If it's Friday, President Trump responds to pressure from his base, calling for the release of some grand jury testimony in the case against Jeffery Epstein as he denies a Wall Street Journal report describing a suggestive letter he allegedly wrote to Epstein. Plus, after a rare show of bipartisanship in Congress, President Trump signs a landmark cryptocurrency bill into law, overhauling the rules and regulations surrounding crypto in a major win for the industry. And authorities are searching for answers about what set off an incendiary device that was being held at the L.A. Sheriff's Department, killing three deputies in one of the deadliest incidents in the office's history.
Hi there, welcome to Meet the Press. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, as President Trump takes the extraordinary step of calling for the release of grand jury documents related to deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, despite days of claiming the controversy was a Democratic hoax. The President last night on Truth Social saying, I've asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony subject to court approval. The move is a clear signal from the President that his efforts to quell his base's fixation on the case have just not worked.
It comes as the President and his allies are pushing back on a Wall Street Journal story highlighting his once-close ties with Epstein. According to documents reviewed by the journal, a letter bearing Trump's name appeared in an album of letters collected for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003 by his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is described by the journal as bawdy, with a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, along with text saying, May every day be another wonderful secret. Pages from the album are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell.
That's according to the journal, which cites people who have reviewed the pages. Now, NBC News has not seen these documents, and it's unclear whether they were part of the Trump administration's recent review. The President denied he wrote the letter, telling the journal, It's a fake. And then posting on social media, quote, These are not my words, not the way I talk.
Also, I don't draw pictures. I told the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, it was a scam that he shouldn't print the fake story, but he did. And now, I'm going to sue his off. The Speaker of the House also defending the President during an interview with CNBC.
The President and I talked about that ridiculous allegation this morning. He said it's patently absurd. He's never drawn such a picture. He's never thought of drawing such a picture.
And he said, Did you see the language of this bogus supposed communication or card or something I supposedly sent to Epstein? He said, I don't talk like that. I don't think like that. They're literally making things up.
And he's so frustrated by it. And he's going to wind up, I think, suing some of the media outlets that have put all this out there because they informed them that it was totally contrived. So, look, the President is the most maligned and attacked political figure in the history of American politics. There's no question about it.
Bob Lyman, it appears the Epstein saga really isn't going away for the administration. And it's unclear what exactly could diffuse it. The story has united the President's political allies and enemies alike, both sides sensing an opportunity to score political points tied to a highly salacious conspiracy. Even as the crimes and victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are very real.
Joining me now outside the White House is NBC Chief Justice and National Affairs Correspondent Kelly O'Donnell. Kelly, every day there's something new with this story. And we saw some of the President's reaction to it and then the pushback from the administration. Tell us what is the mood like inside the White House?
And what is the White House saying about Pam Bondi's role in all of this? Well, it has been a tumultuous timeline as we look at how the President's responses have adjusted from frustration at his own base of support, his MAGA world frustration, even disbelief as he voiced it, not understanding why people are interested in it, to anger, claiming the Democrats have manufactured some of this. Critical for our viewers to know the Epstein deaths and his 2019 indictment happened while President Trump was in office the first term some years ago. And now, of course, these matters are back in the control of his team.
There has been a sense of frustration about how to deal with this. Certainly there have been kind of rolling disclosures in terms of what was said publicly in what the expectations were, not material, but the expectations that a lot would be delivered publicly. And then, of course, the Attorney General through a systemic review of all the available material had made the determination that there would be no further public disclosure. And then now we're at a point where we are anticipating some motion being filed with a judge responsible for the grand jury.
That's one slice out of that voluminous file that a judge would review the arguments made by the government about whether what is typically secret material, investigative material, grand jury transcripts, if any of that should be made public based on the weighing of the cost benefit. There are still victims. There is still Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal process. So it's unclear when this will happen and what the outcome will be.
And it's interesting, too, because the president's been trashing his supporters. He claimed this whole thing's a Democratic hoax all week. Knowing that this article was coming and he clearly knew based on his response, is there any indication why the White House went that route with requesting this by of Pam Bondi? I think the president is reflecting a broad comment that has come from not only his base, but elected officials.
Even the Speaker of the House, even his former running mate and vice president, Mike Pence, spoke about this. Nikki Haley talked about a lot of prominent figures in both mainstream Republican circles, conservative voices and people with big megaphones on the Internet and in their own programs and podcasts and the base asking for more and the president finding a way to try to split the difference to accuse Democrats of mishandling this. Again, we've already explained that isn't necessarily anything that can be backed up. And if there is more and he's used words like what is credible, what is pertinent, that that could be made public.
