Meet the Press NOW — May 10

Here. It's Friday. U.S. officials tell NBC News the Biden administration has continued to send military assistance to Israel despite the president's threat to halt weapons shipments and despite his acknowledgment that US Weapons have killed civilians in Gaza.

Plus, the prosecution, star witness in former President Trump's criminal hush money trial, is set to take the stand Monday. What to expect when Michael Cohen testifies following a wild week in court and the uncertain future of abortion rights in women's health care. In post Roe America, I'll talk to the leader of one of the nation's largest anti abortion organizations about the complicated fight over reproductive rights in a presidential election year and beyond. Welcome to MEET THE press.

Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where President Biden's policy on Israel Israel is under a new spotlight after months of pressure from progressives to do more to rein in Israel's military strategy and new backlash from Republicans on the president's threat to withhold military assistance. Earlier this week, President Biden made headlines when he threatened to hold shipments of offensive weapons if Israel launched a major assault into Rafah. In a stark acknowledgment, the president said U.S.

weapons have been used to kill civilians. It is a notable shift compared to how he addressed the civilian death tolling Gaza in the early weeks and months of the war. Take a look. In the 18 days since Hamas killed 1400 Israelis, the Hamas controlled Gaza Health Ministry says Israeli forces have killed over 6,000 Palestinians, including 2700 children.

You've previously asked Netanyahu to minimize civilian casualties. Do these numbers say to you that he's ignoring that message? What they say to me is I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed. I'm sure instance have been killed and it's oppressive waging a war now.

Of course, much has changed over the course of those seven months. Last week, the administration paused the weapon shipments of high payload bombs to Israel, citing concerns that they would be used in rafah. But two U.S. officials familiar with the matter telling BC News the U.S.

continues to send small arms to Israel. It's another step the Biden administration is taking to try to quell concerns about its ironclad commitment to the Jewish state. Yesterday, National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby shot down any suggestion that the US Was walking away from Israel. This is the president who rushed additional military articles to Israel and frankly provided expertise from our own military to go over there to help them as they thought through their planning and their operation of these structures.

So the argument that somehow we're walking away from Israel, we're not willing to help them defeat Hamas just doesn't doesn't comport with the fact. Now it comes as a highly anticipated State Department's report on Israel's conduct in the war could come as early as today, according to Axios. That report is expected to be highly critical of Israel, though stop short of saying Israel violated any terms for US Weapons shipments. Meanwhile, any hope for a temporary pause in fighting is growing increasingly unlikely.

According to our NBC News team on the ground in Gaza, Israeli tanks are positioned at and around the Rafa border crossing. UN now estimates more than 110,000 people have fled the area. And a senior Arab negotiator directly involved in ceasefire talks tells NBC News thinks taken a turn for the worse, calling it, quote, a mess. Joining me now to discuss all of this is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel in Jerusalem.

And Eric Gilchrist is at the White House for us. Richard, I want to start with you. Take us inside your recording, your conversations with your sources. What are they saying about these ceasefire talks in the wake of the CIA director returning to Washington?

Are these talks salvageable at this point? Richard? They might be salvageable. They're already low right now.

But let's not forget that just a few days ago Hamas made this offer. There were a lot, a lot of work went into this. There were negotiators from Egypt, Qatar, the CIA involved. And Hamas made an offer to release all of the hostages that it is holding currently in Gaza, but it said would release them in stages.

And it had conditions. Among the conditions with complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and, and lifting of the siege and ultimately a sustainable calm, which is a term of art that diplomats are using here to try and signify an end of the conflict, a permanent solution. Israel was taken by surprise by that offer and said that it was not the terms that it was willing to accept. And then Israel moved in and moved into the eastern part of the Rafah of Lathah.

And once that happened, once Israeli forces moved into Rafah, then things collapsed at that stage. But can they be salvaged? Yes, they can be salvaged because it seems that they were quite close a few days ago, but right now we're not there. Richard, what has the reaction been from your perspective?

Perspective to what President Biden warned this weekend that he is preparing to hold some weapons if Israel does launch a full scale invasion into Rafah. Obviously we've heard the public comments from Minister Netanyahu and other paisraeli Officials who effectively said, okay, we're prepared to go it alone. What are they saying on the ground and is there a real sense that they might be moving towards a major offensive or are they prepared to pull back a bit? What's your take?

The impression here is that this is all posturing, that this is all about pressure to reach some sort of settlement, to get a negotiated settlement to get the hostages out. And then will Netanyahu at that state then go on and do a full scale invasion against Rafah? It is still a possibility, but the negotiations were close and there was a lot of domestic pressure on Netanyahu to get the hostages out, to wrap up the war, to open a new page, to try and have some healing in this country. There's also pressure on Netanyahu from his own camp to do everything he can to destroy Hamas.

