Meet the Press NOW — December 29

If it's Friday, another state rules former President Trump ineligible to appear on the 2024 primary ballot, disqualifying the Republican front-runner because of his involvement in the January 6 insurrection just days before the first primary votes are cast. Plus, Russia launches one of the largest aerosols on Ukraine since the war began, pummeling key even other major cities with rockets and drones, killing and injuring dozens of people. And clear eyes, full heart, can't win, meet the North Carolina Democrat who's running the longest of long-shot races in one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. Hello and welcome to Meet the Press, now I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington.

And we begin our final show of 2023 with a story that we expect to dominate 2024, the many legal issues facing former President Donald Trump. Maine is now the second state to bar the former president from the primary ballot. Late yesterday, Maine's Democratic Secretary of State ruled that Trump was ineligible because he was in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because of his actions leading up to and on January 6th. In her 34-page decision, the Secretary of State Gina Bellos writes that, quote, the weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr.

Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a Democratic election and then chose to light a match. Remember, the events of January 6th, 2021, and this was borne out by the evidence, where unprecedented tragic. They were in attack not only upon the Capitol and on the government officials there, members of Congress, former vice president, but also in attack on the rule of law. And the evidence demonstrated that they occurred at the behest of and with the knowledge and support of the outgoing president.

Now, Bellos office says that her decision will not be enforced until the courts weigh in, meaning that President Trump's name will remain on the ballot for now. The same is to Colorado, where the state Supreme Court declared Trump ineligible in recent days. The Colorado Republican Party has already appealed that decision, and Trump's campaign says it will appeal the main decision as well. Trump's eligibility for the ballot has been challenged in other states, but most of those have been denied.

Late yesterday, California's Secretary of State, whose face pressure to remove Trump from the ballot, included his name on the list of candidates certified to run in that state's primary. But with legal challenges over Trump's eligibility to run, as well as for criminal trials, this ruling in Maine is the latest reminder that the 2024 race for the White House will be playing out in the courtroom as well as on the campaign trail. For more, I'm joined now by NBC News senior politics reporter and Maine resident, Alex Seitzwald, and also with me is NBC News legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam.

Well, Alex, as your backdrop will indicate you are indeed in Maine, so tell us what exactly is going to happen there next. Well, things should move pretty quickly here in Maine with this case. Trump's campaign has said he will appeal Secretary of State, and I have a decision that will go to the Maine Superior Court, which has to rule quickly. January 17th is the deadline for that.

That decision could then be appealed, but ultimately everybody here and nationally agrees that this is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Only they can provide the national guidance on this really unprecedented constitutional question. Otherwise, you're going to end up with a patchwork.

You mentioned California. Other states have already ruled that Trump can't be on the ballot. Colorado may now two states have said he can't. So really everyone is waiting for the Supreme Court to weigh in and set the standard on this nationally.

All right, so Carol, weigh in from a legal perspective. What happens from that arena? Yeah, legally, you've got this case in Colorado, which has actually made it all the way up to the Colorado Supreme Court, and they ruled against Donald Trump being placed on the ballot, and that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is in their discretion whether or not they want to review the case, but all the expectation is that they will. And then the Maine case is following in its footsteps, as Alex said, and it will go up as well. But you know, the issues, that's really the key. What issues, if any, will the Supreme Court decide to review?

Because there is a big difference that's paid, especially by the conservative justices, a big difference that's paid to states and to states' ability to set their own procedures and to carry out their duties as a state in protecting the integrity of their elections. And so that is traditionally and constitutionally a state obligation. So what is the issue or issues that the Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court will decide to take up?

Probably they will take up the issue of whether the constitutional ban against insurrection by a candidate would apply to the presidential candidate, because the 14th Amendment is not clear about that. They call out members of Congress and they call out electors, but they don't actually say the president is an officer to which the ban would apply. But that is most likely an issue that they will have to decide. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess whether they will simply say, hey, the state ran the process that put in place and they did it with due process, and we're not going to interfere with that, or whether they will choose to second guess the insurrection decisions that were made by the main Secretary of State and the Colorado Supreme Court.

That's an important point, Carol, because obviously there's so much focus on whether or not the Supreme Court would actually make a ruling as it relates to Donald Trump's culpability for January 6. But that's a separate issue about the independent ability for the states to run their own elections, right? Because the Supreme Court could theoretically take these cases and actually say nothing about January 6 and just leave it to whether or not the states have this authority on their own. Could they not?

That's very much a possibility, and it's now been widely reported a case that Justice Gorsuch decided when he was a federal appellate judge not on the Supreme Court yet, but a case from 2012 where he said the integrity of state elections is very much a state function, and as long as they carry it out with due process and in accordance with the Constitution and the Constitution's protections with respect to due process, that is a state function. This is just such an unusual situation. We find ourselves in where the states are so very high. It is rather unprecedented.

So Alex, let's get back to the situation in Maine. What was the Secretary of State's rationale for having Trump removed from the primary ballot? Yeah, her rationale was very similar to that of the Colorado Supreme Court. They looked at Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was written after the Civil War to prevent underpentant confederate officers from rejoining the United States.

And they concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection after he took an oath to office and therefore is disqualified from the presidency and disqualified from the ballot. But it was clear, I spoke with the Secretary of State last night, and it was clear that she did not want to have to make this decision. And she doesn't, I think, really feel like she should be the one making this decision. Maine law required her to respond in a short period of time to complaints that were brought about this.

So she says it kind of forced her hand, but she was very clear in saying that ultimately this is going to be up to the U.S. Supreme Court and she will follow their guidance. So even though she thinks that Donald Trump does not belong on the ballot here, she would follow the Supreme Court if they overturn her decision. I mean, it is interesting, right, because she is a Democrat.

She's run for office as a Democrat. In the past, of course, there's already been pictures of her and President Biden that have been posted all over social media by Trump supporters. I mean, how much Alex is the partisan nature of this becoming an issue? We know that something the Trump campaign is already hammered.

Yeah, absolutely. She was a former Democratic state senator, the former executive director of the ACLU. You know, not a partisan organization, but certainly an ideological one. And the Trump campaign very much pointing to that, saying she's two partisan.

She never should have been put in this position. They also pointed to statements that she made previously calling January 6 in insurrection. So they say she was prejudiced on the legal question of whether that wasn't deep in insurrection. But, you know, it's there've been other Democratic secretaries of states who have looked at the same set of issues with the different state laws.

California, you mentioned just today, Rhode Island, only a couple states south of us. Very progressive state, Democratic secretary of state concluded that Trump can stay on the ballot. So, you know, partisanship is certainly a big factor here. And that's what one person that I spoke to called it a political war shock test.

You know, you can read this decision and conclude that she did absolutely the right thing if you're on the left side of the aisle, or you can conclude that it's a undemocratic, you know, small, de-disenfranchised men trying to seal an auction if you're on the conservative side of the aisle. And just another sign of how partisan and how fractured this country is. And, Carol, of course, this comes against a backdrop that Donald Trump is under indictment for much of the same things that he's being accused of that. That led to him being pulled off the ballot in these states.

How does his criminal trial impact these particular proceedings? Are they two completely different things? Is it something the Supreme Court would take into account and allow the legal process to play out? Are these two things intertwined at all?

Well, in terms of the substance of what is being decided, they are very similar. Of course, it's to decide whether Donald Trump played a role, end up so how much of a role in the events of January 6. But the important thing to keep in mind is that although there were evidentiary hearings held in both Colorado and before the Secretary of State in Maine, that is to say that it was actually an adversarial proceeding that took place. There were lawyers for Donald Trump who got to cross-examine witnesses and put on evidence of their own, as well as the same for the state.

The burden of proof is very different between a criminal case and these adversarial hearings before the Secretary of State or the courts. So it's a much lighter burden of proof, preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not, before the Secretary of State and the Colorado Court, but beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard possible in the criminal cases. So very different standards, and they will be applied appropriately in both venues. And as you said before, Carol, a unique situation all around.

Alex, thanks to all Carol and thank you both for being here. We appreciate it. Let's talk now with Jonathan Alter, NBC News political analyst and the author of the Old Goats newsletter. And also with me, Eliana Johnson, who's the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon.

So let's start with you, Eliana. I mean, how do you expect the main decision to further galvanize Trump's support among Republicans? I mean, we're seeing even his Republican opponents in the primary rushing to his defense in this matter. What we've seen is that every turn, each setback that former President Trump has taken in the legal system has actually helped him politically.

I don't expect this to be any different. And it is a remarkable situation. You know, it's been a generation since 2000 that the United States Supreme Court has essentially had to come in and settle an election. And that is what we're facing.

The main Secretary of State essentially said she's not enforcing this. And the Colorado Supreme Court said the same thing. They aren't enforcing these decisions until the Supreme Court rules. And I have to say, I think the best thing that could happen for the country would be for the Supreme Court to rule unanimously in one way or the other.

It was damaging for the country to have what was viewed as a partisan Supreme Court decision. And the two decisions that we've had in Colorado and in Maine, they are partisan decisions in that it was, you know, it's Democrats on the Supreme Court in Colorado and a Democrat in Maine making this decision. So whatever way the Supreme Court rules, I do hope that it's overwhelming in one way or the other. John, did you hold out any hope for that?

This Supreme Court would be unanimous on an issue like this? I'm not holding my breath for that, Ryan. But also, I'm not holding my breath for them throwing Donald Trump off the ballot in all 50 states. It's highly unlikely that they'll decide to do that.

They have a few escape ramps. There's some precedents that suggest you need something called enabling legislation by the U.S. Congress in order to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. So they could use that.

And there's some other ways for them to kind of not decide to throw them off the ballot. But they're also under some real time pressure on Super Tuesday, which is March 5th. 17 states are holding Republican primaries. And it's not likely right now that they're going to have time.

They need about 45 days to print their ballots. They're going to get some kind of decision from the Supreme Court by mid-January, which they would need in order to be sure what to have on the ballot. I think the other big factor here is whether the Supreme Court could kind of go for a split decision here between these two huge cases that are heading in that direction. One is the ballot question.

And the other is whether Donald Trump should be immune from prosecution in the Jack Smith, what's sometimes now being called the Trump coup trial. He's scheduled to go on trial in March for trying to overthrow the government. And this immunity case, which unlike the ballot case, Trump is not Trump's lawyer. It's actually do not have a strong legal argument there that he should be immune above the law for anything that he did as president and therefore not able to be put on trial.

So it could be that the court rules for Trump in the ballot access case and against Trump in the immunity case. And that would protect them politically. It would make them seem as if they were being judicious. Right.

So Eliana, let's talk about the politics of all of this. We've talked about the legal aspect of it. And I want to play for you what Chris Christie said this morning about the main decision. It makes him a martyr.

He's very good at playing poor me, poor me. He's always complaining. The poor billionaire from New York who's spending everybody else's money to pay his legal fees poor me. But when stuff like this happens, this should be decided by the voters of the United States.

It should not be decided by courts. And the fact is that while there may be people may think there's some justification for doing this, it's not good for our democracy. Does he have a good point there? I mean, Donald Trump does seem to make hay out of being a victim.

Is this an example of that? Certainly, I think that's what we'll see him do. I personally tend to agree with Governor Christie. And five or so months ago, the idea of taking President Trump off the ballot, citing this clause in the 14th Amendment was a novel legal theory.

And my friend and colleague, Matthew Continetti of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out that it's astonishing that in a matter of months, this legal theory that emerged in an article has become a talking point in our national conversation. And we've seen it cited in Supreme Court rulings that it was incredibly swept. And of course, because of its political salience and it's used as a political cudgel against Donald Trump. And I think you'll certainly see him.

I mean, it's his specialty. So I tend to agree with Governor Christie. You know, somebody once said, give the voters what they want and they will live to regret it. Yeah, that's right.

So John, let's talk about this from the Democratic perspective. Maine's Congressman, Jared Golden, he is of course a moderate, often breaks with his party, but he announced his opposition to the Secretary of State's ruling. He said that he voted to impeach Donald Trump for his role in the January 6th insurrection, but he do not believe that he should be real. And I should say he said, I should not, I do believe he should not be elected President of the United States.

However, as a nation of laws, therefore, until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot. Is this an issue that cuts both ways? Could this backfire on Democrats? Well, I don't think it will backfire on Democrats in a general election because that's, you know, more than 11 months away.

And so by that time, this issue will have long since been resolved. So this is more an issue in the Republican primaries and, you know, it does tend to make Trump into a martyr. But the idea that this is just a Democratic cudgel, another weapon to get Donald Trump, it's the United States Constitution. The language is very clear in section three, that if you've engaged in insurrection, and it doesn't say anything, contrary to what Congressman, it doesn't say anything about having been convicted of insurrection.

It just says if you were engaged in insurrection, you cannot run for office. And it's crystal clear, and all of these Republicans who claim that they believe in a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution should go to the 14th Amendment and read it. Because if they want to go, as Justice Scalia believed, to the plain language of the Constitution, just because we haven't had a situation like this since the Civil War doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't still apply.

So these were conservative authors who brought this to light in an article, a legal article that made very sound legal arguments for why the 14th Amendment should apply in the case of Donald Trump. Alright, we're gonna have to leave it there, guys. I appreciate you both being here. Happy New Year.

Jonathan and Helena Johnson. Thank you both. I appreciate it. Coming up, President Zelensky visits the front lines after Russia launches a massive air attack on multiple cities in Ukraine.

The White House responding after a missile reportedly entered into Poland, a NATO ally. Plus Israel faces new escalations in the West Bank and new confrontations with Hezbollah militants in the North as the IDF's intense ground offensive in Gaza rages on. We're live in Israel straight ahead. You're watching the press now.

Welcome back. Overnight Russia launched a massive aerial bombardment targeting multiple cities across Ukraine in one of the largest attacks since the start of the war. Ukrainian officials estimate that Russia launched more than 110 missiles and numerous drones, striking shopping malls, residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, killing approximately 30 people and injuring at least 130 others. President Zelensky said that Ukraine's air defenses were able to intercept the majority of those missiles, despite Russia using, quote, nearly every type of weapon in its arsenal.

The attack comes as U.S. aid to Ukraine when installed in Congress amid a political debate over immigration policy. In a statement, President Biden condemned the attack and reiterated his call to lawmakers to quickly pass his foreign aid package in the new year. Joining me now is NBC's foreign correspondent Matt Bradley.

So Matt, what more do we know about these Russian strikes and why now? Yeah, well, we're hearing from the Ukrainians that this is the biggest Russian attack ever since this war began in the early part of last year, nearly two years ago. And it's not the deadliest attack so far. That dubious distinction belongs to other devastating attacks all throughout the country.

But this was the largest, as you mentioned, President Zelensky said nearly 160 projectiles, drones and missiles filed at targets all throughout the country. The eastern city of Dineapro, all the way to the western city of Lviv, where it struck a school, you know, this was a city that was a refuge for a lot of Ukrainians and a way station for a lot of goods that were incoming. So this just goes to show that Russia can still reach very, very far. And the Russians have said that they were attacking military installations, communications centers, and depots that were holding an initiative in other supplies, all of the military targets.

But I think as you can see, on your screen, a lot of those civilians who were killed in a lot of those places that were struck were very much civilian targets, including a maternity hospital. In Nipro, where nobody was killed or injured, because nurses were able to get all of the mothers and the babies into underground shelters before the bomb struck, including, as I mentioned, the schools in Lviv, residential tower blocks throughout the country. So once again, Russia says they're hitting military targets, but its civilians were bearing the brunt of this morning's attack. Right?

And last winter we saw that Russia targeting Ukraine's energy grade. That, of course, caused massive blackouts. Could this be the start of a new winter campaign? Yeah, and this is exactly the kind of talk that we're hearing from a lot of military analysts who are looking at this.

They're saying that Russia might be taking another swat at that attempt that they made last year to try to not just damage Ukrainian infrastructure. But to really sap Ukrainian resolve by blacking them out, turning off the lights and, you know, by way of turning off the lights, turning off a lot of the heat during the bitterly cold Ukrainian winter, that that might bring Ukrainian public, the Ukrainian people to their knees to beg for some sort of negotiated deal for an end. But the real reason why a lot of people, especially Ukrainians, believe that this is happening now, is that Russia just suffered a humiliating defeat with one of their major landingships that had been docked in a fort in occupied Crimea, was sunk earlier this week by the Ukrainians. There's another demonstration of Ukrainian power against your Russia's navy in the Black Sea, or in, excuse me, in the Black Sea.

But again, this just goes to show that the Ukrainians are the Russians, excuse me, have the ability to attack, to retaliate and to do so swiftly and to devastating effect. Right. A reminder that this conflict is still very much raging despite everything else happening in the world. Matt Bradley, thank you for that.

And let's turn now to another war. Fighting inside Gaza continues amid new claims that aid groups are getting caught in the crossfire. Today, the head of the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees accused Israeli soldiers of firing at an aid convoy as it traveled along a route designated by the Israeli army in northern Gaza. The team traveling with the convoy was not injured, but the incident highlights the continued challenges of getting humanitarian assistance into a war zone.

Meanwhile, on the battlefield, the Israeli military says that it's located a hideout apartment of one of Hamas's leaders near Gaza City. The IDF says the apartment was part of a long, branching tunnel network used by senior Hamas officials that was built to allow people to remain inside for long periods of time. Joining now live from Tel Aviv is Jay Gray. Jay, what is the latest on the ground inside Gaza, and where do we see the IDF focusing their efforts?

Yeah, and right now the IDF continuing intense fighting on the ground in densely populated urban areas. The hardest hit today, Han Yunus, where entire neighborhoods were leveled both by fighters on the ground as well as airstrikes. And the IDF saying that they are, and I'm quoting here, carrying out major operations for a prolonged period until all targets are met. So clearly they have ramped up the fighting and Han Yunus taking a brunt of that right now.