We may not see any of that made public based on the fact that it is not just the president or the attorney general's power. Now, they do have more power on investigative files, but again, it's been the practice of the Department of Justice and certainly courts don't like to release grand jury information. But other things like FBI files and so forth could be released if they chose to. But they have made it clear that they don't believe there are incriminating other factors that would result in prosecutions of others.
And they're concerned about the impact on very real victims that were involved in these schemes. Okay, Kelly O'Donnell at the White House. Kelly, thank you for that. Joining me now is Jeremy Saland.
He's a criminal defense attorney and former district attorney in Manhattan. He's going to try and help us make sense of the legal aspect in all of this. So, Jeremy, when President Trump talks about releasing all pertinent grand jury testimony, kind of break down for us what sort of information would that entail? It's really just a ruse.
And you are going down, not you personally, but the public is somewhat going down a rabbit hole and chasing his own tail. And what I mean by that is the evidence that people want, this witness list, would not be a product of a grand jury subpoena. It would not be protected by a grand jury secrecy. It would likely have been obtained, if not in fact obtained, by way of a search warrant.
A search warrant would not be protected and the materials from a search warrant would not be protected. Like a, for example, bank statement that was subpoenaed with a grand jury subpoena to the grand jury. There was nothing preventing really the Department of Justice to release this witness list if it exists in this letter, because again, it would not have been secured pursuant to a grand jury subpoena in a grand jury. This is really a farce to distract from the storyline to say, hey, I turned over or tried to turn over and a judge shot me down.
And that's simply not true. And is this something that ever happens? I mean, how often does a grand jury unseal transcripts like this? Would there ever be a legal reason for something like this to happen?
Currently would be, for example, if it was needed as part of a criminal investigation. You hear about it if there's a military issue or even on tribal land, there's a court proceeding or something that needs to pull that sealed information out. But we look at historically and there's a Second Circuit decision not too long ago from the 90s, I believe it is. But you hear from Richard Nixon historically saying, let's get some of this evidence out that was sealed.
The danger to the public doesn't exist anymore. The secrecy is not necessarily that important as it used to be. The Rosenbergs, that conspiracy case from espionage case from a long time ago historically. So there is a precedent.
But again, that's not what we're being asked to move the ball. The evidence that the public wants to see of this witness list is not protected by the grand jury and likely would never have been presented to the grand jury. So is it your belief that if you truly wanted full transparency in this matter, the grand jury would not be the route to go? Who would be or where, I should say, would the route take us?
Who should we be asking for for this? His first name is Donald and his last name is Trump. And he is the person who can say to the Department of Justice, it's in that file. Share it.
He's not going to do that. He's going to blame a if these supporters could be satisfied. You know, I think whatever happens with this Franjury situation, you know, as before me just said, you know, there's going to be a lot of difficulty around that. But even if there were to be some sort of list that does eventually get put out, I have a feeling based off of other conspiracy theories that I've tracked and there's nothing will satisfy a person who has tied their entire identity to this idea that a piece of information can be released out into the world and then the entire world makes sense.
The fact of the matter is the world often doesn't make sense. There is often a lot of secrets and things that don't add up and life can be very unsatisfying. And what a conspiracy theory does at its core is it really shrinks things down and simplifies the world. So I think that there is this possibility that even if these people were to get everything that they wanted, they wouldn't be satisfied by it.
And that puts Trump in a really awkward position. Yeah. And you write so eloquently about it in your piece about these persistent conspiracies that really capture the attention of the public. And you've described it as what you're calling late stage conspiracism.
I never said that word before. Hopefully I said it right. Writing quote, all the anger may just be the result of an addiction to an information ecosystem that has conditioned people to believe and to expect a right to evidence that justifies any belief they might hold to believe such a thing would suggest that there is epistemic rot, reality decay, and a culture of conspiracism are not byproducts of a specific politician or political movement, but something deeper, something intrinsic to the platform's culture and systems that define our lives. It would suggest that the fever will never break.
I can talk about to young journalists about this all the time, Charlie, this idea that we live in a current environment where people make up their mind first and then go in search of evidence to back it up. Is that part of why something like this manifests itself and it's so impossible to stop this train? Absolutely. And this is why I described the quote unquote, you know, the Epstein files, the perhaps real, perhaps not real document as this unstable compound, right?
