Meet the Press NOW — October 2

Hey Ontario. Come on down to BETMGM Casino and see what our newest exclusive the Price Is Right Fortune Pick has to offer. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show only at BetMGM.

Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games like Plinko, Cliffhanger and the Big Wheel into fun casino game features. Don't forget to download the BETMGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on the prices Right Fortune Pick Pull up a seat and experience the prices right Fortune Pick Only available at BetMGM Casino, BetMGM and GameSense. Remind you to play responsibly 19 plus a wager Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreeing agreement with IDGaming Ontario. Drive off in a new Hyundai laundry today with $0 down during the Hyundai Advantage Sales event. Take advantage of the 1000 DO Spring Drive bonus and lease the 202060 laundry essential for just 73 weekly at 4.99 for 60 months and you're covered by Elantra's best in class five year new car Warranty.

Now that's the Hyundai Advantage. Conditions apply. Offer includes 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit HyundaiCanada.com or your local dealer for details.

Welcome to Meet the Press. Now, I'm Davey Tiers reporting in Washington. War. We're following two major stores, one in Manhattan and the other here on Capitol Hill, affecting the two most powerful Republicans in the country.

In the House, Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy, now facing a potential vote to oust him as speaker for this weekend's successful scramble to temporarily avert a government shutdown. We'll have much more on those developments in a moment, but we begin with breaking news out of New York, the first day of the former president's biggest trial yet as a presidential candidate is about to wrap up. Today, a Manhattan judge heard opening statements in the New York Attorney General's $250 million fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump, his company and two of his sons. It is a case unlike any other facing a former president as it threatens to undermine the very core of his business, brand and public Persona.

The former president as well as The New York AG were in the courtroom for today's proceedings, and Mr. Trump spoke to reporters as he arrived at court and again during recess lashing out of the case and calling it part of a vast government conspiracy to undermine his presidential candidacy. This is a continuation of the single greatest wood hunt of all time. Before you even know anything about me, those comments were familiar page from Donald Trump's playbook to personally attack judges or prosecutors in cases where he faces significant legal peril.

The attorney General responded to Mr. Trump's comments as she arrived at court this morning. My message is simple. No matter how powerful you are, no matter how much money you think you may have, no one is above the law.

And it's my responsibility and my duty and my job to enforce it. The lawsuit accuses Donald Trump of lying about his net worth by billions of dollars to get bank loans. The judge presiding over the case has already ruled on some aspects of the case last week, declaring that Mr. Trump had committed fraud and lied about his net worth for years.

The judge also ordered some of his business licenses be rescinded, threatening Mr. Trump's ability to do business in New York. And this trial is the first of at least six civil and criminal trials facing Mr. Trump as he seeks a Republican Party's nomination in 2024.

NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hilliard is live for us outside the courthouse in Lower Manhattan. And with me will be Jeremy Salat, former assistant district district Attorney in the trial division of the Manhattan DA's office. Vaughn, I want to start with you. What actually happened in the courtroom today?

This was about hour eight now in which the courtroom has been convened here. There were multiple breaks as well as a lunch break. But for Donald Trump, the former president, despite not having to be in the courtroom today, he is there. And there are questions whether he'd remain for the afternoon, and he's still in there.

For Donald Trump, this is an opportunity to hear his own attorneys, Chris Keiss, as well as Alina Haba, speak and defend him in front of this judge, who will ultimately determine the extent to which he is liable for the financial fraud claims that New York Attorney General Leticia James has brought in this lawsuit against him. Currently on the stand is the first witness, the former accountant for Donald Trump, the personal accountant who worked on his tax returns for about a decade. And he's being questioned right now by the New York attorney generals, prosecutors about exactly the machinations of Alan Weisselberg, the chief financial officer, and Michael Cohen, the two sons who are also defendants, Don Jr. And Eric Trump.

The extent to which Donald Trump was aware of the evaluations of his assets and properties that amounted to as the attorney general, her lawsuit claims either under evaluation or overvaluation that led to Donald Trump increasing his self worth by potentially upwards of $2 billion. And you know, Vaughn, we saw that video earlier today of Letitia James and Donald Trump in that courtroom. How much can we expect their presence throughout this shot? We should not expect Donald Trump to be in the courtroom for that many days.

And he does not have to be there. Leticia James is not the one who is actually presenting this case in front of the judge either. Yet she was in the gallery sitting a few rows behind Donald Trump. She did speak here from the steps of the courthouse in Lower Manhattan before the trial of officially began this morning.

But for the two of these individuals, this is a storied history in which Letitia James, when she ran for New York Attorney general, said that she would investigate and if the investigation warranted it, bring Donald Trump to justice. And Donald Trump, upon leaving for lunch break, according to our producer Adam Reese, inside the room, glared at her as he walked by and left the courtroom. You know, for Donald Trump, there is so much on the line. Not only a $250 million potential financial penalty, but also the elimination of his business certificates and his ability to operate here in New York City.

While Donald Trump so much is politically on the line for him in this 2024 presidential run, it's the future, not only for him, but also his family business that is on the line in this courtroom in the months ahead. And Vaughn, you just said months ahead. This trial is expected to last quite a while, right, as we look at a lot of pictures there outside the courtroom. Right.

The judge suggested that this could go all the way through December 22nd here. This is going to be a trial that takes place five days a week. There are no video cameras in allowed, so there's not going to be a live feed. The video that you watched just a few moments ago was our photographer being allowed on behalf of all of the major TV networks to go about two minutes of what the courtroom looked like with Donald Trump, Leticia James in the judge inside that courtroom.

But for Donald Trump, if he wants to know how his attorneys are representing him, of course, Donald Trump has a long history of being very fickle about his legal representation, including firing multiple of them over the last year related to other cases. For Donald Trump, the one way to hear how his defense is presenting the case for him is by being inside that courtroom. And that's exactly where he is today. We'll wait to see whether he is back here tomorrow.

Gabe Von Hell, your Lord Manhattan Bond. Thanks. I'm Bringing Jeremy. Jeremy, explain for us the merits of this.

New York lost. Well, it actually had married. And keep in mind that the court has already ruled that you all heard on the summary judgment motion saying that the evidence existed there at that point or enough facts, if you will, that there didn't need to be a ruling later on or a trial where a jury or in this case a judge had that proceeding. So it seems to be a strong case on its face though, there seems to be real issues.

But at the same time, keep in mind this is not a promote proceeding. It's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's preponderance of the evidence. It's very distinct and separate from what we're hearing out of D.C.

for example in Georgia. And Jeremy, you just mentioned this is not a criminal proceeding. But Donald Trump does have a lot at stake in this trial. Absolutely.

Jail is not an issue here really. His livelihood, his ability to conduct his business and basically tearing down, you know, that wall behind who he really is. If in fact Letitia James and the attorney general office also not just establish one issue that has already presented to the judge, issues in terms of insurance for the conspiracy, insurance for the other outstanding matters. We're talking real dollars here, a quarter of a billion dollars potentially.

We're talking about severing his ability to deal with banks in the world for the foreseeable future. And not just him. Keep in mind this is his children as well. And Jeremy, I want to play part of what Donald Trump told reporters during a recess today.

Let's take a listen. This rogue judge, Trump hater, the only one that hates Trump, Flores's associate up there, person that worked with him, she's screaming at New Zealand almost every time we ask a question. Jeremy, have you ever seen a scenario in which a defendant in a case, civil war criminal, attacks the judge as the trial is beginning from right outside the corner? Short answer is really no.

And this is a desperate, desperate man. It's almost like he's a porn of raccoon and or some other animal got into your garden. He's got no other choice but to lash out as you get closer and closer. That's the defense of that case.

It's not going to help him. As we noted many times, this is fence trial, not a jury trial. So the judge is going to hear some of this. Although judge should be ignoring all of it.

But this is going to be his own demise. And remember as well that attorney general can fall as a witness unlike a criminal case. He can't force you but he may be testifying in this trial and we meaning the American public are going to hear whether he's going to implode or be understanding in a calm reason manner. And Jeremy, look, supporters of the former president might make the argument that this isn't that big of a deal.

Could you make the argument that exaggerating or under reporting assets is widespread and could bring similar allegations against many developers especially in New York? Yeah, I mean that's not a defense that has merit and also to the extent or magnitude that's alleged here is quite different. I am sure there's fraud that exists everywhere. It would be in ignorant to assert otherwise but to this magnitude, to this amount leave dollars.

That's not fair. Probably isn't that much. You know the attorney general's office does these type of white collar investigations but merely saying, you know someone else did it so therefore I can do it. That's not a defense.

That's not a defense. You just happened to get fraud and you know you makes you wonder whether or not you know the former president ruins the day he ran for president and subjected himself to kind of you know, oversight and repealing. But that's not the sense that's not going to fly especially before judge and Jeremy put this in the context here of the civil trials that he's facing. Is this one perhaps the most existential threat to the former president?

It's like that's existential. It's real, it's immediate and very legitimate. For lack of a better term. The president is not losing a few million dollars in defamation case if this all be played out and no doubt they'll get appeals throughout the process when this case closes.

This could be or spell ruin for him. You know Trump Tower and that gold shearing fakeness may be exposed if the successful this could really be debilitating and I'm saying that kindly it could be much works whether it is we'll find out. And Jeremy, finally do you see any scenario in which Donald Trump actually testifies at this trial? You know testifies in his own defense?

You know normally I would say never would I put a man like him with his inability to stay focused on stand but as I noted before in a civil proceeding he may be called so the question remains do you want to take a window the prosecution fails and put yourself out there and get rid of this out in the best cleanest way possible. Not being on their case but on it was a real question to be asked. Generally speaking, no. In the criminal trials I can mad at least testifying.

Jeremy, thank you so much for joining us here. Thank you. And coming up, shut down a verdict, at least for now. Why have the latest on what happens next.

Plus a one on one interview. One of the House Republicans who voted no on the 11th hour deal to keep the government open. Plus, President Biden is set to convene a cabinet meeting minutes from now as the White House faces a fallout from that stopgap funding bill that does not have any additional aid for Ukraine. You're watching MEET THE Press.

Now. Drive off in a new Hyundai Launcher today with $0 down during the Hyundai Advantage sales event. Take advantage of the $1,000 Spring Drive bonus and lease the 2026 Elantra Essential for just $73 weekly at 4.99% for 60 months. And you're covered by Elantra's Best in Class five year new car warranty.

Now that's the Hyundai Advantage Conditions app 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit HyundaiCanada.com or your local dealer for details. And welcome back on Capitol Hill. Right now the House is back in session after surprising much of Washington by barely avoiding the government shutdown this weekend.

But what it took to get across the finish line leads House Speaker Kevin McCarthy now facing a renewed effort to oust him as speaker. Today. Republican Congressman Matt Gates, arguably McCarthy's fiercest critic, vowed to hold a vote to topple the speaker after McCarthy was forced to rely on House Democrats to pass a short term spending deal to keep the government open for another 45 days. Kevin McCarthy's TRUE coalition partner on all things of substance has been the Democrats this Congress.

He worked with Democrats on the development bill and only Democrats are really campaigning on that bill. Republicans aren't campaigning on the deadline bill. That was a Democrat bill passed with mostly Democrat votes. Then we get to the appropriations process and Speaker McCarthy purpose week delayed us.

He tried to back us up against shutdown politics. He tried to not passing spending bills. And at the end of the day he had to utilize Democrats to pass a continuing resolution. Explain the timing.

Yeah, I'm gonna be doing it this week. If this does fail, will you bring this up again? Yeah. Speaker McCarthy for his part has all but dared Congressman Gates to bring up that vote.

He spoke to reporters today defending his actions over the weekend while rebuking hardliners in his pockets. Well, I heard a lot of criticism, frustrated inside the conference about having the most conservative stopgap measure, had to secure the border and cut spending. We couldn't pass it. So then we sat there and we talked.

We were all frustrated because there wasn't very many options as the majority can't control your own destiny. We watched the frustration for the weeks past where people would hijack before and not let us pass and not let us bring up the appropriation to us time and again. So there are very few options to do and listen to everybody. They like to meet speakers.

I made a decision. I thought it was best to keep the government open. The whole saga puts McCarthy in a box and potentially looking to Democrats as a firewall to save his speakership. That's if Gates can get our liners inside his caucus actually go through with the extremely rare maneuver to try to oust their own speaker.

House Democratic leadership, meanwhile, remain coy about what they do or what their demands would be if McCarthy needs them. And joining me now for the latest is Ryan Nobles from Capitol Hill on his cell phone in the halls of Congress. So Ryan, for those who last tuned in, it sure looked like we were heading to government shutdown over the weekend. So for those of those of you maybe look at this on Friday, bring us up to speed.

How did we get here? Tell us about this dramatic weekend and where does the crowding fight go from here on? First of all, that I'm committed to the cause, no doubt. But yeah, basically we found ourselves in this position because a group of Republican hardliners from the conservative wing of the party insisted when in their negotiations with Kevin McCarthy that they had an all or nothing Strategy.

They wanted 12 appropriation bills passed with lean with conservative policies or they wanted nothing. Kevin McCarthy woke up on Saturday morning and realized that that just wasn't practical and that the government was going to shut down. So at the 11th hour he decided to put a clean short term spending bill on the floor just to run a little bit of disaster relief. It extended things like the federal flood insurance program and the FAA authorization and that at least bought him some time to continue the negotiation.

The issue here now is whether or not that's going to make him in danger because these conservative Republicans have insisted that they are not going to support any kind of short term spending bill and it required Democrats in order to get over the finish. That's an important point. Gave him to talk about this, that there were more Democrats that voted for this bill, Republicans. And So now Kevin McCarthy's in a situation here where he's trying to navigate two things, protecting his speakership while at the same time trying to come up with a long term spending package that needs to be done.

Now by the middle of November and talk about that spending package. Ryan, are Ukraine and the border, are they going to remain the sticky points that they have been? I actually think that those may be opportunities for both Republicans and Democrats. You know, there's no question that they're both controversial at level.

There are many House Republicans, conservative House Republicans, that are in favor of continuing to just fund Ukraine without any kind of preconditions or special, you know, accommodation and an oversight of the Biden administration to hand them out that money. But at the same time, the issues related to the border are becoming a problem for both Republicans and Democrats. You're seeing, you know, governors and mayors in states that are far away from the southern border expressing concern with the Biden administration. That's something to be done at the border.

So I do think that this offers more, both sides of an opportunity to come to the table and say, let's offer up Ukraine package that has that oversight that Republicans want, while at the same time coming up with some sort of strategy to deal with the situation at the border. And perhaps that's the bipartisan agreement that everybody can be happy with. You know, there's certainly members of the progressive way of the Democratic Party that are comfortable with any kind of limitations on migrants, particularly those seeking asylum from coming over the border. But there's also widespread realization that something needs to change, and this may be the vehicle to provide that change.

So, Ryan, it's no secret that Matt Gates typically likes attention, but how much support does he actually have with his threats? How to speak? Well, if, if I'm to guess, if I thought that man Gates had those five Republican votes, that it would need to truly put Kevin McCarthy speakership in jeopardy, he wouldn't have forecasted that this vote would be coming later in the week. I think he would pull the trigger as quickly as possible.

So reading between the tea leaves, you offensive and you know, he continues to play co exactly what kind of support he has. That reads to me that he's still trying to convince a few of his Republican colleagues to come on board. Now, he may be close to doing that and he may at least have some assurances from them that they're keeping their options open, that they're not definitively a no. But my sense is if he had five Republican votes, he would have moved already.

And at this point, he's still whipcounting to try and get to that point where he can truly embarrass Kevin McCarthy because people stepped out of the war and Kevin McCarthy survives, even if he has to survive with a support of Democrats. That really isolates Matt Gaze and it really just forced him to continue to be where most people are accused of. And that's just somebody who goes on TV and cries about stuff doesn't necessarily be done. Ryan Nobles on Capitol Hill.

Ryan, thanks so much. Joining me now here on set is Colorado Republican Congressman Ken Buck. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us here. So I want to get on the funding bill.

You voted against both continuing resolutions in light of the deal with Democrats. Do you regret voting down the first one? No, not at all. We have soon coming out $36 billion of debt.

That is too much. Kevin McCarthy promised that we would have a vote on every single of the 12 appropriations bills. That should have started in June, it should have started in July. We would have been where we needed to at this point.

That is having passed those bills, giving Kevin the opportunity to negotiate with the Senate on each of those bills. The fact that he didn't do it was just more of this crisis management. We had the same thing with the debt limit. It was, it was last minute.

The world was looking to see what we would do. And he forced the vote on that and promised President Biden much more, $200 billion more of spending than he promised Republicans when he ran for Speaker. So the message is very clear to Kevin McCarthy. You've got to hold, you got to stick your promises, make sure bills done.

Would it have been worth it, though, to shut the government down? No, no, it wouldn't have been worth it at all. But that is on Kevin McCarthy. It's not worth it in June when you don't start putting appropriations bills on the floor.

And this has been going on now for 27 years. We haven't passed our appropriations bills because the speaker and the leader of the Senate decide at the last minute what the deal is going to be that isn't inclusive of members of Congress and it shouldn't happen. So, Congressman, you mentioned that A Don, Kevin McCarthy, regarding Matt Gates's potential motion to vacate, would you support that? Would you want to ask the Speaker?

I want to HEAR what Kevin McCarthy has to say about why $36 billion of debt is okay. I want to hear what he has to say about why we haven't had 12 appropriations bills. I want to know what the side deals were with Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democrat Party in the House, regarding Ukraine, regarding other things. Now, the speaker says he didn't talk about administration, about Ukraine funding.

I know on the floor today, Mackay said that there was alleged secret deal. But McCarthy says that's not what happened. Well, the President says that's what happened. The President said, I'm going to hold Kevin to his commitment to bring up Ukraine funding.

When the President states says that, he doesn't add a dog in his fight. And he made it very clear that Kevin McCarthy made that commitment. So just to be clear though, at this point you're a maybe when it comes to ousting Speaker. I am.

Let's put everything on the table and see who is going to be the best person to lead us into a fiscally responsible spending at this point. Who else could lead the Republicans at this point? I think there are a number of really good candidates who are going to put their heads up. Well, I'm not going to go through their names because they don't want to identify themselves while Kevin is Speaker.

There is something about loyalty to the boss at this point. But if Kevin is no longer the speaker, he loses the motion to vacate. I think you're going to see a lot of good people. Step four is one of those things.

Ken Buck. No, worst job in America. And I guarantee you Ken Buck and that case is not one of those people. I might get three votes.

Matt would get one. You think my case is just out for attention here? No, I don't. I think there's a real issue in DC and the insiders in DC have played this game around appropriations for years.

I credit Matt with making sure that we're going to move down this path. I think it could have done a little more delicately at times, but certainly give him Matt credit. So if it fails in the first try, if he puts this forward, this motion vacate, but he keeps doing it over and over again and the House grinds to a halt, what then? Well, that doesn't happen.

I don't think Matt is that tone death. Kevin McCarthy is at tone death in what he's done with spending. But I don't think Matt is that tone deaf. You don't think that Matt great Gates.

You don't think that Matt Gates would grind the House to wall? No, I really don't think that. No. He did several months ago during the speakership process when, you know, more than a dozen times there was votes for speaker, the House ground to Walt that well, so first of all, I thought that was really healthy.

I think when you a deliberative body that goes through a process like that, it's not unhealthy. But there were, I think the first vote for Kevin McCarthy, there were 22 people that objected to him being speaker. And then that came down and down as Kevin was negotiating with different people. There wasn't just Matt Gates that ground anything to a hall.

People didn't swear allegiance to Matt Gates. There were a lot of people that had concerns with Kevin. Do you trust Kevin McCarthy right now? I don't.

You don't. That says a lot that you would say that about your speaker of the House this morning. Well, it is based on making promises that he can't keep to so many different people. What happens with if Democrats sign on the House, Speaker McCarthy, what do you think of that?

Well, Kevin is then forming a coalition government and the Democrats have then bought somebody that frankly, a lot of them come up to me and said they don't trust. So there is going to be an interesting coalition that's formed, but I don't think it's gonna be based on trust with Kevin. Now, amidst this government shutdown standoff, the House had its first impeachment inquiry hearing last week. You've been critical of that effort, saying that you've seen no smoking gun connecting the president and his son's business dealings.

Did you see any new evidence at that first hearing that would change your mind? No, just the opposite. Professor Jonathan Turley said there isn't enough evidence for an impeachment at this point because there isn't that link between Hunter Biden's activities, which, by the way, are sleazy, and Joe Biden's status as vice president and his actions as vice president. So do you think that there could be a smoking gun here?

Well, there could be, but this is the first hearing. Wouldn't they have brought their best evidence in that first hearing? Sure. And when I met with the investigators at the OSAC committee, they told me this is an ongoing investigation.

And so I think they're looking for that. But the problem with calling an impeachment inquiry is you raise expectations. They were doing a great job, Judiciary Oversight, Ways and Means of investigating what happened. It should have stayed at that level.

To be clear, you don't think they have a smoking gun this? They do not have a smoking gun. I'm sure of that. Representative Kendall, Colorado, thank you so much for joining us.

Jeremy, press down. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Up next, what's next for California Democrats after losing a legend?

Governor Gavin Newsom names his choice to fill the Senatecy held by the late Dianne Feinstein. And his plans are made to honor the trailblazing lawmaker. You're watching. You can press now.

Stay with us. And welcome back California Governor Gavin Newsom announce he is picking Laphona Butler to fill the late Diane Feinstein Seneca. Butler, the current president of Emily's List, a prominent advocacy organization dedicated to electing female Democrats, will be the Senate's first black openly LGBT member when she sworn in later this week. Butler was also will also be the third black woman to serve in the Senate.

Newsom had long promised that if the time came, he would fill Feinstein's seat with a black woman. And while Butler is eligible to see a full term in November 2024, there is already a robust and well funded group of candidates running for the seat. Well known Representatives Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff are already campaigning, perhaps as a message to other candidates and potential candidates. Schiff announced yesterday he raised more than $6 million for his campaign in the third quarter, giving him a massive war chest of $32 million.

Feinstein, who died Thursday at the age of 90, will lie in stake at San Francisco City hall on Wednesday ahead of a private funeral on Thursday at City hall buildings where then Board of Supervisors President Dianne Feinstein announced to the world the assassinations of Harvey Melkar and Mayor George Moscone and where she later served as mayor for a decade. We'll get to that story in just a moment, but I want to turn now to some breaking news where former President Trump is speaking now in Laura Manhattan. Let's take a listen to comments at the end of the year, at the end of trial day, it would appear that he's agreeing that all of the transactions had closed prior to 2014 are now at the case, which is about 80% of the case. And it was also something that we wanted to feel but was not accepted by this court, but now seems to be accepted by this court.

As far as the jury is concerned. It's much different now. It was not even 20 minutes ago we were going to come out and complain that, you know, this might be your doubt with jury. But we very much appreciate the judge's decision today or his statement today of statute of limitations, which is a very big thing.

There's a limited time period and we did nothing wrong. And if you look at the statements, they show that even in 2011, yes, the number 258 million in cash versus the own company, believe it or really, I think I would do a couple of deals or something, but I wouldn't even believe they go to banks. Banks loved our business, they loved our deals. They weren't defrauded.

They lost no money. They made money. They had the Finest attorneys that there are. Frankly, their attorneys were better than my attorneys and they made a lot of money and they considered a very good client.

I paid them back on time, on schedule. There was no default. They never even sent me a default letter. Not one for years.

Then we got a default letter and there's no case here. There's no victim. The banks aren't a victim. The insurance companies are victim.

Everybody got paid. It's a terrible, terrible thing. This was for politics. Now it has been very successful for them because they took me off the campaign trail because I've been sitting in a courthouse all day long instead of being in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or a lot of other places I could be at.

This is a horrible situation for our country. It's never happened before. It's election interference. They're interfering with the presidential election of 20.4, and the people of our country see it.

But this was a big, big, I say surprise, but it was a great credit to the court that the judge was willing to do this. He sort of overruled himself. And I greatly respect that. Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you. Instead of doing this, I built a great company. That's one thing people are saying all the way back in 2011, and today it's much bigger and much better and even much more liquid. That was $258 million for a real estate.

That's a lot of money. It was in 2011. Today, it's much more than that. Much, much more.

I built a great company. I did great things in New York, and they should respect that. I've employed thousands and thousands of people in New York, and they should respect that. The attorney general of this state is a disgrace.

Leticia Jades is a disgrace. She's a disgrace to our country and to the state of New York. She should focus on all of the violent crime and the murders going on in New York, not on somebody that paid back the banks in full, without it in full, and in many cases paid it back early. Thank you very much, everybody.

And that is former President Donald Trump speaking in lower Manhattan after the first full day of his civil trial wraps up here in New York. I'm joined now by NC News legal analyst Danny Savalos. And Danny, Donald Trump saying several things there that we've heard time and time again calling this election interference, saying he did nothing wrong, saying that everybody got paid. But what I want to come to you is what he just talked about, the ruling he said from the judge in the last 20 minutes or so limiting the amount of transactions in this case.

Since we don't have cameras in the courtroom, we're just getting this information right now just exactly what transpired in that courtroom. But I wonder if you might be able to shed some light on that. What was Donald Trump talking about? It could be, and of course, no cameras, relying only on reporting that is squeaking out of that courtroom at the very end of the day.

But there reportedly may be some indication that Justice n' Goren is warming to the idea of the statute of limitations argument. That would be a little unusual because it seems as though we already decided that he may also be limiting the scope of evidence that is admissible. That could arguably be a minor victory for the Trump team in that some of the evidence coming in, for example, maybe the judge concluded that it's time barred or it's too old, too stale to be of probative value. But again, this is somewhat speculation, given that I don't know the grounds for limiting that evidence.

But for Donald Trump, any limitation of the Attorney General's evidence is arguably a win to the extent he may be referring to the Appellate Division. The prior decision by the appellate court in New York, you have the trial court, which is very confusingly called the Supreme Court, that's actually the lowest court, New York. Then you go to the Appellate Division. Trump's team had appealed to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division, you could say, on the whole, ruled against Trump because if they had ruled for him, he wouldn't be at trial. So, again, we're gonna have to wait until more clarification. But if it's a matter of narrowing the evidence that's admissible, that could be a net positive for the defense team. And I want to turn now.

Thank you, Danny. I want to turn out MC Vaughn Hilliard, who is outside the courthouse. Vaughn, can you shed any more light on what just happened in the last 20 minutes or so the former president referenced? I don't know if you've been able to get a chance on any reporting to see any other reporting coming out of there.

Right. We're trying to communicate with some of our producers who are in the courtroom right now. There are no cameras inside of there. But to what Danny is speaking of is the outstanding question, and this was something that that Donald Trump belabored earlier in the day, frustration that this court proceeding was taking place at all today and that the lawsuit continues to stand against him.

When he talks about the statute of limitations, we're talking about a period pre2014. There was an appellate court that back in June had determined that when it applied to Ivanka Trump, who was initially a defendant in this case, that she would no longer be a defendant, no longer be a part of this trial, because her involvement was outside of the statute of limitations pre 2014. And so Donald Trump and his attorneys argued that therefore, the claims being laid out by New York Attorney General Tisha James should be from a more condensed timeframe. And yet what happened last week was part of their argument.

Donald Trump's attorney's argument was that this trial, this civil trial, should not go forward until the appellate court determines whether the statute of limitations also applies to Donald Trump and the other defendants. While the appellate court said, sorry, the stay is lifted, the trial will begin on Monday. But seemingly leaving it a live ball type situation where the appellate court could potentially at some point rule in Donald Trump's favor that this is a more condensed period of time in which the lawsuit would have to be applied to. And so what we're now hearing from Donald Trump, at least, is that the judge seems potentially open to that argument, consolidating the timeline of the claims laid out by the AG against Trump to after 2014.

There's a lot of in the weeds there, we realize gay, but obviously Donald Trump, Trump is arguing that potentially the liability that he faces would be much smaller if in fact that is reality, because the attorney general lays out claims that extend way beyond 2014 that could very well have major repercussions in the future. And Von, I know you cover the Trump campaign and you just saw the former president once again trying to cast himself as a political victim here, saying that he was sitting in the courthouse all day. But Vaughn, he went in front of the cameras several times today, and as I understand it, he was fundraising quite a bit, or at least his team was throughout the day. Right, Exactly.

This is part of the idea of why is Donald Trump here? Donald Trump said that he was taken off of the campaign trail in order to be here today. But reality is that he didn't actually have to show up for the trial. He chose to.

He's getting his motorcade right now departing. He stayed overnight from power. It's not clear whether he is going to be coming back here for day two of trial, but for Donald Trump, yes. They sent out earlier today a fundraising email to supporters.

Not only is that money going towards his own political campaign, but there's also a percentage of money that goes to his leadership pack, which is an outside organization that has paid more than $100 million worth of legal bills for him. And others related to his numerous cases here. And so for Donald Trump, having some financial intake coming and stemming from these multiple trials is important for him. The other part, though, I want to not gave by Donald Trump being in the courtroom today.

He was able to watch firsthand his two, three attorneys stand up there and defend him and watch that in real time because if Donald Trump isn't here in person, he's just like you and me. He's gonna be outside the courthouse waiting to wait for a second hand notes to come from those who are inside the courthouse game. Von Goyer, Dan, thank you so much. I want to get right to our panel here.

And joining me now on set is Eugene Scott, senior politics reporter at Axios, Juanita Tolliver, Democratic strategist and NBC News political analyst, and Sarah Chamberlain, president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Thank you all so much for joining us here. And I want to start with you. Does this, how much does this help Donald Trump?

Well, we know that he helps him with his debates, people who are already on the Trump train. And you know, looking at the polls, he doesn't really need to do a whole lot more work to improve his standing against his competitors. But he does need to get these people to turn out because this race in many states is going to be largely determined by independents and swing voters. Now, does this help him with those?

It doesn't seem like it, quite frankly, based on focus groups we've done at Axios. These are individuals who are tired of the Trump show. But he meets those people that really like him and do believe the Biden administration is targeting him to continue to believe that. And these press releases help further that narrative.

Eugene, how incredible is it to just look at the spectacle that's going on here where a defendant is attacking the judge, insulting the judge, just feed away. You know, he's doing that in the hallway. And you just saw in those, those live remarks we just carried, thanking the judge, he says, for one ruling and then going back and attacking Eugene, have you ever seen something like this? And we use unprecedented, but it's true.

It's so true. And I was on set during that first press conference and watching the pivot from this personal attack to we want to thank this judge. It's quite the shift. And one thing we know about Donald Trump is he makes quite a few shifts on issues, on policies and how he feels about people.

Before I walked in here, I got four fundraising requests just in the past hour. I want to bring you in on that. What are Republicans across the country thinking right now. So the Republican partnership polling shows exactly what you said, that the base loves him, but the swing voters and the Reagan type Republicans would like to fund a different candidate.

There's no doubt about that. Will they succeed? It doesn't look like that. And he has a commanding lead in the primaries and with all these legal cases mounting against him, yes, most candidates would not want to be in this position, but he's sucking up all the oxygen.

He's raising a ton of money. Democrats looking at this, what's going through their heads as they look through another series of legal challenges facing Donald Trump. This is going to continue well into the election season. I think Democrats see this and recognize that this is yet another campaign stop for Trump.

He says he's not on the trail. This is very much him on the truck. He's in front of those cameras. He's in the lie to his face.

He's rallying them up in the same way he would if he was in Iowa or New Hampshire or any other city business. I do things in regards to look at this and think, okay, he's still sucking up the oxygen. But when you have him in front of these cameras outside of trial doors, justice posed with President Biden actually delivering things for the people, actually speaking substantively about real issues impacting everyday lives, that's gotta be the big difference. We have several other things to get to on this panel regarding the shutdown averted future of Speaker McCarthy.

But also the story that we were talking about right before went to his live pictures and Gavin Newsom's pick to replace Dianne Feinstein. Difficult situation for Governor Newsom right here. Is this just a no win situation for him? I think he was able to walk away from this and say he checked the box of delivering a black woman to the Senate.

As you noted earlier, this is only the third black woman that will serve in the senate in this 200 plus year history. But the reality is there's still some friction there about his previous statements about this being a limited role, this being a short term position. It wasn't Barbara Lee and it wasn't Barbara Lee. So what do Democrats think now?

You know, are Democrats happy here? I think the overwhelming response is support. Laphonza Butler. She is stepping into a big moment in a big role.

She's pro union, pro women and pregnant people, pro choice. A lot of positives coming with her that she could work on in the Senate. But there's a reality that everybody's kind of looking at and giving him a little bit of side eye for how he handled the situation. And what if she runs now in 2024?

I don't know if she will. Right. And we'll be able to determine that pretty quickly if there's a staffing, you know, process that accompanies this. But it will be an awful battle just as it has been for properly in terms of fundraising and making a mark.

And Eugene, I want to switch on another topic since there's so much going on in the last few minutes, but regarding this government shutdown and the Future of Kevin McCarthy, what do you think happens next? Gates, you know, potentially bringing this motion vacated in the next few days. Is the damage already done? Can Republicans govern here?

I mean, the damage has been done regarding whether or not they can stay under unified under Pat McCarthy's leadership since, you know, day one. I mean, this is what the next chapter of that initial story we saw looks like. I think what I'm paying attention to right now is for the most part, we really only hear Matt Gates coming out. There are not a lot of other names that have come out in terms of wanting to see McCarthy leave.

And I haven't heard any names from any sources about who would have said Trump aocats who Like a good point, though. I mean, yes, you haven't heard a lot of Republicans. So Sarah wants to turn you. You work with a lot of moderates in frontline districts.

How complicated are their lives now thanks to Matt Gates? Extremely complicated. But I am convinced that Matt Gates is going to go nowhere with us. And Kevin McCarthy was speaker really good.

And so. But what happens with this much of the gate? You think it fails? I think it fails over and over again.

I think if he had the votes, he would bring it to the floor immediately. As you said, there's nobody else who's backing him. Even his friend from Colorado, she's not even out there yet. So it doesn't look like he probably has the votes.

And all of the Main street members are behind Kevin McCarthy at this point. So I think Kevin survives this. I think he should survive switching back, though, to politics now in California. There's one point I want to make quickly that I didn't.

With Democrats now spending potentially heavily in this 2024 race among themselves, does that prevent them from spending elsewhere in other contested races across the country, sir? So I think it does. So I'm actually really pleased to see the California situation because I think it changes the dynamic. I mean, West Virginia, Montana, it might be sucking up all the money to go to California.

And I'd love to pick up those seats in the Senate and get the Senate majority. Now, when you guys are in danger here, Democrats, you know, had this infighting and Adam Schiff, you know, he timed that announcement saying he's raised so much money and has this massive war chest to try to fend off any challengers. I guess what happens next among the Democrats and will they have is the money better spent elsewhere? Well, first, I wouldn't describe this as in fighting.

I just say this is a normal primary process compared to what we see on the Republican presidential cycle right now. So I would say this is just gonna play out. California has an early primary, March 2nd or 5th, I believe. So this will be relatively soon.

And then those dollars and resources can be spent elsewhere. But I do believe that Democrats across the country are still raising, still running and still spending elsewhere. All right, well, really quickly as we wrap up the panel, where do we see the presidential race right now with some of these Republican challengers? You know, we have some reporting here that major Republican donors are summing Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis later on this month to make their case.

Are we getting to the point right now where this Republican primary is close to being over? Is it over? Right. I don't know if it's overall ready, but I think it's worth noting that when you add up everyone who's on that stage last week, they're still less than what Donald Trump.

And so the motivation for them to keep going, this is something don't have a hard time trying to figure out if this is where they want to invest their time and money. And I think that's what's going to be the hard conversation later this week. And Sarah, isn't this the same thing that happened in 2016? Aren't these candidates just knocking each other off and Donald Trump emerges victorious like he has before so many times, unfortunately, potentially.

But I really do think that they're playing for number two. And there are hopes that if something happens to Trump and his, what, 91, 92 convictions now or. Yeah. Charges that somebody's the plane for number two.

And they're hoping to be a strong number two so they can come out a few steps away, they're ready to go against President Biden. And I actually think there's a number of them that can Defeat President Biden. Sarah199 Eugene, thank you so much for joining us here. MEET THE PRESS now and still to come.

Love the playing field. We're digging into the future of sports and gender equality and how trans athletes found themselves at the center of one of the most divisive issues in US Politics. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. And welcome back.

A new law aimed at restricting gender affirming care for transgender youth went into effect in Nebraska this weekend, keeping transgender kids from receiving some gender affirming care until they're 19 years old. The law is in effect, but parents and doctors say care guidelines have yet to be released. Nebraska is not the only state where the fight over gender affirming care has played out in recent days. Late last week, federal courts upheld bans on care in Kentucky and Tennessee.

In Montana, a judge temporarily halted a similar law, law that would have also gone into effect yesterday. According to trackers, in 2023 alone, more than 83 anti trans bills have passed in state legislatures across the US and while healthcare has now become a major policy focus, legislation around trans kids came into the mainstream with a fight over trans kids in sports. And that is the subject of the new book Fair Play How Sports Shape the Gender Debates. And author Katie Barnes joins me now.

They also cover the intersection of sports and gender as a features writer for espn. Katie, thanks so much for joining us here. Now, your book tracks the emergence of regulations and legislation around transgender kid in sports. And why has sports become such a flashpoint here?

What is it about sports that really has thrust this issue into the mainstream discussion? Well, Americans love sports. I think that's a big part of it. We have our own experiences, our own emotional ties to sports.

And also when it comes to the arguments being made in favor of restriction, they can be very arguments such as one that's most commonly parody, which is boys and play girl sports. Most people agree with that statement. But as we know, the issue that's being discussed both legislatively and in communities across the country is much more complex than that. Why do you think this has become such a wedge issue?

I think really because it preys on a lot of our assumptions about both sports and gender, which is that from a sports perspective, many of us culturally are taught that anyone assigned male at birth is better athlete than anyone assigned female at birth. And that is true in most circumstances. And when you have folks who blur the boundaries in terms of how we think about sex traditionally biologically, or how we think about gender, and that then is overlaid with sports, it becomes very complicated very quickly. And you know, in terms of politics, the last couple of months, I was on the Republican campaign trail.

I spoke with a lot of voters. I was also the covering candidacy of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. And when I was in places like Iowa especially, I would speak with voters, and this wasn't the top issue that they would mention. They would talk about the economy.

However, when Governor DeSantis and other GOP candidates, when they would bring it up in their speeches, it did seem to get a lot of response. Why do you think Republican candidates specifically are using this issue of, you know, trans rights or lack thereof, or this issue of sports and trans youth? Why are they latching onto this issue among their base? I can't speak to the motivations of individual politicians, but what we do know from the ways that these bills have passed in state houses across the country is they have done so in largely partisan lines.

And that this issue is very animating for a particular segment of American society, and that it's covered really rigorously and consistently. And also it comes up in the politics of some of the more rightward leaning areas of our country. That said, those are the only people who care about this topic. It's been my experience as a reporter that a lot of folks from all walks of life have a number of questions and simply don't know where to turn to get those questions answered.

And I want to read from a portion of your book. One of the big ideas driving the discussion of trans people, particularly trans girls and women, is that they are winning in sports all the time. And you wrote that the media and public often respond to transgender girls or women winning in the respective sports, which creates the perception that transgender girls and women win all the time. That narrative, however, is incompletely right.

So what did you find when you investigate this? That transgender girls and transgender athletes, broadly, both men and loose and are mediocre. And the rest of us, and there's a wide range, they're not all winning their sport. They're not all elite athletes.

They're not all championship caliber athletes. Why do you think, though, in those cases, the most attention? Because there's a certain level of emotional response. There's, I think, a lot of outcry from certain folks that anytime a transgender girl wins, that that is an unfair result.

But I will say that we started to see this narrative shift toward any participation of a transgender girl in girl sports at all is seen as a failure of policy. And we're seeing that even in states that don't have restrictive policy, that there's a public response to the knowledge of a transgender girl competing in the girls category. There's been a dust up in California. There have been dust ups in Vermont, where these have been publicly discussing that they don't have restrictive policy.

Okay, I know we're running long time, but I want to get this. At the end of the book, you have a chapter where you explain where you currently come down on the policies you land on. No restrictions in childhood regulation and intramural sports and gradual regulations competing in elite levels. Really briefly, why did you feel it was important for you to actually come out on the side?

I think if I'm asking people to read 300 pages of reported thoughts from other folks, that if readers are investing at that time, the natural question they're going to have is, okay, what is this person that has been writing this book? And I felt that they were entitled to a real answer from me. And that's why I gave it. Katie Barnes, thank you so much for joining us.

We really do appreciate it. And the book is Fair Play How Sports Shape the Gender Debates. I'm back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. Our coverage continues with Hallie Jackson right now.

Hey everyone. I'm Dylan Dryer, co host of the third hour of TODAY and mom to three wild boys. I learned a lot my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one.

This is my new podcast, 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 trying not to stream my own video on my video like search parent chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.