Meet the Press NOW — September 14

If it's Thursday, chaos inside the House Republican conference as Speaker McCarthy basically dares his members to hold a vote to oust him as Speaker as the divisions within the Republican Party may force the government to shut down. Plus, the Hunter Biden legal saga deepens with the special counsel indicting the president's son on three felony counts tied to a gun purchase, just as President Biden tries to refocus his re-election campaign on the economy. And a courtroom drama so big it can't even fit in the courtroom. The trial for two of Trump's co-defendants will officially begin next month in Georgia as the judge tries navigating an historic courtroom proceeding on live television.

Welcome to Meet the Press now. I'm Garrett Haake reporting in Washington, where the mess facing House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Capitol Hill has gotten even messier, if that was even possible, as he tries to quell a brewing rebellion amid an impeachment inquiry and a government funding fight. Divisions between Speaker McCarthy and the conservative wing of his conference reached a new low point this morning in an incredibly tense closed door meeting. So what's going on here?

A faction of ultra-conservative House Republicans is pushing the conference towards a government shutdown while threatening McCarthy's speakership if their demands to slash government spending aren't met. McCarthy dared his detractors to try to remove him as Speaker, according to two sources in the room, telling members, and I quote, if you want to file a motion to vacate, then file the effing motion. The Speaker admitted his evident frustration to reporters following the meeting. I show frustration in here because I am frustrated with the committee.

I'm frustrated with some people in the conference. But when we come back, we're not going to leave. We're going to get this done. Nobody wins in a government shutdown.

Nobody wins in a government shutdown. I've been here. I knew people would fight. I tried to hold leverage for other things.

I'm going to continue to just focus on what's the right thing to do for the American people. And you know what? If it takes a fight, I'll have a fight. This all comes after McCarthy struggled to get his caucus to agree to what should be the most non-controversial spending bill of all, funding the military.

McCarthy had to scrap the vote last night due to protests from his far-right flank that weren't even tied to military funding. Today, following that fiery closed door meeting, some Republican lawmakers commiserated with McCarthy's frustration and criticized their colleagues. The Republicans would be stronger if we were united on the appropriations bills. I have not heard many members describe to me what is wrong with the BOD bill.

Some members are pretty honest that they're holding this for leverage. I don't think that's the appropriate tactic. I think the Speaker's frustration is unique because he has done everything they've asked and made every commitment. You probably know that the Speaker said, look, if you want to make a motion to vacate the chair, bring it on.

I think he was very clear that he's not concerned from the standpoint of those claims. He's concerned from the standpoint of making sure that we fund the government. Despite the backlash and McCarthy's dare to put up or shut up, some holdouts show no signs of budging on the funding fight, despite what appears to have been an attempt at a political olive branch by the Speaker to conservatives in announcing that impeachment inquiry into President Biden. But instead, the conservative wing of the party seems more emboldened now than placated.

The result? There is no good path forward for McCarthy ahead of the government funding deadline. On one side is a ticked off conservative wing still bitter over this spring's debt deal and the other side ticked off Democrats who now seem even less likely to help bail McCarthy out after his greenlining of an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. McCarthy appears stuck and the clock is ticking.

Joining me now is my NBC News colleague on the Capitol Hill team, Ali Vitale. Ali, you've been chasing this around all day. We heard some of the fireworks from the House Republicans this meeting. But beyond the F word and I don't mean frustration.

What was McCarthy's broader message to his conference today? Well, I mean, other than saying put up or shut up, it was clear that he wants to try to move forward with some kind of a continuing resolution or resolving these spending problems outright. They're going home for the weekend now, but when they come back, they really do have a sprint to the finish line here. I think what strikes me so much, though, as you and I are covering these dynamics up here on Capitol Hill is we've seen McCarthy at these pinch points before between the House Freedom Caucus and other members of his conference, the ways that he can get a deal in bipartisan fashion and the ways that he can placate the more conservative members of his conference.

It feels like in moving forward with an impeachment inquiry, we're now squarely in the story. If you give a mouse a cookie, because what we're seeing from these Freedom Caucus members is they'll take the crumb of an impeachment inquiry, but they still want more concessions from their speaker. And they're still looming over him with that idea of a motion to vacate. I think I've heard from several sources today who were happy to hear McCarthy, however exasperated and colorful his language was behind closed doors, say, if you're going to do it, if you're going to oust me, just oust me.

And they'll do that battle when that battle comes. It's clear, though, that Gates is happy to keep his powder dry until he's ready to move on his own motion to vacate. But I think what's clear for these conservative members is what we've always known to be true about this conference, which is when you're working with margins of three or four, and we are looking at shifting numbers just because of some unforeseen absences, when you've got everyone who can be a playmaker, they're going to try to make plays. Around this time yesterday, we were watching the House pull the vote on the defense funding bill.

How much is that about the defending funding bill and how much is that about McCarthy's trust problems within the conference or some of these other issues? Yeah, it's as much as impeachment has to do with government funding. All of these things are related, but they're not exactly clear how they're related when you put them down on paper. It's obvious, though, if Republicans are having trouble passing military spending and funding bills, that there are larger issues at play here.

We saw on the Senate side, even today, some people holding up the process, including Rand Paul and a handful of other senators, holding up this process because they say that voting on a minibus or a package of those few spending bills that involve military spending among them would basically neutralize their ability to cut spending on the other nine funding bills that are also at play here. And so we're watching them all try to play a game of leverage, not just in the House where they're trying to hold McCarthy's job hostage in addition to the concessions on spending that they want, but we're also seeing them get some backup in the Senate. And I think the thing that I keep thinking of here is that people like Senator Mike Lee, Senator Rick Scott, they are very close to the Freedom Caucus. They're in completely different chambers, but they've got the same goal here.

And Ali, is there any chance that Democrats throw McCarthy some kind of lifeline here or are they perfectly happy to watch him struggle until the end of the month? I have not heard from any Democrat that could throw him a lifeline or that have been open to throwing him a lifeline in months prior. I've not heard that from them today. I think that what we're watching with Democrats is them continue to be happy in the minority and that they are watching Republicans make a mess of this all on their own and they're going to allow them to do that.

I think that where that comes to be a problem is the fact that Democrats have prided themselves and McCarthy tried to use this in his closed door meeting today. Democrats have prided themselves on being the adults in the room, willing to step in and work in bipartisan fashion if it's to avert a debt ceiling or fund the government. This gives them that opportunity. And that's one of McCarthy's messages today to his conference, which was why hand them a win when we could all work this out amongst ourselves?

That kind of fell on deaf ears, but we'll see if that's the same when they come back to town next week. All right, Ali Vitale, thank you for that reporting. And joining me now is Louisiana Republican Congressman Mike Johnson. He's the vice chair of the House Republican Conference.

So, Congressman, you just heard Ali Vitale there. How do Republicans show that you can be the adults at the room and not let the lights shut off across the country with a shutdown at the end of this month? What's the plan out of this as we sit here on Thursday afternoon? Well, I think Ali said it well.

We will work this out amongst ourselves. And in spite of all the sensation of this on the Hill today, sorry, it's been a long day. I hear I think that the conference is really not that far apart. Look, we all want the same things, whether you're a freedom caucus or you're from a district that President Biden won.

All Republicans want the same things. We want lower spending. We want the border secured. We want to root out corruption in federal agencies.

There's a path to get there. There's a lot of different opinions on how to do it, but we still have time. I think that we're headed to a continuing resolution and I think that will allow us time to get the appropriations bills done. And I think we'll work this out.

I mean, on the appropriations bills, it seems like you're in a position now and correct me if our reporting is wrong on this, but you don't have agreement on the top line number across the But they did ultimately have a vote as they moved further along and uncovered more evidence. Do you believe the House needs to have a vote to formalize this impeachment inquiry to give folks like yourself on the Judiciary Committee the authority you need to move forward? Well, it's not required under the Constitution. It's very broad language in that Article 1 power.

The sole power of impeachment is with the House. Should it be done? I think we'll ultimately probably have a vote. But I'm just saying it's not legally required.

The district court in D.C. has actually ruled on that in recent years. So it may be a good measure, but it's not necessary to proceed. All right, Congressman Mike Johnson, we've got to leave it there.

I appreciate you coming on. Yes, sir. All right, up next, breaking news on Hunter Biden, the president's son, indicted by Special Counsel David Weiss on multiple gun-related charges. But first, a special programming announcement.

My friend and colleague, Kristen Welker, is officially taking the reins as Meet the Press moderator this Sunday, where she will have an exclusive interview with former President Trump. Believe me, you're not going to want to miss it. We'll be right back. You're watching Meet the Press Now.

And we're back with breaking news on the legal front. Just a short time ago, Hunter Biden, the president's son, was indicted in Delaware federal court on three federal gun charges. Two of those counts are related to forms Biden filled out while buying a gun in which he allegedly lied about his use of illegal drugs. The third charge is tied to his possession of a firearm while using a narcotic.

This case is being overseen by Special Counsel David Weiss, whose plea deal with Hunter Biden on similar charges fell apart in July after the judge presiding over the case raised questions about some of the details of that agreement. But this may not be the end of Hunter Biden's legal troubles either. When asked if the president's son could face additional charges or indictments, a spokesperson for the special counsel responded, quote, the investigation continues. Joining me now is NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney.

And also with me is former U.S. attorney Carol Lamb, who's now an NBC News legal analyst. So, Ken, the original plea deal dealt with tax charges too. Is there any indication we could see additional charges soon on those or on other counts?

Well, the best indication we heard from David Weiss is his spokesperson saying the investigation continues. Although he said that when he was negotiating that and announcing that plea deal that fell apart with Hunter Biden that got us here. Specifically with the tax charges, it's hard to imagine that the prosecution would negotiate a deal where Hunter Biden agreed to admit to misdemeanor tax charges. And then, when that deal fell apart, not bring any tax charges whatsoever.

I think the real question is whether the prosecution will bring more serious tax charges than just the misdemeanors, potential felonies. And if they do that, it would likely be in Los Angeles or in Washington, D.C. here. So, Carol, the charges against Hunter Biden do look very similar to the charges that he'd agreed to plead guilty to a couple of months ago.

Is today's indictment just another step towards another plea deal? I mean, he's functionally admitted to these acts by being literally at the doorstep of accepting the plea deal previously. We certainly don't know whether this is simply a placeholder because the statute of limitations was about to expire or whether ongoing plea negotiations are taking place. I think it's a little bit of both.

At this point, David Weiss, the special counsel, has to be prepared to go in either direction. He has to be prepared to indict probably both the tax counts and this firearms case that he has now indicted. And he always has to have an open mind towards the possibility of a resolution through some type of plea deal. Whether it's a plea deal that is exactly like the one that we saw before or whether it's one that will result in some harsher sanctions on Hunter Biden remains to be seen.

It does go towards the fact that prosecutors generally feel that the longer it takes to reach a resolution with a defendant, the harsher the penalties are going to be. So in other words, the sooner you come in the door to cut a deal, the better off you are. They don't like to set the precedent of somebody hanging on until the very end and then getting what they call a sweet deal. So that remains to be seen.

But we haven't seen any indication that the tax charges are going away. I will say that tax counts are a lot more complicated than firearms cases, generally speaking. And so it doesn't surprise me that it's taking longer for David Weiss to gather all the evidence and jump through all the hoops necessary to bring a good solid tax case. To your point about the idea of hanging on until the end and getting a sweetheart deal, does the fact that this previous plea deal collapsed make it more or less likely the government would be willing to enter into another plea deal with the same defendant?

You know, I have to say that was such an unusual occurrence. I think it really caught everybody off guard to see a very high profile case like that go into court and then have the plea deal fall apart. It was very, very unusual. And I think everybody has to take some responsibility for that.

It's not just Hunter Biden's attorneys who should take responsibility. It's also the government. The fact that they went into court and it only took a couple of questions from the judge to make it clear that there wasn't a complete meeting of minds between the government and the defendant, I think means that everybody is accountable for that. So it wouldn't necessarily surprise me if they did come up with a deal that was similar to the last one, but I think they'll take some political heat for that.

So it might get a little bit harsher. And if they don't, we're looking at another major trial coming up next year where, Ken, that may be where Donald Trump's trial in Georgia happens, right? We learned today that he's not going to stand trial in Georgia next month. Did anything in today's hearing in Georgia provide any clarity on when Donald Trump will go to trial in that state?

I think it suggests it's going to be a long time, a year or more, Garrett, because, you know, the judge is moving forward with a trial in the fall with these two defendants, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesborough, who won their motion to sever themselves away from the rest of the group. But the judge has also said he thinks this trial could take eight months. And that's probably conservative. So just extrapolate that out.

Right. And then we know that Donald Trump is going to continue to push to delay. Other defendants are going to ask to sever and they may win. And there may be a second trial before Donald Trump faces justice in that case.

So I think it's a long way to go before we see Donald Trump in that courtroom as a defendant. Carol, how big of an advantage is it for Donald Trump's defense team that they'll basically get to see all the arguments or many of the arguments that will be made against them in court made against two other defendants before they ever set foot in a courtroom? Well, it is an advantage for Donald Trump's team because, of course, every time a witness testifies, they give a version of the stories that may not be precisely the same as prior versions they've given. And you can sort of exploit those inconsistencies and discrepancies to suggest that their memory isn't perfect on that front.

However, it is also an advantage, candidly, for the government because they also see how witnesses perform on the witness stand in front of juries. And they get to fix up any weaknesses in their own examinations of the witnesses. So it's an advantage to both sides, generally speaking. Prosecutors tend to feel that it was a bit of an advantage to the prosecution to see the way a trial plays out because, remember, you see not only how the witnesses testify in the stand, but you also see what the cross-examination is, even if they are other defendants.

You get to see the type of cross-examination and how the witness answers those hostile questions. Ken, I've got to go lightning round with you here for two more questions. We also learned some new details in the classified documents case in the last 24 hours. What are we learning about the documents found in Mar-a-Lago?

Well, Judge Aileen Cannon has ruled that based on her rulings, it's unlikely that Donald Trump gets his wish to be able to review the classified document evidence at his home at Mar-a-Lago. Remember, he had asked to do that in June. She issued an order essentially setting a bunch of parameters that seemed to make that impossible. But what's interesting is the order came in September after a motion made in June, which is giving some observers pause about how quickly Judge Aileen Cannon is moving in that case, Garrett.

We're watching that one very closely. And lastly, Ken, you had some exclusive reporting on the pressures facing the prosecutors and the FBI agents who've been investigating the Hunter Biden case. Can you share that with us, please? Yeah, that's right.

Some of those agents, particularly those who have been named by Republicans in Congress, have been subject to threats and their families have as well. And it's so concerning. And the larger threat picture against FBI agents who've been investigating Donald Trump. So concerning that the FBI has had to set up a special unit of 10 people devoted exclusively to investigating and mitigating threats against the FBI.

It's a really grim picture, Garrett. Yeah, that's pretty incredible. All right, Ken Delaney and Carol Lamb, thank you both. And coming up, nearly 150,000 auto workers are threatening to go on strike at midnight tonight in what could be a major economic and political headache for the president.

You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. And hours after his son was indicted on three felony counts tied to his purchase of a gun, President Biden delivered remarks in Maryland on his administration A lot of people feeling the squeeze of everything, not only cars, but daily use items going up and up and up with supply chain issues. And that's continued for two, two and a half years now.

And a lot of employees will tell you they just don't feel like they're getting paid what they're worth. And specifically when it comes to CEOs, to those running the companies that they work for. And that's an issue with the automakers here. They say that they're unproportionately paid compared to what the executives are making.

We hear it all the time. All right, Ali Rafati. Great. Thank you both for your reporting.

And still to come, we'll get another look inside Speaker McCarthy's contentious meeting with his members today. Republican Congressman Mike Waltz will be here on set after a quick break. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back.

We started the hour with the chaos on Capitol Hill this week as House Republicans have struggled to get the votes to avoid a government shutdown, all while juggling this new impeachment inquiry launched by Speaker McCarthy and the threats to oust him from leadership. There is so much news on this topic. We're going back to someone who has been in the thick of it. Joining me now is Florida Republican Congressman Mike Waltz.

So, Congressman, you're on the Armed Services Committee. This defense bill getting pulled the other night. How big of an issue is that? What does it tell us about the state of the Republican Party right now and your ability to govern?

Yeah, look, I mean, I think there's a lot of people, me included, that believes we need to get our spending under control. There's all types of programs that are under threat of literally going bankrupt with the amount of spending just to put it in perspective here. You know, we normally appropriate about $1.5 trillion per year. We've gone through $6 trillion in the last two years.

So I don't any family, there's no family that would be able to spend four times what they bring in. However, to your point on defense, we need to get that bill on the floor. I've encouraged Speaker McCarthy to go ahead and put it on the floor and say, you know what, let's see, let's let the chips fall where they may. Well, exactly.

We have a 30 percent increase for junior enlisted soldiers. We should not have our military members going to food banks for God's sake. So let's, you know, I think what people are doing is they're holding one thing hostage for the broader issue. But first things first, let's take care of our troops.

And that's near and dear to my heart. We need to get it done. I understand your concerns about the spending levels, especially going back historically. But I think Democrats and the White House and the Senate look at this and say, we had a deal.

We did a deal for these top line spending numbers. Does it make House Republicans look unserious that that deal was almost immediately cut out from underneath them? Yeah. So you're getting into the weeds now on really how that deal came about.

It was to go back to FY22 level. Right. Some conservatives think that pulling back the COVID money is really a one time thing. Right.

And doesn't get us to a baseline to get our spending under control. That's the crux of the issue. And I don't think we can lose the forest for the trees here and that we have to get our spending under control. We'll get there.

It may be messy, but I do think we'll get there. Let me go back to the defense bill for a minute because Chuck Schumer was very critical of the way this has been handled on the Senate floor today. I want to play a little bit of what he said today. These days, the actions we see on the other side say more than all the patriotic rhetoric on Earth.

In the House, the Republicans can't even agree to debate a bill to fund the Defense Department and the intelligence community. And they balk at providing emergency aid to a Democratic ally partner fighting off a Russian invasion. You're a veteran. What do you make of his claims now that Republicans rhetoric is just not lining up with your actions on the floor in control of the House?

Republicans have a long history of supporting our troops and supporting a strong national defense. I think in this case, it is two things clashing. One, a group wanting a small group, but obviously an influential one, given the size of our of our majority wanting to get our spending out of control, spending under control. My position is let's not do that on the backs of our troops.

There's a lot of other ways that we can do that. Let's get the defense bill through. Let's defend and fully fund our border. And then let's have that argument going forward.

You've also been supportive of Ukraine. You were in Ukraine. You met with Zelensky. The additional money being requested for Ukraine has become a huge flashpoint within your conference as well.

How active is that discussion? Is that argument about whether or not this money needs to be included? Right now, we're on the on the broader issue of the overall spending. That will that will come.

My problem with it is, is I think that's the kind of the worst flavor of politics to couple that with disaster aid that Americans need right now from California to Texas to Florida. Those should be two separate conversations. The White House are trying to link those together so that people that have concerns with Ukraine aid, they can then beat them up for voting against disaster. I think you'll see those decoupled number one.

And then number two, on Ukraine. Yes, I've been supportive. We should have done a lot more up front to help Ukraine actually win rather than lose less slowly. Yeah, or use more slowly.

Right. But what we need to see going forward, Garrett, is conditionality on that aid. I think it's fair questions to say, what does success look like? What's the pathway to get there?

There needs to be some room between the blank check, which is where the president is, and not another dollar, which is where some others are. The Europeans need to step up and do more. Only nine of 31 NATO nations are living up to their 2% defense commitments. I want to see some leverage to get them to defend themselves and to defend Europe and to help Ukraine more.

And then number two, they've only delivered, particularly the big economies like Germany, France, Italy, a fraction of what the U.S. has. Still the big economies. And a fraction.

Oh, I mean, we have we've delivered double than what all of the European countries combined in terms of military. That's not fair. That's not burden sharing. And this can't continue to be on the backs of the American taxpayer.

I want to ask you about Kevin McCarthy getting very frustrated, obviously, in this meeting today. It's been widely reported. He used a stronger effort than frustration to discuss, you know, the motion to vacate the threats against him. We in the press are very interested in the idea that somebody is going to come from McCarthy if he's going to get ousted from the chair.

How real do you think the possibility is that he faces that vote? Or is it bluster from his more vocal opponents? Yeah, look, I think you're seeing people throw that out there, but I don't see anybody wanting to step into that very, very difficult position. I think McCarthy is doing with a very slim majority.

And, oh, by the way, Garrett, we have people that are out sick. We have people that are having children. Some people are getting surgeries. So a narrow majority is even more narrow.

And he is he is doing the best that I think anybody could do. I want to ask you about impeachment. You've been around for a couple of these now. We're about to potentially go down our third.

You put out a statement in 2019 in the first Donald Trump impeachment that sounds like it could have been written today. This process will continue to be unfair and a major distraction from tackling America's problems. Health care is still too expensive. Our roads aren't being fixed.

Our military currently, when you put this statement out, only has 19 days of funding left. We owe it to the American people to do better. Today, the military has fewer than 19 days of funding left. Does what you said then still apply now?

Well, look, in terms of a vote on impeachment, if that's what you're getting towards, is this the right use of the House's time and energy? I think we have such an avalanche of evidence at this point, Garrett. I mean, we have multiple whistleblowers, two of which are self-described Democrats and civil servants, that are coming out of the woodwork saying they were obstructed in their investigation of whether Joe Biden and Hunter Biden paid their taxes. We're not going to ignore those folks.

We are requesting documents that an inquiry gives us greater standing on. When you have the President of the United States repeatedly lying to the American people about Hunter Biden collecting from China, which he then contradicted in court, but he's lying to the American people. He's not even right coming for President of the United States. So on the one hand, he's saying, I have nothing to do with it.

Now we know from Hunter Biden's business partners and from these whistleblowers and from a credible informant that perhaps he directly collected. I don't know what vice president needs 20 shell companies, suspicious activity reports, money from nefarious individuals. We're not entering articles of impeachment right now. We're saying we need greater standing in an investigation and we have a responsibility to get to the bottom of it.

If that evidence is so strong, why not have the vote to authorize the inquiry? Why not take the next step rather than have Kevin McCarthy just announce it unilaterally? Well, look, I think that that cat was out of the bag with Nancy Pelosi. She set the precedent.

And ultimately didn't hold In which President Biden has legit accomplished a lot, legislatively and otherwise, and don't understand why that's not getting more focus when the focus instead is going to his age and her efficacy. I think, I was at a fundraiser last night with him in the pool and he got us all excited towards the end of his otherwise sort of standard remarks when he said, I want to comment on impeachment. And said, basically, what you guys were just saying, that Marjorie Taylor Greene had wanted to impeach him from day one, and now he thinks they want to impeach him because they want to shut down the government. But he does not wake up every day thinking about impeachment.

He thinks about working for the American people. I echo what he just said because I think that's sort of a window into their strategy. They want to show this split screen. Do you think we will hear him talk about impeachment more or about the attacks on Hunter Biden more from political argument?

You know, we've talked in an earlier segment about the ways in which these economic messages aren't breaking through, but if you can make the contrast that, look, House Republicans are out to get me while I'm doing the work for you, is that a more effective message to acknowledge that more forcefully than it is to pretend like it's not happening? I think that's the split screen window that they're looking for, yes. I don't think he's going to talk about Hunter more. I think he will stay away from that as much as he possibly can.

But I think it's inevitable that he'll have to engage a little bit on impeachment, and he started to last night. Ronald, what do you think? I mean, is this an opportunity for the White House to present a contrast in the same way they did in the midterms? These guys are anti-democratic.

They're far too extreme. Well, I'm out here doing the work. Are they missing that boat by not putting the principle out there to talk about, particularly impeachment, more forcefully? I think who's missing the boat is Republicans, to be quite honest.

I mean, this is just a continuation of their culture wars, their charades that had them lose in 2020 and resulted in a loss in 2022. I mean, Democrats expanded their margin in the Senate. They didn't lose nearly as many House seats as was predicted. And it's because the Republicans seemed to be obsessed with resentment politics, with vindication, with revenge, with culture wars.

And you have the split screen that Jeff talked about, which is the President and the Vice President are governing. They're passing bills that help the American people, that reinvest in this economy. And then you have the Republicans on the other side, McCarthy being one of them, listening to everything Donald Trump whispers into his ear. And it's just not meeting the American people where they're at right now.

Congressman, the President is apparently going to give a speech probably immediately after the next Republican debate to try to highlight the idea that these Republicans who the country will just watch on stage are a threat to democracy. Is that still an effective argument? And how do the actions of this House Republican majority help the President make that case or undercut it? Well, it's pretty hard to make this kind of a monolithic statement about Republicans all being against democracy.

Is it true? Some are. Mitt Romney seems to think they are. Some are.

I'm not going to dispute that. But the challenge is, I think you paint with a pretty broad brush. And I don't think that's going to play as well as they might think. I think it's a decent argument, though, for him to make.

I mean, why not? I mean, why not make that argument and talk about the risk that certainly Trump represents and some of the other Trump wannabes are a threat to these institutions. And so I think it is a strong argument. I think a stronger argument, frankly, is abortion.

I mean, Republicans have two big problems as far as I can see right now. It's Trump and abortion and might be abortion and Trump in that order. And I think that's their big challenge. If I were Biden, I'd stay there.

I mean, you can always go in the anti-democracy issues, but I think it's the other two that will drive the votes. So I want to give you a quick last word. We talked about Mitt Romney announcing he's not going to seek re-election younger than the president, ideologically finding himself allied with him. Another centrist dealmaker hanging it up.

How does that affect the president's thinking about what he can get done, what he would be facing in a second term? We know they spoke. Talk to me about how those two interplay off one another. Well, I think it's the loss of somebody who, as a Republican goes, could be an ally in the Senate in terms of trying to get things done.

I think it's the type of colleague that Joe Biden would have loved to have worked with when he was in the Senate. And you just don't see that many anymore. So I think that's a loss for him. You know, it's not like Mitt Romney is going out saying, if I had stayed, I would have given Joe Biden everything he wanted.

So but it's but it's it's a transition. And it's not a good one for Biden. He did give him a lot of key votes on some very important bills. We've got to leave it there, guys.

All right, Jeff, Ron and Charlie, thank you all. And we'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. And as we mentioned, if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Tomorrow on this show, we'll have a sneak peek at Kristen's one on one interview with former President Trump.

The news continues with Halle Jackson right now. I'm Craig Melvin. Cheers. Cheers.

Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. It's a really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges.

Their stories are funny and candid. So I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows, you might just come away with your own glass half full. Search Glass Half Full with Craig Melvin today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.