Meet the Press NOW – September 27

If it's Wednesday, where hours away from the second Republican presidential debate, with seven candidates set to take the stage and make their case in what could be their last big chance to shake up a race that's been dominated by Donald Trump. Plus, Senator Menendez and his wife plead not guilty to federal bribery charges in their first court appearance since last week's damning indictment, as calls for the senator's reservation grow louder on Capitol Hill. And no let up on the log jam in Congress. I'll talk to elected Republicans from both sides of Capitol Hill about their party's perilous path to avoid a government shutdown, now just three days away.

Hello, and welcome to Meet the Press Now on Brian Nobles, reporting in Washington as seven of the Republican presidential hopefuls are getting ready to debate the future of their party once again, without the front runner on stage. And once again, as that front runner is facing legal peril. This time after a judge ruled late yesterday that Donald Trump committed years of business fraud, wondering that some of his companies should be removed from his control and dissolved. But folks, heading into tonight, Republican primary voters have made it abundantly clear to this field that every candidate on stage tonight is effectively running as a plan B to Donald Trump, despite his growing legal issues.

Our new national NBC News poll has Trump leading his closest rival by 43 points nationally. He's almost at 60% support among likely Republican primary voters. It's the same story in the early state polls. About half of Republican primary voters are backing Trump in the new CVS U-GOV polls out of Iowa and New Hampshire.

And for the former president, he clearly already has an eye on a general election, skipping tonight's debate in California to instead travel to the battleground of Michigan, where he's set to appear at a non-union auto manufacturing plant outside Detroit to meet with auto workers amidst the ongoing UAW strike. Now, as a visit to Michigan comes just a day after President Biden hit the picket lines in nearby Wayne County, which the Biden campaign, which also has their eyes on the general election, followed up with a new ad attacking their likely 2024 rival. He says he stands with auto workers, but his president, Donald Trump, passed tax breaks for his rich friends, while automakers shuttered their plants and Michigan lost manufacturing jobs. Joe Biden said he'd stand up for workers and he's delivering passing laws that are increasing wages and creating good paying jobs.

And the former president's visit also comes as UAW President Sean Fane is accusing him of essentially turning his back on auto workers when he was in the White House. The ultimate show of how much he cares about our workers was in 2019 when he was the president of the United States. Where was he then? Our workers at GM were on strike for 60 days for two months.

They were out there on the picket lines. I didn't see him hold a rally. I didn't see him stand up to picket line, and I sure as hell didn't hear him comment about it. Our NBC news correspondents are on the ground.

Dasha Burns and Simi Valley, California, ahead of tonight's debate, upon Hilliard covering all things Trump and Detroit. And with me on set is NBC News Justice and Intelligence correspondent Kendall Lee and with the latest on Trump's legal troubles. Dasha, let's start with you. Every single candidate on the stage tonight needs something drastic to change in this primary to be the Republican nominee.

Does that mean we could see some fireworks? You're right, Ryan. This is a really important moment. Look, a lot of people can argue for general elections, whether or not debates really make a difference.

But here's the thing about primary debates. There are a few voters in a few states that these folks really have to convince, and they are paying a lot more attention than your general electorate, right? The voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, where these candidates are really focused, they take their job really, really seriously. And right now, the voters that are looking to turn the page on former President Trump, they are looking at these seven candidates and they are trying to figure out, is there one person that we can get behind here because you talked to any political expert and they'll tell you, consolidation has to happen, otherwise the math just doesn't work.

Someone has to step out of the fold. Now, former Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was hoping he would be sort of the natural heir to that, but we've seen his poll numbers slide over the last few months, and he is now sort of struggling to separate himself from the rest of the pack. So tonight he is really front and center literally and has to create some sort of moment for himself in order to convince voters, donors, all of the folks looking at him to see whether or not he can really create a contrast with former President Trump and convince folks that he can be the one. Then you have Nikki Haley, who had above after that last debate.

I think you might see a lot of knives come out for her because what happens when you gain momentum? I think you might see a lot of attacks and people start really looking under the hood. So with seven candidates on the stage, folks are going to be fighting for time, folks are going to be fighting for the spotlight, Ryan. And of course, it will be a smaller debate stage.

Several candidates did not qualify. What else do we expect to be different from the first debate? At least candidates taking any lessons from what they saw in the first debate? Well, I think they're hoping to focus a little bit more on the economy.

This is a box of business debate. After all, and you saw several candidates releasing various economic plans, plans to gain independence from China. That's something they make around as well. He's been focusing on the last couple of weeks.

Nikki Haley as well, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis released his energy policy. So they're going to try to focus on the issues. The question, of course, is does the sort of looming presence, absence of Trump, but his presence, kind of get in the way of that. What do the moderators do to sort of keep them focused on the issues and not on the battles with one another?

That's always something that we're going to be watching for, Ryan. Okay, Dasha Burns, and you're going to come back later with some live interviews from the debate site. We'll look forward to that. So, on one hand, this is debate counter-programming.

But on the other hand, it does seem sort of like the opening salvo in the general election campaign. I mean, we saw President Biden there obviously yesterday in Michigan as well. Is this the beginning of what normally happens sometime in the spring? Right.

This is very much shown. President Biden rushed to get here to the picket line before Donald Trump after Trump was the one initially announcing that he was coming to Michigan. Now, there's the important distinction that tonight when he delivers his prime time remarks here in Macomb County, that Donald Trump will be speaking to a non-union body parts manufacturing plant here instead of actually going on the UAW picket line. Now, Donald Trump also will not be joined by UAW leadership, and he has not actually weighed in on the specifics of the negotiations between the UAW and the big three auto companies.

And for Donald Trump, when you look at the exit point from the 2016 and 2020 election, you saw that Joe Biden was able to expand his lead among Michigan Union households in 2020, did greater than Hillary Clinton did, winning two out of every three. And so for Donald Trump, there's a distinction between being pro-union and being pro-worker, which Donald Trump is very much focused on sort of the bravado of fighting to keep plants open. Of course, the actual record of the four years of administration is questionable. There were several plants in Michigan, Ohio, Maryland that in fact closed despite pressure from his administration not to.

There was about 45,000 jobs created from the time his administration came in office two a month before the pandemic here. But of course, when you look at the National Labor Relations Board and the Labor Department under Donald Trump, they definitely had rules and opinions that were much more favorable to employers than the two workers who were keen on unionizing. And so for Donald Trump, it is very important to be here. He just narrowly lost Michigan in 2020.

And well, I think it's important to note that Republican, other Republican candidates are speaking at the Ronald Reagan library tonight, and you'll recall back in 1981, it was Ronald Reagan who fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers who were on strike in part of the union. Well, Donald Trump's not there tonight. Instead, he is here making his case that the Republican party should be the pro-worker party, and he is here and going to be joined by several of those striking workers who are invited to partake. Okay, von Hilliard, thank you.

We appreciate it. All right. Now that you can, you know, there's a lot of background noise that is around these issues of politics when it comes to Donald Trump, and those are his legal issues. There was a pretty significant ruling yesterday in his civil case.

Walk us through what we learned there. Potentially transformational, Ryan. This judge in the civil fraud case that's been brought by the Attorney General of New York State has ruled that in fact, Donald Trump and his business organizations have been committing fraud for years in overvaluing their properties for the purposes of bank loans and insurance claims and other kinds of things. And he did it without a trial.

He decided that as a matter of law, the AG had proven her case. And as a result, now this ruling is going to be appealed. So we are maybe a long way from this. But if this ruling remains in place, Donald Trump may well lose control of many of his buildings, including Trump Tower in New York.

He may be banned from doing business in New York State for five years, going to the heart of his identity as a New York real estate developer and with potentially huge financial penalties. Now we're going to go into a trial in the penalty phase, and the AG is seeking $250 million in damages. So are we on the verge? You say it could take some time of the dissolution of the Trump organization?

Is there some way around this? Can you create shell companies? I mean, the perception of Trump is that he always finds a way around things like this. Well, that's right.

And fairness, this is only in New York State, and it will be appealed. So we may be a long way off from actually being enforced, but much of his wealth, many of his assets are in New York City and, you know, buildings worth billions of dollars, particularly Trump Tower. So this could be a huge, huge impact on him and his family. And as he does, Trump went on social media and really hammered the judge in this case, the New York Attorney General, Leticia James, I mean, how does that impact the case going forward?

Is this something the court takes into account how he lashes out and is so angry about these decisions? What he said about this judge went really close to the line of almost threatening this judge. He said he had to be stopped. And so that's really catching the attention of legal experts and security experts.

I do have to say though that I think regular folks out in the land will look at this and say, well, if this fraud was going on for 20 years, why is this case only happening now? Why am I democratically elected Attorney General? I think that's a fair question. Okay.

Ken Delaney, thank you so much. We appreciate it. And we do have a big programming note for you. Make sure you tune in tonight.

Kristen Welker, anchors meet the press special coverage. I think Kristen's doing it, not me. The second Republican presidential debate shall break down the most important moments on stage. Plus she'll have reaction that from voters that will happen live interviews with campaign staffers, experts and analysts and more.

It starts at 11 p.m. Eastern right here on NBC News Now. But first is Congress barrels toward a government shutdown. I'll speak to a Republican whose military heavy district will be hit especially hard.

Congresswoman Jen Kiggins over January will be here in studio with me and Justin Washington, the press now. I don't think anything is inevitable in politics. Well, welcome back. We're just three days now until a government shutdown and lawmakers really aren't any closer and making a deal.

Even though there's been some move in, last night House Republicans finally advancing for spending bills that have really no hope of passing the Senate right now. Meanwhile, the Senate voted to start debate on a short-term funding bill to keep the government open through November 17th, but House Republicans really don't like that plan. So that leaves us barreling toward a shutdown on Saturday night with party leaders trying to pin the blame on the other side. Speaker McCarthy, the only way, the only way out of a shutdown is bipartisanship.

And by constantly adhering to what the hard right wants, you're aiming for a shutdown. Work in a bipartisan way like we are in the Senate and we can avoid harm to tens of millions of Americans. Does that explain a non-starter House? I don't see the support in the House.

Why am I asking the president to sit down? Because the Senate has not done their job. The Senate has not taken up the House work, so no, the president should step in and do something about it. Otherwise, the government will shut down.

So let's talk about this now. If you want to be on set is Republican Congresswoman from Virginia, Jen Kigitz, Congresswoman. Thank you so much for being here. If there's a shutdown, I have to imagine that your district is one of the ones that will be most directly impacted.

You have an incredibly large federal workforce there and a huge military presence and military members in particular are going to be impacted by this. What can be done right now with only three days to go to prevent this from happening? Yeah, well, it's frustrating for me representing a district that is very heavily military. We also have a large federal population and DOD civilians and contractors who work in support our military.

So one of the things that I put in place was a pay our troops act that we introduced last Thursday. And this piece of legislation, this bill of mine really guarantees that the military will get paid and includes the Coast Guard. We saw in 2019 that shutdown that prevented Coast Guard from getting paid for 35 days. My bill includes Coast Guard and also includes DOD civilians and contractors.

It's so important that we reassure our military members that they will get a paycheck. They have earned that paycheck. I want to relieve that anxiety from them and we've heard from so many of them. But is it going to get on the floor?

There's only three days left to go. Is the speaker giving you an indication that it's going to be voted on between now and Saturday night? So we've spoken to leadership. We started that process on Thursday and worked through part of the weekend to ensure that they knew this was important, not just for my district, but really for the country and for our national security.

It's a national security issue that we take care of our men and uniform. So we will continue to post. Obviously, we want to not shut the government down. That is priority number one.

To not shut the government. Worst case scenario, we need to have this kind of plan B or this alternative, if worst case does shut down, then we want to take care of our military. Okay. So I understand where your priorities are here.

But I was there when you were with a group of fellow members that are in districts that President Biden won in 2020 and you've expressed a level of frustration with your more conservative colleagues who are not open to anything having to do with a short-term continuing resolution. One of them, your fellow Virginian, Bob Goode, what's your message to those hardliners that aren't even open to a short-term spending plan to at least give you more time to negotiate with Democrats? Yeah. I understand the frustration.

I think it's going to take a bipartisan approach. I think there's a lot of different voices out there. And I'm certainly protective of, you know, you don't want to get too much, right? I think there's steps that we can take in the right direction.

Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government right now. So it's a very small majority we have. So that kind of forces us to listen to other voices out there. And I think that's something for me from more of a purpley district.

I have that luxury. I can listen to both sides. I think it's going to take some compromise. We need to continue to focus on cutting spending.

We need to continue to focus on things like securing the border. These are the Republican priorities. I support both of those measures. You know, while we work towards funding.

But are you frustrated that Speaker McCarthy is listening more to those conservative members in your ranks as opposed to the moderates like you or in a situation where you have to balance both of the needs of constituents from both the right and the left? It's frustrating because I think that we're playing games with politics, right? And I think that we're playing games with our military, especially. We saw the DOD funding bill not pass three different times off the floor.

For me and a lot of my veteran colleagues and why we ran for Congress was because we care about the country. We want to put the country first, right? So that's what we are here to do. So it frustrates me when we're playing games not only with government and with Congress, but we're playing games with the military.

And that's certainly not the message that we want to send to the country. We're looking at recruitment and retention numbers from the military. We're looking at the world stage and some of our, you know, the enemies we have out there, the world is not a safe place. So we need to make sure we're prioritizing national security.

Okay. So to that end, the Senate's prepared to pass their own version of a continuing resolution. It would include funding for defense and those members of the military in your district. But it would also include funding for Ukraine and disaster relief.

Yeah. So it changes every 15 minutes. Change from the time we had conference this morning. I think I've heard the reiterations of what's going to happen this week.

So I don't have a crystal ball. I know there are some options out there, including short-term CRs, a little bit longer CRs, long-term CRs, showing that, you know, we don't want to shut down the government. I think that's priority number one. So we are going to entertain other options.

I think it will take some bipartisan compromise. But fundamentally, do you believe that aid to Ukraine, which is also a necessity, at least that some view is a necessity, should be part of these negotiations? Or do you view that as a separate conversation? I've been a supporter of aid to Ukraine, but not a blank check, right?

I think there needs to be some accountability. That's what our voters are asking for, but Putin is a thug, right? I mean, he just to not support Ukraine, which is supporting Putin, and we certainly want to keep America out of that fight. And right now, Ukraine is on those front lines of fighting with Russia, who continues to be an aggressor.

So I want to keep my military, my military men and women and children, and my children, too, out of that fight. So it's important that we continue to fight Ukraine. It's important that we continue to educate members, maybe on my side, who might not be as supportive. But again, not a blank check.

There needs to be some accountability. So I hear you sound optimistic. You want this to be successful. But are you realistic about it?

I mean, we're three days away, there's no sort of deal that's going to pass through both the House and the Senate, and get on the president's desk. I mean, do you need to brace your constituents that are shut down as likely? Well, I'm always a glass half full person. So I have- It's a glass half full person.

Well, it's debatable. But that is why we put that PR Troops Act in place, is to provide that reassurance for something. I mean, people in my district, as a priority for me, as an AV veteran, as an AV spouse, as an AV mom now, so many people who live paycheck to paycheck, who are on those fixed incomes, who serve our great country and our great military. So if I could provide that reassurance, then I'm doing my job.

So if you're that insistent about making that happen, make sure it doesn't happen by Saturday, would you be willing to support a clean, continuing resolution that just extends time out to give you more time to negotiate through a discharge petition with Democrats? Is that something that you believe is a viable option? I think there's a real likelihood that we do pass continuing resolution, what that looks like and what version that is. You know, that's hypothetical right now.

I think there's a lot of different versions out there. It's hard to- again, it changes every few minutes. So it's hard to say exactly what version will be passed, but I think there needs to be a show by partisanship. I think that's what the country wants, right?

That's why I ran for Congress. I hated the rhetoric. I hated the division. I hated the inviting.

So I think Americans hate that. We're tired of that, right? There's a better way to do politics and it has to be more civilized and common sense. All right, before you go, I need to ask you about the future of Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Some of your colleagues have threatened to call a motion to vacate, which would challenge his speakership. Do you think that's going to happen? And will there be enough Republican and maybe even Democratic votes to protect his speakership? I think Kevin McCarthy's been a good leader in the military.

I've seen lots of different types of leader. He's got a tough job right now, and he's doing a good one. It's hard to unify. It's a lot of different opinions out there on our side of the aisle, but I think he's doing a good job.

We need to keep pushing forward. We need to continue to fund the government first and foremost because we're demonstrating what Republican leadership looks like. And I know in Virginia, we've got state elections this year. So really important that we demonstrate what good leadership looks like.

And we didn't even get a chance to dive into the Virginia legislative elections, which will likely be very much impacted if a shutdown happens. But Congresswoman, really enjoyed your conversation. Thank you for being here. All right.

And now we're going to turn from the House to the Senate, where in battle, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez and his wife pleaded not guilty to federal corruption charges today. Federal prosecutors accuse Menendez and his wife of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for favors for New Jersey businessmen as well as the Egyptian government. And NBC News has also learned that the FBI is also investigating whether Egyptian intelligence played a role in the alleged bribery scheme, I should say. Today, Congressman Pete Aguilar joined the growing list of Democrats calling on Menendez to resign.

That's significant because he's the highest ranking Latino Democrat in the House. And he's also a member of the House leadership team. At least 30 Senate Democrats are now calling on Menendez to resign, notably not on that list, though, is the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer who said today that he's deeply disappointed and disturbed, but stopped short of calling for the Senator to resign. Menendez denies the accusations and resisting calls to resign.

He's expected to address his Democratic colleagues tomorrow during their weekly lunch. And up next debate night in America, we'll hear directly from voters and from two of the campaigns on what they want to hear from the candidates sent to take the stage tonight. What are you looking to hear in the GOP debate? Solutions.

Is there a little hope? What's going on with women's rights? What's going on in China? What's going on with Ukraine?

The border issue? Entitlement reform. Economic relief. I'm hoping that the Republicans realize that the Trump era is over.

Stand up and say that Trump is an acceptable candidate. Stand strong and do everything they can to make sure that Donald Trump is not the nominee. I'd really like to see someone stand out from the crowd, almost like Reagan did. I think more people are wanting to see answers rather than a fight.

Welcome back. That was a look at what some Republican and independent voters told our team of campaign and beds on the trial. I should say that tonight's debate. All of those voters were at events where candidates were trying to catch up to Donald Trump.

And now with more on how the campaigns are preparing for the big night, our Dasha Burns is once again joining us from California. And she'll be joined by David Polanski, the deputy campaign manager for Ron DeSantis. And Mark Short, the former chief of staff device president Pence. Dasha, take it away.

Hey, Ryan. Well, there is a lot to talk about in terms of what these candidates need to do tonight. So I'm going to go ahead and start with these two gentlemen. Thank you so much for joining us today.

I'll start with you, David. So some candidates like Kay Haley, they are trying to build off of some new momentum. Bumping the polls in this debate. Your candidate, though.

He's seen a significant slide over the summer months. The gap between Trump and DeSantis is only widened. So what can Governor DeSantis do tonight to change that trajectory? Well, number one, tonight is an opportunity to drive your message.

Clean air without the former president being on stage gives you the chance to do just that. So talk about your record. Number one, what have you done that gives people a back at home hope that you're going to do what you say you're going to do? Number two, the opportunity to get out here and talk about your vision for the country.

I think all the candidates on stage generally agree that the country's in decline. What are you going to do to reverse that decline? When it comes to polls, I think you saw even yesterday in the CBS poll in Iowa. Governor DeSantis is back in the 20s.

We're on the trajectory where we need to be, which is to take out Donald Trump in January, not in September. Now, Mark, your candidate is in a pretty different position than DeSantis here. He's struggled to gain traction in the polls. He hasn't cracked single digits in any recent polls that I've seen.

In the last debate, though, he had probably the most speaking time of any candidate. He cracked a lot of zingers, but he didn't see any sort of bump like Nicky Haley did. Why not? And what does that tell you about what he needs to do tonight?

Well, I think the setting here at the Reagan Library would be an opportunity for Mike to, again, explain to American people his vision for the future of our nation. And to Harold back to saying he's actually the full spectrum conservative on the stage, who has the ideas that can address the national security challenges we face with China or Russia, whether or not it's policy to address inflation and the struggling stagflation economy that binomics has left us with, or addressing the social issues that face our nation, how to restore family first in America. So I think he's looking forward to being here to perfect setting to deliver that message. Now, Governor DeSantis, when it comes to former President Trump, who's not here but is, of course, ever present, he's walked a pretty fine line when it comes to taking him on, right?

He won't criticize necessarily directly, but when he's asked, he will talk about some of issues like abortion, his strategy in Iowa and whatnot. Chris Christie aside, most of the candidates on the stage seem to be worried about alienating Trump's space. And it seems like DeSantis has tried to sort of chip away at some of the MAGA voters, but he doesn't seem to be winning those folks, but he has sort of risk alienating more moderate voters. Will we see tonight or ever DeSantis truly take on Trump?

Well, number one, it would take a candidate to show up on stage, to have that direct interaction, and so far the former president has resisted and declined to do that. Now, you're going to see Governor DeSantis have that kind of spirited debate with Governor Newsom of California. He's shown the ability and the willingness and the courage to step on the stage. But he's not running.

He's not running. Donald Trump needs to get out on the stage and give these guys an opportunity to get up there in contrast with him. But what I will tell you is, you have seen a sharp contrast with the governor and Donald Trump on spending where Donald Trump is responsible for massive increases in federal spending and that has lassoed our country and debt and led to the inflation people are seeing when, in contrast, you see the governor with the number one economy in the country. Those types of contrast, he's making, we'd love the opportunity to make it on the stage, and I suspect as our trajectory grows, you're going to see the former president feel pressured to do just that and show up.

And, Mark, you mentioned we are at the Reagan Library, and I know that Mike Pence has cited the 40th president a lot on the campaign trail. This week, he rolled out some endorsements from former Reagan staffers. He seems to be running as the Reagan candidate. But from what we're seeing on the trail, the way that he's been received, what we're seeing in the polls, just America, Republican primary voters in particular, want a Reagan candidate or more of a Trump candidate at this point.

I think that the reality is that in the 1970s, we faced a similar dynamic with the weak Democrat president who had created an energy crisis and stagflation and the ideas of the Ronald Reagan champion, he brought forward. But these ideas predate Ronald Reagan. They're the core of what we are as conservatives. It's what we've always been advocating for a limited government.

We've always been a strong national defense and advocating for a pro-family policy. And so I think that it's less about Ronald Reagan. It's more about actually those ideas have worked in the past, and they'll work again to get us out of the morass right now. And David, lastly, you keep saying, and DeSantis keeps saying this is the mantra of your campaign that it is a two-man race.

There are a lot of people that are pretty skeptical of that right now, just looking at the numbers and looking at where you're at. How do you make that mantra a reality? Nobody's going to work around DeSantis, nobody's going to out organize around DeSantis. At the end of the day, nobody has the record that Ronald DeSantis has to bring to the table.

Polls in September don't matter. What's going to matter is on January 15th, and then in January 23rd, and we're extremely confident that not only is it going to be a two-person race, but that we're going to be Donald Trump, what it matters most. Alright, gentlemen, thank you so much. We look forward to seeing what your candidates do on that stage tonight.

It's going to be a big night for everybody. Really appreciate your time. Ryan, we'll send it back to you in the studio. Alright, great.

Thank you, Dasha, thank you to David and Mark as well. And while Republicans in California are getting ready for tonight's debate, Republicans on Capitol Hill are getting ready for their first impeachment inquiry tomorrow. We're digging into both. Next, you're watching Meet the Press Now.

Welcome back. Welcome back to the House GOP's first impeachment hearing tomorrow. The House Ways and Means Committee unveiled today what Republicans are calling, quote, new evidence, suggesting a two-tiered system of justice, and that President Biden used his political influence to enrich his son. But the two main pieces of evidence displayed were from 2017 when Joe Biden wasn't in office, and from August of 2020, when Donald Trump's Justice Department was in power.

I pressed the committee chairman, Jason Smith, on this. First, he dodged my questions about why actions taken in 2020, I should say, during the Trump administration was evidenced against the Biden administration, and then I pressed him about how a 2017 message is evidenced that Biden was selling his office when he wasn't in office. Take a listen. Can you explain the timing of the August 6th?

What's that message? Why is that evidence of some wrongdoing? I'm not an expert on the timeline. I would love to have President Biden and his family to tell us about all the timelines, because it's really, really unfortunate that we see so many meetings and so many phone calls that involved around official activity that the vice president has been participating in, and then big sums of money follows later.

But if he's not the president, we're the vice president at that time. Where's the wrong deal? He wasn't even a candidate for president at that time. He was a candidate.

On August 6th of 2017? What source are you with? I'm with MBC. So apparently, you'll never believe us.

I'm asking a very direct question. You presented a piece of evidence that you say came on August 6th, 2017, that demonstrates that Joe Biden was using political influence to help his son. If he wasn't a political figure at that time, the first what's that message you put up? Where you talk about the brand?

I'm completely open-minded about this. I'm asking you specifically, how does that demonstrate that there's some sort of political influence being put over him? If at that time, he is not an elected official. I'm definitely not going to pinpoint one item.

I think we've outlined it. You presented it. It was your first thing that you brought up. So apparently, you don't agree with it.

It's not that I don't agree with it. I'm asking you to explain it. I'll take the next question. So he didn't move on and didn't finish answering those questions for me.

For more on this, I'm joined by my panel. Danielle Diaz, a congressional reporter at Politico. And the former Democratic congressman from Michigan, and now a distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, Action Fund. Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and NBC News contributor, and we're going to call Danielle Danny.

So we don't all get confused. Andy, we're going to stick with calling you Andy. If that's perfect. So Danielle, let's get your reaction to that back and forth with the chairman and myself.

I mean, this tomorrow is supposed to be the day where they unveil everything. They're going to lay everything out on the table and demonstrate and what they're going to say. Direct specificity that there's an issue between the president and his son and potential wrongdoing. This didn't take a lot to unravel here today.

What does this tell you about what we should expect tomorrow? Ryan, first of all, you asked basic questions, and the chairman couldn't really provide answers to what you were asking. And I think that's a sign of what we're going to see tomorrow. From these House Republicans in the first impeachment hearing, there's been no smoking gun so far.

They can't really prove any sort of connection between 100 Bidens, business dealings, and President Joe Biden. You asked really basic questions in this back and forth that just happened a couple of hours ago, and they couldn't do it. Now, of course, this is not the panel that we're going to see tomorrow, but it's important to know that they are talking about whistleblower documents that the House Oversight Committee has been referencing in their investigation. And really, overall, it seems that there hasn't been anything that's broken through in evidence proving that there's any sort of bad, inappropriate connection between 100 Biden and his business dealings and what President Joe Biden has said.

So, again, you were shaking your head. The chairman was talking, and you said that there actually is an answer to my question. So what is the answer to my question? And the chairman did an absolutely abominable job answering your question and also accusing you of, you know, being a journalist, which apparently is now crying.

You're just crushed. I'm shocked too. Look, I think this is just a step back for a second. This is the problem with impeachment.

They were doing an investigation of the President and his son's malfeasance and the connection between the two. At that point, we were talking about Joe Biden, Vice President, Joe Biden, citizen, Joe Biden, President. And so all the evidence was relevant, and it went to a pattern of whether there was a smoking gun. I happen to think those documents were unbelievably damaging to the President and his son, as much as I know he loves him and wants him to be rich.

But once you're at this stage, you've got to be able to explain why it is you're able to talk about impeaching somebody who wasn't in office at that time. And I think this is really a disconnect that the Republican, the Republican, edgier Republicans who insisted on an impeachment as opposed to the investigation that was ongoing are going to have to answer. They haven't answered it to my satisfaction. Andy, you were in the house for both of Donald Trump's impeachments.

I mean, how do we see tomorrow compared to what you went through when you were in the house? I mean, the idea of trying to impeach President Biden with no evidence when the former President is facing 91 charges in four different, you know, courts in four different states with a mountain of evidence about a wide range of wrongdoing is just shocking. And it's a sign of just the unraveling of the Republican Party in general, but in particular in the house, where any one person, I guess, they call them the edgier people can demand anything they want. And the speaker jumps through the hoop in order to not be the former speaker.

With all due respect, I do think that this is not a great counter-argument. We can go on saying, you know, Donald Trump is a crook and Donald Trump may well be a crook and Donald Trump may well be convicted. That doesn't exculpate Joe Biden anymore than saying Menendez. That's why I said there's no evidence because there isn't any.

There are only bars of gold. There aren't any hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are millions of dollars. Millions and millions of dollars.

Millions and millions of dollars. The Republicans continue to kind of leave tea leaves, right? We're going to subpoena their bank records. And that's when you're going to see what Andy's talking about, the proverbial gold bars in this case, and they haven't been able to deliver that yet.

I really think that what the investigations that were going on before the impeachment broke out were actually delivering a lot of persuasive evidence that there was. Certainly, there were certainly activities that I, as I said, as an I, has somebody very, very concerned, for example, about Chinese influence, about Russian influence, about malfeasance in Ukraine. I worry about those things. I think shedding light on them is the best way for the public to make a judgement, rather than simply going to the trial before you have the investigation.

Let's move on now. We're going to talk about the debate tonight. This is happening against the backdrop of this impeachment hearing happening tomorrow. I mean, Daniela, these were probably candidates that are going to be in the debate tomorrow, and I think it would like this to be about them.

Does the impeachment distract at all from what we're going to see on the debate stage tonight? I think so, Ryan. And it's not only the impeachment. It's the fact that the government might be shutting down in just a few days.

There's a lot of things taking the oxygen from the room right now happening on Capitol Hill at Pennsylvania Avenue, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. There's a lot of stuff that these Republicans, of course, want to be able to discuss, but there's other issues, pressing issues that they're going to have to answer. Also, we haven't even said Trump's not going to be there. So they're going to probably have to continue to answer to whatever Trump is saying, regardless of the fact that he's not on that debate stage.

And these are all candidates that are pulling way behind him. What do you make of the fact that none of them have been able to put a dent in Trump's lead? In fact, his lead has grown since the last debate. I mean, shake my head, right?

But I will say this. I think that it represents an extraordinary failure of courage on the part of Donald Trump not to be willing to stand up to these people, not because he doesn't think that they're dust beneath his chariot wheels, because obviously he does. Nonetheless, the American people deserve the kind of debate that the Republicans tonight are offering on the stage, and Donald Trump doesn't have respect for the voters, and he doesn't have respect for his fellow Republicans. So, Andy, you've been through shutdowns as a member of Congress before.

They're not political winners for anyone. In this particular case, I'm sure you tell me that Kevin McCarthy is more to blame than President Biden, but does it concern you at all that there could be political victims of this across the board if they're unable to avoid shutdown, which seems pretty inevitable at this point? You know, I think the American people will be pretty clear about who's responsible. What concerns me, Ryan, is that the Republicans are hostage taking again, and the hostages are the American people.

I'm concerned about the actual damage to our soldiers, our Social Security recipients, our kids, who will be harmed by this. And so that's my big concern. So if you were still in the House, would you be trying to find a group of moderate Republicans and putting together some sort of break glass in case of emergency plan, like a discharge petition, which everybody's kind of got a West Wing solution to all the TV show I'm talking about. Would you be doing that right now to just avoid that, to prevent the harm that's going to come to the average American because of a shutdown?

You know, I do think we need to find a solution, and it's hard to see it, because the Senate just passed, you know, a bipartisan plan. But they've introduced it, and it's got bipartisan support to get it done, and the House Republicans have already rejected it. And they, you know, they're not interested in talking to my former colleagues at all about a solution. I mean, they are, here's what we would have done.

When she was on the other foot, and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker, those of us in the more progressive wing would have been demanding more things to try to put in there that we knew might not have survived the Republican Senate or President Trump, in order to put forward our policy agenda. She would have managed us successfully to do something that's satisfied enough for us to pass it. You know, we wouldn't get it all, but we wouldn't think. But we would try to get some.

This is not like that. This is complete dysfunction. You know, the Center for American Progress Action Fund just put out a report that said, this Congress under Kevin McCarthy has passed the least bills of any Congress in modern times. So it's completely ineffective.

And just to wrap it up, Daniela, we're seeing something different on the Senate side, that motion to proceed that Andy's talking about, pass with 70 votes. I mean, is there any chance that we're going to see Mitch McConnell maybe go to Kevin McCarthy and say, you've got to find a way to pass a version of a continuing resolution that can pass the Senate and do it soon? Well, it seems that McConnell and McCarthy's relationship is very strained, and it hasn't been the situation right now that McConnell's stepping into solve anything. I believe they've spoken, but that's about the extent of where we know their relationship stands right now.

But the bigger picture being McCarthy at some point, if he, there's five Republicans that don't want to support any sort of CR, right? He has a razor than majority. At some point, he's probably going to have to figure out passing something with Democratic votes. And as other former Congressmen noted, Democrats haven't gotten that call yet.

So really, it's unclear how they proceed to get out of this looming shutdown if they can't find a solution. In the one thing I was saying for my reporting, it's interesting. Usually behind the scenes, people are whispering to you, listen, don't worry, we're talking. I'm not getting any other signals as I have in these past shutdown fights.

All right, Andy, Daniela, your name's right. Thank you all for being here. We appreciate it. And still to come, the cannabis industry bagged a big win in the Senate today.

One of the Republican senators co-sponsoring that marijuana-related banking bill joins me next. Smoke them if you got them. Am I allowed to say that? You're watching Meet the Press now.

Welcome back. This is kind of a big deal. A landmark cannabis banking bill moved one step closer to passing the Senate today after a bipartisan vote in the Senate banking committee. Now, we've signed into law the bill known as the Safer Banking Act would allow legal marijuana businesses to use banks and other major financial institutions to conduct their business.

Under current laws, banks can be prosecuted for providing services to businesses that sell marijuana. So this is the first time the cannabis bill has ever progressed out of a Senate panel. It still, of course, needs to pass the full Senate in the House before it comes law. But to talk more about this, I'm joined now by Republican Senator from North Dakota Senator Kevin Kramer.

He's one of the co-sponsors of the Safer Banking Act. So Senator, I'm going to get to the cannabis bill in a moment and you and I talked about how important it is before we started. But I really want to get the status of what's going on in Capitol Hill so it relates to the shutdown. What is the status of the continuing resolution that was introduced?

You've had a motion to proceed on that. Do you think that this is going to pass, can it pass with enough time for the House to pass it as well and avoid a government shutdown? Well, we can do it with enough time for the House if the House chooses to do it. That's a bigger question.

I do think the Senate bill, I think we need to simplify it quite honestly. I think the cleaner, the better. I think to help Speaker McCarthy have the best leverage he could have with Iraq as Pakistan and Democrats as to pass the clean CR. That's my goal.

That's not the bill that Senator Schumer has put together, however, but hopefully we can get to that point. Yeah, we can pass something in the Senate. I think the bigger the margin, the better for Kevin. So what you're talking about, I would assume at least in part is that there's a significant amount of funding for Ukraine in this current continuing resolution.

I know you've in general have been a supporter of funding for Ukraine. But are you suggesting that any sort of supplemental funding for Ukraine be separate from the conversations about government's funding in general? I think we owe that to Ukraine. And I think we owe that to our voters and to our taxpayers and to our citizens because Ukraine is, while it's largely supported, it's not universally supported.

I think a discussion about Ukraine funding needs to be done in committee. It needs to be done in a wide open transparent process. I think it only adds to people's suspicions. If we stuff $6 billion to be craned into a continuing resolution.

And frankly, a continuing resolution means continuing the funding of the government at the current levels, which to the degree that the president would have presidential fraud down authority and whatnot, that should just carry on for the 47 days at the current rate, if in fact we pass it together. So would you say this simple? So at this point, are you a no on that version of the continuing resolution? I likely would vote against it with the Ukraine support in it.

As would the House of Representatives. What I want, Ryan, is something that can pass the Senate and at least has a fighting chance in a divided house. But is your sense right now? I mean, that seems like a pretty high bar to cross, especially three days out.

Should government workers, members of the military, prepare that the government is going to shut down at this point? I'm pretty sure they are preparing for that. But whether we can get them to pass something we'd send over by Sunday night or whether it'd be a week from Sunday, I think giving them something that's easy, that's basic, that is free of a whole bunch of hangers on, gives having a better tool in the tool chest. I don't think average Americans are so annoying that we're back in this position, right?

You've had months to negotiate these appropriations bills. Why are we here, right? Well, the weird thing is we've actually done a fair bit of the question of appropriations bills for the first time in quite a while. Thanks to some good folks on the appropriations committee.

That said, yeah, I think people are annoying. They should be. I mean, it's dysfunction at its worst. And even, you know, Speaker McCarthy who pledged to do exactly that.

Again, the committee did their work, but it doesn't do much good to put a bill on the floor that can't pass either. So we've got to get our act together and function as a functioning government. I mean, how much blame do you put on the faction of conservative Republicans in the House that are really kind of coming up the works here? Well, there are more of a problem than when I was in the House and the Freedom Caucus wanted to have good CRS as opposed to no CRS.

When you have a group whose goal is not to negotiate a CRS, but rather to negotiate a government shutdown, that is a different factor than we've ever had before. But at the same time, we're a narrowly divided country, reflected in a narrowly divided Congress, reflected in narrowly divided opinions. And that's when leadership has to put things on the floor and let us do it out. Let's talk about this bill that passed your committee today, the Safe for Banking Act.

How confident are you that it actually can pass the Senate and then perhaps the House as well? I actually think with past working tonight in the committee, I actually think with that kind of momentum, with the common sense in the bill, this is a bill that's been negotiated over years. It looks like it came upon us quickly, but it didn't. I think we negotiated a pretty fragile balance here that we'll have momentum to get 60 votes in the Senate.

Frankly, I think it'll do as well if not better on the floor than it did in the committee. The House probably would want to do something different with it. I'm quite confident they will. But again, let's do that.

Let's have the process. Let's get two bills and put them together and negotiate the details. But I'm confident that we can get it done in this Congress, that we can actually pass them. And one of the things that some of your colleagues have expressed concern about is the scope that this gives the government in terms of oversight over banks.

How much are you concerned about that and what would you say to those that are great to that? I think they've got it backwards. I think this bill actually restricts the government's oversight in some respects. It doesn't restrict the oversight so much as the way that they can enforce certain things.

For example, while we allow safe banking of cannabis state by state depending on the legalization in particular states, we also protect other industries such as fossil fuels, firearms industry, munitions, other out-of-favor industries from bank over-regulation, particularly from the regulators themselves that cannot use reputational risk as a dispositive objection, if you will. So one of the big concerns for these marijuana companies is that they have to deal largely in cash, right? Because they can't bank. Would this allow them the opportunity to take credit cards?

Would it go that far? Yeah, no, it's a great question because the answer is yes, because I'm not a fan of cannabis legalization. I oppose it vehemently. And I think the more you oppose cannabis legalization, the more you should want safe banks.

That's interesting. Okay, so if you say, I don't like this industry, it's very evil, but it should be a cash-only industry. So having the regulated banking industry doing the financing, having the checking accounts and the credit cards, as you say, really, I think puts parameters around the industry. And let's face this, the reality on the ground where we live, North Dakota's conservative as we are, is legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, and you ought to be able to then be banked.

And we need to do this quickly, but is this the slippery slope to ultimately cannabis being legalized across the country, the federal ban being lifted? Well, at least the category is changing. I don't think this is the slippery slope. I think the slope started with the first state that legalized it.

Remembering all the states that have legalized it, there's never been an enforcement against those states or against the industry in those states. So you're already seen some selective enforcement, particularly in the banking industry. Okay, well, Senator Kramer, I'm going to let you go so you can go up there and prevent the government from being shut down. I'm putting it all on your clothes.

I'm willing to take it on. All right, thank you for being here. We appreciate it. Thank you so much for joining us this hour.

Chris, I'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. But before that, she's back tonight at 11 p.m. Eastern for Meet the Press's special coverage of the second Republican presidential debate. Make sure you tune in.

Right now, the news continues with Allie 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 starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes.

Hope you'll listen and follow the drink wherever you get your podcasts.