Meet the Press NOW — February 16

If it's Friday. Breaking news. A judge in New York has ordered former President Trump to pay a staggering $355 million due to business fraud while barring him from doing business in the state for three years. Plus, President Biden expressing outrage about the reported death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, saying there is no doubt that Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible and that his administration is weighing a response and a setback in House Republicans impeachment and Korean to the president as the Justice Department indicts a once trusted FBI informant for allegedly lying about President Biden, his son and that alleged bribery scheme.

Welcome to be the PRESS now. I'm Kristen Welker. On a day in which the Republican presidential frontrunners legal challenges are once again front and center. Just mom ago, a New York judge ordered the former president to pay a stunning $355 million in the civil business fraud trial.

The Judge also barred Mr. Trump from conducting business in the state for three years. His sons are barred from doing business there for two years. The massive financial penalty is in line with what New York Attorney General Leticia James had been seeking.

James, though, was also calling for Mr. Trump to be banned from doing business in New York for the rest of his life. In a statement, a Trump little spokesperson vowed to appeal the decision, calling it part of a politically fueled witch hunt. Now we are expecting the New York AG to speak to reporters later this afternoon.

This ruling came from Judge Arthur and Goran, who'd already ruled last year that Trump had committed fraud by falsely inflating the value of his assets to secure more favorable loans from banks. This is the second major financial judgment against Mr. Trump, who was hit last month with an $83 million verdict in writer Eugene Carroll's defamation case against him and incomes. Just today after a separate New York judge announced the start of Mr.

Trump's first criminal trial regarding hush money payments to Stormy Daniels in 2016. That will start next month in Manhattan. The criminal trial of a former president, the first of its kind in American history, will sideline Mr. Trump for weeks during a key stretch of his presidential campaign.

Speaking yesterday, the former president once again lashing out at that case. I'm going to have to sit here for months on a trial. I think it's ridiculous. It's unfair.

How do you finally have meeting when you're in court, sir? I'll do it in the evening. Joining now from New York is NBC Rahim Ellis. NBC's Vaughn Hilliard is in Palm beach covering the Trump campaign.

Also with us, Carol Lamb, former federal prosecutor and NBC legal analyst. And Jeremy Sulein, former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan DA's office. Thank you all so much for being here. Raheem, I have to start with you.

There you are outside. She's Shrub Tower, not far from where this decision was handed down. What has the reaction been so far? What are the implications?

Well, there are big implications as you mentioned and it bears repeating even though you said it in the intro to this. And I hope we can put up that full screen again about what the judges say the decision is in this case in terms of the penalties, Donald Trump himself and his company are being asked to pay a number of millions of dollars, 354 million for Trump, it all adds up to slightly around $364 billion for his company at large. He would be barred from doing business in the real estate industry for at least three years and his sons would be barred from doing business in real estate industry for two years. And each of them would be defined something slightly more than $400 million each.

I should say that this is less, as you pointed out that Letitia James, your state attorney general, she was looking for $370 million in penalties. So there might be some bright sided in it, you can say for the organization from that. But I should tell you, reaction from the Trump Organization, they're saying today's ruling is truly a gross miscarriage of justice. The Trump Organization has never missed any loan paid or been involved in any loan.

The lenders of these transactions for some of the largest banks in the world, represented by most of the most prestigious law firms in the country. And they performed their due diligence prior to entering into these transactions. Now, from the judge in Goron, in his ruling, what he said was while this was not a case of they did not commit murder or arson, they did not rob a bank or at gunpoint. Yet defendants are incapable of meeting the error of their ways.

Instead, they adopt a see no evil, evil, speak no evil posture that the evidence belies. The judge has said when he found them liable that the Trump Organization was denying all of the allegations against them of having false business records. They were living, he said, in a fantasy world, not the real world. We expect that Leticia James again, who filed these charges against him as a state attorney general in perhaps less than two hours, that she's going to respond to what the judge has decided in this case in terms of what the penalty should be.

We will be listening closely and of course, take that live when it happens. Raymond, let me head over to Vaughn Hilliard Vaughn, you've been tracking the reaction from within the campaign. Alina Haba, one of his attorneys also responding. You and I have been reporting on how Trump responds to these moments for months now in the primary, he's only been emboldened by all of these cases.

Vaughn, what type of reaction are you hearing from inside the campaign? Right. The hard part, Christian, for Donald Trump right now and his campaign is that it's no longer about the actual trials and about being able to walk outside of the courthouse. We're now at the point where actual consequential decisions are coming down.

Of course, it was just one month ago that in an E. Jean Carroll case, the judge found Donald Trump liable for defamation and for sexual abuse. And now here just this afternoon, Donald Trump not only facing a more than $350 million penalty, but also a judge has found that over the course of a same period of time, he engaged in repeated financial fraud. He issued false financial statements, false business records, engage in conspiracy to falsify business records and false financial statements and engage in conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.

And so for Donald Trump, he's looking to wrap up this Republican nomination within a month from now, as soon as a month from now. But we're looking towards the November general election for the Democrats. They are now looking to have these decisions coming down from judges and potentially juries next year to help them make the case that is not merely allegations here at this point, but that Donald Trump under the justice system as it exists here, has been found to have engaged in, along with this corporation in repeated financial fraud. And so for Donald Trump, it'll be up to him to defend.

Now, we do not have a direct statement from Donald Trump so far here, but we have one from Don Jr. Who is also found liable here in this case in which Don Jr. In part says that the fact that this was hurt in New York City, the jurisdiction in which a judge ultimately oversaw this case, was part of the reason why the rules against in this way here. Of course, the judge will, I should say that the Trump Organization and Alina Haba, the training representing Donald Trump, said that they will be appealing this within the next 30 days.

And at that point, they'll be up to the appellate court to make ultimate determination. All right, Vaughn and Raheema, stand by for me for a second. I do want to go to Carol Lam and Jerry Saland. Carol, first to you.

What are your big takeaways from this? As Vaughn just said, we do expect that he will appeal this decision, but he will likely have to make an initial payment. Right. Well, the big takeaway here is that it is a very large financial penalty, of course, but and he will probably have to post a bond there and maybe he'll be able to get that 10% or 20% together from either his own money or donors.

But the real impact here, and it's different from the E. Jean Carroll case, the real impact is that this affects his ongoing business. It really eviscerates his ability to do business, perhaps maybe not just in New York, but all throughout the country, because it says you can't get a loan. This organization cannot get a loan from any financial institution that does or is registered or does any business in the state of New York.

And you know, when you to get a loan from a very established bank and they ask questions, you know, do you have any judgments against you, you know, et cetera. And those banks have obligations to their shareholders. So the fact that this is a private company and it was apparently a mess inside in terms of controls, financial controls in the Trump Organization. These lenders have obligations because they are public companies.

And I think that's going to be the real impact here. Jeremy, what's your take? Yeah, I thought the judge was methodical and meticulous in his decision and really made a great effort to lay out not only each count, but he went through each witness and addressed their credibility and what they said and how he came to his decision. And for example, when I saw Michael Cohen, it's been known that Michael Cohen will be testifying soon, not in Manhattan court.

Saying that just because you've been convicted of perjury does not mean you can never tell the truth and then never to make it clear why Donald Trump was not an incredible person. So I really was just impressed by the effort that the judge went through in this roughly, if it was 93 page decision to really break out everything and then go into the penalty phase of this and say, you know, look, I know Donald Trump, for example, is appealing in the first department my business certificates, well, that's not an issue anymore. We get rid of that. And because now we have a monitor and we're going to have someone overseeing his business, not after the fact, but even before the application for the loan and representation is made.

So it's that methodical and meticulous effort on the part of the judge that really was impressed upon me in this decision. Chairman, let me read a little bit of the decision and get your reaction on the other side. The judge writes, the court hereby enjoys Donald Trump. Allen Weisselberg, who's Of course the CFO, and Jeffrey McConeelie from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years.

The court hereby joins Donald Trump in the Trump Organization and its affiliates from applying for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York State Department of Financial Services for a period of three years. Can you help unpack this language, Jerry? What specifically is Trump barred from what activities? So I just want to throw in there too.

I believe that his son's Donald Trump Jr. I think for two years, really quickly. So it's the Trump family. And beyond that, now they're not gonna be able to work with the banking.

They're not gonna be able to start a new business. They're not gonna be able to try to circumvent this by saying, let's create business number two, take our assets, take whatever it may be and create a new company on our own. Because they don't have that ability to lead that company. They don't ability to get secure loans for those companies.

So this really, you know, really is hodling is to be generous because a lot worse than that, you can't operate business. That's not an asterisk, that's a period. Yeah. Vaughn, let me just go back to you.

Look, we know that the criminal case, that hush money payment case, is going to begin next month. Trump could be in court for a matter of six weeks, smack in the middle of the campaign. What is the campaign telling you about how they plan to navigate this period and juggle what will be several weeks of this split screen? Right.

Kristen? Susie Wiles, one of the co campaign managers for Donald Trump, said that this would be a scheduling nightmare for them. And because there's already evidence that it would not be just ash money payment case that's in the trial for the six weeks, but we're looking at a series of potentially other hearings that he will be likely obligated to attend at the same time, I think it's important kind of timeline here. Let's be honest.

March 19th is the day that this very campaign has suggested they believe Kristen and will hit the necessary number of delegates to secure the Republican nomination and to be the presented nominees. That court trial in New York for the hush money payment trial is slated to begin six days later. So March 25th. So the timing for at least the Republican primary part may be in their favor here.

Of course, Nick Healy has yet to leave the race. And if we're looking at six week trial that would lead them to the beginning of May. And if you go back to 2016, the day that Ted Cruz dropped out of the Republican race and essentially made Donald Trump the Presumptive nominee was May 3, which was the first week of May here. So I think the question then after the Hashemite payment trial is when would the federal election interference case begins?

Of course, we're waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court will ultimately hear, whether they will hear or argue themselves to determine whether Donald Trump should be granted presidential immunity and have this case all the tossed out against him here. But for Donald Trump, again, this is now about a matter of actual trials and actual decisions with consequences, ones that the Democrats will undoubtedly continue to use against him because it's concrete and coming out of the justice system. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for your great reporting.

Really appreciate it. Right now, let me pick up on something that Vaughn said, which is this split screen moment which is going to be a pure spectacle in New York. I was outside of the courthouse when these charges were brought and there was extra, you know, police presence, extra security, concern about the sheer volume of protesters who were gathered outside the courthouse. What is New York racing for?

For heavy, heavy security when the former president comes here starting on March 25th to face these criminal charges. He had to go through two magnetometers to get into the courthouse yesterday when he was here. Streets were blocked off when he came into the courthouse area. But I have to say this to you, Kristen, and that is the novelty of a former president appearing in court here in New York is no longer novel anymore because he's been here so many times.

When this case was originally brought, the case of the civil, I'm sorry, the criminal case that Alan Bragg brought last year, there were hundreds of people outside of that courthouse on both sides voicing their opinion. Yesterday there were four who were outside. It was cold. But again, it says something about the novelty of the case.

This is becoming a standard operation, if you will, here in New York of people seeing the former president in a cavalcade of cars going down the highway and the streets of New York and heading to a courthouse. He has said yesterday that he is going to be here for this trial every day. And he said afterwards he would get on a police plane and he will campaign in the evening. It is going to be quite the schedule for the former president.

It certainly will be. Rahim Alice, outside of Trump Tower. Thank you so much for that really fascinating perspective from New York. Carol, let me turn back to you.

Let's talk about this criminal case that is set to get underway next month. When these charges were first brought about this, these alleged hush money payments, a number of legal experts said that this wasn't necessarily the most bulletproof they thought case to bring first. And yet it is going to be the first one to actually go to court. What do you make of that?

What are you going to be watching for, Wilkerson first, no criminal case is bulletproof. It's going to trial. It's not bulletproof by definition. But I think what commentators at the time meant was not necessarily that it wasn't bulletproof in a factual sense.

I think actually with respect to the evidence and what the evidence will show actually happened, I think it's fairly straightforward. I think when people say it's not the most bulletproof case, they're talking about the legal framework. You've probably heard by now that these business records allegations are usually misdemeanors, that it's not felonies. But what makes them into felonies is that the business errors or problems with the business records were done intentionally and in furtherance of another crime.

And what we believe that other crime is here is interference with federal election laws that Donald Trump was trying to cover up the fact that he had had an affair with a porn star by making payments to the porn star indirectly through Michael Cohen and calling them legal expenses. And so that is a somewhat untested theory in the New York state courts. So I think that's what people mean when they say it's not really the strongest case. But it was an early case that was brought.

It is a legitimate case. It will be tried in front of a jury and they will decide the way they're going to decide. As you've seen, litigation is very unpredictable and the timing of litigation is very unpredictable. And that's very different from the political process, which has firm dates, generally speaking, for caucuses and primaries and elections.

And that's why we're in the confusing situation. We are because there are trial courts, there are appeal courts, there's the Supreme Court. And they all have their own thoughts and ideas about scheduling. Jeremy, let me turn to you and another legal matter, if you will, that has been under the microscope.

The district attorney in Georgia testified in her own defense because the Trump team is arguing she and her team should be taken off of the case amid revelations that she was having a relationship with one of the prosecutors. She took the stand despite the fact that her own attorneys weren't exactly planning for her to do that. She offered this very fiery defense. And she made two key points.

One, she says relationship started after the investigation started. And two, she said she did not financially benefit from this. That was backed up by the testimony provided by the person she had this relationship with. What do you make of what we saw yesterday?

And when do you think we get a decision about whether or not she and her team can remain on this case? I thought, unfortunately, the ball is a little bit of a fishing expedition. And as she pointed out, and I think absolutely correctly, I'm not on trial. I'm not the defendant.

They're the defendants. And I thought she did a really good job of putting herself out there. I thought initially when I heard Mr. Wade testify, you know, about the cash and no receipts keeping six months of cash, you know, that was a little bit sort of a maybe asked question because I think natural people say, well, cash, and she's paying back in cash.

But that's really not the issue. The issue, as you pointed out, was when did this relationship start? Did it start prior to. And did she benefit by paying Mr.

Wade all this money with the county paying to Wade all this money and pocket it by way of vacation and guess whatever it may be? But I thought she did very well. I thought she came up very credible. And.

And I would expect that the judge is not going to sit on this for a long time because it is such a sideshow. You need to get back to the issue here. Was there a crime? What are the crimes?

And I would add that even at best, at best, she gets disqualified if I say at best on the defense. But this case doesn't get dismissed. These witnesses are part of me. These defendants didn't plead guilty because she might have gotten money because she was dating somebody who was also on the prosecution team.

