Meet the Press NOW — May 20

If it's Monday. Prosecutors in Trump's criminal hush money trial rested their case as their start with as Michael Cohen wraps up his testimony that Trump's lawyers call their first witnesses to the stand with closing arguments now set for next week. Plus, a senior administration official says there's no evidence of foul play after a helicopter kills. A helicopter crash kills Iran's hardline president and foreign minister as the incident threatens to further inflame tensions in the region.

And the 2024 campaign trail rhetoric ramps up as President Biden calls his rival unhinged, warns he's running for revenge. A former President Trump invokes the electric chair and repeats baseless claims that he won the 2020 election. Hi there. Welcome to MEET THE PRESS now on Ryan Nobles.

And we begin this hour York, where the prosecution has just rested in Donald Trump's hush money trial. It came after yet a fourth day of testimony from former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, who's of course the prosecution start witness this. Defense attorneys continue to attack his credibility and prosecutors sought to limit the damage caused by those attacks. During today's cross examination, Cohen admitted to stealing from the Trump Organization by being reimbursed for more than he paid a tech company.

He also acknowledged having a financial interest in the outcome of this case, although he testified that he profit more from an acquittal because it would, quote, give me more to talk about in the future. During prosecutors redirect, Cohen testified that he had more than 20 conversations with Mr. Trump in October of 2016 about storming Daniels and that he would never have paid the adult film actress without his boss's pledge to pay him back. The defense has now began presenting its case.

Their first witness, a paralegal from Trump attorney Todd Blanche's firm. And right now, Robert Costello, who served as a legal advisor to Michael Cohen is on the stand. And Costello just testified that Michael Cohen said numerous times during a meeting that Trump did not know about the payment to Stormy Daniels and that Cohen repeatedly said that he did it on his own. We do not know how many witnesses will take the stand for the defense, although earlier today Trump's attorney said that they had two witnesses waiting to testify.

Judge Juan Rashawn, meanwhile, announced this morning that closing arguments will take place next Tuesday, meaning a potential verdict in this case won't come until after Memorial Day. NBC News Court's Mike Dasha Burns joins me now from outside the courthouse in Manhattan. So, Dasha, right now Robert Costello is testifying for the defense. Tell us who Costello is and what his relevance is to this case.

Yeah. Becoming increasingly relevant here. I says his testimony you can continues here, Ryan. So because Costello was essentially a conduit, a sort of back channel in 2018 between Cohen and Trump and Trump's legal team at the time, which included Rudy Giuliani.

Now Cohen says that he was part of the pressure campaign from Trump Row at the time, implying things like, don't flip, you've got friends in high places trying to keep him from talking. Right. The defense, though, is going to press Costello to elicit moments when he believes Cohen was lying, when Cohen wasn't telling them what he was. What he ultimately told investigators back in 2023, actually, Costello testified before a grand jury and he told reporters at that time that he said some of what Cohen told him and Trump's team are directly contrary to what he has been saying to investigators.

And now as you just mentioned in your opening here, Costello is telling the court, telling the jury that Cohen said numerous times that did with that money, those hush money payments, said numerous times that Trump did not know what Cohen was doing. So that is a critical piece of the testimony here today. Okay. And you know, obviously Cohen was on the stand for quite a bit time today.

Gosh. What was really the focus of Todd Blanch's cross examination of Cohen? Well, he continued to hammer instances where Cohen was caught either lying or not telling the full truth. And one of the, the big sort of revelations today was he did get Cohen to admit that he stole money from the Trump Organization.

Now that opens the door for the defense to pay Michael Cohen not only as an unreliable narrator, as a liar, but also as a thief. And that comes on top of a moment from last week that continues to be relevant today, Ryan. And we'll get to it. Which is about a phone call that Cohen made to Trump's body man, Keith Schiller, back in 2016.

And whether or not that phone call was had anything to do with Stormy Dan or whether or not it was just about some harassing messages that Cohen was getting from a 14 year old Ryan. So how did the prosecutors have to clean this up? What was the focus of their redirective? A lot of rehab.

A lot of rehab to try to explain what motivated Cohen in some of these actions. And a big piece of evidence that took some time at the bench between defense and the prosecution arguing about whether or not it should be shown to the jury. There was a video from C SPAN of a Trump rally on October 24, 2016 that showed them Keith Schiller and Donald Trump walking off stage together. At 7:57pm just moments before, Cohen spoke on the phone to Schiller, showing that Schiller was in fact with Trump and that it is entirely plausible that Cohen could have talked to the former president and talked about those Stormy Daniels ash money payments.

The other thing that the prosecution hammered is that Cohen spoke to the former president, according to his testimony, multiple times, more than 20, 20 times in October 2016 about those house money payments. Now, I am the reason that we keep coming back to that is because Cohen is the lynchman here. Cohen is really the key witness that can tie all of what has been enterprise evidence about these payments, actually tie that back to the former president. We know Stormy Daniels has paid.

We've seen those documents. We've seen these transactions. It's Cohen, it's his testimony that can connect those dots to former President Trump. Ryan?

Okay, I'm following along with our readout from the courtroom as you're talking. It appears that there are some theatrics happening inside the courtroom right now, including the judge demanding that the courtroom be cleared because of the dust up between the attorneys here. I'm gonna let you, since you were talking to me while this is all happening, go take a look at a rundown and read out exactly what's happening. I'm going to talk to Lanny Davis, who's of course associated with Michael Cohen.

And we'll come back to you in a second, Dasha. So, Lanny, let me go to you while Dasha gives us an update about what's happening in real time in the courtroom. You, of course, once served as a legal advisor to Michael Cohen. You're not in that role anymore, but of course you're still close with Mr.

Cohen. So tell me, Lanny, was today the first time that you learned that Cohen had stolen the Trump Organization, or was that a known fact? No, I knew that he paid himself what he thought he deserved and had been paid in bonuses and other outlays that he had made on behalf of Mr. Trump.

And my understanding is he didn't defend that action, but I did know that, yes. So how does that impact his credibility in terms of his testimony today? You know, I'm just going to take a contrary view about who's indicted here. I know this is going to make news on Meet the Press.

Michael Cohen is not indicted. Donald Trump is indicted. He said he would take the stand to defend himself. So far, Michael Cohen is accused as if he's indicted.

And that's what the defense and I think a lot of media has bought that so let's just go back to basics. Basic number one is that people testified corroborating Michael Cohen that Mr. Trump wanted the payment to Stormy Daniels for campaign purposes. Check the box.

That's a crime. Michael Cohen went to jail for that crime of a politically motivated contribution. Number two, Donald Trump, while president, wrote out $35,000 checks to Michael Cohen with his handwriting in his checking account as president United States. Why did he do that?

He lied when he said they were for legal expenses. His top Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Weisselberg, handwritten notes said, we take $210,000, multiply them by two so that there's no income taxes owed for the advances Michael Cohen made, including 100,000 dol. $30,000 to storm me.

Daniels, you double it, you get to 420. You divide that by 12. That's $35,000 checks, period. The jury has that evidence.

All the attacks on Michael Cohen don't change the $35,000 checks that were paid to reimburse Michael Cohen. Rudy Giuliani said there were reimbursements. Even Donald Trump said reimbursements. They were not legal fees.

That's all the jury needs to do. It doesn't have to decide on Michael Cohen's credibility or anything else he's corroborated by documents and testimony. Okay, and I understand that he's not on trial here, but you understand why his credibility is being brought into question. I mean, that is part of what the jury does have to take into account here.

He's the star witness for the prosecution. So his credibility is still a big part of this conversation, is it not? So. No, it isn't.

I know it's contrary to what everybody thinks, but every single thing that he has testified to where his credibility has been challenged has been corroborated. I just g picks and Mr. Pecker saying that the money was politically motivated. Check the box.

That's a crime. Nothing to do with Michael Cohen. Then I said Donald Trump wrote $35,000 a month as a sitting president personally to Michael Cohen. And he called them legal expenses.

Weisselberg used those numbers to repay him on a piece of paper in his own handwriting. Believe Weisselberg, not Michael Cohen. Okay, so his testimony, Michael Cohen's testimony right now being contradicted as we speak by Robert Costello, who was on the stand. He's testifying that Michael Cohen told him.

This is Costello relaying a conversation he had with Michael Cohen that Trump did not know about the story Daniels payments. So who should we believe here? Michael Cohen or Robert Costello. So there's a lot I know about Robert Costello and his dealings with Mr.

Cohen, but I won't get into because it's not about whether Donald Trump is guilty or not. Mr. Costello testified voluntarily to the grand jury, and the grand jury decided it didn't to hear Michael Cohen rebut. That's a fact.

That's what the grand jury thought of Mr. Costello. Also, he claims to have been a legal advisor. He charged Michael Cohen, sent him a bill when there was never an engagement letter and actually asked Michael to pay him.

Those are the only two facts. He has nothing to do with whether Donald Trump paid reimbursements. That's the only legal issue or legal expenses. And that is demonstrated by the Weisselberg handwritten memo that says there were reimbursements.

One of the things that came up during his cross examination today is Michael Cohen acknowledged that he has a financial stake in this trial. How does that influence his testimony? How could the jury potentially receive that information? Again, please forgive me for not buying the premise that all of the media.

So I'm odd men out here. This is not about Michael Cohen being greedy, moral, a liar, or anything else. There's an indictment of Donald Trump, his credibility. If it didn't depend on other witnesses, corroboration by documents, text messages, emails, then I could.

The attack on his credibility would be meaningful. The jury can go into that jury room and ignore what Michael Cohen said and look at the documents, look at other people's testimony. Like Hope Hicks saying it was about the campaign, to hush up Stormy. Daniel.

That's not Michael Cohen. David Pepper said it was about the campaign. It wasn't a personal. Nothing to do with politics.

So that you don't need Michael Cohen. The last thing I'm mentioning to you is the Allen Weisselberg handwritten notes prove that this was reimbursement money, not legal fees. Ergo, that is guilt. And it's about Donald Trump, everybody being indicted, not Michael Cohen.

So do you feel as though the prosecutors asked Michael Cohen all the questions that they needed to ask him? Was there anything you think they left out that they should have asked? No. I think Susan Huffinger did a great job on the redirect.

