CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: Is Russia withdrawing or reloading?
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
There is what Russia says and there is what Russia does. We’re focused on the latter.
CHUCK TODD:
Ukrainians push the Russians away from Kyiv and the north, but retreating forces appear to be headed to Ukraine's east.
JOHN KIRBY:
It’s clear the Russians want to reprioritize their operations in the Donbas area.
CHUCK TODD:
Real questions now about what Vladimir Putin is being told.
KATE BEDINGFIELD:
We believe that Putin is being misinformed by his advisors about how badly the Russian military is performing.
CHUCK TODD:
My guests this morning: the Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Russia and Putin expert Masha Gessen of "The New Yorker." Plus, one-on-one with Hillary Clinton.
HILLARY CLINTON:
To let an autocrat do what Putin decided to do is something that everybody has a stake in trying to stop.
CHUCK TODD:
I'll talk to the former secretary of state about Putin, the war and the Democrats' midterm headwinds. Also, the government plans to end a Trump-era Covid policy that limited immigration.
BLAINE BOOKEY:
Every single day that passes it becomes more absurd for the administration to claim that Title 42 has any basis whatsoever in public health.
CHUCK TODD:
But now Mr. Biden is likely to hear criticism that he's making illegal immigration worse. And Donald Trump asks Putin for information on President Biden's son, Hunter.
DONALD TRUMP:
So now I would think Putin would know the answer to that. I think he should release it.
CHUCK TODD:
Why is the former president again asking for help from a man waging war on an ally? Joining me for insight and analysis are: Amy Walter, editor-in-chief and publisher of the Cook Political Report, Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Leigh Ann Caldwell and Republican strategist Brad Todd. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
CHUCK TODD:
Good Sunday morning. Have we reached a turning point in this war? Russia's announcement that it was pulling its forces from Kyiv increasingly looks more like an act of necessity than actual diplomacy. Ukraine has pushed Russian troops away from the capital city in other areas in the North as well. It's unlikely the Russians are suddenly scaling back its Kyiv offensive as a matter of goodwill and more likely they're having to reposition and resupply, focusing on the East, where they've had more success. Notably, Ukrainian attack helicopters managed to go on offense, fly 20 miles inside Russian territory and hit a Russian oil depot, then return safely to Ukraine, a true embarrassment for the Russian military. As Ukrainian forces have reclaimed territory, though, they're finding not only the burned-out wreckage of Russian tanks and equipment, but also the bodies of dead civilians, apparently murdered by Russian troops. President Zelenskyy also says the Russians have mined homes and equipment, and even booby-trapped those dead bodies. The question now is: What does the next phase of this war look like? Russia's hopes for a lighting-quick victory have clearly failed. So are we now in for a long bloody war in the eastern part of the country? I'm going to talk to the secretary of state, Antony Blinken here in a moment, but we're going to begin with our chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, who is in Kharkiv, basically the largest city in the East there. So Richard, big success for the Ukrainian military in and around Kyiv. Where do we go from here?
RICHARD ENGEL:
Well, a massive success from a military perspective, pushing out Russian forces from the entire area, the entire region around Kyiv. But as Russian troops pulled back, and as you said, they're saying that this was, say, a withdrawal in order to allow diplomacy to have more success, they were pushed back. And it allowed Ukrainian troops to go in. But what they saw was evidence of atrocities. There were bodies on the street, many of them with their hands tied behind their backs, mass graves. It appears, according to witnesses, the president's office, the mayor's office, that some of them were shot at close range, execution style. They also described looting and rape. So, so, and these are consistent with witness accounts and victims' accounts that we've been hearing in other battle locations, where there are these – always seem to be accounts of rape, looting and and executions.
CHUCK TODD:
Richard, is the Ukrainian military capable of going on offense and truly pushing the Russians out of the East as well?
RICHARD ENGEL:
They went on the offense successfully in the North. And they are already on the offense here in the East. Every night for the last several nights here in Kharkiv, we've been hearing nonstop artillery fire coming out of this city, going into Russian positions in the nearby towns. They've already taken one town on the edge of Kharkiv and they plan to take more. They want to go on the offensive now, before Russia's able to reposition its troops to bring some of that extra firepower down from Kyiv. And they also are motivated because they saw what Russia has been doing in places where it has been occupying Ukrainian towns and villages, and they don't want to happen to their own homes. Because it's a big difference. These people are fighting to defend their families and their own villages.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah. The scenes that we're seeing in and around Kyiv, we can only imagine that and what we already have heard out of Mariupol as well. Anyway, Richard Engel, who is in Kharkiv, the largest city out East. Richard, thank you. And joining me now is the secretary of state, Antony Blinken. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
Good morning, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with the news of the Russians pulling back from Kyiv, focusing appears now on the East, where they've had a bit more military success. Are we in a new phase in this war?
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
Well, Chuck, we may be. I think this is evidence that Russia's original plans to take over the whole country, including Kyiv, have been dealt a devastating setback. They are regrouping. They may be focusing on the East. But let's keep in mind, they still have the ability to wreak massive death and destruction, including in places like Kyiv, with air power and missiles. And at the same time, they may be regrouping. They may be re-calibrating. We're focused on what they're doing, not what they're saying. And if it's a refocus on the East, there's still a tremendous amount that's going to be ahead of us. As President Biden said recently, this could go on for some time. And the question is how much death and destruction Russia wreaks in the meantime.
CHUCK TODD:
Are we going to help Ukraine reinforce, sort of, now the central and western part of the country, reinforce Kyiv so that essentially the Russians don't even think about coming back?
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
Chuck, we're doing that every single day. Just over the course of this administration, we've provided more than $2.3 billion in security assistance, in the last month alone $1.6 billion. The very kinds of things that have made the Ukrainians incredibly effective in dealing with this Russian onslaught, in pushing it back and sending it back. And, look, what we've already seen is a strategic setback and maybe even defeat for Russia. Russia had three goals going into this: to subjugate Ukraine to its will, to deny its sovereignty and its independence, to assert Russian power, and to divide the West, divide the alliance. And on all three fronts, it's failed. Ukraine is now more united. It's – a sovereign independent Ukraine is going to be there a lot longer than Vladimir Putin is on the scene. Russian power has actually been vastly diminished, the military has greatly underperformed, its economy is reeling, and of course NATO, the West are more united than in any time in recent memory. So on those grounds alone, we've already seen a dramatic setback for Russia.
CHUCK TODD:
You have just described a situation, and Richard Engel was telling me, that there are people in Ukraine going, "Hey, we've got Putin in a, in as weak of a spot as we've had him in a long time. This is actually not the time to suddenly negotiate a way for him to get out of this." So, you know, nobody wants to see more war. At the same time, nobody – I don't think a lot of people, including the president of the United States, wants to see Putin remain in power after this. So can we really end this with giving Putin some sort of gain in the Donbas?
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
Chuck, the – how this war ends is up to two things. It's up to the Ukrainian people and their elected representatives, including President Zelenskyy. We'll support whatever they want to do in terms of how this war comes to an end. And as to Mr. Putin's future, that's up to the Russian people.
CHUCK TODD:
But do you acknowledge he's in a weak moment? I mean, is this a moment – is this a moment that we’re, if he’s – if we – we let him lie and he wreaks havoc again, are we going to regret not taking advantage of this moment?
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
Again, it's up to, in the first instance, Ukrainians when it comes to what's going on in Ukraine, and Russians when it comes to what's going on in Russia. And here's the thing, even though he's been set back, even though I believe this is already a strategic defeat for Vladimir Putin, the death and destruction that he is wreaking every single day in Ukraine, the images are on our TVs and on social media every single day, are terrible. And so there's also a strong interest in bringing those to an end.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to ask about the Zelenskyy, potential Zelenskyy-Putin face-to-face in Turkey. How realistic is that? And does President Zelenskyy, does he have the ability to negotiate sanctions relief with Putin?
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
So how realistic it is – you know, very hard to say. The Ukrainians have sought a direct engagement with President Putin for President Zelenskyy. President Putin has rejected that repeatedly. We'll see if, if he goes forward with anything. But again, our focus is on making sure that we're doing everything possible to strengthen Ukraine's hand at the negotiating table, including with a potential meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Putin. And that's exactly what we're doing. We've been supporting Ukraine. We've been imposing extraordinary pressure on Russia. We've been solidifying our own alliance. All of that goes to strengthening Ukraine's hand when it comes to any negotiations with Russia.
CHUCK TODD:
Again, I want to go back to, what is -- can Zelenskyy negotiate sanctions relief at all here, or not?
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
The entire international community has come together to impose the sanctions on Russia. We'll be looking to see what Ukraine is doing and what it wants to do, and if it concludes that it can bring this war to an end, stop the death and destruction and continue to assert its independence and its sovereignty, and ultimately, that requires the – the lifting of sanctions, of course, we’ll have that. The purpose of the sanctions, Chuck, is not to be there indefinitely. It's to change Russia's conduct. And if as a result of negotiations, the sanctions, the pressure, the support for Ukraine, we achieve just that, then at some point the sanctions will go away. But that is profoundly up to – to Russia and what it does going forward.
CHUCK TODD:
The restrengthening of the ruble, and I understand there's some market manipulation there to do that, but they're clearly are some signs that the ruble is strengthened. Obviously Europe, there are plenty of European countries that continue to pay Russia for oil and gas. Is there more that could be done to tighten – to tighten these sanctions again? Because it looks like he's found some ways around them.
