Meet the Press NOW – March 14

If it's Thursday, former President Trump returns to the courtroom, as the Florida judge considers dismissing the charges against him for mishandling classified documents in the special counsel's criminal trial. Plus, Senate leader Chuck Schumer, the nation's highest ranking elected Jewish official, calls for new elections in Israel to effectively replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following President Biden's rebuke of the Israeli government just days ago. Plus, Kamala Harris becomes the first sitting vice president to publicly visit a clinic that provides abortion services, as Democrats double down on the issue of abortion and reproductive rights in the race for the White House. Welcome to me, the press now.

I'm Kristen Welker. We begin in Florida. We're just about an hour ago. Former President Donald Trump left a criminal courtroom.

As a judge, he appointed, now considers whether or not to dismiss the charges against him. This handling classified documents. The former president's attorneys argue today the special counsel's entire classified documents case was invalid, citing what they call the unconstitutional vagueness of the presidential record act. Lawyers for the Justice Department argued otherwise.

Judge Aileen Cannon says she will rule promptly on the issue and was Mr. Trump's first time in a courtroom since becoming the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. And it comes amid new reporting by NBC News about how the Trump campaign is planning to use his court dates for political gain, an unprecedented task for a presidential candidate facing 88 criminal accounts across four separate cases. That strategy will be complex.

It'll involve trying to portray President Joe Biden as someone attempting to imprison his political opponents, muddying the waters between Trump's and Biden's legal problems, creating counter programming events focused on policy and ultimately pushing to delay the trials for as long as possible. Mr. Trump appeared to deploy that strategy during an interview with Newsmax just last night. You know, I was dealing with them.

We were dealing fine. We weren't. And then all of a sudden they raided this house. They raided Mar-a-Lago.

But they released Biden. What Biden did, he wasn't protected by the president because he wasn't president. I took him very legally and I wasn't hiding him. We had boxes on the front of them.

And a lot of those boxes had clothing and a lot of them were moving out, okay, unfortunately we're moving out of the White House and because we're moving out of the White House, our country is going to hell. But we weren't hiding anything. He was. Now, as you can see, Donald Trump's legal calendar is packed for the next several months with his hush money trial in New York said to begin later this month, although just moments ago prosecutors in that case said they wouldn't oppose a brief delay.

And as for his classified documents, trial is still slated to begin in May. Although Judge Alien Cannon, the Trump appointed judge presiding over the case, will likely delay the start of that case as well. That's if she doesn't take a extraordinary step of dismissing the charges following today's hearing. Joining me now outside the courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida, is NBC News Justice and Intelligence Correspondent Ken Delaney.

On set with me is NBC News Senior National Politics reporter Jonathan Allen. Also with us are legal experts, Mark Zaid, an attorney who focuses on national security and government investigations, and Barbara McQuaid former U.S. Attorney and an NBC legal analyst. She is also the author of the new book, Attack From Within, How Disinformation Is Savitaging America.

Thanks to all of you for being here, for starting us off on a very big day. Ken, let me start with you outside of the courthouse. Judge Cannon, her two motions effectively to dismiss today. What are your key takeaways?

What did you hear from the Trump's lawyers and what did Judge Cannon say? Was she receptive to their arguments? In part, and skeptical about others, Chris, and good afternoon. So with Donald Trump sitting behind them at the defense table, Mr.

Trump's lawyers argued that the Espionage Act, which is the law that undergirds most of the charges in this case, is unconstitutionally vague. And they said there were certain key terms in that law which were not defined, like national defense information, and entitled to receive it. And they said that Mr. Trump was not on notice about what was criminal, and therefore couldn't have known that he was breaking the law when he took all those classified documents to his home.

Judge Cannon really didn't indicate which way she was leaning on that, mostly electrically, that's a long shot, because that law has been used hundreds of times to prosecute people who have brought home documents and leaked classified documents, including most recently and notoriously, Jack Tischera, the Massachusetts National Guards Airman, who leaked hundreds of highly classified documents. The second motion involved the presidential record, Saff, and that's a civil law passed after Watergate, designed to ensure that presidential records are the property of the American people. And what those are arguing is that that law essentially moods this prosecution, and then under that law, he can take any record that was his in the White House when he was president, deem it personal and take it home and essentially store it in his bathroom or under any other circumstance, and prosecutors can't do anything about it. Now on that store, Judge Cannon seemed skeptical.

She said that she didn't see how that argument was grounds for dismissing the case. She said really the issue of what's personal and what's presidential records is more an issue for the jury. It's a fact issue. It's not legal issue, proper for a motion to dismiss.

So she seemed skeptical of that one. Look, a lot of legal experts have said that these were marginal, borderline, frivolous motions that never even should have been the subject of a day-long hearing, but the fact is they were. And the fact is that there are a lot of procedural issues still pending in this case, which could have the result of delaying any potential trial date. And can Howard Jack Smith, the special counsel, responding to these arguments?

You can almost see their heads exploding when you read their briefs and hear them arguing court because they just think that these arguments have no merit. Essentially they say, this is Donald Trump trying to argue that because he was president, the laws don't apply to him, and that's just not how our system works. And they point out that, for example, Mr. Trump in 2016 and other times made a point of saying that he was going as president to enforce the laws about classified information and make sure to bring to justice people who violate those laws.

So he was well aware of the rules, and he was also briefed on them while he was the president. And in terms of the Presidential Records Act, they just say it's absurd, it has nothing to do with the criminal law. It's a civil law. And it doesn't say that a president can take information marked classified, including nuclear secrets, and decide that it's personal and take it to his house.

And can't very quickly let you go, we are learning that that March 25th hush money, trial date may be moving as well. What can you tell us about that? And do you expect it to definitely shift? It looks that way, Kristin.

The prosecutor in the case Alvin Bragg is now saying he wouldn't oppose a 30-day delay. The Trump side wants a 90-day delay, and an issue is a sudden disclosure of 31,000 documents by federal prosecutors in New York who investigated the same case, the Michael Cohen-Hush money case. They already turned over tens of thousands of documents, but this was a last-minute disclosure. And generally when a prosecutor gets documents, they have to give the defense time to review those documents out of fairness.

And so that's what appears to be happening here. The prosecutor, not too happy about this. They want this case to go to trial, but this was sort of sprung on them as they tell it by federal prosecutors who apparently had not turned those documents over before, but have now turned them over. All right.

Ken Delaney in covering all of the angles and twists and turns from outside of the courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida. Thank you so much for that, Ken. We appreciate it. John, let me turn to you now, and you're fantastic reporting the fact that your sources are telling you, not surprisingly, but that the Trump team is planning to effectively use these court dates as a campaign tactic.

What are you expecting? What are you hearing? So what we're hearing is there's kind of a two-pronged approach here. One is to go to the court, basically messaging to the base, and people maybe outside the base who think the president is being unfairly targeted.

So we've seen in the primary that's very effective for the Trump base. We saw him struggling before he was charged with crimes, and then we saw him rebound past his rivals. So that's one prong. The other prong is he's going to go out on the campaign trail, and he's going to make a policy argument against Joe Biden.

So basically what he's saying is I'm better on policy than Biden, and also Biden is going after me in court. But no one on his team seems to be under the impression that he would rather be in court facing criminal charges than not. They say they're going to try to make lemons out of lemonade and try to neutralize the Biden advantage on that. You make a really interesting point, which is that this is a strategy that was incredibly effective during the crime, there's no doubt about that.

But we are talking about the general election, and we saw all those voters in the primary who voted for Nikki Haley. Now, some of them, Trump is never going to win over, but some of them are independent voters. Some of them are moderate Republicans who may want to give him a chance. How does this type of strategy potentially play with them, John?

And how risky is it? I mean, it's very risky. But of course, running for president while you're on trial and for separate criminal cases, not to mention all the civil actions that he's faced. All of that is risky.

We don't know how this is going to turn out. You're right. I think that there are Republicans that would certainly rather have a different nominee than Donald Trump. I think you're right that there are some Republicans that are going to cross over and vote for Joe Biden.

And still some people who considered themselves Republicans eight or ten years ago who've been voting for Democrats in the last several elections. So I would love to be able to have a crystal ball and tell you what's going to happen in November, how these trials are going to affect it. What I know for sure, and having reported this with our colleagues, Matt Dixon and Olivia Sonya, is that Trump is trying to make the best of it. One of the people that we talked to, like I was saying, basically said that they know that their best hope is to kind of neutralize what's going on in court.

Well, we know how effective it was in the primary, so we'll have to see how it plays out in these coming months. John Allen, thank you so much. It was great to have you here in person. I want to turn to our legal powerhouse and Barbara, let me start with you.

Barbara, can we start off just talking big picture here? The fact that this hearing is happening at all. How unusual is that that you would actually have a court hearing for these types of motions? I think it's not that unusual, Kristen.

As we heard Ken say, these are kind of borderline frivolous. I don't imagine the judge would be granting either of these motions, but in federal court, there is this luxury of time. It's very different from state courts where overcrowded dockets sometimes preclude the ability for judges to have oral argument on motions, but it's pretty common in federal court when there is a motion to dismiss a case, a meeting motion like this with legal issues to actually read the briefs and then hold a hearing to see if the parties have anything to supplement their arguments. It gives the judge an opportunity to ask questions so that she can have a more informed decision when she ultimately decides the case.

But I do agree with Ken that both of these arguments strike me as likely to fail. Let me ask you a little bit about what we learned was said today in court. Judge Cannon apparently told DOJ lawyers she was, quote, struck by the retention charge beginning on January 21, 2021, basically saying the charge about him retaining these documents given that there was no demand for these documents. Meanwhile, what our legal experts said, the presidential record doesn't require a demand.