All sorts of people from, you know, MAGA shock jocks to politicians have tried to leverage it for their own personal gain or to score attention points or whatever it is, right? And it seems to blow up in everyone's face. And I think it's because of this idea of this justification. People have bought into this.
For them, what uncovered the Epstein list means is a sense of true accountability, that, you know, everything that is wrong in the world right now is the fact, is based off the fact that these powerful, truly morally rotten and corrupt elites run the world. And if that were to be exposed, if they were to be brought to justice, everything would change. There are people who believe that, you know, all debts would be forgiven, that we would have universal health care and all sorts of wonderful governmental services if the elites were brought to justice. This is all tied up in some really thorny stuff that's glued to people's identities.
And, you know, it could be really difficult if they don't get what they want. Yeah, I like the way you describe it, an unstable compound with a fuse that Donald Trump lit. And now it seems to be surprised that it's blown up in his face. All right, Charlie Warzel, terrific report on The Atlantic.
I highly recommend it. Coming up, stop me if you've heard this before, a battle over a potential government shutdown. I'm usually the one warning you about it. It could soon be on the horizon, really this time.
We're live on Capitol Hill to explain why. Plus, an update from Los Angeles, where officials are investigating an explosion at a sheriff's facility that killed three deputies. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.
We are still following breaking news in Los Angeles County, where three deputies were killed in an explosion at a sheriff's training facility. The blast happened early this morning in East Los Angeles. Investigators are still determining what caused the explosion. This is unfortunately the largest loss of life for us as the L.A.
County Sheriff's Department since 1857. At this time, we do not know the cause of the explosion. However, this specific area has been closed off due to the ongoing investigation. We believe there is no threat to this community.
Actually, I could tell you there is no threat to this community. This is an isolated incident. California's Governor Gavin Newsom's office says the governor's been briefed on the situation and Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on social media that the FBI and ATF are assisting with the investigation. NBC news national correspondent Erin Gilchrist joins me from our Los Angeles bureau.
So, Erin, at this point, do investigators have any idea what caused this explosion? Well, Ryan, the sheriff said no. They don't know yet what caused the explosion. And that may be because it was about four hours before investigators really got into the scene here to start the investigation proper.
As we understand it, the Los Angeles City Police Department's bomb squad had to be brought in to make sure that the device or devices, as we understand it, were rendered safe after that explosion this morning. As you noted, it was about 7:30 local time when the first calls went out to the emergency communication center here. The first indications that there had been an explosion. The bomb squad technicians, the deputies involved here, had picked up what we understand to be two military style ordinances overnight and brought them back to the training facility here.
This is the facility used by the bomb squad, the SWAT team, those high risk tactical teams for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office. And at some point after they arrived back at the facility here, one of those devices exploded. So there's still questions about what exactly was happening when that explosion happened and what caused it. But at this point, we do know that there were three deputies who were killed in this incident.
No other injuries beyond that. These were veteran deputies with the Sheriff's office here, 19, 22 and 33 years, each of them had worked with the Sheriff's office. And now we know the FBI, the ATF have all been involved in investigating this, Ryan, to figure out exactly what caused the explosion, what was happening in the minutes before the explosion, and of course, what happened after. Okay, Erin, thank you for staying on top of it.
Let us know if there's any new developments and we'll bring you back in immediately. We're going to now, though, turn to the president's latest legislative victories. Moments ago, he signed the Genius Act, a first-of-its-kind cryptocurrency bill that creates a framework for issuers of stable coins. Those are crypto assets designed to give the market additional stability.
The House passed the bill in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote last night, sending it to the president's desk. President Trump touted the legislation and the immense impact that it will have. With today's signing, we are pushing even further into the exciting new frontier. Just as I promised last year, the Genius Act creates a clear and simple regulatory framework to establish and unleash the immense promise of dollar-backed stable coins.
President Trump is also expected to sign into law the $9 billion rescissions package, which will call back money already appropriated for foreign aid programs and for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Democrats have slammed their colleagues for pushing this partisan package through Congress, warning that it could derail efforts to fund the government with a September deadline fast approaching. And it comes as the OMB director, Russell Vogt, is now calling for more partisan appropriations processes. The appropriations process has to be less bipartisan.
I think it will lead to better results by having the appropriations process be a little bit partisan and I don't think it's necessarily leading to a shutdown. I think we will be able to get to a good result. Joining me now is my Capitol Hill colleague, Mel Zano. Mel, thanks for being here.
So lawmakers now actually do have to turn their focus to funding the government. That deadline is fast approaching. But given how partisan this rescissions process was and now these comments from Russell Vogt, is there any incentive for Democrats to help fund the government? What's their reaction?
Well, there's very little incentive for Democrats to play ball here. That well has been almost completely poisoned from the beginning of the administration when Elon Musk and Doge went in and started slashing programs, started firing people without any input or consent from Congress to now this $9 billion rescission package, which caused that funding that had already been approved by Congress and signed into law. But Ryan, it's not just Democrats who are frustrated with how the Trump administration has been usurping some of Congress's congressional spending authority. Just take a listen to this bipartisan reaction to Russell Vogt's comments.
Russell Vogt has now said the quiet part out loud. Amazingly, he said there's too much bipartisanship in the Congress and he has now said he wants to destroy our democracy. When you look at the quotes that are highlighted in the story this morning, it is pretty dismissive of the appropriations process. It's pretty dismissive of our role.
Mr. Vogt's lack of respect and apparent lack of understanding of how Congress operates is baffling because he's served in government before. And the reason, Ryan, this all matters is because there is a key funding deadline coming up at the end of September where Republicans are going to need Democrats in order to keep the government lights on, in order to fund the government and avoid a government shutdown. But the way that the process has been playing out, that looks like it's gonna be increasingly difficult to do.
So we'll probably have a very busy, messy fall here on Capitol Hill, Ryan. Shutdown watch is on, Mel, whether we like it or not. Let's talk about something else. I Number nine, he said when he was asked about the agreement that they came to, both him and CBS, after he sued for the interview in 60 Minutes with Kamala Harris, he said that it wasn't just that he didn't just get that $16 million agreement from them, but instead it's probably an additional outside agreement that could be around $20 million.
So there's questions that people have of whether or not this casualty is a part of that agreement. Of course, we may never know whether or not that's true, but I think that there are a lot of fathers for this failure, and it's probably unlikely that it's a just financial. So Matt Gorman's got some thoughts on some of those failures. You described The Late Show as a late-night group therapy for upper-class liberals.
So from a cultural standpoint, I mean, what do you think the cancellation needs? Well, I think it's one of the few areas back 10 years ago, 20 years ago, right? Late-night shows, they were convening events, right? You'd watch Jay Leno, whether you were in New York or LA or Omaha, Nebraska.
That's really not the case anymore. But the facts and figures, I think, parlay the decline of this, right? Ad revenues in all late-night categories have dropped 50% in the last seven years. Jimmy Fallon went from five nights a week to four nights a week last fall.
So this isn't just CBS either. And they're losing, The Late Show in particular, they're losing $40 million a year. So I get they're number one, but it's tough to justify, as you said, $100 million to produce and you're losing 40 of it. Those are tough statistics.
No matter what the fact, I think they've gotten way too political on most of the shows nowadays. But it is, there's a First Amendment here, right? There's free speech. They can get as political as they want, can't they?
I mean, there's nothing different about yanking the plug off of them. Do we know that, though? I mean, that's the- I don't know that, but let's just say, would you be concerned, your thoughts about the show independent of this, would you be concerned if part of the motivation, even if it's the third choice, as Jasmine says, that they decided not to try and refigure a way to make the show less expensive to produce or something along those lines, but they were just like, we've got this lawsuit looming over us. We have this merger we need approval by.
Let's just not deal with this. If that's even part of the calculation. There's no evidence of that, right? That's what I'm asking.
But I would be concerned if anyone is silencing that, but there's no evidence of that, hypothetically, right? If they're merging, you would want to take some of the loss leaders, losing $40 million off the books, especially if CBS is going into a high-stakes negotiation with the NFL at the end of the 2028 season, where it's going to cost billions of dollars. So if it's not part of it, then Megan, why is the president bragging about it? He wants to take credit for it.
Because he wants to take credit for everything. So we don't know if it's part of it or not, but he is willing to make sure that we all are talking about it, that he did this and he can take credit for it. It's really a shame because it was some place that we've put candidates before, we've put bosses before. It lets people see a softer side.
But frankly, linear TV is not the same as it used to be. People can go to TikTok. People can go to podcasts and influencers and YouTube channels. So there's more spaces out there for people to do more lifestyle TV like The Late Show's are doing.
But Donald Trump definitely wants credit for getting this off the air, and he's going to take credit each time another one gets canceled. It'll be interesting to see what they fill the airtime with. Maybe they'll repackage. I mean, Trevor Gill might deserve the credit.
I mean, we don't know, but he might deserve the credit. And, you know, we may hear about it in the next few days. But I guess that isn't that even part of the problem, though? The idea that he could take credit for it.
I mean, there does seem to be a concerted effort by this administration to scare those of us that broadcast to say, if you step outside of the lines of what this administration wants or what this administration desires, there will be a penalty for it. So even if it has nothing to do with Donald Trump, Matt, the fact that he's taking credit for it, isn't that a problem? Well, if it's not actually what the facts say, according to George Sheets, right, the media loves to guard themselves as being, quote, fact-checkers. That's not what the facts are in this unique case.
They're kind of going along with what Trump is saying then, right? Again, I believe if there was if it wasn't a loss leader, if there was making a profit, there's other things. I can maybe see your point, but the facts and figures are pretty clear on this. OK.
All right. Let's move on, because it's been 20 minutes. I'm contractually obligated to talk about Jeffrey Epstein. So let's talk about how the White House is handling this, Jasmine.
Do you think it's going to be enough for the base of his party for him to ask for this grand jury testimony? Maybe even some of it comes out. It doesn't really provide us any information. And they're just going to look the other way and say it's all over.
I'm going to look at my crystal ball and say no, but I think it depends on what happens. Right. If the judge says I will not make any of these documents available, then who do they blame? Do they blame the administration or do they blame the judge?
But I was in the White House earlier today and Donald Trump was furious last night. The White House was a complete 180 today. They were excited, in fact, a little bit because of just how the scenario has changed after that Wall Street Journal story. They feel that they are back on the offensive and that they can go into the attack mode when in the last week they were really trying to claw their way out of this and push their MAGA base to move on.
And so I think that there is a huge amount of question marks. And it's not we're not going to have the answer for, you know, a day, a week or maybe longer until that judge makes their decision. And then they go forward. Megan, I think even you would admit that Donald Trump has a unique ability to move on from a scandal pretty quickly, right?
Yeah, absolutely. But at the core of the scandal is a sex trafficking from young girls. So I don't understand why we want to move on. Doesn't everybody want the answers here?
Democrats and Republicans, the same should want answers. He wants to turn the page. I actually don't think that there's a bottom here. This is going to be death by a thousand cuts that they're going to release something and then it's about enough for his base.
They're going to say there's more. Where is the end? And it is going to keep going because this is a story that the media likes to talk about. It's a story that Democrats and Republicans alike want to talk about.
It's great on social media. So this story has no bottom for him and he will not be able to turn the page. He released medical records yesterday to try to turn the page. That is like unheard of from Donald Trump to say that he is not in perfect health.
It's tough for the Biden administration to claim this was a big important thing when they had four years to do anything on it, right? That's a trap Democrats can fall into. I do think they're a rope-a-dope this a little bit because if there's no new information coming out, there's no grand jury records. You'll see what comes of that.
What are we going to keep talking about? Like that's the issue that it needs new information to feed on it. Wall Street Journal was absolutely information, but it also gave Trump an enemy where he's at his best. And so I think that is, that was the catch 22 with it.
But I think overall without new information, we'll see. Does that mean, Jasmine, that he holds on to that core justice department team that he has in place with Kash Patel, Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi? Is our sense now that none of them are leaving? I mean, he likes Pam Bondi.
Like he personally likes her. He has a lot of face time with her. He talks about her glowingly both in public and private. He has defended her numerous times.
He insulted his base versus insulting her. I think you can, you know, say that he likes Kash Patel. He likes Dan Bongino, but he really likes Pam Bondi. I for one don't see her going anywhere.
And I think depending on how they play this, yes, it may not go away because people are going to continue to question. The question is whether or not Trump continues to get the blame like he did in the last week. It's official. You're an all-star panel.
I'm going to endorse it. Thank you guys. Jasmine, Megan, and Matt. Appreciate you being here.
After the break, drawing the line. Democrats rushed to counter a Republican-led effort spurred by President Trump to redraw the district lines in Texas to get more Republicans elected in next year's midterms. We should ask Matt about that. You're watching Meet the Press Now.