And I think all that the defense has done. Let me just finally say to you that when a lawyer screams, you're a liar, and all the media came out, oh, my God, that was a Perry Mason moment. And I do believe, without criticizing, that's what they did. That was not testimony.

That was not evidence. That was a lawyer shouting and even if it's true that Michael Cohen is a liar and he's acknowledged lying, he said he was ashamed of himself in front of the nation in the House Oversight Committee hearings. This is about Donald Trump's indictment for paying hush money for political reasons and for reimbursing Michael Cohen as a sitting President with $35,000 month checks that were divided by the mathematical formula of $420,000 divided by 12. Nothing to do with legal expenses.

Now, I understand we're saying, sir, and I think that's true, that, you know, there's a corroboration here and that the prosecution has gone to great links to tie all these things together. But the idea that Michael Cohen's credibility isn't at least part of this conversation, I think is a little. He wouldn't be the star witness for the prosecution. They wouldn't be put on understand, if that were the case.

So I do think that's part of what the jury has to weigh. Right. It's something in between, of course, the jury has to weigh credibility of open. This is including Michael Cohen.

He owns his lies and he's admitted those lies publicly. But if I'm in the jury room and I disbelieve Michael Cohen, the evidence is, in my opinion, somewhat jaundice, I guess, because I'm a friend of Michael's. There is evidence corroborating all the elements of the crime that is in the indictment of not Michael Cohen. Right.

Donald Trump. And that's all. My point is, of course, credibility is a valid issue. You put someone on the stand, that's a valid cross examination.

Okay, Lady Davis, I appreciate conversation. Thank you so much. All right, let's go back now to Dasha Burns, who's outside the courthouse. And we'll also bring in Danielos, who's a criminal defense attorney and an NBC News legal analyst.

Also with me is Catherine Christian, a former district attorney in Manhattan. She's also an NBC News legal analyst. So we've got a lot to unpack here. Dasha's going through the courtroom through the dispatch we're getting from the courtroom.

Dasha, tell us what happened there in court just a few minutes ago. So one caveat here for you, Ryan. Before I describe what we know, there are some blank spots for the press because when ran cleared the courtroom, he cleared the press as well. And the monitors inside the overflow flow room that our colleagues are watching were also shut off, something that reporters were not happy about.

They believe they had the right to witness what was going on there. So There are a couple of blank spots for us, but from what we understand, Costello continued to make audible sounds, somewhat disrespectful. Faces of Premisean's reading For the judge's reading when he was sustaining objections from the prosecution, he was audible. He was louder.

Colleague Lisa Rubin, who's a lawyer, says Costello was perhaps the most disrespectful witness I have ever seen. It seems that Judge Merchant had enough said. You know what? We need to take a pause here, clear the courtroom and admonish Costello for disrupting the proceedings.

Essentially saying, you don't say strike it because I'm the only one who can strike it. You don't give me side eye and you don't roll your eyes. And if you don't like my ruling, you don't say, jeez, that's an exclamation we heard several times from Costiello during his testimony when objections were sustained. So a moment to say, hey, this behavior not going to cut it in the sport room if you want to keep testifying, Ryan.

Okay, gotcha. Thank you for getting us updated on these events that are happening moment by moment. Let's go to our lawyers now. Danny, first to you, and I want to hear from you as well, Catherine, your take on Lenny Davis's perception of how his former client did.

He seems to believe that his credibility isn't as big an issue as some of us are making it. Right. Lenny is a fantastic lawyer and he's an advocate for Michael Cohen. I think you correctly pointed that out.

I think he's willing to admit it at least. And look, Cohen's credibility is at issue, just as it is in every case involving a cooperating witness. And yes, Michael Cohen's not on trial. You may even hear the prosecution say that in their closing argument that Michael Cohen is not the defendant here.

But look, Lenny Davis acknowledges that Michael Cohen has some credibility issues. And he does make a good point that Michael Cohen's credibility issues are minimized to a degree because the prosecution has introduced so much documentary and other testimonial evidence that corroborates what Michael Cohen is saying. But he also acknowledged at the end of the interview, which I thought was admirable, that, look, he is a witness for the prosecution. He's arguably one of the more important, if not the most important, witness for the prosecution.

So of course his credibility is an issue. But I think Lanny's point is Michael Cohen's already conceded that he's been less than about things. He's conceded that he stole money from The Trump Organization. The point to be made is since he's not on trial, really the prosecution just needs the jury to believe what he said about these transactions.

Whether or not the defense has made enough inroads on cross examination to raise reasonable doubt about that remains to be seen. But Lanning did look Lanny's advocate. He's not neutral. He said as much.

He said, Michael Cohen's his friend, I get it. And he actually made a pretty compelling argument showing why he is a really good attorney that he just, in that short interview, he did more for Michael Cohen's reputation than Michael Cohen has done for his own. So, Catherine, were the prosecutors able in your mind to clean up some of this damage from the cross examination of Michael Cohen when they did their redirect? Oh, yes, because last week, you know, it was, that's a lie.

And that phone call either was untruthful or he was mistaken. And the prosecution brought out on redirect that he spoke to Donald Trump many times, probably 20, approximately in person on the phone. And they certainly cleared up. So the jury is not left with he was a liar, which is what the impression was on cross examination.