So there are different kinds of domestic pressure that Netanyahu is facing. So that's on the Israeli side. On the Palestinian side, they've lost confidence in what President Biden says. President Biden says that he's going to hold up weapons to Israel.

And then as you reported just a few moments ago, administration officials are saying that the weapons are still flowing and that weapons shipments came to this country just a few days ago. So there is the sense where they feel among many Palestinians that President Biden is just sort of talking to try and appease a domestic audience. He's trying to placate protesters on university campuses, that he's not really moving the dial with Israel, that Israel is going to do what it wants to do, and that Israel is more sensitive to the countervailing pressures that he's facing from the demonstrators and from the hard line elements of his own government. And Richard, very quickly, in the final minute I have, before I let you go, of course, we saw today that overwhelming voted the UN in support of a resolution that would effectively revive the Palestinian authorities bid for full UN Membership.

The US Voted against the resolution. What's the implications there? It's not a surprise that the US Voted in that way. But could that add to the swirl of tensions?

Well, the fact that the US Is opposed to this measure also shows many people in this part of the world, particularly in the Arab world, on the Palestinian street, that the US Is doing what it can to prevent Palestinian independence, to prevent Palestinian statehood. But right now, in practical terms, there is no independent Palestinian state. In fact, the prospect of a Palestinian state has probably never been lower. In the west bank, each day settlers are taking more and more territory.

In Gaza, Palestinians have fewer and fewer rights. Their autonomy is being stripped away. There is really no place in Gaza where Palestinians can live freely. I don't believe even in Rafah, the last place that hasn't been fully taken over by Israeli forces.

They're cut off and they're increasing shortages of fresh water, food, fuel. I think we're hearing more about those in the coming days. I think you're absolutely right about that. Richard Engle, thank you as always for your incredible reporting.

Please stay safe, my friend. Good to see you, really appreciate it. And let me turn to you at the White House, of course, President Biden making this stern warning, this shift, quite frankly in Ukraine, US Policy. He's gotten backlash from Israeli officials, from Republicans, even from some Democrats as well.

What is the White House saying today about the backlash that they've gotten? Is there any sense that they're going to walk back from what the president said? Well, no, it's a short answer. There is no clear intention to walk back what the president said.

The White House essentially saying that this pause the president referenced is consistent with his position in the last several months in particular that the US does not support a full scale large scale military operation in Rafah. And obviously that's something we've been hearing from different parts of the administration for the last several months here, that the president's comments in the CNN interview earlier this week really suggests that there's a need for the US not to have a hand in these massive weapons. We talk about 2000 pound bombs that are part of the package of weapons that were paused here. The US not going to have a hand in a major operation in RAF as it's been asking Israel to show a plan for dealing with the 1 million plus Palestinian civilians who are in that area, who have to be accounted for, have to be cared for before any major military operation would take place there.

And so the administration said of criticism that the Republicans have levied against the president for saying that he might pause some of these weapons, that what the administration is doing is consistent with the law and that the White House and the president Defense Department are going to is doing is taking this action in a way that is consistent with the authority that it has and the spending requirements that exist under current lockers. And Aaron, very quickly, obviously the president has gotten remarkable pressure from members of his own party. You have Senator Bernie Sanders who's going to join me on the press on Sunday, who has said that from a political perspective this could be President Biden's own Vietnam in essence cost him the election how concerned is the Biden campaign are Democrats about the political implications, the political impact of all of this? So our team has been talking to different Democrats about this issue in particular since the president's comments on cnn.

And there seems to be this duality really, where we've got some Democrats who have been supportive of what the president had to say this week and others who said that this was a mistake to say that this is something the president might consider. At the same time, the White House senior administration officials telling NBC News that the president doesn't see this as a political issue. He's not making decisions based on politics. This is something that they're considering in line with national security of the United States and with its efforts to provide security to places like Israel and across the world for that matter.

Sir, Aaron Gilchrist at the White House for us. Thank you for all of your great reporting there, Aaron. Really appreciate it. Let me now bring in former State Department director Josh Paul.

He spent more than a decade at the agency that oversaw the sale and transfer of weapons to foreign governments, including Israel. He resigned from his position back in October over the administration's policy on the war. Thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Good to join you. Great to have you here and your perspective. Let's start with, before we get to the warning, the fact that President Biden acknowledged that U.S.

weapons have killed civilians. What was your reaction to that? Obviously, it stands to reason, given that the US has been supplying weapons to Israel. But that's a stark acknowledgment.

It is a stark acknowledgment. Of course, this was not the first time. He also referred to Israel as conducting indiscriminate bombing bars in Gaza as long as December 12th. On this occasion, not only did he note that US weapons have been killing civilians, but he also noted that Israel has been, quote, going into the cities of Gaza using US weapons, including these 2,000 pound bombs and other munitions.

To the other big revelation, obviously, President Biden warning Israel that if it goes into, if it launches this full scale invasion into Rafah, that he will withhold some weapons. This is a stern warning. It's come with a backlash, as you know, from Israeli officials. Do you think this could wind up backfiring?

Could it actually embolden Prime Minister Netanyahu who said Israel is prepared to go alone? After all, they've already been getting weapons shipments from the United States. Well, that's right. It's not as if Israel will be doing anything alone because it already has such a deep stockpile of weapons that the United States has been providing for the last seven months and well beyond them as well.

I think that, you know, for President Biden, there's obviously an incentive or he is seeking to wind this down at the same time. This will not be, you know, the first time that therapy has gone into a densely populated urban area. It has been doing that throughout the conflict. So I think the tragedy here is that it has taken seven months, it has taken 35,000 lives at least until President Biden has been willing to begin to turn to one of the tools he has had at his disposal since day one.

Do you think he. I hear you saying it's too late, but do you think this is a good first step? Is there more you'd like to see him do? Yes, it's an important first step.

I think that it does add pressure for it to really happen in tackle Israel for racial capabilities. It needs to be extended over time and expanded. And the statements from the White House today, the weapons are continuing to flow really undercuts even whatever effort or attempt President Biden is making. At the same time, I think that President Biden doesn't only have a policy problem here, as much as he'd like to think this is a policy problem, he has a legal problem.

And what we've seen the administration do time and time again is sidestep the legal determinations that would actually have an impact on the ability of the United States to provide the assistance under its own laws. Well, I want to get to that in just a moment. Does the president's warning in any way make you regret your decision to leave the State Department? No.

Had I not left, I would have been apart from the last seven months of authorizing the bombs that are dropping and have been dropping on Gaza since I left. So on that basis alone, I have absolutely no regrets. I am heartened to see signs that the debate is now expanding within the US Government. We have a reporting, for example, that the Human Rights Bureau, the State of Ireland, the Office of Liberal criminal justice, the U.S.

agency for International Development, have been expressing concerns within the system. That is new. I use the senior levels and encouraging, but it is still very early days. What do you make of Republicans and frankly some Democrats who say this move by President Biden will only embolden Hamas?

That's part of the reason why the talks over a negotiated ceasefire fell apart. So, first of all, there cannot be a partner in ally of the United States with beyond reproach and Israel's conduct in this conflict and the way that it has implicated the United States in the potential war crimes that have been committed in Gaza are a question for national security and are something the President is rightfully thinking about. So I think that it is important to recognise that and also to recognize that this is not the first time the United States has thought about withholding arms. President Reagan himself did it in the context of Lebanon.

So who can be stronger of national security than President Reagan? Do you think that this will turn out in the same way that it did? Ultimately, former President Reagan was proven to be right in that instance. Do you think ultimately President Biden will have bipartisan support for this?

Or do you think it'll continue to divide Democrats and Republicans? President Reagan pick up the phone to then Israeli Prime Minister Mohammed Ben. 14 hours into Israel's bombardment of Beirut. This is seven months into this.

So I fear that there is already lasting damage that has been done that cannot be undone in many ways, both, of course, to the people of Gaza, to the Palestinian people, but also to US credibility on the world stage. Regardless of how the politics play out here in Washington, we are anticipating, waiting for a report that the State Department will submit to Congress which will look at how Israel has conducted this war. Axios has reporting that the Secretary of State will walk up to the line but stop short of saying that Israel has violated international law. What will you be watching for?

And quite frankly, what's the significance of this report in your estimation? So I think that you've really sort of hit a hammer on the head there in terms of what key things to look out for. Will the State Department make a legal determination as to whether there have been violations of international law? As to whether Israel has restricted the delivery of US funded humanitarian assistance?

If not, and I think the evidence is manifold, we have seen it not only from the independent task force of which I was a member, but from multiple criminal international organisations, that those violations have occurred. Then essentially, President Biden keeps the ball in his own court and makes a policy matter. If, on the other hand, the report does find legal violations, there are legal implications. You cannot provide assistance, for example, to a country that is restricting humanitarian humanitarian assistance.

You cannot provide arms under the President's own arms transfer policy where it is more likely than not that those weapons will be used to commit violations of international law. That is frankly why I fear that they will not come to those conclusions because they do not want to be bound by our own laws. All right, we'll be watching closely to see what that report says. Josh Paul, thank you so much for joining us and for your really important insights.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Coming up, we are recaping a major week in the Trump hush running trial. What we heard today and what to expect when the prosecution's star witnesses, former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, takes the stand Monday.

Plus, House Speaker Michael Johnson signals a new shift in abortion policy, saying he won't push for a federal ban even if Trump wins back the White House. What it says about the political risks for Republicans on the issue, that's straight ahead. You're watching THE PRESS now. Welcome back.

After three weeks of testimony, prosecutors in Donald Trump's hush money trial are close to wrapping up their case. They told the court today that they'll call two were witnesses before resting. One of those witnesses, Michael Cohen, who according to sources will take the stand on Monday. Testimony wrapped up early today with jurors hearing from former Trump assistant Madeline Wesserhood for a second day.

She recalled Mr. Trump being very upset when the story of his alleged relationship with Stormy Daniels became public. NBC News national correspondent Jasmin Dusunian joins me now. Also with me is former U.S.

attorney Carol Lamb, who's now an NBC News legal analyst. Yasmin, let me start with you. Set the stage. What we know about Michael Cohen testifying next week.

He's obviously the big witness set to pick a stand Monday morning, likely to be on the stand for at least a few days or so. Remember, next week there's gonna be three days of court, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday. We're off on Friday for Barron's graduation from president's son. He has permission to attend the graduation and that permission was, in fact, granted.

This is gonna be all about documents, Chris. That's what we're hearing from a lot of our sources when it comes to Michael Cohen's testimony. They want to see her clear of his credibility issue. This is a convicted felon.

He has lied under oath. They know the defense is going to go right for that in cross. Hence the reason why we saw some of the witnesses on the stand today which were very document heavy. Right.

They were essentially setting up Michael Cullen's testimony, the phone logs, the text messages, the validity of the phone logs and the text messages and how they came upon them, the social media posts as well. And so they're essentially gonna have Michael Cohen verifying some of the documentation they will bring forward the conversations had instead of relying anecdotally on the stories that he has to tell about the conversations he had with the former president, his intention and his motivation allegedly to pay off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Kristen. So talk to me about what happened in court today, Yasmin, because her second day of testimony from Madeleine Westerhouse, she obviously is a top Trump aide, certainly not as fiery of a witness as Stormy Daniels, but significant nonetheless to some extent because she was there.

She talks about the reaction from former President Trump upon learning that this Stormy Daniels story was coming out. She was incredibly significant for a couple reasons, and so were the other witnesses that took the stand as well. So Madeline started with cross examination this morning. Her testimony began yesterday and we expected her to take this to kind of complete the circle of this assembly line.

And I know that's not a legal term to use here, but she was really the one that got the checks from Trump Tower when they were in fact FedEx to the White House. She walked them into the former president sitting right outside the Oval Office and then he subsequently signed those checks. She testified to the fact that Ford president would oftentimes sometimes call his CFO Alan Weisselberg to check in to ask questions about some of the checks in which he had to sign that he would sign with hrp. But it's one of the reasons why some of the testimony from the prosecution came up when it, when it came to former president's writings, right.

His published books, talking about his frugality, his attention to detail, wanting to sign every check, check every box. That is why her testimony was so significant, kind of completing that circle of the way in which these checks got former president and then got back to Trump Tower. And then there was the witness testimony of the documentation. I've been saying this from the very get go and I'm sure it can be echoed throughout, which is the documents really are the star witness.

Right. We said Michael Cohen, we sent somebody Daniels, and sure it is salacious to listen to some of their testimony. Absolutely. It's certainly more interesting.

Right. But it's the documents that are really going to possibly seal the deal for the prosecution. It's a really important point. We always have to remind our viewers this is a case about falsifying documents ultimately.

Yasmin, thank you so much. Really appreciate that. Carol, let me turn to you. And as Yasmin points out so well, of course, the fiery headlines this week came from Stormy Daniels and the defense opened up what the prosecution ultimately wound up talking about because the defense basically got up and said, no, there was no affair between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels.

So then the prosecution spent a lot of time trying to confirm that in fact there was in affair which led to all sorts of salacious details being aired in court and the defense calling for a mistrial, which was denied. What do you think the takeaway is on this Friday from this week? Two days of testimony from Stormy Daniels. Right, Justin?

Stormy Daniels really had to testify. In my view. She's such a large part of the story that although it is true that technically whether or not she actually had sex with Donald Trump in a, in a hotel room is not required for the jury to find him guilty of this crime, it is important that they understand the context here. And Stormy Daniels provided that, provided a lot of that.

But the judge in that, in ruling against the granting of the motion for mistrial, which the defense brought, the judge said, I do find that these details went to her credibility. The jury was entitled, once they came out and basically said she was lying, the. The jury was entitled to hear her recollection of details of that encounter to determine whether she was credible or not, because there were other things she testified to about how she got the money, when she got the money, who paid her the money that the jury was entitled to assess her credibility on. So, so the details of what happened in that hotel room became relevant, and that was her testimony.

It certainly got everybody's attention, but that was the purpose of the testimony. That's why the judge did not grant the miss Crime. Ultimately, do you think she helped to hurt the prosecution? It sounded like, of course, most of us aren't in the courtroom, but it sounds from the recording from the courtroom that in the end she really did help the prosecution because she was a good witness.

She was able to handle herself well on the witness stand. The first day was a little bit, a little bit rough. The judge basically instructed the prosecutors to go back and tell the witness just to answer the questions that are asked and not to elaborate further on them. That was probably the correct call and she did get her under control.

But we find that sometimes, and this is not a normal situation for people to get on witness end and answer questions. And sometimes witnesses for the prosecution try to help too much. You ask them a question and they say now I should go ahead and explain everything around it. And that's really not what you're supposed to do.

You're just supposed to answer the question that is asked of you. Well, and that takes me to my next question, which is the star witness on deck on Monday, Michael Cohen, who obviously you just heard Yasmin say the prosecution doesn't want to focus on his credibility issues. And yet that is going to be the biggest challenge of putting Michael Cohen on the sand. Right.

Because the defense is going to want to only focus on his credibility issues. What will you be watching for on Monday and next week when Michael Cohen testifies? Yeah. Yes.

I've actually added a new word to my vocabulary, which is pre corroboration. That's what the prosecution has been doing for this entire trial. So far. They've been introducing all this evidence either through witness testimony or through documents or through Donald Trump's own words and his tweets and his books to basically corroborate almost everything that Michael Cohen is going to say.

So by the time he says it, the jury's already heard it from some other source or seen it from some other source. But it is important, again, just like Stormy Daniels, to have Michael Cohen's testimony as a sort of narrator, just to walk through the events that took place to make sure that the jury understands the sequence and what happens. But there should be virtually nothing that Michael Cohen testifies to that has not been before the jury in some other form. That's the important thing.

Michael Cohen is an important witness, but this is not the first time we've seen him on the witness stand. He has testified in the civil fraud trial. He was able to handle himself there relatively well. So it's quite likely that he might be an acceptable witness for the prosecution.

All right. Well, we know that we will be watching and waiting to see what he says on Monday. Carolyn, thanks for your great expertise as always. We really appreciate it.

Coming up after the break, the very complicated future of the anti abortion rights movement as questions sort about former President Trump's position on the issue and what his second term agenda would look like. My interview with the head of the National Right to Life Committee is next. You're watching the press now. My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state.

At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people. Welcome back. It's been about a month since Donald Trump put out that statement on abortion as he tries to diffuse a political issue that has fired up his opponents. His position, however, has divided some of his political allies in the anti abortion movement, especially those lobbying him to take federal action on the issue if he wins in November.

Susan B. Anthony, Pro Life America said the group is, quote, deeply disappointed by his comments. And he, quote, the Dobs decision clearly allows both states and Congress to act commercially. The group National Right to Life praised his stance, saying, thanks to President Trump, the American people and their elected representatives on the state of federal levels now have greater authority to determine abortion policy and pass meaningful protections for unborn children and their mothers.

Joining now is the author of that statement, Carol's Bias. She is the president of the National Right to Life. Thank you so much for being here, Carol. Really appreciate it.

Let me start off just big picture first, which is that if you listen to the statement by Susan, the Anthony organization versus your statement, it is a reminder that there has yet to be a consensus among the anti abortion movement about where the future of abortion should be. Why is that and do you think that undercuts your cause Overall? No. The pro life movement is varied.

We come from all walks of life, whether it's income, backgrounds, races, religions, or no religion. So it's not a surprise that we wouldn't be monolithic on anything but the basic premise that unborn children are members of the human family that deserves to be protected. You know, former President Trump talks a lot about a national consensus. He says if he gets back in office, he'll try to come up with a plan that everyone likes.

Can there ever really be a national consensus? If there isn't a consensus among the anti abortion movement, the pro life movement, as you have said, it will be difficult to do something like that on a national basis. There are just too many people with different points of view, either supporting abortion, opposing abortion. So I don't know that it's going to be possible to get the country to agree on something like this, which is why at least allowing the states to make those decisions is giving the country more opportunity to express their different points of view.

Let me ask you a little bit and delve into with you what we have heard from former President Trump as of late. He has said that his overarching positions is that states get to decide the perimeters. His former Vice president, Mike Pence called this position a slap in the face. The pro life Americans even accused Trump of marginalizing the pro life movement.

Do you agree with Mike Pence? Not really. A little bit. I don't want to disagree with anybody in the pro life movement because we all have the goal of wanting to protect those babies and to help their moms in any way that we can.

There are just different ways to go about it. Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee and I certainly hope that he is our next president. So I want to work with him and do what we can to help those babies and their moms in the ways actually like he did when he was in his first term in office. But I hear some hesitation.

Do you wish former President Trump would go further, would support, would say specifically, if I am reelected, here's what I will do in office. For example, I know that you have in the past supported him taking executive action, something that he did during his first term, quite frankly, limited access to abortion. Is that something that you expect from him if he is to be reelected? Oh, I think it would be very realistic to expect that he's going to do many of the things that he did very successfully in his first term, making sure that tax dollars are not being used to pay for abortion.

The way the Biden administration is, quite frankly, breaking the law to get our tax dollars paying through the Department of Defense and the va. They would argue that they're not bringing the law, that what they're doing is legal and protecting accessories signed by the president. But of course, President Biden arguing what he's doing is trying to extend access to protective rights. But I just, I just want to give that counterpoint because it is important when this is where the fight is being waged, it's being waged to the court.

That's what makes executive action so challenging. But would you press former President Trump because he has not said anything about taking executive action. He has just said it's up to the states. I mean, does that disappoint you?

No, no. He is very proud of being the most pro life president we've ever had. And I would be very shocked if he was not willing to look at, like I said, removing tax dollars from abortion, making sure that medical personnel have a conscious right to object to performing abortions. You know, there are a lot of things that he did in office that we certainly want back in place and that you would lobby if he would be realized for him to do.

I want to ask you about abortion pills. You have the national right for life has come out and said you are opposed to that. Mr. Trump, in a recent interview with Time, said he's going to say where he stands on this.

He has not done so yet. Does that frustrate you as someone who has a clear viewpoint on what you think the parameters should be in terms of the abortion pill? What we really want is for women to know that the pill is not as safe as they are being told it is and that it can be very painful. I think medical professionals, though some medical professionals would disagree with that statement.

It's not as safe that plenty of women just ask you on the face of it, I just want you to. Donald Trump hasn't said where he stands on this for you. It's very simple for him. He says, I will think about it.

I will come up with where, you know, what I want to say about this. As someone who has a very clear viewpoint about this, does that frustrate you, someone who supports Donald Trump? I don't expect him to be the know it all pro life person who's been active in the movement for many years. He was present for four years and did a fantastic job for the pro life movement.

I think quite frankly, he's probably like a lot of Americans still not sure, you know, trying to figure out maybe where he wants to go on some of this. A lot of people haven't spent their lives entirely immersed in the movement. So some of these issues are still new. And I'm curious, I mean, he has said this is a states rights issue and you have Democrats saying we don't believe him, that if he gets into office he would want a federal ban.

Where do you stand? Would you support a federal ban and do you think former President Trump would try to enact the federal ban if he were to be reelected? I don't think he would. He said he's already said he's not going to.

Do you believe him? You take him at his word on that point, despite the fact that there's a lot of pressure, as you know, not just with Susan B. Anthony, which we're talking about here, but from a number of people who are advocates who say that they want a 15 week federal ban. Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, has proposed such a ban.

Like pro life people want any law possible to protect as many babies as possible. But Donald Trump has made it clear that he doesn't support a national ban, a law against abortion. So I'm gonna take him at his word on that. Okay.

Careful spies. Thank you so much for being here and offering your perspective. We really appreciate it. Coming up next, why former President Trump is focusing his fire on RFK Jr as the independent presidential candidate makes a push for ballot access nationwide.

The panel's next. You're watching EAT THE press. Welcome back. Turning now to the presidential race where it has been a striking week of headlines for third party candidate Robert Kennedy Jr.

As the Trump campaign ramps up its attacks. And after it was revealed doctors had apparently found a dead worm in his brain. While there are plenty of headlines around the RK Juniors presidential bid, he's not on the ballot in every state at the moment. His campaign says it's on the ballot in four states, Utah, California, Delaware and battleground Michigan.

At the same time, the Kennedy campaign and the PAC supporting him tell us they gathered enough signatures to qualify in 11 others, including some key battlegrounds like Arizona and Georgia. Join me now. Inside is Amy Walter, publisher and editor in chief of the Clip Political Report Simone Sanders Town, former senior advisor to Vice President Harrison, co host of the Weekend that's Weekends on msnbc and Mark Lauder, former director of strategic communications for the 2020 Donald Trump campaign. Thanks to all of you for being here for this panel.

Amy, let me kick it off with you at RFK Jr. I'm not going to ask you about the parasite in his brain. I will spare you. I've watched doctor shows.

I'm not technically enough. Exactly. That's why I'm going to spare us all that part of the discussion. But let's talk about the fact that he qualifies in four states.

His campaign says there are 11 others. They only qualify. I mean, how big of a threat is he potentially to Trump or Biden? I mean, I think in a race that we know is going to come down to one or two points in these five or six states, anybody who's taking doesn't even he doesn't need to get 9 or 10%.

Just taking 3 or 4% becomes really, really important. And where he's taking it from, I think it's going to continue to shift over the course of this campaign. Obviously, as you pointed out, Democrats spending a lot of time trying to talk to their voters or voters who would be more willing to vote for Biden about things that they think are going to disqualify him with those voters. And now Donald Trump is saying, wait a minute, hold on, this guy could be taking my voters too.

And when I looked before I came here, just looking at one of the more recent polls, the NBC poll showed that RFK Jr pulling a little more support from Trump than from from Biden, where I was looking at another poll there. It's not surprisingly independent voters, but a lot of the most right now, the strongest supporters of RFK Jr. Strong, but the biggest group are people not surprising, who dislike both of the candidates, the so called devil haters and the ones who are sort of tepid on Biden in terms of they disapprove but not strongly of Biden. But independent women were this other group that really sort of popped for me.

So it's folks who just are feeling like both candidates don't really like them. In that case, he could cut either way. Well, then independent voters are obviously gonna be so critical. Independent women voters, you think of the Nikki Haley voters who fall into that category.

Amy, let me play a little bit of what Donald Trump had to say about RFK Jr. Let's take a look. Republicans, get it out of your mind that you're going to vote for this guy because he's conservative. He's not.

And by the way, he said the other night that vaccines are fine. He said it on a show, a television show, that vaccines are fine. He's all for them. And that's what he said.

And for those of you that want to vote because you think he's an anti vaxxer. He's not really an anti vaxxer, Mark. There's a lot going back there, but the headline seems to be that Trump's a little bit worried about his campaign in part because as Amy said, some polls, including ours, show that it actually hurts Trump more than Biden, which is a surprise. I mean, we weren't expecting to see that in the poll.

One of the things that makes some might agree on is that we're both going to go after our voters. Don't vote for them. But you know, there is an argument and I just thinking we've seen this over the years with independent candidates and we have not seen one this strong maybe since Ross Perot. But you will start to see, I think both sides come back to their base as we get closer to this.

I mean, right now, Robert Kelly jr. Is not getting on the debate stage. He doesn't meet two of the three criteria to get on the debate stage if there are debates. So, you know, that's something where the voters now, as they start to make up their minds, they're only gonna probably see the big two.

And then I think you'll start to see them come home as we get closer to elections. I think him not being on the debate stage actually helps him because a number of people have not actually heard what RFK Jr. Has said. Right.

They've read some of the things, they feel like, oh, Kennedy, they're associated. I think he's really getting about a lot of broadcruit from the Kennedy N. So if you peel back a layer just a little bit and actually listen to him. I listened to him.

He did with Mar Melbourne earlier this week. I was like, well, what is going on here? He's a little mad if he said, you're trying to make me say mean things about Trump or Biden. And I'M just, I'm not saying mean things about anyone.

It's like, sir, we're just asking, what did you believe? So skipping a debate stage, again, if there are debates, only benefits him. And those people who say, I don't think I like either, maybe I'll vote third party, which there's always a third party. I think there's always been third party candidates.

This, though, seems like a surge. I'm wondering where else he gets on the ballot and that matters, if it's in any of these battleground states. I mean, I think he's on ballot in North Carolina, which is a concern, I think, for Democrats, and Michigan, which I would think would be a big concern for Democrats. Let's talk about one of the big issues, abortion.

I was just talking about this, obviously, with Carol Tobias Bias. Simone, when you hear former President Trump say leave it to the states and say he's not going to sign a federal ban, and obviously we know that the Biden campaign is. No, no, don't believe him. Do you think this strategy of trying to have it both ways potentially undercuts the energy that we've seen around this vote?

No, I don't think so at all. I think voters are smart and they're paying attention. Women are smart and paying attention. And look, you know what, if you ask me, do I think people should shoot puppies, I'm going to tell, I'm not going to tell you.

It's not about Radley. It's about what people want to do with their dogs. No, I'm going to tell you, I do not think people should shoot puppies. And so when Donald Trump has asked does he think that women should be jailed for having an abortion or prosecuted, his answer has been, look, example, Radley leaves the states.

And I really think that women here, that across the country, as everybody just wants to know someone who's been affected by these abortion bans. And it is a negative. Speaker Johnson, Mark Lauder had this to say when he was asked about pursuing a federal ban, which again, Trump has said he's not going to sign onto. He's the president.

Trump said this is in the state's purview now after the Dobbs decision. I think that's where it is. What does that answer tell you? And again, to what extent Simone is saying no, this is going to be just as energizing for Democrats as it was in the midterms and in the special elections where we've seen abortion on the ballot, where it has undoubtedly boosted turnout and yielded some really big wins, I think.

I think it reflects reality. I mean, there's no way you're going to get a bill through the United States Congress. Neither side. The Democrats can't get an abortion up to four, up to birth, 40 weeks.

They can't get that through. The Republicans are going to get anything through with 60 votes if you can get something throughout representatives. So I think what Speaker Johnson is saying and even President Trump is saying is that this is not going to happen at the federal level. Have it happen at the state level.

And if the legislature goes too far, you put it on your ballot, the voters get to decide. That's democracy. That's how we decide these difficult issues. I mean, what's your take?

And one of the things I was talking about was the other reality, which is that there are disparate views within the anti abortion movement and that that is one of the things she acknowledges that has been a challenge in the post. Yeah, that's very fair. I'm looking too at all these down ballot races where the candidates aren't as well known. And I do think I met with a bunch of Democratic candidates this week.

They're in town, these challenger candidates to Republicans. We interviewed a lot of them. They are leaning hard into abortion in part because they have Republicans that not a lot of people know either their first term or they're not presidential candidates who everybody's gonna be talking about. And they're pointed to the record while they've been in Congress, things that they've said, maybe even pre dubs make the case that these are folks who have a record on abortion you cannot trust.

The one thing Democrats do have, have overall an advantage on, I think this is right, is that when it comes to just who do you trust on this issue that Democrats have an incredible advantage there in the same way that Republicans get the benefit of that on things like taxes or on, you know, crime and safety. All right, great, great conversation, guys. Thank you so much. Amy, Simone and Mark, appreciate it.

Still to come, we're live on campus at the University of Pennsylvania where dozens of protesters were arrested earlier today as police disbanded a pro Palestinian encampment. Stay with us. You're watching the press now. Welcome back.

It has been a tense day on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania where police disbanded an encampment of pro Palestinian protesters early this morning. More than 30 protesters who refused to leave were arrested this week that it's adding security and making changes for its commencement later this month. NBC News correspondent George joins me now from the Penn Campus in Philadelphia. George, what is the very latest there?

What's the reaction been among students? Yeah, it's been a mixed reaction a lot. Students obviously thinking about their finals are thinking about commencement here on campus. Its own, obviously very different as part of it's been completely restricted to anyone but the students.

You can see some of the barricades behind me. That's Philadelphia police who are now standing by there. After this morning, when authorities came here, both Penn police and Philadelphia police took down that encampment. Granted, it was not as dramatic as we've seen play out across other college campuses, but nevertheless, you did see police removing some of the students there that remained.

And we have learned, Kristen, that of the 33 demonstration, seven of them were actually pensioners. That's according to the university. The rest were some of the outside agitators, athletic influencers, as described by university and police. And all of those people that were detained were issued citations.

They were all released. And that's according to the authorities here, Kristen. George, we have about 30 seconds left. Penn's commencement is later on this month.

How much concern is there that protests could lead to it to be canceled, as we've seen in other campuses across the country? Yeah, commencement ten days away. Kristen, basically what you're seeing here at Penn specifically are TSA rules. They're basically restricting how people can get in, what they can bring in.

Basically nothing, but can't fit into your pockets. Not unlike what we would see at some other commencements anyhow. But obviously the tone and tenor very different given what's been playing out across other commencements, investments across these college campuses and Ms. Lee's demonstrations.

George Solis, thank you so much for being with us. We really appreciate it. We will be back Monday with more Meet the Press now. And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.

On your local NBC news station. I'll have exclusive interviews with Senators Bernie Sanders and Lindsey Graham, plus Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The news continues with Tom Costello in for Hallie Jackson right now. He was a young Marine.

She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night, the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn.

I'm Josh Mankiewicz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from day one. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.