Meet the Press NOW — December 13

Last summer the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year it's time to level up. Reliance Home Comfort has over 155,000 five star reviews for delivering the type of outstanding customer experience Canadians of Canada for over 60 years. Right now don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump.

Call in the experts that know how to beat the heat conditions apply. See website for details. Beatboxing actually has hidden health benefits. It can help strengthen and protect your voice from injury.

See healthy living differently with Manulife. Visit manulife CA Health if It's Wednesday, Hunter Biden speaks out the president's son defends his father outside the Capitol while defying a congressional subpoena to testify behind closed doors as House Republicans move forward with votes to open an impeachment court into President Biden and hold Hunter in contempt. Plus, one of America's most politically potent issues will soon be at the center of another Supreme Court showdown. The high court agrees to take up a high stakes abortion pill case that could decide the fate of one of the nation's most widely used abortion medications just months before the presidential election.

And in a rare review, President Biden warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he and his government's military tactics must change as the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza grows more dire and calls for a ceasefire grow louder. Welcome to BE the Press Now. I'm Derek Hake in Washington, where the House is set to vote later this evening to formally begin an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. The vote comes as the central figure of that inquiry, Hunter Biden, continues to defy a House Republican subpoena calling for him to sit for a closed door deposition.

President's son gave rare public comments this morning on the Hill denying any wrongdoing by his father and reiterating his offer to testify only at a public hearing. I'm here today to make sure that the House Committee's illegitimate investigations on my family do not proceed on distortions, manipulated evidence and lies. And I'm here today to acknowledge that I made mistakes in my life and wasted opportunities and privileges I was afforded. For that I'm responsible.

For that I'm accountable and for that I'm making amends. Let me state as clearly as I can, my father was not financially involved in my business. Not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Burisma, not my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not my investments at home, nor abroad, and certainly not as an artist. The White House commended Hunter Biden's comments calling them powerful and forceful.

The House Republicans leading the impeachment effort now say they'll proceed with contempt of Congress proceedings against the younger Biden. Here was their response to the president son's refusal to sip her deposition. This is a concern. This is about public corruption at the highest levels and the president's son does not get to set the rules.

He's had a pretty good run with the Department of Justice, with the IRS and with the FBI. But these two committees are going to hold firm. We have taken steps to go by the book in this investigation. Now we're in the phase where we do depositions and what he did today is unacceptable.

Now, despite Congressman Comers claims Republicans again to put forth any actual evidence implicating President Biden of any wrongdoing. But as we said with previous impeachment inquiries of then President Trump, impeachment is political, not legal. And while an impeachment inquiry does not guarantee actual article articles of impeachment be written or voted on, Republicans may be playing with fire as they head down this road, especially less than 11 months before election Day. As Chuck Todd writes today, this impeachment inquiry may end up meaningless to voters.

Joining me now is the aforementioned Chuck Todd, MCCU's chief political analyst, who I'll speak to it in just a minute about this. And also he's Ryan Nobles on Capitol Hill and Monica Alba at the White House. So Ryan, what happens next for Hunter and this contempt resolution? It seems unlikely that'll get settled before January.

Yeah, you're right, Garrett. That's a process. They have to write and create a report. It has to be voted on a committee and then it has to be voted on by the full House of Representatives.

So it's likely that we won't see that contempt of Congress charge move until the new year. But to be clear, it's going to happen. House Republicans made clear today that what Hunter Biden did today in no meaningful way answers the subpoena that they're looking for. They don't buy his argument that he's willing to testify publicly.

They want this process to way most congressional investigations do play out with a closed door deposition first out of the realm of cameras. So that can be a circus, so that they can ask substantive questions over a lengthy period of time. And then if he wants to do the public hearing, he's welcome to do so. So they control the way this process works.

They're in the majority. They set the standards for the subpoena. And now that they're going to have the backing of a formal impeachment inquiry. They have a lot more legal ground to stand on as well here.

So let's talk about this vote in the next hour. Right now we have one Republican who will vote against formalizing the impeachment inquiry. Kevin McCarthy rolled this out by fiat basically back in September. What's changed between then and now to get Republicans to the point where they're confident this will pass?

Why do you think that the new speaker, Mike Johnson, has made this a priority? He's reached out to some of these members that had concerns about the impeachment inquiry moving forward and leaned on them to say that this is a vote that they need because the congressional investigators do feel that they are running the roadblocks when it comes to getting the subpoenas for documents and witness testimony complied with. But I also think there's been a calculation that's changed just in terms of the facts on the ground. And the most important being the mounting legal issues that Hunter Biden is dealing with.

You know, this latest indictment where he faces a whole series of tax charges, the salacious details connected to it, that just gives Republicans fodder and to a certain degree gives them cover in their districts. They say, you know what, there's a whole lot of smoke here. It's worth it for us to continue on this investigation to determine whether or not there's any fire. And I know right away people are supporters of president are listening to me and saying, but Joe Biden's name isn't mentioned at all in the indictment.

And I do think that is an important point. But as you rightly pointed out in your open Garrett, impeachment is not a legal proceeding. It is a political proceeding. And there's no doubt that that latest indictment provide Republicans the political cover they need to cast that vote later today to the degree that political can cut both ways.

We saw this with the Trump impeachments. You saw with the Bill Clinton impeachment. Are House Republicans wary of the possibility at the end of the day, it might be them who think places that political backlash for impeachment that doesn't go the way they think it will if they especially they don't get the goods they are so certain are there. Well, if they're not there, they should be.

And I do think they're going to win this today. But they've really set the stage for a showdown early on in this new year that's going to fall right in the midst of a presidential campaign where it's going to be make or break. They've now opened the door to, you know, with no more excuses to find the conclusive evidence to follow those articles of impeachment against President Biden. And those same Republicans that represent moderate districts that President Biden won, and some of those districts could potentially come a lot bluer after the court ruling in New York, are going to have a much more difficult time voting for an actual article of impeachment.

And Republicans have now set themselves up that if they don't take the step of articles of impeachment, they've inherently exonerated the president. So this is a dicey gamble that they're presenting and basically laying on the table right now. And you can bet the Biden campaign is not going to just let this. But let's all forget about the fact that they open an impeachment inquiry if they don't take the next step of actually filing articles of impeachment.

Because the other point, that's, I think, a very important part of all this, Garrett, is that even if they get articles of impeachment through the House, they're dead on arrival in the Senate. So it would just be a political exercise under any circumstance. But they've now set them up that they better go through with it or else there could be consequences. Yeah, the evidence never shows up.

I'm of the mind that White House crumbles, dare House Republicans to keep putting this forward down the line, force them to take a politically potentially suicidal hook. But what do I know? I'm the Capitol Hill reporter. For that, I turned to a White House reporter, Monica Alba, who can hopefully provide us a little more detail on this.

So, on, what do we know about the White House strategy on dealing with the 100 Biden indictments that Ryan pointed out have created the smoke and the potential political fire that the president has to deal with, which is his own impeachment inquiry. Well, both of you Capitol Hill reporters definitely have good enough insight into this. And we just rewind back to September when it was Then House Speaker McCarthy who started this whole process. And at that moment, the White House said, oh, sure, they're going to bring this inquiry, but they're never going to hold a vote on it.

And that is exactly the moment that we are in today. And that really does tell you a lot about this process, about their thinking. Remember, they even stood up a war room at the time to deal with this potential. But they thought because of the conversation and the political climate at the moment, that just opening the door to this inquiry because of the demands of some in the Republican conference was something they were doing, but they weren't maybe going to follow through with an actual vote.

So fast forward to today. And it is notable in those comments this morning that we heard from Hunter Biden specifically. This is something that the White House usually when they hear the words Hunter Biden, they almost have like a knee jerk reaction line which is, oh, we're not going to weigh in. We defer to his personal attorneys.

We refer you to the Department of Justice today, not doing that. And even the White House press secretary weighed in in a way that she doesn't normally, saying that the president was certainly aware of what his son was going to say today outside the Capitol. Listen a little bit more from the briefing earlier today. You know, the president was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say.

And I think what you saw was from the heart from his son. And you heard, you've heard me say this, you've heard the president say this. When it comes to the president, the first lady, they are proud of him continuing to rebuild his life. They are proud of their son.

And that's really been the line from the White House. I think what you can expect to continue to hear them say, as for the actual impeachment vote, this is something they're going to just continue to drum that point that there isn't any specific evidence that's emerged yet that ties Hunter Biden's business dealings to his father. I'm interested in the different responses here because there's kind of the White House part of it, there's the campaign part of it, as you point out. There's also the executive mansion family part of it in terms of how the president views dealing with his son on this issue.

Michael, we're gonna have a lot of time to explore this going forward. Thank you for your reporting. And I turn now to our colleague Chuck Todd. Chuck, you a piece out today saying why this impeachment might might not matter.

For those who haven't read it, why mightn't it? Well, because we, it's sort of, this is sort of a weak impeachment. We've taken impeachment now and turned it into a campaign tactic. If you think about I've lived through three impeachments now professionally in my lifetime.

And in all the other three, whatever you thought about the decision, there was an agreed upon, there was agreed upon incident that didn't take place. Right. Bill Clinton had an affair with an internal. Donald Trump made a phone call and withheld, threatened to withhold funds and called It.

And Donald Trump gave a speech on the Ellipse that called for these folks who march in the Capitol in Holly. Everybody agreed the disagreement was whether it rose to the political death penalty. This is the first impeachment where we're just throwing it around and they don't. The Republicans can't agree on what it is about Joe Biden that is impeachable here.

Now, of course, you've laid it off. What's impeachable? Whatever majority in the House thinks it is, that's the rule, whether you like it or not. And it's pretty clear to me that this is really driven simply by Donald Trump, who's trying to blur his own resume.

Did Donald Trump didn't have two impeachments with Joe Biden, of course. Not at all. Frankly, if Donald Trump didn't have only one of them, I don't know if he faces it, to be honest. And I'm going to answer a question I think you were asked earlier, which is, I really think this impeachment is simply designed to be a distraction from the trials in the spring.

