Meet the Press NOW — November 24

Hi there, welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington. And we begin with breaking news and a major setback for the Justice Department's prosecution of two of President Trump's political opponents. A federal judge today dismissing the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and current New York Attorney General Letitia James.

U.S. District Judge Cameron Curry ruling that the government's top prosecutor in those cases, acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who was a former personal attorney to Donald Trump, has been serving in her post unlawfully. That means the indictments that Halligan secured against the New York AG for mortgage fraud and against Comey for allegedly making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation are null and void.

Both Comey and James pleaded not guilty to their charges. The White House saying in a statement that the facts of the indictment haven't changed and moments ago vowing to appeal today's dismissal. Lindsey Halligan was legally appointed and that's the administration's position. I know there was a judge who was clearly trying to shield Letitia James and James Comey from receiving accountability and that's why they took this unprecedented action to throw away the indictments against these two individuals.

But the Department of Justice will be appealing very soon and it is our position that Lindsey Halligan is extremely qualified for this position, but more importantly, was legally appointed to it. Comey also responding, acknowledging that his legal fight is not over while maintaining his innocence. I'm grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking. But I was also inspired by the example of the career people who refused to be part of this travesty.

I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again and my attitude is going to be the same. I'm innocent. I am not afraid and I believe in an independent federal judiciary, the gift from our founders that protects us from a would-be tyrant. Letitia James, meanwhile, said in a statement, quote, I'm heartened by today's victory and grateful for the prayers and support that I've received from around the country.

I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day. Joining me now, NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach, NBC News White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, and defense attorney and NBC News legal analyst Misty Mareace. All right, Gary, let's start with you. What was the basis for Judge Curry's decision?

So this is all about something called the 120-day rule. So there's 120 days between the time that a U.S. attorney is appointed and the time that they must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate or they have to get out of the job if they're not continued on by a district court judge.

With Eric Seibert, who was the original person that was put in the position by President Trump when he first took office in January, he left his job after not wanting to prosecute people like James Comey and Letitia James. And the president ended up appointed Lindsey Halligan. That 120-day rule does not restart with Lindsey Halligan. And that is what this judge found today, that it continues, and that she was unlawfully appointed on September 22nd.

And therefore, her indictment of James Comey on the 25th is unlawful. So that does seem like a technicality. It's not necessarily about the merits of the case, but kind of the process. What happens now?

Are there more options for the Department of Justice here? So as you saw Carolina let us say just a minute ago, they are going to appeal this. It does seem. But what's interesting is that we went back and looked at some of the court records of all the indictments that Lindsey Halligan has brought since September 22nd.

And it turns out there are only two where she was the only person who signed it. It was Letitia James and James Comey. So there are several other indictments that she's made, we'll see in the past few months, that are signed by other people in the office, which means they also agreed with the indictment and those charges. And those will continue on.

It's the two people that we're talking about today that won't. So how does the appeal play itself out? So this goes to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. And so this will be heard on the merits.

I'm sure sometime tonight we'll get an emergency stay through that Fourth Circuit. Of course, this could potentially end up at the Supreme Court. And of course, there is the statute of limitations, which was really just days before when the charges were handed down, the statute of limitations was about to expire. The fact that this indictment has been thrown out, does that prevent them from being able to bring another indictment again?

So there's a real technicality here. It's called U.S. Code 3288, which if you're not familiar with that, you'd be forgiven. It says in part, quote, whenever a indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned within six calendar months of the dismissal of the indictment.

So that means six calendar months from today, an indictment could be brought. This is something that is absolutely going to play out in the courts because this is not something that happens very often. So this is certainly a novel legal theory. And we'll see what happens in the next few months.

OK, what could this mean for the broader big picture of several of these indictments that appear to be political motivated? So you're seeing this across the country with the U.S. attorneys that have been perhaps unlawfully appointed. You're seeing it in New Jersey with Alina Habba.

You're seeing it in Nevada and California, all over the country. And what happened here is going to be used as an example in those other states. OK, Misty, let's bring you in now and talk about it from the perspective of your legal expertise. Both James Comey and Letitia James have other pending motions from their cases.

They argue that they were selective and vindictive prosecutions. Will those motions still stand even if these dismissals are overturned? So these motions at this point are actually moot. They have no bearing because the basis of this decision is that Lindsey Halligan's appointment wasn't valid.

And therefore, those indictments are void. So from a technical legal perspective, those motions don't exist because the case doesn't exist. I would expect that if the case is resurrected, remember, this was a dismissal without prejudice. And Gary laid out some of the potential paths, the appellate path, as well as potentially attempting to refile in that six month window.

Those motions are likely to be resurrected at this time. But at this point, there's no way the judge is going to decide them since technically those indictments do not exist. They are voided by the fact that Halligan's appointment was invalid. And talk to us about the significance, about the fact that the judge dismissed them without prejudice.

What does that mean? So that means it leaves the door open. If this had been with prejudice determination, the case is over. It's done.

It can never come back. But because it's without prejudice, it leaves an opening for the Department of Justice to try and, number one, potentially cure the issue. So this would be what they're saying is a procedural issue. The 120 days expired, but then Halligan is in fact qualified.

And therefore, her appointment should stand. So this would be the issue on appeal. Now, if they were to be successful on that point, the question then becomes whether or not they're barred by statute of limitations when it comes to Comey, refiling when it comes to Letitia James. So all of these things are going to be at play.

But because it's without prejudice, that is absolutely a critical factor here. There are avenues to continue to pursue these cases against Comey and James. Okay, but what about Lindsey Halligan? If the judge is saying that she was unlawfully put in the position as acting U.S.

attorney, can she continue to serve in that capacity? She cannot. So her appointment right now is invalid. And what the court order says is that it's now up to the Eastern District of Virginia.

It's up to the court to appoint that interim U.S. attorney. So there will be a lot of decisions to be made because one of these factors is, while this appeal plays out, this case is going to be in legal limbo. But we know that before this case was ever brought, reporting indicates that other prosecutors did not want to bring the case.

They did not feel there was enough evidence. So will we see a situation where, in their prosecutorial discretion, they choose not to bring it? It really depends on which path plays out. You know, right now, we expect to see an appeal.

You're going to see that stay. You're going to see that appellate issue likely asked to be expedited and potentially reaching the Supreme Court. But as of now, the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney lies with the court, not the executive branch.

And what Gary raised a good point here. If you were representing a client being tried in the Eastern District of Virginia right now, and there were a number of cases that were being filed under Halligan's purview, would you be filing a motion to have your case dismissed right now? Would you have any standing there? Definitely, because your argument would be that her appointment was invalid.

And therefore, the exact same conclusion that the court came to in this case is that the indictment itself was void. So I know Gary said there's only two indictments where Halligan was the only U.S. attorney. That is going to be the cases that will be at issue.

The ones where she was the only one presiding. Now, any case around the country The only plan he would support would be one that would send money directly to Americans. What's being floated now doesn't seem to directly mesh with that. Has something changed or are they still trying to figure this out?

They're still trying to figure this out, which is remarkable because it has been almost a decade since the president has been going after the Affordable Care Act and saying that he wanted to repeal and replace it. Today, the White House press secretary said that the topic of health care comes up, quote, very frequently and very robustly around the White House and that the president is very involved in that. But when she talked about the details of that plan, she said she was going to leave that to the president to discuss. And we know the president during a debate with former Vice President Harris at one point said he had concepts of a plan.

But so far, there has not been a concrete plan. There's been some quotes and reporting floating out there about a possible plan that the White House might be putting out at some point. But so far, we just have not seen any details, which is, again, just remarkable when you think about this issue. Right.

And does the administration see health care closely tied to this larger issue of affordability? That's what it sounds like. When you talk to White House officials, I've talked to a number of them about this. They talk about health care as, of course, being one of the most expensive parts of Americans' lives.

So many people in this country, they are fearful about getting sick because that could bankrupt families. We've heard so many horror stories of insurance companies that don't want to pay for health care through our Cost of Denial series at NBC News. We've heard through so many other situations where people have lost their homes and other things just trying to get health care. That being said, the president, because he doesn't have an exact plan, it's hard to say whether or not he sees that as sort of connected to his promise to bring down cost.

Even though the president was elected on that big promise of making America more affordable to Americans. So White House officials in some ways connect these issues, but also because there's no plan. It's hard to say whether or not the president really sees this in the same vein as he sees gas prices or grocery prices, Brian. Yeah, and we did hear Secretary Besson say that they're not going to repeat the mistakes of the Biden administration.

But in the face now of several weeks of bad polling on the economy, is there anyone at the White House urging a shift in messaging around affordability? It's an interesting one because at one point you did hear the Trump administration, the second Trump administration, sounding a bit like the Biden administration when they were essentially trying to tell Americans, no, things aren't as bad as you think they are. Ignore the numbers that we're seeing, even though we have concrete evidence that the cost of living on a number of fronts has gone up with Americans, gone up for Americans. That being said, the messaging right now at the White House is we're going to be working on it.

Give us a little bit of time. But they're not, I think, at the point where they're saying, don't believe your eyes anymore. But I think that messaging shift is also sort of changing day to day because the president in some cases changing his mind day to day when he's looking at numbers and polling and also just thinking about sort of ways to message this to his biggest supporters. Right.

Let's go to the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue now. Sallil, what has been the reaction to these reports of a health care plan on Capitol Hill? Some Republicans have been against the extension of these subsidies. There's a suggestion coming from the administration to ease their concerns.

Well, Ryan, it was President Trump who famously said in 2017 that nobody knew health care could be so complicated. Eight years later, he is still struggling on this issue. Now, first things first, Republican leadership on Capitol Hill was not expecting a policy drop from the White House on health care. At least they weren't told that it was coming.

So this is a very fluid situation still. And no, nobody's concerns are really going to be eased until they see what the White House has in mind here. One of the reasons that the White House is struggling so much on this issue is that Republicans are deeply divided about what to do on health care with this cliff emerging. There are some Republicans who want to unravel the ACA entirely, move the entire pot of funding, hundreds of billions of dollars toward other matters.

There are others who say just take the expiring funds, about $35 billion a year and move them into things like flexible savings accounts or HSAs. Yet other Republicans say do a one year extension of ACA funding, maybe a two year extension of the ACA funding. Maybe with strings attached. We've got President Trump saying do direct cash payments, which is not going to be viable to a number of Republicans out here.

This all comes in the context of them knowing for an entire year that this cliff was coming at the end of December. And they will be facing sharp premium hikes or dealing with Americans rather who are facing sharp premium hikes all over the country if they don't have a solution. They said it was not a September problem when it was a September problem because that's when insurance companies were setting rates. So it's been a struggle up and down the board here in terms of figuring this out.

And Ryan, there's no leader policy leader here on Capitol Hill who has the juice to really bring the party along and make these difficult tradeoffs that they have to make in order to settle on a solution. But this also puts Democrats in a bit of a spot, right? Because they made subsidies, the extension of these subsidies, the center of their shutdown demands. If the president was willing to give on this a little bit, aren't they forced to come to the table?

Yeah, absolutely. I think Democrats are in wait and see mode in terms of, you know, what, if anything, the White House is going to put out here. Take a look at this statement from Senator Maggie Hassan, the New Hampshire Democrat, one of the most moderate in the chamber. She would be the tip of the spear for any deal.

She initially did vote with her party on shutting down the government, but then voted to reopen it. She says that they're waiting to see what exactly the president will put forward. And she says, quote, while I have significant concerns about some of the ideas reportedly in the president's proposal, it nonetheless represents a starting point for serious negotiations. End quote.

Now, she does say that she's worried about any issues about repealing the ACA and its protections for preexisting conditions. You're going to hear a lot about this, Ryan, from Democrats, because what the Republican proposals do is take some money out of the ACA and send them directly to people. Some kind of flexible savings accounts or HSAs. But a lot of those people, especially if they're young and healthy, could just take that money and not buy insurance.

They could get out of the risk pool, which would mean costs go up for sicker people and older people. That's where you're going to hear Democrats saying it's going to indirectly harm preexisting conditions. So there's a big fight coming down the road if this happens. Last point on this, Ryan, a Democratic aide I spoke to reminded me that we reported at NBC News just a few weeks ago that many Republicans on Capitol Hill are demanding stricter abortion restrictions on ACA funding in order to have any kind of extension.

That's not going to fly with Democrats. That's one of those things that could make the entire concept a nonstarter. I mean, Sahil, under the best case circumstances, this sort of dramatic health care overhaul takes years, not just weeks. Is there any way they can get this done before December 31st?

Any way procedurally? Yes. You write a bill, you put it on the floor and you pass it. You could do that in a matter of weeks.

But realistically, practically, to get a major health care solution done. I've been following this issue up here on Capitol Hill for 15 years, Ryan. That would be by far the fastest I've ever seen anything come together and get to the floor, let alone pass. The big thing Republicans have to figure out here is how to balance the three C's of health care policy, cost, coverage and care.

They have not settled on a theory of the case that they're willing to put policy on and stand on business with politically. Democrats have that. It's the ACA. They want to put everyone in the same risk pool, spread coverage as wide as possible and try to lower costs for the people who need it the most.

The sickest and oldest essentially have the young and healthy subsidizing them. But Republicans, as I keep saying, are all over the map here. They have not come up with a theory. And I would be extremely shocked if they managed to figure that out and put a bill to paper that can pass by the end of the year.

OK. Yamiche Osahil, thank you both for that. Let's talk to one of these decision makers right now. Joining me, Utah Republican congressman and someone who uniquely is aware of how health care works in this country because he is a physician.

And that is Congressman Mike Kennedy, a congressman and doctor. Thank you so much for being here. I want to first start with these reports that the White House is set to announce its own health care proposal. Have you or any of your fellow Republicans on the Hill seen those details?

I haven't seen those details yet, Ryan, but thanks for having me on. And I'm eager to see those and work through this important issue. The reality is Obamacare has been over the past 15 years a disaster financially. We saw with the Schumer shutdown, one and a half trillion dollar demand associated with the Affordable Care Act.

And it's obviously not the Affordable Care Act, it's the Unaffordable Care Act. So I'm eager, along with my Republican Because enhanced subsidies need to be extended. You think that you can handle that without the extension of those subsidies? Yes.

Not without serious reform. We have people reporting these $600,000 a year that they make that are getting these premium subsidies. That is entirely inappropriate. Those people can pay full freight for whatever plans that they want.

We have people that are at 400% of the federal poverty level or less. Those people need help and we're happy to, I'm happy to provide it. Okay, Dr. Kennedy, Congressman Kennedy, I appreciate you being here.

Have a very happy Thanksgiving, sir, and we'll see you when we get back here to Washington. Cindy, thank you. All right, after the break, the Pentagon now investigating Democratic Senator Mark Kelly after President Trump called for him and other Democrats to be thrown in jail for urging military members to refuse illegal orders. You're watching Meet the Press Now.

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

It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad-free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows. Plus, deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust.

Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription. Fewer ads, deeper access, and exclusive content. And now, during the Xfinity number celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription.

Head to xfinity.com slash membership to learn more. Xfinity, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends May 20th, 2026.

Prices subject to change. Visit NBCNews.com slash xfinity for full offer terms and details. Hey guys, Willie Geist here, reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit-Down podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands in the world, Mumford & Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prizefighter, and the evolution of that irresistible foot-stomping sound.

You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts. Welcome back. The Pentagon says it's launching an investigation into Arizona Senator Mark Kelly for, quote, serious allegations of misconduct. Last hour, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt said the White House was supportive of the investigation.

Remember, Senator Kelly was one of six lawmakers, all of whom served in the military or as intelligence officials, who posted a video last week telling service members to refuse illegal orders. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders.

You must refuse illegal orders. Now, in the wake of that video, President Trump accused the lawmakers of seditious behavior, arguing they should be arrested and put on trial. And at one point, he also suggested their comments could be punishable by death. The president this weekend also reposted this AI-generated image of the lawmakers from behind bars, with some in prison pinstripes.

Senator Kelly responded to the news of the Pentagon investigation today, writing in a statement, quote, if this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our job and holding this administration accountable, it won't work. Joining me now is NBC News Senior National Security Correspondent Courtney Kuby. So, Courtney, a lot of people confused by this. And there's six lawmakers in the video.

Why is it that only Senator Kelly is the target here? So he's the only one who actually retired from active duty. He retired as a Navy captain after 20 years of service. The others served, four of them served in the military in various levels, lower level ranking officers for the most part.

And then Alyssa Slotkin, the senator from Michigan, was a CIA analyst and then a DOD official. So he is the only one because of his status who is eligible to be recalled and for any number of reasons. He can be recalled if there's a national emergency, if there's a war and they need people to come back into service. Or in this case, he can be recalled and brought up on uniform code of military justice charges, including conduct unbecoming, whatever it is that they want to try to throw at him.

So what does the investigation entail? What's the practical reality of all this? So this is going to be a tough one because the video that you just played there, he repeatedly talks about not following illegal orders. Well, that's the law.

As an officer, you take an oath and essentially the easiest way to describe it is you are supposed to protect, essentially, junior enlisted people from carrying out illegal orders. So you're supposed to be able to say, hey, what we're being told to do here, that is illegal. We shouldn't do it. So by repeating that, by saying you should not follow an illegal order, that's basically just repeating the law.

Now, that being said, there are a couple of sort of catch-all things that they could try to charge him with. They would have to recall him to active duty and then they would have to refer charges against him, something like conduct unbecoming, maybe good order and discipline, something like that. These aren't insignificant charges that he could face if, in fact, they were to go through with this. He could do jail time.

They could bump him down in rank. They could take away some of his benefits. But the reality is here the investigation, it's going to be hard for them to find something that is enough for them to actually find charges against him. And doesn't it also matter here that he's a sitting United States senator?

Are there protections against what he says in public as a result of that? No. I mean, what he is saying here, in their capacity, every single one of them identified themselves as former or retired military. So they seem to be speaking in that capacity.

But no matter what, he could be recalled if he's in a government position like a senator. But I meant more about the legal grounding they have there. The speech of debate clause, to a certain extent, doesn't that protect the sitting senator in this capacity? It does.

But even still, what they are saying, I mean, I've spoken with a number of JAGs and retired military attorneys. And, you know, what they're saying is basically restating the law, not to follow an illegal order. And the word illegal is so key here, because when we've heard some of the Trump administration officials and even some of the social media postings today from the Department of Defense, they keep omitting the word illegal. And that's what's really key here.

Okay, Courtney, thank you for that. We appreciate it. Coming up, pushing for peace. The president huddles with his secretary of state amid signs of progress in ending Russia's war in Ukraine.

We have the very latest next. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back to the White House in Ukraine, are touting what they're calling meaningful progress following high level talks in Geneva this weekend to discuss a possible peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. According to U.S.

and Ukrainian officials, the two sides drafted an updated framework to the initial 28 point peace plan that had Ukraine making major concessions to Moscow, such as handing over the Donbass region and shrinking its armed forces. While speaking to reporters, Secretary Rubio appeared optimistic that a deal could be close. It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue, maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time. But work remains.

I can tell you that the items that remain open are not insurmountable. We just need more time than what we have today. I honestly believe we'll get there. In a post on social media this morning, President Trump also suggesting, quote, something good may be happening in those diplomatic efforts, but he didn't provide any new details.

Joining me now is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. He's in Geneva. So, Richard, do we know what kind of progress was made during those meetings in Geneva and what are the outstanding sticking points? Two excellent questions.

And this time, the White House is keeping the draft very close to its chest. If you remember, the initial 28 point plan was criticized ferociously in Ukraine. It was criticized by European allies of Ukraine, European governments, analysts, academics all said that what President Trump and his administration were doing was effectively handing Ukraine a list of Vladimir Putin's demands. A few you listed earlier that Ukraine had to shrink its armed forces, that it had to remain neutral, no NATO, that it had to give up not just Donbass, but all of the provinces along the Russian border, four big provinces, including areas that Russian troops have been unable to conquer.

Now, there is no longer a 28 page proposal, according to Ukrainian officials. It is shorter. It has been somewhat streamlined after two full days of negotiations between the American side and the Ukrainian side here in Geneva. The delegations have now left this city and now President Zelensky will go and discuss the outstanding issues, the proposal that seems to have been reached or close to being reached, according to Secretary of State Rubio, directly with President Trump.

And President Trump will discuss it directly with Vladimir Putin. So we don't know exactly what the new draft says, but we know the Ukrainians are much more pleased with it and find it much more acceptable than the 28 point plan that they were initially presented with, which many believed was a complete capitulation to Vladimir Putin's demands. So, Richard, is the sense then that we may actually be getting closer to negotiating an end to the war compared to these previous diplomatic efforts? It's possible because even with the worst of the drafts from Ukraine's perspective, the 28 point plan that they hated so much and talk in Ukraine that the soldiers wouldn't follow Affordable for people isn't attacking the core issues that people are actually responding to when anytime anyone asks anything related to public opinion in the country.

Nobody wants them to vote. I'd like your take on that. Are Republicans focusing on the wrong things, especially ahead of what is going to be a very competitive midterm election? Well, what the outcome of the legal issues with James and Comey, that's not going to decide the midterm elections.

That's not going to decide who controls Congress. It's going to be all about the economy. And of course, once one big beautiful bill results kind of set are set into place over the course of the next year, that's when Republicans can really regain the high ground on the economy. You know, wages are outpacing inflation.

That's a good thing as far as like money coming back to the companies, restoring of jobs. This is gonna be really important for the Republican message going forward. Okay, let's shift gears, Daniel, and talk about the last 48 hours where we saw a gracious mayor elect Zoran Mandami in the Oval Office and then a more combative mayor elect Mandami with Kristen Walker on Sunday. Take a listen to this exchange.

So Mr. Mayor elect, just to be very clear, do you think that President Trump is a fascist? And after President Trump said that, I said yes. So you do.

And that's something I've said in the past. I say it today. And I think what I appreciated about the conversation that I had with the president was that we were not shy about the places of disagreement about the politics that has brought us to this moment. Do you still believe President Trump is a threat to democracy?

Everything that I've said in the past, I continue to believe. And that's the thing that I think is important in our politics is that we don't shy away from where we have disagreements, but we understand what it is that brings us to that table. I think a lot of people were shaking their heads about the way that those two men were so agreeable in the White House. Is there a part of Donald Trump that appreciates how direct he is and can Mandami continue to work with this White House while not upsetting his base at the same time?

I mean, I think we can all agree that what we witnessed on Friday was a very charmed Donald Trump. I mean, he recognized who Mamdani is and his charisma. Clearly someone who is a good speaker, great for TV. Those are all things Trump very much appreciates and understands.

He even was okay with Mamdani calling him a fascist and saying, go ahead, you can go ahead and say it. And it's obviously we're gonna see that just one meeting with the president was not going to change the mayor elect's opinion of the president. But it's clear when he was going into this meeting, he said, I'm just here to really deliver on Yorkers. Trump is New Yorker.

He probably understands that. It's still such a mind boggling meeting what we witnessed, but we all had our predictions for how that was gonna turn out. That was certainly one of mine. But Joel, there is a difference between campaigning and governing, right?

Was it and the president recognizing that they're gonna have to govern together on some level? I think these are two iconoclasts who were sizing each other up and who were seeing a lot of honestly similar qualities in each other. Donald Trump, independent political power space, separate of the establishment of his party. Soram Mamdani, independent political power space, separate of the establishment of his party.

Many other things that these two men share in common beyond the obvious, right? And I actually think it's not too surprising to me that Donald Trump was actually able to see some things about Soram Mamdani that he admired. I think where Mamdani will be tested here is not on all the rhetoric politically that he's been able to use and his campaign and up till now, but how he's gonna govern. And part of his strategy was to figure out how can I govern effectively with Donald Trump breathing down my neck from the White House?

But on the other side of this, Mark, you have congressional Republicans in districts in Wisconsin where you're from, in Iowa, in Texas that are tying the Democrats to Mamdani. If you have this optics of the president bear hugging him in the Oval Office, how do you effectively send this message that, you know, Democratic Congressman X in Iowa is gonna come and turn your state into a socialist haven? Well, I think everyone around this table can agree that the sort of kumbaya moment that we saw in the Oval Office, that might not last throughout the duration of this election cycle. And so Republicans throughout throughout the country, they're still going to be able to find their shots to be able to exemplify Mamdani's policies as something that they don't want their districts to turn into.

So I think that, you know, that will that moment will dissipate. And they'll get right back into campaign mode. I was gonna say real quick, I think we're gonna talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene. We're contractual obligated.

I was just gonna say really quickly, part of the beef that she was talking about in her exit video talking about resigning from Congress was this idea that Donald Trump kind of did not really come true on all the things that he talked about when he talked about America first and MAGA. And I actually think the conversation we're having here is maybe a little bit what she was getting at is that you campaign and you talk so negatively about these things that I think that we believe in. And then you actually don't act on that. You go and get crypto money.

You go and kiss up to foreign nationals and put American service people in harm's way. And it didn't line up to what Marjorie Taylor Greene's understanding of a MAGA was. And I actually think that the Zoram meeting, it's a very interesting, you know, kind of a cross section of what she's talking about. Alright, Danielle, I'm gonna let you have the last word on MTG.

Is this sending shockwaves through Capitol Hill? Are people not surprised? I mean, she is somebody who often will make impulsive moves like this. This is the most grand impulsive move.

Is she exiting on the stage? Are we not seeing the last of Marjorie Taylor Greene? I don't think we've seen the last of Marjorie Taylor Greene. I mean, it's clear that she plans to be a voice in whether it's the Republican Party because she hasn't been really counting like a Republican lately.

Even Democrats are trying to find a way to work with her because of how she's taking the stance on the Affordable Care Act subsidies, fighting against Trump, the Epstein files. But it's clear that she's truly trying to be her own, sorry to use this word, maverick voice in this party. And you were not surprised, Ryan, you spoke to a ton of people were not surprised. I remember your reporting and I was surprised, but I don't think she's going anywhere.

All right, quickly, 10 seconds. What do you have for Thanksgiving? Mash potatoes. No, I'm full.

I'm not gonna talk about it. Stop. Keep that for tomorrow. We're gonna be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press.

Now we're out of time anyway. There's more news ahead on NBC. Hey everyone, I'm Dylan Dreyer, co-host of the third hour of Today and mom to three wild boys. I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet.

And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it.

Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice on how not to screw yours up. Search The Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.