And may I say about this defense witness that the defense insisted on calling. I've seen actually more disrespectful witnesses, but I've never heard of a lawyer as a witness behaving the way Mr. Costello's behaving on the stand. And that's certainly not a way to end your case if you decided to throw a case as a defense witness.

What's that point? Made a pretty remarkable claim. He testified that Cohen said repeatedly that Trump didn't know anything about the story of Daniel's payments. Was it a mistake for prosecutors after pre bought Costello's testimony when Cohen was still on the stand and just allow him to say that, or is Costello problematic witness in his own right?

I think he's a problematic witness. I mean, when the judge clears the courtroom in the middle of your witness's testimony, that's a problem. For whatever reason, the fence believe they had to call him, but he's a problem. And now the prosecution can talk about this defense witness in their summation.

If there are no defense witnesses, the prosecution cannot comment on the fact that the defendant and call witnesses cannot comment on the fact that the defendant didn't testify. Now they're gonna talk about. And they haven't even cross examined him yet. They're talking about Mr.

Costello. So again, what about. Do you think that the defense's cross examination of Cohen took Too long? Yes.

I mean, it's easy for me to say that from the comfort of the studio that I found is the cross examination to take too long. When you're defense counsel, you are agonizing to try and decide what evidence you want to confront a witness with and what evidence you won't. A lot of times, cooperating witnesses, Michael Cohen isn't one of them. They have a rap sheet.

They have criminal conviction histories that run for dozens of pages. And the dilemma is this, as a defense attorney, do you hit them with each and every conviction, each and every lie they've ever told, everything that you can crowbar into evidence knowing the jury sometimes sees upon some issue that you never thought was a big deal? Do you leave anything on the table when it comes to cross examination? Of course, the other side of that is if you go on too long, you lose the jury, and a board jury will punish the attorney who bored them.

So it is a dilemma that faces every defense attorney. It is so easy for me to sit back as an observer and say, yeah, that went on way too long. And I do. I do think it went on too long.

I think it was at times unfocused. And I think the use of leading questions by the defense, they could have used more. They should have used more. In fact, the prosecution, who isn't supposed to use leading questions, used them expertly to essentially establish a lot of the critical elements of their case using Michael Cohen.

One of the things that Cohen testified during the direct examination was about this 2017 Oval Office meeting in which Cohen said that the reimbursement plan was discussed by he and Trump. The defense never brought that up during the cross examination. Was that mistake, Danny? Yes and no.

Again, with cross examination, every single question is a potential landline. So do sometimes you have to make a decision, Do I want to give this witness an opportunity? Especially someone like Cohen, who's cagey, used to be a lawyer. He understands more about cross examination than the average witness.

Do you want to give him the opportunity to double down on something that's incredibly helpful to the prosecution? Usually if you stay away from the topic on cross examination, it's because you don't like it or you're afraid of what the witness will say. So that may have been a deliberate choice. I expect it was a deliberate choice just to avoid Michael Cohen from doubling down and because maybe they thought there wasn't anything they could really do to attack it.

I mean, that goes into every decision to not cover initiation. They didn't just forget about it. These attorneys on the defense team are so immersed in the facts, they know more about this case, they've forgotten more about this case than will ever know. That's what happens when you get ready for a trial.

You learn every single fact. So that was not an act of omission, that was a deliberate strategic choice. What exactly went into that choice? I'm not entirely sure.

We'll have to wait for the tell all book in a couple years. So, Catherine, I want to talk a little about the timing now. There's a chance that the defense rests here in the next couple of hours. The judges said that he's not ready to move the closing arguments until next week, largely to do with Anorley Holiday.

What challenge will that be for both the prosecution and the defense in preparing for closing arguments when there could be a pretty sizable gap between the end of testimony and when those closing arguments take place? Well, it's clear bad now. The defense will probably rest tomorrow because I think the judge is not gonna let the jury stay much longer today and they'll be cross examination tomorrow and then the defense will rest. And the reason why the judge did this is because Wednesday is off off Friday is off.

Monday is a holiday. You don't want a situation of summations happening. And then there's a five day break. So both sides will now have the entire week to prepare for their closing arguments for Tuesday.

And so the defense goes first, the prosecution goes last. The judge will instruct the jury on the law and then they will deliberate and we will all wait. And these jurors love a lot to think about it. They barbecue, that's for sure.

And we should point out right now that Robert Costello is being cross examined as his case seems to be speeding toward a conclusion. Danny, Catherine, thank you both for being here. We appreciate it. We're gonna keep an eye on what's happening in the courtroom throughout the hour.

If there's any new updates, we'll bring them to you, including the possibility this Catherine mentioned that the defense could rest its case. But first, coming up, inside Tehran's secession crisis with the sudden death of the president, foreign ministers for the region during an already volatile time. Plus the White House blasts the International Criminal Court for false equivalents and issuing arrest warrants for war crimes for Israel's leader and top Hamas commanders. You're watching Meet the Press now.

Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking news just coming in moments ago. Watch, read and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription.

It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad instructions including ad free articles, podcasts and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more.

Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands in the world, Mumford and Son, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prize Fighter and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound. You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription viewer ads, deeper access and exclusive content.

And now during the Xfinity Member Celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more. Xfinity imagine that subscription automatically reuses each year at $65.99/taxes and fees is still canceled. Offer ends May 20, 2026.

Price is subject to change. Visit nbcnews.com affinity for full all returns and details welcome back to Iran's President Ibrahim Raisi, a hard line conservative cleric known for his brutal crackdown on opposition within the country, died in a helicopter crash, according to Iran's state media. Ron's foreign minister was also killed in the incident. The cause of the crash remains unclear and Iranian officials say investigation is underway.

Raisi was returning from an event near the border of Azerbaijan and was flying in what appears to be foggy and poor conditions. You can see this video and what appears to be the search and rescue team scrambling to reach the crash site. Despite those conditions, international reaction has been pouring in, including from the State Department. Some of the worst human rights abuses occurred during his tenure as president, especially the human rights abuses against the women and girls of Iran.

That said, we regret any loss of life. We don't want to see anyone die in a helicopter crash. But that doesn't change the reality of his record, both as a judge and as the president of Iran, the fact that he has blood on his hands. In the wake of the crash, Iran's supreme leader declared five days of national warning and named the country's first vice president as interim president.

But Raisi's death is raising concerns about what this means for leadership inside Iran. The late president was seen as the likely successor to Iran's supreme leader. NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons is reporting from the Gulf region. He joins us now.

So here what has the reaction in the region been both in the region and elsewhere, when you've seen a number of Gulf countries and Middle Eastern countries send their condolences to Iran, which I think is fascinating when you consider that some of these countries, Saudi Arabia for example, would have considered themselves and to some extent still do adversaries of Iran. So even in this moment where things are unpredictable, you can see some kind of effort to reach towards stability even so, and kind of make connections to build bridges if you like. And that's something you have been seeing in the Middle east between countries here in this region, the Gulf and Iran. That being said, we've also seen our messages and condolences from President Putin, President Xi of China describing President Raisi as a friend.

So those that would consider themselves those countries, partners of Iran, they certainly have been making clear that that alliance, that strength of connection is forged through moments like this. In terms of who's to blame, well, you mentioned those pictures and the fog. It's pretty clear, it seems that this accident was an accident. It was caused by that weather.

It's also mountainous terrain. There has been a former foreign minister in Iran accusing America effectively that the sanctions have hampered Iran's air industry and for that reason this crash took place and the blame should be on the US Hard to say whether that's going to pick up steam. One of the questions, I suspect is whether things become more unstable inside Iran where the leadership, they have to look to keep other places to lay the blame, fingers to point, not much like that at the moment. It does look as if, despite this, and this is, you know, the President of Iran, a man who was being talked about as a possible person to succeed as a supreme leader has gone.

And yet Iran tonight appears fairly stable. So talk to me about that succession. Then you mentioned Raisi was considered to be the leader in terms of the next, the person in the next position to say, become the next supreme leader. So what does this mean about the potential success for that?

Well, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the only second supreme leader in Iran. So it's a big deal. He's 85 years old. This is a big change.

This is the change that really does have the potential to kind of rock the country, if you like. And again, just two years ago, we saw protests in the street, you'll remember them for women's rights after the death of 23 year old young woman Mahassahmini. So it's not, it's only in recent memory that there were uprisings in Iran brutally put down by the clerical leaders of Iran, including by the president who was just killed in his helicopter crash last night. So who succeeds the president?

There'll be an election in the days to come, in around 50 days is the mandate in Iran. But that's not the real succession. Athletic Tova should be the supreme leader and his son is another person that might be the person who gets chosen. But of course, the Iranian regime is supposed to be opposed to that kind of almost monarchical succession from father to son.

So I think the question is there too. I mean, it's very, it's very murky the way that Iran works and only quasi democracy, of course. So we're going to have to wait to see in so many ways with this, I think we have to wait to see. The Middle east, of course, has been so unstable.

And while we are going to spoke to someone close to the Iranian government in Tehran for the past few hours, reassuring that the government has a firm footing there or in his mind, reassuring, I think we'll have to see exactly how this plays out. Okay. Kir Simmons, thank you for that report. We appreciate it.

And turning now to another developing story in the region. While Iran's government is in transition, Israel's wartime unity government is in turmoil. Oil. Over the weekend, opposition leader Ben Gantz issued an ultimatum to Prime Minister Netanyahu saying he will resign from the government unless comes up with a new strategy for the war.

Gantz said he will give Netanyahu three weeks to come up with a new plan. The challenge by Gantz comes on the heels of Israel's defense minister also publicly clashing with Netanyahu, questioning the government's post war plans for Gaza. But despite those internal divisions, Israeli leaders did rally behind Netanyahu following an announcement by prosecutors at the International Criminal Court that they were seeking arrest warrants for alleged war crimes for senior Israeli and Hamas officials, including Netanyahu and Hamas leader Sinwar. President Biden condemned the request, calling outrageous.

While the State Department emphasized there was no equivalency between Israel and Hamas. The United States fundamentally rejects the announcement today from the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that he is applying for arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials together with warrants for Hamas terrorists. There should be no equivalence between Israel and Hamas. None.

NBC News international correspondent Raf Sanchez is in Tel Aviv with more. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today furiously denouncing the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court who is accusing him of war crimes and seeking a warrant for his arrest. The prosecutor also looking to arrest Israel's Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as the three top leaders of Hamas's military and political wings. The prosecutor accusing Israel of deliberately starving Palestinian civilians in Gaza by choking off supplies of food and also of in some cases deliberately targeting civilian populations.

Prime Minister Netanyahu in a statement saying, I reject with disgust the hate prosecutors comparison between democratic Israel and the mass murderers of Hamas. This is a complete distortion of reality. President Biden calling the prosecutor's allegations outrageous and saying the United States will not accept any comparison between Israel and Hamas. Now the Prosecutor of the ICC also accusing senior Hamas leaders of atrocities on October 7th and beyond, including murder, torture, rape and hostage taken.

The Israeli government says there are still 128 hostages living and dead being held by Hamas inside of Gaza. In a statement tonight, Hamas is applauding the ICC prosecutor's decision to move against Israeli leaders is denying that they committed war crimes themselves. In terms of legal process here, it is now up to a three judge panel at the ICC to decide whether to issue these arrest warrants or not. If they do, Prime Minister Netanyahu unlikely to face immediate arrests, but it becomes very risky for him to travel to any of the 124 countries that are signatories to the court.

That includes most nations in Western Europe. And the prime minister would be joining an unwelcome club alongside Vladimir Putin of world leaders accused of crimes against humanity. Back to you. All right, Ross Sanchez, thank you for that.

And let's now bring in NBC News Pentagon correspondent, according to QB, who has new exclusive reporting about how the US was about to transfer 11 detainees out of the US facility at Guantanamo, but abruptly halted those plans after the October 7 Hamas attacks. According this is quite the explosive report. Tell us about what you've learned. Who were these detainees who's had to be transferred and will the administration still try and move forward with this transfer at some point?

So, ryan, there are 11 men. They're all of Yemeni descent. And so because of the security situation in Yemen, it's been in turmoil there for years. And candidly since October 7th, it's only gotten worse with these repeated attacks by the Houthis and strikes into Yemen and Houthi controlled areas.

But because of the security situation in Yemen, the US Government has worked for years to try to find a solution to transfer these men out of the detention center in Guantanamo to another place. Many of them have been cleared for release by the system there for years. But it took a long time, the US Working with the government of Oman to secure a deal where they would be transferred to Oman all at once, 11 men at once. And there would be some security guarantees there that the US And Oman had worked on for a matter of months and even years to figure out.

Well, then October 7th happened. The men were supposed to be transferred soon after that and the decision was promptly halted. That was because, according to a number of U.S. officials familiar with this, it was because of the optics of the situation.

The Biden administration was concerned about transferring these men who had been held at Guantanamo Bay, who had been associated in one way or another with some acts of terror of transferring them or releasing them, and the potential blowback that they could receive politically right now. Administration officials tell us that this deal is still very much open and in the works, but they can't tell us exactly when it's possible these men could be transferred to Oman at this point. There is some optimism that they'll make it out at some point this year in 2024. The concern, of course, is if President Biden is not reelected a president, if Donald Trump becomes president again in his last term, he did not release, I think he released only one actually detainee out of Guantanamo, transferred that person out.

The concern is that they will have to wait another four years despite again being legally deemed elig eligible for transferring. We appreciate that. Thank you so much. After the break, former President Trump invokes Joe Biden in an electric chair and repeats lies that he won the 2020 presidential election.

We'll dig deeper into the latest comments and controversies on the campaign trail. You're watching with the PRESS now. Welcome back. Turning to the campaign trail, President Biden spent the weekend holding multiple events targeting black voters as polls show a potentially alarming decline in support and enthusiasm for the president heading into November.

Yesterday, he gave a commencement address at the historically black College of Morehouse in Georgia, stressing the importance of democracy and confronting systemic racism. And last night, he addressed the NAACP in Detroit, where he thanked the group for their continued support and accused his opponent, Donald Trump, of seeking the presidency out of revenge. Taking Take a listen, folks. Trump isn't running to lead America.

He's running for revenge. But revenge is no way to lead the country. You can't build a future on revenge. You can't build better lives for revenge.

That's why I'm running to beat American in the future. Let's talk about it. Joan Daniel Diaz, congressional reporter for Politico Chuck Rocha, the president of Solidarity Strategies and co host of the Latino Vote podcast. He's also senior advisor to Ruben Diego's Senate campaign and Mark Short, former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, former White House Legislative affairs director and NBC News contributor.

So, Daniel, let's talk about this move by Biden accusing Trump of running for president based on revenge. Trump might actually agree with that. I don't think that's necessarily a viewpoint that he's running away from. This is this a smart strategy for Biden?

Because I do believe that probably a lot of Trump supporters actually kind of lean into this idea. Well, when I speak to Democrats and Democratic strategists, I just did before this, they are making the claim that this is a way for Biden to distinguish himself from what Trump is doing. Right. So Trump is running as revenge of 2020 that he lost, is talking a lot about himself.

Biden is instead trying to make a distinguishment that he is actually running on issues that really matter. That's what we're hearing from Democrats and Democratic strikes for why they think this could be a winning issue. But again, voters, as we were just listening to in that, are not enthusiastic. And this is a rehash of what happened four years ago.