Because the timing of this, you're sitting there going, well, this makes no sense unless it does make sense. And you realize, oh, a Senate trial that will get dismissed in a day will at least distract for a day from Trump. And that's all Trump cares about. Well, in October 2019, Democrats were so keen to try to get that done before the real start of the 2020 political season.

This is the opposite of that. This is how much can you draw it out? You are not. Along with.

Ryan was talking about, how do they get out of this if it's not Quill. I'm obsessed with that question. How do you get off this train once you start down? They can't, because Donald Trump won't let them do this, because Donald Trump won't let them because they fear what their own voters will function, what their voters will do.

Then if they sign up, it looks like an acquittal. Yeah, well, we didn't find enough or. What do you mean? This is what's wrong with Republican Party.

You're weak. Right. You could just picture what Trump would say. The constituents would echo it.

Right. His days. And that's. So they set themselves up here.

They can't, you know, they can't get out of it. So they're literally damn if they do damage it down. I don't think it's going to. And this is why I think it's gonna end being meaningless.

I think it's getting Lost in reality, I think most people aren't independently. Oh yeah, just impeachment. This is equivalent if Democrats had decided to impeach Trump over the emoluments clause and that he was in the hotel. Okay, it's a technical violation, but it's ticky time.

I don't even know if this even rises to that. Let me challenge your thesis. What if matters but in a different way than we think. What if Hunter Biden testifies and he's compelling and sympathetic figure and Joe Biden can come out and say if you got the folks, go ahead, let's vote for my impeachment plan idea.

Put it on the floor. Is there room is this White House that's depth to turn this around? I don't think there's any downside to any of the theatrics that come with impeachment campaign. In fact, this is what I think makes this an absolute.

This is proof to me that way too many people live in way too many of their own information bubbles. If all you do is watch one table channel and listen to one set of algorithms of what you get on your newsfeed, you think it's perfectly, of course you're going to do this. In fact, it would be ridiculous if you didn't impeach me. My goodness, they have been this, this information ecosystem has claimed all sorts of nefarious things.

So by not doing it it kind of looks absurd. So they're. I, I do think we're in, we're in this. They don't realize how ridiculous this looks at mainstream.

That's why you always watch the Cable News 4 box with Sunday ticket in a separate monitor. Right. Watch the four box without sound. There it is.

Chuck Todd, thank you for your analysis on this as always. And joining now, he's Democratic Congressman from New York, Dan Goldman. He knows a little something about this topic. He the first impeachment of then President Trump.

So, Congressman, pick up. The Republicans have been investigating Biden and the idea that his son's businesses are connected to him for months now, years arguably. Does anything change today once this inquiry is formalized? Well, it certainly is a formal step where every single Republican who votes for this is endorsing the idea of impeaching Joe Biden.

And that's why you have to look at what they had developed over the last 12 months. It is not for lack of evidence, Garrett. They have hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, dozens of hours of witness testimony from numerous government witnesses. Multiple executive branch agencies under the administration have turned over documents they have plenty of materials.

They just don't have any evidence connecting Joe Biden to anything that his son was doing. And it doesn't change now because there's really nothing material that they haven't gotten. They just don't have the evidence. And if they wanted more, they had Hunter Biden this morning ready to give them more evidence and testimony, and they refused to take it.

So it is a little rich and ironic for them to be claiming that they need to open up a formal impeachment inquiry to get more evidence, when they rejected evidence just this morning from the central witness in the case. To be fair, in 2019, you guys made everybody appear for a private deposition before you had any public hearing. So it is. That was the standard in 2019.

I want to ask you about that impeachment as it relates to this one, too. And maybe this predates your involved with the process or in terms of where you are in the decision making. But what was the bar for Democrats when you decided to bring the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump the first time? Do you think it's a threshold that Republicans need to meet to move this from inquiry to some further steps?

Absolutely. And you know, you'll hear misinformation and gaslighting from the Republicans. But the reality is that we brought in 17 government witnesses, all of whom had firsthand knowledge of Ukraine, of Trump's dealings with Ukraine, of Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine. And we demonstrated pretty convincingly, even to Senate Republicans who voted to acquit, that we proved the case that Donald Trump abused the power of his office in order to benefit his election and his reelection campaign.

And that is an abuse of power here. I don't even know what the allegations are. When you ask Chairman Comer to identify one specific piece of evidence, the only thing he comes up with is Barisma, which dates back to that 2019 impeachment, because that was the investigation that Trump wanted Zelensky to do and extorted him about. But that has been debunked over and over and over again.

And in fact, the removal of that prosecutor General was bad for Hunter Biden and Barisma. So there's nothing here, and there's just absolutely no theory of the case here that I can identify that has any basis in any evidence. There are a lot of accusations, there are a lot of allegations, and there are a lot of strong words for Hunter Biden, but there's no evidence to support an impeachment of the president United States, which is Joe Biden, not Hunter Biden. This is shaping up to the third impeachment inquiry in five years.

