monday. We want to turn out an M.B.C. News exclusive with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. In a sit-down interview with M.C.
Dash burns the Republican presidential candidate who is in a distant second place behind Donald Trump in presidential primary polls was a newly critical of Mr. Trump's record as president. DeSantis criticized the former president's handling of the pandemic. His unfinished wall at the southern border and his administration's expansion of funding for mail-in voting in the 2020 election.
DeSantis also made his clearest statement yet, refuting Trump's false claims that he won the election. Take a listen to that exchange. Yes or no, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Whoever puts their hand on the Bible on January 20th every four years is a winner.
Okay, but respectfully, you did not clearly answer that question. And if you can't give a yes or no one, whether or not Trump lost, then how can- Of course, no, of course he lost. Trump lost the 2020 election. Okay.
Joe Biden's the president. But the issue is I think what people in the media and elsewhere, they want to act like somehow this was just like the perfect election. So I don't think it was a good run election, but I also think Republicans didn't fight back. You've got to fight back when that is happening.
Now, when speaking to Dasha DeSantis dug in on his support of Florida's new Black History curriculum, which is drawn broad condemnation including from Vice President Kamala Harris and his Republican presidential primary rivals, as well as some members of Congress. Take a listen to that exchange. Let's just talk about your take on these new standards. And the one sentence that's received the most backlash, I'll just read it to you.
Instruction includes how slaves develop skills, which in some instances could be applied for their personal benefit. So let's just be clear. You believe this is an important topic that should be taught in schools. So that is means they develop skills in spite of slavery, not because of slavery.
It was them showing resourcefulness and then using those skills. If this was a different state and the governor wasn't running for president, no one would have said anything about that. I think you're right. If you weren't running for office, this wouldn't be in the spotlight, but you also put education in the spotlight, rightfully so, because it's an important issue.
But to your point that there are similar standards in the AP African-American studies, of course, I think the issue people will take with this the word benefit and the overall framing of the Florida standards where looking at the AP course versus yours, the word in slavery appears dozens of times in the AP course. It doesn't appear once in your standards. And the criticism that I've seen beyond just that one sentence is the general framing of a slightly more positive light. That's not true.
I mean, there's all the gory details are in all of those standards. We've made African-American history a priority and we're going to continue to do that. But we are going to speak the truth and we're going to fight back. Joining me now on the ground and I will fresh off our interview with Rhonda Santis is MBC's Dasha Burns.
Dasha, congratulations. Fantastic job. You showed the importance and the power of follow-up questions there. So very well done all around.
Look, this was a rare one-on-one in person interview with Rhonda Santis, you all had a chance to interview Casey Santis. I'm going to ask you about that in just a moment. But what was your key takeaway? Obviously, he went further before and saying yes, he thinks former president Trump lost 2020, but there were other key takeaways.
Well, first of all, I think this shows that the importance of candidates sitting down and having these conversations, I think we learned a lot about the governor and to his credit. He sat there with me for more than 30 minutes and he did engage in those conversations and we did have tough back and forth and pushback and those are the important things that candidates should be discussing because these are the issues that matter to voters. Now, one issue that comes up for both Democrats and Republicans and it has been key to prior elections and the midterms have played a major role. It's going to play a major role in 2024 is the issue of abortion.
And it's a question all the candidates have been asked. They've all walked a pretty fine line on this and Governor DeSantis has sort of implied that he wants to see abortion decided on a state by state level. He hasn't really been very clear though about what he would do where a bill sent to his desk if he were in the White House. I want you to listen to our conversation about that.
What Iowa has done is not what New Hampshire is going to do and what Wisconsin will do is not what Texas is going to do. So would you veto any sort of federal bill that tries to put a nationwide ban in place? So we will be a pro-life president and we will support pro-life policies. I would not allow what a lot of the left wants to do, which is to override pro-life protections throughout the country all the way up really until the moment of birth in some instances, which I think is infanticide.
I got to push back on you on that because that's a misrepresentation of what's happening. I mean that 1.3% of abortions happen at 21 weeks or higher. There's no evidence of Democrats pushing for abortion up until- But their view is is that all the way up into that, there should not be any legal protections- There's no indication of Democrats pushing for that. Well yes they are.
They've done it in California. They've done it in other states. They've not instituted that policy. Yeah they have.
They basically will say that if there's some type of like it, they'll use like different ways to really have a high acceptor. It's extremely rare, 1.3% and in those circumstances are typically extremely emotional decisions. I mean I don't say that that's the norm in terms of this, but I do think that the left in this country has moved on from a position that said, you know what, we do want to discourage abortion. It's not something that's a good thing to now viewing it more as a positive good for society.
And I think most Americans, regardless of how they feel on legal protections, I don't think most Americans think it's a positive good for society. It's obviously a tragic circumstance. And of course, Kristen, you know, well this is going to be an issue that will persist for both Republicans and Democrats. How they use it in the primary versus the general and even in different states.
You hear Ron DeSantis talk about the abortion ban he signed in Florida, the six-week span in Iowa, which has a very similar policy in place here versus when he's campaigning in New Hampshire. You don't really hear him talk about it that much. So seeing how it's deployed by candidates, seeing how it's deployed by Democrats against Republicans, this is going to be an issue that's not going to wait anytime soon. Abortion was pivotal in the midterms.
We saw that in play. It will be fascinating to see what happens in 2024. And clearly he's still figuring out how exactly he wants to message on that issue. Dasha, let me follow up with you on kind of the big picture here, which is that he has been and was in your interview more critical from President Trump's policies than we have seen before.
This is a clear part of the shift that you have been reporting on. And what's so fascinating to me about this is that if you look at the polls, the gettable Republican voters are the moderate voters, not the Trump voters, not the people who are to the right of former President Trump. What did you take away from his shifts there and his sharpened critique of the former president's administration? Well, it's interesting.
I actually did ask him, you know, are you wasting time trying to get voters that are hardcore Trump supporters? So he pushed back on me on that. He said, you know what, that's a mischaracterization. I'm trying to go for all of the voters.
I am who I am. I stand where I stand and we were able to win over a lot of folks in Florida with the positions that I hold. I think the shift is really focusing on getting to know voters in a different level, getting his bio out there, you know, earlier on in the campaign trail, he was on these big stages behind podiums, big distance between him and the voters. Now what I'm saying is smaller crowds and, you know, the Trump campaign and others have criticized him for that.
But that is sort of a strategic shift from his campaign. They want him to get more intimate. I've seen him sitting down at tables at diners, having conversations. He's oftentimes alongside his wife, Casey, his three kids, he's putting his family front and center.
Casey, by the way, a major asset on the trail. She really brings that charm and that charisma that means often criticized by some of his critics for not having quite enough of. She brings that sort of softer touch and is able to articulate the message in a different way, connect with mothers and grandmothers in a way that maybe is a little bit different than he's able to. So we're going to be seeing a whole lot more of Casey, a scientist on the trail as well.
Very notable that the two of them sat down together with you just to great interview all around. Dr. Thanks so much. Really appreciate it.
And you can see more of Dr. conversation with Governor DeSantis and his wife Casey tonight on NBC Nightly News at 630 Eastern on your local NBC station. Up next, this President Biden is about to head out west. I'll be joined here on set by California Congressman Judy Chu to talk about what's next for the President, the Democratic Party and more.
Say with us, you're watching Meet the Press Now for Los Angeles. Welcome back. I'm here in Los Angeles as President Biden is heading out west this week. He'll be in Arizona tomorrow touting the Climate Projects and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Wednesday, he'll be in Mexico talking about clean energy and Thursday, he'll be in Utah visiting a veterans facility to highlight expanding benefits for those who served. Add it all up and it sounds a lot like a reelection pitch from President Biden, who's likely to sprinkle in a heavy dose of what he calls bi-nomics. Joining me now on set is California Democratic Congressman Judy Chu. Congressman, thank you so much for being here.
I really appreciate it. Thank you for having me. So before we talk about the President's message on the economy, I want to ask you about some of what we're seeing in the polls, which is basically this dead heat between President Biden and the strong Republican front-runner former President Trump. The former president has now been indicted three times.
Why do you think President Biden has tied with the thrice indicted former President? I can't believe it either. However, I do say that once people learn what the benefits of bi-nomics are, that they will understand that this is transformative, that we will have so many more jobs already. We have 13 million jobs, 800,000 of them being good paying manufacturing jobs.
But I think that they will see as the bridges are opened and as the new factories are opened, that this is something that would transform this economy for the better. But I do think people are tired after three years of COVID. They're a little weary right now. But does it worry you when you look at those poll numbers that President Biden is running neck and neck with former President Trump, who's ensnared in all of these legal challenges?
I really wonder why Republicans will go for somebody who has been indicted three times. Why they would exist. These are general election poll numbers. Yeah.
And this is, we're looking at the whole country. Well, I just think that these voters have to really see that their future lies in this economy, in making sure that we have the benefits of the bipartisan infrastructure, the Office of Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. I think these will be transformative. Your colleague Congressman Dean Phillips, over the weekend, signaled that he is considering a primary challenge to President Biden.
I'm going to to pray a little bit of that and then get your reaction on the other side. Democrats are telling me that they want not a coronation, but they want a competition. If we don't heed that call, shame on us. And the consequences, I believe, are going to be disastrous.
So my call is to those who are well positioned, well prepared, of good character and competency. They know who they are to jump in because Democrats and the country need competition. What do you make of that? Do you think Democrats need competition?
Well, I am for President Biden and Dean Phillips is a wonderful colleague. But I think that maybe he should stay with Congress and do his job there. If he asked you, has he asked you for your advice and if not, what would you tell him if he did? Well, I think that we must be unified.
That it's been a challenge to make sure we get our message out. In fact, he is part of that messaging team in Congress. And I think that he should go to where his strength is. Do you think he's undercutting President Biden?
I think any kind of other challenger is undercutting. Any kind of third party challenge and any other kind of competitor is not to do our benefit. We've obviously also been tracking the developments surrounding the President's son, Hunter Biden, who had a plea deal that is now on hold over tax fraud charges, among other things. Do you worry that the President's son is becoming a political liability?
Well, Hunter Biden did plead guilty. He interacted with a law that's very much unlike former President Trump, who has flaunted the law so many times. I think there is a huge contrast between Biden and Trump. And in fact, that Biden got a fair plea deal from the prosecutors.
They are still working out of force. Republicans say it was a slap on the wrist. They say that there are two systems of justice at play here. Well, this is not what I understand.
And in fact, the person who was in charge of it was a Trump appointee. So he made that negotiation happen. Let me get your response to something Chuck asks your colleague Jimmy Raskin over the weekend. If there should be a code of conduct for family members, let me play that exchange and get your reaction on the other side.
Yeah, I mean, we know that there is a lot of, you know, influence in Washington that's based on people's family connections. I have repeatedly asked German co-mart on oversight committee for us to look at that in a serious and substantive and methodical and nonpartisan way. But he's instead decided to just pursue the Hunter Biden thing as a one-off as a way to scorch the political points. He doesn't want to talk about Jared Kushner who brought back $2 billion, not million, $2 billion from Saudi Arabia to a company he created the day after the Trump administration ended when there's still blood all over the Capitol.
Do you worry about the what about defense? I mean, should Democrats be more forceful than just answering the question about Hunter Biden? I think that Hunter Biden is a side show for the Republicans and that they haven't even dealt with the allegations fairly. I also think that the American people don't really care about Hunter Biden.
They do care about larger issues like where their next dollar is coming from. Well, and the economy is the number one issue for voters. And as we started this conversation talking about the fact that President Biden is going to be out here on the West Coast talking about what he has dubbed by economics, a lot of Americans though are saying we look at the numbers, we hear your argument that the economy is getting better and yet we do not feel it in our pocketbooks gas here in California over $5. For example, what do you say to those Americans who make that point that they don't feel the benefits of what the president is saying is an improving economy?
Well, we have 13 million more jobs. We have the strongest growth rate out of all the leading economies. We have a reduction in inflation. So for people who are looking at their pocketbook, they should find that things are less expensive than normal.
So for everybody's everyday life, things will get better. I can guarantee you. Does the president need a course question when it comes to his own messaging on this issue? Do you think there are things the president of the White House should be doing, for example, that are not translating yet to the American people?
Well, I like the term, Bidenomics. I think that it encapsulates what we are trying to do here. Sometimes it's hard to talk about all those laws and get people to really understand them. But Bidenomics is the opposite of Reaganomics.
Reaganomics was all about trickle down. It was give the wealthy so much low hole in the deficit, whereas Bidenomics is about building from the middle out and the bottom up. It's about helping the everyday people. Congressman Judy Chu, thank you so much.
Really appreciate it. Great to be here in Los Angeles. Good to see you. Coming up, we will have more on Biden, Trump, and the 2024 race ahead with our panel.
You're watching The President. Welcome back. As we mentioned earlier on the rare occasion that his 2024 rivals criticized former President Trump, most of them say something like he was a great president. But well, Ron DeSantis took a different tact in that new exclusive interview with MDC News, sharply criticizing both the Trump presidency as well as Mr.
Trump's 2024 candidacy. Judy, now is former North Dakota Democratic Senator Heidi Heidkamp in former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Charlie Dent. Thanks to both of you for being here. Really appreciate it.
Charlie, let me start with you. So one of the big headlines out of DeSantis interview was Ron DeSantis acknowledging really for the first time, yes, former President Trump lost. But he was also sharply critical of key parts of his record, everything from the border to his handling of COVID. Do you think that's a good strategy for beating Trump?
What did you make up what you heard? Well, absolutely. It's important for not just Ron DeSantis, but all these other candidates that draw a sharp contrast with Donald Trump, not just on the events of January 6th, but on these indictments where they too often have just said that Trump is a victim of the deep state and a witch hunt by DOJ and all that. So yes, he must draw a very hard contrast and he needs the bludgeon Trump with these indictments and make the case that Trump failed Mr.
Billy as a president. That's what you do as a candidate. I am actually struck by how so many of these candidates seem to be running for second place or just afraid to take on Trump out of fear of antagonizing his base. That's a big problem.
If you're not going to take on the top dog, why are you even bothering running? So I think it's March with DeSantis, at least to start throwing some jazz at the former president. How do you make of what we heard? And this seems to be part of a broader reset within the DeSantis campaign.
Is it too little too late? Does he have time to turn things around? Could he catch up to Trump at this point? I think he's got a big lift to go.
He played FTSE too much with the, oh, I like him, but I would be better. I'm turning the page. I'm the new generation. They needed to start this a long time ago.
We're up against the Iowa caucus. We're gonna have our first debate in a couple of weeks in the Republican field. And I think DeSantis is trying to get back some momentum that he had early on. He thought he could just be a nicer version or at least a different version of Donald Trump.
And he's finding out that campaigns are about contrast. I couldn't agree with the congressman more. My question is, what took you so long? Any one-on-one campaign would know that you can't win by not basically drawing the contrast between how you would govern and how you're appointed.
Well, in talking about the strategy of the other candidates, let's talk about former vice president Mike Pence who has signaled that he may testify in the case. And he's also said, I think in his strongest terms yet last week after that third indictment, that you cannot basically break the constitution and serve in the highest office in the land. Over the weekend though, he was heckled. He's barely registering in the polls.
Let's take a look at what happened this weekend. This takes place in New Hampshire. If you didn't hear there saying, why did you sell out the people? Charlie, what do you make of that?
Former vice president Trump's inner circle thought he had a real lane in this race. And boy, it's been hard for him to break through with primary voters. Yeah, Mike Pence seems to be in a bit of a political no man's land, to be quite honest. When I look at his case, and he was so closely aligned with Donald Trump right up until the events of January 6th, of course, where he did the right thing and pushed back as he was with the right thing to do.
But that's his only real distinction right now between himself and the former president. And as he's found out that a lot of the president's strongest supporters don't like what Pence did on January 6th by pushing back. And so he's in this tough spot. His appeal right now is frankly to these evangelical voters.
He is running hard on the I'll say to the religious right of party, which I don't think is a smart move because he's really running on abortion. Nobody's going to get to the right of Mike Pence on abortion. But that's not an issue that is particularly popular right now for Republicans. And I think so, Mike Pence is taking a very unpopular position there.
He can't win back a lot of hardcore Trump voters because he did the right thing on January 6th. So I'm not really sure what his lane is right now. I don't see the path, but he's I just don't see where he goes from here. I think he's got frankly, like the other candidates just find other reasons, other other issues of which he contrasts sharply with Donald Trump.
It'll be hard for Pence to do because of his longtime alliance. Heidi, what do you think? Does he have a path left? Well, I never thought Mike Pence had a path.
He has a one issue voter. He thinks he can get evangelical pro-life voters to move over from Donald Trump to him. Donald Trump's record on abortion has been mixed. Although he would argue, he appointed the Supreme Court that reverse Roe v.
Wade. What better victory have the pro-life has the pro-life community have than that. But the bottom line is that he doesn't have the gravitas or the kind of personality to really motivate people to vote for him. I think he comes into this race without a lot of political assets and without really a path forward.
I think you're going to see this sorted out pretty clearly come the Iowa caucuses. And I think a lot of people will be dropping out. He might be one of them. Certainly, if he doesn't make that first debate, that is going to be tough.
Let's talk about what we just heard from Congresswoman Judy Chu who had some pretty sharp words for her colleague, Dean Phillips, who said over the weekend that, yes, he is considering the possibility of launching a primary campaign. Heidi, what does that say about the strength of President Biden's support right now within his own party? I don't think it says much about the strength of this sport. I think Dean Phillips has certainly a right to give in.
He's speaking to some of the disaffected, not disaffected, but the people in the Democratic Party are saying, it's time for a new generation. It's time to turn the page. He's probably smart to elevate his profile at this point if he's planning on doing something later on. But the bottom line is, if Joe Biden stays in this race, Joe Biden is going to be the nominee.
And I think everyone believes that there has to be a strength in the Democratic Party. You pointed out, I think, so clearly, that the polling tells us that right now when it's neck and neck with someone who's been indicted three times and impeached twice and whose behavior has been reprehensible in the public square, but yet you're not winning overwhelmingly in the polls. I think there is a real cause for concern. And I think you're hearing some of those mumblings in the back, but polling this early is not really particularly relevant.
Fair enough. Having said that, though, Charlie, what do you make of the fact that they're running neck and neck and neck and how vulnerable do you think President Biden is and particularly given that you have some of these members of his party circling the wagon saying, hey, I might want to get into this race. Well, Congressman Phillips is a good non-able man. He's a good congressman, but he's pointing out a real issue here.
There are lots of Democrats, a lot of Americans who don't want Joe Biden to run for reelection to Joe Biden implicit in his 20 campaign implicit in that message that he would be a transitional figure to the next generation of Democratic leadership. Many interpreted that as he would serve for one term. And so there is pressure to find a new generation. This is in the Republican side.
There's so many Republicans like myself who want anybody other than Donald Trump to be the nominee. And so Americans do want choices. The group no labels is out there trying to secure ballot access because they've identified the fact that in the political marketplace, there are a lot of voters out there who want something better. And they don't like what either of the two major parties are serving up right now.
And that's why Joe Biden's numbers. I just saw that Ciena poll in New York Times. They're tied to 43%. I mean, Trump has been done three times.
I mean, my goodness, usually, well, I get it. It's a polarized environment. We're very tribalized. I'm not going to have big margins like we used to, but still he should be clobbering Donald Trump in these polls.
And he's not. And you're right. The no labels group making a lot of people and frankly, both parties quite nervous, Heidi and Charlie, great conversation. Thanks so much.
Coming up, unrelenting heat, destructive flooding and severe storms. Why we continue to see the extreme side of extreme weather this summer and what it means for the future. You're watching Meet the Press Now, same as us. Welcome back.
The existential threat of climate change is truly hitting home this summer for Americans. More than 70 million people across the country are once again under heat alerts this afternoon. The scorching heat has been unrelenting since June across the southern US. Temperatures have been hanging in the triple digits today on the East Coast, the National Weather Service, forecasts severe weather with flash floods and tornadoes, more than 80 million people are in that potential storm zone.
Joining me now to assess these extreme weather events is Daniel Swain, climate scientist at the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA. Daniel, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it. Look, let's dive right into this.
We saw some of the hottest weeks on record last month in July. Is there time to reverse this trend? What needs to happen? Well, as you mentioned, it really has been an extraordinary summer, not just in the Northern Hemisphere, where of course, it's summer we've been experiencing widespread record breaking and even record shadow record warmth, but also in the Southern Hemisphere where it's currently winter.
So it's clearly not an isolated event. This is happening all over the place. And this summer is really putting an exclamation point on that long-term warming trend. So we do have still, it's very much within our power to stop climate change because the underlying cause is the increasing accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere caused by human activities.
But the key there is we actually have to do those things that we know will bring down those and eventually zero out those ongoing emissions. The Biden administration, as you know, announced new federal protections to protect workers from extreme heat. Do you think his plan goes far enough? And what more broadly speaking, Daniel, needs to be done from a policy perspective to address the issue of extreme heat?
Well, believe it or not, extreme heat is one of the deadliest weather events that occurs today in contemporary America and in many other places in the world as well. And it's one of the probably underestimated events in many communities and in many planning policy circles because it's kind of insidious. It's not as dramatic as a tornado or hurricane or a flash flood, but it affects far more people every year. And it probably kills thousands of people in a typical year and many more than that in a particularly bad year, like this one, even in the United States.
We just aren't counting those numbers as as as city as we could be. So I am glad to see there's an increasing focus on the harms produced by extreme heat and especially on those most vulnerable, which are people who work outdoors or don't have permanent shelter or access to cooling. So I'm glad to see that focus. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this particular plan, but I do think it's good to see the highest levels that this is something that's being taken more seriously because historically, we had a lot of focus on the more obvious, but in some cases, less impactful disasters out there.
Daniel, I want to I think you're right. A lot of people probably don't know just how deadly extreme heat has been and can be. I want to follow up with you on your points about flooding because we have seen flooding destroy communities this summer dramatic video out of Alaska. How does climate change exacerbate extreme weather events like the one that we're looking at from Juneau on Saturday?
Well, climate change definitely does exacerbate many kinds of extreme weather events and there's stronger evidence for some sorts of events than others and probably the two most obvious ones are the ones we're talking about right now, extreme heat and extreme precipitation. So of course, in those cases, to get a severe flood event, you need extreme rainfall and so that is precisely the kind of thing that we're seeing increasing in a warming climate, extreme heat and extreme rainfall. These really heavy dampwars that can lead to flash flooding. Flooding is complicated because it's also related to things that we've done to modify the environment.
So have we paved over watersheds or altered rivers, but in general, we do expect to see an increase in these kinds of flash floods. We've been seeing a lot of as extreme precipitation events become more intense in a warming climate. Well, it is so good to have your perspective. We really appreciate it.
Daniel Swain, thank you for your expertise. And up next, emerging details of an alleged assassination attempt against Ukraine's president, plus the progress of peace talks after dozens of nations meet in Saudi Arabia. We'll delve into that with Richard Engle. You're watching me The Press Now.
Welcome back, turning now to the stunning allegation by Ukraine's security service, who claimed to have stopped an assassination attempt against President Zelensky. Ukraine announced today that it detained a woman who was allegedly caught passing intelligence to Russia. Ukrainian officials say the intel included details about President Zelensky's trip to southern Ukraine last month. According to Ukraine's security service, Russia planned to use the information to launch a massive air strike on the southern region.
But they say they learned of the alleged plot in time and added security measures. We should know, MEC News has not been able to independently verify those allegations. Joining me now is Richard Engle from London. So Richard, this is just a stunning story.
What more do we know about this plot? So the Ukrainian say she was caught red-handed, that she was in the midst of this plot, that it was ongoing, that they watched her try and gather intelligence and pass it on to her Russian handlers, that they let the plot continue, but changed up President Zelensky's security arrangements so that they could learn more about her Russian intelligence handlers, the people who allegedly wanted her to target President Zelensky, pass on information about his whereabouts in the city of Mikolayev while he was making a visit to that front-line area and give them to the Russians so the Russians could use the coordinates to carry on a massive air strike and kill him. According to the Ukrainians, she was working in a military supply shop that she would have had regular contact with troops in all the front-line areas now when you military supply shops attract soldiers. In many of these front-line towns and villages, many of the civilians are gone.
So she would have been in a position to come in regular contact with soldiers, including listening to conversations when they let their guard down, etc. And according to Ukrainian intelligence, which I will put out a statement on this, they also believe she was involved in other operations to target Ukrainian military facilities to pass on coordinates and they're describing her as an informant and she faces a long prison sentence up to 12 years at this stage. Richard, so many fascinating details, are there takeaways about the broader state of the war given this assassination attempt? And what I mean about that is we really haven't seen an assassination attempt since the start of the war.
So why is this happening now, do you think? So we only know about this from the Ukrainian intelligence service. At this stage, the Kremlin hasn't commented and I have not heard any other official or unofficial verification of the story, but they did put out a photograph of this woman. They put out details about a plot and they said that they stopped the plot before it became an assassination.
It was an assassination attempt to gather intelligence about Luszellinsky's whereabouts so that he could be targeted with an air strike but no air strike took place. It is surprising but not that surprising. Right before the war began, we learned that the CIA warned President Zelinsky that Russia planned to target him for assassination. It was one of the reasons that the US was encouraging Zelinsky and his government to get out of the country before the bombings started.
He never did and it may have changed the course of the war. And then just a few months ago in May, there was a drone attack in Moscow targeting the Kremlin and at the time Vladimir Putin, his spokesman was calling this an assassination attempt even though Putin wasn't at the Kremlin at the time, doesn't spend that kind of time living there like the White House or even the palace in Ukraine. But the Kremlin was calling it an assassination attempt against Putin. So this the specter of assassinations has always been there for President Zelinsky since this since this war began.
And Richard finally before I let you go, we know that Saudi Arabia hosted talks on Ukraine's peace proposal. Russia was not invited. Is there any sense that progress is being made at these talks? Any shift?
Not really. The talks concluded in Saudi Arabia and like is often the case with high level diplomatic talks, they agreed to meet again. So that is progress of a kind. The real progress was that China took part in these talks.
That China is a main ally of Vladimir Putin. It has certainly a lot of sway with Russia and China took part and China felt that they went strongly enough that China agreed to take part in future negotiations. So nothing concrete but a sign of progress. Potentially angle, thank you so much.
Really appreciate it. And thank you for being with us this hour. NBC News Now coverage continues right now.