And that could be a losing issue for Biden. He continues to make voters higher fatigued when they keep hearing the same thing over and over. And you know, Donald Trump may be telling a lie when he tells supporters his supporters won the 2020 election, but for a lot of them, that's an effective message. They believe that lie.

And isn't that one of the ways they're going to the polls because they want revenge for an election they felt was stolen a long time ago when I first started doing this, There's a lot more than middle, what we call them ride, and we need to cover that. Everybody's running the corners to your point, like the folks are baking over on the ride. They think the party was stolen, elections were stolen. They don't believe January 6th was this.

And Democrats over here going, okay, we got Joe Biden, he ain't Donald Trump, but he's a lot better than Donald Trump. So what they're looking at is something in the middle that's not very much there in the middle. So what they have to do is have a contrast and constantly remind people that they think they're in the middle of what black with Donald Trump was president. Mark, are there enough Republicans that won't receive this message that don't believe the election was stonewalling, might like Trump's policies, but worry that maybe he's veering too much into this rehash of the 2020 election?

Sure. I think reality is you continue to see roughly 15% of people vote for candidates out of the race in these Republican primaries. So, sure, I think that is reality. But I think to judge point, we are polarized now.

There isn't much of a middle ground of a swing voters anymore. But I think that, you know, the challenge for Joe Biden is the swing voters, they got tired of the drama around Trump for four years. They wanted something to bring normalcy back. What have they gotten?

They got to surrender in Afghanistan, they war in Eastern Europe, they got war in Israel, they got war chaos and have chaos on college campuses. And so the whole notion of we're going to get rid of the drama and chaos is a total failure of Joe Biden. Let's listen to some of what Trump was saying again this weekend making more incendiary remarks. Take a look at this.

They have a guy like crooked Joe Biden as president who's accepted money. He's a Manchurian candidate. He's accepted money from China, from Russia, from Ukraine, from everywhere. If that were a Republican, he would have been given the electric chair.

They would have brought back the death battle tape suggesting that the president of the United States be executed in the electric chair. Mark, is this already baked in? I mean, Trump's not out there as much as he would be because he's sitting in a courtroom all day. If he was doing this every single day, would it resonate in the campaign or people just is it going one year round out the other?

I think people are used to that hyperbole. I think the reality is that, yeah, I think in some ways that Biden benefited by having a lot more Trump out there in 2020 race. And so it'd be better for Biden if Trump was more. There's one.

Vice versa. There's no saying in Texas, if you lie long enough not have a horse, eventually somebody will buy you a saddle. And that's exactly what's happening with Donald Trump over many, many years. Right.

Going back to Obama birth certificate, he is really good at amplifying a message. There's other folks out there in the media that are good at that. And when you start doing all this misleading information, it starts affecting the voter base. And you see that now.

That's why, again, going back to my original comment, while we've run to our court. Yeah. And Danielle, it's interesting to the point, Donald Trump keeps repeating these refrains. And now what we might describe as more mainstream Republicans are starting to echo some of those claims.

Listen to what Marco Rubio said on the set this weekend, will you accept the election results of 2024 no matter what happens, Senator, no matter what happens now? It's an unfair election. I think it's. Senator, no matter what.

I think you're asking the wrong person. The Democrats are the ones that opposed every Republican victory since 2000. Every single one. It's no Democrats refused to conced.

Hillary Clinton didn't see the Senator Williams at the election. Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen from her and Trump was illusion of the Congo. Has it become a loyalty test for someone that wants to be near or in Trump's orbit? When I talk to people, Ryan, it is very clear that that is the main loyalty test.

Whether someone will accept the election results in just a couple of months. I mean, we saw your former boss did not accept or did not accept the election results and stood up for democracy and see what happened. There have been other VP candidates who noticed this. What Margaret is doing is he's on the short list, is making a play for that and why he said that is Trump is listening.

And that's the number one thing Trump wants, is loyalty and is attending loyal. And Mark, in the past, maybe some of these Republicans were trying to distance themselves from that. We're not seeing this much anymore. No, you're not seeing that.

But Ryan, in all due respect, I actually agree with a lot of what Marco said. As someone who was there on January 6 and had to get evacuated myself, the reality is that the last three times Republicans on presidential elections, Democrats in Congress have voted against certification result, including the chair of the January 6th committee, it did not turn violent. 2016. What happened in 2020, sorry.

Was entirely inexcusable. But there has been double standard, both sides that created distrust in our election results. Is there a difference between one or two random Democrats voting against the election results versus the President of the United States on the ellipse giving a speech encouraging his supporters to vote? Yeah, there is.

At the same time it was warranted, it was dozens and they weren't held the same account. Yeah, I would disagree with that and say that we conceded, we said that we lost. And I've been in many races over 34 years of saying I lost, I got my butt kicked deeper. But.

And there's a handful, a dozen. Whatever you want to say, folks, let's what it is, UK apples and oranges. Back to the election, 2016 or 2004, 2008. Democrats and Congress voted against certification all three times.

Okay, so let's. Let's ship and talk about different conversation now. And this is the President Biden attempting to reconnect with voters of color in particular black voters should the Biden can't be worried about their connection with African American voters. Maybe voters in color at large.

Right. In the Mexican redneck Democrat. I work every day and I know what I can do math and I run presidential campaigns and this election is going to come down to black voters outside in Philadelphia and in Detroit and in Milwaukee and Latino voters outside of those areas as well in Bethlehem and South Milwaukee. As these numbers grow, especially Latino numbers, they're growing astronomical.

They're 4 million Latinos. They didn't vote the last election because they weren't eligible and now they are. And you see that much derivative of African Americans and the African American voters, the difference is between 92% and 88% can cost us the election. So yes, we're going to worry.

I'm glad that he's out there early and often messaging. And Danielle, from your perspective, the Hill to these members of Congress that are members of color, are they concerned that the Biden campaign isn't doing enough to reach out to that voter base? Yeah. The number one issue, immigration.

Right. And that's something that really matters to Latino voters. When it comes to voters, black voters, their issues, all their disillusioned and that's what we're hearing all the time. And it seems like the Biden campaign is aware that they need to reach out to these voters.

Heads his last visit to Detroit this past weekend in the pax of speeches, speaking at warhouse the naacp. But is it enough? We'll have to see. Yeah.

And Mark, he doesn't need to win the black vote. Donald Trump. Right. He'll do a little bit better.

Certainly. Certainly that's true. And I certainly hope that. I believe that the Republican Party offers a better future for Latino black lawyers in America.

But it is an easy way to express your disappointment in the whole and it's different on election day. Until we actually see this results on election day, I'm not convinced that it's going to be there. And I think that for Joe Biden and for Donald Trump, if there's a third party candidate race, if you secure your base of each party, it's going to help you. You can win with 44, 45% of the vote.

There's a big difference in these black and Latino voters with old black Latino voters and younger black Latino voters. The problem is with you. Guess what? We did things where they rat on the Internet.

We expanded the targets. I'M here listening to very closer compliment when you talk to them and not at them, but to them. What's the name of the books? Teal Bernie.

All right. Thanks, John. I'll take any residuals from today's sales. Daniela, Chuck and Mark, thank you for being here.

I appreciate it. Silicon Live on Capitol Hill where Senator Leader Chuck Schumer is teing up another vote on a bipartisan border package, but not because he thinks it can pass. We'll explain why for watching media press now. Welcome back.

After being blocked by the same Republicans who asked for it earlier this year, the bipartisan border bill is back, at least according to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schuber. He told his Democratic colleagues he plans on reintroducing the legislation this week as a standalone bill as Democrats try to pin the blame on Republicans for the lack of action on the border. And now Republicans say the bill would be dead on arrival if it were to reach their chamber. Joining me now is ABC News senior political reporter Sahil Kapoor.

A Society the Biport support bill is back. It's less than six months until the election day. We often say that the Senate doesn't really do messaging bills, but that appears to be exactly what they're doing right now. Yeah, that's right, Ryan.

This effectively has become a messaging bill. And the reason for that is that he doesn't have nearly enough support to get to President Biden's desk. And the reason for that is that Republicans have turned against it en masse after initially demanding some sort of bipartisan border compromise in order to do Ukraine and Israel. They end up doing Ukraine aid separately.

And now Senator Chuck Schumer is back saying that this vote on a standalone border bill, the same deal struck earlier by I, James Langford for the Republican, Chris Murphy, the Democrat, and Kirsten Cinema, the Independent, is coming up on Thursday. This will require 60 votes to move forward. It is all but guaranteed to fail because there's been no movement on the part of Republicans since they filibustered it back in February. And here's the reason that Chuck Schumer is bringing it up.

He posted a tweet and let's show that on the screen. He argued that Republicans kill it now. It will be proof that they only care about the border for political purposes. He says, quote, it's been 103 days since Donald Trump and Republicans block the strongest, most comprehensive border security bill in generation.

He argues that if they do that again, that it shows that they aren't serious about this. He says Democrats have made some real Compromises, not against the wishes of some of their base. For a bill that would raise the bar for asylum seeking, it would pose triggers to shut down the border. It would be the most conservative migration bill that we've seen in a couple of decades.

Still, it's not gonna pass. So to the point where even the Senate is putting messaging bills on the floor, are we to the point where the serious lawmaking portion of this Congress is over? I mean, we're seeing the House pass through bills to protect your gas stove and things along those lines. Is anything serious gonna happen between now and November?

Well, it depends. If you consider applying. This week's serious, fine. But for the most part, look, there are no major deadlines coming up in the next few months.

If we now the election other than government funding and farm bill at the end of September, the conventional wisdom around here, as you know, Ryan, that those could easily get punted for a couple of months until after the election. Beyond that, there are no deadlines, which are typically the forcing mechanism to make Congress act on some of these things. Appropriations is done. FAA reauthorization is done.

FISA is done. So they might, they might do some things like on AI, on tech regulation, on kids, online safety. But these things have a way of languishing unless there's a really strong desire to get them done. And it's not clear that is there.

Okay, well, we're in a silly season. You and I will cover it together and do our best to make the most of it. All right. We appreciate it.

Thanks. I'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. But let's kick it over now to Helly Jackson, who has more news right now. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop with a podcast from NBC News with your host, G Studio, we'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories of NBC News's trusted journalist.

It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful T inform bring you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. What page to zeitgeist? Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify.