If it's Tuesday, a fractured field and the frontrunner, former governor Chris Christie, gearing up to launch a no-holds-barred long-shot campaign against the former president, as even more Republican candidates prepare to enter the race this week, potentially to Mr. Trump's benefit. Plus, Trump indictment watched new signs that the special counsel in Washington, D.C. could soon decide whether to bring charges against the former president as a criminal grand jury prepares a meet in the former president's home state of Florida.
And flooding and fear near the front lines, President Zelensky warns of rising waters for up to 70 towns in Ukraine, as American officials consider declassifying intelligence, potentially showing that Russia is behind the collapse of a major Ukrainian dam. Good day to you, and welcome to Beat the Press Now. I'm Peter Alexander, and for Kristen Welker, the Republican presidential field is expanding again, and everyone is trying to find the best way to run against Donald Trump. Just a few moments ago, the former New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, officially filed paperwork with the FEC for a presidential run, and he's expected to formally declare his candidacy.
That'll happen tonight in New Hampshire. Christie's planning to pitch himself as someone who is unafraid to take on Mr. Trump directly, and forcefully, in contrast to a lot of the current field. To put this simply, Christie is running on a strategy of confrontation.
It is one of arguably three separate emerging strategies to fight the frontrunner. We're going to get to the other two in a moment. Christie, though, is facing very long odds in this race. In a new Monmouth poll on who Republicans want to see as nominee, he doesn't even make the list.
And he's viewed with skepticism by both Trump supporters and Trump critics. Christie's strategy of confronting stands in stark contrast to what's really the second strategy to take on Mr. Trump to coalesce around an alternative. Here's New Hampshire governor, Chris Anunu, a Trump critic, who just announced that he would not run due to concerns that a fractured field would only benefit Mr.
Trump like it did in 2016. Given where the polls are right now, every candidate needs to understand the responsibility of getting out and getting out quickly if it's not working. And I can be more candid about that as the governor of the first-in-the-nation primary, calling candidates out saying, look, you gave it a try, you're still in low single digits, you've got to get out of the race. If we do what we did in 2016, you're going to have somebody win this nomination with 35% of the Republican support.
That's not where we should be as a party. So to be clear, it doesn't seem like this warning is being heated. In addition to Christie, former Vice President Mike Pence, and the North Dakota governor, Doug Burgum, are also jumping into the race this week. There's also that third path against Mr.
Trump that's being pursued by folks like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. DeSantis is trying to outflank Trump to his right, specifically on those culture issues. An advisor to the DeSantis Super PAC told Axios, quote, the fight for the soul of the party is not about tax cuts or trade deals. It is this cultural combat that we have as a country.
For what it's worth, none of these strategies confront, coalesce, our culture appear to be working. Well, that will ultimately really be the question in that New Hampshire voters will have to come back. Chris Christie will have a town hall style meeting, so he'll be able to engage with voters directly. They'll be able to ask him questions.
It's a format that we became familiar with him doing in 2016. And in comments that we've heard from Governor Chris Christie since then, in the past couple of months, as he teased this presidential announcement, he signaled that his big strategy is to go after former President Donald Trump. He said his inability to do that in 2016 was a strategic error, and said that this time around he doesn't believe Trump is qualified to become president again because of the comments that he made after the 2020 election. And he says he's going to go directly after him, serve as that bulldog.
And I want you to listen to a little bit of how he framed that in that pivot, that this once ally, this candidate who after 2016, after losing to New Hampshire, he went on to endorse him, how he went from the ally to now one of his top critics. Listen here. So I don't hear anybody in this room saying, oh, you know, you're saying this because you're a never-Trumper. I was the first one on the bus, and I worked all the way through election night 2020 for him.
But I got off the train when he stood up in the west wing of the White House, behind the seal of the president, and told us the election was stolen. We didn't have one fact to back it up. I'm sorry. That's when I get off.
And talking to those in and around his campaign, it's clear that they understand the reality. Those phone numbers that you put up, the dominance of former President Trump in this 2024 primary race, they believe that in order to beat Trump, you need to, or in order to get to the nomination, you need to beat Trump. And that is what they're relying on. So they believe they'll build up that constituency.
They believe that with more time on the campaign trail, that will turn those numbers around. But you see from those numbers, there is a lot of work that Governor Chris Christie is going to have to do. And that work looks like it's going to begin this evening. Yes, of course, Jack, the real question is whether this is a campaign for Chris Christie to become president or just to stop Donald Trump from becoming president.
But you're in New Hampshire. The Governor, Chris Noon, who just announced that he's not going to be running, he also wants to stop Trump. But he took another attack. He's choosing to stay on the sidelines here.
How are the voters there in New Hampshire, those sort of not interested in Trump reacting to that decision? Well, that remains to be seen. And we'll talk to some folks as they're heading into this event here. It's one interesting thing about this is while this is a Chris Christie presidential launch, it's at an event, a venue where you've seen a flood of candidates come in the lead up to this election.
Former President Trump, that town hall that he did on another network was right here at this college. So that is one of the questions that we will bring to them. But I think that point that you make, the fact that Governor Sununu decided to pull out, decided not to go and enter into this race, those are two very different strategies. The difference with Chris Christie is that he believes that he can take on that fight.
One thing that you heard him mention his last time on this campus when he was teasing his presidential run is that he believes he can do to President Trump what he did to Marco Rubio in deflating the candidacy really before momentum started to build up. And we'll see if that is a successful strategy this time around. We'll see the cameras rolling behind you, so at least for the night, Chris Christie will certainly get some media attention. Jack, thank you very much.
I want to get to Steve Kornacki quickly. Steve, the numbers you're going to show us are striking. I've been watching a lot of your coverage of this. The key, I think, to Chris Christie's stop-from strategy would be getting on a debate stage where the country is watching.
From your perspective, is it a sure thing that that will even happen? Far from it. So here's what has to happen for Christie to even get that shot at Trump on stage in front of the whole country. Here's the RNC debate criteria that they put out here.
This is for their first debate, which is going to be held toward the end of August. Basically, starting the first week of July, that's when this kicks in, you've got to poll at at least 1% in three national polls, or 1% in two national polls, and in one early state poll. The early states be in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. So you've got to clear a polling threshold there.
You also have to secure donations from 40,000 unique individuals. It's going to be a very small dollar here, but you've got to show 40,000 donations, and you have to sign a pledge saying you'll support the ultimate Republican nominee. So it's ironic, if Christie is telegraphing the strategy of going hard after Trump in a debate, he would also have to signal before the debate that he's okay with supporting Trump in the presidency again if Trump wins the primary. So again, you say you've got to be at 1%.
It doesn't sound like that much. Most recent moment poll, this is from last week, Christie didn't register. Back in December, at the moment of the poll, Christie didn't even register. So he's got to clear those thresholds to get in the debate, and then even if he does, even if he clears those thresholds, two more questions for me.
Number one, will Donald Trump even show up? Because Trump's making it clear he may be skipping debates, so maybe Christie makes it, and Trump's a no-show. And number two, with all these new candidates, you're talking about Pence, you're talking about the governor of North Dakota, with all these other candidates, are there so many who qualify that they end up having to do two divisions, two nights of the debate, and Christie ends up stuck on one night and Trump on another night? That's a possibility, too.
Yeah, there's a lot of things to consider. We've got a ways to go, but already the field appears to be sort of giving us a sense of where it may be headed. Steve, thank you for that. And joining us now at the table, Tamara Keith, she's White House correspondent for NPR.
Moe Lethe, Democratic strategist and executive director of the Georgetown University Institute for Politics and Public Service. And Republican strategist, Brad Todd, thank you guys for being with us. Sam, let me start with you as the lady at the table. Chivalry is not dead on this day.
Is this going the way that Chris Christie thinks it's going? Well, he's going to get in. He's going to get the attention, as you say. And then he gets to make the case that Trump is the emperor who has no clothes.
But who's listening to that case? Well, it's not clear. He's given up part of his platform because he's not going to be able to be on TV every Sunday making that case. It's a real open question, but I think it's important to note that it's very early.
Yes, there is a mini bus full of candidates. It could require an entire bus by the time the field is fully filled out. But then people do drop out. And it's not like all of these people are necessarily going to be in until the very end.
If you look at the Democratic primary in 2020, it looked like there was the Bernie Sanders lane and then the establishment lane. And it seemed like Sanders could win. And then the establishment lane, everyone dropped out except for Joe Biden. And all of those votes flipped to him.
Brad, let me ask you, this is a tale of two Chris's in some ways, right? You've got Chris Christie, you've got Chris Sununu, two very different strategies about how they hope to stop Donald Trump from being the next president of the United States. Which of them is more effective? Well, I think there's two strategies, right?
There's the eclipse strategy and there's the conquered strategy. Chris Christie believes that Donald Trump must be conquered. Chris Sununu believes he must be eclipsed, right? Everybody consolidates around one other choice that's somewhat different from Donald Trump and therefore he doesn't have to be conquered.
The math, I think, is interesting as well. You show those poll numbers. Now, this is Trump's high watermark. If you look back at the most recent NBC poll back in April, there were about 45% for Donald Trump, like 46, and 45 for everybody else.
They're better preference. And so Donald Trump has a ceiling. I think it's short of 50% in my view of the primary, but with 17 states, it would have taken out to be well short of 50%. Yeah, I think that's true.
But let me ask you about this quickly. So you've got this. First of all, Chris is going to have to figure out who's going to be listening to him on the GOP side right now. He's also going to try to do something that's different than what he did in 2016.
It certainly sounds like he doesn't have a strategy that's all that different than that. It appears in the past that he's done something that's impossible. He's alienated Republicans of all sides. Here's what he said about 2016.
Take a look. Part of what happened in 2016, I'll be honest with you, we all made a strategic error. We did. I mean, look, I'm happy to own my mistakes.
I made plenty of them. And that was one of them. We all kind of thought, all right, don't go after him now, because once I get past Jeb and Marco and John and Carly and Ted and, you know, then I'll have Trump one-on-one and then I'll take him on. I don't know if I ever got there.
It was over. It was over quick. So that was a strategic error. Secondly, I stayed with him in 2016 because I didn't want Hillary Clinton to be president.
And I don't make any apologies for that. To be fair, he endorsed Trump when other Republicans were still in the field. But what do you make of that assessment from Chris Christie's? He's not wrong, right?
In 2016, every Republican candidate was running for number two, the number two slot so that they could then be the person left standing against Trump. That doesn't seem to be what he's trying to do this time, right? I mean, this time he's saying, I'm going after Trump from day one. Look, Chris Christie has to, I think, be politically astute to know he's not going to be the Republican nominee for president.
It appears that this is simply a political kamikaze mission where he's going in to try to help everyone else out by taking out Trump. There's a couple of ways to take out Trump, I would think. From a messaging perspective, unelectability, right, and his record of hurting the party over the last three cycles, and as Ron DeSantis is starting to do a little bit, by going after his inability to follow through on his promises. He promised us a while, you didn't do it, right?
That's from a substantive perspective. But there's also a stylistic way to go after Trump. Donald Trump is not your traditional candidate. He's a bare-knuckle brawler.
You've got to be authentic. If you're going to take on a bare-knuckle brawler, you've got to bring your bare knuckles, and you have to be able to do it authentically. None of those others really seem all that authentic in that kind of a fight. Christie can have that fight.
Might bruise Trump up enough to give somebody else a chance if everyone else coalesces. Yeah, the bare knuckles of Christie's were enough to knock Marco Rubio out of the race just a few years ago. So you've got Sanunu here. You've got Chris Christie here.
They both want to defeat Trump. They want to kind of return to that old GOP that may not exist anymore right now. And you've got DeSantis who's trying to sort of outflank Trump on a lot of these things, including some of those cultural issues. Is that the better way to do this?
Right, he's trying to go to Trump's right on immigration, you know, sending people on buses and planes to liberal cities. On woke talk, right? Yes, and there's a lot of, I'm going to be the anti-woke. We need to de-woke-ify America, make it just like Florida.
He's facing some challenges in Florida legally on some of his policies. And additionally, it's just not clear that the entire American public is actually worried about wokeism or even understands what it is as he is acting like they are. So, Brad, if you want Trump, then why is he pursuing more Trumpism than Trump does? Well, I think what DeSantis is betting on is that Trump is not a native of the conservative movement and that his instincts, while they were right in 2016, they may not be right now.
You know, Trump attacked DeSantis over his fight with Disney. In fact, Florida on abortion law, most Republicans probably sided with Florida's effort on that. And so Trump, his instincts may be off, and that's what DeSantis is betting. What's DeSantis' most effective line against Donald Trump?
What do you think is worth? We've seen it for two weeks now. What do you think might stick? I think the most effective way for him to handle this is to praise what Donald Trump did on policy and say, but he can't do it next.
He can't beat Joe Biden. He can't do more. I can do more. He can do what he did before.
I would hand him a gold watch and try to retire. Trump is reacting to this by saying it is a sign of DeSantis' weakness right now. The way they've seen him out of the field, the way they say he sort of flip-flops on some of these different things. He's trying to outdo Trump at his own game.
What do you make of that effort? Yeah, I think Ron DeSantis is suffering from overly high expectations, right? For months, everyone was talking about Ron DeSantis as the one guy. It's hard to say that when he's never played on this stage before, and he's had more than one stumble in these early stages.
I think he has the most potent message so far of any of the Republican candidates. Ron DeSantis, the electability, the why didn't you get this done the first time, and to some extent, the cultural battlefield that seems to animate the Republican Party right now. But he hasn't been necessarily the best messenger at it. It's still early.
Which is, I think, given the Trump folks a bit of a bounce to their steps, enter Chris Christie to try to take that bounce away and give DeSantis a chance to recover. It could go the other way with Chris Christie, though. You know, Donald Trump's one essential greed and greed that he brings for Republican voters, that even Republican voters who don't like a lot of things of value, is his combat readiness. Donald Trump is always willing to do combat with the left or with the media.
And Republicans, that's the first quality. You see, that's a barrier to entry. You can't get in the race without it. And so, if Donald Trump takes on Chris Christie and obliterates him, it might make him even bigger in the eyes of Republican voters who see that combat readiness as the first step.
I want to ask you, as the Democrat at the table, we heard today that Cornel West is looking to be an independent candidate at the general election in 2024. You've seen RFK's recent polling shows he polls at 20% among Democrats. Sort of, it would seem like the avatar for those Democrats who are worried about Joe Biden's age right now. Which is more dangerous to Joe Biden?
Is it RFK Jr. or is it a potential third-party candidate like Cornel West? Yeah, I don't think RFK Jr. is going to be a huge threat to Joe Biden in the early primary states, the way the Democratic calendar is shaping up.
He's not really registering. And at the end of the day, the people he seems to be appealing to are more centrist, independent Democrats. I would be worried about any legitimate third-party candidate from the left in a general election because our elections are just so divided these days. They're all raised within margins.
I hear that concern about a third party. They try to hide it on occasion, but they recognize every vote counts. And right now, there's not a lot of votes to play with. Well, and I think that they are more alarmed, concerned, annoyed with something like a no-labels that is trying to get on balance all over the country, trying to find a centrist candidate, trying to find someone to potentially get spoiled.
Well, that's not the name that they bring up, but they talk about it. No, that's not who they talk about it. But that's because they worry that they bet three years on not being in the center. And I was seeing the last couple of weeks, they try to do that again.
But that's why they worry about a centrist. Yeah, that's going to be interesting. It's always going to be with you, Mo. Brad, nice to see you in person.
Sam, we'll see you back at the North Lawn in just a couple hours from now. I trust I'm coming up next right here. Emergency in Ukraine after a major dam collapse is causing mass flooding and evacuations across an active war zone. We are live in Kyiv with the latest on what happened.
The new U.S. intelligence signaling Russia is responsible. That's next. Plus, the very latest in a flurry of activity around Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into former President Trump's mishandling of classified information.
That's ahead. You're watching Meet the Press now. It's here. The Ford is a big deal.
Not yet. The Ford is a big deal. Oh, guys, just wait. The Ford is a big deal event is on.
Really? Now. Hurry up to lease a 2026 Maverick XLT hybrid all-wheel drive for $197 by weekly at 5.29% APR for 60 months with $29.95 down. That's about $99 a week.
The Ford is a big deal event. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford.ca. We are back. And right now, the United Nations Security Council is meeting as, once again, Russia and Ukraine are trading blame for a major attack, this time on a Ukrainian dam.
The destruction of the dam is prompting mass emergencies. It's raising questions about the safety of Ukraine's Aparitian nuclear power plant. This video, shared by President Zelensky, shows water from the Denisoro River rushing through the collapsed hydroelectric facility in Ukraine's southern Kursan region. Ukrainian officials say so far 1,300 residents have been evacuated, and water levels are expected to keep rising.
During today's remarks, Zelensky accused Russia of blowing up the dam. He called it the largest man-made environmental disaster in Europe in decades. While the Kremlin says it was deliberate sabotage by Ukraine to threaten Crimea's water supply, both sides are calling it a terrorist attack carried out by the other. NBC News foreign correspondent Molly Hunter has more from Kiev.
At this hour, water is still racing through that breach dam, flooding those low-lying villages just beyond the dam, downriver from that detonated dam. Now, Ukrainian officials estimate so that tens of thousands of people are in that danger flood zone. We do have an estimate, though, on the actual water levels. Earlier today, we were told that the water was rising at a rate of about six inches an hour.
We are now told that it will peak tomorrow morning at local Ukrainian time and then stay at that level for about four to five days. That makes evacuations very, very difficult. You combine that, of course, with what Ukrainian police are saying is constant Russian shelling, making it very hard to get Ukrainian civilians out of that area. Now, three things we're watching for overnight, according to one energy analyst, 300,000 people will be without drinkable water.
An additional 500,000 will be affected by power outages and flooding. And then we are watching that Zaporizan nuclear power plant just 100 miles up the river from that dam. Very, very closely, of course, it is still in Russian control. We have talked about the dangers surrounding that plant so much.
I sat down on Skype with the head of the state nuclear energy company, who said he was not worried immediately about the lack of power or water that would be coming to that Zaporizan nuclear power plant that usually relied on that reservoir associated with the dam because the six reactors are still offline. He said if Russia changes anything, though, those levels of the cooling pools may change. The power supply and the power kind of requirements of that plant may change. But he says big picture, what this shows is that Russia is willing to hit major infrastructure that will not only affect civilians immediately but have very long-term effects.
I'll send it back to you. Hunter, thank you very much for that report there. We want to bring in Courtney Kuby from the Pentagon as the Biden administration prepares to declassify some of its intelligence surrounding this latest incident. Court, good to see you.
What are American officials and Western officials saying tonight? So we've heard on camera today from the White House and from the State Department, and officially they're saying they just don't know who's behind this attack on the dam. But according to U.S. officials and Western officials we've spoken with about it, the U.S.
and allies are leaning at this point towards the reality that Russia may have been behind this attack. And so the next question is, well, why? Why would Russia, as we just heard in Molly's story there, Molly's piece, that cutting off this dam will cut off water, clean water to people, including in Crimea, which, as you know, Peter, is Russian-occupied territory. So why would Russia do this?
Well, number one, it creates an enormous humanitarian problem, as we also saw and heard from Molly just now, problems with drinkable water, just the very danger of having this rushing water, the concerns about the nuclear power plant not too far north of there. But in addition to that, and during that humanitarian crisis, I should say, Ukraine, the government of Ukraine, would be busy trying to deal with that in the midst of fighting this ongoing war. So it sort of sets their attention off to the humanitarian problem. But in addition to that, it also makes Ukraine's expected counteroffensive more difficult.
Now, this makes it difficult for the Ukrainian military to cross the river. That would make it more difficult for their troops to potentially move forward. So there is a benefit here to Russia, even though it would cut off potentially some clean water for Russians in the Russian-occupied area of Crimea, Peter. You know, Courtney, as you're pausing just look at these pictures, you recognize just the impact that's having on such a wide area and such a large number of people.
Seriously, a terrible humanitarian disaster in a place that's already facing so many of those. Why don't we read into the fact that the administration is working to get this intelligence declassified so quickly? What's your takeaway from that? So, I mean, that's a good question.
We don't know exactly, we know there have been discussions about declassifying some information to try to tell the American people what they know or why they may think they may be leaning towards Russia being behind this. We don't expect that necessarily today, but we know there have been discussions about it today. Look, the administration has been pretty forward-leaning in sort of naming and shaming Russia throughout this conflict, even before Russia invaded Ukraine. So the fact that today both sides are blaming the other for this, if there is some real evidence that the U.S.
or others can provide to show that Russia would do something that has such, again, potentially catastrophic effects on people in Ukraine, on infrastructure, I mean, even on things like, you know, animals in the past, there's a potential for a lot of death and destruction here. If the U.S. or others have any kind of information that would point to Russia being behind it, the officials we spoke and said they are going to do their best to try to show that, Peter. Courtney Cooby, always a pleasure to have you with us.
Thanks for your expertise. Coming up next right here, all eyes on special counsel Jackson Smith and NBC News. Coming up with them today to ask about a potential indictment in his criminal investigation into former President Trump. You very rarely see him, if ever.
The latest report when we come back, you're watching Meet the Press now. We are back as a federal grand jury here in Washington considers potential charges against former President Donald Trump. Sources tell NBC News that a federal grand jury in Florida will also meet this week to hear evidence of the special counsel Jackson Smith's investigation into the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. We should know it's unclear if the grand jury in Washington is also meeting this week, why prosecutors have convened two grand juries, and how the Florida grand jury's work relates to the work of Washington's grand jury.
NBC News caught up with the special counsel Jackson Smith as he walked to his office today, the day after he met with Mr. Trump's attorneys. Smith did not answer any of our questions about the investigation. You almost never see him.
The former president has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in his handling of the documents. And all this comes as House Republicans appear to be gearing up to defend Mr. Trump with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan now demanding the Justice Department hand over internal documents outlining the scope of the special counsel's investigation. For more on that, I'm joined by NBC News Justice and Intelligence correspondent correspondent correspondent, Ken Delaney, and he is outside the Justice Department.
Also with me is Carol Lamb, former federal prosecutor and current NBC News legal analyst. Ken, let's get to you if we can. Has the Justice Department responded to Jim Jordan's request? Hey, Peter, they have, with a big fat no comment.
So they're not playing right now, but it's very unlikely that they will accede to this request. This is the kind of information they generally don't turn over. They kind of draw a hard line when it comes to internal deliberations about criminal investigations. Ken, do we have any better understanding and more reporting about what they talked about at yesterday's meeting between Trump lawyers and Justice Department officials?
I know we can't have real specifics. Is there any better understanding about the reason for that meeting? There's been a number of accounts. The sense is that this was a last-ditch appeal, both for Trump lawyers to argue that their client shouldn't be indicted, but also argue that the special counsel has operated outside the bounds of normal Justice Department procedures.
And that's important because that's really the only grounds on which Attorney General Merrick Garland, who wasn't at the meeting, by the way, could block anything that Jack Smith does. That's what the regulations covering the special counsel say. The Attorney General can block a special counsel from, say, bringing an indictment if it's so outside the bounds of normality that there just would be a terrible policy breach. Nobody thinks that's going to happen here.
Jack Smith is making this charging decision, and nobody believes that anything those three lawyers said to DOJ officials and to Mr. Smith himself is going to change anyone's mind. So, Carol, let me ask you a couple of these questions, if I can. You say that Jack Smith has concluded that Mr.
Trump must be charged in Florida. What makes you think that? Well, I think that's not exactly what I think. I think that this question, though, of what is the proper venue or what is the venue that Jack Smith is going to choose for bringing these charges has been sort of a pending issue that hasn't gotten a lot of attention during the course of this investigation.
Now, I don't think that Jack Smith will necessarily charge Donald Trump in Florida, but if you were to look at where the most events have occurred in everything that's being investigated here, they have been in Florida. Now, there are ways that a prosecutor or federal prosecutor can deal with that if they want to bring charges in a particular district, and Jack Smith most likely wants to bring these charges in the District of Columbia as opposed to Florida for obvious reasons. But it's a little bit difficult here to say that everything that has happened here is somehow tied to Washington. In order to do that, he most likely has to prove that either Donald Trump removed those documents from Washington, knowing that those documents were being illegally taken, or in everything he did afterwards, there was some nexus to Washington.
For example, maybe obstructing the D.C. grand jury's investigation or perhaps making false statements to the National Archives, but it's a little bit more difficult for Jack Smith. So, the fact that a federal grand jury proceeding has been begun in Florida leaves open that possibility that there may be some charges against Donald Trump in Washington. I mean, Florida.
Help me clarify. We want to make sure we get your position on this and your expertise on this. Help me understand that our prosecutors are going to have to start from scratch with presenting evidence to a Florida grand jury. I think a lot of Americans are confused about the way that these two grand juries relate.
Sure, and it's not surprising that folks are confused because grand jury proceedings are, of course, always done in secret. It is highly unusual in a single investigation to have more than one grand jury impaneled. It becomes a little bit more difficult. But no, they don't have to actually start from scratch.
Hearsay is admissible in a grand jury proceeding, and so they can take whatever transcripts they want from another grand jury anywhere in the United States and simply have them read back or make them available to the grand jurors in the other district. And just to be clear, it is possible that there are potential targets who are not Donald Trump in Florida who have been offered the opportunity to cooperate, and they have refused. They've declined. And so the Department of Justice may say, well, you've had your opportunity to cooperate.
You didn't want to, now we're going to carry through with our intention to indict you, and those charges lie best in the district in Florida. So there is a realm of possibilities here, but this venue issue is a difficult one and is one that undoubtedly Jack Smith is taking fully into account right now. Can you quickly pull back the curtain for us? We saw, obviously, Mr.
Trump's attorney is walking out of the DOJ. Gary Carlin wasn't there, but they did meet with the federal prosecutors. As a prosecutor, what would happen in a meeting like that? What's the sort of motivation behind having a meeting like that?
Does that mean an indictment is more imminent? I think there are two primary reasons why defense attorneys request meetings like that. One is to, of course, try to persuade the Justice Department that charges are either not warranted or there's been, as has been suggested here, some impropriety in the way the investigation has been conducted that would not reflect well on the Department of Justice. The other reason is defense attorneys like to talk to the prosecutors.
They always feel they can get some inkling, some indication about what the charges will be, when they might be brought. In some instances, probably not on the table here, whether there's a resolution short of indictment. But those are the reasons. Defense attorneys love to show their clients that they're doing the best they can for them and therefore meeting with the prosecutors.
Win-win, even if it doesn't necessarily change the trajectory of this. Carol, Leon, Ken Delaney, always a pleasure to have you guys with us. Thank you both very much. After the break, migrants and political motives.
California's attorney general has opened an investigation after a private plane full of migrants landed in Sacramento yesterday as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis tries to out-trump Trump on the issue of immigration. The latest reporting and my interview with California's attorney general that is next here live. You're watching Meet the Press Now. We are back on Meet the Press Now.
I'm Peter Alexander and for Kristen Welker. The state of California has launched an investigation after two planes of migrants arrived in Sacramento Friday and Monday. The state's attorney general said the movement may be part of a, quote, scheme by Florida and its governor, Ron DeSantis, to move asylum seekers from Texas to California without adequately informing the migrants of their destination. Sacramento's mayor said today that his city is caring for the migrants.
Governor DeSantis' office did not respond to a request for comment from NBC News. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, is not held back on this situation. He tweets, Ron DeSantis, you small, pathetic man. This is not Martha's Vineyard.
Kidnapping charges? Question mark. As news in reference, this is not the first time DeSantis has been investigated for moving migrants. Yesterday, a Texas sheriff recommended charges over flights arranged by DeSantis that transported migrants to Martha's Vineyard.
It all comes as the DeSantis campaign has tried to position itself to the rights of Mr. Trump on this crucial issue of immigration, accusing the former president of softening on the issue. NBC News senior national politics reporter Matt Dixon is joining us with more right now. Matt, what does this investigation mean for DeSantis?
Have we heard anything from the governor? No, and so far I think that's the most notable thing. The Martha's Vineyard flights is something that he publicized, he talked about, and sort of wanted political credit for them. And he really used those flights, as he explained it, Governor DeSantis said, to draw attention to the southern border and what he sees as his failed, you know, border policy from President Biden.
So the fact that they aren't speaking, they aren't returning requests for comment, is definitely noticeable. I don't think the idea that he's being investigated by a democratically unique state really, really bothers the governor all that much. I think any time he draws the ire of democratic politicians around DeSantis, it's a good day, so that's not a concern for him. Yeah, I suspect that plays pretty well for him when he's going on the stump and the like.
So this is not the first time, as we said, that Florida has done something like this. We saw this last year with a group of migrants brought to Martha's Vineyard. Is this, I mean, a political move? It's being investigated by a liberal state, as you said.
That's a point of pride for him. So is this about politics? Yeah, I think even Governor DeSantis would acknowledge that. DeSantis has said all along, going back to Martha's Vineyard fights, that it's about highlighting the immigration and southern border policy, which is a direct shot at the White House.
And President Biden, it has been, even since before Governor DeSantis was a candidate for president. He's long used the immigration issue as sort of a cruddle to hit the Biden administration and federal policy. So I don't think there's anyone in Governor DeSantis' office who would deny that there's a political element to this. They, of course, say there's policy aims as well, and opponents are, you know, once again, sort of vocally talking about how asylum seekers are sort of being used as political pawns.
And that's the sort of contours of the debate and conversation. And Matt DeSantis also attacked Mr. Trump last week on immigration policy. He said he's not the same candidate that he was when he ran in 2016.
What does it say that DeSantis is trying to position himself to the right on Mr. Trump on this key issue? Yeah, he's trying to position himself to the right on Trump on a lot of issues, including immigration, but it's a perfect intersection for DeSantis. He's always had these sort of further right or very conservative views towards immigration that the state legislature, his urging, has often passed immigration overhaul bills.
So this is an issue that is sort of key-speak-selling very well. It's a comfort zone. So the idea that he's sitting to the right of Trump is, I'm sure, intentional to a degree, but it's also just sort of where he's at organically on the issue. Just quickly, Florida also grappling with the practical impact of strict immigration laws, a potential labor shortage looming over some workers, boycotting the state.
Does that impact his message? Is there a pushback at home on that? Absolutely not. DeSantis' sort of position is double down, double down, double down, and I don't think it'll change the messaging at all.
Whether it's a good strategy or not, we're not sure, but there's going to be no fact right now. I think when you double down, they call it quadrupling down, perhaps. I'm not bigger than Matt. That's why we became journalists, right?
Nice to be with you. Nice to have you here. Thanks so much. I'm joined now by the California Attorney General, Rob Bonta.
General Bonta, thank you for being with us. What is the status of your investigation right now? It's ongoing, and we are gathering all the facts that we can, including conducting interviews of the 36-some seekers who were flown to Sacramento and identifying leads and tracking them down and pursuing them to make sure we have all the facts on lockdown before we overlay our legal analysis, both looking at potential civil and criminal liability and then make some final decisions. But we are in the middle of our factual investigation.
So as we try to detail some of these facts, we've learned the migrants came from Texas through New Mexico, finally flown to your state of California. What is the latest information on how these migrants ultimately got to Sacramento? These migrants were... on a long journey from their home countries most of them from venezuela a three-month trip was described to me through multiple countries often sleeping on the street missing meals uh and coming to the united states of america in pursuit of asylum um seeking safety when you're seeking asylum you're fleeing violence and persecution and when they ride here rather than being um given safety they were uh they experienced deceit in the form of what we can tell is an official program funded by state of florida taxpayer dollars you say we can tell by what is the evidence for that accusation uh the official existence of the program 10 million dollars being used to fund it and documents that we have in our possession that were given by the recruiters or those who approach the asylum seekers that have the state of florida on it the state of florida so-called voluntary transportation program listed on it the vendor virtual systems inc is identified as the private corporation who will carry out this official program the state of florida so we have it in black and white in documents and that's a very strong indicator that this is that very same florida program that was funded by taxpayer dollars presumably the legislature passed and governor de santis signed um it is a little uh awkward that the state of florida is engaged in identifying and recruiting asylum seekers and migrants in another state um migrants who never came to the state of florida never set foot in the state of florida but they are identifying them in texas and then flying them to places like martha's vineyard in sacramento but we have good indications of this is the state of florida program general you've met with uh some members of this group i'm curious what you learned from your conversations what do they say about the people who brought them to your state and and what was their awareness of what was happening you know i did get a chance to speak for about an hour and a half or more with a number of the asylum seekers who arrived in sacramento last friday i spoke with them on saturday the morning with governor newson and the first partner and spoke at length and they told us their stories uh a lot of it involved that journey to um the border of texas but then uh having arrived in texas they were in el paso uh outside of a migrant center when someone affirmatively approached them came up to them contacted them and the ones i spoke to said um generally that they were being offered assistance finding jobs if they came with the people that approached them and that then led to a travel by vehicle to las cruces new mexico and then a flight to sacramento it also uh once in sacramento involved a ground transportation to the doorsteps of a diocese and being left on those steps and being told we will be right back and then never coming back the individuals left got on a flight back to mexico as we understood it never lifted a finger to do what they promised to help them find jobs and appears there was never any intent to do so so we're very concerned about uh the deception the misleading the falsehoods the lying uh the false promises that were made in order to move these individuals across state lines general bossa to that to that case though i get it i want to i want to get into your legal thinking here a little bit this is not the first time the migrants have moved from state to state so what about this specific group elevates this to a legal issue i think a lot of people here and it certainly seems cruel and awful to just drive those or travel those across the country and drop them off in another state but is that illegal maybe and that's what we're investigating and that's what we're determining is it morally bankrupt absolutely it's morally wrong we can just put that aside it's black and white in my view um is it illegal we're determining that and we're looking at the whole possibility of violations civil violations criminal violations criminal statements criminal felony and the two components that really matter here are the deception that misleading the lying the falsehoods the false promises on the one hand and then the movement of these individuals across state lines for hundreds of miles those two elements are foundational for a number of potential criminal civil liability actions that we can take what happens after hearings are in another state how are those resolved for these folks who have asylum hearings in other places far far from where they are now they're very worried how does that result how do you house california help resolve that well uh the way that we always proceed when it comes to newcomers and immigrants and those who are vulnerable we proceed with care and support and compassion humanity and that includes uh connecting these individuals with legal counsel uh it is possible to relocate a hearing uh to a closer location uh perhaps san francisco for example but would be better than new york or denver they can also be scheduled to a time when they can actually appear they're very concerned about appearing it's important for their um the process of seeking asylum for them to be their person and so they're getting assistance with that rob bonta is the attorney general for the state of california general bonta we appreciate your time to speak to us thank you thanks coming turning out to an ongoing environmental disaster millions of people across the northeast in this country waking up to dangerous air quality conditions this morning because of wildfires in another country an eerie haze look at that there could be seen during sunrise in new york across in new jersey as wildfires in quebec and nova scotia keep burning canada is on track for its worst ever year of wildfires which is starting june more than six million acres of that country have already burned this year to date the unprecedented fire season was fast-tracked because of record hot record heat in the month of may in quebec close to 14 000 people have been forced to evacuate their homes at least 160 fires have been reported in the province and more than half are considered out of control the u.s and france have sent firefighters to help with containment efforts and canadian officials are in talks with a number of other nations for additional support still come you say it's your birthday meet the press now turns one we're gonna take a quick look back at what it means for the year ahead don't go anywhere you're watching me press now we're back and this was the scene earlier today the beaches of normandy in france as people paid their respects and took photos to mark the 79th anniversary of the allied invasion of normandy during world war ii known of course as d-day more than 150 000 soldiers from the u.s and uk and france and canada australia and other allied nations landed on the beaches on this day was still the largest land and naval operation to date and turned the tide of the war defense secretary lloyd austin general mark milley they were in trance today to mark the anniversary they spoke at the american cemetery at omaha beach before a crowd that included several veterans who stormed the beach in 1944 look at those folks austin drew parallels in his speech between world war ii and today's challenges listen such a meaningful place if you ever get a chance to go to normandy before we go it's a big day here at meet the press now the show has now officially been on the air at news now for one year here's part of what our friend chuck todd said when the show launched since this is episode one i want to take a moment to remind people of our mission here to share with you what you need to know about what's happening in washington and american politics and most importantly explaining why it happened and why it matters to you we cover politics as it is it's a mission that's more important than ever in these increasingly divisive times so folks i've been a big believer in finding new ways to reach new audiences so we know where you are and putting meet the press on mc news now five days a week is at the forefront of where we want to be in streaming news it was a no-brainer we know you are here because you are simply looking for smart honest news and analysis that's all which has been and always will be the driving force behind the press and i know chuck and i also shop in the same place for ties that mission remains at the heart of everything we do here across all parts of the press brand as chuck said this weekend meet the press is about reporting what is happening explaining why it's happening and letting viewers absorb the facts that's going to remain the mission of this show as we enter year two and as we enter a new chapter in the 76 year history of meet the press that'll do it for us this hour chalk is back tomorrow in the seat with more meet the press now mbc news now coverage continues with hallie jackson right now and the day wraps up get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop a new podcast from nbc news with your host gavin vasugian we'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with nbc news's trusted journalist it's a fresh take that's sharp thoughtful and informative bringing you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world from the front page the zeitgeist here's the scoop from nbc news listen daily on sirius xm