Meet the Press  NOW — December 5

If it's Tuesday, a deal for emergency aid to Israel and Ukraine is in jeopardy with talks derailed by a domestic crisis at the southern border. My interview with the top sender at the center of the negotiations ahead. Plus, Israeli forces push deeper into southern Gaza than what the IDF is calling its most intense day since the ground offensive started. As when officials warn of a quote, hellish scenario for civilians caught in the crossfire.

And smaller stage, bigger risk. Four Republican candidates are set to face off in the fourth Republican primary debate. With less than six weeks to go until the first votes are cast and a whole lot of ground to make up on the front runner, Donald Trump. Hello and welcome to Meet the Press.

Now I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington where there is a flurry of virgin meetings happening on Capitol Hill as lawmaker over billions in emergency aid tied to Israel and Ukraine. With negotiations over the border and immigration policy now threatening to derail everything. Here's where we stand. The White House has told Congress they're on a clock warning that without action, USA to Ukraine will run out by the end of this year.

The Biden administration wants aid to Israel and Ukraine tied together along with funding for Taiwan and the southern border in the hopes that linking all four of these security priorities together would push the emergency funding request over the finish line. But the Republican House Speaker, Mike Johnson is doubling down with a warning of his own that the House will not take up Ukraine funding without, quote, transformative change to the US Border policy. That's like the bill conservative Republicans passed earlier this year dubbed HR2. It is unconscionable to me that the White House will continue its current policies and not enforce our federal law.

We passed HR2 as a top priority Republicans six months ago. When we go home to our town halls, they ask this very important question. How we be engaged in securing the border of foreign countries if we can't secure our own? And that is a question the White House has to help us answer.

I've told this to the leaders in the Senate, I've talked to the White House and I'll say it's a blue in the face. We are committed to that. The battle is for the border. Now, the problem is that this package of conservative policies, which includes funding for a border wall and asylum restrictions, is a poison pill in the Senate.

Senate Democrats know that. And so if you Senate Republicans, it's not clear to me that HR2 is necessarily the best way to go about reducing future flows. It is a House Republicans didn't get a Single Democrat on HR2 and they're asking us to get 20 on our side. Okay, that's not realistic.

Now this comes as weeks of bipartisan Senate negotiations on immigration tied to this funding deal appeared headed in the wrong direction. Republican Senator John Cornyn told NBC News that Democrats had no choice. No border restrictions then, no money for Ukraine or Israel. I think there's a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Schumer and some of our Democratic friends.

This is not a traditional negotiation where we expect her to come up with bipartisan compromise on the border. This is a price that has to be paid in order to get the supplemental. Why are we sitting down and talking if there's never going to be a compromise? What that Republican senator said, Mr.

President, is the textbook definition of hostage taking. In an attempt to break through the political logjam, top Biden officials, including Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin were on the Hill today briefing House and Senate lawmakers on the urgent nature of the national security supplemental request. That dire call was going to be punctuated by a personal appeal by Ukrainian President Zelensky, but he wasn't able to make it due to a last minute matter, according to Senate leadership. Joining me now is Sahil Kapoor.

He's on Capitol Hill. So, Sahil, where do things stand right now? We know that some of these senators are emerging from this briefing the real possibility that Ukraine aid will run dry or will the pressure of the moment force Democrats into an uncomfortable position? It's a very real possibility that Ukraine aid simply fails, Ryan.

That is what the Senate is staring down at the moment. Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, has indicated that tomorrow he'll move to a procedural vote to advance President Biden's entire $106 billion security supplemental that includes assistance to Israel, to Ukraine, to Taiwan, as well as border funding. Republicans have threatened to filibuster that entire package without sufficient immigration restrictions, specifically on asylum and parole. And this is where negotiations have not been going well.

There's been more progress on the asylum. From the point of the sources I'm talking to, Democrats have been willing to move somewhat in the direction of tight restrictions, even putting the so called credible fear standard on the table, raising that which is something that many of their own members of their base immigration activists oppose. Nevertheless, they have been willing to do that where things are stuck. I told this issue of parole.

Republicans want major restrictions on the president's ability to grant humanitarian parole, you know, cases of refugees. And of course, this initiative bedeviled Congress and presidents of both parties for several decades now. It's not happening in a hurry and the negotiators are not making enough progress. So the bill is likely to get filibustered tomorrow.

And then there'll be a big question for not only Democrats but also the Republicans in the Senate to make are they going to be able to somehow reach the negotiations or does this entire package fall away? You know, it's at a time where we see the Biden administration kind of re engaging on this topic. A number of cabinet level officials there today. We saw the letter from earlier in the week.