What do you make of Judge Cannon's comments? Yeah, it's actually a little troubling to me that she thought that was a significant factor, but she ultimately said that I think any issues here are ultimately for a jury to decide. But as you say, there's no requirement for a demand if Donald Trump is not supposed to have classified documents, national defense documents, it isn't for someone to say mother may I before he turns them back in. It's illegal to retain them when you do not have a legal ability to do that.

He lost that legal ability at the end of his term. And so he had an obligation to return them regardless of whether there was a demand. Mark, what do you make of Cannon's comments? Sure, I mean, understanding the two different acts is very important.

I mean, let's just be very straight about it. What Trump could have done was return the documents initially and then sued to recover them by claiming the Presidential Records Act covers that he made certain decisions, which he never vocalized, of course. There's nothing that indicates within the Espionage Act, which dates back to 1917, 60 years before the Presidential Records Act, not to also say about all the executive orders that were issued following the Presidential Records Act that makes no exception or reference to the PRA. Now, there was an extensive period of time of requests by the National Archives to recover this information and at the heart of it, Trump refused.

So that's what set in place the indictments ultimately and the difference between what happens with President Biden's case. Mark, it strikes me that what Trump's lawyers are arguing in this case is very similar to what they are arguing in the election interference case. Basically, he can do whatever he wants as President. Mark, is that accurate or is it overstated?

No, they're clearly trying to make that argument. And while some of these arguments are novel in the sense it just has never arisen before. So to say it's necessarily frivolous as a legal matter is tough because there's no precedent. But I think pretty much before, instructions for the microwave came out and saying you shouldn't put your pen in it to dry it, I knew not to do that.

So I didn't need the instructions to say that and the same with this argument that's being made. I think it's pretty clear that it will fail. But as everyone has been saying so far, this is all about the three words we always say in every broadcast, delay, delay, delay. You took me to my next question, Mark.

I have it written right here, delay, delay, delay, Barbara, isn't that what this is about after all? And if she rejects the Trump team's arguments, does this go to the Supreme Court? What are you anticipating happens next year? Yeah, so I think that it is likely that some of the strategy here is delay.

Although, in most cases, defendants look for every possible way they can dismiss the case before going to trial. So that's part of what it means to have a vigorous and zealous defense. I think that these arguments, though, would not allow interlocutatory appeal. They would have to wait until after the end of trial.

And that's the normal rule, Kristen. There are only a few exceptions to that rule. And that is, if the case never should have begun to begin with, or defendant will be irreparably harmed by going to trial, that's why his immunity argument has been appealed because the argument there is he should not have to even have any of the burdens of litigation. And so he doesn't have to wait for that one.

But these two arguments about dismissal under these two statutes requires just interpretation of the statutes. And so this would follow the ordinary final judgment rule, which means that even if Donald Trump loses here and he wants to appeal, he'd have to wait until after the trial to do that. All right. And Mark, let me ask you one more finally.

Let's say Judge Cannon dismisses the entire case. Let's just say that happens. What happens then? Does the special counsel have any recourse?

Sure. He could appeal up to the 11th Circuit, which no doubt I imagine he would, especially based on these particular motions. I mean, the classified Information Procedure Act, which governs this, has a lot of different pitfalls to it. I will say on the motion with respect to the unconstitutionality or the inviguousness, when I teach and lecture on this subject, this is why I say I don't want Congress to amend the statute because most of those issues, frankly, have already been decided that this is a constitutional statute.

So it would be unusual if these arguments won, because so much of it actually has been decided before, at least with respect to the Espionage Act. Well, this is complicated stuff. And you both made us a lot smarter. Mark and Barbara, really appreciate it.

Thank you and great to have both of you. Thank you. Coming up, the Senate majority leaders made your speech on the Senate floor calling Israel's prime minister in obstacle to peace and saying the country should hold new elections. President Biden hits the trail in battleground Michigan as the vice president shines a spotlight on the issue of abortion with a first of its kind visit to a clinic that provides abortions.

You're watching at the press now. Stay with us. Welcome back. And as starting floor speech this morning, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, the country's highest ranking Jewish elected official, offered his most scathing criticism yet of the Netanyahu government.

In his nearly 45 minute remarks from the Senate floor, Schumer laid out what he viewed as the four major obstacles standing in the way of peace in the Middle East, Hamas far right extremist in the Israeli government, Palestinian Authority president Abbas and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu going even further, Schumer that essentially calls for Netanyahu's ouster through new elections in Israel. At this critical juncture, I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision making process about the future of Israel. Of course, the United States cannot dictate the outcome of an election, nor should we try. That is for the Israeli public to decide, a public that I believe understands better than anybody that Israel cannot hope to succeed as a pariah opposed by the rest of the world.