Are you worried that this is going to become the new normal in politics? I'm very worried, absolutely. This is a gross abuse of the constitutional power of the impeachment clause. We, you know, in the 116th Congress, during the Ukraine impeachment, the speaker resisted calls for impeachment for a very long time until the abuse of power related to Ukraine emerged as such a clear cut abuse of power.

But the Democrats did not go forward to impeach Trump based on obstruction of justice. That was overwhelmingly clear in the Mueller report. And so the Democrats were very careful about what merited impeachment. The Republicans are doing this for political retribution of Donald Trump's direction to even the score and give him something to talk about in the election.

And even Representative Troy Niels admitted that today that this is all about Trump in 2024. That is an abuse of congressional authority, and that is really, really unbecoming and improper. For the sake of argument, let's just accept that as true for this conversation. The idea that this is done at Donald Trump's behest or his willingness to, to bully the Republican conference into starting this inquiry, do we, this Congress, need to make it harder to start down this process of impeachment, given how severe the consequences are, how divisive it is for the country?

Do we reconsider how easy it is to start an impeachment inquiry or to take a political one all the way to the finish line? Well, I think what ultimately is going to happen is that the initial impeachment in the House of Representatives is not going to carry the weight that it should. But impeachment, because of how trials work in the Senate and the need for 2/3 to convict, is now rendered almost useless because it's impossible to imagine a scenario where anyone is any president, is convicted in the Senate by 2/3, given the partisanship that we see over there. So on the one hand, actually getting impeached in the House becomes too easy, and on the other hand, getting convicted in the Senate is too hard.

And so it really loses its efficacy as a check and as a point of accountability against the President of the United States. Speaker McCarthy rolled out this inquiry in September, but didn't have the votes to formalize the inquiry. Speaker Johnson is doing so now. Did the facts change in that time or did the politics change in that time?

None of the facts change, Garrett. And you're just seeing a more and more desperate Republican majority trying to drum up some facts to support their specious allegations. And you have them misleadingly telling the American people that Joe Biden received money from his brother when in truth it was a repayment of a loan or that Joe Biden paid for Hunter Biden gave money to Hunter Biden or vice versa when it relates to truck car payments, there's nothing there. No evidence has changed and none since that first public and only public hearing when Jonathan Turley, the Republican star witness, acknowledged and stated in the first five minutes that there is insufficient evidence for impeachment right now.

There's no more evidence now. And the irony here is that they're claiming that we need an inquiry because of stonewalling by the administration. The only thing they point to is a letter from the White House counsel's office related to a request for the former White House counsel to testify about the classified documents, which has nothing to do with this investigation. And two low level Department of Justice career officials who never testify before Congress and whose supervisors and superiors have already testified, those who make the decisions.

The rest of what they're saying has already been turned over, including 75,000 pages from the National Archives dating back to then Vice President Biden's tenure. So there's nothing even that they claim they need that they haven't gotten. They have gotten all of the materials that they need. They just don't have evidence.

And that's what the problem is. Congressman Dan golden, we will see where this all goes. Thank you for being with us. Thanks, Garrett.

And coming up, details on the closely watched abortion pill case the Supreme Court just agreed to take up next year and how a ruling could reshape the fight for reproductive rights. That story is next. Plus, a major shift in tone and messaging for President Biden offering his harshest criticism yet of Israel's offensive in Gaz. We're on the ground with the latest on the war against Hamas.

Ahead. You're WATCHING me. The press now drive off in a new Hyundai laundry today with $0 down during the Hyundai Advantage sales event. Take advantage of the $1,000 Spring Drive bonus and lease the 2026 Elantra Essential for just $73 weekly at 4.99% for 60 months.

And you're covered by Elantra's Best in Class five year new car warranty. Now that's the Hyundai Advantage Conditions apply offer includes 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit HyundaiCanda.com or your local dealer for details. Welcome back.

The question of abortion access is now back with the Supreme Court as the high court announced this morning that it will be taken up the legal battle over the availability of a common medication abortion drug. It's the court's first big case on the issue abortion since it ruled overturned Roe v. Wade about a year and a half ago. The case centers around a challenge to the longstanding FDA approval of the drug.

Press down. Earlier this year, a federal judge has sided with an anti abortion group in its attempt to take the drug off the market by suspending FDA approval that had been in place for more than 20 years. The Supreme Court already stepped in to put a stay on that decision while weighing the case, as well as an appeals court reversal of more recent approvals made by the fda, which included expanding the cutoff point for taking the drug and the ability to receive it through the mail. NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jared joins me now.

So, Laura, is this a case about abortion, a case about medical regulations? Exactly how does what the courts considering here potentially affect abortion access? So, Gary, I think the best way to look at it as this is no longer a case about sort of a red light, green light, will the pill be on the market or not? This is now a case about how easy is it going to be to get that pill because of the way it's now come up.

It's been teed up to the Supreme Court. The issues are a lot more narrow. And that's part of why the Supreme Court said to the lower courts, you go back and you do this the proper way. And so it wound up now with the Supreme Court.

And what it's looking at is whether the pill can come through the mail or whether you have to go get it in doctor's office, whether a doctor's the only one that can prescribe it and how far into your pregnancy you can take it. So they're really discreet issues. But obviously this is the most commonly used abortion pill in the country. So the stakes are pretty high for people.

This is a dumb question, but I read Dobbs about the whole point of that decision was to send anything related to abortion back to the states. Why is this a Supreme Court issue of federal issues? Because we're talking about sending things through the mail. It's a great issue, not a dumb question at all.

So in Dobbs, the whole issue there was whether the states were able to criminalize abortion, are they able to regulate it? And that way the Supreme Court said yes, we are handing this issue back to the state states. You do whatever you want. You make up your own rules.

However, at the same time, the FDA is the ones who's in the driver's seat when it comes to giving the yay or nay to federally regulated drugs like mifepristone. And so this drug has been on the market for a long time. And in that respect, that's where the Justice Department has a role to play and has a role to play in defending drugs that are challenged. And so it is sort of this odd confluence.

But the bill has been market, has stayed on the market and has been shipped through the mail, regardless of what your individual savings decides to do on the ground. So, big picture, this is going to be the first big abortion related case that the court takes up. Post Dobbs. How does the Post Dobbs landscape that we all live in now play into however they look at this issue?

Well, it's interesting, you know, since Dobbs has come down, the use of the abortion pill has actually sort of taken center stage because even for places that might be a red state and you can't get the procedure in person, for instance, that hasn't stopped blue states from shipping those pills all over the place. And so it really has sort of, sort of illuminated how the importance of the abortion pill for so many people. But remember, Gary, you know this as well as I do. Supreme Court decisions come out the last week of June.

And so if the Supreme Court decides to actually weigh in here, say they don't dismiss on standards, they actually dig in here and issue a decision that takes this bill off, you know, at least some portion of the market makes it harder to get in the middle of a campaign for presidential season. I think that was gonna be a remarkable moment for the country. Yeah, this is a couple weeks before the party's political conventions really sets the tone for the fall there, no matter how you slice it. Lord.

Jared, thank you for your reporting on that. And turning now to a different abortion legal case that we've been following out of Texas this week. Late Monday, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Kate Cox, a pregnant Dallas area mother of two who was seeking an exception to the state's strict abortion ban in order to end her high risk pregnancy. Cox's doctors have told her that her fetus has a rare fatal condition and advised her to terminate the pregnancy in order to preserve her health and her future fertility.

A judge had initially granted Cox's request before the state, then stepped in and blocked the order. Earlier this week, Cox left Texas to seek abortion care outside of the state, but his nationwide attention on this case is growing. Texas Republicans in Washington have remained tight lipped about the struggle facing one of their constituents. Take listen to what happened when I tried to press Texas Senator Ted Cruz about this case, the talk of Texas in the halls of the Senate this morning.

Senator, what's your view on the Kate Cox case in Texas? We've done that several times, Senator. It seems weird that you won't comment on it at all. You have absolutely nothing to say about this case.

Most people in Texas talk about it every day. Do you believe the law is being enforced as it's supposed to be? We've heard just about as much from the other Senator, John Cornyn as well. Up next, we're sticking with this story and digging deeper into the politics of abortion access in post Roe America and how the hot button issue could shake some of 2024's most critical election contests.

The panel's next. You're watching me to press now. We have no choice to fulfill our constitutional responsibility. We have to take the next step.

We're not making a political decision. It's not it's a legal decision. We're not going to preach the outcome of this. We can't because again, it's not a political calculation.

We're following the law and we are the rule of law team. And I'm going to hold it at that as my permit. The rule of law team. Welcome back.

That was House Speaker Mike Johnson yesterday claiming the impeachment inquiry being voted on in just a few minutes is a legal, not a political endeavor. Joining me on set is Susan Paige, already laughing at that. Con Washington Gifford, USA TODAY MO Elite Democratic strategist and executive director of the Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service. And former Illinois congressman Republican Romney Davis.

He mixed up the seats, but now everybody's back in the same place. They got all of our party IDs. And so, Susan, you heard it from the speaker trying very hard to make the argument that this impeachment inquiry is legal, not political. As we said from the outset, there's no such thing in impeachment.

What is your view of the legal and political imperatives facing the speaker at his majority in this moment? Well, you might want to work on those talking points because I'm sure I'm not the only person who kind of chuckled at the idea that they're embarking on this impeachment inquiry as a legal matter. They're working on this impeachment inquiry to try to find some evidence for impeachment, which they don't have yet. So I think for Democrats at least, that strikes them as a little backwards.

Once you start an impeachment career, two ways out of it. You vote on articles that you draft or you do something else. Something else is the open question I want to play for you, your colleague Donde, your former colleague Donda Dick and I say about this and ask you out in their that. Actually I think it's probably more likely than that.

So I'm interested in that question and then answer but also that question at the end of the inquiry. If there's not articles of impeachment, how does this end? Well, if there's not articles of impeachment, then it's over. Is it get dismissed Republicans really functionally acquit President Biden in an election year?