There's also been an object of activity along the border of Israel and Lebanon. I know there's always this concern of an escalation of the conflict. What is the situation like there? Yeah, no, there has been escalated fighting over the last couple of weeks there.

And you're right, a lot of concerns are not only here in Israel, but globally that this could become a second front in this war. The IDF says that over the last two days they have carried out major strikes there using fighter jets, tanks and ground troops saying they are targeting some of the Hezbollah missile launch sites and other military assets. And say they're trying to push some of those Hezbollah fighters away from the border. But we haven't seen a decrease in missiles going both ways for several days there, right?

And finally, the International Court of Justice announced that South Africa has filed a case against Israel. What more do we know about that? And how is Israel responding? Yeah, South Africa is saying that they are gravely concerned for civilians in Gaza and Israel not holding back at all.

The Foreign Ministry posting on social media that, quote, rejects with disgust to the filing and that the argument lacks a factual and legal basis calling it a vile and cheap exploitation of the International Court. All right, Jay, great. Live and Tel Aviv, thank you for that report. We appreciate it.

Up next, law and disorder on the border. Where Live in Texas, where Republican Governor Greg Abbott is facing a new legal threat from the Biden administration over border policies. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.

The fight for which party will control Congress after the 2024 elections isn't just about the issues or the candidates. It's also about the districts. Earlier this year, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering does not violate the state constitution, clearing the way for the Republican led legislature to redraw the maps. Nationally, the gerrymandered will help Republicans slip several seats in Congress, but the maps changed on the state level, too.

NBC's Gary Grumbock, who met with a Democrat who's knowingly running an extremely long shot race. Kate Compton Bar is a mom, a behavioral scientist, and a self-described loser in politics. We are super excited to run for Senate District 37 in North Carolina to be the senator for this district, but also that I will absolutely not win it. Bar, a Democrat who lives in Davidson, North Carolina, decided to run for state Senate after seeing the impacts of Republican gerrymandering on her hometown.

Her previously safe blue district now likely to be controlled by Republicans. They drew the district lines to ensure that they could maintain as much political power as possible with as little competition as possible. With the odds against her, Bar is running with a slogan, Clear Eyes, Full Heart, Can't Win. Voters deserve a choice.

We have been gerrymandered out of having a choice about who can represent us, but we still need to have two names on a ballot. Otherwise, when you show up to vote, all you have is one person. She's running an unusual campaign. You're not asking anybody to donate?

No. You don't want their money? No. If you send me your money, and I can spend it on something, sure, but I also will donate it to campaigns where people can win.

I don't need the money. The whole point of this is to get the message out that voters deserve a choice, and competition is good for democracy. Her Republican opponent, incumbent state Senator Vicki Sawyer, telling NBC News in a statement, shifting the blame to the so-called gerrymandered districts, is just another attempt to divert the public's attention away from the problem with the Democratic Party connecting to communities outside of big cities. Dr.

Michael Bitzer, an author and professor of politics at Catawba College, says it's not just District 37. I think it is certainly one of the most advantaged Republican maps that we've seen in some time. Bitzer says this is an example of why elections matter at every level. It is, indeed, to the vicar goes to the spoils and the opportunity to draw these districts based on where people have already sorted themselves is very much within the gameplay of.

We want power. We want to control political power. This is the best way to do it. But a federal lawsuit filed by the North Carolina NAACP this month alleges not just partisan gerrymandering going on across the state, but racial gerrymandering, too.

People are losing their vote because they are black in this state. It's nothing new. Some people within this country do not wish to recognize and validate the black vote to be what it is. The lawsuit alleges the Republican controlled legislature redrew the districts, quote, for the very purpose of diluting and diminishing the voting power of North Carolina's black voters.

While this lawsuit will impact the maps in the 2024 election, the North Carolina NAACP argues the maps should be redrawn ahead of the 2026 midterms. NBC News has reached out to the Republican state lawmakers named in this lawsuit and have not heard back. Back in Davidson, Barr says this whole experience has been a learning opportunity for her children. To see what it's like to show up and work hard and do something purely for the principal of the thing.

So what if you win? I love that hypothetical. Oh, so much. And I certainly wish that I could represent this district.

It won't happen. And Gary Gromback was talking more about this. It's just fascinating that someone could put themselves out there in no definitive. They've got no shot at winning.

And you outline how it could impact the state races their next year, but they also have very crucial national house races. What will the impact be there? Yeah, there are 14 house races in North Carolina House districts in North Carolina. Seven of them are currently held at Republicans, three Democrats already said in the house.