Did Democrats on the Hill feel that the White House is engaged enough in these negotiations or would they be better off without President Biden and his team being part of that? Some do, some don't. Ryan, there's no clear consensus on whether the White House needs to get involved. There's a brand of lawmaker, as you well know, that prefer Congress figured out themselves when it comes to these things.

There are others who say, well, the current situation isn't working. Maybe the president does need to step in. But you know, appeals to Republicans on the issue of Ukraine aid are not likely to be particularly effective because a number of proponents of Ukraine aid are promising to fill up this whole thing. They've become wedded to this idea that has to be tied to border policy.

That includes Mitch McConnell, the second minority leader, a strong proponent of Ukraine in support of Ukraine, includes Senator Mitt Romney, the Utah Republican who's also a strong supporter of Ukraine aid. They've accepted the general consensus within their party that they won't vote to move forward with it unless Democrats make major concessions on the border. And that sound you display from Cornyn from the conversation I had with him that kind of describes this theoretical, this imbalance in negotiations which is annoying some Democrats. Republicans see this not as a given.

They think it only gives Ukraine aid on immigration, they only get to take, whereas democracy does this give and take on immigration, where they want to come up with some bipartisan compromise of ideas that both parties can support. That fundamental disagreement on what they're even negotiating has been a big reason that this is stuck. Finally, I will mention Chris Murphy, lead Democratic negotiator, asking what's at stake and all this if Ukraine fails. And his response, the fate of the world.

We're going to talk to Chris Murphy in a little bit and we'll have him expand on that comment, too. Thank you so much for being here. He is, of course, one of the lead negotiators in those bipartisan talks on border policy. Later this hour, Senator Chris Murphy will Join me straight ahead.

But let's turn now to the situation on the ground in Gaza. As Israel says today was one of the most intense days of fighting yet and that they've encircled the Gaza Strip's second largest city. The Israeli military says it's pushing deeper into the heart of the southern city of Khan Yunis as, quote, closer quarter, face to face. Fighting continues in the north.

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the offensive in a press conference earlier today. Our troops are expanding their ground operations against Hamas everywhere in the Gaza Strip, including the south of the strip. I once again call upon the civilian population in Gaza to leave the combat area, the war zone with Hamas. And I'm saying from here to our friends in the world who are pressuring us to speedily put an end to this war.

The only way to end this war and to end it quickly is to use overwhelming power against Hamas and to completely obliterate. The UN says hundreds of thousands are under evacuation orders in Gaza, including many facing secondary displacement after fleeing the north. Humanitarian organizations say there's nowhere left to go in Gaza. A trickling in is only reaching limited areas in the south, according to the United nations, which warns a, quote, an even more hellish scenario is about to unfold.

Meanwhile, we're learning more about the experiences of the recently freed hostages and what they had to endure as several of those released by Hamas activity along with family members met with Israeli security cabinet today. The Hostage and Missing Families forum share details from the meeting, including one former hostage who told the candidate cabin, I should say, quote, I thought I was going to die. I want it to be shot. 137 hostages remain in Gaza.

Joining me now from Tel Aviv, smbc Halani. The fighting on the ground is intensifying. What is the latest on the ground right now militarily and what's the humanitarian situation like in Gaza now? Well, you laid it out quite clearly there when I'll start with the humanitarian situation because you mentioned about hundreds of thousands of people under evacuation orders in the southern part of the strip.

According to the United nations, it's between 6 and 700,000 people under evacuation orders and about a quarter million of those are doubly displaced. So they have moved already from the north to the south. And as you mentioned, humanitarian organizations are saying there really doesn't seem to be any safe place to go in the Gaza Strip anymore. And just for our viewers, 6, 700,000 people is about the population of Washington, D.C.

so you can imagine how difficult it would be to take that number of people, and time and again, ask them, based on a very segmented grid map of the Gaza Strip, ask them time and again to move from one tiny corner of the Gaza Strip to another, especially when there are routine communication blackouts and many people are unable to consult these interactive maps that the IDF is putting out. Now, militarily, the Israeli military, as you mentioned, is deep into Khan Yunus with ground troops, but shelling has continued. Aerial bombardments have continued. They've also encircled, according to the idf, the Jabalya refugee camp, which is in the north, and there is very much at that in those parts of the strip, active combat between IDF soldiers and Hamas militants on the ground.

There is still, of course, this outstanding question of the tunnels. But what's important to note is that today, for instance, in Tel Aviv, we had air raid sirens. Hamas, even though it's been eight weeks of intense aerial bombardments and now a ground incursion to the Gaza Strip, are still very much able to launch rockets far from the Gaza border as far as Tel Aviv, which is something we experienced just a few hours ago. Ryan.

