Meet the Press NOW — May 9

If it's Thursday, President Biden gives Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a new alternative, threatening to cut off US Weapons to Israel if the IDF launches a full scale assault on southern Gaza, marking the White House's most direct warning yet at a critical point in the war. Plus, NBC News reporting on the Biden administration's new plan to tighten the asylum seeking process for some migrants ahead of a potential wire crackdown on illegal crossings at the southern border as Democrats and Republicans zero in on immigration ahead of election Day and a new witness takes the stand. And Stormy Daniels returns to the hot seat, sparring with Donald Trump's lawyer over the accuracy and credibility of her graphic testimony where she detailed her alleged encounter with the former president and the hush money scandal surrounding it. Welcome to MEET THE press.

Now I'm Dave Gutierrez in Washington, where tensions between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu are nearing a fever pitch after new warnings that the US Won't hesitate to withhold more weapons to Israel. All ceasefire talks in Cairo are now paused. Yesterday, in an interview with CNN, President Biden acknowledged that U.S. bombs supplied to Israel have killed Palestinian civilians and he threatened to withhold future offensive weapons should Israel move ahead with its long anticipated assault on Rafah.

Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. I made it clear that if they go into Rafah, they haven't gone to Rafa yet. If they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah. In a new video stated released today, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to those comments, though not directly naming President Biden saying that if Israel has to stand alone, it will stand alone.

And Israel's ambassador to the UN Caused the pause, a very disappointing decision, even frustrating. Here in Washington, the president's new threat is drawing swift condemnation from Republican lawmakers accusing President Biden of reneging on his ironclad commitment to Israel and politicizing U.S. military assistance. President Biden is withholding urgent military assistance to Israel.

They cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim his support for Israelis, our club, while denying Israel precisely the weapons they need to defend themselves. We all know that ultimately the funding we approved does include the category weapons that he has now said he's going to withhold. That is wrong that the failure of leadership think that it's a complete reversal that's politically oriented because he's up for reelection and very unfair to the 50 year relationship we've had with Israel as The only democracy in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the ceasefire negotiations in Cairo are now paused, according to a source familiar with the talks. Lower level staffers are still working on some details, but CIA Director Bill Burns is heading back to the U.S. without a new cease fire deal. According to U.S.

officials familiar with the discussions, Israel's military offensive into Rafah remains one of the hurdles standing in the way of that deal. Joining now is NBC News international correspondent Haligram in Cairo. Ali Rafa is at the White House and also with me as former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. michael Oren.

Thank you all so much for joining us. Kyle, I want to start with you. How is the Israeli government reacting to these latest comments by President Biden? Well, as you mentioned, these ceasefire talks, at least for now, have not resulted in a deal.

And we're hearing from the Israeli leadership, including the Prime Minister. Benjamin Netanyahu alluded to his reaction there, essentially saying, look, we can do it without the United States. So historically we have to remind viewers that this is a very seldom used pressure tactic by the United States to withhold a weapons shipment. It happened in the Reagan administration, the George W.

Bush administration, but really in recent memory, this is a tool that has been used by the US and the fact that the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is saying even at this stage that the intent of the government and the military is still to go in to Rafah with a large scale invasion is, you know, quite defiant coming from the Israeli leadership. But it is a test of how the US Will then eventually react, how the Biden administration will react. Whether or not this deal is salvageable between Hamas and Israel. It's being brokered, of course, by these mediators, the Qataris and the Egyptians, and overseen by the veteran diplomat, the CIA Director Bill Burns.

So the Israeli leadership right now saying we're still going ahead, this isn't going to change our strategy, our military strategy. But I think we're in a wait and see situation now with regards to whether or not they come back to the table and some sort of agreement emerges. And on that point, the CIA Director Bill Burns heading back to the US So there's any real progress made while he was in the region. One of the biggest sticking points right now.

Well, one of the reported sticking points was that in the agreement, the deal, the proposal that Hamas said it signed on to, that Israel then subsequently said it had not been made aware of in terms of some of the important salient changes there was in phase one of the three phase release schedule, 33 of the more vulnerable Hostages due to be released. And in the Hamas, the text that Hamas agreed to, these hostages were dead or alive and Israel would like for them all to be, of course, live hostages. There are over 120 still held in Gaza. But broadly speaking, the disagreement is on the end of the war.

Hamas wants the war to end. Hamas wants the Israeli military completely out of the Gaza Strip. They want the siege to end. And right now, Israeli leadership, as we've heard time and again, is not willing to commit to that.

Gabe Cairo, thank you so much. Bring out Ali Rafa. She's at the White House right now. And Ali, Ali, how is the administration responding to the backlash it's already receiving after these latest comments by the president?