They are not going to run for reelection. That's Wiley, Nicole, Jeff Jackson and Kathy Manning. Jeff Jackson actually said he's now going to run for State Attorney General because he's still about to hold a left office and try to make a difference. And the NAACP lawsuit is out there.

I mean, we've seen lawsuits be successful, not be successful when it comes to these gerrymandering issues. How could that change the map if the general is expected to keep a Republican majority with this current district map? Could Republican legislators just draw another map if they're even if this lawsuit is successful? That's sort of the problem here, right?

That absolutely could happen in the past both parties. I've been doing this in 2010. Democrats certainly did this as well. But there is something sort of a little bit of irony involved in all of this as well.

In 1990, the state senator in North Carolina by the name of Roy Cooper was a big player in making sure that the governor did not have veto power over the redistricting in North Carolina. And I'm sure Governor Roy Cooper right now, sure, wishes he could take that back. Right, being the Democrat in that situation. How do voters feel about this?

One of the things I've always found fascinating being a political reporter is how uninformed voters. And this isn't their fault. It seems to be about gerrymandering. They don't seem to understand how it impacts.

I will tell you, we did a little bit of man on the street in Davidson after we had these interviews. Everyone was aware of the gerrymandering. Everyone we talked to was fired up about it. They said they want independent commission to be able to get out there and have maybe three Republicans, three Democrats on it, to make these decisions not elected officials.

Right. It seems like it would be so simple. But every state of the country has tried it and very few have been successful. Great report, Gary.

Thank you for bringing it to us. We appreciate it. And turning now to the situation on the southern border as the Department of Justice threatens to ramp up its ongoing legal battle with Texas Governor Greg Abbott over the state's border policies. Yesterday, the DOJ announced it would sue Texas if a new law goes into effect that gives local and state law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants they suspected legally crossing the border.

It's already a federal crime, though, enforced by immigration officers. A spokesperson for Governor Abbott responded to the DOJ threat today telling NBC News, quote, Texas is prepared to take this fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Texans and Americans from President Biden's open border policies. And he sees Morgan Chesky joins me now with more on the ongoing border fights or Morgan, the DOJ threatening to sue Texas again over the state's border policies this time over that law that allows the state local police to arrest migrants.

What could come next? That is a very good question, Ryan. We do know that this law wasn't set to take effect until March of 2024. But with that deadline given by the DOJ of January 3, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the court system on Greg Abbott's personal Twitter feed.

In addition to that spokesman response, he said that he's never seen such hostility to the rule of law in America, adding that President Biden is destroying America. That was in response to this recent news. And it really echoes what we've seen with past installations by Greg Abbott, that thousand foot long border buoy that was in the middle of the Rio Grande that court ruled against. In addition to the state installed concertina barbed wire along the banks of the Rio Grande, that right now is in the appeals process trying to decide if border patrol agents do in fact have the right to cut through it to save and or reach migrants there.

Greg Abbott saying that it is Texas's absolute right to defend itself along its border. And of course, we're hearing that the DOJ saying that when it comes to those borders, it is theirs. So as for what comes next, it will be very interesting, but likely very similar to the arguments we've seen from the state of Texas to the federal government over the last several months, Ryan. And of course, and you reported extensively on the effort by American officials that they were in Mexico this week talking to the president of Mexico about what Mexico can do about the situation and we've already started to see some action there, the Mexican authorities yesterday clearing the border camp there yesterday.

Is this something that was part of those discussions between the two sides? Is this the results of those talks already in action? That it certainly should be perceived as that way because both sides called this closed door meeting productive and a successful meeting in Mexico City between that U.S. delegation led by Secretary of State Blinken and Mexico's president.

As for whether or not this particular camp in Matamoras, Mexico, just across the border from Brownsville was a result of that. We don't know explicitly, but we do know that Mexico did pledge to do several things and one of which being cracking down on the smuggling trade. Another adding enforcement along the border, Matamoras is about as close to the border as you can get as a city, and we do know that migrants were congregating there. The camp official numbers vary from the hundreds to the thousands, but I think that this could be a sign of things to come with these two countries both agreeing that from a numbers standpoint, with the all-time daily record broken last week, 12,000 migrants crossing a single day, it's unsustainable, and they could both agree on that.

And with this upcoming January 24 meeting, again, with Mexico and U.S. leaders, it will be very interesting to see what moves come next as well in trying to mitigate this ongoing migrant search. Alright, Morgan Chesky, we appreciate it. Thank you so much.

And turning down to Ohio, the Republican governor of their month of wine has vetoed a Republican-backed bill that would abandon gender affirming health care for transgender children. The bill passed on party lines, also would have blocked transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports. The governor's decision to break with his party on this divisive issue comes in a wave of anti-trans legislation with more than 20 states banning or restricting gender affirming care for minors. These are gut-wrenching decisions that should be made by parents and should be informed by teams of doctors who are advising them.

Were I to sign House Bill 68? Or were House Bill 68 to become law? Ohio would be saying that the state, that the government, knows better what is medically best for a child than the two people who love that child the most, the parents. Therefore, I cannot sign this bill, as is currently written.

Now Republicans do hold enough seats to override Governor DeWine's veto, although it's unclear if they plan to do so. And after the break, the countdown is on. You are looking live at Times Square, where security officials are expecting a million people to gather for the New Year's Eve celebrations. Where will they all go to the bathroom?

It's always a problem down there. What law enforcement officials there and all on the country are watching ahead of the big night. You're watching me to press now. Welcome back.

Preparations for New Year's Eve celebrations are underway in major cities as local law enforcement braces for tens of thousands of party girls. And people who may want to interrupt the festivities. The heightened concern comes after clashes between police and protestine protesters in recent weeks, including the arrest of multiple protesters on Christmas Day in New York City. The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have also warned about the potential for lone actor threats.

NBC News correspondent Antonio Hilton has more on the preparations. So, Antonio, what kind of threats are the New Year's celebrations, the planners of these celebrations concerned about, and how is law enforcement preparing them? Hey Ryan, well anyone who's planning to party here in New York City is going to see an increased police security presence here. Already, there are fences up, there are police officers on horseback, and they're going to have a security perimeter that stretches for several avenues here.

And this is because of the two factors, the two issues that you sort of alluded to right there. The first is the very high likelihood that there are going to be protests. That's because we've seen hundreds of protests in New York City in connection to the war. Since October 7th, six people were arrested just in front of Rockefeller Center the other day in connection to all of these protests.

And so, the mayor thinks there's really no question about whether that's going to happen. It's really a question for law enforcement about how they're going to protect people and make sure people are still able to enjoy the night. But the more frightening and harder to plan for concern is that possibility of lone actor, lone wolf-style violence. Remember, last year a man drove from Maine here to New York City and attacked three police officers with a machete.

And so it's that kind of thing that officers are going to be tracking both in uniform, in plain clothes, with drones, with helicopters, with boats out on the water here in New York. Take a listen to the mayor himself describing what all this is going to be like. You break the law, you're going to have to deal with the New York City police department. They did an amazing job during the tree lighting with individuals trying to disrupt the tree lighting.

They executed a well-thought-out plan and they're going to do so this time as well. People are going to come here, bring in a new year, and join themselves in a safe way. And those who want to peacefully protest, they have the right to do so. But you're not going to do it at the expense of disrupting those who come in here to peacefully bring in a new year.

And the important thing to know is that there is a difference between a heightened threat level and an active or credible confirmed threat. We do not have one of those right now. And so that means the party can still go on. People are already here, frankly, getting ready for Sunday.

But be smart. Don't carry big bags. Don't bring umbrellas. And be safe.

Okay, Antonio Hilton, thank you so much. Still to come, what if King Edward had never advocated? Or what if Senator Mitch McConnell had voted to convict President Trump in the Second Impeachment Trial? Or anyone meet the press?

What if tradition is next? You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back here at Meet the Press. We are always working to bring the viewers historical context behind a news event.

But sometimes it's fun to look at the way our history could have changed if just one thing had gone differently. What if Supreme Court Justice Scalia didn't die? What if Senator Mitch McConnell voted to convict Donald Trump during his impeachment trial? Those are just some of the questions explored by NBC's chief political analyst Chuck Todd in his annual alternative history episodes of his podcast, The Chuck Toddcast.

Recently, Chuck sat down with Kristen Welker to talk about the series and why it's been so successful. Let's talk about your podcast, which has now gotten a bit of a cult following, basically. Why do you think that is? Why do you think this appeals to so many people?

Well, I think, look, I think, you know, to the curious mind, right? When you learn history, you see these moments and there's always these butterfly effects moments where, oh my goodness, if not for this one moment, then X might have happened instead of this. And I've always been kind of curious about it. And then I sort of became more fascinated with it about three years ago.

We did a 20th anniversary podcast series on the Florida, on the disputed Florida election in 2000. And I got obsessed with one specific issue. And that was the certification. The reason they stopped the recount is because the Secretary of State certified the election.

It was Republican Secretary of State. Well, two years earlier had been the campaign for that office for Secretary of State. But for like a lot of odd things, the Democrat was more likely to have won that office. But there was sort of two weird things happen.

It was sort of like, if a butterfly flaps its wings, right? And we might have had a tiny different outcome to the 2000 recount. The point is, at that moment, I realized, wow, there's a ton of these butterfly effect moments in history. Wouldn't it be fun to start to do a bunch of them?

It's such a fascinating way to approach and to go back and to think about history and these historic events that have shaped our country, our lives, the world in which we live. I know there are a lot of them that you've explored, but is there one that you think has carried the most weight that most changed the world today in which we live? Well, look, the one that we've explored that's probably the scariest scenario for me is the abdication of King Edward, which of course, because he abdicated you've got Queen Elizabeth. Why does that matter?

Well, King Edward had some Nazi sympathies. It's very possible that he stayed. Great Britain doesn't go on the side of fighting the Nazis, and Western Europe doesn't necessarily unify. I mean, I remember exploring that one.

That was one of those eye-opening moments. You're like, boy, I don't remember going nearly remembering that path down history. But we think about the royal family, frankly, as just our grown-up soap opera. But here was a real moment that could have had real impact.

And I'll tell you this, Kristin, the thing that I think I'm most obsessed with lately is recent butterfly effects that we had. And in fact, the first year it all revolves around all things Donald Trump, which is a theme this year in my podcast series. But like the very first one we explored was had Antonin Scalia lived. The 2016 election, I convinced would have gone another way.

But for that one incident that happened, that election year. It's actually breathtaking when you think about it, when you think about how Europe would have been different had not abdicated, particularly given everything that we're witnessing right now. Another one that was so fascinating, Chuck, you were joined by former Congressman Fred Upton. And you thought about a world where McConnell voted to convict Trump.

What was your big takeaway with that one? Well, the big takeaway, Donald Trump, if he votes McConnell votes to convict. There would have been sick, you know, there would have gotten 17 Republicans. There's no doubt in Fred Upton and I go through this.

There's no doubt this divides the party in two. We don't pretend that Donald Trump easily goes away. But he's barred from running for office. Now, it doesn't mean he wouldn't want his own retribution.

It doesn't mean he wouldn't be shaping the party. And it probably means 2022 is even worse for the Republicans. But the big takeaway is sort of how much of a stronger position the Republican party would be in right at this moment. And in fact, he believes Ron DeSantis would be sort of in a George W.

Bush-like position, almost not even Ronald Reagan 80, that it would be that kind of strength that DeSantis would have in sort of uniting a party that certainly would have elements. And he speculated that DeSantis would be more pro-Trump and Trump would be more embracing of him because he would be technically barred from running. So that was a world that we explored there on that one. It's actually a theme of this year's series, because we also explore a world where Bridgegate doesn't happen for Chris Christie, which could very well have meant Donald Trump never runs for president in 2016.

And it's Chris Christie, who defeats Hillary Clinton in 2016. Wow, that's fascinating, particularly given that that is something that has followed him, not just in the 2016 race, but you're absolutely right in this presidential race as well. Chuck, give us a quick preview. In addition to what you just said, what else can folks look forward to in this new year?

Well, we had a little fun also going back a ways doing what if John Lennon had lived, what would that have meant for the Beatles? What would that have meant in their activism? How big of a role could John Lennon have done as a peacemaker? What if Gorbachev had not been a coup?

And he had held the Soviet Union together and successfully transitioned the entire entity to a democracy? Where would we be today? Ukraine might be an independent state of the Soviet Union, but it might be a full-on democracy. What would life be like on that front?

And then I had a little bit of fun with football conferences. What if 1991, what if we all just went back to where football conferences were aligned in 1991? We would have a wonderful eight-game playoff, eight major conferences. The winner of all would be there for wild cards.

And more parts of the country could participate in this lovely world that is competitive college football. Well, I love that you include football and sports as well. Chuck, I'm your biggest fan, but my husband is your second biggest fan. Listen to every single podcast you do, so you give us a lot to talk about at home.

And I know he is among those really excited for what's coming up ahead. Thank you so much. Great to be with you. Thanks, Kristen.

And that does it for us this hour. And this year, we'll be back Monday, though, with more Meet the Press now. And if it's not a, it's a special edition of Meet the Press on your local NBC News station. And before I hand it over to my colleagues at Hallie Jackson now, the entire Meet the Press family would like to wish you and your family a happy and healthy new year.

The day wraps up at the Scoop on What's Been Happening. With Here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News. With me, your host, Jasmine Vesugio. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist.

It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. On the front page, here's the Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music.