Welcome back. As the saying goes, everything is bigger in Texas, including the potential seismic shakeup to the midterms. As Governor Greg Abbott forges ahead with his plan to redraw the congressional map in an effort to help Republicans pick up seats in 2026. Right now, the for two years, as the right and the left in the Democratic Party fought with each other, didn't do a single thing for affordable housing, didn't do a single thing to improve the schools, didn't do a single thing to bring more jobs to the state.
And they ultimately collapsed in a lame duck session where they fought with each other. And I said, this is ridiculous. The Democrats are only unified around two principles. They can't stand the Republicans in general, and they hate Donald Trump in particular.
And people are fed up with that. They're tired of these parties fighting with each other. They want to get things done. And I just finally realized that if we were gonna make progress in this state, we'd be better off if somebody governed from the middle and got the two sides to work together.
And that's what I'm trying to do. All right, let me put a point in the Michigan Democratic Party chair Curtis Hurtle told us about your candidacy. He said, quote, I think most of this is about Mike's ego. It was bruised by the fact that he couldn't actually win a Democratic primary.
He's accusing your campaign about being more about opportunism, opportunism, rather than a crusade against the party system. How would you respond to your former chair? Well, I don't think many people would think running as an independent is an easier way to get elected. But since he said that, 160 African American ministers, including the most prominent ministers in Michigan, have come out and endorsed me.
And that's, of course, made the Democrats concerned. And then one Democratic union after another, Unite Here, the casino and restaurant workers, the carpenters, the millwrights, the plumbers. It's been one Democratic union after another has come out and endorsed me. And I think there's a lot of people fed up.
But this week, the Republican Chamber of Commerce, the Great Detroit Chamber of Commerce, came out and endorsed me. And there's becoming a growing sentiment in this state that they're tired of the toxic Republican versus Democrat. People are tired of politics as usual and give me a serious look. Okay, so you know how this works.
You've been around politics for a long time. Usually, if there's a strong Republican and a strong Democrat and then a third party individual gets into the race, it's usually not the independent that wins. It means that you're gonna pull votes from the party that you used to be a part of. Are you concerned at all that you're gonna split the Democratic vote and that a Republican could win in Michigan, which Michigan is already a swing state?
Isn't that a dangerous proposition? So all the polling is showing, I'm pulling equally from the Democrats and Republicans. Moderate Democrats are favorable to me, seven to one. Moderate Republicans are favorable to me, seven to one.
And the polling showing in southeastern Michigan, I will beat any Republican and Democratic nominee. The city of Detroit's comeback has been so dramatic that people in southeastern Michigan have experienced it, are behind me. In the out-state area, where it's not in the Detroit media market, I'm not well known. And I'm working very hard now going to farming communities and small towns and finding a very receptive audience, people who are listening to me as an independent that would have never come to the meeting if I were a Democrat.
And it's pretty exciting what's happening. Well, there's one pretty prominent person who's talking a lot about third parties, and that's Elon Musk, who was, of course, President Trump's former advisor before their falling out. You posted online that Musk got your attention when he started talking about starting a third party from the middle. Would you join forces with him if he offered?
I appreciate that, like many people, he's fed up with the two parties. But my approach is the opposite. I'm running as an independent. I'm not gonna get involved in the Republican versus Democratic legislative races.
I'm gonna work with who wins. Musk is trying to create a third party. If you created a third party in Michigan, you'd have more chaos and more division. So I'm not going the third party route.
I'm running as an independent who I think can genuinely get the two parties to work together. So long term, you don't view yourself as creating a new party. The idea would be you govern from the middle and then work with both sides once you made it to the governor's mansion. I am not creating a third party.
It's been very clear. I'm running as an independent. And I'm saying to the carpenters, you're gonna support the House Democrats. God bless you.
I say to the Chamber of Commerce, you're gonna support the Senate Republicans. God bless you. I'm not asking anybody to leave your party. But right now what's happened in this state is nothing is getting done in the partisan conflict.
And the idea that somebody could get people of goodwill on both sides to work together is pretty appealing to a lot of folks in Michigan. All right, Mayor Duggan, we'll talk with you more as we get closer to Election Day. Thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it.
We're back Monday with more Meet the Press now. But the news will continue as it always does this time with Tom Costello, who's in for Hallie Jackson right now. Have a great day. Dylan Dreyer, co-host of the third hour of today and mom to three wild boys.
I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting.
I am over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice on how not to screw yours up. Search Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.