If it's Monday, a dire situation inside Gaza's largest hospital as Israeli forces drive deeper into Gaza City to root out terrorists, with the State Department now calling for Hamas to vacate any medical facility that's being used as a command post. Plus, the shutdown clock is ticking down once again as Speaker Mike Johnson's new plan to avoid government shutdown draws fire from members of both parties with just four days until funding runs out. And in a surprise move, Senator Tim Scott suspends his presidential campaign just two months out from the Iowa caucus as yet another Trump challenger fails to gain traction with Republican voters. Welcome to be the Press now.
I'm Garrett Hake reporting in Washington where we're tracking the latest developments in the Israel Hamas war, starting with a deepening humanitarian cris. All eyes are on the Al Shifa hospital, the biggest in Gaza. As the World Health Organization says it's quote, not a functioning hospital anymore after heavy bombardments and intense fighting near the hospital complex. The Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry says three premature babies died over the weekend due to lack of supplies.
And a hospital surgeon shared a photo of newborns who were apparently taken off incubators due to electricity shortage and moved to a temperature controlled operating room to keep warm. Speaking on the press yesterday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called any civilian deaths a tragedy, but again pointed to Israel's assessment that Hamas uses the hospital as its headquarters. Answering questions about the situation in Gaza during an Oval Office event this afternoon, President Biden said hospitals must be protected. But in today's White House briefing, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan also said the US Knows and it has been widely reported that Hamas uses medical facilities to shield its operations.
We see plenty of open source reporting about Hamas's use of hospitals and other civilian infrastructure to store weapons, to house fighters, to engage in forms of command and control. But beyond that, I'm not in a position to speak specifically to a report about a specific hospital or specific bunker. According to NBC reporting, some officials say there's, quote, no reason to doubt Israel in their assessment of Al Shifa hospital as a Hamas facility, while other sources say the U.S. can't independently verify their claims.
Meanwhile, Israel is facing growing international criticism as it continues its offensive in Gaza in response to last month's brutal Hamas terrorist attacks. The IDF says it killed Hamas's head of military intelligence and that has conducted 4,300 strikes in Gaza since October 7th. At the same time, the Israeli military also said it opened a seven hour humanitarian corridor for civilians to flee northern Gaza. Yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu defended Israel's response, saying it takes great efforts to reduce civilian casualties, while dismissing accusations from UN officials that its actions could constitute war crimes.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said just this morning that while Hamas has committed war crimes, the collective punishment by Israel of Palestinian civilians amounts also to a war crime. Can you definitively say right now that Israel is not breaking international law? Yes, I can say that what the commissioner said is hogwash, because the main difference is are you deliberately targeting civilians? No, we're deliberately doing everything in our power to target the terrorists and the civilians, as happens in every legitimate war, are sometimes what are called collateral damage.
That's a laundry way of saying unintended casualties. That's clearly what Israel is doing. And what clearly Hamas is doing is the opposite. The mounting outcry over the humanitarian crisis could also have real impacts on the delicate efforts of free hostages held by Hamas.
As a diplomat with knowledge of the talks tells the clock is ticking. A Biden administration official tells NBC one possible deal being discussed would include the release of around 80 women and children in exchange for the release of Palestinian women and teens in Israel. It remains unclear if any deal will succeed. Meanwhile, the US Conducted new strikes in eastern Syria with the Department of Defense sharing video showing the targeting of a training facility and safe house as the Pentagon responds to a spike in attacks from Iranian backed groups on US forces.
We begin now on the ground in Israel as Adrenaline abc, Eric Laughlin in Tel Aviv and Ali Rafa is at the White House. So Aaron, I'll start with you. Give us the latest on the status of these hospitals around Gaza today. Well, there the status of many of these hospitals is unclear as fighting has engulfed Gaza City.
We have been unable to reach many of the hospitals inside of the city. But earlier today we managed to reach a neurosurgeon inside of Al Shifa Hospital, that is the main hospital in Gaza, where he says there's some 2,000 people, including 600 critically ill patients. And he described just this desperate situation. He said that fighting had engulfed the hospital.
They couldn't leave. And critically, he said aid could not be brought in. He said that there is a lack of food, a lack of water, a lack of medicine and a lack of fuel. And as a result, many of those 600 patients are dying, including at least three babies that were born prematurely.
They had to remove those babies from their incubators, taking them to another part of the hospital because of the electricity situation. He is pleading with the international community for help evacuating the hospital. Take a listen. The Concentration is extremely difficult.
How are you personally coping with this? I'm not sure how much. How many years more we will be able to provide, you know. Now the Israeli military says that it dropped off 300 liters of fuel at the gate of Al Shifa Hospital.
It's saying that Hamas is preventing hospital officials from getting that fuel, but hospital officials tell us that that is simply a drop in the bucket. They need 10,000 liters just to run the. In a single day. Now, the Israeli military also alleges that it's not directly targeting these hospitals, but they do say, they do allege that Hamas has been exploiting the hospitals for cover.
And tonight, an Israeli spokesperson in a press conference unveiling evidence that they allege point to the basement of the Al Ran TC hospital, which is a separate hospital in Gaza. They're saying that Hamas was using the basement of that hospital to house some of the hostages that were kidnapped on the October 7 attacks. We have been unable to verify that account. Meanwhile, I've been speaking to the ICRC about the possible evacuation of the hospital.
The spokesperson for the ICRC telling me that it is a desperate situation. Given the fighting, it is simply impossible to evacuate many of these hospitals. I asked her how many of the hospitals need to be evacuated. She said she is not able to get that information at this time, but all she could say is that they are getting any number of calls from doctors, from hospital officials, from civilians begging to be evacuated.
And there's very little that the ICRC can do except for to remind all parties involved of the international law and the protection afforded civilians as well as hospitals. Garrett, Aaron McLaughlin, thank you. I go to Ali now, and Ali, Brett McGurk is now the latest administration official to be dispatched to the region. Does the White House expect to be able to make any progress on these hostage negotiations that have been so perilous to conduct?
Yeah, Garrett, that's certainly the main goal here. We know that FBI, State, Defense Department officials have been on the ground in this region since shortly after the war began. With that main goal of helping facilitate those hostage negotiation efforts, hostage relief efforts, and certainly with this news that the President's top advisor in the Middle east is going to be sent to not just Israel, but also Qatar to facilitate these convers is a clear sign that the administration wants to see that extra push to get those efforts underway. And Qatar being, of course, the key piece to this very complicated puzzle of communicating with Hamas to be able to achieve that goal.
And National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in today's press briefing that U.S. officials continue working around the clock to release these hostages. We know that one of the potential plans being discussed among administration officials to be able to do that is potentially the release of about 80 women and children that are being held by Hamas in exchange for some women and teenagers that are being held in Israel. Officials say that this is just one option, and they're cautioning that there's no guarantee that any of this is going to work.
But certainly the Kirk being on the ground, there is a hope that they can push this effort forward. And, Garrett, it's important to know the backdrop that this comes against as we continue to see this mounting press on the White House, on President Biden, to do more in reaction to this Israel Hamas war. Many people calling for the President to be more explicit and to finally call for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. And the.
The president has really been walking this political tightrope, trying to reassure the Jewish community of his support for Israel, also trying not to alienate Arab and Muslim Americans as they continue to be infuriated by the images continuing to come out of Gaza. And we know that privately there are concerns among White House officials within the administration about how Israel is handling this war, about how much effort is being put into reducing the risk of civilian, Innocent, civilian casualties in Gaza. And officials say that that's something that they continue to pressure to press and pressure the Israeli counterparts to ensure. So some White House officials definitely concerned about how this is going moving forward, especially as it relates to just global optics and public opinion here.
All right. Outside the White House force tonight. Ali, thank you. We'll bring in Abal Sahib.
He's a senior fellow and director of the. Excuse me. Director of the Defense and Security Program at the Middle East Institute. Well, can we talk a little bit about just operationally, how Hamas operates in Gaza?
There's so much back and forth about these hospitals, whether they're being used on some kind of permanent basis or an ad hoc basis as command centers or, you know, spaces for Hamas in this conflict, how much that is true, and how does it impact the way that Israel has to approach this war militarily? Well, as the United States, it's really hard for us to verify, you know, what Israel is telling us, but we have to rely on these Israelis. We have to rely on Israeli intelligence, because we do not have that kind of intelligence on the ground. We can see anything above the ground, obviously, given satellite imagery, but anything on a subterranean level, we have to rely on the Israelis.
And so. And I don't think The Israelis have any really reason to be fals, you know the truth and lying about this. But at the same time, it doesn't solve the problem, which we're all trying to solve here, of collateral damage, of how you actually balance between going after high value targets, seeing commanders at Hamas and reducing the loss of innocent Palestinian life. This is the one that we're dealing with right now.
How important is pinpoint intelligence to doing that in a strategic way? As you're saying, if you want to really be targeted, if you want to really be focused in your operations, how much do you need the intelligence to avoid those kinds of silly casualties? Critical gear. There's nothing more critical than this variable right now.
And it's imperfect. Obviously, there's not. Just like any other war, frankly, and especially in this kind of environment that is densely populated, that is also dealing with a subterranean element inside those tunnels. We just don't know exactly what the situation is beneath the surface.
And Israel is probably gaining more and more intelligence as it conducts its operations. It is doing limited infiltration inside those tunnels, gaining as much intelligence as possible, coming back, sharing intelligence with air capabilities to strike Hamas targets. But at the end of the day, you still have blind sides. You still have a lack of intelligence that's making this challenge incredibly more prominent for the Israelis.
And that's why everybody's calling for ceasefire, right? That's why everybody's calling for ceasefire to try to get into this prisoner swap that could make things a little bit better for both sides. Yeah. Let's talk a little bit about the idea that prisoner swap, the effort to get these hostages home.
It's been quite some time since we've had any hostages either exchanged or released. What do you make the administration's decision to send Brett McGurk. And how do you operate in such a politically and militarily fraught sphere trying to get these folks out? Yeah, we have a sequencing problem here, and I'm not sure how we can solve it.
Obviously, there are multiple parties trying to get into a situation, a solution here, including the United States. The kind of reasons, of course, as you call. You mentioned earlier, the French, to some extent at least applying diplomatic pressure and calling for an end to hostilities, even if it's temporary. The sequencing problem meaning that Israel has claimed that it has no interest in calling for ceasefire right now because it has concerns about Hamas using that as an opportunity to regroup to continue its attacks against Israel.
Hamas wants to see and end up hostilities immediately before it even talks about the release of more hostages. How we Square. That is going to require some really artful diplomacy, perhaps even some luck. Well, the Prime Minister Netanyahu has been pretty clear that, you know, Hamas is not going to be in control of Gaza whenever these hostilities.
And I want to play for you some of his comments to Kristen Walker yesterday and pick up the question on the other side. Sure. I think that the only force right now that can guarantee that Hamas, that terrorism does not reappear and take over Gaza again is Israeli military. So overall military responsibility will have to be in Israel.
As far as civilian management of Gaza, we need to see the following two things. Gaza has to be demilitarized and Gaza has to be de radicalized. And I think so far we haven't seen any Palestinian force, including the Palestinian Authority, that is able to do it. It seems to me you can demilitarize Gaza with the idf, but it's very hard to de radicalize people by bombing them.
I mean, what's your take on what the security situation, the governmental situation might look like in Gaza when this is all said and done? Yeah, you're exactly right. I'm talking about two very lofty goals. Right.
There's no harm in saying them. Obviously, there's a political audience behind that. But I'm not even going to talk about the de radicalization because you are frankly sowing the seeds of radicalization as you continue to pummel this pasing in a population beyond Hamas. Right.
But even though you should have demilitarization, we shouldn't be jumping again. We're nowhere near, frankly, massively degrading capabilities of Hamas or even disarming it. We're not even talking about the risks of that region. Right.
Whether there's going to be another front that would incredibly challenge Israel's military campaign against Hamas. So no harm in mentioning those things. But at the same time, in terms of practical translation on the ground, I find it incredibly difficult to demilitarize but also de radicalize. This is a recipe for radicalization frenzy, not just in Palestine, but across the region.
And we've seen it play out in multiple other theaters across the region. All right, Blossom, we'll have to leave another front for another day. I appreciate you sharing your expertise with us today. Thank you.
No problem. And coming up, the announcement from Tim Scott that surprised even his own campaign staff will be the latest reporting on Scott's unexpected exit from 2024 and the new reaction from a top campaign official. Next. Plus, the former president lashing out at his political enemies with dehumanizing rhetoric that echoes some of the worst dictators of the 20th century.
You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. We had an unexpected shakeup last night on the 2024 campaign with South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott ending his presidential bid just days after being one of five candidates on our debate stage at the GOP debate in Miami. Here's how he broke the news last night.
When I go back to Iowa, it will not be as a presidential candidate. I'm suspending my campaign. I think the voters who are the most remarkable people on the planet have been really clear that they're telling me, not now, Tim. I don't think they're saying, Trey.
No. But I do think they're saying, not now. Our NBC team spotted Scott is campaigning headquarters earlier today in Charleston. They didn't answer any of our shouted questions.
Scott told Fox News last night that he has no plans to endorse or serve as anyone's running mate. Joining now is NBC campaign mbed Nami Aguanwu. He spent the last few months following Senator Scott around the country. One of the best jobs in news.
And Nami, this announcement was obviously incredibly sudden. What have you been able to learn about the process behind the scene to this decision? What I can tell you, Garrett, it's a decision that only came together in the last couple of days. There had been discussions in the aftermath of the last debate about the viability of the campaign, and many in Scott's orbit saw the writing on the wall.
They knew this was coming down the pipe eventually, but no one predicted the format of the announcement would be during an interview on Fox News at 9pm on Sunday evening. And many people were, in fact, blindsided. So for today, Scott has spent the bulk of the day attempting to sort of pick up the pieces and talk to a staff that honestly is still sort of shocked and has lingering questions about things like pay and healthcare. So, you know, the writing was on the wall, but I don't think anyone predicted the announcement would come the way it did.
If you were to design a Republican presidential candidate in a lab, you might end up with somebody like Tim Scott. He had the money. He has the resume, at least on paper. He had a lot of friends here in Washington, and he's from an early state.
I mean, that's kind of the jackpot if you're putting it together. Why do you think he struggled so much to catch on with the voters? Well, you know, when I talk to sources close to the campaign, they're sort two buckets. There's one bucket of sources that sort of point to leadership and feel this is a matter of an inexperienced team that at times weren't able to capitalize on momentum.
Many people have pointed to the time after the Iowa State Fair, right before the first debate, when he was experiencing a slight boom in the polls. And they feel that was an opportunity. He should have really hit the ground hard. He should have, you know, talked to every reporter.
He couldn't because they made headlines. That just didn't happen. But then you talk to another set of sources who say that's not really fair criticism. The issue here was an electorate that was unwilling to move on from Donald Trump.
And that's something that's pretty consistent with our own polling. They say Scott has high favorabilities. Voters like him, it's just a matter of they weren't ready to have a candidate not named Donald Trump represent them in the primaries. What do you think his future holds?
He says he's not going to endorse. He says he doesn't want to be on somebody else's ticket. That's what they always say. What do you think he's going to end up doing?
Well, right now, everyone I've talked to says that's still his position. He's taking his time to make a decision. But I will say there are some sources I've talked to that say he's not closing any doors per se. But right now the focus is on just talking to the team, you know, getting out of the race before doors close on him and, you know, taking the time to make a decision about what his future look like.
Exactly. He's obviously from South Carolina. We know that his sway area in particular, like if he's gonna make an endorsement, does he give Haley a bigger boost if he does it there? Like, how do they think about those issues?
Well, here's what's interesting. You know, we had a poll in another early state, Iowa, and you know, with him dropping down, we raided an NBC analysis. We allocate where his support will go. And what we saw was that Trump, Desantis, Haley, they each saw a two point bump.
And that's sort of indicative of what people like doctor said. You know, even people that really like Tim Scott, they always pointed to him and Haley's alternative. They always talked about his santiations as potential alternative. And personally I feel lesser so.
But even some pointed to Trump. One thing that Scott really sort of highlighted in his campaign is that he was different from he was the optimist, he was hopeful, he was the happy warrior. But even with that, there are people who supported him. That said, we like Tim Scott.
We think he's a great guy. We think he'd be an amazing running mate. But we don't know if we're ready to move on from Donald Trump. So in South Carolina, we have to see what exactly will happen.
But I think it's his supporters about anyone who ends up being able to take the reins away from Donald Trump. The more things to change, the more they stay to say. Nami, thank you for your reporting. We'll see you back on the trail soon, I am sure.
Now, one of the things that was striking about Senator Tim Scott's exit from the Republican primary is that just a few days ago he was on set with us talking about his plans to keep the campaign going through next month's debate in Alabama. Here goes with my colleagues Hallie Jackson and Tom Yamas. After last week's Republican debate in Miami. No, it was a challenge for you to make the debates each year.
Do you think tonight is your last debate or can you promise your donors and your voters you're going to be there? Oh, and monster, I'm 100% confident that Cody Davidnell in Alabama will be hanging out, having a conversation a while till Yorkshire stage. Of course I'll be on the stage. We're not running a national campaign.
We're running a campaign state by state. That's how these campaigns actually work. I think back in 2011 and 2015, it was Herman Cain and the 999 winning in Iowa. Right now, 2015, it was Ben Carson.
So what we know is that the voters are just turning their attention towards this election. I'm very optimistic that we can continue to make gains. And joining now is Matt Gorman. He served as senior communications advisor to the Scott campaign.
And Matt, first of all, you're here in D.C. and you were not with the candidate. I'm. What did you find out about what was going on?
What can you tell us about how this decision came together? As I understand, I think he took the weekend, he had, he had the flu late last week. He turned spinal events and he took the weekend and he was, he kind of took stock. He was able to see that the path that, you know, he hoped was there wasn't there as much anymore.
I mean, Garrett, you and I have done these quite a bit. It's a slog and you need to really wake up every day believing that you have, you know, clear path to presidency. And I think that path he realized that had narrowed. And so I think that is the realization and that's why gained his decision?
It's a great personal one. Absolutely. How was he changed between Wednesday night and today? I mean, he was so confident coming out of that debate.
I think a lot of observers didn't feel like he fundamentally changed the direction things were going on Wednesday night. Did that play into it? I mean, walk me through Swanna. I think we saw wins in the very authentic Tim Scott.
I think, you know, from what I heard, he felt the most at ease as any debate he had so far. Was that debate on Wednesday night with you. All we had to talk about before the debate. This is never somebody who's gonna come out and like throw haymakers fundamentally un Tim Scott of him to just change who he was in the last battle end up being his last debate.
I think he entered this campaign with and leaving. He wanted to make sure that his reputation, his blue reputation could name was still intact. I think what he had seen from other folks, whoever that wasn't the case. They weren't thinking themselves.
I think no matter what win or lose, he had said this repeatedly, he was going to stay who he was. Not to mention this a little bit after poll, he would always come out these super high favorables. Voters everywhere love them, but not enough to vote for him. What do you make of that?
I mean, I think they were able to get to know him. They liked him. You know, if you and I saw him in small town halls, this is a guy from Charleston, South Charleston, South Carolina. He goes.
I also think that candidly that the electorate wasn't necessarily too enthused for an optimistic, positive message at this time. Doesn't mean it's forever. As you kind of heard him on Fox, but at least right now doesn't seem to be the case. Do you think him dropping out says more about Tim Scott or more about.
And I mean that in a good way. I think he realized this wasn't going to happen. He wasn't able to. And he believes that.
Look, at least over half of the GOP around have one alternative, Donald Trump. We believe we're the best position to be the alternative. Now somebody else can be the alternative. They have the opportunity to get crowded.
Do you think. Does he think there is still room for an alternative or part of this decision to get out a realization that nobody's going to knock off this guy this cycle. I haven't talked about this, but what I think is this race is pretty fluid still. I mean, he's kind of sent that clip, right?
We were talking about Herman McCain at one point. We're saying Torben's on the radar when at this point 2012. So I think things can be fluid, not just denial as we kind of continue down the calendar. Tim Scott said on trail often that he didn't think Donald Trump could win.
Does he do anything to affect Donald Trump winning or lose him now as not a candidate? By that I mean do you think he endorses, do you think he campaigns against the former president's incapacity or is he going to the sidelines for this race? It takes some time for slight. I think that is where he's not endorsed.
Again. I think we cannot overstate how arduous and how personal these things become. Right. And so I think it's not unexpected for, you know, within either a, when you sit down to have this interview or within 24 hours to have it all figured out.
I take it as word though, doesn't plan on endorsing at least right now. I think he's still in the center for a couple years. He might be the chairman of the bank committee again or the last. Tim Scott, maybe he gets some time out here.
I think that sounds right. Matt Gorman, thank you for coming on. Thank you for work. I'm sure we'll have you back soon.
All right. Up next, it's crunch time for Congress and the biggest test yet for Speaker Mike Johnson with just four more days to go until a potential government shutdown. We're live on the Hill with the very latest next you're watching MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back.
We're now just four days away from a government shutdown and lawmakers have to act quickly to get a funding bill for both change. Newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a two tiered continuing resolution this weekend that would not include any funding for Israel. The plan is already facing some opposition by members of both parties in the House and it'll likely be enough. He'll climb in the Senate as well.
I mean, the press. Yesterday, Senate Democrat Chris Murphy Feital, Kristen Welker, he's not entirely sold on this solution, but he's willing to be convinced. I don't like this laddered CR approach. It looks gimmicky to me, but I'm open to what the House is talking about.
The priority has to be keeping the government open. And I think this is a moment where reasonable people in the Senate and that's where most of the reasonable people are these days, have to make sure that we are not making it perfect. The enemy of the good. I don't like what House is talking about, but I'M willing to listen.
NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles has the latest on efforts to avert a shutdown. And Ryan, help us understand exactly what the speaker is even trying to do here. He went to a party of people who don't like CR and said instead of one, I'll give you two. I mean, what happens here in House this gonna play out?
Yeah. You get the sense here that he's trying to thread a very narrow needle here, trying to come up with something that he knows can get the support of Democrats in the Senate and the White House and even maybe a couple Democrats in the House of Representatives, but one that will completely alienate the conservative wing of his base to the point where they do to him what they did to Kevin McCarthy. And so by coming up with this, and I think Senator Murphy's description of it, somewhat gimmicky idea of a two tiered continuing resolution with basically two separate expiration dates maybe fits that mold. He's trying to demonstrate to his conservative colleagues that this isn't business as usual.
They're not just going to rubber stamp a whole round of additional funding for a short period of time and keep kicking the can down the road. I hate analogy, but that's something that set up here often and instead try to do things just a little bit differently. Hopefully that little bit differently is enough to keep those conservatives at bay. Of course, you know, seven or so oversee that.
They're not going to vote for this. It's going to require Democrats to get over the finish line. The question is, Gary, can you find that Goldilocks approach where it's just enough Democrats and just enough Republicans where he doesn't alienate those that would be willing to maybe topple him over these negotiations? Yes, a very interesting to watch Democrats bash this bill to leave open the possibility they might vote for.
It's like they don't want to upset the Apple card here too. Ryan, what's about what's not in this? This bill does not include any of the funding the White House has asked for for Israel or Ukraine. It doesn't include the budget cuts that House conservatives have wanted.
Talk to me about the extra money, the 48 money here, because there's gonna be a lot of concern that this doesn't ride along on something that has to pass now. It might never pass. Right. So true, Gary.
I mean, by no means does this solve any of the problems here on Capitol Hill. At the very least, it pushes off maybe a quarter of what they have to deal with into the new year. But leaves a whole host of other issues that are left unresolved in the supplemental aid package that the White House sent over that includes funding for Israel, Ukraine, BO Security, Taiwan. All of that is still very much an open question.
It's something that the Senate is very much in favor of and Senate Republicans and Democrats are actively negotiating. But the House really appears to have no path forward in that regard. Certainly they did pass an Israel supplemental package that was filled with a poison pill of cuts to the IRS program as well. That just has no hope of ever passing the Senate.
So after they clear this short term spending package, if they're able to clear this short term spending package, that's when the real negotiating is going to start, first on that collection of aid packages and then the longer term discussion about how the government will be funded into the new year. These are all very difficult questions. And there is really no clear path to finding some sort of resolution that can pass both the House and Senate and be signed by President Biden. Complicated.
New guy at times with a new guy at the tiller. Ryan Nobles, thank you for that reporting. And I'm joined now by Republican congressman from Tennessee, Tim Burchette. Congressman, you told us last week you wanted to see what was in the CR before you waited on it.
This bill's been out since Saturday. So weigh in on how do you feel about it? Well, it is just what it says. It's a continuation.
And I feel like I might give Speaker Johnson every benefit, but I don't feel like it's one that I could vote for because it is just a continuation of the bad policies that we've had. There's no, as was mentioned, there's no savings, there's no border protection in there. And. But I want to give the speaker every chance he needs.
You know, the CR was created, I guess, 30 years ago or so in a sort of emergency situation. So really, you know, our emergency, our ambulance system, so to speak, has become our public transportation in America. And we've avoided passing a budget. And the reason we do that is so that honestly, so that special interests and the lobbyists are taken care of and the American public doesn't see until after it's actually passed.
So at some point we're gonna have to bring up Jody Arrington, who chairs our Budget Committee and look at passing the budget, which is something we haven't done in 30 years. Congressman, surely you knew when you voted to get rid of Kevin McCarthy and the house had no speaker for a month that you were gonna probably end up with another CR because you had taken up all the available time to legislate with just picking a leader so you could function again, Right? Yeah. Except one thing is, is that we took off the entire month of August and two weeks into September knowing that September 30th was the end of the budget period of the fiscal year.
So, you know, we were just trying to try to cram something down our throats. And Mike Johnson is not doing that. This is, as I stated, this is an emergency situation. This is his only, only thing he can get through.
You couldn't craft a budget in this amount of time, so. Well, given that leeway. But I still don't know support continued. I think it's bad policy.
Does a little leeway mean you'd vote for the rule? You'd let this come to the floor and let the chips fall where they may? I think so, yeah. I think I would vote for the rule.
All right, so you don't like it, but you don't not like it enough to try to block it from getting a chance to pass. No. And I don't think there's any movement afoot at all to get to remove Mike Johnson. I mean, if it was, I would probably know about it since I was one of the eight.
Yeah, you got ahead of me there a little bit. I mean, obviously this is the kind of thing that, you know, this is the last straw basically for a number of you folks who voted against McCarthy. I mean, how, how much is there anger in the conference at Mike Johnson because he ran internally on the fact that you guys would have to do a CR at some point. Right.
Does that buy him a little bit of goodwill to navigate this period? Yeah, he was honest with us. You know, he's. We talked about how we're having single spending bills and we're actually the appropriations, although a lot of them are full of a bunch of garbage.
You know, we're breaking them down. There's amendments that are being allow to be debated, although they're defeated by the hierarchy in both parties because they don't want to cut the gravy train off. But I get that. But he is being honest about it and he's going about it in a forthright manner.
And I trust him. I read this bill, all 32 pages of it. Out of that. There's nothing in here for Israel.
For a Congress that talks a lot about supporting one of our most important allies, I don't see this Congress passing a lot of support for one of our most important allies. We already did. We already passed A bill for Israel. We sent it to the Senate.
And it's disingenuous in the Senate to say that we're not going to do anything, but in fact we've done it and they chose not to take it up and they chose not to vote on it. So I take a little step back on all those statements when I hear that because I don't feel like that's accurate. All right, that's great. So you feel that kind of like a take a leave it for Senate, then it's sort of up to them to pass something before you guys can move forward on what, a plan B.
Sure. And I think it's disingenuous of the White House when they say that we've, you know, they're just playing politics over there in the House and what's attaching it to the bill to Ukraine and a bunch of bogus border security and a little, a little bit for Taiwan. You know, he's tying up all these things. He knows Ukraine is a hot button in the House and so he attaches the funding to Israel.
And also Israel, as we spoke to them, they're not. Our funding is not a dire situation for them right now. They get over 3 billion as you know, a year. They pretty much auto check system, the missile defense system, Diar Dome.
We've sent them over to two allotments of it that we had and we've sent out. The largest carrier fleet in the world is in the Mediterranean right now. Over 12 ships and now submarines are there to support roles. So America is serious about their support of Israel.
I do participate in ask you about something that happened last week with the elections and the issue of abortion in the Republican Party. I want to play something that RNC Chairman Ron McDanielson did. Chris, welcome yesterday and ask you about it right afterwards. Listen to this.
We have to talk compassionately. We can't attack women. We also have to define ourselves before the Democrats define us. This is my number one message.
If you're digging yourself out of a hole, you're going to lose. But if you go on TV and you say to the American people, listen, we all are passionate about this issue and it's confusing right now, but in a time of consensus, can't we agree on reasonable limitations at 15 weeks when a baby feels me, I think there's a lot of discussion to be had. But we can't just say it's a state issue and be done. Abortion's gonna be a huge issue again next year.
You'll be on the ballot next year. What do you make of what your chairwoman said about that? How do you feel like Republicans, you address what's obviously coming out of the tross nationally as an election issue? Well, she doesn't necessarily speak for me, but and I am pro life and I come from a state, it's very pro life Tennessee, of course, but it's been the law of the land for what, 30, 40, 30 plus years.
So that's what we lived under. I don't know what we expected was going to happen. All of a sudden we turned the law over and then everybody who's lived under it and had the convenience of abortion on demand was going to automatically just turn around and say, oh, great, well, I'm not poor anymore because of what the Supreme Court ruled. In fact, it's now a state's rights issue.
It's in the states, it's in the state legislatures, and that's where I feel like it should be. All right, Congressman Burchett, we'll leave it there. Thank you for coming on. Thank you, brother.
It's always a pleasure. After the break, we'll get the view on government funding and Israel aid from the other side of the aisle. Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley joins me next. You're WATCHING ME THE PRESS now.
Welcome back. And moments ago, Ms. Earlier, Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor expressed a certain openness to viewing this two tiered solution to a possible government shutdown that the House speaker has been proposing, but of course has to get through the House before the Senate gets any say in that. And someone who gets on it perhaps as early as tonight or tomorrow is Democratic Congressman from Illinois, Mike Quigley, who joins me now.
He's been pushing hard for a Ukraine and Israel to be included in these funding bills. So let me just start with this two tiered cr. We're banning the phrase laddered on this program here. Have you read it yet?
And what are your initial thoughts? First of all, we shouldn't be here. We had a bipartisan, bicameral agreement in June with the top lines into a spending bill. I remember.
Now we again play a brinksmanship game with the American economy and everything that goes with that. Just recently, Moody's downgraded the US Credit rating outlook from stable to negative based on this kind of dysfunction. So we shouldn't be here in the first place. And now we have Hobson's choices that make no sense whatsoever.
So is there a preference on which one? They're all degrees of bad and the unfortunate victims are the American people Congressman, if it's this or shut down, though, I mean, would you vote for this plan if it comes to the floor tomorrow? Look, if it's this or shut down, you have to vote not to shut the government down. I just don't want people to think that this is a choice that we should have to be having at this point in time, given the circumstances last June.
Right. So is that the concern? Is part of the concern, I guess idea you sort of set a precedent here that now we're going to have these levels of shutdown votes every month or two for as long as it takes. The past year long government funding, who knows how long that we've created two fiscal cliffs we just avoided, devastating the American economy, maybe worldwide markets in June by raising the debt ceiling.
And what we did, we put off because Speaker McCarthy, I think, in an effort to save his gavel, went to appease again the extreme far right of the Republican Party. This isn't the tail wagging the dog. It's the tip of the dog's tail wagging the body politics. And I suspect that Speaker Johnson thinks he can play the same game.
This is a divided government and the Republicans kick speakers out when they compromise. It is the nature of what gets done in this government. So Speaker Johnson actually gets to a final bill where we fund the government for a full year. He's probably going to lose his gavel.
So the decision is, is he willing to do that now or put it off till later? It is inevitable. Well, I guess you could argue that in a body where governing only happens when there's a crisis or a cliff, what you need are more crises to get more governing. But I know that's not a road anybody really wants to go down.
I'm curious. The lack of aid in here for Israel or Ukraine. I don't know if you've heard my interview with Timber Chet. The argument that the House has passed Israel aid, whether you like the way they did it or not, notwithstanding.
But how worried are you that these 48 elements that the White House has asked for, that you've advocated for are in here and might not ever see the light of day if they're not tied to something like a government funding bill? Well, the first risk I mentioned was the American economy. I think the second risk here is the world is watching us, our allies and our adversaries, and they're saying they simply can't govern. And I think that really tests our will.
It makes them start to question if we'll be there when it makes matters. I was recently in Ukraine. And while they're extraordinarily supportive and appreciative of what we've done to help them, they're starting to look at us like, are you going to be there? Fiona Hill wrote a couple years ago about how this dysfunction, this extraordinary polarization is a national security risk.
I think we're starting to see that play out. We have to get this done. It makes no sense other than playing to a political extremist group not to put this all together and not wait till the last second to do it. Are we going to ask Ukrainians and Israelis to start rationing what they do in an extraordinary, important, pivotal point in their conflicts?
It's dangerous to them. It's dangerous to our credibility. I was surprised recently. Mitch McConnell, who's been as vocal of an advocate for Ukraine aid as anybody out there, I think you probably agree with that statement, has kind of backed off, saying that, you know, it's not going to be him who gets this over the finish.
How does this happen? Does the president need to do more? Do other Republicans need lean on Mike Johnson more? How does this get done?
Because this issue seems almost unbreakably stuck from where I said, well, it can get done. I think there's very real concerns here that this isn't our father's Republican Party. Right. What was the Reagan Doctrine that we would support our allies against Russian aggression as strong as we have to, as long as we have to.
When there was a standalone vote to support Ukraine a couple weeks ago, it lost in the Republican caucus, 117 to 101. The Reagan doctrine, of all things, is dead in the Republican Party. So Democrats voted unanimously. If a bill supporting Ukraine, Ukraine and Israel came to the floor, it would pass three to one in the House.
But it's just a question of the political will and leadership to put it there. You might need the Senate to do it first at this rate. Congressman Mike, quickly, thanks for coming on and for sharing your expertise with us. And Silicon Trump top rhetoric.
The former president compares his perceived political enemies to little vermin in a raucous and at times unsettling Veterans Day rally. Those comments and the fallout are next. You're WATCHING me, the Press now. Welcome back.
Donald Trump's business practices and political rhetoric are both front and center again today. For the second time in three weeks, his son, Donald Trump Jr. Was back on the stand in a civil fraud case brought by the York attorney general, testifying this time as the defense begins to make its case. At the same time, the Trump campaign is defending Comments the former president made at a rally on Saturday in which he compared his political opponents to vermin, drawing comparisons to language used by dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.
In honor of our great veterans on Veterans Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the communists, auctions, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat our election. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. My colleague Vaughn Hiller joins me now from outside the courthouse in Manhattan. And Vaughn, I'm trying to figure out if there's any possible context that could support comments like those.
What was he talking about? Talking about? No, there is no context, Garrett, to those comments, other than this is a former President of the United States and leading candidate for president United States in 2024 who has vowed to go after and prosecute his political enemies. Garrett, you are very familiar that this is a line that we have heard Donald Trump use, especially over the last 18 months on the campaign trail.
But the use of the word vermin was an explicit addition here this weekend when talking about his political enemies in the Danger from Within. It's important context. You noted the authoritarian leaders of generations past, but it was explicit Nazi propaganda that was used with the use of the word vermin for Donald Trump. I will read you a quote from his spokesman here, who to NBC said, quote, those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from the Trump derangement syndrome and their sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White White House.
I'll repeat the last part. Their miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House. Garrett? Yeah.
There's something that says I'm not an authoritarian. Like having your spokesperson threat to crush people out of existence. Vaughn, you are outside the courthouse today where the former president's son was testifying again today. What do you have to say for himself?
This was the second time that Don Jr. Has testified, but this time under the questioning Garrett of his own defense lawyer. This is essentially the kickoff of the second half of this trial. The prosecution rest of their case after Donald Trump and I buck could Trump testify last week and now it's up to defense to bring forward their witnesses here in the weeks ahead.
We expect defense to close their case on December 15th. So this is just the beginning. But what you heard from Don Jr. Today was him going property by property, explaining the intricacies of why in his own words those properties were spectacular and the value of which were they were assessed are accurate, been in multiple situations.
He makes the case that they were undervalued. For Don Jr. And his family who are defendants here in this case, part of this is making the case here to the judge will be the one to determine the extent to which he and his brother Eric and father are liable in the civil lawsuit from New York attorney general. He was one of signs the financial records asserting that they were in fact accurate.
But he again today suggesting that he was a part of the accountants they relied on for the minutiae of those actual financial reports here. And obviously they're making legal arguments to the judge here. But the Trump defense has also been making political arguments for his companion. There's any shot we see Donald Trump on the witness stand again as part of his own defense here?
He very well could be. He's already been found liable on the one claim here. And Don Jr. Said on the way out that they have no choice but to appeal not only that claim, but potentially rulings against them on these other claims here.
And for them, what they have the opportunity to do on the witness stand right now is Don Jr. For more than four hours today. And what Donald Trump could very well do if you were to take the stand again is lay out a case that could be used in an ultimate appeal trial. Garrett, what they say on the stand here would be pertinent therefore, to the appeal, which gives them credence to go back to the stand for a second go.
Got it. All right, Von Hiller, thank you for your reporting and thank you all for being with us this out. I'm back tomorrow. We're being the press now.
NBC News now coverage continues with Aaron Dillcrest in for Hallie Jax. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together.
Then one night the marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Matos and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dayline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts,