Meet the Press NOW — September 18

If it's Monday, deal with it. House Republicans are urging conservative holdouts and critics of House Speaker McCarthy to get on board with a short term deal to keep the government open that is loaded with conservative priorities and likely dead on arrival in the Senate if it ever gets there. Plus, five Americans wrongfully detained in Iran for years are now on their way back to the US in exchange for five imprisoned Iranians and $6 billion in previously frozen funds as President Biden travels to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly. And new developments in the Georgia election interference and racketeering case tied to former President Trump as he faces a potential gag order in federal court and refuses to tell MEET the Press whether he did anything to stop the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

Welcome to the press. Now I'm Garrett Ha reporting in Washington, where House Republicans are scrambling to cobble together the votes to avoid a government shutdown in less than two weeks. Right now, they're even struggling to get on the same page with what amounts to a messaging bill laying out their demands. I say a messaging bill because what we're talking about here is a short term deal to fund the government that has very little chance of actually funding the government because if it can make it through the House, it has pretty much no chance of making it through the Senate.

Over the weekend, it looks like a deal had been struck between the far right and moderate factions of the conference on legislation to fund border security priorities with deep spending cuts and no money for the White House on Ukraine aid or additional disaster funding, all in exchange to keep the government open for one month. As I said, this deal is DOA in the Senate, if it even gets there, because at least nine members of the Republican Conference immediately took to social media to voice their opposition to it, essentially dismissing the deal as too soft, including members of the House Freedom Caucus, which had negotiated the package in the first place. Nine no votes would likely be more than enough to defeat the entire deal. And noticeably absent from these negotiations has been House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who's trying to walk a tightrope that funds the military, keeps the government open, and doesn't cost him his job as speaker.

But speaking to reporters on Capitol HILL earlier today, McCarthy pledged to bring the negotiated CR to the floor even without the votes to pass it. This afternoon, I spoke with one of the top negotiators behind this deal, the chairman of the Main Street Caucus, Republican Dusty Johnson, about the messy state of negotiations inside his conference and what it could mean for Speaker McCarthy's survival. Why should Republicans support what's in this deal. Because if you care about securing the border and every single American should, this is the right mechanism for that.

Republicans want a laser focused package on the border. This does keep government open for 31 days as we finish our work. But far more importantly that than that, it does almost every piece of good policy that we know works at the southern border. We need to get this back.

You've been negotiating with House Green Pockets on this already. A bunch of their members have come out and said they hate this deal. What's the bit of negotiation with the group if the group can't speak for their members? Well, we knew all along that we were not negotiating.

You're never going to negotiate with 222 people. That's how many Republicans are in the U.S. house. What you do is you get dedicated conservatives in the same room.

You talk to the issues, you get something that you think will sell and then you go do the sales job. That's what we're doing right now. How much are you working behind the scenes for Reminders what the speaker has been saying, which is you cannot win a shutdown, you only lose it. Well, shut down is stupid.

I mean, the reality is we need to be responsible enough. We need to be big boys, we need to be big girls. Let's roll up our sleeves, let's do our work. There is no joy, there is no victory in shutdowns.

A shutdown is a proof that Congress refuses to do its job. You know, you can count me out of that group. I am laser focused on keeping the government open and securing the border. We brought forth a plan that will get it done.

I'm hoping that every colleague in the Republican supportive, I think a well intentioned conservative look at all these things and understand what massive wins they are. You're obviously very closely allied with the Speaker. How real do you think the threat is through speakership now and as we get sort of later in the hour of these questions of Cuban government open. I'm not sure DC loves anything more than a good, you know, leadership conflict story, but we're just not focused on that.

I mean, I know there's not spoken members who always want to talk about leadership in the org chart and who's in what position. It's not just the org chart. I mean, second line of the presidency. Yeah, well, I mean, that's an org chart, right?

I mean that's the org chart the Constitution lays out. And there are certainly some members who are asking questions about who the best person to leave the House is. But I would tell you overwhelmingly the Republicans in the U.S. house understand that Kevin McCarthy has the right set of skills to lead the House during this racist time.

Dusty Johnson of the Main Street Caucus. This is Sahil Kapoor of our Capitol Hill team with the latest Inside Hill. You heard us and kind of go through it there a little bit. There's a lot for conservatives in this bill that doesn't appear to be enough.

What's going on here? Yeah, they want something that cannot become law, Garrett. They want a whole host of concessions as part of an appropriations bill that can maybe pass the House with Republican votes only, but is guaranteed to die in the Senate. It certainly won't become law.

It won't be signed by President Biden. But this is also what happens when we have a small minority of a small majority of the House trying to dictate policy for the entirety of Washington when they simply don't have the votes. McCarthy is in a conundrum here. The speaker is.

Because there is no clear path forward at the moment. He's thinking about the next few days to breaking stalemate, trying to get the votes on appropriations bill for defense as well as a CR to prevent the shutdown at the end of next month. Dusty told you very clearly, eloquently why that's not good for anyone in. Republicans usually get blamed politically for it, but it's not strategy to make a ball right now.

That's where there's no clear endgame for, you know, the speaker or for whether it's Jesse Johnson or the House Green. Cause it's no fairing game at the moment. The Congressman disputed the premise of my question about the speaker keeping his gavel. But how difficult is the tightrope he's trying to walk here?

You know, he can fill some gaps with Democrats if, you know, if this isn't enough of the far right, he can move to the left. But that presents a whole different set of problems for him. Yeah, absolutely right. It's a difficult tightrope.

The Speaker's walking every day, as you well know, Garrett. We cover this place together and he always has to watch his back on the basis of threats coming from the far right. Yes, he could very easily team up with Democrats today and pass a simple, clean CR to keep the government open. The Senate passive Biden would sign into law and they would have more time to work on the appropriations process.

But the same hard right members who have been kind of aiming, you know, these proverbial daggers as neck from day one of the new Congress have very clearly said that they would not be okay with it. And some like Matt Gates have threatened to make a motion to overthrow him, a speaker if he goes down that road again. It' a small it's like 10% of the Republican conference making these threats. Now the good thing McCarthy has going for him, we saw this in the first week of the new majority, that 90% of House Republicans are solidly behind him.

And he's good at cultivating that 90% and you know, keeping them on his side and making clear to that 10% that there's no alternative to him. And that's where the rebels are missing something. Would they still, you know, call a motion to overthrow him and just try to burn the place down again, speaking metaphorically here just to make a point, Maybe some of them suggest that they might. But what happens after that?

Is he less there? And of course, across the hallway in the Senate, things were looking much more civilized late last week, but now they're having problems passing their spending bills too. Saddle Caporan, you're busy up there. Thank you for your time and for your reporting.

And joining me now is Arkansas Republican Congressman Steve Womack. Congressman, we just went over some of the things in this deal put together for to attract conservative support, the border elements of it. But it does look like it may already be DOA less than 24 hours after it was announced. And some of your colleagues, Matt Gates, no, Matt Rosendale called it a continuation of Nancy Pelosi's budget and Joe Biden's policies.

Marjorie Taylor Green says she's a no. The list goes on. What do you make of this mess right now? Well, it's an unmitigated disaster right now on the majority side we look, I'm fearful of what this leads to.

But let's also remember it's the 18th of September. It's really early in the process. And I say that Tony Cheek, you know, we're going to run out of money in a little over a week and my guess is we won't see a resolution to this. If we see a resolution that can clear, we won't see it until sometime late next week, just as the sands in the hourglass continue to fall through the glass and time is running out on us.

But it's clear from last night's conference call and the ensuing social media remarks by a handful of members that the program that has been co authored by Main street and Freedom Caucus does not have the sufficient votes right now in the House of Representatives to pass. In fact, I'm not even sure that if the Rules committee today publishes a combined rule. I don't know if that's the case, but if they do a combined rule for appropriations on Wednesday and this package on Thursday, I'm not sure we do either of those because I'm not real sure that the rule can pass. And we have to pass the rule before we can go to the upper down vote on the underlying legislation.

So it's in trouble. No question about that. And you don't have to be a political expert to figure that out. That was my read on it as well.

I'm curious, I mean, at whose speed do you lay blame for this? I mean, is this the Speaker's fault for not putting the conference together or outsourcing this to, you know, these other disparate groups to organize this? Or is this sort of that rebel hard right group that doesn't seem to want to take yes for an answer? You know, that's just too easy to, to suggest that there is, that there is one element that bears the brunt of this.

Let's just face the facts. The country is divided. The politics of the country are divided. There are strong feelings.

We spend too much money that we fund too many things that are not consistent with the underlying values that make America great. And there's a war going on right now between, and it's falling on the discretionary budget because that's the closest part of government that you, that you see. And there is this great tug of war going on. We know the left wants to spend more money and fund more programs and grow government and raise taxes.

Seems to be a disagreement between people who agree. And then you've got on the right, you've got a fractured GOP majority with a very, very slim number. They can ill afford to fumble or else they're gonna have to rely on the left to come get those folks. So the point is that the Republicans are trying to carry this water on their own.

They have to have 218 out of a very fractured group. And you've already got a sufficient number of people right now on the record on social media saying they're not going to take it up or not going to support it. I question whether or not we can even get a rule passed on it. And that means that we're going to fool around here another week, accomplish absolutely nothing.

All the while, the country is headed towards shutdown. And the Senate is trying to, trying its best to at least present an appropriations package that can clear the Senate and maybe come over to the House and get some bipartisan votes. But There is clear that Kevin McCarthy concern. Has to be concerned about retaining the speakership if in fact he has to turn to the left and start courting votes on the left, because there would have to be something in the mix for them.

So what's the solution here? I mean, do you think this, some of these no votes are people who sort of have to touch the hot stove? Do we have to have a shutdown for people to get to the conclusion where this is always going to end up, that it might take a bipartisan deal like the debt deal? Yeah.

Well, in this, in this environment, that may be exactly what has happened. You have to find the bottom, and the bottom may indeed be some kind of a shutdown. The problem with the shutdown, though, think about this. You shut it down eventually, got to open it back up.

And under what conditions do you open it back up? Do you think the members of the hard right on the Freedom Caucus side are going to relent? I mean, how long did we think the Tommy Tumblerville hole of military promotions was going to stand? And it's still in place today.

So when people are determined and they're dug in, then you're going to have to find a different solution. In the old days, Matt, in the old days, a speaker would turn to, I don't have the votes on my side, but with 10 or 12 of your members coming to the table, we can get this deal done and move the country forward. But you know what that means. And, and I know the speaker's trying to avoid that circumstance.

Former President Trump was on this broadcast this weekend, basically encouraging a shutdown, saying, okay, they're gonna deal out to get it done. How much does that influence your conference and do you find that to be helpful? Well, it probably does influence members of my conference. Personally, I think it's nonsensical to be advocating for government sentence.

You're talking to an ex mayor. My job was to, to run the city of Rogers, Arkansas and put competing interests together and work out solutions, find compromise and keep government flow. That's what executive branch people do. I am concerned right now that there are too many people up here that don't feel like government shutdowns are all that bad to deal if they don't really affect people.

Let me assure you, and I don't care who you are, even if you don't think a government shut affects you, trust me, it's expensive, it affects you. And eventually we're gonna have to get this thing operational once we shut it down. And the question then becomes what changes in order to do that? And was it a fool's errand in the beginning?

Mayors always get this. If a trash collection doesn't come, they're responsible. I always find that to be the case with former mayors. I want to ask you about something else.

The impeachment inquiry. This was a huge topic last week, the speaker making this announcement unilaterally. You were on the record in 2019 at the dawn of the first Trump impeachment inquiry. You posted on social media the following.

This impeachment inquiry is unsurprising. Instead of governing, House Dems have been obsessed with impeachment. It's been their entire agenda. Fueling this area and spreading unsubstantiated narratives is dangerous.

Congress should be focused on the challenges facing the nation. What's different now in 2023, Congressman? Well, other than the fact that there is a cloud hanging over the entire Biden administration with regard to some of the deal making that it has been alleged. And about the only way to really figure this out is to do some kind of an inquiry, get the right answers, get everything on the record and make an informed decision.

I'm not about to suggest that I'm ready to vote for an impeachment because that requires high crime to Mr. Mirrors and that has not been proven as we hold this conversation. So let's get those answers. In the past, it was clear that the Democrats wanted to go after Donald Trump and they did everything they could to do that.

And so. But I always subscribe to this. Impeachment is a very important and powerful tool. I would argue the most important tool in the toolbox for Congress to hold people accountable in the executive branch.

I think you gotta be careful how you use it or else it becomes a useless tool and only for political purposes. We have to be careful not to do that. All right, Congressman, cover like Brown there. Thank you for your time.

I appreciate you coming on the press now. Glad to do it. Thank you. All right, coming up, five Americans are on their way home after being free from a notorious Iranian prison as President Biden prepares for a major week at the UN plus, new developments in the fight over abortion rights in battleground Wisconsin, where clinics are set to resume services more than a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v.

Wade. You're watching me, the Press now. Welcome back. Right now, five Americans who are wrongfully detained in Iran are on a plane back to the United States.

This was the scene earlier today as those free Americans arrived in Doha. As you can see, they were greeted by Qatari And American officials. White House says President Biden spoke with the families, calling it an emotional conversation. They're released today as part of a prisoner swap between the US And Iran.

In exchange, five Iranian nationals held in US Custody are expected to also be released. And Iran now has access to its $6 billion in oil revenue that was previously frozen under U.S. sanctions. U.S.

officials are adamant that the money will only be used for humanitarian purposes. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle express concerned about exactly how this money will be used, with some Republicans blasting the deal, equating it to a ransom payment. Joining now as MC News Toronto are chief Ali Rusu and NBC News White House correspondent Mike Memling. So, Ali, I'll start with you.

What more we know about the Americans released and what are we hearing from them so far in their few hours of freedom? Hey, guy. Well, we know that the five that have been released, two of them have chosen to stay anonymous, possibly because they have family members in Iran and they don't want to endanger them. The three that have gone public are 51 year old Asia Maknae, who spent more time in an Iranian prison than any other US citizen in history.

Then there's 59 year old businessman Ahmad Sharghi and 67 year old environmentalist Mourad Tabaz, who's also a British citizen. Now, shortly after his release, Siamak Namazi, who incidentally his father was also in prison in Iran for six years, who come back to try to release him. Siamak released a very heartfelt note. He said, my heartfelt gratitude goes to President Biden and his administration which made this incredibly difficult decision.

Thank you President Biden, for ultimately putting the lives of American citizens above politics. He also spoke about what a horrendous ordeal his time in prison was, where he saw the worst of humanity. So this is going to be a huge relief to get back on US Soil after that experience. It's going to take a huge physical and emotional toll on him.

And just on a secondary point, Gary, I thought it'd be interesting to point out out of the five Rohingyans that have been released in US Custody, three of them have legal status in the United States and those three have decided not to go back to Iran, Interestingly. Yeah, that's fascinating. Ali, my other question here for the Iranians, they have 6 billion reasons to make this deal in addition to, you know, swapping these hostages. But Rice is also going to be in New York this week speaking before the UN Is this a matter of softening his image on the world stage or at home.

I mean, all politics is local, right? What's in it for the Iranian president? I don't think the release of these five Americans was a coincidence in the timing with the unga. Raisi certainly wants to come over to New York with a softer image to say that he's been, you know, he's been very kind to release these people that the discipline, very goodwill towards the United States in order to get sanctions released.

That will be his main goal. He'll be there saying, look, we've shown goodwill releasing these guys even though they spent some of them eight years in a prison without any real illegal courses to defend them. But this will be an attempt to start a conversation either directly or indirectly with US Officials that he hopes will end in a sanctions relief. All right, Ali Ruzzi in Tehran for us tonight.

Thank you, Ali. And Mike, let's pick up right there. Is this an effort to, if this is enough to start a conversation, perhaps on sanctions relief, perhaps on a nuclear, nuclear talks, will it work? Well, Garrett, within the Biden administration, you have a number of officials who were at the tip of the spear, really, during the Obama administration in laying the groundwork for what became the jcpoa, the Iran nuclear deal.

So I think it's no secret among them that there is strong interest in trying to get back to some version of it, at least one that will not require the interference as they would see it from members of Congress, because we've seen that movie before. But I think this is what the White House and the Biden administration is calling an example of practiced and principled diplomacy. This prisoner squat today requires some very difficult choice, but ones that they felt were ultimately necessary. And to pick up on Ali's point, this is absolutely not a coincidence in terms of the timing.

Yes, on the part of the Iranian side, they do want to come to the US With a little bit of an how often can you say this? Some good PR on the EVA of the UN General Assembly. But this is also matching the Biden administration's effort to frame this week as an example of what this kind of diplomacy could lead to. And so I think the White House is very clear eyed about the likelihood of any breakthrough as it relates to nuclear deal, at least on paper.

But there's the hope that this is going to be the latest in a series of sort of goodwill efforts that could, if not lead to a new deal, at least lead to sort of a handshake agreement, maybe not on paper, but one that will lead to Iran putting the brakes to some extent on this nuclear program and then waiting to see what happens in terms of the US Election next fall. You're going to be the center of a very interesting set of conversations in New York at the UN over the next couple days, Mike. But as you know, being president, he's having to do a million things at once. And the White House is also focused on these talks through the UAW and the big Three that got back together over the weekend.

The president, who said he'd be most pro labor president ever, has said he'd send some top officials to Detroit. How involved are they? How involved is the White House more generally in these negotiations? Well, the White House is certainly an interested party.

Right. The president has a lot on the line if this strike were to be prolonged. He wants to continue to make an economic message heading into the fall and he wants to continue to reinforce his labor bona fides. But the more you listen to Sean Fain as he is out there in public, the more you get the sense that there is a bit of daylight between what the Biden administration hopes to see in terms of a quick resolution and between what Fain is hoping to see in terms of a good deal for his workers.

In fact, Fain on our own network today, making it clear that this is not something that he thinks the White House has much of a role to play. Ultimately, this is the UAW's job, not the administration's job. The administration did make quite a show, the president himself announcing on Friday that he was sending Jean Spurling and sending Julie sue to try to have sort of at least an outside role in bringing these parties to a resolution. But based on listening to what we're hearing from the Big Three and what we're hearing from the oaw, it's not clear that they're actually playing much of a role yet.

And so I think it's going to be a watch this space moment. The longer this goes, I think the more you're going to see the White House getting even more publicly agitated, perhaps. We've heard some Democrats concerned about as much as they want to see a fair deal for uaw, maybe they overplay their hand. And so that is going to be part of what I think is going to be a fascinating dynamic as this plays out.

Yeah. And let's not forget, in the wings is Donald Trump, who's been trying to eject himself into this debate, saying it's the Biden administration's electric car policies that have brought him to this point and arguing that the UAW ought to endorse him and their members ought to vote for him. So there's a lot of political pressure and different angles of this all. Mike, which I know you'll be on top of.

Thank you, Mike Mumling. And up next, it's one of the most divisive issues in the country. Former President Trump tells me the press some of his fellow Republicans are pursuing quote, terrible restrictions on abortion. Plus what he says he'll do about calls for federal ban on abortion.

You're watching me depressed now. Welcome back. In an exclusive interview on the press, former President Donald Trump said he would deliver a deal on abortion that would bring together both Democrats and Republicans. Well, that seems unlikely.

He did seem to take a more muted stance on the issue of abortion, specifically calling out Republican primary rival Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on the issue. Listen to this. If a federal ban landed on your desk, if you were reelected, would you sign it at 15? You talking about a complete ban, a ban at 15 weeks?

Well, people, people are starting to think of 15 weeks. That seems to be a number that people are talking about right now. Would you sign that? I would sit down with both sides and I'd negotiate something and we'll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years.

I'm not going to. I would or I wouldn't. I mean to sank is willing to sign a five week and six week ban. I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.

But we'll come up with a number. But at the same time, Democrats won't be able to go out in six months, seven months, eight months and allow an abortion. The former president hasn't landed on a clear stance on the issue yet. He is still quick to take credit for overturning Roe v.

Wade. Now one of the states rewardation is likely to huge factor in 2024 is in Wisconsin where two Planned Parenthood clinics will once again offer abortion care today after a judge ruled that the procedure does not violate the state's 19th century trigger ban. NBC's Mar Bar is on the ground in Milwaukee as Planned Parenthood resumes performing abortions there. And also joined by Amy Walter, the publisher and editor in chief of the Cook Political Report.

All right, so Mar break down how these clinics are able to operate. Now what's the basis for this judge's decision and what's the expected impact of these two clinics coming back online on. Well, Gary, basically over last year, the subject of that 1849 law, the legality of it was up to interpretation because as it was written nearly a century and a half ago, basically they said that anybody other than a mother than the mother that quote destroys the life of an unborn child could be found guilty of a felony. Now, there was a lawsuit that's been circulating in the state in recent months, and a judge ruled over the summer that basically this is not seen as abortion.

That's relatively called fetishide, which would be the case in a Salter battery case of separate from abortion. That's why Planned Parenthood has hinged their decision on what we saw based off this ruling to resume abortions here in the state even as litigation is ongoing. And that's significant because we saw over the summer, again, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court now has a liberal majority. And so that's significant as well and could kind of paint a blueprint for other battleground states, other campaigns, as we're looking ahead to 2024 on how they decide to focus on abortion of the issue and what that looks like in terms of make.

Because again, remember, here in battleground Wisconsin, abortion, the right to an abortion is something that a majority of voters do want, but it's a very slim margin. And so Planned Parenthood making this ambitious, very significant decision to start up those abortions today, appointments made and happened today here in Milwaukee and Madison. Planned Parenthood telling us they're looking to expand those services. And this will have a bigger impact in the region because the state of Illinois just south of us had seen a 600 increase in patients seeking care.

Because if you look at a map of abortion animals in the Midwest, it's very, very isolated there. So this does open up some ease of burden in the case of where abortions are allowed. More bear on Milwaukee for us. Mara.

Thank you, Amy. I want to play a little bit more of Donald Trump because I think it's important. The rest of the field has been forced to kind of set their positions and digging on it like traditional politician. What that's not about.

Donald Trump's going. Let's play a little more this interview. Democrats don't want to see abortion in the seventh month. Okay?

I speak to a lot of Democrats. They want a number. There is a number and there's a number that's going to be agreed to. And Republicans should go out and say the following because I think the Republicans speak very inarticulately about the subject.

I watched some of them without the exceptions, et cetera, et cetera. I said, other than certain parts of the country, you can't, you're not going to win on this issue, but you will win on this issue when you come up with the right number of weeks. It's sort of fascinating in a vacuum to see him break this down. Almost like he's making negotiations to buy a building.

But when you make up the strategies of what you're in, the critique of Republican messages on this issue. He sounds like a strategist, actually, or like he's a pollster that's been looking at the data and trying to tell candidates how to position himself, themselves, themselves, which is exactly what Republicans are doing right now. We're starting to hear about conversations. I think it was NBC News that broke the story about the language about her life.

Right. So trying to find new language in there. We're seeing we have state legislative elections in Virginia where the issue of a 15 week ban is basically on the table. It's not on the ballot per se, like a ballot initiative.

But the governor said if he gets a Republican majority in the Senate, keeps it in the House, that's what will happen. So we're seeing real life instances where Republicans are trying to find out the right formula for how to talk about this issue because they did not do it very well. They're inarticulate. As President Trump said, he also sounds like a candidate who doesn't have a primary.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Oh, primaries. I'm not worried about my primary flank. I'm just going all in on the general election.

He's not moderating his position. He's making his position unclear. Nothing about this answer makes it less likely that he'll get asked this question every other time he sits down with a serious interviewer. Is that problematic for him?

And does that help him? Like, he doesn't want to be talking about this any more than any other Republican candidate who's not totally dug in on a very specific position. But he also, because for him, I think it fits into an entirely different category. Again, for your traditional Republican candidate, would look at the issue of abortion and say, boy, I take a position on this issue that's going to not alienate swing voters.

Maybe it's a position of conscious and they just got it. Absolutely. But Donald Trump has problems with swing voters and moderate voters. That has nothing to do with his position on abortion.

It has to do with who he is and what he has done. The biggest challenge I think that Republicans have on this issue, they are not trusted as much as Democrats for good reason. But so through the Biden campaign, what do you do with this? Right.

Because in theory, Abortion is kind of like the secret weapon in a lot of these battleground states, as Mars is pointing out on Wisconsin. It's gonna be very much front of mind. But it's harder, I suppose, to paint Donald Trump into a very specific category on abortion unless you just say like, this is the guy who took away Roe v. Wade.

What do you do if you're a Democrat, you know, for the Biden campaign or somebody else trying to run on those kind of coattails? Yeah, I think the question that Democrats are gonna raise is why would you trust what he's saying? You just go back and you play the many times where he said, I'm the one responsible for the Supreme Court, I'm the one responsible for overturning Roe versus Wade. And then of course, all the other lies that have been put forward by the former president on a host of other issues.

Well, we gotta leave it there. The whole, the whole interview is on our website and it's worth going to check out because the answer is adjourn. Walter, thank you very much. And after the break, gag orders, legal filings, and Donald Trump in his own words.

We're digging into the potential legal fallout for the former president after he doubled down on his election conspiracy theories in that exclusive interview on me the press. You're watching me the press now. Welcome back. Stop me if you've heard this one before, but another one of Donald Trump's co defendants in Georgia election interference case is trying to have his case moved to federal court.

Lawyers for former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark appeared in federal court today arguing that Clark was acting in his official capacity when he assisted the former president trying to overturn Georgia's election results. That's the same argument Trump White House Chief of staff Mark Meadows made in his failed effort to get his case moved to federal. Trump, meanwhile, may have undermined a possible defense in the election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, telling Kristen Welker that was his decision, not his lawyers, to challenge the 2020 election results. You called some of your outside lawyers, you said they had crazy theories.

Why were you listening to them? Were you listening to them because they were telling you what you wanted to hear? You know who I listened to? Myself.

I saw what happened. I watched that election and I thought the election was over. At 10 o' clock in the evening. You listen to your instincts.

My instincts are a big part of it. That's been the thing that's gotten me to where I am, my instincts. But I also listen to people. There are many lawyers I could give you many books.

There are books that are written on how the election was rigged. There are numerous books that were written on how the election was. Just to be clear, were you listening to your lawyer's advice or were you listening to your instincts? I was listening to different people.

People. And when I edit it all up, the election was rigged. Recalling shots on Mr. President, ultimately, as to whether or not I believed it was rigged, sure, it was my decision.

I'm joined now by Carol lamb, a former U.S. attorney and former superior court judge, and now lucky for us, and NBC News legal analysts. So, Carol, from a legal standpoint, how much damage do you think Donald Trump did to his defense in the federal election interference case? Like, are we going to hear that answer played in the federal courtroom?

Probably, Garrett? I think we all recognize by now that every time Donald Trump grants an interview or speaks in front of a crowd and opens his mouth and talks about the events of January 6th and who was in charge, he starts eliminating some of the arguments that his lawyers can make. So, yes, all of the prosecutors out there are taking notes. And whether or not Donald Trump takes the witness stand, these, these segments can be played.

They are a defendant statement. And under the law, a defendant's prior statement can come in whether or not that defendant takes the stand. Forgive me, this is too in the weeds, but given the nature of the Georgia case and the idea that Trump was somehow orchestrating this broad, you know, racketeering conspiracy, essentially what he's charged with is an answer like that that was coming from his instincts, that he was calling the shots, as Kristen phrased it to him. Is that more damaging in Georgia than it is in the federal case, or are we splitting legal hairs here?

I wouldn't say you're splitting legal, Harris, but the answer is actually it's not more damaging in the Dorgy case. It's actually equally damaging to Donald Trump in both cases because both cases essentially charge the same crime that he wanted so badly to be declared the winner of the, of the 2020 election that he would do or say anything. And the scope of the conspiracies that are charged both in Georgia and in the federal case are really quite broad, and they span many, many states, and they span a lot of conduct. And so Don out there saying, I was in charge, I followed my own instincts.

He takes away, in both cases, the ability of his lawyers to say, well, he was just relying on advice of counsel. That is what his lawyers were saying. And Kristen Welker in the interview was pretty clear about saying, which lawyers did you depend on. And he said, well, you know, I didn't.

Lawyers told me different things, but I was the one who made the decision. I want to ask you about another very thorny piece of law here with prosecutors now asking for a limited gag order in the federal case from Judge Chutkan. They're worried about the former president attacking witnesses and so forth. The judges have made it very clear they don't want to go down this road.

I wonder how likely you think it is that Judge Chutan will grant this request and if she does, how she'll enforce it. Well, they don't want to go down this road, the judges, but they will if they have to. And I think Judge Tucken is going to impose some limitations. The motion filed by Jack Smith asking for a narrow, limited order restricting what the former president can say, it was very limited.

And it said statements having to do derogatory statements having to do with witnesses, court personnel, potential jurors, individuals. And it then explicitly said this or the requested order would not impact his ability to talk about his innocence or to quote from any pleadings that have been filed in the case. So they are trying to be narrow and, and give the judge some basis for saying, I am only talking about things that could threaten or lead to threats against actual individuals who will partake in the trial. On the Georgia case, we've got the Jeff Clark argument now moving the case to federal court.

We already saw a federal judge shoot this down in Mark Meadows case. Does Clark have any better shot, or is it just kind of going to be the sort of drumbeat of perhaps fairly tedious hearings and filings we see in the Georgia case going forward? It seems that Mark Meadows actually had the better argument and he failed in that argument before the judge. His argument that as chief of staff to the former president, he was really one with the president.

He had to make phone calls, he had to make arrangements. And there was really not much airspace between Donald Trump and Mark Meadows. I think Jeffrey Clark is in a very different position. He is within the institution of the Department of Justice, and he was in the environmental law section.

There was really no overlap between his job duties and detecting or addressing election fraud. So I think Mark Meadows had the better argument. And again, he did not. He did not prevail in front of this judge.

So I think Jeffrey Clark's chances are even less than Mark Meadows. And real quick, while I still have the other big legal news today, Hunter Biden's lawsuit against the irs, do we think that is merits G the disclosure laws with respect to people's tax returns are very, very stringent. I think most people would be surprised by how stringent they are. And what happened here?

What happened here is that this is not a lawsuit by Hunter Biden against the whistleblowers. It is a lawsuit against the IRS saying that you are not carrying out your duties to protect individual taxpayers information. And even if whistleblowers are allowed to go to Congress and even if Congress is allowed to then disclose information, those whistleblowers cannot then go on national news and get introduced to news media and either confirm or add to that disclosure of taxpayer information. And it's not just the information on the tax return.

It's also information regarding any investigation of that taxpayer. And so I think there's some merit to this lawsuit. And apparently Hunter Biden has decided that a good defense includes some offense. All right.

Well, buckle up. It's gonna be a very interesting fall with all Case is Berkeley Carolam. Thank you for your analysis. And still come the Trump vortex, Republican inciting Bidens and Peach and problems and what all of it means for the race for the White House.

The panel is next. You're watching MEET THE Press now. Welcome back. Christy Milker, Sit down with Donald Trump was the former president's first extended network interview since leaving the White House.

And it was the first time we heard from him on the record about some of his actions on January 6th. Listen to some of their exchange on what he did as the Capitol was being attacked. Tell me how you watched this all in four. Were you in the dining room watching?

I'm going to tell you. I'll tell people later at an appropriate time. Just so you understand. However, what did you see the statements I made in the Oval Office and just outside of the Oval Office?

Absolutely. Our police are great. We love our police. We love everybody go home.

I don't know three hours after that. I want to know who you on that day. Nancy Pelosi. Why would I tell you that?

Listen, Nancy was in charge of security. She turned down 10,000 soldiers. If she didn't turn down the soldiers, you wouldn't have had January 6th. Did you call military law enforcement?

What did you call military law enforcement at the moment? Let me put it this way. I behaved so well. I did such a good job.

Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 soldiers if she didn't do that. And now lot to unpack there. And join me now to do it on set is Molly Ball, national political correspondent for Time magazine. Savante Meyer, former Democratic mayor of Ithaca, N.Y.

and president and CEO of People the American Way. And Garrett Ventri, founder of GRB Strategies and former senior communications advisor to Senate Judiciary Committee, for whom we're willing to break our only one Garrett on set at a time rule. Molly, I want you to pick up Eric, who heard from the former president. What do you make of what he chooses to respond to about this and what he doesn't?

What does it tell us about how he thinks about that issue politically and legally? Yeah, you know, it's really remarkable to hear a politician so hostile to the question that he actually says, I'm not going to tell you that. Right. We're used to some, I guess, more clever evasive tactics from our politicians, misdirection, answering a different question.

But he split out says, I'm not going to tell you that. It's clear that this is very sensitive for him, that he knows he is in legal jeopardy on these specific questions. You know, we already have a lot of information about what it is that he was doing. There was a lot of testimony to this that effect in the January 6 committee hearings, for example.

But clearly he does not want to engage with that question personally, perhaps because he knows how that those words could be used. We had this conversation six months ago, maybe right after the midterms. I think they prevailing theories, Republicans really wanted to move on from January 6th just as an issue, but Donald Trump isn't moving on from them at all. He leans into it and he's being the field by 50 points.

What should people understand about how Republican voters think about the January 6 issue and the way that the former president chooses to still engage with it? That's why I think Republicans and Democrats obviously think very differently about the January 6 issue. Obviously, the reason the former president has to continue to talk about it too is the ongoing pending legal cases that he faces, obviously in Georgia related to this and here in Washington, D.C. and the Jack Smith indictment.

So it could continue to have to talk about, I think probably on the advice of the lawyers, they probably want to go chewing detail with this because these things can be used in the court of law later. So I think he's going to continue to focus on his legal right under the electoral conic and First Amendment to object to the results of the election. Like previous Democrats, Al gore, Barbara Boxer, 2016 and Congressman Raskin. Yes, I think he's going to continue to try and stand that argument there and the details will be flushed out in the case.

But he thinks a good political argument to still argue that the election was stolen from him, it's worked for him to a certain extent. I mean certainly in the primary is an argument that's working right now. And there's no fact that he's up 40, 50 points in Fox, CBS, CNN, Wall Street Journal polls here. But also the interesting thing that I see about this here, both the four indictments and the January 6th situation is not hurting right now in the general election.

He's beating Biden in a couple recent polls before 46 and Fox and the CBS poll, the counties only 50, 49. So clearly, as more time passes on this, I think there are more pressing issues than voters care about to those pressing issues. And if you're in the Biden White House with Biden campaign, I guess and you're looking at this interview and you're looking for something to try to dent that support on Donald Trump if and when you get to a general election. What do you see in this interview that you can use in that way?

Well, if you look for one thing, if you look for one thing, you're gonna be in trouble. You look for two or three dozen things that you can pull out. What's the top of your list? Is it the abortion answer?

Is it? Yes. First, his continued slavish devotion to an abortion ban nationwide, his avoidance of saying himself down on that. I mean, that's part of the problem.

Exactly. But if you are watching, you should be very concerned that he did not rule it out. I think secondly, his insistence that he will pardon. You know, he played his little games and it really seems like games, as you said, never seen anybody see more like a six year old answering the question.

I'm not gonna tell you because I behaved so well. I didn't break the lamp. The lamp broke itself. I'm not gonna tell you what I was doing when I do.

Imagine yourself sixth when Kristen Booker, who by the way deserves a medal of valor for stepping in there, doing so well. She did a great job. Did a very good job. Press him on whether he was going to pardon the people who attacked police officers, the people who planned this, the people who are already convicted in our prison for beating to death police officers.

He said, I've been looking at it very closely, but we treated him unfairly, folks. Right now, now I get it. Look, it's not that he thinks January 6th is a winner for him. He thinks that he has to be at all times a winner.

And it's hard to project that if he lost an election to batting Joe Biden. So he has to keep making this case. If he's gonna succeed in the next election, but when it comes to general election time, fuck's gonna be mine. I think he's suggesting that the President is planning a speech on the sort of defensive democracy stuff that used during the midterms of the day after the next Republican debate, perhaps trying to capitalize on.

Exactly that jumped out to me and my sort of dual role covering is his willingness to encourage Republicans to shut down the government if they can't get a good enough deal. I'm curious what you make of his involvement in that. But also kind of like touch like, you don't see him jumping down the Speaker's throat on this. It's like, oh, well, you know, they'll figure it out.

If they can't, they should totally shut it down. Yeah, well. And we've seen him do this, take his stance for Congressional Republicans a lot in the years since he left office. And the congressional leaders don't tend to listen to him very much.

You know, they'll sometimes pay him lip service and then they'll go on and do their thing. But it's hard to ignore the, you know, the louder he is about, I think, to your point. But that does seem to be the way things seem to be headed. Right.

And so to the extent that Speaker Kevin McCarthy doesn't want to shut down the government, he can't be welcoming these kind of comments from, you know, an influential leader who's the elector nominee of the party to be basically cheerleading for a government shutdown. And we saw, you know, he was in office, he had the longest government shutdown in history and made a point to claim it as his thing, set the record yet another superman for President Donald Trump. So, you know, I think he continues to cause Kevin McCarthy a lot of heartburn and continues to really capitalize on divisions within the Republican Party. That's always been sort of part of what has powered him is the divisions within the party.

Whether you're talking about the Tea Party versus the establishment or now the Freedom Caucus versus Kevin McCarthy, he's always seen that as an opportunity for him. Sort of divide and conquer that. That's all. I'm Garrett.

I was struck by the Speaker's context of the weekend praising Trump. He came about as close as he's come to endorsing without endorsing him. Obviously, the former president does have sway behind the scenes. He talks to all these members all the time.

You have better read on this anyway, at this table. What is his control the wrong word? What's the degree of sort of influence that he has behind the scenes in the Republican conference either on specific issues like fighting the government or sort of the general sort of thematic approach to government that they have right now. So I think the interesting thing is he even said this in the interview on Unmute the presidential he has to ask them to do things.

They're just essentially doing them. He has dominated the Republican whether it's on the border, whether it's on a host of other issues. His economic policies, his foreign policies. Even if you look at the shift from 2012 to 2016 where you are today on Republican foreign policy overall as a party, it's completely shifted and Trump has Bennett towards his will here.

So I think in terms of the shutdown you're mean a shutdown happens until it does it these things you've covered the Hillary Congress waits till the last minute so you know negotiations are starting to make their productive over the weekend. Now you've got some holdouts or Democrat against a slim majority now he showed on debts that would bring Republicans together to get something done. We'll see if they'll do it again here. So I'm giving you the last one.

There's an opportunity for the Democratic controlled Senate here to appear to the built in the room if they can pass something. I'm not convinced they can do that. They didn't take a step backwards last weekend. What's the opportunity to prove that Democrats govern better that exists for the Senate if there's such a thing.

Oh my gosh. It's the same as the last 20 years. And that while the Republicans inside the House are continuing to pick up with each other calling for the names, calling for the removal of the speaker that they installed after record breaking whatever number of votes. 15 but who's counting?

It's clear that President Biden and the Senate which were led by Democrats cut a responsible deal with Speaker McCarthy. They showed how to govern in a divided political atmosphere and they should hold the ground and show voters that they're the ones fighting for the working class and for the middle class. While the Barberton and Gates continue to walk all over speaker Kevin McCarthy. We have time for like 10 seconds but I'm curious if you're ready on the House of Republican conference, does McCarthy survive this round here?

I'm not necessarily this week but this is the highest bar he's had a clear get a security thing he can do and the simple answer is yes until there's a threat for four and you've got one. You've got Representative Gates obviously very loudly saying he's going to do this literally every day, you know, until you have four other people join him. I don't think it's a real threat to speak McCarthy again. Debt ceiling overcoming 15 historic votes there.

I think right now there's really no other option either. Members like him. He's done a good job bringing conservatives in the fold. All right, we'll leave it there and we'll check in on that prediction in a few weeks.

Molly Balls of Anthe Mari, Gary Ventry, thank you all. I am back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS now. NBC NEWS now continues with Yasmin Vesuvian in for Hallie Jackson right now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink.

This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starring in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon.

She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.