If it's Monday, Michael Cohen, the prosecution's star witness, takes the stand of Donald Trump's hush money trial, telling jurors that the former president directed him to make those payments to protect his presidential campaign. Plus, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivers one of his sharpest rebukes yet of Israel's conduct in Gaza, informing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that his strategy in Gaza is unsustainable, that Hamas has begun to reform, and that anarchy and chaos could soon follow. And jury selection is now underway in Senator Bob Menendez's corruption and bribery trial, as the New Jersey Democrat faces more than a dozen charges for allegedly trading official acts in the Senate for gold bars and piles of cash.
Hello there, welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles, where we are tracking developments out of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial, as his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen is on the stand as we speak in New York as the prosecution's star witness. It is hard to overstate how important a witness Michael Cohen is in this case, as the prosecution seeks to prove that Donald Trump knowingly falsified business records about the hush money payments to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, in order to protect his presidential campaign. Cohen testified a great deal about the concerns from Trump that Stormy Daniels' story could hurt his presidential campaign in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape, and that Trump told Cohen to make the payments to Daniels.
Prosecutors also tried to establish that Trump was intimately aware of what Cohen was doing and why, because it came after they worked together on a similar catch-and-kill scheme to keep Karen McDougal's story from damaging his campaign. Now, Cohen testified that Mr. Trump was directly aware of those efforts, telling the court, quote, what I was doing, I was doing at the direction of and for the benefit of Mr. Trump.
But Cohen's position as a star witness is rife with concerns about his credibility. He has a well-documented history of lying, including on the witness stand. It's something the defense is expected to hammer home in their cross-examination. Cohen's testimony is expected to last days and is at a critical junction in the legal case against Trump.
But at a New Jersey rally this weekend, Donald Trump making it clear he still sees a political benefit to his legal trouble. It's really backfired. In fact, I heard they were going to do a couple of other things, and they said from Washington, don't do it, please don't do it. We're indicting him into the White House.
He's going to be indicted into the White House. Now that comes as more of Mr. Trump's political allies are showing their loyalty, appearing alongside him in the courtroom and speaking in his defense outside. Here's Ohio Senator J.D.
Vance, who's in the mix as a potential VP pick, and Alabama Senator Tommy Tomberville. I think this trial is absolutely ridiculous. I think it's a sham prosecution. And I think that, luckily, the president's supporters should know that he's actually in great spirits despite the circumstances of this.
He should be on the campaign trail. But, of course, he's here with this trial. We've got a courtroom that's the most depressing thing I've ever been in. Mental anguish is trying to be pushed on the Republican candidate for the president of the United States this year.
That's all this is. And joining me outside that New York courthouse is NBC's Yasmin Vesuvian to break down everything that happened today in the courtroom. Also joining me, legal analyst Jeremy Salan, who is a former prosecutor and a district attorney in the Manhattan DA's office, and Danny Savalos, a criminal defense attorney and an NBC News legal analyst. All right, Yasmin, let's start with you.
Walk us through the highlights from today's testimony. What did we learn? So, Ryan, they're laying on a critical moment right now, and they're admitting into evidence, Exhibit 35, which is a bank statement, a bank document, in which Ellen Weisselberg essentially kind of scribbles on how much it is that they're going to be paying back Michael Cohen to make him whole. That grossing up of the money that was paid out of Jeremy Daniels, $130,000, then going up to $420,000, which also included his bonus along with a tax payout.
That is a critical piece of evidence in this entire trial, and they're talking about it right now. In the lead-up to this moment, there have been some pretty crucial moments, Ryan, throughout his testimony during the day. They're setting up at one point the prosecution right now that Michael Cohen was angry with Donald Trump. They're trying to get ahead of this, what seems to be likely a part of the cross-examination from the defense.
And Michael Cohen is angry about Donald Trump's even bonus or lack thereof, as he says. And this is the exchange. How did you feel about the bonus and the story of Daniels' payout? And Michael Cohen says, I was truly insulted, personally hurt, it didn't make sense.
After all that I'd gone through in terms of the campaigning, as well as things of the Trump Organization, laying out $130,000 on his behalf to protect him, that the gratitude showed back to me was to cut the bonus by two-thirds. I actually had to do a double-take. And I'm wondering if the prosecution is doing this to kind of get ahead of what the defense is likely to do during cross-examination, kind of paint this picture of a guy who had an axe to grind for the former president of the United States. There was a key moment, in addition to some of what you just read, Ryan, in talking about Donald Trump's role in all this, and specifically Donald Trump's role within the Trump Organization and this alleged scheme, in which Hoffinger, an attorney for the people, asks, would you have made the payments to Stormy Daniels without getting signed off from Mr.
Trump? And Michael Cohen says, no. Hoffinger says, why not? And Michael Cohen says, because everything required, Mr.
Trump signed off. In addition to that, I wanted the money back. This is also a crucial moment to this testimony as well, Ryan. The issue here, though, is, especially with the phone locks, there were multiple phone calls made on October 26th.
That's a key date here. I want you to keep that in mind. That was the time in which Michael Cohen alleged, essentially, that Donald Trump said, all right, I think it's time we pay off Stormy Daniels. We take care of this thing.
And they had multiple phone calls going back and forth. The issue is we don't necessarily know what they talked about. But that is when one has to circle back to, and I imagine the prosecution's flipping, the jury circles back to so much of the testimony that we've heard from so many other witnesses. And some of the witnesses are not as crucial for this Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels.
You think about the publishers who, in fact, testified that Donald Trump was a very frugal man. He knew of all the money going in and out. He signed every check. Nyle Lester, who testified about the checks being sent to the White House that he subsequently signed.
All of that witness testimony leading up to this point, essentially, with Michael Cohen testifying that it is Donald Trump who essentially signs off on the final decision. It is Donald Trump, essentially, who signs off on whether or not they were going to pay Stormy Daniels or not. Yasmin, talk to us a little bit about what Donald Trump's demeanor was like while Michael Cohen was on the stand. We've seen him react to other witnesses.
How did he react to his former fixer today? It's hard to get a grasp, Ryan, really, of the former president's demeanor inside the courtroom. At one point earlier on in the testimony, his eyes seemed closed. I wouldn't say he was sleeping, but his eyes certainly seemed closed, as he has alleged, or he has said, I should say, on social media, that he closes his eyes to think about other things as he's listening to some testimony.
He seems, though, more engaged, especially in the lead-up to the payout. It seems as if when Michael Cohen was testifying specifically to the conversations that they were having back and forth, he was talking pretty frequently to his attorneys throughout that entire testimony. And then now, when Michael Cohen was kind of reading through some of the text messages that they were having and some of the readouts from the media clippings in which the prosecution was asking Michael Cohen to read from, essentially, especially around his bonus, it seems that Donald Trump was not listening to Michael Cohen. He was more tuned out to that testimony.
Okay, Yasmin, if you're going outside the courthouse, Yasmin, thank you for that. Let's talk now to our legal team. Jeremy, let's start with you. It seems as though the prosecution has gotten what they needed from Michael Cohen so far today.
What exactly are they trying to establish? Well, we have to establish that knowledge and intent, so that acting in concert is accomplished, even though the argument is that Trump is a principle, but acting along with Michael Cohen wasn't going rogue. And I thought, from what I've read, I was not in the forum, that it seemed like they were doing a good job. Now, there's a couple of asterisks here.
When the prosecution does a good job, it's what happened next, what happened next? And we really will find out when it comes time for cross-examination. But we've got some of the smaller things that sort of give the air of truthfulness, that sort of a role of truthfulness, as well as corroboration. For example, we heard Michael Cohen talking about a way to sort of amass this payment, whether it was a bar mitzvah or a golf membership at one of the clubs.
We saw that there's phone logs relating to specific phone calls where Michael Cohen said, yes, I was on a call with David Pecker or Michael Cohen or Hope Hicks. So it's building this foundation or this foundation that is necessary, in addition to just the testimony we're hearing from David Pecker, Hope Hicks, to corroborate. And finally, someone's putting the hands-on of Donald Trump. So overall, it seems to be going in the right direction, but cross-examination is still yet to be seen.
And part of this, Jeremy, right, it has to go beyond that Trump knew that there was a payment and knew there was a payoff. They really need to prove that he also knew that the business records were being falsified, correct? Did the prosecution make gains in that area today? Well, at this point, it's all about establishing that and that the intent to conceal other crimes.
And that the crime wasn't about families. It was to be a conspiracy to promote an election or prevent an election which would have been his. So that's that next piece, assuming that it's that state election law under Article 17, that'd be a crime. But they did move the ball forward, but there's still got a lot to be done.
It's a big lift to have good credible witnesses and things to go in smoothly, then prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's head in the right direction. Okay, so let's get to the defense side of this, Danny. What's the most important issue for them with Cohen as a witness?
There are three. He's a liar, he's a liar, and his pants are on fire. And that's really going to be the thrust of cross-examination in this case. And really, I'm being clear, but more than that, it's going to be that he's a liar and also he has a motive to come here and seek revenge.
Revenge is a major theme for Michael Cohen. But of course, revenge only goes so far as does lack of credibility because there are a lot of documents that have been introduced. For example, there are bank records with Allen Weisselberg's handwriting on them. Michael Cohen can't really lie his way through that even if he had a motive to do so to try and bury Donald Trump.
So the key here is the bank records, the documents, and other witnesses when it comes to Michael Cohen. The prosecution wants to minimize the importance of Cohen. They didn't call him at the end because they wanted him to be some big marquee grand finale. They called him at the end so they could shove in all this other evidence into the record that corroborates what Michael Cohen's going to say because in cross-examination, he's going to get skewered.
And, Jeremy, is that part of the burden for the prosecution? Do they have to address these credibility issues before the defense even gets their opportunity to cross-examine him? How do you address that your witness would potentially be a convicted liar? They would be absolutely utter fools, complete fools, and amateurs if they didn't pick it out themselves.
That's something you're training to in prosecution 101, for that matter, trial training 101. If your client has flaws and you know those flaws are going to be essential or critical to a case, you bring those out. And if you can, use that flaw as an advantage. He's still here.
He's still coming. He's still testifying despite knowing he's going to be cross-examined, despite knowing that he's a committed criminal, despite knowing that he lied. He's going to be skewered. He's still here, and he's giving you a guy who's such a role in sort of truthfulness and credibility.
These little stories that seem to add up. But you have to take the wind down to the sales of the defense. Now, when I want to rest on my last witness to Michael Cohen, I mean, there's an argument that should be your last witness because you don't want that heated person to be the last person that is a person of conflict. You may want something that's much more credible and easy, but they're doing the job to be now.
Let's wait to hear what happens across the damn nation. And, Jeremy, you mentioned these anecdotes, the stories that they're telling throughout the course of his testimony. There was one today that came to light that's certain to get a lot of headlines. This is one of the things that Cohen testified about when the story of Daniel's story came to light.
He said, this is a disaster, a total disaster. This is talking about Trump. Women will hate me. Guys will think it's cool, but it's going to be a disaster for the campaign.
Obviously, this is great fodder for the tabloids. It's great for us to talk about an incident like this. Does it have any kind of impact on the case? Well, it's just, it goes to, again, the state of mind of Donald Trump and what was going on because we're trying to, under the theory of the prosecution, that we're trying to fix this election.
And it goes to the campaign. Remember, as the viewers probably know, Donald Trump was saying it was about my family. So it is important. It's relevant.
It's not home run by any stretch. It's just part of the story. So, Danny, we also heard a recording between Cohen and Trump about the McDougal story. Take a listen to this.
I spoke to Alan Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with funding. Yes. And it's all the stuff. All the stuff.
Because, you know, you never know where that company, you never know where he's going to be. Correct. So I'm all over that. I mean, what kind of evidence will this have on the jury?
It's about a different situation, right? This is McDougal. This isn't Stormy Daniels. But if Trump's not going to testify, does this have an impact on the jury?
Look, normally, prior bad acts or prior bad behavior doesn't come in to prove criminal conduct, a specific crime. You can't bring in everything bad that somebody did to prove that he did something this time. But this is a huge gray area. And this is something the defense fought against.
But it comes in because it's about a course of conduct. It's about what these guys did with these stories. Now, it has nothing to do with the underlying charges in the sense that none of the McDougal payments are part of the core charges against Trump. So they come in, and they're very damaging to Trump because they tend to show that this is the kind of business he engaged in.
Of course, it doesn't make Cohen look all that much better because he's a lawyer who's presumably recording his own client. But the prosecution can deal with that as long as. As long as. And I've been following along.
I don't know the prosecution's really put out there all the problems Cohen has. I'm sure they will. They absolutely will do it. But they've got to do that.
They've got to own it up front before he gets uncrossed. And Danny, just to wrap this up, I mean, Cohen repeatedly said that Trump knew about these so-called schemes. Is it going to be the burden of the defense to disprove that when it's their opportunity? Technically, the defense has zero burden.
The defense can sit back, call zero witnesses, point to the prosecution, and say they didn't eat their burden. You may believe that something's fishy. You may believe that it's likely Trump is guilty, or even very likely that Trump is guilty. All of those do not reach beyond a reasonable doubt.
And if there's any doubt, any hesitation, and Jeremy knows I'm doing the whole spiel that defense attorneys do right now. But, I mean, that's really where this case is going because there may not be many avenues for the defense left such that they have to go back to the baseline default, which is they didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. All right, Jeremy Salan, Danny Savalos, Danny, thank your kids for that liar, liar, pants on fire opener. I appreciate that.
Definitely brought some spice to our conversation today. I thank you both for being here and bringing us your expertise. Coming up from Congress to the courtroom, we're checking on yet another major criminal trial underway in New York City. This longtime Democratic Senator Bob Menendez faces his second federal bribery trial in less than a decade.
But first, we'll have the very latest from on the ground in Israel after a weekend of heavy fighting and mass evacuations in Gaza. Plus, U.S. concerns of a long-term Hamas insurgency and what it could mean for security in the Middle East. That's next.
You're watching The Press Now. Welcome back. The U.N. continues to paint an increasingly bleak picture of the situation in Gaza as Israeli forces continue to push deeper into RAFA.
According to the U.N. Agency for Palestinian Refugees, over 360,000 people have fled RAFA since the evacuation orders were first announced last week. Since then, the RAFA border crossing, a key entry point for humanitarian aid, remains closed. The U.N.
estimates that their fuel supplies in Gaza will run out in 24 hours, and food and water supplies will last for only two to three more days. It comes as U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told my colleague Kristen Welker on Meet the Press that Israel still does not have a plan for the day after the war ends, and warns of a Hamas insurgency in a post-war Gaza. We also haven't seen a plan for what happens the day after this war in Gaza ends.
Because right now, the trajectory that Israel is on is, even if it goes in and takes heavy action in RAFA, there will still be thousands of armed Hamas left. Israel is on the trajectory, potentially, to inherit an insurgency with many armed Hamas left, or, if it leaves, a vacuum filled by chaos, filled by anarchy, and probably refilled by Hamas. And joining me now is NBC News Chief of Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, we heard from Secretary Blinken some criticisms over Israel's military strategy.
Is there any sign that Israel is heeding some of these warnings from the U.S., and what's the latest on Israel's operations in RAFA? No signs at all that Israel is heeding these warnings. In fact, Israel, the Israeli government, I should say, the Israeli government specifically of Prime Minister Netanyahu, seems to be taking some pride in ignoring the warnings, ignoring the threats. Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to take it as a badge of courage, a badge of independence, will continuously say, he says it almost every time he speaks now, that Israel will not be pushed around, Israel won't be dictated to, that Israel is responsible for its own security.
Usually, he will mix it in, especially these days, around Holocaust remembrance, saying that only Jews can take care of their own safety, that history has proven. And unless the Jewish people defend themselves, nobody else will. So it has become a point of pride and a political position of Prime Minister Netanyahu that he won't be dictated to by the White House. But Richard, given what we've heard from Secretary Blinken, are there signs that Hamas is reconstituting in the North?
Yes, and I didn't answer your question about Rafael. I'll get to that in a second. There are absolutely signs that Hamas is reconstituting in the North. And Secretary Blinken, in the interview I made in the press with Kristen over the weekend, talked about the danger of an insurgency, that there could be a long-term insurgency.
And insurgencies traditionally don't just last a few months. This is a multi-year problem, or in some cases a multi-decade problem, as the United States saw firsthand in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Israeli government of Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that its goal is to eradicate Hamas, to eliminate them, to destroy them, to make sure that they can no longer pose a threat to this country, no longer govern Gaza. But he has not laid out publicly, and according to the U.S.
government, not laid out privately either, a plan for what comes next. Who is supposed to replace Hamas? Who is supposed to govern Gaza? Which is being destroyed by the hour, because the operations are continuing day and night in Gaza.
And we are now seeing Hamas acting in some ways like an insurgency. The Israeli government thought it had cleared the North and cleared Gaza City and areas around Gaza City, but now it is fighting once again in Jabalia, which is right next to Gaza City. So areas that Israel claimed to have cleared are now not clear, and Hamas is reconstituting, which is the same problem that the United States found when it was Iraq. It used to call it whack-a-mole.
It would fight insurgents, as they were called in Iraq, in one place, fight them in a town, fight them in a town, then they would pop up in another town, they would return, and they were exactly where they had started out with. So you have a situation where you continually go after your enemy targets and find yourself playing whack-a-mole, chase your tail, choose your analogy, but facing an insurgency. And so to that point, how does that impact their plans in the southern part of Gaza, and in particular, Rafa? Well, it's not clear that it is impacting their plans.
They are proceeding with military operations in Rafa, even though the United States has warned not to conduct major military operations in Rafa because of the extraordinarily high risk of civilian casualties. The operations thus far have been proceeding from the north to the south. Israel has been fighting from the north toward Egypt and pushing people south as the operations go forward. Israel has been telling Gazans to evacuate to get out of the way of fire, and now roughly 1.4 million people are gathered in and around the city of Rafa, which is as far south as they can go.
So people now are being ordered to leave Rafa and to go to a small beach area along the Mediterranean coast, and Gazans are doing that. They're doing it with great reluctance. They're doing it with great anger and frustration because, and we still have a crew in Rafa operating under extraordinarily dangerous circumstances, and people that our crew was interviewing today kept saying, we were told to come here by the Israeli government. We were ordered to come here by the Israeli government.
We moved time after time. We were also told by President Biden that we would be safe to a degree because they thought President Biden was telling Israel not to invade Rafa, but now an invasion of Rafa is underway. Israel hasn't yet moved into the most densely populated part of Rafa, but according to U.N. agencies, about 350,000 people have already evacuated as Israel is conducting ground operations in the east of Rafa and carrying out strikes all across Rafa.
Okay, Richard Engel on the ground in Jerusalem. Richard, thank you for that report. We appreciate it. And let me now bring in Ali Rafa, who is at the White House.
So, Ali, we did hear from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan today. What's going on about his comments? Is this an attempt to clean up any of the recent headlines about the U.S.-Israeli relationship? Yeah, Ryan, well, the White House was well aware that after Secretary of State Antony Blinken's appearances on several of the Sunday shows yesterday, and especially in the wake of those developments in Gaza over the weekend, that there would be a lot of follow-up questions about those U.S.-Israeli relations, and also the latest on the Israel-Hamas war.
And some of Sullivan's comments did appear to be in an effort to really restore confidence in the U.S.-Israeli alliance, especially after we saw that major shift from the president in a CNN interview last week. And some of the highlights from his appearance at today's press briefing were when he said that U.S. weapons shipments, these deliveries to Israel, would continue even after we saw that pause of those bunker buster bombs, those large payload bombs that would be used in large population areas. We saw that pause last week.
Sullivan also saying that the U.S. will continue to try to surge humanitarian aid into Gaza. That was especially of high concern after we saw in the last day or so extremist settlers in Israel setting fire to some of these aid trucks set to go into Gaza. Sullivan also saying that calling the Palestinians were caught up in the middle of this war, saying that they are in, quote, hell, but also making clear how the White House views the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians over the last seven months.
Listen here. We believe Israel can and must do more to ensure the protection and well-being of innocent civilians. We do not believe what is happening in Gaza is a genocide. We have been firmly on record rejecting that proposition.
And that comment, Ryan, of course, coming after we heard Lincoln also say yesterday that there is a clear gap in what Israel has told the White House its intent is and what the White House has after seen happen in Gaza by Israel, Ryan. And, of course, everything continues in that region. As we just heard from Richard, Israel continuing to carry out those limited operations in Rafa. How is the administration in determining when Israel's anticipated offensive will begin and go too far?
And is there a possibility that Israel mission creeps their way into a larger assault? Yeah, it's a great question, especially after we have seen the White House take questions about this and notably not answer the question of what the White House, what the president considers a large-scale ground invasion of Rafa. Because, remember, that's what the president says would have to happen for him to pause further weapons deliveries by the U.S. to Israel.
And we know that the White House, since we've seen these strikes in Rafa by the IDF start, the White House considers these to be precise and targeted strikes, Ryan. All right, Ali Rafa, live at the White House. Thank you for that. Up next, the warning signs for the Biden campaign and a new batch of battleground polls.
We'll dig into the numbers. The panel is next. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.
Turning to the 2024 presidential race. The polling so far has shown a very competitive and relatively stable contest between President Biden and former President Trump, which means the entire presidency could swing on just a fraction of the vote across a fraction of states. New battleground polling from The New York Times and Siena College have the race within the margin of error in all but Georgia and Nevada, where Donald Trump leads. In fact, that double-digit lead in Nevada in particular stands out.
President Biden ran the table on these states in 2020. He can really only afford to lose a few. Digging deeper into these numbers are some warning signs for the president. He and Trump are running fairly even among young voters and Hispanic voters across these states.
Those are two key parts of the Democratic coalition that gave Biden more than 60 percent of their support in 2020. Also, Donald Trump is at 23 percent among black voters, which will be the highest number for a Republican nominee in decades. Joining me now on set is Tia Mitchell. She's a Washington correspondent for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, former New York Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley, and Sarah Chamberlain, who is the president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership.
Tia, across the board, I would have to think there are some people in Wilmington that are very concerned about these numbers for President Biden. I know we kind of wish away these numbers sometimes and say it's too early, but at some point, you need to start making some progress in some of these states. And when you see a 12-point lead in Nevada, in your state of Georgia, that has to be concerning for the president's re-election campaign. Yeah, I think it's concerning.
And I think we have to still keep in mind that it's a snapshot in time and that polling is not necessarily, you know, it's the responses that they get based on the people that they talk to. That being said, there are concerns. And I think the biggest concern is not so much of, I don't think there's going to be a large number of young voters or black voters, quite frankly, that are willing to stomach Donald Trump. But the concern is that those young voters and black voters stay home.
And that, in some ways, can still be considered a vote not for Biden, which helps Donald Trump. And those are the concerns that I know the Biden campaign is concerned about and trying to address. It could be a little bit more than that, too, right? Because even if he turns just a fraction of those voters, no one is suggesting he could win for black voters or young voters.
But if he gets two or three points better than he did the last time around, that could be problematic, right? Absolutely. I just, you know, the poll you just showed, showed like 40-something percent of young voters and 20-something percent of black voters. I don't know if Trump is really going to be able to get there when it's actual polling time.
But you're right, just a few percentage points difference than four years ago is still going to be a problem for Joe Biden. And speaking of the former president, he's outside the courtroom today after Michael Cohen's testimony and talking to reporters now. Our crew is listening to him. If he says anything of note, we'll let you know.
Sarah, let's talk more about this poll again. It's still early. Wisconsin, those Great Lakes states. What's your take?