Now, several of these race hostages, as we pointed out, met today with Israel's security cabinet this afternoon. What would we know about that meeting and what they told the cabinet members? So Benjamin Netanyahu is deeply unpopular, as many of our viewers know. Now, 80% of Israelis and some of the latest polling want him to go.

And what is going on now when it comes to the hostages families is they're putting a lot of pressure on the cabinet saying, look, the priority should be releasing the hostages and our loved ones, and it should not be be obliterating Hamas at this stage that perhaps the priorities as far as these hostages families are concerned are inverted. One of the hostage family members came even with an hourglass saying to Benjamin Netanyahu, you are running out of time. Right. Thank you so much for that.

We appreciate it. Let's bring in now the retired force, our General Joseph Patel. He was the former commander of the U.S. special Operations Command and Central Command.

He's now a distinguished senior fellow on National Security at the Middle East Institute. General, the Israel Israeli military is now operating on the ground deep into densely populated portions of the Gaza Strip. The idf, sorry, call it the toughest day yet. Explain to us a little bit about how difficult urban warfare is, the conditions they're facing, and could it just get more difficult from here on out?

Well, thanks for all. It's great to be with you. Yeah, certainly this is the most challenging environment any military force confined itself operating and We've talked for several weeks now about the three dimensional battlefield that is subterranean on the surface, and of course, you know, the elevated aspects of urban terrain. Of course, there's a lot of debris, there's obstacle streets, there's improvised explosive devices.

In my experience, what we often found was that these very dense urban areas could just eat up units, meaning that it consumes them. You end up putting a lot of, a lot of troops into small areas because they've got to clear it, they got a hold of. It's very time intensive, it's very troop intensive. And then of course, once you clear to this, you have to hold it.

So this could be any more difficult than any other areas that I've certainly not ever operated in the most military forces. Obviously there has been a tremendous toll of humanitarian loss of life in the Gaza Strip as a result of this continued conflict. And I want to play for you when an IDF spokesperson said about the reports that two civilians have been killed for every Hamas fighter, listen to what he had to say. I can confirm the report and I can say that if that is true, and I think that our numbers will be corroborated.

If you compare that ratio to any other conflict in urban terrain between a military and a terrorist organization using civilians as their human shield and embedded in the civilian population, you will find that that ratio is tremendous, tremendously positive and perhaps unique in the world. Is he right, General? Are they actually doing well as it relates to protecting the humanitarian population there? If two humanitarian or two civilians, I should say, are killed for every Hamas fighter?

Yeah, well, you know, they're certainly beginning to do some things that are important to do. The issuance of the crude map, the communications, the leaflets, things like that are all things that are very helpful in terms of communicating to the civilian population. You know, in terms of the numbers. I, I'm not sure I subscribe to that theory right there.

My own experience in Mosul and a variety of other places where we operate in our campaign against ISIS would not necessarily support that. And while we, while we had civilian casualties that were caused by our enablement of our partners in Iraq or Syria, they certainly weren't at a, weren't at a ratio of 2 to 1 for terrorist fighters. So I'm not sure where all that came from. To me, that would not be acceptable accept situation or a sustainable situation.

To your point about sustainability, and you know, they are attempting to try and help civilians out of the situation, but there really aren't too many places for them to go given how densely populated and how confined this area is. At what point does Israel need to really take into account that there's really just nowhere for these civilians to flee if this campaign continues? Well, you know, I think the point here is that this is a lesson that we learned throughout our experiences that military operations have to be planned in accordance with and alongside the humanitarian community. We had the ability to do that in Iraq.

We learned that lesson and I think we did a pretty good job. We were perfect, but we certainly did better. So it's got to take place early. It's not too late for Israel to do that, to reach out, to try to deconflict their operations with humanitarian corridors, with assembly locations and to and to make sure that the communication to civilians so they can actually minimize this horrid situation here.

That is that's been visited upon and not only to the military operation, but certainly by Hamas. Okay. Well, General, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it.

Coming up, we'll head back to Capitol Hill as leaders from the nation's top universities testify before Congress about confronting the rise of anti Semitism on college campuses plus impeachment politics. I'm going to talk live to Congressman James Comer, the chair of the House over second committee as House Republicans prepare a vote to formally open impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Is the evidence support one. That interview is ahead.

You're WATCHING ME the press now. Welcome back. It has been an extremely busy day on Capitol Hill, to say the least. The presidents of three prestigious universities, Harvard, Penn and MIT testified before the House of the Surgeon antisemitism on college campuses nationw since the start of the Israel Hamas war.