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
Well, Chuck, first, virtually all of the forecasts show Russia's economy contracting by 10% this year. That is dramatic, especially at a time when other economies, including our own, are rebounding dramatically. Second, when it comes to the ruble, it's more than a little manipulation. It's a lot of manipulation. People are being prevented from unloading rubles. That's artificially propping up the value. That's not sustainable. So I think you're going to see that – that change. We've seen the most extraordinary exodus of virtually every leading business from around the world leaving Russia. Everything from, you know, McDonald's to Toyota. And that's having not just an immediate impact, but a long-term impact. And then the export controls that we've imposed on Russia, denying it the technology it needs to modernize industry after industry, that's going to have an increasing impact. Having said that, to your point, we're working every single day with partners and allies around the world to make sure that we're tightening the sanctions, closing any loopholes, adding new ones.
CHUCK TODD:
Whose side is time on here? If this is a six – if this is going to drag out another six months, can Ukraine's military hold up? Can the European alliance hold up? Can Putin survive economically?
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
Chuck, when it comes to the fundamentals, which is to say Putin's objective in subjugating Ukraine to his will, on denying, taking away its sovereignty and independence, time is certainly not on Vladimir Putin's side. Because, as I said, a sovereign, independent Ukraine has demonstrated it's going to be around a lot longer than Vladimir Putin is on the scene. The real question, though, again, is what happens in the meantime. If this goes on, how much death, how much destruction is there? And that is terrible. So we have a strong interest, the Ukrainians have a strong interest in ending that. We're all working toward that. The way to do that is to give Ukraine the strongest possible hand, to put as much pressure as we possibly can on Russia, while we're strengthening our own defenses. That's exactly what we've been doing.
CHUCK TODD:
Secretary Antony Blinken, appreciate you coming on and sharing the administration's perspective.
SEC. ANTONY BLINKEN:
Thanks, Chuck, good to be with you.
CHUCK TODD:
And joining me now is Masha Gessen. Gessen is a staff writer for The New Yorker and has written extensively about Russia, and individually the rise of Vladimir Putin. So if anybody can read Putin's mind, it may be Masha Gessen. Masha, welcome back to Meet the Press.
MASHA GESSEN:
Thank you. Good to be here, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to start with the intelligence that the U.S. released earlier this week, indicating that Vladimir Putin was not getting – was not getting the truth from his advisors. And while that portion of the intel seemed believable, what's not believable is that a former KGB agent would somehow be in the dark, unless they've chosen to be in the dark. What do you make of these reports?
MASHA GESSEN:
Well, Vladimir Putin was never an extraordinary KGB agent. And he has been a tyrant for longer than he was a KGB agent. Dictators do tend to become isolated, and they become isolated not because they choose to become isolated, although I think that has happened with Putin as well, but because their aides are afraid to be messengers of bad news. This is clearly what's happening with Putin. It's not news. It's been happening for a long time. And it's been exacerbated because of his isolation during Covid. But Chuck, I agree with you that, at this point, if Putin is not seeing the footage from Bucha, from the outskirts of Kyiv, where retreating Russian troops have left the bodies of civilians with their hands tied behind their backs littering the streets, where they have left mass graves of civilians with their hands tied behind their backs, anybody who doesn't see that footage is choosing not to see it.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to ask you about negotiating with Putin. And if President Zelenskyy called you up and asked for some advice, what would you say? And before you answer that question, I want to play for you what former Ukrainian President Poroshenko said to me earlier this week on sort of his three rules for negotiating with Putin. Take a listen.
[BEGIN TAPE]
FMR. UKRAINE PRES. PETRO POROSHENKO:
Please, don't trust Putin. I am the president who had a negotiation with Putin for five years. He never keeps his words. Point number two, don't be afraid of Putin. And point number three, Ukraine never give up, and the territorial integrity of Ukraine cannot be the part of any compromise.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
First, good advice? And what would you add?
MASHA GESSEN:
Excellent advice. What I would add is actually not advice, it's an observation that, you know, Petro Poroshenko, the last president of Ukraine, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are very different politicians in a country that was fairly polarized before the war, and where people held vastly different political positions depending on whether they supported one or the other. And what we're seeing is what happens to a country that's actually united in a true people's war, where what you see the former president say is probably exactly what the current president would say, and exactly the advice that he should be following.
CHUCK TODD:
What should we make of the reports of the polling that came out, I'm sure you saw it over the last couple of days, that indicated Putin's approval rating has actually gone up? That after what appeared to be some consternation about what he was doing, there is a rally around him effect taking place. And I'm curious, is this because those that are educated are bailing the country and leaving and essentially, those that are left, a la what happened in Venezuela, your Cubas of the world, and those that are left have to support him because they have no other choice?
MASHA GESSEN:
Russia at this point is a totalitarian society. That is, a society where the regime survives by terror. It is meaningless and irresponsible to be conducting opinion polling, and especially to be reporting on opinion polling in that country, right? I mean, the question, "Do you support the war?" should really contain a second part, which is, "Do you support the war, or would you like to go to prison for 15 years for not supporting the war?" Right? And I want to say something important about totalitarian societies. It's not that people are hiding what they're actually thinking. It's that in conditions of terror people can't even form their own opinions.
CHUCK TODD:
After Putin. First of all, do you have optimism that the history, particularly even in Russia, the history of overreaching has led to the eventual demise of that leader that overreached. Do you foresee that? And if so, what are – what could happen post-Putin?
MASHA GESSEN:
You know, at this point, when we talk about this apparent military failure bringing about the end of Putin's regime, we're engaging in magical thinking. But even more than that, I think this is the kind of self – self-reassuring thinking that gets us away from thinking about what the United States and the rest of the western world hasn't done to prevent the kind of crimes against humanity that we have seen evidence of in the last 24 hours. The United States has not supported closing the skies over Ukraine. The United States has not provided major military assistance that Ukraine has asked for. And Western Europe, and to some extent the United States, has not severed its dependence on Russian energy resources, which is the lifeblood of the regime.
CHUCK TODD:
So what you're essentially saying is, until all that happens, let's not fantasize about the end of Putin?
MASHA GESSEN:
I think I'm saying let's not fantasize about the end of Putin, and also let's pay attention to the West's responsibility to Ukrainians who are dying right now, instead of fantasizing about what's going to happen in Russia after it's over.
CHUCK TODD:
Masha Gessen, again, somebody who literally wrote the book on Putin. If you haven't read it, it is definitely worth a read. Masha, really appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us.
MASHA GESSEN:
Thank you, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
And when we come back, more on Putin. I'm going to talk to former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton about the war, Putin, and yes, a little politics, the Democrats’ midterm headwinds. Stay with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Hillary Clinton has a lot to say about Vladimir Putin. As secretary of state, she famously called for a reset in U.S.-Russian relations, but Putin was having none of it. And by the time Clinton left office in 2013, Putin repeatedly attacked her in very personal terms. That animosity may have played a role in Russia's efforts to help Donald Trump in his 2016 campaign against Clinton. Perhaps he feared she'd have a much tougher policy against him. Hillary Clinton joins me now. Madame Secretary, welcome back to Meet the Press.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Thanks very much, Chuck. Good to be with you.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to pick up on -- I know you were listening to the interview with Masha Gessen. I want to pick up on Masha's last point there, which seemed to imply that no matter when we've confronted Putin, and I could go back really all the way to when he came into power, we've -- it seems as if we've always come up a bit short. We've drawn a line not quite as far as others would like to draw, you -- whether it was -- you've made points of this about Syria. Perhaps we should have drawn a thicker line on what happened in Crimea. Why is that, and are you concerned we’re – we're maybe holding back now a little too much?
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, no. Now I think we are really looking at this with our eyes wide open and seeing very clearly the threat that he poses not just to Ukraine, as we can watch every night on our news, but really to Europe, to democracy and the global stability that we thought we were building in the last 20 years. So, Chuck, I really agree with both what Secretary Blinken said, that we've got to continue to keep the pressure on Putin and the Russian troops. We cannot, in any way, pause our efforts to support the Ukrainians. And I agree with Masha that we have to double down. There is more that can be done to increase pressure and stress, additional sanctions, more in the way of lethal aid. And now that there has been a pushback thanks to the brave Ukrainian military offensive action, there is time to resupply the Ukrainians so that they can continue to defend their country.
CHUCK TODD:
You heard Secretary Blinken essentially say, look, sanctions relief could happen. That all depends on the behavior of Russia. Can we really live in a world where Putin’s let back into the new world order?
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, that's not what I heard him say. What I heard him say was that, really, we are going to support the Ukrainians, the people and the government of Ukraine, as they try to figure out what for them is the best way forward, and that I think is exactly the right position for the United States, Europe and the West and other countries to take. Your second part of that question, though, is a really important one. I would not allow Russia back into the organizations that it has been a part of. I think there's an upcoming G20 event later in the year. I would not permit Russia to attend. And if they insisted on literally showing up, I would hope there would be a significant, if not total, boycott. The only way that we're going to end the bloodshed and the terror that we're seeing unleashed in Ukraine and protect Europe and democracy is to do everything we can to impose even greater costs on Putin. There are more banks that can be sanctioned and taken out of the so-called SWIFT relationship. There is an increasing call for doing more on gas and oil. Now, obviously, some of our strongest allies in Europe are desperately trying to get out from under their dependence upon Russian energy. We need to expedite, and I know the administration has been doing that, looking at more deliveries of liquefied natural gas, for instance. So I think now is the time to double down on the pressure. And I agree completely with Masha. Let's not fantasize about what comes next in Russia. Let's focus on what we're doing right now to help protect and defend the Ukrainian people's right to be a free democratic nation and protect their sovereignty.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask – let me talk about the energy and gas front a minute here. One of the easiest ways, perhaps, to relieve some of the pressure on – look, it's not just this country that's experiencing rising energy prices, it's all of Europe, it's really a lot of the world. If a country that we provide an extraordinary amount of defensive weaponry to, an extraordinary amount of support to, and I'm speaking of Saudi Arabia, who could essentially turn the dial tomorrow if they wanted to – we know this with OPEC nations, they're choosing to essentially be on the side of Putin on this one. Should there be some consequences to this in our relationship going forward?
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, I'm disappointed by that decision because I think it's a very short-term one that is not in anybody's interests, including theirs. So I would certainly do whatever I could that was available to me to try to be more persuasive, if you will –
CHUCK TODD:
Carrots or sticks?
HILLARY CLINTON:
– and to talk about some consequences. But our real – Well, I think you have to do carrot and stick, Chuck. I mean, I think that we're in a– we’re in an existential crisis right now. And the only – only positive that comes out of this horrific, unjustified, unprovoked assault on Ukraine with the war crimes that are being committed on a daily basis by Putin's military, is that the world is now, I think, awake. Some are more awake than others, but everybody has to pay attention. The real challenge on the energy front is to do everything we can to help Europe wean itself off. You know, when I was secretary of state, I started something called the U.S.-E.U. Energy Council. And I'll admit, I had a hard sell with our European friends that I kept saying, "Look what Russia's already done." Because at that point they'd already used energy as a blunt force for power over Ukraine and Eastern Europe. They'd cut off gas supplies to, you know, force Ukraine and others to do their bidding. And I made the case then, and now I'm delighted that everybody is back focused on this because the more we can get Europe to understand it has to lead the way. Now, there are other problems. We've got other big countries – China, India, for example, who are buying Russian energy, who are also trying to figure out which side to end up on this. So this is – this is the slow but important work of diplomacy, which Secretary Blinken and others in the administration are pursuing. But I think we need to be putting more sanctions more quickly on more things to up the ante on Russia and to try to bring more countries to the side of seeing that it's in their interest to support that.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to turn to domestic politics here. The Democratic Party is interesting – in an interesting moment that to me looks quite similar to a moment back in 1989 and 1990, you're familiar with, where the Democrats are having – what does the party stand for? How far left? How far to the center? And you and your husband were on one side of that conversation. Do you see some similarities to that period of Democratic hand-wringing in the early '90s?
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, I don't know. I do think hand-wringing is part of the Democratic DNA. That seems to be in style whether we're in or out of power. We're in power and there still is hand-wringing going on. From my perspective, President Biden is doing a very good job. I think that his handling of Ukraine, passing the American Rescue package, the huge infrastructure package. I'm not quite sure what the disconnect is between the accomplishments of the administration and this Congress and the understanding of what's been done and the impact it will have on the American public, and some of the polling and the ongoing hand-wringing. I've always thought that the best politics is doing the best job you can do. And there's a lot that Democrats can talk about in this upcoming midterms. I'm well aware that midterms are obviously always difficult for the party in power. But we've got a great story to tell. And we need to get out there and do a better job of telling it. And for those who, you know, say it hasn't gone far enough, that's always the chorus in Democratic Party politics. But I would add that in Republican Party politics, you have an even greater disconnect. Unfortunately, most of that party has now gone to the, you know, to the extreme and are saying and doing things that have no basis in reality. So we've got a good case to make if we get our focus in the right place to do it.
CHUCK TODD:
I'm curious, do you think it's the -- a lot of speculation is that this trouble for President Biden politically started with the chaotic withdrawal in Afghanistan. Do you buy that?
HILLARY CLINTON:
I don't think it helped. I think that is obviously the case. I think that the performance with respect to Ukraine has been excellent. And one of the smartest things that has been done was releasing classified intelligence to prevent the false-flag kinds of operations that Putin was counting on. And also, let's remember, Putin has been quite effective in impacting public opinion, particularly in the last decade or so, both in the United States and in Europe. And this was largely stymied by releasing that intelligence. So, I think a lot of lessons have been learned. But there is a lot of good accomplishments to be putting up on the board, and the Democrats in office and out need to be doing a better job of making the case. And, frankly, standing up to the other side with their craziness and their calls for impunity and nuttiness that we hear coming from them, I don't think the average American, frankly, wants to be governed by people who live in a totally different reality.
CHUCK TODD:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, really appreciate you coming on, sharing your respective – perspective with us. It was good to hear from you.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Thanks.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, immigration at the southern border has been a big political problem for President Biden. Is it about to get worse? Panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, panel is here. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Leigh Ann Caldwell, Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, Republican strategist Brad Todd, and Amy Walter, editor-in-chief and publisher of the Cook Political Report. All right, I want to start with this Title 42 decision. And Title 42, what does this mean? It was a CDC rule, Leigh Ann, that essentially allowed for Border Patrol to – anybody who was coming across the border – to be sent back immediately due to Covid, due to health protocols. We know immigration advocates are like, "This is, stop this. This is terrible." You have others that say, "Well, okay, but we don't have a plan to do with this in order to lift it now." How thorny is this going to get?
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL:
Extremely thorny. And that is an understatement. So people who are running for reelection, especially this is going to be difficult for them. Democrats, you have Senator Mark Kelly in Arizona, Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, two key states as far as immigration is concerned. And Senator Kelly said after this announcement, "You did this without a plan. I had been pushing the administration to have a plan for immigration before this is rescinded and they didn't do that." And I was told that this could be a very huge problem for Democrats. And some Democrats are trying to spin it and saying, "Well, look, here is one thing that is good. These Democrats can try to differentiate themself from the president and show that they are trying to do what is best for their states." And that is the only positive.
CHUCK TODD:
You pull a muscle with that spin. Amy Walter, I want to put up, she brought up Mark Kelly, and I had another senator in here, Maggie Hassan.
AMY WALTER:
Hassan, yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me put up here Mark Kelly, "Unacceptable to end Title 42 without a plan and coordination." Maggie Hassan, "Ending Title 42 prematurely will likely lead to a migrant surge." And of course we heard from Joe Manchin, "Title 42 has been an essential tool." This is a –
AMY WALTER:
Immigration is not just a border issue, right?
CHUCK TODD:
No. New Hampshire.
AMY WALTER:
Right, it becomes more--
CHUCK TODD:
They're not worried about Maine.
AMY WALTER:
They are, this is much about the issue about competency, preparedness. You know, you and I – well, everyone around this table – we watch a lot of campaign ads. I've been watching a lot of Republican primary ads. And it seems like immigration’s in every one of those ads. So I went back and I asked the folks who cover this –
CORNELL BELCHER:
Shocker.
AMY WALTER:
Yes, but more so than ever. So at this point, this is early March, more than 30% of all Republican primary ads mention the border or immigration. At this point in 2018, it was 12%. It is an issue that is not just animating – right now, it's animating the Republican base. But it becomes an issue, as I said, much more about is the administration prepared to deal with the problems that go on their plate? And it just seems that so often with the administration thus far, it is much more about wishcasting than it is preparation. Wishcasting about inflation, right? It's going to be transitory. Wishcasting that we're going to get Manchin, we're going to get Sinema, they're going to just come around eventually. This immigration isn't going to solve itself. The border isn't going to solve itself.
CHUCK TODD:
Brad, we were talking about this literally I think an hour before the news came out. I have talked to some officials that said, "Hey, it's May 23rd. A new variant may come. And don't be surprised if May 23rd's not the real deadline."
BRAD TODD:
Well, Jeh Johnson said on this show on Wednesday that they use it to keep the numbers down. That's why it's done. You know, two senators or two Democrat members of Congress stood out to me on this. One was Henry Cuellar. He's a Democrat who represents a majority-Hispanic district on the Texas border. He's in a real primary with a challenge from the left. And he's encouraging the administration to keep Title 42. The second one is Raphael Warnock. Unlike Maggie Hassan and Mark Kelly, he said nothing. He said absolutely nothing. And so the smart Democrats are figuring out that they've got to run against 2021 to win in '22. The ones that don't are going to get beat. And I think Raphael Warnock's in that group.
CHUCK TODD:
Cornell, you buy that?
CORNELL BELCHER:
Let's get real about immigration reform here, right? There's a reason why that's in almost every Republican ad, right? And look, we've seen this play before, right? This is part of that more fuel for driving the tribalism that Republicans see as part of their political calculus as how they drive this. Pew Research is fairly clear on this. Dissatisfaction with immigration has been driven by Republicans and they're feeding this. Not so long ago I remember when a guy named Barack Obama thought he had an immigration deal with the Gang of Eight. But it was in the Republicans’ benefit to not have a deal, comprehensive immigration reform, that included border security, that included a pathway. And by the way, most Americans think that you should pay a penalty, and there should be a pathway. And that's not going to happen. You know why it's not going to happen? Because Republicans in Congress don't want it to happen.
CHUCK TODD:
But you know what's interesting, Leigh Ann, I had somebody very smart say to me, "You take that Gang of Eight bill right now, not only are you not going to get as many Republican supporters as you got, but you won't get as many Democratic supporters either."
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL:
No, the politics have completely changed on immigration. And that Gang of Eight bill will not pass. That's why Senator Cornyn, Senator Durbin, a couple others have been talking about immigration for the past many, many months. It is going absolutely nowhere. And the problem is, is because, yes, immigration is a Republican base thing, but once there’s these images of the border being chaotic and people being hurt or killed in the desert because they were trying to be trafficked or the cartels were bringing them, that starts to impact the Independent voters and it starts to sow, as you mentioned, a lot of discord.
BRAD TODD:
DHS says this summer we may have twice the flow as we had last summer in a campaign year.
CHUCK TODD:
By the way, we have job openings. There's an incentive. No, no, no, I mean, this is the thing. Like, there's real incentives besides concern about their own personal safety.
CORNELL BELCHER:
But, Chuck, it’s not about – yes, we should as opposed to sending the Haitians back, how about putting them to work in these jobs that Americans don't want right now? But that's not going to happen because we are – it's a tribal fear, what's happening in this
CHUCK TODD:
Amy, María Teresa Kumar reminded me yesterday that DACA recipients are in their mid-30s now. I mean, are we going to be debating DACA recipients when it's time for social security for them?
AMY WALTER:
They probably will. Right, it's the easy things that we know could be fixed. But it's too good of a wedge issue to fix it.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, I'm going to pause the conversation there. Before we go to break, I want to let you know about our latest episode of our streaming show Meet the Press Reports this week, we look at the explosive growth of crypto and whether it becomes currency. NBC News' Jo Ling Kent reports on what it is, how it works, and whether crypto is a bubble ready to burst.
[BEGIN TAPE]
JO LING KENT:
The crypto currency scene is booming. Advertisements dot the skies and fill our screens.
CAITLIN LONG
It's way too late to try to ban Bitcoin. Everyone who says that Bitcoin should be banned is, in fact, revealing that they don't understand what Bitcoin actually is.
CHUCK TODD:
If I buy Bitcoin, am I buying a share of stock or am I buying a pork belly? Or am I buying euros? What am I buying?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Or are you buying air?
CHUCK TODD:
Oh wow, okay. You're going in. What is it?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
I'm going in.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
You can see our entire Meet the Press Reports story on crypto right now anytime, streaming on Peacock, or you can check it out on YouTube. When we come back, could a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade change the dynamics of the midterms? Stick with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, Data Download time. This summer's expected Supreme Court ruling on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban could result in the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade being struck down. And that could send a major shock to the political system, just as we head to the midterms. The fact of the matter is, there's never been a lot of support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Over the last 30 years, the “don't overturn” number according to Gallup has been near 60%. The “overturn” number has really never gotten even close to 40%. We asked in our current NBC News poll about congressional candidates who are either for keeping Roe v. Wade or against it. Overall, 56% said they're more likely to support a candidate who is for Roe v. Wade. Now you think, is there a big gender gap? Actually, not really. Yes, slightly more women than men here. But as you can see, if you support Roe v. Wade the gender gap is not that big. Now, among those who believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, if you're a candidate for Congress, that's not a very popular thing to have. 58% said they'd be less likely to support a candidate who advocates overturning Roe. And again, not much of a gender gap here. Slightly more women saying that they wouldn't at 63%, but still a majority of men say they would be less likely, too. And if you're wondering how this plays in the battleground states, not well at all. 57% said they'd be less likely. And look at this: This is a real potential problem for Republicans here. 75% of Independents say they would be less likely to support somebody who advocates overturning Roe. Let's see what the Supreme Court does. If they overturn it, this could enter in a whole new reset to the 2022 midterms. When we come back, was it a mistake to take Donald Trump off of Twitter? The answer may not be as obvious as you think. Stay with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Former President Trump is off Twitter and Facebook, but he certainly hasn't been quiet lately. In just the past couple of weeks, Mr. Trump urged Vladimir Putin to turn over dirt on President Biden's son, Hunter. Now we're at war with the guy. He criticized NATO again, even as NATO has actually been more united than ever in the Ukraine issue. And then, of course, he went after Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, claiming that she was disrespectful to Republican senators. And last night, apparently called for going back into Afghanistan, which is, of course, going to be extraordinarily politically popular. But it leads me to this question. And I'm going to start with you, Amy, which is this: Does the general public know what Trump's been doing?
AMY WALTER:
No.
CHUCK TODD:
And should they? And I sit here and it's like, this is a reminder. Anytime you censor, even for the right reasons, do you get the unintended consequence?
AMY WALTER:
So if you look at the intensity around Democratic feelings about this election, or how engaged they are, much lower than 2020. And I hear this a lot in focus groups. I'm sure you guys hear this as well. What Democrats say is after Trump left office, as soon as Joe Biden was sworn in, they turned off the television, right? They don't need to be on alert with their device and with watching the news all the time. He's not there anymore. Democrats want him to be there because he is the best motivational operation. He is their get-out-to-vote operation. The more he's in front of us, the more people see him, the more that they can make the case that this election is not a referendum on Biden, but is a choice between a Trump-like Congress and the alternative. But he’s just not – while he'd like to be, he is not in the front of the minds, even of the people who don't like him.
CHUCK TODD:
And, you know, Brad, I think this has become, I guess I would – you could argue politically, is it the best of both worlds for your elected Republican? Because you're not feeling the mainstream media pressure because it's not in your face every day, and they don't feel the discomfort constantly, which one could argue maybe something that these folks should. But they don't feel the discomfort and they don't have to cringe at the Trump thing, and they just ignore it. If it were more in the mainstream, would there be more elected Republicans having a Trump problem?
BRAD TODD:
You know, Donald Trump's main function in the Republican coalition is sort of as the testosterone booster, right? Our voters turn to him when they think other Republicans are not being confrontational enough for Democrats. That's not happening right now. The Republican Party is pretty united in opposing the administration on ideological grounds, and so the Republican base, I think, is not in turmoil. And when it's not in turmoil, it doesn't need an agitator. And so I think that that's driving a lot of it.
CHUCK TODD:
You think his shtick's wearing a little thin, too? It's just repetitive?
BRAD TODD:
No, I think the fact that he's not spending all of his time posting up against the administration. If he were doing that, he would be seen as more relevant to the Republican base. Because he talks a lot about 2020, that's not where the base is focused right now. They're focused on 2022.
CHUCK TODD:
Cornell, would Biden's numbers be five points higher if he were on Twiter – Trump were on Twitter?
CORNELL BELCHER:
You know, it's funny that you say that. And one of the things I pick up in focus groups among Democrat voters is Trump has set us up. And he was in your face every day, all day. You always knew what was going on in Washington. You know, Hillary said there's a disconnect between what the administration's been accomplishing and what American people know. And to your point, they've – they’ve turned it off. Trump has, I think, reset the game for politics in that, I think, you will suffer if you are not dominating social media. You will suffer if you're not constantly taking your message to the people 24 hours a day. It is sad, but I think he has broken the system in a way that if you don't follow in that path of constantly being on Twitter, constantly being on social media, you're failing. And I think that's sad for politics.
CHUCK TODD:
Leigh Ann, do Republican electeds take comfort in the fact that he's not? Yeah?
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
You deal with him.
AMY WALTER:
You know I deal with him every day.
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL:
So a Republican told me yesterday that they described the latest Trump statements as white noise. They don't even really know what they are anymore. So they're not really paying attention. And this past week was a return of having to, for the first time in a very long time, having to ask a Republican what they thought about Trump.
CHUCK TODD:
Because of the Putin stuff.
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL:
Because of the Putin stuff. And we have not had to do that on Capitol Hill for a year and a half.
CORNELL BELCHER:
Two quick things, though. You say that, but if he runs, he's going to be the nominee. I'll fight you, Brad, he's going to be your nominee. If he runs, he’s going to be nominee, but also --
CHUCK TODD:
I don't buy that he runs.
CORNELL BELCHER:
Why wouldn't he run? It's a money-generating --
CHUCK TODD:
It’s work.
CORNELL BELCHER:
Generate money, publicity, that's what he's for.
CHUCK TODD:
It’s work.
CORNELL BELCHER:
Fair. The other thing is, is that Trump's a quintessential threat to our democracy. And whether you're a Democrat or you're a Republican, it was right for them to pull back. And I don't want to play politics with it because he was a threat.
BRAD TODD:
It is dead-level proof of how bad this administration's political situation is that the number one thing they could hope for is another president from another administration coming back. Like they can't talk about the situation or how they're going to solve it, nd that tells you why this is going to be 2006, frankly.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, it's funny you say that. I agree with that because, Amy, I think the most fascinating thing about our poll is there's not buyer's remorse. People are not happy with Biden, but they don't say, "Give me Trump."
AMY WALTER:
No.
CHUCK TODD:
They've disaggregated Trump from the GOP more than the Democrats.
AMY WALTER:
More easily than Democrats would like to see it. And the other fundamental challenge is that people voted against Donald Trump more than they voted for Biden. And that has been the problem for Democrats all along. They've been the party of who we aren't, not the party of who we are.
CORNELL BELCHER:
Really quickly, Trump can't solve our problems. We've got to do a better job of branding, especially with young people.
CHUCK TODD:
We'll stop it right there. That's all we have for today, thank you for watching. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.