They pleaded guilty because they were, in fact, guilty, Period. So let's not make this more than what it is. All right, well, thank you both so much for your great insights on a really complicated day. We appreciate it so much.

Carol Lamb, as well as Jeremy Sullivan. We really appreciate it. Thank you very much. We are going to dive more into the potential political fallout from this ruling third panel.

But first, assassination accusations and calls for justice. President Biden rebukes Russian President Vladimir Putin hours after opposition leader Alexi Navali reportedly died in prison. Plus, new details of the national security threat. Warning from the chairman of the House Intel Committee.

He'll be on the press this Sunday. What we know and don't know about Russia's development of a new weapon. You're watching with the press now. Welcome back.

Russian opposition leader Alexia Only, a staunch Putin critic who led a years long anti corruption campaign, died in a Russian prison today. That's according to the country's prison service. He was just 47 years old. Russia says Navalny died during a walk after falling unconscious, but provided no additional details.

Now you're looking at video here. This shows Navalny just yesterday in a court appearance, his team saying they have been unable to confirm his death. But hours after reports of Navalny's death, his wife made a dramatic in surprise appearance speaking for a gathering of national security officials in Munich, vowing that Putin will be brought to justice. Listen.

But if it is the truth, I would like Putin and all his staff, everybody around him, his government, his friends, I want them know that they will be punished for what they have done with our country, with my family and with my husband. They will be brought to justice. Navalny's death also drew swift reaction from top U.S. officials, including President Biden, who addressed the situation from the White House today.

Reports of his death, if it's true, and I have no reason to believe it or not, Russian authorities are going to tell their own story. But make no mistake, make no mistake, Putin is responsible for Navalny's death. Is responsible. What has happened in Navalny is yet more proof of Putin's brutality.

We don't know exactly what happened, but there is no doubt that the death of Navalny was a consequence of something that Putin and his thugs did. Navalny's death comes as President Biden continues to urge Congress to pass Ukrainian as soldiers on the front lines try to repel Putin's brutal invasion. Anything you can do to get ammunition to the Ukrainians without settlement from Congress? No, but it's about time they step up, don't you think?

So they're going on a two week vacation. Two weeks. They're walking away. Two weeks.

What are they thinking? My God, this is bizarre. And it's just reinforcing all the concern and almost, I won't say panic, but real concern about the United States being a reliable ally. This is outrageous.

Joining me now is Richard Engel in Keef, Ukraine, from US Ambassador to Russia and NBC News international affairs analyst Michael McFaul who is in Munich for the annual security conference. And NBC News global security reporter Dan deluse who joins me here on set. Richard, let me start with you. I've been watching your incredible reporting throughout the day on this.

What can you tell us with the latest information that you have about the events surrounding his death? And frankly, the legacy that he now leaves behind. So, about his death, there was a lot of controversy, and Navalny supporters and his inner circle, part of his staff, they're all blaming Vladimir Putin, and they say that Navalny was apparently healthy, that he seemed healthy in that video court appearance just yesterday. His mother saw him at the penal colony on Monday and said he was in good spirits and seemed to be in good health.

And then suddenly he drops dead. And according to the prison account, he took this walk, fell unconscious, and that they worked on him for 30 minutes and that they were unable to revive him and pronounced him dead. So Navalny supporters haven't confirmed his death, but they certainly don't believe Russia's version of events. They don't know if he was poisoned.

Again, they don't know if he suffered some sort of blood clot. Online, there's a lot of rumors, unconfirmed reports that he had some sort of blood clot which could cause a death as like the one described by the prison officials. But right now we only know that one official account, and there are many questions of it. Just looking at the way he was acting as early as yesterday, didn't seem like someone who was on death door when he was joking with the judge, sort of trying to make the best of his situation, which was horrible.

He was very thin while in prison. Since he returned to Russia after he was poisoned, he'd gone on a hunger strike. But he certainly didn't look like someone on death's door, at least yesterday. He certainly didn't, Richard.

And it just adds to the mystery surrounding his tragic death. Can you talk a little bit about the timing, obviously, as we're just discussing what world leaders are gathered in Munich for this annual security conference? Could that have anything to do with it? Is there any sense of why this would happen now?

So to suggest a timing like that implies that someone, Putin or someone senior in the government pick up the phone to the prison and said, kill Navalny tomorrow. It's not clear that it happened that way. It may have happened that way. It may have been poisoned or something else may have happened in that penal colony, but we don't know.

We don't know if it was the cause of his abuse and poor conditions over the last several years. Let's not forget he was poisoned. He was almost dead. Then he recovered in Germany.

And then after five months, after recovering from Novochok poisoning, which is a nerve agent, he decided to put his life on the line, put his priorities and his principles first, and return to Russia knowing that he would likely be arrested or face potentially worse consequences. And that's what happened. He was sentenced to many years in prison. First nine years and then 19 years, and then ultimately died under these circumstances.

Richard Engel, our chief foreign affairs correspondent. Thank you so much, Richard, for your great reporting. As always, we really appreciate it. Ambassador, let me turn to you now.

Your reaction, the implications of this. Obviously, President Biden said that this is the work of Vladimir Putin. Well, the president's absolutely right. It'd be great if we get the details that you're just discussing with Richard.

But let's be crystal clear about this. Putin killed Navalny. He arrested him. He tried to poison him before he came back, and then he arrested him again.

He has been under horrific, barbaric conditions that he's been living under. I was with his wife last night talking about them in gruesome detail. And make no doubt about it, what actually happened will hopefully will know. Probably not, because the food is Russia, Russia, but Putin killed Navalny.

And as President Biden said in Geneva in 2021, if this happens, he needs to be held accountable and have consequences. And as his incredibly brave wife said today at this conference to all of us, there must be consequences for Mr. Putin. And I hope the Western world, the free world, will take that charge from Julia seriously.

Ambassador, how is she doing? It's extraordinary that she's speaking in the wake of this and she's in the middle of being at this conference when she got this news. Like I said, I saw her last night. I know Julia.

I've known Alexei for a long time. His daughter goes to school at Stanford where I teach. These are my friends. Alexei was my friend last night.

We were talking about his health, as we always do. The very first thing is to talk about about is that. And the first phrase is always, he's doing fine. And that's what Alexei always wanted everybody to think and believe.

And he would joke about that. And then the next paragraph is how difficult it was for him to remain alive. I think her situation here today, she's in shock. I talked to her this morning.

Obviously, she wanted to give comfort to her daughter back at Stanford, and my family is helping to do that. But she's also incredibly tough, and she takes seriously what Alexei himself said to the whole world, if I'm ever killed, keep fighting. And that's exactly what Yulia chose to do. She didn't just leave, she chose to make that statement.

And she'll keep fighting. And make no mistake, other people will fight with her. This is a tragic day. But it's not the end of the ideas that Alexei stood for.

And Julia herself will be, I think, one of the strongest vocal proponents of those ideas for the rest of her days on this planet. Well, if today is any indication, that will certainly be the case. And of course, Ambassador, what makes this so disturbing is that he's not, of course, the only one of Putin's critics to die, to die mysteriously. He's a part of a long list, isn't he?

You're exactly right. And you're showing that list now. Thank you for doing that. There's another one of my friends on that list, Boris Nemtsov, who was killed in 2015.

And I hope that this is finally a wake up call, because Putin killed Navalny today and he also killed a lot of Ukrainians today. He's been killing them every single day. And I share President Biden's outrage. How can you sit in the American Congress, in the House of Representatives today and block assistance to Ukrainian soldiers fighting?

I met many warriors today at this conference. They can't fight. They don't have the ammunition to do that. How can you sit by idly and give a gift to Vladimir Putin?

Let's be crystal clear about this. Blocking aid to Ukraine is a gift to this killer that rules Russia today. So I call upon my friends, and they are friends of mine, that there's no more time for politics. There's no more time about this.

And that needs to be linked. We need to show courage. We need to stand up to this dictator and this bully. Because if the United States of America can't do it, who else can?

This is a critical moment in our history. It's time we do the right thing, and we do it now, very quickly. Ambassador, what, if any, actions do you, you want to see the United States take in retaliation for this? President Biden has signaled that there will be consequences.

One passier deal. That's number one. Top two. We have seized Russian assets in the United States and here in Europe.

Give those assets to Ukraine. I know for a fact that that's what Alexei Navalny wanted us to do right now. So if you want to help, and you want to remember this, what I think was a heroic figure that was just killed today, do those things to help Ukrainians stop Putin's killing in their country. All right.

Ambassador Michael McFall, thank you so much for joining us. And my condolences to you. Thank you for the loss of your friend, for the loss of all of your friends who have died under the circumstances. We really appreciate it let me turn to you.

This obviously comes into that extraordinary warning by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Turner, that there was this new threat by Russia. He called the White House to declassify information about the threat. What do we know about the threat and how concerned are officials? Yeah, I think what Turner said really caught the White House by surprise.

They did not appreciate that and it caught many senators by surprise. Some of his counterparts in the Senate were not aware what the threat that he's referring to, we've been told is a Russian anti satellite capability, a new emerging kind of capability possibly involving either nuclear power or even a nuclear weapon. So it does concern officials, but they're also saying this is not imminent. It's something that is in the future.

But it does again underscore this concern about, about space and satellites and how much we depend on those satellites both for our own lives and for our military. And it's a concern that's been building and building both with China and Russia. And Congressman Turner, for whatever reason we can talk about that, decided to say, okay, we need to talk about this and you need to declassify information about this. Now the White House really hasn't declassified much.

They just kind of acknowledged it. He is going to be able to be the press. I'm going to ask him directly why he decided to do that. Why do you think he decided to do that and how advanced are these capabilities?

Well, these capabilities I think really do challenge the US and that's why that's what the concern is. You know, yes, we have been trying to develop our own ability to defend all these satellites. One tactic is to have lots of small satellites, commercial satellites, not to have really big satellites and you knock one on your vulnerable. But this concern is maybe this Russian anti satellite capability puts at risk so many of our satellite networks.

So that's the concern and why he did it, it's not clear. There's some people say that he's frustrated with his own party. With Speaker Johnson, this is a way to underscore the threat posed by Russia. Other people say, listen, he really cares about this issue and he just wanted to put it on the table.

And very quickly, do you think this will impact the broader discussion around Russia? Obviously there is a lot of division about whether to send more aid to Ukraine. I mean, how much has this penetrated into what's happening on Capitol Hill? I think the jury's out.

It's an open question. You heard Ambassador McFaul saying, you know, this is the moment, no more delays. We've got to move on this. Navalny's death should move the Congress.

But as you know, their calculations aren't always purely on policy. Yeah. Okay. Danlos, thank you so much.

Really appreciate it. Again, we will will be talking to Chairman Turner underneath the Press on Sunday. He will be my exclusive guest along with Senator Amy Klobuchar. Coming up next, an FBI informed crucial to the Biden patron inquiry was just charged with making false and derogatory statements about the president, his son and their business dealings.

Stay with us. We'll unpack that. You're WATCHING THE PRESS now. Welcome back.

An FBI informant linked to special counsel David Weiss's investigation and Hunter Biden is facing charges for allegedly providing false information about President Biden, his son Hunter, including lying about the allegations that the Bidens took millions of dollars in bribes. Now the Justice Department says Alexander Smirnoff, who has been a confidential source for the FI for over a decade, was arrested yesterday after returning from a trip abroad. The 37 page indictment alleged Smirnoff provided false and derogatory information to the FBI about the binds ties to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. The Burism allegations are a key part of House Republicans pushed to impeach President Biden.

The president reacted this afternoon saying the impeachment agree should be dropped, calling it a quote, outrageous effort from the very beginning. Joining me now on Saturday's justice reporter Ryan Reilly. Ryan, thanks for being here. So what do we know about this informative.

What do we know about how these charges came about? Yes, it was a 43 year old and he was been informed for the FBI since about 2010. So he's probably 30s when he joined. What happened is in the middle of the 2020 campaign as president, then former Vice President Biden is running, he makes this false allegation to the FBI and about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

So really set off the chain of events with that false allegation in the early campaign. So you know, Ryan, I've spoken to a number of Republicans prior to this impeachment inquiry really getting underway. And they said, look, the challenge is there's no smoking gun. Now you have this wrench that has been thrown into everything.

How might it impact the impeachment inquiry? James Homer says he's planning to move forward with it. I mean, it really does cut the argument. If you just look at actually what they've argued, they pointed this over and over and over again, said this is our best evidence.

In fact, Jim Jordan said that directly. This is our best evidence pointing to it, saying this is it. This is what? He has a confidential human source who said this back in the day.

We're looking into it now. They're trying to pivot and say this wasn't as big a deal. If you want to use a Monty Python reference to sort of this is only a flesh wound, right? This is by scratch.

But it is really essential to the case. And Elise Stefani has repeatedly referred to it and said this is some of the best evidence they had. So it really does do some damage factually to the case that Republicans have been advancing against President. Okay, Ryan Reilly, we'll have to go back and watch our Monty Python.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Coming up after the break, what's next for Fulton County District Attorney Fonny Willis in her case against former President Trump after another day of testimony as DA Willis battles allegations of misconduct. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now.

Welcome back. A hearing is underway to decide whether Fulton County DA Finding Willis should be disqualified for prosecuting the election interference case against Donald Trump. Attorneys for Mr. Trump and one of his co defendants say Willis should be removed from the case due to an undisclosed romantic relationship with a special prosecutor she appointed today.

Attorneys for defendants continue to try to prove that DA Willis and the prosecutor Wade lied about when their relationship began. It comes after a dramatic turn events in court yesterday. Willis took the stand over her own legal team's objections in an attempt to defend her actions and her reputation. While I was pacing in my office and I heard someone yell this testimony is done.

It only made sense to me that I would be your next witness. And I've been very anxious to have this conversation with you today. So I ran to the courtroom. As you know, Mr.

Wade is a Southern gentleman. Me, not so much. Not like when you're in grade school and you send a little letter and it says, will you be my girlfriend? In check it.

I don't know the day that we started seeing each other, but it was early 22 is my religion. Joining me now is Greg Lustein, political reporter for the Atlanta Journal Constitution and an NBC News political contributor. Thank you so much for joining us on this day. Look, all eyes have been on this Georgia courtroom.

I mean, these developments have just been extraordinary. Fani Wilson's testimony was extraordinary. Yesterday. She was defiant.

What do you think the impact was and how much damage has this done potentially to the Georgia case? Yeah, it's done some damage. Her credibility is on trial even though she isn't herself. And there's been a lot of just really raw emotional details that have been exposed, her pains of loneliness, the details of her sex life, the intimate parts of her relationship with Nathan Wade.

The timing of that relationship is under question right now. And that's the key part of this hearing, which is, by the way, has been extended into next week. So now we're going to a third day of this extraordinary evidentiary hearing, all about whether or not there was a potential misconduct when Fannie Willis hired special counsel Nathan Way to oversee this trial. I'm wondering what the sense there is.

Is there a sense that Fani Willis helped or hurt herself yesterday? You know, to her fans, to her supporters, she helped. She was fiery. She was combative at times.

She did not hold back. We've seen Democrats who had held back, who held sort of stay on the sidelines, start now to more aggressively support her publicly. But of course, to Republicans and some people who are also on the sidelines have no stake in the game. They know, they thought that she didn't do herself any favors by not just, you know, defending herself, but also sometimes to realize and going into extemporaneously long answers.

You know, it is all up to the judge. And most legal experts say there's no ground at this point to disqualify her from the case. But that doesn't mean that the optics aren't great. Even named for Jennifer Gall.

I said this just does not look good for her. And Greg, we hear your dog there in the background. He clearly has a few things to say as well. Tell him we'll get to him next.

But in all seriousness, what happens if she is dismissed? Shift from this case. How serious would that be? How big of a setback would it be for a case against Donald Trump?

And that's Charlie who's misbehaving. But yes, this would be a serious setback. We've compared it frankly to a death sentence for this case. And that's because if it is thrown off, it goes into a legal limbo.

The prosecuting attorneys, counsel of Georgia would then be in charge of appointing a replacement to finally Willis. And the track record there is not great so far. Fani Willis office was disqualified from investigating Lt. Gov.

Burt Jones, who served as a fake elector. It's been 18 months since that point and a special a new prosecutor has not yet been appointed by that nonpartisan council. There's a lot of reasons why, but one of the ones, of course is behind the scenes is that council gets its money from the state, too. And they don't want to tick off very powerful Republicans who can control, who do control the Christians.

And very quickly, before I let you know, when are you expecting, what's the timeline for our decision in this? Well, the hearing is stretching the next week, so we still don't even have that hearing over, let alone a timeline for decision. And again, any delay is a victory for Donald Trump. So the longer this trial takes, the longer this hearing goes, the longer it takes for the judge to rule, the better it is for Donald Trump and his allies.

All right, Greg Lucing, thank you so much for joining us on this Friday. I really appreciate it. Joining now is our fantastic panel. Michael Schnell, congressional reporter for the Hill, Simone Sanders Townsend, co host of the Weekend on msnbc and Stephen Hayes, an NBC News contributor and CEO of the Dispatch.

Michael, we should say used to work for News Now. Welcome back. It's a homecoming. It's fantastic to have you.

Let's just set the table and do big picture here because lots of court cases this week. We have what's happening when I was just talking about Fonnie Willis taking the stand. Donald Trump just slapped with a massive payment, more than $300 million in the civil fraud trial. And we awai wait to see if the Supreme Court takes up his immunity case.

Where are we, Michael, when it comes to these legal battles in the former president? I think the main picture is that we're in the middle of them and these trials haven't even began yet. Right. The hush money case is set to begin next month.

The Jack Smith January six election interference case was supposed to start next month, but that's very likely not going to happen with all these legal proceedings and these challenges. I think that's the key takeaway here. And that's something that the former president is looking for. There's a lot of talk about how a conviction effect is standing in the polls.

How would him go to prison effects standing in the polls? There's a real chance we won't have even an answer of if he's gonna be convicted before Election Day in November. I think that's what the former president wants here to try delay, delay, delay. And he's getting exactly that.

I think he had to know that we do have some polling if Trump is convicted. Look at this. Biden pulls ahead of him. Right now we have Trump ahead by 47%.

Biden pulls ahead 45 to 43, Simone. But right now in the primary, because we're still in the primary, he hasn't won the nomination yet. It's really only emboldened him. Yeah, I Mean, I don't know.

We're just gonna, I think for years and your decades in the future, people will be studying why Donald Trump met no consequences, really, within the Republican primary apparatus. He literally said years ago that he stand up for that, choosing someone. And he's proverbially done that in various ways, one could argue, and it has yet to affect him. But a primary winner of a primary does not make a general election a winner or a presidential one.

Who is the next president? And so I think that there's going to need to be a balance. Donald Trump, though, he's not a spring chicken here. He has run and won before and he has run and lost.

And all of that is going back to him for voters when they go to mail the bucks. So you can pick up on that point because his first, first criminal trial goes to court in March and his legal team has said that, look, this is going to be a logistical nightmare because he's going to have to be in court. He wants to be in court. He sees that it's a way to energize the case during the day and the night.

He's going to hop on his plane and he's going to go to a campaign event. Yeah, but I think Stallone's point is exactly right. What was an advantage for Donald Trump during the Republic of Primers is a made of disadvantage for him in a general election contest. I think if you point to what Michael said, he just wants to delay, and it looks like he's having some success.

You know, one of the things that's been remarkable about Donald Trump's career politics is in some ways, he's the luckiest politician alive. His enemies are either incompetent or they overreach or they create their own problems. And I think we saw that with Fannie Willis yesterday. This looks like it's likely to be delayed.

We're likely to see some of these other court cases be delayed. And Donald Trump's winner. Let's talk about Fani Willis, Michael, because she took the stand against her own lawyers, counsel, she was defiant. She said, no, I did not bring on Mr.

Wade before this started or our relationship didn't start before the investigation did, and that she didn't benefit from him financially, and yet there's a question about whether she helped herself or hurt herself. Bottom line, this is what Donald Trump wants. You give him an inch and he takes the whole mile. Yeah.

And there are two things there. First off, when we talk about this conversation about Fonny Willis and whether or not she should remain the prosecutor on this case. Remember, this case was brought by somebody in former President Trump's orbit who found this improper relationship and brought this. And now it's what Greg said, that if Fonny Willis has taken off this case, he said, withdraw the whole thing to limbo.

Right. And again, that is what the former president wants. He wants uncertainty. He wants there to be more time to have to figure out what the path forward is.

And again, this all plays into the fact that there are questions about what happens if he's convicted and all things like that, but we may not get there. And that's exactly what he's looking for here. You're absolutely right about that. Yesterday, you know, I was surprised when I saw finalists come to the side, and I was shocked.

And then she took the stand and I said, oh, my goodness. And shut down and watch that. I watched the entire thing from front. Look, I think that first of all, I also watched Nathan Way, the special prosecutor's testimony, and he seemed.

His testimony seemed weak. He did not, in my opinion, give a forceful defense of fan. Well, as many legal analysts for NBC News have noted that he is also dealing with a divorce proceeding. So that probably factored in how measured he was.

But Fondueville, I thought it was important that she went up there and defended herself and defend. She did. It seemed as though the first lawyer, Ms. Merchant, who was questioning her, she seemed kind of.

I don't think she was prepared. Anyone was prepared, but she did have, I thought, command of the issue. She thoroughly answered the questions. And at the end of the day, it's my understanding that this was all about was there financial benefits to DA Fonnie by Nathan, I heard, in a relationship with Nathan Wade.

And I learned yesterday that Nathan Wade made less money working in such a prosecutor's office. I don't know, someone who wants their man to make less and how that makes money getting more. So I think they've struggled to make the case, but it's given us lots of fodder, if you will, for the political verbal arena. In terms of optics.

That's the problem with it. Right. I mean, the fact that, you know, observers found it entertaining, the fact that, as Greg pointed out, Democratic partisans loved it. That's a problem for the administration of justice.

We don't want justice to be that way. We want to be impartial. We want it to be calm and dispassionate. And her performance yesterday, whether you liked it or not, was anything but calm and dispassionate.

Yeah. One of the things that has been notable is that President Biden has really tried to walk a fine line when it comes to true Trump's legal problems. He is out with a new ad. I believe we have this ad and it really focuses on Trump's comments basically suggesting that he would support Russia invading a NATO ally.

Let's look. Trump wants to walk away from NATO. He's even given Putin and Russia the green light to attack America's allies. I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.

No president has ever said anything like it. It's shameful, it's weak, it's dangerous, it's unamerican. Stephen, in a general election, if Trump is the nominee, how damaging is an ad like that? I think it's very bad for persuadable voters.

I think Trump's base won't care for persuadable voters. That's a very persuasive event. Simone, what do you think? This is all taking place against the backdrop of the Munich security company.

Yes. And a place where President Zelensky of Ukraine will be tomorrow. It was two years ago yesterday that the Olympic went prior to Russia invading Ukraine and begging for the world to rally him. Vice President Harris was there also at that time and was there today.

Donald Trump's comments should not be taken in a vacuum unless died in prison. We found out today Vladimir Putin killed him. This is all, all happening together. Yeah.

President Biden wasted no time placing the blame squarely on President Biden. Michael, last thoughts? I mean, let's look at this in the context of Capitol Hill riot cover Congress. We're in a very heated conversation right now.

But a for Ukraine, something that time and time again has been forward to the side because of former President Trump's supporters. These comments and Alexander's death is going to put an increased focus on April Ukraine to ratchet that pressure. But before President Trump continuing this firm grip on the party, it's really questionable for public support that. Great conversation.

Thank you all so much. Michael, Simone and Stephen, we appreciate it. We're back Monday with more me the press now. And if it's Sunday, it is me the press on your local NBC news station.

I'll have exclusive interviews with Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman Mike Turner. Do not miss it. The news continues with Tom Pastel Owen for Hallie Jackson right now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink.

This month. Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest. She's ever been right now.

But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes.

Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.