Listen, I'm going to have to agree disagree with my former colleague Mr. Bacon here. I think once this inquiry begins that it's inevitable that we'll see articles of impeachment. But this is anything new that I've said.

I said this back when the very political impeachments against Donald Trump were pushed forward. And you may have heard me say it, Gary, I did. This is going to lead to political impeachments every, every single time in our nation from here on out. When we have a different party in the White House and a different party in the House.

You get to rare me the press gold medal for consistency on a question on this. I do appreciate that. Mo. How should the Biden how should the White House and the Biden campaign be addressing this to the degree that there are different imperatives here for each.

Yeah, look, I think what's important for the president's team to do this is an opportunity for them to draw an even bigger contrast with House Republicans while we're out there focused on the economy, while we're out there trying to move the country forward. This is the nonsense that they are focused on. And use that as an opportunity at a time when the president's own approval ratings are low to point to the contrast, which is something he's always trying to do. And I think House Republicans are playing right into that trap and they're painting themselves into a political corner because one of two things happens.

They either draft articles of impeachment, which will make their base very happy, but will not satisfy the needs of, I think, independent voters and swing vot heading into the election, or they don't file articles of impeachment, which will make our base very unhappy. So either way, House Republicans are putting themselves in a very, very difficult situation. And the Biden team does have an opportunity here to use this as a point of contest. I want to talk about this.

Texas abortion case. I'm very excited. I'm very interested in the story. And Susan, I want to ask you about something that Ted Cruz's opponent, Colin Allred in the Senate races said he argues Ted Cruz supports the Texas law.

He says this is the outcome, this is the result. This is what it looks like when it happens to real people. It goes on to say that Senator Cruz doesn't want to talk about it. Texas has one of the most restricted abortion laws in the nation.

It's probably arguably the battleground for these kind of legal cases. Is this an issue that can take Colin Allred from a long shot to a real competitor in a state like Texas? Well, Democrats have had a lot of hopes about statewide elections in Texas and they always lose for my entire election. So, you know, history would say, no, it won't.

On the other hand, abortion has proved to be such a powerful since Roe v. Wade was overturned in the case in Texas. I think even people who are opposed to abortion would look at this case and say this is wrong. It is wrong to force this woman to give birth to a baby that's just going to die and put it risk her own fertility.

What's your argument for that? If you're, if you're pro life. So I think it's dangerous for Republicans, but I'm not sure it's enough in a state like Texas to actually let Senator Cruz, you know, be ejected. Senator Cruz talk about when answering me before the other door closed.

But he Haley took a good question on last night, which I thought was interesting. Let's play her answer and talk about it. You know, I'm pro life. I welcome the states that have become pro life.

But this is exactly why I said you have to show compassion and humanize the situation. We don't want any women to sit there and deal with a rare situation and have to deliver a baby in that circumfence any more than we want women getting an abortion at 37, 38, 39 weeks. We have to humanize the situation and do what it is. Rodney Current has been much more nuanced on the issue of abortion than any of the other 2024 candidates.

I wonder how you think a message like that resonates with Republican voters. It resonates well, but the abortion issue is only going to be one of many very important issues right now. Right now we talk about Texas. Can Democrats win in Texas?

The Democrat will never win in Texas as long as the Biden administration continues to disregard the crisis in our border. Even they recognize it, but they're frozen and not doing anything. If they don't address the border crisis and the surge of millions of immigrants coming into this country unabated, nobody's gonna be talking about abortion, the economy, or any of the other issues that Democrats want to talk about in the upcoming 2024 campaign. We've seen this in the last couple of elections, a lot of special elections.

The idea of abortion getting elevated above other issues, kind of pulling Democrats along with it. One of the very few issues on which President Biden out polls right now is on this abortion access issue. How do you see this cutting generally in the context of what I'm just saying, there are so many other issues on the minds of America. Yeah.

And I'm going to respectfully disagree with the congressman. I think that this is an issue that does have staying power and can penetrate to the psyche voters in a way that many others can't. That's not to say the economy won't be on their minds, and that's not to say the border won't be on their minds, but this will also be on their minds. And at a time when the election is expected to be very close, you could see states that shouldn't be close become even more so.

You're going to see Republicans have to spend money in Texas, maybe not enough to pull Ted Cruz to eject Ted Cruz, but he's going to be in a much more competitive race because this is a visceral, personal issue for so many women, for so many families. Not to say the border is. But it's not just about the border anymore. In a lot of these places, this will be a big issue.

I don't think that Cruz will get caught napping again in the same way that he did in that race in Texas. But it does seem to have potency here. And I wonder, Susan, is this an issue where the Biden campaign might look into, you know, the hundreds of millions of dollars they're probably going to spend on this race and choose to elevate this issue against the guy who appointed the justices who overturned. No, absolutely.

And you have, you do have Donald Trump saying, taking credit for appointing that Supreme Court and not wanting to talk about what he supports now in terms of restricting abortion access. But I would say I think that the administration also needs to do something about their policy on the border because that is also an incredibly powerful issue. And they are, I think, not comfortable at the place they're in right now. Running maybe last by the apple here, because we've gone almost two whole shows now without talking about the endorsement that happened in New Hampshire last night.