As a democracy, Israel has the right to choose its own leaders and we should let the chips fall where they may. Senator Schumer did not hold back in his criticisms of Prime Minister Netanyahu saying the Netanyahu coalition was failing the Israeli people. Take a listen to a little bit more of what he said. Prime Minister Netanyahu has also weakened Israel's political and moral fabric through his attempts to co-op the judiciary.

And he has shown zero interest in doing the courageous and visionary work required to pave the way for peace even before this present conflict. As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me that Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7th. The world has changed radically since then, and the Israeli people are being stifled right now by a governing vision that has stuck in the past. Now, the White House has received advanced notice of Schumer's remarks adding the administration remains focused on getting a temporary ceasefire Gaza.

But these latest remarks by the Senate's top Democrat, as President Biden, has also ramped up his public criticism of the Netanyahu government in his state of the union addressing conversations with lawmakers and in a recent interview on MSNBC. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson condemned Schumer's remarks today, calling them grotesque and inappropriate. It is grotesque and hypocritical for Americans who hyperventilate about foreign interference in our own democracy to call for the removal of the democratically elected leader of Israel. This is unprecedented.

We should not treat fellow democracies this way at all. This is not only highly inappropriate, it's just plain wrong. For an American leader to play such a divisive role in Israeli politics while our closest ally in the region is an existential battle for its very survival. We need to be standing with Israel, and we need to give our friends and allies our full support.

Join me now, NBC News, senior national political reporter, Sahil Kapoor, and NBC News, senior White House correspondent, Kelly O'Donnell. Sahil, let me start with you, a lot of reaction pouring in on Capitol Hill. What are your key takeaways so far? Hey, Kristen, well, this was an extraordinary speech from Chuck Schumer for a number of reasons.

He's not only the most powerful senator, he's not only the most the highest ranking Jewish elected official in the United States, he's also one of the most pro-Israel Democrats dating back to many years. And what seems to have caused this was Schumer's belief that Israel's actions in Gaza have reached a breaking point, have crossed a red line, and that Netanyahu's behavior is threatening the long-term survival of Israel. He made abundantly clear that he continues to believe in Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and that Netanyahu was damaging the kind of global support that Israel needs to keep that going in the long haul. Now, the reaction has been mixed.

You just played what Republicans are saying, kind of unanimously, to the extent that we've heard critical of Chuck Schumer's comments. They say this was inappropriate. Democrats have a very different view. Some of them, like Senator John Fetterman, who I spoke to, are not joining Schumer's calls for new elections in Israel.

He's not criticizing Netanyahu. But a number of other Democrats are praising Schumer's speech as thoughtful and courageous, even if they're not necessarily joining the calls for essentially a regime change in Israel. There's finally the context of a potential aid package where numerous Democratic senators continue to support aid to Israel at this time. So the question about policy shift behind this is still unclear.

So let me ask you a little bit about what happened last week, of course, leader Schumer meeting with Benny Gons, a top political rival to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Is there any concern from his office that he's putting his thumb on the scale when it comes to the Israel's domestic politics, this image that we're seeing right now, Schumer meeting with Gantz? Oh, without a doubt. It's such an unusual move for Chuck Schumer, and there's no doubt that he didn't come to this lightly.

A number of his allies on his leadership team are saying the exact same thing how extraordinary it is to see Schumer do this. It clearly rose to a situation where he thought he could no longer speak up. And the political backdrop here is also notable, Chris, and with this constant bombardment of voices from the left in particular speaking out against Israel's actions, demanding a change in US policy to Israel, Senator Bernie Sanders, who I spoke to a little bit ago, said Chuck Schumer's speech was a step in the right direction. He wants to see it back by policy in that the US and his views should withhold aid to Israel and military weapons to Israel as long as they are in his view, causing the starvation of hundreds and thousands of children in Gaza.

And finally, there's the political question as well that a lot of Democrats feel like Netanyahu has been taking the United States for granted that he's kind of openly aligned himself with the Republican Party, dating all the way back to 2015 when he accepted an invitation from Republicans to come to Congress and blast President Obama's Iran nuclear deal, watching Schumer's speech. You couldn't help but get that impression that he's trying to remind Netanyahu who the senior partner in this relationship really is. It's a really fascinating read on the situation. Kelly O'Donnell, let me turn to you at the White House on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.

You and the team are reporting that the White House did get an advanced copy of Schumer's remarks. How are they reacting, though, particularly given the fallout that thought he was just laid out? Well, of course, and the heads up is important, but it is not a surprise when you consider how closely allied the president is with Chuck Schumer, and it serves perhaps to give the president some cover to have Schumer with all of the stature that our conversation here has made clear, saying these things that really amounted to the United States putting pressure on the Netanyahu government. There may be ways in which that is helpful to the president, but keeping him at some distance, allowing President Biden to continue to put subtle pressure on the Netanyahu government, but to not go as far as Schumer has done.

The White House says that it is up to Schumer to make these remarks. They respect that it is his choice to make. They say they did not give any approval in terms of what specifically he said didn't work on the remarks with him when I asked about coordination. But this whole experience since October 7 has, of course, created so many different kinds of challenges for the Biden administration and for the president in terms of all of the political fallout, all of the logistical issues, all of the humanitarian concerns.

And so now the delicate dance of how do you deal with someone who is an elected leader in another country when we are certainly focused on supporting a democracy and the longstanding support of Israel. But at a time when there are leaders who believe that that elected leader in Benjamin Netanyahu may not have his own country's interest for the long term in the right place, according to Schumer and others, and for the president to be able to try to ratchet up influence where he can, but also still embrace Israel in all the ways that are also critically important. Kristen? It is a really fine line, Kelly, and the complicating matters.

Of course, this uncommitted movement by Muslim Americans, Arab Americans, young voters who oppose the president's handling of the war in the Middle East. And of course, some officials are meeting with community leaders in Chicago today. What do you know about those meetings and the level of concern, Kelly, about this uncommitted movement that we are seeing have an impact in the primary, albeit not diminishing the fact that he just clinched the nomination, but still sending a signal? It's a measured reaction among Biden allies.

They recognize that in this moment in March, these are very passionate concern issues. They agree on many levels related to civilian concerns and humanitarian needs. And yet at the same time, they believe that many of those who acted in the no committed non-committed voting exercise of the primary period might view it differently by general election time. In states like Michigan, where there is a large Arab American community, where there is real deep passionate concern and family connection to Gaza.

So this isn't just about big ideas, it's about their own families. They recognize that there's an important number of voters there that they want to speak to. So these are complicated issues. It's going to take a lot of delicate empathy, compassion, and a vision for how they want to handle this.

And it is not an easy task. It is. And I think you hit the nail on the head with the word complicated, Kelly. It sure is.

Kyle, Kelly, thank you both so much. I really appreciate your great reporting. Coming up next, Kamala Harris becomes the first sitting vice president to publicly visit a clinic that provides abortion services as Democrats ramp up their 2024 messaging on reproductive rights. Stay with us.

You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. It's a day of both offense and defense for President Biden's reelection campaign. First the defense, as we mentioned, the president is on the trail today in Michigan.

It's the first time Mr. Biden has been in the state since last month's Democratic primary, somewhere than 100,000 votes cast for uncommitted, many of them citing their opposition to his administration's policy in Gaza. As for the offense, Vice President Harris today became the first vice president in US history to publicly visit a clinic that provides abortion services. The trip to a Minnesota Planned Parenthood comes as the Biden campaign has learned, leaned more and more into the abortion issue in the 2024 race.

Harris spoke from the clinic this afternoon to listen. I'm here at this health care clinic to uplift the work that is happening in Minnesota as an example of what true leadership looks like, which is to understand it is only right and fair that people have access to the health care they need and that they have access to health care in an environment where they are treated with dignity. M.E.C. Yamiche Alcindor broke the story of the vice president's travel and joins me now from outside the White House.

Yamiche, fantastic work. So, take us behind the scenes. What went into this visit by the vice president? Well, the vice president really wanted to make sure that she had boots on the ground in a space where health care providers are providing abortion in.

Of course, as you said, this is believed to be the first time that a president or vice president has ever visited an abortion clinic. She did so at a same call in Minnesota Planned Parenthood and she had fiery words for lawmakers who were trying to restrict access to abortion. She said that it's outrageous and immoral to have any sort of restrictions on abortion. She said that it's putting women's lives at risk and that a number of women have had scary and that time's almost life-threatening situations because they were denied access to abortion care.

She also underscored that Planned Parenthood clinics do more than just provide abortion. She said that they also provide breast cancer screenings. They also treat fraud or tumors. So, she was really trying to underscore that Planned Parenthood is a key, she says, a health care provider in communities.

She also said that she wanted to go to Minnesota in particular because the states around Minnesota have been restricting abortion access. But that state in Minnesota, their governor, has actually been expanding abortion access. She also talked about 2024 and, of course, this is an election year. She said elections matter and vow that if Democrats control both chambers of Congress as well as the presidency, that they will move to have federal protections for federal abortion rights.

So, they would essentially codify the rights that were taken away when Roe v. Wade was overturned person. Well, as you know, you mean, President Biden has sometimes struggled with how to talk about how to campaign on the issue of abortion. Do you think this is going to be really the vice president's issue?

Will she be taking the lead on this through November? The vice president will certainly be taking the lead on the issue of abortion. We saw President Biden talk about abortion issues in the State of the Union, but he didn't actually say the word abortion, even though it was in his repair remarks. So, you can tell that it seems to be a little bit more uncomfortable with the topic of women's reproductive health.

The only sense about it is that he's going to support them and fight for access to abortion, but Kamala Harris really is in her element here. Her office says that she's met with hundreds of legislators. She's gone to a number of different states, and towards this stop in Minnesota was actually the sixth stop in a reproductive rights war that she's kicked off in January. I was there with her in Wisconsin when she was blasting people like former president Trump, who of course is now going to be heading up and having a rematch with President Biden in November.

She was saying that Republicans really are putting women's lives at risk. So, this is definitely something that Vice President Kamala Harris feels very, very comfortable with. All right. Yamiche Alcindor.

Thank you. Fantastic reporting again. Congrats on the great suit. Joining me now on set for some more insight is NBC News chief political analyst Chuck Todd.

Great to see you Chuck. Nice to see you. So, what do you make of this visit by the vice president? First vice president to visit such a clinic, she's obviously made this sort of big issue.

Have a good impact. Look, I think I want to pick up on something you've asked Yamiche at the end, which is this is there's a real generation divide about how you talk about abortion, okay? Our parents started, okay? They didn't want to talk about it.

There was this taboo that if you had to get an abortion that you've somehow scarred in your life and nobody's saying that some people it is and all this stuff. But I think people under 50 talk about it, it's like, look, it's a necessity in life. You may not, you know, it sort of, and I think there's a lot of abortion rights activists who don't like, who say for 30 or 40 years, that by creating a stigma on it, it made people not look at their own health. This is a health care issue first.

And I do think that where the right has sort of missed this is that the Democrats talk about this now via healthcare. They don't talk about it being about a choice or lifestyle or any of that. That was a conversation in the 80s and 90s. And I think this is why the democratic position is so much more dominant in polls because they talk about it as a health care issue because women see it as a health care issue.

And he'd Joe Biden because he's about another generation, he was brought up on the politics of stigma and taboo and did not, it was not treated as a health care issue in political circles. I think this is where, I think this is where she's helping to have a better conversation with voters under 50 on the stage. Yeah, well, you talk about the polls. Let's look at one.

This is from Kaiser. And basically it shows about two thirds of voters say Trump had at least some responsibility for the Dobbs decision. What do you make of that number? Because Democrats are trying to remind voters every day, hey, wait a minute, no, he is responsible for the Dobbs decision.

He's the one who- The show is you, that it is. Do you think it, would you expect it to be higher? I mean, should it be like 95%? No, because I mean, he's responsible for it.

Right. But I think he shares the responsibility with Mitch McConnell. Right. Sure.

Sure. I get it. Look, Democrats hope it's the only thing voters are thinking about going into the polls because they have such an advantage on that. I understand what they're hoping for here.

But this is why I am always hesitant. Like I think Trump is the underdog because of abortion. Forget everything else. I think because of abortion, he's the underdog.

I think national. And I believe this, somebody else said it first, but I believe it. I don't know if Republicans are going to win another national election until either abortion is considered a settled issue with the public. And boy, are we not settled now?

Or Republicans change their position to where the country is? Very quickly. He knows he's an underdog. I mean, he said this privately, on this issue.

Yeah. And you can see it as public responses. Look, in this, this is why he is going to pick somebody who is to the left of Mike Pence on abortion. Right.

Now, what does that look like? I don't know if I don't think the public that wants to vote on this issue is interested in some sort of compromise that helps the right. And that's the problem the right has on this right now is that there is, I think somebody who's getting it. It's coming in Conway.

She's looking at the polls. She sees the polls. And she's trying to get Republicans to talk differently about this. They're not listening yet.

Yeah. It's such a great point. She's someone who has a pretty strong message on this. I have to ask you about Leader Schumann, his comments today, things that he's probably said probably have now come out into the public.

What do you make of it? Is that play moving forward? He said with just about every congregate at every reform in Chicago, America says, okay, the conversation among particularly reform and even some conservative, frankly, a lot of American Congress, Jewish congregations are this idea that Netanyahu has made it is putting Israel is making Israel unsafe. His leadership has made Israel as safe as made Jews less safe.

A lot of American Jews believe this and believe that frankly, he helped accelerate the conditions that we're in right now. He didn't create the conditions, but he created a situation that allowed this to happen. So I do think this is Schumer's the most credible person. He's not listening right now.

Nice point. I'm pointing to Netanyahu. He's yet to listen. He didn't hear the language from Biden.

He didn't hear it. At some point, when you lose Schumer, if you're a baby, I don't know if you have any American support left to the Democratic community. To that point, Chuck, does that give President Biden more space worth or to get publicly and privately tougher and to say, you got to start listening to me. Look, I think that he has all the room in the world actually to get tougher because Israel has no other ally.

They have one ally. It's the United States. So in that sense, I think we certainly have some leverage here. But Biden, I think, has real credibility here and Schumer just helped it.

You can be pro-Israel and anti-BB, right, that there is space there. But there's a fine line. It's McConnell's criticism of Schumer about, hey, we don't like outsiders getting involved in our politics. Be careful here calling for essentially a leadership change, right?

That's where I think I might have stopped short of calling for new elections. There might have been, hey, you need to change tactics here, type of thing. That is somewhere where I think that criticism is legitimate criticism. Hey, there's a line we've got to be careful of here and we're telling another democracy who should be charged.

Particularly after those images of Schumer and Ben again standing next to each other, shaking hands. Come on, here's not what Ben against. I mean, if it's the issue, basically, everyone shout buddy in your number one ally. We'd rather deal with a different CEO.

And I think now Schumer is sort of like, how many different ways do you need to hear this message? Yeah. Chuck, thank you. Appreciate it.

Great to see you as always. Come up after the break. Flip flops, TikToks and swing states. We're getting into the top policy fights on the Hill and the Trail.

The panel is next. You're watching. Meet the president now. Welcome back.

You could say we saw a little pre-spring cleaning from former president Trump today. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee told a conservative media outlet, quote, I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt social security or Medicare. That's a turnaround from earlier this week when Mr. Trump seemed to open the door to cuts in entitlements during an interview with CNBC.

The Biden campaign quickly jumped on those comments, turning them into a digital campaign ad. Joining me now to discuss all of this is our panel of the NIAC president and executive director of the American Progress Action Fund and Ramesh Benuru editor at the National Review. Thank you so much for being here, guys. Ramesh, let me just start with you.

When you first heard the comments from former president Trump suggesting he was open to making changes to social security, which was a shift from what we've heard from him previously. What did you think how politically damaging do you think it is? Because clean up aside, it's on camera, and you know as well as we all do, the Biden campaign is going to run with that through November. Look, the Democrats were going to run against Trump on Social Security and Medicare regardless of what he said, because they always run on those issues.

It's their good issues for the Democrats. But Trump did provide some ammunition with those, frankly, somewhat incomprehensible remarks that he made the other day. This clean up is not going to change the ultimate fact. He said those things.

The quote that he gave today doesn't actually take it off the table either, because presumably any president's not going to say, I'm trying to hurt or jeopardize these programs when he makes changes or cuts to it. Yeah. I mean, what do you make of this? I mean, as Ramesh rightfully points out, they were going to run against this anyway.

But now they do have this ad. Before he ran for president, Donald Trump said repeatedly he was open to cutting it. And then when he ran for president, he knew it was such a politically toxic thing that he's not saying it. And it has been hard to get the press to believe it.

That change this week, right? Donald Trump said on the record, and I think going back, we actually found footage that I think a lot of people missed in 2020 in the midst of COVID, he pushed for suspending the payroll tax, basically, which would have been another way to bankrupt Social Security. So he's very comfortable with the policy. I know he understands the politics are terrible.

So I think it does reveal really what is, you know, where is priorities? Yeah, it'll be fascinating to kind of watch this debate unfold as we head toward November. I want to show you guys some new polling. It shows that Donald Trump is up in some key battleground states.

And of course, as we know, look, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, he spent his day in court today, there were no cameras. Ramesh, we have reporting, not surprisingly, that his campaign has an entire strategy to try to capitalize on these moments where he's in court, these split screen moments. So far it has helped him in the primary. But do you think we continue to see that in the general election or does it get very risky when you're talking about moderate and independent voters?

I think it is much riskier in a general election. I don't think, particularly, you know, if we have convictions, that that is going to help him with independence. The question, though, is, actually, sort of this is a base election. The same things that help him in the primaries that is solidifying his court support, that will be helpful for him.

Yeah. I mean, do you think that the Democrats have been aggressive enough in terms of their strategy on this point, on the legal battles, on the court cases? It's not something that we really hear President Biden talk a whole lot about. Do you think that should shift?

Do you expect it to shift at all? I actually think President Biden's been smart not to actually get to engage in that because I think that would play into Donald Trump's, he's trying to pretend like he's, you know, this is a political prosecution. It's not. And I think it is actually very powerful and will actually increasingly grow on the American people to remind themselves that this is what a presidency is like under Donald Trump.

He's constantly creating chaos, there's criminality around him, I mean, how many campaign managers have been to jail? In other words, you're saying if President Biden starts to weigh in, he only gives credence to that charge that Trump is making against him. I think the place where President Biden can and should engage in will engage is the fact that Donald Trump made an argument that he should be above the law, that he thinks that he should be a king, that he should be immune, that literally he could kill his opponent and that should be allowed. I think that's a place where it reveals how he thinks, you know, very un-American.

That's different than I think the cases. What do you make of that? I think that that's absolutely fair game. The Trump has said really astonishingly extreme things about presidential authority before, during and after his presidency.

And it would be, I wouldn't, I wouldn't bank Biden's entire campaign on this. But of course, that's got to be an element to it. Yeah. Let me ask you guys about this revelation that no labels seems to be ready to run a third party candidate.

And I mean, what do you make of that? How concerned are Democrats about that? So I think all of the third party candidates are risk. I think we all remember 2016.

I worked on that campaign. One of the biggest differences between 2016 and 2020 was the third party vote. It got 6% in 2016. It got 1% in 2020.

You know, we're at a moment where people are still very frustrated generally. So I think that is an absolute concern. I think we've got to make sure that the American people understand that this is a much bigger choice than just Democrats versus Republicans than just Biden versus Trump, that it is about the future of the country. And you've got to pick sides in that.

Ramesh, what do you make of it? And of course, there's RFK2, who apparently has chosen his VP nominee. So we all await that announcement from him. Is it something that could hurt Republicans?

Could it go the other way? I think it's hard to predict. Yeah. Because Robert of Kennedy Jr.

Obviously, the family name, he's got some ancestral connections to the Democrats. On the other hand, a lot of what he's saying nowadays has more appeal to Republican and Republican-leaning voters than to Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters. So you could see him taking more out of Trump. That's not what the polls currently show.

But it is what they might show in a few months. All right. I want to get you both to weigh in on the big debate over TikTok. Play a little bit of sound from former Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

Here's what he had to say a little bit earlier today. I think the legislation should pass. And I think it should be solved. I understand the technology.

It's a great business. And I'm going to put together a group to buy TikTok. You're trying to buy TikTok. I am.

Because this should be owned by US businesses. It would be a combination of investors, so there would be no one investor that controlled this. And the issue is all about the technology. This needs to be controlled by US.

So Steve Mnuchin, Ramesh, could own TikTok. We'll have to see. We also have to see what happens in the Senate. The House just passed a bill basically saying, by dance, a Chinese own company needs to divest or else the US will ban TikTok.

What are you anticipating is going to happen here? I think that bill has a lot of momentum coming out of the House. It was a very, very large margin, particularly left sided among Republicans, even though President Trump was sort of against that legislation. But what's right, too, among the Democrats, there are some Republicans who have concerns about it, Senator Rand Paul, in particular, but I suspect there's a strong enough consensus that it's going to pass.

What do you think? I think there's a huge app. They have to do something here, given the national security risk that everyone is sort of raising. I think there's a lot of caution around doing it in a way that's going to backfire both in terms of the legal case and how effective this can be and actually, you know, with the public.

All right. You mentioned that being. Thank you. Great conversation.

Great to have you both here in person. Still to come, the deepening humanitarian crisis in Haiti and the US response will have the very latest from the Haitian border next to watching with the press now. Welcome back. Violence and turmoil continue to engulf Haiti as the country descents further into chaos amid a growing power vacuum in the Caribbean nation.

Take a look at this video. It's obtained by NBC News and it shows people running from gunfire and vehicles set on fire in the middle of the street efforts to stabilize the situation for now appear to be stalled after local leaders in Haiti rejected a plan that would create a transitional government to oversee a new interim government. Joining me now is Gabe Gutierrez who is in the Dominican Republic near the border of Haiti. So Gabe, what are you seeing and hearing on the ground and talk about why local leaders are opposed to this proposed plan for a transitional council?

Hi, there, President. Let me set the scene here. The border is now inside the Dominican Republic, just over in that direction is the Haitian border. But you can see behind me these are people that are heading back towards Haiti, many of them are in fact Haitian and the borders have been pretty much closed all the time except today.

They were allowed to cross into this domains land in between the two countries to go to this open air market and bring back supplies. Throughout the day, we've been seeing many people bringing back supplies and there's a great humanitarian need here. First thing you mentioned why the transitional government may not happen. What is it?

All politics are local. There's one local politician, Pete Felipe. He was a local senator here in Haiti, he went to the United States after several years, he actually ended up pleading guilty to criminal charges for several years in prison, but then came back to Haiti. The gangs, the armed gangs, now controlled by 80% of the capital port of Prince support this local politician and he opposes his transitional government.

So a lot of questions right now about how political stability can be restored in Haiti. Today the UN just said that when established kind of a humanitarian corridor in the sky to bring humanitarian aid from here in the Dominican Republic over to Haiti and the Biden administration is actually now saying that it is considering whether to use Guantanamo Bay to temporarily house Haitian migrants that if there is such a migrant influx, the US has done that before. In prison, as the sun begins to set here in the Dominican Republic, it is clear that this is a devastating situation and there's really no end in sight. Right now there's a power vacuum in Haiti, there are hundreds of Americans that have registered with the State Department and they are trapped.

Thank you so much for your great reporting, we really appreciate it. I will be back tomorrow with more of the press now, the news continues with Tom Castello in for Holly Jackson right now.