It comes as a new survey by the ADL and Hillel International found that 73% of college students say that they've experienced or witnessed some form of anti Semitism during the school year. Also on the Hill today, FBI Director Christopher Wray, meanwhile, gave this stark assessment of the threats facing this country during his testimony before the Senate Oversight Committee. What I would say that is unique about the environment that we're in right now in my career is that while there may have been times over the years where individual threats could have been higher here or there than where they might be right now. I've never seen a time where all the threats or so many of the threats are all elevated, all at exactly the same time.

In another major development, the Senate Republican Tommy Tuberville of Alabama announced today that he's lifting his hold on all military promotions for three stars. And below, Tuberville had been blocking those nominations for months over the Pentagon's abortion policy. My colleague Scott Wong joins now from the Hill. So, Scott, crazy day for us out there today.

Let's first talk about Tommy Tuberville's decision, which did come as a bit of a surprise. What led to all this and his decision to finally lift these holes? Well, Ryan, I think he saw the writing on the wall, right. He was increasingly becoming a man on an island unto himself.

And so, you know, he saw that Senate Republicans, a number of them, were prepared to work hand in hand with Senate Democrats in the majority in order to change the rules to do an end run around him. And that would have, you know, that would have made his holds a moot point. And so I think Tuberville saw what was happening, decided to try to get out in front of this. He did concede that this was a loss.

Let's hear from Tuberville in his own words. Ryan, do you have any regrets that you didn't achieve exactly what you set out to do that you still miss? Yeah, it was pretty much a draw to me. They didn't get what they wanted.

We didn't get what we wanted. And, you know, when they want to change the rules, it's hard to win. And so they change the NDA rules. We didn't get to fight for it, to leave it to Senate.

And so just unfortunate American people didn't get a voice. And Ryan, the opposition within his own party was coming from all corners, from presidential candidates like Nikki Haley to GOP leadership, including Mitch McConnell, as well as some of his House Republican colleagues over on this side of the Capitol. And so he was isolated and, you know, backed into a corner. Didn't really have any other choice.

Right. And as a football coach, I was looking for football analogies. He called the changes to the potential rules, like as if football had a fifth down, which I know that's exactly the right analogy, but that's how coach speaks. Let's move on.

Now talk about the FBI director, Christopher Wray. He called on Congress today to renew section 702 of the FISA laws. What was the big takeaway from that hearing? Mainly the director coming before the United States Senate and saying, look, you know, really beseeching them, saying it would be devastating for Congress not to reauthorize these key surveillance authorities that he said would allow, you know, that do allow now for the FBI and other law enforcement to protect Americans.

He said that he is seeing increasing threats that they are trying to get out in front of any potential threats that are Inspired by Hamas, the Hamas attack on Israel. And he pointed to Iran as the biggest sponsor, state sponsor of terrorism in the world, saying that the FBI and law enforcement have thwarted a number of assassination attempts, kidnapping attempts on American soil in places like New York City even. Right. And so uh, really a stern warning from the FBI director to, to Congress to get their act together and try to pass these reauthorization of this key surveillance law.

Okay. Scott Wong, thank you for that report on Capital Hill. We appreciate it. And coming up next, my one on one interview with Senator Chris Murphy who just got out of this closed door classified briefing on Ukraine as foreign for Kyiv and Israel hangs in the balance.

You're watching Beat the Press now. And welcome back. As we reported at the top of the hour, 4:18, Ukraine and Israel is on hold as negotiations around border policy stall in the Senate. So far today, senators have not returned to the bargaining table as both sides lob accusations of stonewalling.

And just moments ago attention spilled over into the all Senate briefing on Ukraine. But Senator Kramer telling MC News a group of Republicans walked out of the briefing after they tried to bring border funding into the discussion. I'm joined now by someone in that room. Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, of course serves as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee and is one of the lead negotiators as it comes to this talk about border policy.

So first, Senator, just give us an idea of exactly what happened in this briefing. Why did a certain group of Republicans walk out? Well, this is a classified briefing, so we're not actually supposed to talk about what happens in classified briefings. I'm not a big fan of political theater.

What I saw inside that briefing looked like an exercise in political theater. Listen, here's the problem. Ukraine is going to lose this war to Russia. Kyiv will be a Russian city.

Putin will have a green light to march on NATO and Europe if we don't support Ukraine and fight Putin at this incredible important moment. Republicans have decided that they are going to demand that an issue totally unrelated to Ukraine immigration get solved before they save the world from Putin's aggression. Now I have a lot of personal priorities I'd like to see solved as well. I could demand that unless Republicans saw the gun violence epidemic in this country, that I'm not gonna vote for Ukraine aid.

I don't do that because I know the only place that we, the only way we make this place work is by taking one issue at a time. And support for our allies abroad is of critical importance right Now. So until Republicans start being reasonable about their demands on border policy, then Ukraine's funding and the security of the world is at risk. All right, we'll talk about where the negotiations stand right now.

Do you see an opening for you to get together with Republican colleagues and have substantive conversations, or is the situation. Is there too much tension right now for there to be any progress? Well, I still remain hopeful that we'll be able to come to an agreement, but it has to be a bipartisan agreement. Yesterday, several Republican senators suggested that they're not interested in negotiations, that Democrats need to simply meet their demands or they will cut Ukraine off and they will welcome Vladimir Putin into Europe.

That's not how compromise works. I have strong beliefs, but I also understand that I have to sit down the negotiating table and make a compromise. Republicans right now are not saying they're interested in compromise. They're interested in dictating the terms of the border changes to the country.

And frankly, their terms are not supported by the country right now. They're demanding that the entire border be shut down, that we hand the president enormous emergency powers that would be abused by presidents. That's not good for the country. That's not good for the legislative branch.

And I'm hopeful that we'll be able to get into an actual rational conversation about compromise. Okay, so tell me where you are willing to compromise. And I understand where you don't want to go, but where. Are there areas where you think that you could find common ground with Republicans and try and move something across the table?

Yeah, I don't negotiate through the sort of open channels of the press. We're having a private conversation with Republicans. I've expressed my frustration generally about the fact that they have not brought compromise proposals to the table. But what I think we can do is come to an agreement that results in far fewer people crossing the border who have illegitimate claims of asylum across.

Now, that's your goal, not to shut down the entire border to people who have legitimate asylum claims, people that are legitimately fleeing terror and torture. That's the best of the United States, being able to bring people to this country who are being saved from violence. But it is in our interest to reduce the number of people who are crossing who don't have legitimate claims, who are just coming here as economic migrants and don't want to go through the traditional pathways. That's the conversation that we can have if Republicans are open to it.

So should Democrats at this point, just put something on the table and essentially dare Republicans to vote against it? Well, we're running out of time. I mean, we can't let Republicans dictate the schedule of the Senate floor. And so, yes, we are putting a bill on the floor that can be the platform for these negotiations.

I hope the Republicans vote for it. They would still reserve their right to vote against the flag bill later on down the line. But we need to open debate on this National Security Emergency funding bill so that if we do come to an agreement on this border demand that Republicans have made unnecessarily, then we at least have a bill that's on the floor that we can add an amendment to. We're trying out time right now, so we need to get moving.

So you allude to this at the top of our. If I could get you to kind of go into a little bit more. Yesterday, the White House warned that resources could run out by the end of the year for Ukraine. Talk to me what you know and can share.

I know a lot of what you most classified about the current situation in Ukraine and the impact on Ukraine that this deal doesn't get done. So I think actually the White House warning was more dire than that. They said Ukraine will run out of funding from the United States. In fact, the administration has no additional money or authority to purchase weapons or systems for Ukraine.

Now, what they can do without congressional approval is to continue to give Ukraine U.S. weapons and U.S. weapon systems. But we've transferred so much of our own equipment to Ukraine already that we would compromise our own security if we continue that flow.

And that's what we absolutely cannot do. I will never support transfers of equipment to Ukraine if that compromises my own country's national security. What a NATO general said a few weeks ago is that the barrels of the Ukrainian guns are about to be empty. They're literally not gonna have ammunition to shoot at Russian troops if we don't get them additional funding by the end of the year.

That means for the next winter fighting season, Russia will be able to start winning territory back. And sometime next year, Russia could be in Kiev. Leave. That would be a global disaster.

That's the stakes of what we're talking about. And are you worried that if the United States doesn't step up with its funding that other countries have been supported could do the same? Well, that will be the consequence. There's no way that Europe can fund this fight on their own, in part because there are certain weapons or weapons systems only the United States possesses.

And so if we shut off Ukraine from US Funding and US Weapons expertise, then Europe will not be able to pick up the balance on their own. They will start to draw back from this fight. And once again, we will see Putin marching into Ukraine and also getting the green light that he can go into a NATO country, he can go into a country like Moldova and, you know, just keep the fight up for a year and a half. After a year and a half, the west will lose patience and hand that country to Putin.

And in Ukraine, if this is Ukraine's fight, if you're able to get agreement on the border, there are some of your Democrat colleagues that are concerned that there should be at least some conditions put on aid, maybe Israel and Ukraine, as opposed to giving them a blank check. Do you agree with that? Do you think that the administration should put conditions on that aid? Well, generally we put conditions on a that's sent to foreign countries.

At a minimum, we should always require that any money we send in allies being used in accordance with international law and with US Law. What I've said is that when it comes to Israel, I'm open to that conversation. I've been very clear that I think Israel needs to defeat Hamas, they need to knock out their military capabilities. But I've also been clear, I think the rate of civilian death inside Gaza has been far too high.

So I'm open to providing the same kind of conditionality on aid for Israel that we might require other countries not going beyond that. Okay. Senator Chris Murphy, a very busy day. So we appreciate you being here.

Thank you. And after the break. After the break, the White House is responding to the House Republicans effort to formalize a vote to launch an impeachment agreement of President Biden as soon as next week. Congressman James Comer chairs that committee leading the impeachment probe, joins me next.

You're watching with the press now. And welcome back. House Republican leadership now says they are targeting next week for a formal vote on launching an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Republicans have a three seat majority after the expulsion of George Santos, but Speaker Mitch Johnson says he believes that they have the votes.

Joining me now is Kentucky Republican Congressman James Corey, of course, the chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. And he's been leading the investigation into President Biden and his family. Thank you for joining me. Now why do you need to formally launch this impeachment inquiry now and are you opening it because you believe you have evidence at this point that President Biden's committed high crimes or misdemeanors, or is this more about the process because you can't get your hands on documents or compel your witnesses to appear.

Well, we'll say this is about process. Certainly the White House has obstructed us every step of the way. We got a letter from the Biden family attorney, Abby Lowell, implying he wouldn't come for depositions because this wasn't a legitimate impeachment inquiry, hadn't been certified by vote. So we're gonna bring it up for a vote, but we respect it.

Evidence. I think we've had evidence a long time that's very concerning to the American people. Evidence about President Biden's involvement in firing the Ukrainian prosecutor. Evidence about the Bidens taking millions of dollars from China, Uzbekistan, Russia for things that we really don't know what they did to receive the money.

So we have accumulated a lot of evidence. We followed the money, we've been very transparent with the press and American people about what we found. Now we're in the final stages and that includes depositions of all the key witnesses. All right, well, let's talk about the evidence that you collected and let's try to pinpoint exactly how you believe that that leads to articles of impeachment.

And we can't possibly address every claim, so we're gonna try and focus on one if we can. And that is the money that you've uncovered that has come from 100 Biden the president and has made it to Joe Biden himself. Now, in each one of these instances, there was a paper trail that demonstrates that these were interest free loans from the President to his son. So explaining how an interest free loan, which one could argue Joe Biden actually lost money on, an example of him being benefited from influence pedaling.

Well, you say there's evidence proving it's alone. I've never seen evidence that proves it's a loan. I prove a banking background. If I loan you $250,000 and then you pay me back $250,000, then I should have a check to you for $250,000.

Is that, am I wrong, sir? I'm sorry, but that is not true. You're not not providing factual information. You're providing talking points from the White House and the Biden legal team.

Look, it's very easy to prove a loan. What they have shown the press is, is not proof of a loan. Remember we released an email last year from a bank examiner that when they saw that 5 million dollar wire from China into what they called a dormant account of Hunter Biden's, they said it was an investment company with no investment and they needed to know what that $5 million wire was before they filed a suspicious activity report. They didn't want to file a report against the son of the Vice president of the United States.

He said what is this $5 million? And he said it's a loan. Remember, that's the thing that they've been saying. Okay, well we need the loan documentation for the bank.

You're talking about a completely separate issue here. Let's to the get back back to this issue of the loan. It's all the same they've been claiming. And so I want to give you the opportunity to make this case.

But we can't go to seven different issues when we're talking about this one specific issue. Provided evidence of because again, you have no evidence reflection of those reasons. So, sir, there were the checks of $40,000 check the $200,000 check that came from the president's son and into the president's bank account. There's also subsequent bank records which were provided through the committee that demonstrate that there were also pieces of information that went from the president to the president's son.

So you're saying that information has been made up that. Where did that information come from? That came from. I don't know.

We haven't seen that information that's collected from the bank records that your committee has. Has Just show the check if Joe Biden rose. Are you telling me that you have a. Do you have a blank.

Do you have a cancel check for every wire transfer that's ever coming. We have with that wire that we. Yes, you can. I can show you.

And that's what has been shown is a. There is bank records that exact same amount of money. They're saying that something from. No, it's not.

I mean look, are you saying those bank records do not exist that show the money leaving the president? Is there a bank record that demonstrates the exact amount of money that came from the president's account into his son's account that matches the checks that then went back to. Yeah. Does that exist?

There's money coming from. No, no. There's money coming from. That doesn't exist, sir.

It does not exist. It's coming from a law firm. Who. Who put the money in the law firm?

How do you know the money came from Joe Biden? It could have come from one of Hunter shell companies. You have no idea. So you are saying that transfer doesn't tell.

You are also suggesting when you're making the same argument when you say any dime that comes from the president to. From. From the son of the president to the president. You've suggested any dime that comes to him comes from some Chinese company or Russian company.

You do not have specific evidence of where that money has made its way from each stage. We do. No. We have their bank record.

It's the same argument. The American people aren't buying what you're selling. All right? And that's why we have the vote for Fish.

But inquiry, the effort at which the mainstream media is trying to cover this up, it's not hard. I'm trying to get you to explain to me. Explain to me where your explanation for this comes from one stage to another. Let's move on to a different topic.

This is an evidence of influence pedaling because they would not have been able to pay the loan back where it alone had they not influenced. Pedal from China. And influence. Pedal that healthcare.

Let's talk about influence and the argument that you're making here. You're saying that Joe Biden, as a representative of the United States government, was able to influence his son's business practices to raise millions of dollars. But all this money that you're talking about being transferred from the president's son to the president. Well, is.

While he was not an elected leader of any kind, he wasn't the vice president and he wasn't the president. So explain to me how that rises to the level of impeachable offense. The money that Joe Biden received came while he was in the private sector between the vice president and the president. That is correct.

The money and the show companies were created while Joe Biden was vice president. So the money that the Biden. Much of the money the Biden's accumulated from the foreign nationals actually happened while joining? We didn't know that till this investigation.

We assumed it all happened in 2017 and 2018, but it goes back to 2014, so. So that's how we believe Joe Biden has some problems. And look, we honestly think that this. Where's the evidence that while he was vice president, he did anything to help facilitate the creation of these companies or help those companies in any way?

Well, he met with all the people. He took his son on Air Force Two a dozen times to meet with me of these foreign nationals. He had dinner at Cafe Milano. He had phone calls.

Do you have any evidence that the vice president was involved in any of those conversations with any of those business leaders where they substantively talk about business dealings? Well, I don't know what they talked about. We'll bring the president's son and the president's brother in to Asking those questions under deposition. That's why we need to bring him in for deposition.

But look, we have the President lied. He said he never talked to these people. We got pictures, we got emails, we got sworn testimony from Devon Archery. Okay, so my last question for you, sir, is at this stage, do you believe that you have the evidence to file articles of impeachment and do you think that other members of the Republican Party agree with you?

I think that at this stage we have more than enough evidence to continue with impeachment inquiry. My job as Chairman's committee was never to impeach. That's the Judiciary Committee. My job was to follow the money.

We followed the money. The media has changed the goal post so many times on what we had to find. You all said for, for months. Okay, find evidence where Joe Biden benefited directly from the influx planning scene.

We have seven transactions now that show that. And you say, oh, there's evidence it's a loan. It's not hard to prove alone. Again, if I loaned you $240,000, I should have a check or wire you.

What they are showing the press is, is a wire from a law firm. Who knows where the money went into the law firm. The law firm could easily dispel this. Okay, we got a check from Joe Biden somewhere Joe Biden should have a check to, right?

A lot of this is based on innuendo and suggestion. It's not based on hard evidence or. I think that's part of bank records. Don't lie from one to the other bank record publish.

Those bank records are available. It was a committee. It was part of yours. Appetizer.

You're the one that collected that information. I collect that information. You're 100 confident under oath you would testify that you know that $240,000 came from Joe Biden. You know that from Joe Biden's personal account.

Would you say it's not? I don't know. I don't know whether it was a loan or not. There's no evidence.

You're calling it an influence battling scheme and you don't even know definitively whether or not it's a loan. No, you don't. You look like a smart guy on tv. Listen, I'm a banker.

You know, I've been involved in the bank for a long time. The money that the Bidens paid Joe Biden back with came from influence. When they made the deposits, wrote the check the same day. They had like a $2,000 balance.

I think one account. They were overdrawn in and they, they deposited the same amount of money they wrote to Joe Biden. There's no question, I mean being paid back from a loan, I don't think there's a statute that says being paid back from loan. It doesn't matter if you take money from a drug dealer, if you loan money to a drug dealer and that drug dealer pays you back, sir, that's money that you sell drugs, then you're complicit.

That's where, that's where the gap though is. That's where And I'm, if you, if you can fill that gap, that's another thing. But that's I think where many of us continue raise questions. I've been asking you serious questions about this investigation that many people have had for a long time.

And sir, I'm sorry, we're running out of time. This is, we had a short amount time to do this. I do appreciate you being on answering these questions. Obviously this conversation will continue.

I do appreciate you being here. Thanks for being here. And we'll be right back. Welcome back.

And let's ran our panel. Tia Mitchell is the Washington correspondent for the Atlanta General Constitution and 11 a former Democratic Congressman for Michigan. And Hogan Giggle, the former national press secretary for Trump's re election campaign and the principal deputy press secretary during the Trump presidency. So unfortunately after the chairman, our time's gonna be a little bit reduced.

I'd like to get your take on it, Tia. You know, this continues to be a situation where the House Oversight Committee is thrown a lot the wall. Do you think that they're starting to crystallize exactly what they believe they have as in terms of impeachment inquiry and it is gonna be enough to get that vote over the finish line for Republicans. I mean, based on that interview, the answer is no.

They aren't really making a clear case for a smoking gun or even the evidence that would convince regular rank and file people that Joe Biden deserves to be impeached. And I think they need to listen to Ron DeSantis when he says this could be interpreted as a distraction from the issues that voters really going into an election year. You know, you work for former President Trump. He's intuitive.

Yeah. He's been, he's done business all over the world. His kids have done business all over the world. How is it different than what Joe Biden's doing?

A lot of scrutiny here. Those people actually did business and they were giving somebody a deliverable around the world, which is different. He's right about something though in that the American people need to be brought along here. You need to persuade them, get public opinion up to move forward on something like this.

There are plenty amongst the gop, the rank and file, the base, they want to see some more movement here. You talked to Comer a little bit about some of the evidence he had. You know, 20 shell companies, that 200, suspicious activity, bank reports, the shell corporations, money from all these countries. A lot of people don't know that, haven't heard that.

I think it's important. The way they've done it so far has been pretty meticulous. They've gone through this piece by piece. So if they're going to vote to do this and move forward, that's fine.

But they're going to have to bring a lot of receipts and they're going to have to persuade the American people this is the right thing. But I know one thing from the Trump impeachment. According to people like Alan Dershowitz and others, you don't have to break any crimes, violating any crime here. It's a political exercise.

So regardless of what they have or don't have, you know, it ranks to be seen on how far they can get and talk about the shell companies and where they did their business. That was the Biden family. That was Hunter Biden, James Biden, his associates. They haven't found that link yet to President Biden, have they?

They found no link to President Biden. Look at their bombshell of this week, Ryan, these payments that they were pointing to. I mean, Representative Comer controls the House Oversight Committee, immense investigatory powers, and they come out with this thing like, here's a smoking gun, these payments to the president and it's hunter Biden paying $1,380 back that his dad loaned him to make car payments when he was down and out. I've got a kid right now, I'm helping make car payments who's doing very well.

But that's what parents do. I mean, this is beyond pathetic. They are going, they're saying they've a vote on a formal impeachment inquiry where they have produced no real evidence for the American pr. We've only got two heads up.

Let's talk about the debate tomorrow night. Hogan, is there anything that this group can do to break into Donald Trump's leaves? Sadly, I think that the newspaper crew is going to fall in the same category that NBC did that went down in Miami. And that is you have a prime time event, but the primetime candidate isn't there.

It's a real problem because they're trying to create a moment, take that moment and make momentum and ultimately a movement that's tough to do without the person who's in the room who's up by 50, 55, 60 points in some of these polls. So it's going to be difficult and I don't think anyone can break through and accomplish that. Even a tweet came out today by a Reporter who said DeSantis, people internally are saying, hey, I think this could have been the wrong time. I don't think this is right.

He's down too far. And does Nick Haley is actually surging risk getting beat up in this forum and what level momentum she currently has. I mean, you know, as Hogan's saying, she doesn't have momentum in terms of catching up to Donald Trump. And from my point of view, these are all MAGA Republicans.

I mean, Nikki Haley, you know, supports a six week abortion ban before most people even know she's even pregnant. So they're not gonna break through, I don't think, and they're not gonna do anything, catch up to Donald Trump. Final thoughts? Well, I think it's Nikki Haley who's shown that she takes advantage of these opportunities.

She's used every debate to further her surge. So I think for her, she enjoys it. I don't know if DeSantis is benefiting much from these debates and he's had a rough week. He needs a strong showing tomorrow.

Okay. All right, guys, thank you. Sorry that we got cut off here a little bit, but an excellent conversation for the short amount of time that we had. Tia, Hogan, Andy, thank you all for being here.

I'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now and then Kristen is also back tomorrow with a Meet the Press Post debate special show of live interviews, analysis and breaking news that starts at 10pm Eastern right here on NBC News. Now this continues with Hallie Jackson Right now as the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, a new podcast for NBC News with your host Jasmine. 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 closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.

From the front page to zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify.