Meet the Press NOW — November 19

Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of The Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. Getting there, it wasn't simple.

Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that tastes. Hope you'll listen and follow the drink wherever you get your podcast.

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where the Trump administration is navigating multiple political headwinds on the Epstein Files, the economy, and now a major setback into the prosecution of one of the president's perceived political enemies after the Justice Department acknowledged today in court that it did not follow proper protocol when indicting former FBI director James Comey, a stunning admission. We will have much more on that in just a moment, but we do begin at the White House, where after months of debate and delay and despite the president's initial objections, a measure to compel the release of the Epstein Files is about to be signed into law. The bill which passed in your unanimous fashions through Congress gives the Justice Department 30 days to release the files, survivors of Epstein's abuse, cheering, and hugging when the news was announced.

The Senate has passed the bill under unanimous. The president has pledged to sign the bill, even as he continues to lash for the issue, arguing it's a democratic hoax to distract from his achievements. The president's handling of the issue has frustrated some notable figures in his fiercely loyal base. At a moment when some of his allies in Congress are also voicing frustrations with his approach to court economic issues like affordability and jobs, today the president rushing aside criticisms about comments he made favoring highly skilled foreign workers over American workers for certain jobs.

I love my conservative friends, I love MAGA, but this is MAGA, and those people are going to teach our people how to make computer chips, and in a short period of time our people are going to be doing great, and those people can go home where they probably always want to be. It's unbelievable pictures, but they just don't understand our people have to be taught. The president today also just missing concerns around affordability issues, which fueled big wins for Democrats in this month's elections. We're also making incredible strides to make America affordable.

Again, that's a new word that they're using, affordability, they talk, they're the worst inflation in history. They're the highest prices in history. The country who's going to hell, the only thing that we're going up in is our stock market. The only price that we really have, I mean, we're bringing prices down.

It comes as a new NPR PBS Mirror's poll shows voters believe the administration's top priority should be lowering prices. No other issue even comes remotely close. That same poll found the president's approval rating declining with 57% now disapproving of the job he's doing, and voters favoring electing Democrats to Congress in next year's midterms by a whopping 14-point margin. Joining me now from the White House is MDC's Monica Alba, and Julie Circuit is on Capitol Hill to start us off.

Thanks to both of you, Monica, let me start with you. When do we expect President Trump will sign that Epstein-Bill in the law? That is the question of the hour of the day, Kristen, and we frankly do not know. As of just moments ago, when we checked, the president hadn't yet signed the bill, and remember that this is the kind of thing that he can do privately.

He can do it quickly. He can do it out of the view of cameras, or he could decide to do it in front of cameras. We have seen time and time again with other kinds of legislation, but it's unclear the White House hasn't indicated yet which way this is going to go in terms of how we're going to learn about it, but a senior White House official did indicate, and the president himself a few days ago, that the president does plan to sign it. So we'll see about the logistics of how that takes place, but I do think that as we saw just in the last week or so, when the president wants to sign something quickly, he does.

And when he reopened the government, for instance, once all of the details on Capitol Hill were wrapped up and the bill was actually transmitted to him, it was done in fairly quick order. So today, they are still working on that. We will see, but we know again, he does intend at some point to sign it, and then that does give the 30-day kickoff to the Department of Justice to do what they need to do on their end before we might see any of this information. So Monica, let's talk about those 30 days.

Could this be a resolution or a potential delay tactic those 30 days? What are you going to be watching for? There are so many questions we have about exactly what's in the files, you know, there had been such a continued push to release the files, but what does that actually mean? Well, now, perhaps we get to find out.

And of course, like with anything related to sensitive information, there may have to be some redactions, there may have to be some information withheld if it is connected to as many of the victims have pointed out things that have to do with, of course, any identifying details that they would not want out there. But then also, Kristen, there's this question of the, quote, active investigation that the President launched to the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to initiate, which could also be an obstacle to some of the release of this information, because they could potentially say that that is a reason for not doing it at the same time. Remember that earlier this year, the DOJ had assessed that there wasn't credible evidence, but just today, the Attorney General, notably saying that she did believe there was some, quote, new information, but she didn't share more details about what that could lead to, what impact that might have on this crucial release that really the victims of survivors have been pushing for and cheering and are celebrating. But again, the real question is what might be in there and when might we actually see it, that is still a huge target for us.

Now, you're absolutely right, Monica, and the reaction from the survivors, incredibly emotional. Indeed, Julie, let me turn to you on Capitol Hill, because even though the bill has passed, there are some new tensions emerging. House Speaker Mike Johnson had said he wanted to see changes to the legislation once it reached the Senate. That did not happen.

It passed without any changes. Talk about the tensions that Speaker Johnson is airing at his counterpart. Yeah, this is super interesting, Kristin. We've kind of picked up on this over the last couple of weeks.

It wasn't just the Epstein issue, which we'll talk about in a moment, but it was before that, a provision that allowed senators to sue retroactively because of the January 6th probe. That provision caught Speaker Johnson completely off guard today. Actually, the House has been about to repeal it, and he and Boone are still at complete odds. When you talk about the Epstein matter, that's yet another thing.

Speaker Johnson had a lengthy press conference yesterday morning in which he said he started it off, saying that he spoke to John Boone, the Republican leader in the Senate, about making amendments to the House pass bill to bill. They were poised to pass a couple of hours from then. Johnson took issue with the fact that in his mind that the bill does not give adequate protections to the Epstein survivors that I was just referring to that may not want to be named. And John Boone came out after that saying, look, I looked at this with my counsel.

There's nothing in there that we have to change, talking about the overwhelming vote that came out of the House. And then, of course, he led as well as the other 99 members and effort from Leader Schumer just passed on the floor. Johnson seemed a little bit irritated about that last night. There's some really fascinating dynamics that will continue to track.

Let me ask you broadly speaking about the Trump base because we started to see some crackers. Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, who President Trump started to call a traitor because she was demanding the release of these Epstein files, among other things. He, of course, changed his position, started to say, yes, he would sign this bill into law, but he doesn't want it to distract from his overall agenda. But do you think the cracks that we saw in the base could be long-term?

Julie, what are your sources telling you? Yeah, I'll pick up where you left off there because Marjorie Taylor Greene, the congressman from Georgia said something really interesting yesterday at a press conference with survivors before the vote took place. She said something to the effect of Mr. President, you called me a traitor, but the real traitor is an American that puts foreign governments over the American people.

And I thought that could mean awful host of issues. It could, of course, mean the tensions we've seen in the MAGA base when it comes to the way the president has approached the issue of Israel in the Middle East, starting new wars overseas as something we've heard over and over again, but also as it relates to H1B visas, the temporary visas given to immigrants who come here to work, essentially, but are not permanently residing here or looking for that kind of status. The president at total odds with his MAGA base on that issue, he defended it again today, saying that people here need certain areas and also on the issue of Affordable Care Act. So I think this is just beginning and it's something we'll continue to follow.

All right, Monica and Julie, thank you so much for starting us off on a very busy news day. We really appreciate it. As you mentioned, we are also following breaking news in the Justice Department's case against former FBI Director James Comey, which now appears to be in serious jeopardy after today in court. It was revealed that prosecutors did not follow proper protocol when indicting Comey, interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan and her team acknowledging that the jury never reviewed the final indictment against Comey.

It is a major error that could get the case thrown out, according to legal experts. Additionally, federal prosecutors also conceding that they were under orders from the deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch's office not to disclose whether career prosecutors have previously written a memo recommending no charges be brought against Comey. The two admissions coming during a hearing in which Comey's attorney urged the judge to dismiss the case, calling it, quote, selective and vindictive while accusing the president of weaponizing the Justice Department in an attempt to silence a perceived political enemy. The Justice Department responded to those allegations telling the judge that Comey was indicted because he lied to Congress.

Comey has denied those allegations. NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach joins me now along with Ty Cobb, who served as a White House attorney during the first Trump administration and is also a former federal prosecutor. Thanks to both of you for being here. Ty, I will talk to you in one minute.

Let me start with you though, Gary. He set the scene here. Just how stunning is it that today in court, you had this admission that the grand jury never saw the final charging papers? Yes, stunning shocking shoes your adjective really was.

And let me walk you through exactly what the DOJ say happened in that grand jury room. They were presented with three charges. They indicted on two of them, one of them that's called a no bill. They did not indict.

So a grand jury coordinator, according to the Department of Justice, went and edited the document to take out that first account that was not indicted. They then took that two counts and documents, the four person of the grand jury signed it. Lindsey Halligan, the US attorney and the Eastern District of Virginia signed it, and they presented it to the judge. The entire grand jury never saw that operative document, and that is a huge issue in this case.

Well, and it's one that clearly is what is at the center is putting this case potentially in serious jeopardy. This other admission, prosecutors acknowledging that Todd Lynch's office, the deputy attorney general instructed them not to reveal whether career prosecutors had effectively written a memo recommending that no charges be brought against James Comey. What's the significance there? You know, so often we've seen Department of Justice attorneys go forward into a court and say they don't know they were not given this information.

This attorney came forward today and said, actually, I was told not to say this information. And he said he was told by the deputy attorney general, that's Todd Lynch's office. And that's a very significant admission here because clearly the judge wants this information, whether or not there was a declaration memo, NBC News has reported that there was a declaration memo in this case, he would not say whether or not that was the case. And no decision today by the judge.

Where does this go from here? What's the potential timeline for when the judge could make a final decision? So in James Comey's case alone, there are three different decisions that we are waiting on, related to Lindsey Halligan's appointment, related to grand jury material being passed over to the defense, and now relating to this decision from Judge Yakmanov today. We hope all of this is done by Thanksgiving, but all of it is sure to be appealed.

All right. Well, Gary Grumba, thank you so much for setting the stage for us. That brings me to Ty Cobb, Ty. There's so much to unpack here.

But I do want to start with arguably what is the most stunning revelation that the grand jury never saw the final indictment? Can you put this into context for our viewers? What's the significance and what are the implications? Well, it's wholly improper.

It's really a prosecutor on misconduct and wholesale ineptitude. The fact that the grand jury did not receive the two-count indictment after having rejected the first count in the three-count indictment, particularly given the fact that we now know from the record that the grand jury asked several aggressive questions of Lindsey Halligan in connection with which he misrepresented the law as to Comey's Fifth Amendment privilege and also urged them to go ahead and indict because that the government had stronger and better evidence than they had seen the trial, you know, gross misconduct on both fronts. But the fact that the grand jury never saw this indictment and only the four-person approved it really makes the indictment a nullity. There really is Michael Drieven, who is one of the most skilled advocates in America.

He was at the Justice Department for a long time, argued over 100 cases before the Supreme Court. As he pointed out to the judge, this means there really is no indictment. And I think he's legally correct on that. So technically, there's no indictment based on your understanding.

Have you ever seen anything like this before, Ty, in all of your years of practicing law? Oh, no. I mean, I don't think anybody has. I mean, this is just so remarkable that somebody who had been a criminal lawyer for 72 hours went into the grand jury alone.

No, it's not surprising that it didn't get handled flawlessly, but it would have been impossible for even experienced prosecutors to effectively navigate the circumstances where the top count of the indictment was rejected by the grand jury and then create their own indictment and then take it to the court. And remember that the deception here by Halligan goes back to that first presentation of the indictments in the court after the grand jury had completed its work. And the judge asked multiple questions about why did he have two indictments? And none of this information was presented to him.

So the wholesale attempt to mislead the judiciary on this that came to a somewhat of a conclusion today is just shocking and really requires the termination of this case. So I'm going to say I'm going to your, you know, issue about Blanche, you know, Blanche having ordered that the prosecutors deceive the court with regard to the existence of the declination memo, which everybody knew existed. That's that is just unheard of. Now, we do know that Bobay, when he was at the Justice Department, ordered his prosecutors to defy the judges.

And now we've got to find the Steve as the marching orders from the top of the Justice form. That's never been that's never been the case in American history. And it just shows you how how disgraceful and corrupt this Justice Department is. So I just want to be very clear about what you are saying, Ty, what do you think the likelihood is as I have this conversation with you that this case is going to be thrown out?

Oh, this case is going to be thrown out. And this is only one of the reasons. I mean, it's A is vindicated prosecution, B. Halligan was not legally appointed and C, the prosecutor on his conduct here is so severe that almost any judge would toss it with a possible exception of Eileen Cannon in Florida.

So I think this case is this case is dead. You know, the government may go down, you know, fighting and gasping, but this case is dead. Do you think Halligan, Lindsey Halligan, or Todd Blanche could face disciplinary actions based on the revelations today, Ty? Well, I think I think Halligan and Bondi for sure could face disciplinary action because Bondi has twice affirmed the purported legitimacy of Halligan's grand jury presentation before the court.

And you know, that that those affirmations were false. There's no way that any season prosecutor could say this was done according to court. No way. And Halligan, definitely.

And Blanche, it's hard to say that has to be that has to be sussed out a little bit. We need a little bit more factual development. I would love to see Blanche Bondi and Halligan under oath, getting the questioning they deserve from Patrick Fitzgerald, who I think would skew on him. And just to be very clear, what if anything would the disciplinary action look like?

Could that mean being disbarred? Yes, could be disbarred. It could also be being prohibited from appearing before the Eastern District of Virginia. There are host of serious sanctions that can shipping post.

And the implications, Ty, for the other cases against Letitia James, for example? So what happened today is not really relevant to the Letitia James case other than adding the context of of deception and misleading the court. But I think with regard to Letitia James's case, certainly on the vindictive front, she has probably a more compelling argument than Comey does, but each should prevail. And with regard to the appointment issue, they have the identical, they have the identical objection.

And I think they'll both succeed on that. Ty very quickly, before I let you go on the Jeffrey Epstein case, President Trump expected to sign the bill into law, which we'll call on the Justice Department to release all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein in 30 days. Do you anticipate that the Justice Department will comply with that? Not a chance.

No, I mean, the whole scam about the order from Trump to prosecute Democrats, not Republicans reopen the case. Now, Bonnie has said twice on the record that there are no cases that could be presented. She's purported to have exhaustedly reviewed all the evidence and told the world that there will be no further charges because none can be brought. Today, she says there's new evidence that would justify her reopening the case.

That's amazing in view of the fact that she reopened it 17 minutes after Trump ordered her to do so. I'm not sure how she discovered the evidence that quickly, but I don't believe it happened. All right. Ty Cobb, as always, we really appreciate your being here and your perspective.

Great to see you as always. Always wonderful to be with you, Kristen. Thanks, Ty. You too.

Take care. And coming off, a Texas-sized redistricting setback, rising prices, and the never ending Epstein-Files saga. The panel digs into the political headwinds facing the Trump administration. Plus, Powder Trails, the Justice Department announces a major breakthrough in the manhunt for a former Olympic athlete who's also one of the FBI's most wanted drug traffickers.

You're watching at the press now. Welcome back to any now is our panel, Eleanor Moller, congressional reporter for Semaphore. Actually, at the end, former communications director for Vice President Harris and former Florida Republican Congressman Carlos Crabello and NBC News political analyst. Thanks to all of you for being here.

Eleanor, I have to start with you. I want to get your reaction to what we just heard from Ty Cobb who was responding to the extraordinary developments in court today in which basically Lindsey Halligan and the government acknowledged that the grand jury never saw the final paperwork before indicting James Comey. In fact, Ty Cobb said he anticipates this is going to be thrown out. What are the implications of this moment?

It echoes what we're seeing in a lot of other prosecutions across the administration, right? The administration has obviously tried to bring laws used against many of not only Trump's political enemies, but people whose removal would benefit him like the Federal Reserve governor at least a click. And they're running into hurdles on all of these, right? They're basically breaking the precedent in terms of what administration can do when it comes coming out for these people.

And we're starting to see some of the guardrails as a judge how possible that is. Carlos, how big of a setback do you think this is to the DOJ and the Trump administration quite frankly? Well, it would be remarkable if this case was thrown out, right? That's just not something that typically happens.

But I think that politics would be significant too. I mean, Donald Trump ran and he convinced a lot of Americans, not just his base, a lot of Americans that the government was weaponized against him, that Democrats and prosecutors throughout the country were too aggressive. And I think that's something that resonated with a lot of voters, right? He won the election convincingly.

Now, it is something that could be used against Republicans and it will very likely be a very difficult midterm. So this is a legal case, but there's a lot of politics here too. Actually, we don't know yet if the case will be thrown out. We know that it's in jeopardy though.

And there are serious questions about how the DOJ handled this case against James Comey, politically speaking, do you anticipate Democrats to pounce on this moment? How does this happen? Absolutely. And especially the judge's words that he thinks that there was a lot of prosecutorial misconduct that's taking place here.

And then I think that bridges to all the other cases as well. But here's the thing that I'm curious to see what happens. We see now the president in retreat on a lot of fronts. And I'm curious whether or not this is going to be a setback for his retribution campaign.

He's going after all of his political enemies, James Comey being won, now that list keeps growing by the day. So my question is whether or not he will sort of retreat from this will be a sign that will give him some sort of pause. All right. Well, this setback comes as we are getting some new polling that I want to let you guys see.

This is a generic ballot. According to a new NPR, PBS Maris Bowl, 55% of voters say they would vote for a Democrat in next year's midterm elections, which is a 14 point edge over Republicans. So with the president, and I guess the question, Eleanor, is what are the implications of this for President Trump and Republicans as they look at that? Here we are a year out before the midterms.

I think it's the latest and string of laws that we've seen for the Trump administration, right? They're seen pushback from Congress on the Epstein files, obviously, the Senate passed the bill releasing all of them last night. We've seen pushback on this idea of cutting Americans checks of tariff revenue. We've seen pushback on this idea that lawmakers should just send Americans money for health care instead of extending enhanced affordable care activities.

And so at this point, I think is the latest in a series of setbacks. Actually, when you look at that polling, what do you see and what does it tell you about what Democrats should be focused on and any concerns about overconfidence heading into the entire year? I wish the midterms were tomorrow. No, I think the party is feeling is riding high after Tuesday, clearly.

I mean, the president's approval is in the tank. It's under 35% disapproval on the economy as high as I've ever seen of any sitting president as 63%. So I think Democrats are feeling really good about it. My advice is to keep your foot on the gas.

I was just on the phone with a leader Schumer just last week and made the point that now is the time for Democrats to roll out a proactive agenda, to roll out an affirmative agenda on what we would do on the economy to capitalize on the momentum from last Tuesday. Because it's clear that the American people are rejecting this president's economic agenda and that they wanted different direction for the nation. It's not getting any better for him. Congress has been in for been out for six weeks and now they're in today.

They're not voting until late tonight, but there's no there is no sign that they're going to recalibrate on the economy and you to give Democrats an advantage. But they have to start telling people what they're for, give it a year, let it see, and then we'll see what happens in November. Well, to that point, respondents were asked what the top priority for the Trump administration should be. Take a look at what they said.

57% Carlos Cabello said they should be focused on lowering prices. I mean, it's not even close to the other issues. The second one controlling immigration at 16% do you think President Trump, who several days ago said affordability is a dead issue, do you think that he needs to shift his strategy? Kristen, I would tell you that I've watched this movie in 2018, but I actually lived through it.

It was incredible question for House Republicans in particular and for those that represented suburbs like me. This is a wonderful time for the administration for congressional Republicans to reach out to Democrats. There are still a number of them who will work with them and try to focus on issues that people really care about, permitting reform, transportation, infrastructure issues that can really show that these aren't just people trying to advance Donald Trump's agenda and his personal agenda, but that they want to do things with Democrats. Part of the issue here and both parties go through this, they control the entirety of the government, they use reconciliation, the public perceives that they're going it alone, excluding the other side, half of the country, and then there's a backlash.

Republicans are running out of time to change that narrative, but it's still not too late. Go ahead. No, I was just going to say, I mean, I think the thing that is should be most concerning for the Republicans is this, the Trump administration's own admission that we're in the middle of a recession right now. That inflation is way too high.

Way too high. We're not saying that as Democrats, that's what the president's team is saying. And for him to say, you know, move on, eat, let them eat, let the Republicans risk making the mistakes of the Biden administration say, hey, we know you feel like this, but the numbers don't reflect what you're saying. Well, okay, there are headwinds for the Democratic Party in this poll as well.

Take a look at this, despite their large margin and the generic ballot, the Democratic Party is one of the institutions that voters have the least confidence in. Eleanor, when you look at that, the message for Democrats, they clearly have enough Hill battle as well in some regard. I mean, this has always been the hurdle for Democrats as they are historically the least trusted party on the economy. And so I think the question going to the midterm is going to be, how can they talk about voters in a way that's not just saying we want to return things to the way that they were, but also here's what we want to do differently to your point.

So I mean, we saw pretty big admission by the Trump administration that consumers are bearing the impact of some of these tariffs when they said last week that they would repeal, you know, tariffs on coffee and tropical fruits. Yeah, it was an extraordinary moment. I think we're spinning ourselves. We think that we want on Tuesday, we really Donald Trump lost on Tuesday.

So that's really the concern. We've got to do more work to up those numbers. All right, we'll leave it there guys. Great conversation.

Thank you so much, Eleanor Ashley and Carlos. Appreciate it. Coming up next are peace negotiations gaining momentum in Ukraine. We have the very latest as the US Army's top commanders arrive in Kyiv for high level discussions.

That's next. I need the press now. As we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, prize fighter and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound. You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts.

Get the best of NBC news with a subscription viewer adds deeper access and exclusive content. And now during the XFINITY member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to XFINITY dot com slash membership to learn more XFINITY. Imagine that subscription automatically renews each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled.

October ends May 20th, 2026, prices subject to change. Visit NBCNews.com slash XFINITY for full offer terms and details. Welcome back. Top Army officials arrived in Kyiv this morning as the Trump administration looks to revive peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

The Army says the US delegation will meet with Ukrainian officials as part of a fact-finding mission and to discuss efforts to end the war. It comes as President Trump's special envoy, Steve Whitcoff and Russia's envoy, have put together a framework for a possible peace deal that needs to be presented to the Ukrainians according to three US officials. Today, the Kremlin downplaying reports of a possible 28-point peace plan saying there is nothing new on peace efforts since President Trump's meeting with President Putin in Alaska. But despite efforts to resume peace negotiations, Russia continues to bombard Ukraine launching a wave of strikes this morning on a residential building in Western Ukraine.

Ukrainian officials say 26 people were killed in the strikes, including three children and nearly 100 others were injured. Joining me now is NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent and Chief Washington correspondent Andrew Mitchell. Andrew, thank you so much for being here. So this was somewhat extraordinary news because we thought that peace talks with Ukraine and Russia had been derailed on pause.

And now this development, how significant is it? It could be very significant indeed. And what is so surprising is that I was traveling with Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor last week at a meeting with all of the allies, the G7 in Canada. And he told us on camera at the conclusion of those meetings that there would be no further meetings between the two leaders, like Alaska, until Russia was willing to make some deals and that Vladimir Putin has shown no sign of an interest in peace that he wanted all of the Donbas part of Ukraine that the Ukrainians now control at least 14 percent of in the war.

That said, Steve Whitcoff, we have confirmed, has been negotiating with a Russian counterpart in Miami. And this plan would have Russia getting all of that territory that Ukraine now controls in exchange for security agreements that would be given to Ukraine. So it would be major concessions to Russia. Given that, Andrea, is there any sense that Ukrainian officials have been briefed on this or would ever sign off on an agreement that includes such significant concessions to Russia?

It comes at a point of very big vulnerability on the part of Zelensky because as the Europeans were meeting in Canada with the U.S., there was an explosion of allegations against some of the officials, the cabinet ministers closest to Zelensky. He's had to deal with this corruption scandal. They resigned and they're very close to him. And the thought is that Vladimir Putin saw that this was a point of maximum weakness.

In fact, some of the financial benefits, the loans that were being considered at that meeting last week in Canada from the Europeans, frozen Russian assets, were not offered as they might have been. And I was told by two other diplomatic officials that they're not going to be until this corruption scandal is cleared up. So it was a real setback for Zelensky. And that's why Putin might be moving in and making this offer.

But it certainly indicates a lot of confusion as to who's in charge of diplomacy. Well, and that takes me to my next question. Steve, what call at the center of these reports that somehow he's still the person leading the charge trying to negotiate an end to this war? Yeah, and after a last day, which didn't go that well, it was assumed that since he was so busy on Gaza in the Middle East that he would be focusing on that and not on Vladimir Putin in Ukraine.

And this came out of really, out of left real or nowhere. But it seems as though he still has the president's ear, he is the closest friend to the president. And the president wants deals, he wants peace agreements, and that's what the signals are from the White House, that this is a real deal. Well, Andrea, to that point, just the broader context here, this is a president who campaigned on a promise to end the war in Ukraine on day one.

And then acknowledged it was proving far more complicated than he had anticipated. So this is still a real priority for him. But Vladimir Putin has still made no concessions and it comes at a time when the US had finally said they were going to sanction tough sanctions against Russia. And we haven't actually seen that take place.

So it's all very much very murky and Vladimir Putin seems to be calling the shots. All right, well, Andrew, thank you for being here to update us on this really fast moving story. We really appreciate it. Great to see you as always.

Coming up after the break, immigration crackdown will have a live report from Charlotte, North Carolina, where the Trump administration says border patrol has arrested more than 250 people in just a few days with no operations potentially set to expand. Stay with us on the press now. Welcome back. We're following breaking news in the search for a former Olympic snowboarder turned alleged drug kingpin.

The administration now offering a $15 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Ryan wedding. The former Canadian Olympic snowboarder is on the FBI's most wanted list and US officials today unsealed an indictment against him and others charging him with murder for allegedly ordering the killing of a witness set to testify against him in a federal trial here in the US. Look, make all mistake about it. Ryan wedding is a modern day iteration of Pablo Escobar.

He's a modern day iteration of El Chapo Guzman. This justice department and this FBI will work with our Canadian counterparts and the government officials across the world to bring him to justice. He is responsible for engineering a narco trafficking and narco terrorism program that we have not seen in a long time. NBC News Senior Justice reporter Ryan Riley joins me now.

Ryan, this is extraordinary. An Olympic snowboarder for Canada now a wanted alleged drug kingpin. What else did officials say today about who Ryan wedding is? You can see the screenplays being written now.

Basically what they alleged here is that this guy is soon as he got out of jail for cocaine charges previously in 2019, rather in 2009, then he ended up restarting this enterprise and was communicating with these really high profile figures up until as soon as he got out in 2011 and was continuing to run this massive criminal enterprise and this is really significant. Of course, he's still on the loose and that's the key thing that I think the FBI is trying to hammer home here. You look out for him. They say he would stick out in Mexico, but they did indict all of these other alleged associates alongside him.

How do you go from being an Olympic athlete to someone running a drug ring of this magnitude according to officials? Yeah, so 2002 is when his Olympic career, I guess, sort of meters out and then you look toward seven years later as that initial arrest and then two years after that in 2011 is when this enterprise all sort of starts to unfold. So this is a serious case that the justice department was very big about rolling out the red carpet before they brought in people from California to make a big splash out of this. They had a Canadian law enforcement official as well to talk about the international component of this, but I mean, in this case, we'll proceed forward with all of these other players in it.

But of course, the big sort of person out there is still on the loose. Yeah, FBI director, Cash Patel compared him to El Chapo, Pablo Escobar, I mean, based on the information they revealed about the activities of Mr. Wedding, was that overstated at all? And there's an assassination in a restaurant that was linked to this.

So that was, I mean, pretty serious charges. I think it was a very serious case involving a lot of players here and murder. So it's got all the elements there. All right, we'll keep us posted.

Ryan Riley, thanks so much. Great to see you. We want to turn out of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in Charlotte, North Carolina. That effort dubbed Operation Charlotte's Web.

Now, in its fifth day, Homeland Security officials tell the NBC News that 251 arrests were made between Saturday and yesterday. Federal agents' presence in North Carolina's largest city has sparked both fear and outrage with protests taking place across Charlotte and hundreds of people attending a community meeting at a church last night about organizing efforts to watch out for Border Patrol agents. NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley is on the ground in Charlotte, Carolina, Julia. Thanks so much for being here.

So what is the very latest that you are witnessing there as this crackdown intensified based on what you're seeing? Yeah, what you heard that 250 number just as of Tuesday, that's up from 130 about 36 hours before. So you can see they continue to add on between like 50 to 100 a day. We're waiting for what those numbers might be today.

Chris and they're not breaking down the criminality. The first time we got 133 based on the first 48 hours of this operation, 44 of those had serious criminal charges. And the others did not. And the more people I talked to here say, they feel like it's targeting.

I talked to a woman today who said she's a legal permanent resident. She's been in this country for 25 years, but she is Columbia in my birth. And she would stop and ask for her documentation. She said that had a real impact on her.

She's very afraid. And there are a lot of people in the Latino community here, Kristen, who have just gone underground. That's one of the reasons I hear right outside this church. Over a thousand people in the non Latino community are coming here tonight to learn how they can watch out for their immigrant neighbors, their forming neighborhood watch groups, or they can alert people about the presence of border patrol.

There's been a huge turnout. Meanwhile, Latino churches are closed. Well, Julia, I know you've been talking to some of those residents. Tell me specifically what they've been saying to you about this operation.

Yeah, that's right. We went out today this morning with a group of parents who are trying to make it safe for kids to be able to come to school, especially as many of their parents no longer feel comfortable with them leaving home. Here's what one of the parents had to tell me. First thing the community stuff up and say, how can I help?

What can I do? So people are taking time out of their workdays, they're rearranging schedules, they're driving different parts of the city just to make sure that kids are, again, able to come to school safely and to learn. So this is really about safety. It's about the dignity of our community.

And it's been really inspiring to see people kind of step in and chip in in in ways that, you know, big and small. Part of the reason Kristen for her hat there in the costumes that we saw today is to make kids feel not afraid to come to school. Sarah Kay said that no child should be afraid and they've been able to take some children to school while the parents stay at home. Well, just an extraordinary look on the ground there.

It was Charlotte. Thank you so much for being there, Julia. And for your report, we really appreciate it. Still to come, everything's bigger in taxes, including the fight for control of Congress.

The Texas Democrat responds as the redistricting war in the low state heads to the Supreme Court state heads to the Supreme Court. Stay with us. We're watching with the press now. Democrats in the house were just going to unilaterally disarm, roll over and play dead was a fantasy.

And I told that to Mike Johnson months ago, directly. This is not going to end well for you. They started this redistricting fight. We will end it.

Welcome back. That was House Minority Leader Hacking Jeffries today as the redistricting battle heats up and comes after Republicans were dealt a major blow yesterday after a three judge panel blocked Texas from using its new congressional map that favored the GOP joining me now to discuss this Democratic congressman, Jasmine Crockett of Texas congressman. Thank you so much for being here. Absolutely.

Really appreciate it. Let's start right there. Texas is appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court. What are you anticipating will happen?

Do you think that the GOP maps will hold or do you think they'll go back to the 2021 maps? I think we'll be on the 2021 maps. A couple of things that are important for us to know in this is that number one, this was a temporary injunction. So as relates to the fact that this was signed into law, we did not have enough time to flesh out and have a full-blown trial.

But this three-judged panel was able to have a 10-day hearing where they heard testimony. And that is something that the Supreme Court justices do not have the benefit of is actually listening to the testimony and judging the credibility of the witnesses. One of the most important witnesses that was brought forth was actually the map drawer. The map drawer that they hid from the plaintiffs the entire time we were fighting the 21 lines.

But they decided to put them on the stand this time. And the court did not find him to be credible. And I think that that is so integral and important, especially since he drew the 21 maps. And they had argued for four years that there is no racism here.

These are beautiful, amazing maps. But all of a sudden you decided that you wanted to change the maps. So if your prediction proves right, if in fact this goes back to the 2021 maps, do you think that other Democratic-led states, like California, for example, should abandon their efforts to redraw the maps in favor of Democrats? No.

First of all, California decided that this was going to be a ballot measure that would be put to the people. They did the work. They invested. They canvassed.

And they were able to get the people to make a decision. The people have already decided this is a map that they are going to be running on until the next new maps need to be drawn after the census. That is that. And that was triggered because Abbott decided to sign this new map into law.

In addition to that, we know that Missouri took away a seat there so that we know that they're currently in litigation. We know that the only reason that Democrats don't control the House right now is because North Carolina, as soon as they ended up with a Republican majority on that Supreme Court, they decided to take away three seats from us, three seats that we have won. And it would have made the representation in that delegation 7-7, which is basically representative of the state of North Carolina that consistently flips back and forth. Well, they decided that they wanted to go an extra step, take another seat away, and now Florida has decided that they want to dig in.

So no, I don't think other Democratic states should abandon this. But just to follow up, what do you say to the argument, including from some Democrats, that this will become a redistricting risk to the bottom? So I don't disagree with it. I think that that is a proper assessment.

The problem is that we have a president who has consistently decided that he wanted to employ disastrous tactics, and he's used to Democrats rolling over and saying, okay, whatever, because we want to be the nice guys, it is time to get into the ring. And as Governor Gavin Newsom said, we are going to fight fire with fire. So he wants to play super games. You get stupid prizes.

All right. Let me ask you about the fact that the bill to release the Epstein files has now passed both chambers. It's headed to President Trump's desk. He says he's going to sign it.

You are the vice ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. There's a big question mark about whether DOJ is going to release the files or about whether they will say, actually, there's an open and active investigation. And so we therefore need to withhold the files to preserve the integrity of the investigation. What if any recourse do you have in the House to force the release of these files, if that were to happen?

Listen, the way that I look at this is that when you have the full support of the House, then that's when we can finally go to court if we need to. Now, obviously, it's still a Republican-led majority. So we could only see where we could at least ask a court to review in camera and make a determination as to what legally could still come out, if anything. I will tell you that this is all a game, though, because Donald Trump, just like when we reopened the government, he immediately signed that into law.

He has a veto-proof majority. He literally could have just been like, look, here it is. And he hasn't done it. And we know that the speaker was complaining and saying, well, we were hoping that the Senate was going to make some changes to this.

Listen, if you believe in transparency, you can't paint on this, then be as transparent as possible. I don't care people's political affiliation. As someone who has been involved within the criminal justice system, I care about making sure that accountability is real. You made a promise, we all made a promise, as public servants, to these survivors.

And more importantly, to make sure that there is no other children or women that are going to go through this type of sophisticated system, if this system has fully been sworn down, which we don't know, we need to learn from our mistakes and decide that we will pass legislation that will prevent something like this from happening ever again. Are you bracing to go to court? Do you think you'll have to go to court? I think we're going to have to be aggressive.

I think we're going to have to be aggressive in whatever way. I mean, myself, I can't go to court just as a sitting member. It would take the speaker saying, listen, we have this, it is lawful, and he would have to be the one to initiate. Unfortunately, it seems like we don't have a separation of powers nowadays.

It seems like everything, as it relates to the Republicans, has ceded their powers to the President. But we will see. I want to get your reaction to some new polling that shows Democrats outperforming Republicans on the generic ballot. But more voters have confidence in the Republican party to the Democratic Party.

Do you believe that Democrats have a credibility problem when it comes to your base and voters? I do. I do. I absolutely do.

I think that is. So, well, I think there's a couple of things as someone who travel with this country as it relates to the election. I think that one of the things we've not done a really good job is communicating our wins, right? So, a lot of times Democrats, their goal, their job is to get in there, put their heads down and make sure that they do the work.

They haven't really been going around and doing the propaganda side of things, right? And so, they're not people that realize that you're overdraft fees. When they got capped at $5, that was a Biden-Harris administration. And ultimately, it was this administration that decided that they wanted to get rid of that.

So, this is something for that working-class person who's like, listen, I need to overdraft so that I can get to my next paycheck, right? Well, they're saying, you know what? We want the banks to make more money off of you, right? Like, we've not sat down and made sure that people understood that the affordable care act, I think people understand now, right?

But the tax subsidy, that extra money, or when we look at the child tax credit, they didn't fully understand that, or even when we look at the stimulus check, they didn't fully understand that because we did not take our time to make sure that we communicated. Very quickly, because we have less than a minute left, but you've said you're weighing a possible run for Senate to replace John Cornyn. Have you made your decision yet? I have not.

How close are you? You know, I mean, I'll give my polling back, I'll talk to my pollsters today. I will leave it back on Friday. Yes.

I'm definitely open, because I've not spent all this money, just to be a no. So, we will see. All right. So, Jasmine Crockett, thank you.

We appreciate your honest answer so much. All right. Great to have you here. Thank you for joining us.

We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. There is more news ahead on NBC News Now. I'm Craig Malthus. Cheers.

Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too.

Some really fascinating folks who shared their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny, and if I can't it. So, I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half full.

Search glass half full with Craig Malthus from today on YouTube. Wherever you get a podcast.