Yeah, well, publicly the White House is on defense. It's justifying these moves by the president to number one, not only pause that weapons delivery to is Israel, but also the president issuing that warning to condition future US Aid to Israel if Israel goes forward with this major ground offensive in Rafah. And we heard from these officials today pushing back also on these accusations, notably from Republicans that the US Is abandoning Israel. Hear from the National Security Council's John Kirby in a phone call with reporters this morning stressing that this pause of US Weapons deliveries is part of long standing aid.

He's also stressed that the US Weapons deliveries to Israel to be able to defend itself, to supply its Iron Dome defense system, that that is still moving forward. But he also stressed how serious the president was in issuing that warning to condition future weapons deliveries. Kirby saying that the president in many phone calls with Prime Minister Netanyahu was very clear about that condition and saying that it shouldn't have come as much of a surprise to the Israelis that he did issue that morning yesterday. And Ali is interested, concerned that this rift between Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu could derail the ceasefire talks.

Earlier today, John Kirby in that phone call immediate seem like he thought that Hamas would get the upper hand. That's right. It's hard to imagine how the White House couldn't be concerned that this could result in a pause or some sort of impact on these ceasefire talks. You mentioned what Kirby said.

Al Makali said that he believes that an invasion of Rafah by Israel would actually strengthen Hamas's hand at the negotiating table because it gives Hamas less of an incentive to reach a deal. Obviously all of this shining a light on how precarious of a position the president is in, as these moves recently have represented a major policy shift, a major shift of rhetoric by the president after months and months of similar intentions between him and Prime Minister Netanyahu. So you can imagine as we wait to see how Israel responds next, that is a concern for the White House, as we've already seen Netanyahu publicly defy the President's wish's case. Ali.

Rafa Lafras at the White House. Ali, thank you. I will turn now to Ambassador Michael Oren. Thank you so much for being here.

We really appreciate your expertise. What was your reaction to these comments from President Biden? And how seriously do you think Prime Minister Netanyahu is taking this new warning? Good to be with you.

Well, the entire policy about threatening to withhold arms to Israel or actually delaying the shipment of arms to Israel, it's shocking to Israelis. It is not surprising. As was mentioned earlier in the report, there are precedents seen going back to President Truman, who blockaded arms to Israel. President Reagan, H.W.

bush and President Obama back in 2014 delayed armed shipments during another war with Gaza. So again, it's not surprising, but it is quite shocking. And the feeling here in Israel is one of having been abandoned and even one of vulnerability because the message will get out to Hezbollah, to Iran, to other enemies that Israel stands alone right now as it fights potentially a three front war, northeast and south. It's very important to know that this is not just Netanyahu's policy.

I'm not spokesman for him, for the government, but Israel's overwhelmingly feel that Israel has to proceed and to uproot Hamas from Gaza. That's the only way we can maintain pressure on Hamas to release the remaining hostages who are alive, even those bodies of those who are not alive. And the only time that Hamas released hostages last November, twice, was when it was pressed militarily. And that if Israel does not receive this separation, the Hamas will emerge from the pummels, it will declare victory.

It will regroup and reconquer Gaza and get ready to stage the next onslaught against Israel. And its leadership makes no attempt to disguise that in any way. They say they will attack Israel 10,000 times until we're destroyed. But, Ambassador, what do you make of the argument that it's not really possible to eradicate Hamas completely?

We can't eradicate Hamas. Hamas is an idea. It's not just an organization anymore. You can eradicate Al Qaeda and ISIS entirely, but they don't have a Hamas state behind them.

Hamas will be much less a threat to Israel, much less a threat to the Palestinians. ISIS is less a threat today because there's no caliphate behind it, there's no Islamic State. So, yes, you cannot eradicate Hamas entirely. You can greatly degrade Hamas ability to kill Israelis and frankly kill Palestinians as well.

And that's our reporting, is that those military operations in Tarafa is one of the sticking points in these ceasefire talks. So why is that offensive more important to the Israeli government than getting out hostages and gas? Because it's actually not. I think that Israeli overwhelmingly feel that the only way at this point to release any hostages is through military pressure.

Israel made what Secretary Blinken called an extraordinarily generous offer to Hamas to release 33 hostages. That was down from 40. That was the original Israeli demand in return for 40 day ceasefire and the lease from Israeli prisons of a great number of Palestinians who have been sentenced to life sentence for killing Israelis. It's a very painful move.

Incredibly generous. Hamas rejected it and hasn't come back with a realistic response to that, other than to say that Israel should declare its defeat in the war, withdrawal from Gaza and let Hamas converge from those tunnels and regroup and reclaim Gaza and strike us again. That's not a realistic bargaining position at all. So the only way that Israel can move forward and perhaps achieve the release of some of these hostages by maintaining military pressure and frankly also maintaining the war to rid Gaza Strip of Hamas entirely.

Ambassador to the White House said today that going into Rafah would strengthen or might strengthen Hamas's hand at the negotiating table. What do you make of that? I don't know. I'm scratching my head about that one, frankly.

I don't know how that would actually work. I think that when Sinwar, the head of Hamas is trapped, his tile on his Israeli forces are Rafa. I think he'll be more likely to show flexibility in negotiations than his heart. His position will be hardened by the presence of the Israeli troops.

And question, do you think the Prime Minister Netanyahu might be more defiant in the face of this threat from President Biden? I don't think. I think if I know him, I've worked with him for years, even though again, I'm not his spokesman anymore. I think he's not looking for a clash with President Biden.

But there's really natural interest here. And keep in mind, you know, the Prime Minister is not the President of the United States. He's not the commander in chief of Israel's armed forces. The government is the war cabinet.

In that war cabinet, the representatives of opposition parties. It's a national unity government. And that is very much reflecting the national mood here. The national move here is perceived with the Rafah operation.

Just as long as there's no real negotiating position from Hamas on the table. Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the US thank you so much for your time and your expertise. Thank you. And coming up, border battles and party politics.

I'll talk to a House Democrat who's been pushing President Biden to take executive action on the board about the administration's new plan to tighten asylum restrictions. My one on one interview with the chair, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is next. Plus, sex, lies and money. We'll get a live report from outside Manhattan courthouse after another day of dramatic testimony in Donald Trump's historic criminal trial.

You're watching Eat THE PRESS now. Stay with us. And welcome back. The Biden administration will propose a new rule on asylum as Democrats prepare to go on the offensive on immigration ahead of November's election.

The new rule would accelerate the process for certain migrants to be barred from asylum after crossing the border, according to two sources familiar with the decision. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats and administration officials are planning a multi pronged approach to bring parts of the failed bipartisan border bill up for votes ahead of executive actions on immigration from the White House. It's all part of an attempt to turn the focus to Republicans for inaction on the board. As our latest NBC News poll shows, just 28% of voters approve of President Biden's handling of the issue.

Joining me now here on set is NBC News Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley. Julia, it's always good to have you here. Walk us through these asylum changes. Well, they're just lifted now this minute while we're sitting here.

They bargo. We can talk about this now. This is officially out from the White House. They are talking about actually over this could affect a small number of people gay, but they think it'll be able to speed up the process at the border.

So this would allow this would basically allow CBP and asylum officers to bar entry of people who don't qualify earlier in the process. Right now a lot of people come in and maybe they don't qualify, but they don't actually find that out until years into the process. This would try to move that up earlier. But they do say here, although the number of migrants who are subject to these bars is small, this rule would enable DHS to move more quickly.

But the administration is also planning more executive orders potentially down the line, right? Larger. Yeah, that's right. In fact, this is a notice for proposed rulemaking.

So that's why she didn't speak for this could take a little while. They have to have people weigh in there could be an executive action that could be more media and larger. We've been tracking that for some time. That could include using presidential authority known as 212F.

There's some debate here about whether or not they could use this but essentially allow Biden to shut down the border when numbers get to a certain level. And Julia, this all comes as you reported, Democrats plan to go on offense ahead of the November election. You might both know that Democrats for a long time didn't really want to talk about immigration. Now they seem to be going full steam ahead.

How do you expect that to play out in the coming months? Yeah, they seem to have no other choice choice because of where immigration ranks is a really prominent issue going into the elections. I think we're going to see more Democrats like yes, I think you have coming up soon who are pushing the administration to go further on this issue take action of course their dream with that bipartisan bill that was negotiated in the Senate but since that was blocked they want more answers. And Julia before let you go, you know for a long time Republicans kept saying that they wanted President Biden to take executive action, to take some action by himself on the board of the administration previously said really couldn't do that, that I needed Congress.

Now he is taking action on his own. How do you scoring that? Yeah, I think it's hard and I think that's why we saw such a leap at first. We're talking about analysis at State of the Union.

They wanted to keep messaging. No, this is Republicans fault because they didn't pass this bill. But as it get closer to November it looks like they want to at least have something on the plate that they can say they've done. And what are the chances you think that this gets challenging court?

Oh well as always we're already hearing from Abigat so you can bet that might happen. Julia Hainsley, our homeland Security correspondent. Julia, thanks so much. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us.

I want to begin with proposed asylum rule from the administration today. What's your reaction to it? First, thanks for having me. Well, we haven't seen the details.

We know it's a proposed rule and I'd like to have time to actually look at it and study it and see if commercial caucus will have a comment on it. But at first blush just hearing about the reports of what is in it is it changes the timing of when an officer can apply mandatory bars for migrants. And so we don't know the impact or effect will be yet or how large of A group this will be. But you know, if it's an issue where you have a national security or a public threat, I can see the reasoning behind it.

But we also want to make sure anything that's before doesn't turn away as a people. And that's our great concern and our great fear. So we'll have to take a look at the details, which I haven't seen yet. And Congresswoman, I was at an event at the White House earlier this week where the president promised you and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus a meeting.

What are you trying to say to the president in this meeting? Is there any frustration it's taking him this long? Well, the caucus sent over a list of proposed executive actions we believe the president should take. This is a time and a moment that I think he should do and he can do it.

And so the meeting would be to go over those proposals and those recommendations. Just for example, one of them is to make sure that the spouses of citizens have the ability to have rule in place and to have protections for them. People have been here for a long time and so we want to make sure that he exercises this opportunity. And as you mentioned, you know, the president, when I brought up the meeting was was very generous and saying, yes, of course, let's set up a meeting.

So we're looking for having an opportunity to talk to him about these proposals. But hadn't the Congressional stand cause asked for that meeting after several months with some frustration during negotiations for the bipartisan border bill that you didn't get that meeting back then? Yeah, well, that was a different meeting request. We had requested to meet with the White House about and to be part of the discussions when the Senate was occurring.

And that was very frustrating that you didn't have a member of the commercial Span Caucus at the table. This was a different request for a different topic, and that is to talk about executive actions that the president can and should take. We know Republicans do not want to do anything on the southern border. They don't want to help.

And Democrats are willing and able and ready to work, and that's what we're trying to do. And Congressman, you and your colleagues signed a letter calling in the administration to streamline pathways to lawful status for undocumented immigrants to your Senate colleagues. Share your concern about pathways indicates Senator Schumer may bring up parts of a bipartisan border deal which you've been critical of as you just heard, as you said. And do you feel that they're serious about getting immigration reform done?

Well, I know Republicans are not serious about getting any immigration reform done. And that's, I think, the big challenge here. But we do know that the letter I sent to the president was signed on by senators. It was signed by House members.

We actually just did a press with our senators just yesterday. So there is a shared concern on asking the president to take action. And that might be the best course right now, given that Congress is inefficient and not functional, especially on the House side with Republicans in control and the chaos there. But we want to make sure that anything that's put forward, any proposals, anything on the Senate includes and make sure that we're not leaving behind people who've been in this country that need those protections.

And so any kind of enforcement needs to be paired with positives. Congressman, last time you're on this program, you said you were willing to make, quote, tough compromises if there's a pathway decision. What specifically are you willing to compromise on to get that in the legislation? Well, I think that's a question for Republicans on what is it that they are seeking in exchange to do something they already said they're for, which is providing protections for dreamers?

What is it that they want for that? And I think those are conversations we can have. Whether it's talking about the credible fear standard, whether it's talking about more regional processing overseas, it's hard to tell exactly what Republicans want. Because when you have these conversations behind closed doors, the sentiment is, yes, we're for this, we want to work on something.

But the advertising there right now, and we're Trump running, he doesn't want us doing it either. And I think that just goes to show you why there's nothing being done by Republicans to actually address the situation. I want to turn now to President Biden's engagement with Latino voters. Last time we spoke with you, you said that he needed to get out and really talk about what the administration is doing for your communities.

Have you been satisfied with what you've heard in the last three months? Well, he's been going out to Arizona, Nevada, the vice president. We've definitely seen the engagement. We got to just make sure we're keeping that up to make sure that Latinos everywhere are hearing about not only what has been done and things that haven't even taken effect yet, whether it's the lowering of prescription drug prices, you know, to go out and tap what he's doing on student loans, which is huge for our Latino community and students and those who have debt.

So we need to do that. But we also need to talk about what we also are going to do, how to finish the job, something that he started. But he needs another four years to finish that job. And so we gotta continue to do that engagement.

Of course, we know his campaign manager, a Latina, Julie Chavez, is also at the table. And that's what we need, somebody who understands the community, understands the messaging and is doing so not just English, but in Spanish and is deploying people across this country. Congresswoman, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

And coming out, Stormy Daniels off the stand after more than seven hours of testimony. The tense questioning she faced from former President Trump's legal team and how it could play into the defense strategy. That's next. They're watching Eat the Press now.

Welcome back. Testimony is wrapped up for the day. Donald Trump's hush money trial. Jurors just heard from Madeline Westerhout, a former Trump assistant during the start of his presidency and the so called gatekeeper of the White House.

Westerhout pacified about the fallout from the release of the notorious Access Hollywood tape and conversations about replacing Mr. Trump as a Republican nominee. But it began with more compelling testimony from Stormy Daniels as defense attorneys tried to undermine her credibility with questions on her career in the adult film industry. She insisted that she did in fact have sex with Donald Trump in 2007, a claim he denies.

In all, Stormy Daniels testified for more than seven hours over two days, telling jurors often in great detail about her alleged sexual encounter with the former president as well as the payments she received to remain silent about it. Now let's turn to NBC News national correspondent Yasmin Gasugian. She joins me live from outside the courthouse in Manhattan. And also with me is Danny Savalos, a criminal defense attorney and NBC News legal analyst.

Good to have you both. Yasmin, let's start with you. Describe the tone of Sworney Daniel's testimony today. Compared to Tuesday, it was very different.

Tuesday, she seemed less prepared, kind of more edgy. Stormy Daniels on Tuesday walked in. She had a black hoodie on. Her hair was up in the banana clip, blanche hair on top, black hair on the bottom.

She tend to drone on, give details that were not needed to her testimony, especially indirected. She was chided many times by Judge Rashawn for not listening to the question and not answering the question as quickly and or as succinctly as the court would have liked. And so many times he would say, Ms. Daniels, please, please, pleading with her, listen to the question and answer it in a succinct way, just answer the question that is asked.

There were many times in which defense objected and the judge sustained and even oftentimes in which the judge sustained his own objection with the defense did not necessarily offer an objection. Today was a much different day, Gabe. She seemed much more prepared, I would say. She gave a lot of yes and no answers to the questions and cross examination from Susan Necklace.

She often time asks Susan Nelson to bring up evidence when asked. For instance, did you say this when you gave this interview to In Touch magazine back in 2011? Did you mention this to the interview in a Vogue that you gave in 2018 or the interview that gave to Anderson Cooper in 2018 as well for the 60 Minutes piece? And she would say, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I'd like to see the evidence that you're presenting. And so she seemed much more prepared, more calm. But oftentimes her body was turned towards the jury as her face was turned towards Susan Nelson Cross examination to really kind of get her point across, it seems in that courtroom today. And Danny Trump is turning to attack her credibility.

So and they tried to do it based on her experience as an adult film actress. Do you think that was effective? Well, no, not targeting that she was an adult film actress. But generally that is the sworn duty of defense attorneys to attack the credibility of the prosecution's witness.

And that's exactly what they did because this was a witness with more credibility issues than others. I mean, the core facts are that she alleges she had sex with Donald Trump, then she issued a statement denying it. So there's something right there that you get to cross examiner about it. And then she apparently was paid for her silence.

Again, all fair avenues for cross examination. The problem for the defense is even if you show that she's less than credible, the real facts are that Stormy Daniels testimony, while flashy, really didn't go to the heart of the evidence of the case. In fact, we're still talking about Stormy Daniels when Madeleine Westerhout, who's much less well known, arguably has much more relevant and concrete evidence and her credibility is by contrast unimpeachable. There you see Madeline Westerhout there.

She had a lot more knowledge about the, the what Trump did in terms of signing checks in the White House. It's my position and of course I'm not criticizing the prosecution, but you don't really even need Stormy Daniels to make their case. They got the evidence from people like Keith Davidson and Michael Cohen's former banker who described the transaction. And you have other evidence that there was an increased market value for Stormy Daniels story around the time of the election.

You get those from other places. And if you're the prosecution, you don't take on the risk of putting Stormy on the stand. And Danny, this was interesting. Senator Rick Scott was in court today in support of Donald Trump.

He attacked Judge Marshan's daughter outside the courthouse. Let's listen. The judge's daughter is a political operative. It raises money for Democrats.

You've got the prosecutor's wife. There's a significant donor to Democrats, I think of Biden. So this is just a bunch of Democrats saying we want to make sure that Donald Trump can't talk. So, Danny, if Donald Trump had said that, that would be a violation of his gag order, Right?

So is there any legal recourse for comments like that? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that if the people, they're the ones who make the motion, if they decide they want to make a hearing out of this, they can. But I don't think it's a violation of the gag order because the constitutionality and forcibility of a gag order depends entirely upon who you're trying to gag.

For example, gagging members of the press is almost always unconstitutional, whereas gagging parties is easier. And gagging lawyers is even easier, constitutionally speaking. But enforcing a gag order against somebody who's not part of the trial at all, that's going to be a long shot unless there is some evidence that Trump said to the senator, go out there and say this on my behalf. But so far it's no different than the senator saying it outside of the Capitol, on television program or anywhere else.

He's a non party. The gag really shouldn't be enforced against him. And Yasmin Dom is seeking an exemption from the gag with respect to talking about Stormy Daniels. What's his reasoning for this?

So filing a motion with the New York public court to seek an exemption, whether or not we can get a decision on this, they take it up. That is, that decision would come for a couple of weeks, which is when the trial would feasibly be over. They discussed an exemption here or an amendment I would say to the gag order was Judge Juan Rashon because court wanted to reset. The court came through a little bit earlier because they had a couple motions of discussion.

One of them was a gag order. The other was bringing up this motion yet again for a mistral because Stormy Daniel testimony and judge has already denied the application to amend this gag order. The reason for this was Todd Blanche, the former president's attorney, arguing that essentially he should be able to defend himself after what they see as this testimony from Stormy Daniels that they think Stormy Daniels lie in the stand and they think that should have the ability to defend himself. They mentioned an instance of Stormy Daniels friend was on television, television yesterday evening corroborating her story as well.

And they feel as if our president should have the ability to defend herself himself publicly. However, judge has in fact denied that motion to amend the gag order. Yes. Thank you both so much.

And after the break, the latest push to remove Speaker Mike Johnson from his post ends with a whimper. What the saga says about Marjorie Taylor Greene, her allies and the state of both parties in the House. The panel's next. You're WATCHING ME, the PRESS now.

Welcome back. Turning to Capitol Hill, the effort to owe Speaker Mike Johnson came and went yesterday with a motion to vacate the chair led by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, tabled without much of a fight. Just 21 members, including just 11 Republicans, voted to move forward on the resolution. It's a major defeat for Congresswoman Greene, yet she was defiant after the vote.

I think today has proven the unit party is alive and well and the Democrats now control Speaker Johnson. That was something that everybody suspected all along. They just voted to save them. And I think that's a message that is being told to America.

Some Republicans we talked to after vote were not pleased with Greene's unsuccessful push to House the speaker. Most of us by the time we turn 12 years old figure out that tantrums don't actually work. And apparently not everybody in Congress has got the memo Moscow. Marjorie has clearly gone off the deep end, maybe the result of the space laser, but this type of tantrum is absolutely unacceptable and it does nothing to further the cause of the conservative movement.

Joining me now on set is Julia Manchester, national political reporter for the Hill, former Florida Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy and Republican strategist Matt Gordon. He recently worked on the Tim Scott presidential campaign. Thank you all for joining me. So, Julie, I want to start with you, Moscow Marjorie, what did Marjorie Kelly bring that out?

You know, we're talking about her and that seems to be something she wanted. This really builds her name id. And look, I think she's trying to appeal to a portion of the Republican Party, a portion of conservatives that want don't want Speaker Johnson or congressional Republicans to be working across the aisle with Democrats. Even Speaker Johnson, quite frankly, did his job.

I think there's real frustration among some conservatives. And we didn't really see that frustration pan out yesterday. There's still this frustration that Johnson did not get more funding from the border and that there was more funding for Ukraine. So I think there's going to be a warning sign for Johnson going forward because we know that Democrats said they would save him this time, but they didn't commit to saving him.

And we'll get to that in just a second. But first, Matt, I want to turn to you and I want to put up a piece from our friend Brendan Buck. He writes, there is a cultural peculiarity in the House GOP where it is almost taboo to say out loud that a conservative priority is not immediately achievable. Even behind closed doors, few words are devoted to what reasonably can be attained.

So is there a lack of reality in this conference? I mean, it's been building for a while. Remember when Ted Cruz shut down the government over Obamacare in 2013 or so? This has been building for a while.

And look, one person who we haven't mentioned here is the fact when Donald Trump told Marjorie Green this isn't helpful, not just to Mike Johnson, but to me, just went along with it anyway. So that was interesting dynamic too. I think, as we saw in the clip there, you can't overestimate how much people on the Hill pick the House personally dislike each other, whether it's in the party or Democrats, Republicans too. And on that point I want to put up with Donald Trump wrote.

He put a time of statement on the whole ordeal. He said, I absolutely love Marjorie Taylor Greene. However, right now, Republicans have to be fighting the radical left Democrats and we are not in a position of voting on a motion to vacate at some point. We may very well be, but this is not the time.

Congresswoman, that didn't seem like a ringing endorsement of Mike Johnson from the former president. I think that the former president understands that this type of disunity actually hurts the Republicans chances of retaining the House. And in fact, I think the fact that Democrats voted to ensure that Congress could continue to function will allow them to have a strong proof point for the closing argument, which is elect Democr. We can govern.

Yeah. 163 Democrats voted to table this. Was that the right move, though? I think for them in this moment and for the country, it was the right move.

With everything going on in the world as well as here at home, we need a Congress that functions. And the majority of Americans aren't on the side of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extremists. They want to see a government that functions. They want to see people working together.

And we saw it in even the special election where Tom Swazi ran on being bipartisan and offering a different, less divisive approach to Congress and that NBC News reports that Nikki Haley is going to meet with donors early next week. She, of course, hasn't endorsed Trump, but she's racking up a lot of votes in these partners even though she's been out of the picture now in the race for several months. The candidate you work for, Tim Scott, he has become one of Donald Trump's top surrogates, obviously being talked about for vice president. Why is Scott so on board with Trump and I have.

Well, I think you can address the fact also that Scott and Chuck work together quite a bit. When Scott was in the Senate, they also took a personal relationship too. Look, I don't know who's next move is. Obviously I think she's trying to popular donors see what's next.

Remember back in 20, was it 2016 already? She didn't endorse Trump in the network of administration. I don't think she'll do it this time. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a down line.

A lot of votes, even though she signed a race, are coming from Democrats. Will that block matter? That voting block will matter from November? I think it might.

It might not. I think a lot of her votes in the primary right came from folks who were either not going to vote for Donald Trump or were swing votes. Anyway. What I'm interested to see is how much that party kind of comes together in the months to come.

Julia, on the point of the Haley earlier this week, Trump got a question about her performance in Pennsylvania. Let's play that Nikki Haley attained 16% of the vote. Are you concerned about that number and what do you say to those voters? Well, it's a very small number because she was campaigning, she was spending millions of dollars.

She was getting it from Democrats. All of those people are going to come to me because what's first of all, what's the situation? Biden, he's the worst president in the history of our country. There's never been a president so bad.

So he's incompetent. So they're all coming to me. We see it already. They're all coming to me.

He seems very confident. Go figure. But his campaign really hasn't made any effort to reach out to these voters. Is that mistake is naive?

You know, it could be. But at the same time, a lot of Republicans I've been talking to have said once this is set in stone once we pass the conventions and these more moderate Republicans, or maybe non Trump Republicans, have this choice of Donald Trump versus Joe Biden, given the state of the economy, given the state of crime, the situation at the southern border, they're probably going to vote for Donald Trump. That being said, though, we do know that the Biden campaign has been somewhat ret out to some of these voters rolling out an ad last month. So, you know, I think it's probably a bigger reach for the Biden campaign, but if I were Trump, you know, it probably would help to maybe moderate the message a bit.

And Stephanie, I want to turn now to another topic that we talked about at the beginning of the program, the politics behind what's going on in the Israel Hamas war. A lot of Democrats now have, you know, President Biden's not taking some heat from some Democrats and saying that he should not have paused these shipments of weapons to Israel. And New York Congressman Richie Torres, he told Axios it looks like election year politics was driving it. I'd like the president to do right by Israel and recognize that the far left is not representative of the rest of the country.

He's accusing the president of pandering to his base. What do you think of that and how difficult it would be for the Democratic Party to come together in the next coming months ahead of November? Well, I think when a decision around military support and national security comes before, there are probably a lot of elements to think that President Biden made that decision because perhaps he thought it gave him additional leverage into a cease fire which would allow the hostages to be released, which is a goal that he has always set out. And it isn't as if he's walking away from Israel entirely.

They're going to continue to provide defensive support. And this is a temporary stoppage. So who knows what kind of conversations are happening in the background in the Middle east to get to a ceasefire, which everybody wants in the fall. I'm worried that the scenes on the college campuses will return when the students come back and that will be the pervasive message.

Unfortunately, that's a small part of the Democratic Party that won't vote for him. But what it does do is alienate a large part of the American people who don't like to see that lawless. In the Biden campaign, though, they've been saying that they want to focus more on the economy and inflation, also reproductive rights. They want the message on that because they say that this is going to be an issue that flexes a small slice of the electorate.

Do you think that that's effective? I think it's really frustrating that it's the base that is drawing attention away from the president's ability to double down on things that really matter to American people around the economy, inflation, immigration and domestic security. And Matt, I want to do quickly some storing on time here, but Republicans in Congress, they're of course ramping up their attacks on President Biden over his decision to pause these shipments. Some of them are even bringing up impeachment.

What do you make of that argument? I think a lot of them going on because they see a lot of commonality between essentially messing with a congressionally appropriated armed shipment for political reasons and Trump did that 2019 that had impeachment inquiry, impeachment. And now they see a very same string of commonality here. So don't be surprised to hear more about that.

All right. Thank you all so much. Julius, Stephanie, Matt, I really appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us in the town.

Instead of come, we'll take you inside the muck. An investigation from our south Florida state on the serious environmental concerns deep in the heart of sugar country. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. And welcome back.

I want to turn to Florida, specifically its powerful sugar industry, which is a big contributor to political campaigns from local to federal levels. The new NBC News South Florida documentary bittersweet Muck takes us inside the state's sugar country where residents describe pre harvest burning in sugarcane fields as black Snow pouring down. NBC's Sasha Jones investigates this air quality debate. We heard you were wishing for something to eat, something sweet.

It's already sweetened. We hope you love each single pop. This candy sugar, it's sweet. And in most of the things we eat, from cereals to juice and pasta sauce, you name it, and there's a 20% chance the sugar you are eating is coming from Florida.

Florida's sugar industry is what's known as big sugar with two major players, US Sugar and Florida Crystals and dozens of smaller farmers known as the Sugarcane Growers Cooperative of Florida. The industry is responsible for producing roughly half of the nation's king sugar. Together they employ over 19,000 people with an estimated economic impact of over $4.7 billion on the state's economy. And there's nowhere their impact is felt more than in the industry towns in the Glades region of the state.

I get it directly from New York Sugar and just massive 50 pound bags tea, the lemonade, meatloaf, brownies, all my sweets I even use is located in what's known as America's sweetest town. Clent where U.S. sugar is headquartered. About 65, 70% of my clientele comes from U.S.

sugar. I wouldn't be able to. They had a big hand in building up poolist. They'll invest in the community.

They'll give to charity and philanthropy. But some people in the towns closest to this money making crop are putting a focus on how farming practices like pre harvest burns are impacting the air they breathe. When they burn the sugar cane fields, it's piles of smoke and ash. It rises to the air and it all rains down just like it would rain on you.

No one can sit and tell me that the black snow doesn't affect the way you and I breathe. This is certainly a company town, certainly labeled as a taboo to, you know, challenge the industry for their product practices. A local campaign funded by the Sierra Club has brought attention to how pollution from pre harvest sugarcane burning is impacting the air quality in the region. But in 2021, Big Sugar got a big win.

Florida lawmakers voted in favor of expanding the state's Right to Farm acts. For many years, they have given a lot of money to the legislators to make sure that they can have favorable conditions for their business. The law helps protect farmers from lawsuits related to impacts from things like smoke, dust fumes and particle emissions. Only people who live within one half mile can file a nuisance lawsuit.

I am a sugar cane farmer. You think he has to tell me how to vote? I already know how to vote, so I vote my conscience. With Roth as a third generation farmer and also a Florida state representative who voted in favor of the right to farm act expansion.

We are highly regulated and also we can harvest a lot faster if the field is bur. It was just general statements that it causes harm. Well, where's the harm? But the industry is doing everything it can to be compatible with the citizens.

Agriculture is what brings money to the Glades. And WTBJ consumer investigative reporter Sasha Jones joins me now from Miami. Sasha, thank you so much for bringing us that reporting. That was just a piece of your documentary.

What's the most surprising thing you found in that investigation? Yeah, that was just a piece of it. But the much larger documentary really goes inside this ongoing debate about air quality in these industry towns, these small towns. And what we found is people are just so passionate about this topic.

Maybe they work in the sugar industry or they know someone who's worked in the sugar industry. And so because of that, their passion about these farming practices. But the documentary takes you inside this ongoing Debate that's really been happening for decades. And Sasha, you mentioned that lobbying efforts of the sugar industry in the Florida state legislature put it in perspective for us.

Just how much influence do you have? Well, the influence really is all around you, especially when you go into that community. So historically, for a long time, the sugar industry has donated millions of dollars at the state level. But that extends beyond just the state level.

Right. It goes into local campaigns. It goes into the community. And in speaking with people, they are heavily influenced by the amount of money that goes into their community from this industry.

It definitely influences whether or not they want to talk about this topic and whether or not they want to have these type of deeper discussions about farming practices. It's a shout out. Farmers and residents who rely on big sugar to make a living, as we saw their peace, are they reacting to the local campaign? Well, to be honest with you, most people are aware of the campaign has been around long enough that most people know about it.

But even though they're aware of this campaign, most people are not affiliated with this campaign. This is really a small group of people with a really big voice. So just a small group of people have been affiliated with it so far. But many of the people, you know, what they tell us is though they're aware of this and know that it's a potential issue, one thing they want to make clear is that there's other issues in this area.

They have transportation issues, education issues, poverty issues. They really believe those are the things that people should be most focused on, especially when you're talking about an area that just doesn't have a whole lot of money flowing through it. Sasha Jones from from our Miami station wtbj, my hometown station. Sasha, thank you so much.

And you can catch more Sasha's reporting and stream the entire Bittersweet muck documentary on NBC 6's website and YouTube channel starting today. I'm Gaby Pierce and we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press. Now the news continues with Tom Costello in for Hallie Jackson. Right now as the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, a new podcast for NBC News.

With me, your host, Gabby Basou. We'll take a deep dive into today's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful and informative, bringing closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to zeitgeist, here's the scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on SiriusXM.