Chris Sunu endorsing Nikki Hannah Daily. In previous cycles, the in state governor of the major party endorsing somebody this late again would be a huge story. Will it matter in this race? I don't think so.

I think we know who the candidates are going to be in the general election. It's going to be a rematch between President Biden and President Trump. Look, I would hope we could get back to some sense of normalcy within the Republican primary process and that an endorsement like this would matter. But unfortunately, I think the president has coalesced support.

He's been able to create this victimhood based upon the many indictments that he and his family are facing and he's gaining support rather than losing it. So I don't think it'll help. But maybe the Iowa voters are going to be the first to decide. If they surprise America like they have before, then I think it's anybody's game in New Hampshire.

But right now, if I was going to the casino, I'd probably put my money on Trump. I don't know if they give you very good odds on that. We gotta go. The real tragedy is that we had a time to sing you Happy Birthday on set.

The three of us will do it during commercial though, so we'll leave it there. All right, Susan, Rodney and Mo, thank you all for coming in. And after the break, wartime tensions in Washington. We are live in Israel with new developments in the war against Hamas.

Plus the latest on President Biden's meeting with hostage families at the White House. Don't go anywhere. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back.

Today, President Biden held his first in person meeting with the families of eight unaccounted for Americans believed to be held hostage by Hamas. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, families thanked the President for his efforts to free those who remain in Gaza. We felt that, we felt the foreign. We're only reinforced in seeing and believing that we could have no better friend in Washington or in the White House than President Biden himself and his administration.

They are just not numbers and they're just not faces. They are saying sons, they are sons. They are grandparents, they are mothers. And that is what the president and his team understand.

The meeting comes after Biden appeared offer his harshest critique of the Israeli government yet, warning that Israel is starting to lose support around the world due to the, quote, indiscriminate bombing that takes place. Heavy fighting has continued throughout Gaza. The IDF said 10 of its soldiers were killed in action on Tuesday. And the aftermath of airstrikes could be seen throughout the Gaza Strip, including Rafah, where men have fled from fighting.

The dire humanitarian situation there continues to worsen with shortages of food, water and shelter as displaced Palestinians also have to contend with the elements as seen in this video shot by our NBC crew in Rafah earlier today. The UN Calling the situation air quote, a living hell. Joining me now in tel Aviv is NBC's Hall Jackson. So Hallie, as we heard, the families of these American hostages seem satisfied with the American effort, efforts to get the remaining hostages home.

What's the feeling of Israel on that issue? Is there any indication of another temporary ceasefire to bring the remaining hostages home out of political conditions there? Let me take the second piece of that question first. I think there is a desire we talked about to see something happen.

There's nothing concrete to point to though perhaps, and that is some of the travel that we're seeing now this week from by administration officials, specifically Jake Sullivan Garrett, who said to be here in Israel later the week to talk to the prime minister, to talk with the unity wartime cabinet now maybe to try to put some pressure on to try to get these hostage negotiations restarted again, the potential for a temporary truce because as you point out, as you have noted, the fighting has intensified, but so many places in Gaza just decimated here. What's so interesting to me being here, Gary, is the way that many of these hostage family members that we're talking about to are extremely engaged in what's happening back home where you are in Washington, very attuned to the American political climate and some of the developments here, including of course, President Biden's meeting that you talked about with some of those families of Americans who are still unaccounted for. I asked one woman here in Tel Aviv at a place called Hostage Square what her message to President Biden would be. Her sister Romy is believed to be held in Gaza.

Here's what she told me. It's my responsibility to take care of her, her life, her health, her well being. And now right now she's out of my reach. I don't have anything to do for her except from talking to you and other media and to say to him how much it's important to us what he's doing, how he's supporting Israel, how he's supporting the negotiations, mention the deal that was made last time and for hopefully next deal that will be soon as possible.

And the posture militarily from Israel continues to be to hammer Gaza, to hammer Hamas until they are, as in the words of Israel officials here, until they are wiped out. We are seeing, for example, Prime Minister Netanyahu in just the last couple of hours here, the last few hours go to security assessments, special forces. And he talked about how this is the path forward, this is the move that they have to make here. Obviously that is creating humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

As you lay out with Hamas health ministry saying that more than 18, 000 Gazans have been killed and also saying that vaccines for children have run out. So critical of course, because of these warnings to international aid organizations that disease is spreading here. You mentioned that living hell quote that's getting a lot of attention. But US palace, the un, Palestine refugees also said civil order is breaking down.

And he said this, Garrett was interesting. He asked what his staffers, how do you cope, how do you cope with being a shelter, seeing this in Gaza? And this person told him, I go to a corner and I find a place that I can go cry ten times a day. Essentially, Garrett stuff quickly.

You talk about the idea that Israel is returned to what's happening in Washington. How is the, the Biden criticism of the military campaign playing in Israel? Well, depends on who you talk to. Because remember, and this is like backdrop 30,000 foot, the pre war context, if we can call it that here.

Remember what was happening in Israel before this war began. It was, for example, massive protests on judicial reform against Prime Minister Netanyahu's push to change the judiciary. Right, Those big demonstrations that we saw. So that sort of sentiment existed before the war.

There's obviously been this incredible moment of unity in Israel. I say incredible, meaning extraordinary, meaning unusual here with this wartime cabinet created. But there is, I think this says, you know, I've talked to people for a story you're gonna see just a couple days. Actually, I talked to one Israel just to give an anecdote about this.

I believe in peace, I believe in life. And that's something I heard again and again from some of these Israelis who say, I want my family member home, I want my country to be at peace, but I also want other people to be at peace as well. Everybody just wants to give a, send their kids to school. And this is basically a direct quote from the folks I'm talking to people who want to be able to raise their families.

Now, obviously the Israeli government has a mission here, and that mission has be seen executed militarily is to wipe out Hamas. There's been this question, what happens next? What happens then? That's a question that's just not going away here.

All right. How Jackson, thank you for reporting on this. And still to come, new fallout of the fight against anti Semitism on America's college campuses. I'll talk to a rabbi who resigned from Harvard's anti Semitism committee in the aftermath aftermath of the university president's controversial testimony on Capitol Hill.

You're WATCHING ME, the PRESS now. Welcome back. As the backlash of the congressional testimony from university leaders on anti Semitism on college campuses continues, Harvard University is standing by its president saying in a statement Tuesday that Claudine Gay will remain in her role. Gay apologized for her remarks before Congress in an interview with Harvard's student paper.

Joining me now is Rabbi David Woolby. He's a visiting scholar at the Harvard Divinity School who resigned from the school's anti Semitism advisory group following that congressional testimony last week. So, Rabbi, if you would just walk me through what was behind your decision. Was it entirely about that testimony or is that just a last straw?

It was. I would say it was the last straw in the sense that both I felt that here was an opportunity for all the presidents to articulate some indignation, some fury about the fact that they lead these institutions that are iconic throughout the world. And the students are expressing intimidation and hate and they should be angry and upset about that and also articulate a vision about the kind of community they want. And unfortunately, instead, I think we got answers that nobody thought of as the answers of visionary leadership.

You're not advising the university anymore, but perhaps you'll advise our viewers. Tell us a little bit about what you're hearing from students and what steps do you think Harvard should take to combat anti Semitism on campus? I wouldn't say I actually am still advising. I speak still to the administration and to the committee and to students and alumni and faculty.

And I think there is a sort of a coalescing agreement, but it has to be done. One is you have to enforce the policies that exist. Students can't harass other students. Students can't intimidate other students.

They can't do the kinds of activities of breaking into classes and so on. Faculty shouldn't be giving political diatribes in classes. There should be education about the history of Jews and Judaism. I mean, you have people at these places saying Jews have no connection to Israel, and in two weeks they're going to be singing about Jesus and Bethlehem.

And I want to say to them, don't you think, like, maybe, maybe. And then finally, I think that we need serious sustained training for students and how to speak to one another about things you disagree with. Why do you think this issue of antisemitism on college campuses has captured so much attention in this moment? Is it just the war or is that too simplistic?

I mean, talk about a certain ahistorical context. Lot of antisemitic approaches people take to this issue. But expand on that a little bit, if you would. It's a great question.

The truth is, Harvard, as articles coming out have demonstrated, has a long history of antisemitism. They're not the only college campus that has that, but they do. And I think that this was just a flashpoint where people who had been seeing this for a long time finally said, look, this is what I'm talking about. It's now so blindingly obvious that you can't ignore it anymore.

For Jews in America, I mean, we remember antisemitism on the right and on the left. We remember Pittsburgh and Poway and attacks on synagogues and a 400% increase in anti Semitism in the last year. The Jews are 2% of the population and 60% of the hate crimes. So this is an opportunity, I think, for the world to see what it is that we're confronting and hopefully to address.

Harvard has said it's going to stand behind its president. The president of Penn was in that same hear. Do you think President Gay should stay? And, you know, to the degree this is part of that answer, is the problem her or is the problem the policies or the lack of policies that we were just discussing?

So I'm a wise enough rabbi to stay out of politics. Okay? I don't pronounce on what a university should do for its administration. But I will say this, which is removing or placing one person alone is not going to solve this issue.

It is cultural. It's part of the system. It has to be addressed. And now Harvard has an opportunity to make a real leadership difference in the campus community and in the world.

And I really do pray that they step up to that. Right. Here's an Elite University with 100% name recognition in a spotlight on an issue people care about. If that's not an opportunity to make a difference, I don't know what is.

Rabbi dad. Will, I'm glad you'll still be there to continue giving them advice. Thank you for joining us. Thank you.

And thank you all for being with us this hour. Chris will be back tomorrow with more need to press. Now NBC News now coverage continues with Tom Costello. Right now as the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, the new podcast from NBC News.

With me, your host, Gazin Basugi. We'll take a deep dive into today's top stories from NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative. Bringing closers to headlines.

Conversations are shaping our world. From the front page to the zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music.