What's the difference between those set of states? Well, first of all, if I was Biden, I'd be very concerned across the board. The southern states, you know, they're kind of coming home. You know, Georgia, did we really think Biden could win Georgia again?
So I think that's a concern. But Michigan, I think Detroit's going to be key. You've got to turn out the African-American vote and the young vote. I mean, clearly, President Biden has some issues going on with the young vote.
If they stay home, as you said, or if they vote for Kennedy, Trump's going to win. Because I would tell you, Trump mega-voters are going to vote across the board, no matter what state they live in. Joe, I was actually interested in the third-party performance in a lot of these polls. Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. certainly having an impact. But even beyond that, which the New York Times took the time to include libertarian candidates as well. I mean, are the Democratic campaigns really worried about the impact of these third-party candidates?
I don't know if it was the poll before or after the worm. So, look, I think he's right. This is a snapshot. I think there should be a concern.
I think there are a concern. But also, when you look at the likely voters, Biden does better. In fact, I think he's ahead of Michigan at that point. And really tightens up in the other states as well.
As well as you look at the fact that the Senate candidates in these same states are doing remarkably well. And there is a bit of a separation. Is that a good sign for Biden if the Senate can't win? Well, it's a good sign for the Senate.
I'm not saying they're going to hold on to the Senate. But, you know, I don't think he can have it. You have to have both. I think it also should actually hold on.
I think they need Biden to win. Well, what else I'm interested in is that when asked about a generic Democrat, Democrats pulled much better than President Biden. Is there any second thought? I mean, I know you can't turn back the clock at this point.
But it seems to be time and time again when the question is raised, is President Biden himself that's a big problem? Yeah, you know, because people remember who Trump is, what it is. And so I do think when the focus is back on that. Look, we all say it's after Labor Day.
That's what matters. It matters now, too. It does. I'm not diminishing that at all.
But when people are reminded of what Trump did to this country, his behavior in office, you know, the January 6th insurrection, just everything that he's done, I just think Democrats really have no place to go to home. Like, folks in Georgia, Democrats are coming home, too. Okay. I want to put up a bit of a piece of the New York Times in their write-up on these polls and what they had to say about it.
They said, quote, Since November, the stock market has gained 25%. Mr. Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan has started, and the Biden campaign has unleashed tens of millions of dollars in advertisements across the battleground states. But the polls offer little indication that any of these developments have helped Mr.
Biden hurt Mr. Trump or quelled the electorate's discontent. And I've been sitting at this table now on a pretty regular basis for the past couple of months. I've had so many of these panel discussions where folks just like you guys have told me, well, it's early.
Things are going to change. There's a lot here that has impacted this race so far, and the movement has been next to nothing or benefiting Donald Trump. When does it have to start to turn for Joe Biden? Well, I'm sure if you're on the Biden campaign, you would like it to turn right away.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't have to turn. The turn needs to happen by Labor Day, October. So it's not time to panic. But I think they would like it to happen for him.
I think one of the things that we see the reality is were the worst with the Israel-Hamas conflict. There are so many things between now and November that can shape voters' outlook. Right now, the Israel-Hamas conflict is hurting Biden. We know that some of his base.
And that's not something they could predict even a month or two ago would be so impactful. Let's turn back to a conversation about the Senate. I know Joe, you already mentioned that. Tomorrow, primary day in Maryland, a very interesting primary playing out there.
David Trone, a wealthy businessman, member of Congress right now taking on Angela, also Brooks, an African-American woman. They're both pitching themselves as a more electable candidate because, of course, Mary Hogan, the very popular former governor there, is in this race. What's your read on how this could turn out tomorrow? I think it's going to be very close.
I see all the commercials, and it's really interesting. It's getting a lot uglier over the last few days. The commercials themselves, the tones of them as well, on both sides, are not more ugly. It's very interesting to see the establishment in many respects behind also Brooks.
You see her commercials. And yet Trone seems to be really trying to endear himself with African-American women. Primarily, that's what I read out of the commercials. You know, I think it's going to be close.
I think David has spent an enormous amount of money. He's spent a lot of resources. He has his own personal wealth. I've contributed to it.
I go to tell him why. And as you mentioned, they face a tough election in November with Larry Hogan. And Sarah, I have to imagine that you, with the major Republican group, we're very excited about the Larry Hogan candidate. Who would you rather see, Ulsterbrook or Trone?
Trone. Because I think Trone, you can say he's trying to buy the election. I think the African-American vote would then be kind of up for grabs. Larry does a great job with the African-American vote.
He's very popular. So I would much rather see that race. And I do think at the end, Larry Hogan is going to be 9-6-0 for Maryland. And just quickly, how important is it that Trone can self-fund versus Ulsterbrook is going to need help from the National Party?
Right. So the National Party, in some ways, I think, doesn't mind having a self-funded candidate. That's one less race they have to spend money on. And they can send it to Montana or Ohio or the other battlegrounds they're trying to defend.
So I think that's why you see a lot of the national establishment getting behind Trone. But in Maryland, the delegation members and a lot of the more high-profile Maryland Democrats are behind Ulsterbrook. I think Hogan has an issue on abortion. That is the only point for him, I think, in the general election.
He's trying to buy him right now. I know we're DMVers, so we're going to indulge more than this. We appreciate that. Thank you all for being here.
I'm T.J. Joe. It's a great conversation. After the break, cabinet members in combat zones.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has fired his defense minister in a surprise shakeup as the war in Ukraine rages on. We have the details. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back and turning now to an unexpected wartime shakeup as Russian President Vladimir Putin has replaced his defense minister, instead appointing him to leave the country's National Security Council.
It comes less than a week after Putin began his historic fifth term in office. Sergei Shoigu is the now ousted minister. He's a longtime Putin ally who oversaw the 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine. But just last year, he faced a revolt from the Wagner Mercenary Group.
The leader of that group, Yvgeny Pogosian, who died in a plane crash last summer, blamed Shoigu for failures on the battlefield in Ukraine. Putin has since nominated an economist and a former deputy prime minister to succeed Shoigu. But the reshuffle comes amid fierce fighting, particularly in northern Ukraine. Yesterday, Russia's Ministry of Defense claimed to have made tactical gains in the Kharkiv region.
Joining me now on set is former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and Vice President for Russia and Europe at the U.S. Institute of Peace, former Ambassador Bill Taylor. Ambassador, thank you for being here.
For those of us that don't know these Russian... military leaders, like the back of our hand. What does this mean, that this minister has been replaced by Vladimir Putin? Right, of course, as you say, the decision-maker is President Putin.
And Shoigu has not been particularly successful. It was a disaster at the beginning of the war, as you point out. And what this might mean is, with the point of this economist as the minister of defense, it might mean that Putin realizes that he's not doing particularly well. I mean, he's making some gains around Kharkiv right now, and they've got more weapons that they're pushing in.
But the Ukrainians are now providing, they're moving the weapons that we've now finally provided to the front. And so it looks like it might be longer for Putin, and he's got to get an economist in there to help him worry about resources. Because economists doesn't actually need money, right? That's the study of scarce resources, right?
It's using your weapons the most efficiently, right? Weapons and other resources, like manpower, defense production, is all part of what he's worried about. Rightly so. The sanctions, even though they've not stopped him, have certainly complicated the economist's work in Russia.
And what does this mean for Shoigu? This is a demotion, right, that he's being moved to the National Security Council? Well, it's the National Security Council, and so he's still in the inner circle. The person who left, Pratyev, is getting a demotion, we guess.
They haven't said where he's going. But Shoigu has been with Putin for a long time, and will still be there. And now he has a little bit broader responsibilities, including other national security things, not just the defense minister. So we talked about this before we went on the air, but that $61 billion aid package, finally approved by the United States headed for Ukraine.
But it's got to get there quickly, right? And does it help Ukraine's morale, that they know this is coming, or does it really need to get there in order for them to kind of hold off the Russian push? Both. It helps their morale, no doubt.
Their morale went way up when that passed. But it does need to get there fast. It needs to get there in quantity. It needs to get there in particular on the air defense.
And the problem that the Ukrainians have is they're out-of-air defense missiles, and so the Russians are able to dominate the sky, in particular around Kharkiv, as you said. Will there be new weapons and new capabilities that Ukraine will be able to take advantage of now that they have this additional funding and resources? There are new capabilities. One of them we talked about last time is these long-range ATAKMS missiles that actually just before this latest $61 billion started to flow into Ukraine.
But that's new. That has only within the past two months or so been able, and the Ukrainians can use these long-range weapons to disrupt the back, deep into occupied territory. And you mentioned the gains that Russia has seen. Ukraine's even admitted that they've made gains in the Kharkiv region.
How do they turn the tide now? Are they able to go on the offensive? Are they still just holding off Russia's front line? Or can they start to push them back at some point?
At some point, they can. At some point, they can. They have to build up. They have to get the weapons that we're providing in.
They have to retrain. They have to get more soldiers. They also have to be able to go deep, actually, into areas where the Russians are launching their attacks. The Russians are launching their attacks from Russian territory into Kharkiv.
Kharkiv is close to the border. So in order to stop that, in order to defend the Ukrainian territory, the Ukrainians have to shoot into the Russian territory. And that, the United States, and others have not allowed them to do it with Western weapons. If they're unable to do it, if they're able to push further in, how devastating could that be for Ukraine?
How much of a setback would it be? It would be a setback if the Russians can take Kharkiv. Now, that said, Kharkiv is nearly two million people. The Russians don't have that many soldiers.
They are shorter soldiers as well. They can build up soldiers, but right now they don't have the capability to take Kharkiv. The people in Kharkiv are defending their own land, their own city, their own neighborhoods. That is a major factor for the Ukrainians.
I mean, that's been part of Ukraine's kind of secret weapon the entire time, right? It does, and you're right. It's been over two years, two and a half years coming up, and people are tired. The Ukrainians are tired.
The Russians are as well. But the Ukrainians have no place to go. They have no choice but to continue to fight. And they are willing and able and certainly succeeding in continuing to fight.
So we talked about the need to get this $61 billion made there as quickly as possible. How long could it last? Will they come calling to the United States again for help in the near future? How soon could it be?
The calculations are even at an accelerated rate of expenditure through the end of this year, this calendar year. $61 billion is a lot of money. Some $40 or $50 of that is for weapons. And we've provided only about $45 of the last two years.
So this is a lot of money that is going to allow them to fight and eventually take the initiative toward the end of this year or in the early next. Okay, Ambassador Bill Taylor, thank you for being here. We appreciate it. Still to come, alleged bribes of gold bars, designer watches, luxury cards, stacks of cash.
We're live outside the Manhattan courthouse on day one of Senator Bob Menendez's criminal corruption trial. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. As former President Trump accuses the Justice Department of unfairly targeting Republicans like himself, jury selection got underway today in a criminal trial of one of the Senate's top Democrats.
The Jersey senior senator and former relations chairman Bob Menendez faces 18 federal charges including bribery and acting as a foreign agent. This, of course, is Menendez's second corruption trial in the last decade. The last one ended in a deadlocked jury in 2017. He's pleaded not guilty to all the charges but will not be seeking re-election on the Democratic ticket this fall, although he may still run as an independent.
NBC's Candelanian is outside the New York courthouse where jury selection began today. I can first walk us through the allegations here. Just what is Senator Menendez being accused of? Hey, Ryan, this is one of the most extraordinary political corruption cases against a sitting U.S.
senator in American history. Now, because former President Trump's trial is happening down the street, it's not even the biggest story within four square blocks. But nonetheless, it's a consequential one. Senator Menendez is accused of conspiring to commit bribery, fraud, extortion, obstruction of justice.
And perhaps most shockingly, he's accused of acting as a secret agent of two foreign governments, Egypt and Qatar. He's accused of taking bribes to do the bidding of those governments while, as you said, he was a powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the senior most lawmaker overseeing American foreign policy. And many of our viewers will recall that the FBI did a search of his home and found nearly half a million dollars in cash amidst his belongings and jackets. Gold bars valued at nearly $100,000.
Mercedes was given to his wife. So that's the evidence. Today, they try to pick a jury. It's such a long slog and not even close to achieving that result yet.
A lot of folks who were called into jury service were not keen on the idea of a seven-week trial, so the judge is working through that. Remember that the senator is charged alongside his wife, maybe Menendez, but she is not on trial. She has suffered an unspecified medical ailment, so her trial has been postponed. But he is on trial with two of his co-defendants, or accused of bribing him.
A third co-defendant pleaded guilty and has agreed to testify against the senator. And you mentioned that he's accused of using his office to benefit these foreign governments. Have prosecutors detailed how they think Senator Menendez helped these governments? In part, yes.
They've cited evidence in the indictment that, for example, he was helping Egypt achieve certain weapons fails from the United States. And in the course of the complicated entanglement, where he was also helping a friend of his who had the Palal meet contract with the government of Egypt, believe it or not. And he's also accused of meddling in criminal investigations involving his allies. So it's a multi-pronged allegation of bribery and conspiracy here against a sitting senator.
And so how does Senator Menendez plan to defend himself? Yeah, he has strongly proclaimed his innocence, obviously pleaded not guilty. And we've gotten some hints of his defense. In part, he may choose to blame his wife, because a lot of the evidence in this case came from her text messages and her phone.
And she, according to the indictment, was integrally involved in soliciting some of these payments and gratuities, and then arranging for him, according to the indictment, to help with these official actions. And he may say that he wasn't completely on board with all that or didn't know what was going on. He's also claimed that his lawyers wanted to call a psychiatrist in the stand who would testify that one of the reasons he had cash in his house was because of his family's history in Cuba with that regime confiscating their money. The prosecutors are trying to keep that testimony out, and that is unresolved at this moment.
And you mentioned jury selection, already a long slog, but the trial itself could last six to seven weeks. It'll be a long time before we know how this one ends up. Ken Delaney, thanks for being there outside that courthouse in New York City. And we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.
Mom, this one's for you. Hi, I'm Adriana Brock, Shop Today executive editor, and we're celebrating the beautiful, messy, joyful chaos of motherhood at every stage. From the newborn days to the teen years and everything in between, join us for an event in downtown LA with inspiring panels led by experts and special guests, hand-on experiences with some of our most loved brands, and a seriously great gift bag filled with products you'll actually use in love that's worth more than $700. Most importantly, you'll be surrounded by a community of moms who just get it.
And we can't wait to celebrate with you.