CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday, the abortion legal wars. A Texas federal judge suspends FDA approval for the abortion pill mifepristone. Another in Washington State directly contradicts him, setting up a likely Supreme Court standoff on the abortion pill.
FMR. VICE PRES. MIKE PENCE:
The FDA went beyond their legislative authority.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
The contents of this judge's ruling is frankly shocking.
CHUCK TODD:
As the abortion issue gives liberals their first majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 15 years.
JUDGE JANET PROTASIEWICZ:
Everything we care about is on the line.
CHUCK TODD:
Wisconsin, just the latest in a string of statewide defeats on the abortion issue for the GOP. Is anyone in the party going to listen to voters? Plus, lawmakers expelled.
CROWD:
Shame on you!
CHUCK TODD:
Two Black lawmakers are ousted by the Tennessee legislature after protesting on the House floor for stricter gun laws.
STATE REP. JUSTIN JONES:
We called for you all to ban assault weapons, and you respond with an assault on democracy.
TENNESSEE HOUSE SPEAKER CAMERON SEXTON:
They had a protest against House policy.
CHUCK TODD:
The effort to expel a third Democrat fails.
STATE REP. GLORIA JOHNSON:
Other than me being a white lady I don't know what else it was.
CHUCK TODD:
I'll talk to the two ousted lawmakers: Justin Jones and Justin Pearson. And, Trump charged.
MANHATTAN DA ALVIN BRAGG:
These are felony crimes in New York State. No matter who you are.
CHUCK TODD:
As the New York case progresses, it's the probe into his mishandling of classified documents that may put Trump in greater legal jeopardy. I'll talk to one of Trump's attorneys in that case, James Trusty. And finally, defying China. My exclusive interview with House Foreign Affairs Chairman Mike McCaul, as he wraps up his own trip to the island of Taiwan. Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Senior Legal Correspondent Laura Jarrett, Amna Nawaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour, Republican strategist Brendan Buck and Symone Sanders-Townsend, former chief spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris. 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.yeah
CHUCK TODD:
And a good Sunday morning. Happy Easter, Passover and Ramadan. The spring holidays are here. Pope Francis presided over a crowded mass this morning in Vatican City, St. Peter's Square. He’s of course in a wheelchair right now after his release from the hospital a week ago. But he did ride through the crowd on this Easter Sunday morning to the cheers of many. But despite the celebrations this morning, let's be honest, this was no ordinary holiday week. In fact, come November of 2024, we may look back at this week as one of the most consequential to the future of the Republican Party and to our overall electoral politics. From the dueling abortion rulings Friday night, to avert partisan warfare in Tennessee. Ironically, the least consequential event may very well be the former president's legal troubles, at least the Manhattan case, though it's still important, obviously. But what's happened this week in Texas in that courtroom, in Wisconsin at that ballot box and in Tennessee in that statehouse may reverberate the most in our political culture as a widening divide corrodes our institutions, from our statehouses to the courts. The national divide was crystallized on Friday night in those dueling abortion rulings, less than an hour apart, on specifically the abortion pill over the federal judges. These are legal efforts that were pushed by political activists seeking a decision by the Supreme Court. There was no actual medical event, no misuse of this pill to trigger this look at the drug. It was simply political activism. This was a drug that was approved at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, four presidencies ago. In Texas, a federal judge invalidated the FDA approval for the abortion pill mifepristone, which in combination with another drug does account for more than 50% of all abortions in this country. An hour later, it was a judge in Washington State that contradicted the decision, and he called the drug safe and effective and ordered the FDA to make no changes. Obviously, the Supreme Court has to weigh in on this one. But the political divide of the judiciary, which looks very undemocratic these days, is also getting worse on the state level. On Thursday night, in a scene that had echoes of the ugly politics of the 60s, Southern lawmakers in Tennessee did something unprecedented. They expelled two Black Democratic legislators for taking a gun violence protest over the recent Nashville school shooting to the House floor itself. It was a violation of House rules. But a third legislator, Gloria Johnson, who was white survived the expulsion vote. Let's be honest, 30 years of aggressive gerrymandering have likely brought us to this moment. In Tennessee, Trump won over 60% of the vote, but Republicans make up more than 75% of the statehouse. Half of those Republicans didn't face any opposition in 2022, not even from their own party. The Tennessee legislature has also changed the rules on the House floor that essentially stifles and limits dissent. Until this week, only two lawmakers in Tennessee had been expelled from the House of Representatives since the 19th century. One for allegations of sexual misconduct, and a second was because somebody was convicted of soliciting a bribe.
CHUCK TODD:
I'm joined now by the two lawmakers who were ousted by the Tennessee House this week, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson. Gentlemen, welcome to Meet the Press. I'm sure this was not the way you thought you'd be appearing on this program or other national programs. Justin Jones, let me start with you. I know you met with Vice President Harris, you met with President Biden. What was their message to you, and what did you hear from them?
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN JONES:
Well, thank you so much for having us on today. I think the most resounding message we're hearing from the White House, and across the world, and people across this nation is that this attack on democracy will not go on unchallenged, that the Tennessee House Republicans' attempt to crucify democracy has instead resurrected a movement led by young people to restore our democracy, to build a multi-racial coalition. We are in the midst of a third Reconstruction here, beginning here in Nashville. And I think what, you know, the message is, is that we will continue to resist, that this is not the end. That their decision to expel us is not the ultimate authority, but that the people will hold them accountable both at the county level, and in the special election, and going forward through our legal processes.
CHUCK TODD:
Justin Pearson, have you talked to any of your colleagues, or now former colleagues since this vote? Have any of them explained why you were ousted and Gloria Johnson was not?
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN J. PEARSON:
It's Justin J. Pearson. And no, I haven't talked to our former colleagues. But I have to tell you, the reality is an institution filled with people who are more concerned about supporting the NRA and supporting the Second Amendment than it is protecting the First Amendment rights of children and teenagers to be able to come to the Capitol and advocate for gun violence prevention laws is not the type of legislature that we deserve and need to have in the state of Tennessee. The reality is Cameron Sexton, the Speaker of the House, called those children and teenagers insurrectionists. And it's that type of language, it's that type of political ideology that is destructive to our democracy. And what ends up happening is the perpetuation of systems of injustice like patriarchy, like white supremacy that lead to the expulsion of two of the youngest Black lawmakers in Tennessee.
CHUCK TODD:
Representative Pearson, do you feel like – you've been just elected to the State House. Did you ever feel welcome, or did you feel unwelcome when you got there?
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN J. PEARSON:
No. It has always been a toxic work environment to work in the Tennessee State Capitol, where you have people who make comments about hanging you on a tree, and hanging Black people on a tree as a form of capital punishment. When you wear a dashiki on the House floor and a member gets up, and they talk about your dashiki, saying it's unprofessional. They're really sending signals that you don't belong here. And that is what the underlying and undergirding comment and responses that we heard on the House floor, and the comments to myself and my brother, Representative Jones, was really about. It's about us not belonging in the institution because they are afraid of the changes that are happening in our society, and the voices that are being elevated.
CHUCK TODD:
In fact, Representative Jones, I can't help but wonder – look, you’ve been, you were a well-known political activist to many of these state lawmakers. You had been there for a sit-in having to do with Confederate monuments. There had been some run-ins that some lawmakers brought charges against you. They were eventually ended up being dropped. Do you think that history of activism made you a target on the House floor the minute you got elected?
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN JONES:
I think our presence as young Black voices for our constituencies, people who will not bow down, those who will not be conformed, that's what made, put a target on us the day we walked in the Tennessee General Assembly. I mean, you, this is the first time in Tennessee history we had a completely partisan expulsion by a predominantly white caucus. All but one member of their caucus is white out of 75 members. And we are the two youngest Black lawmakers in Tennessee. And so what we saw was a system of political hubris. This was not just an attack on us, but it was an attempt to silence our districts, predominantly Black and Brown districts who no longer have representation. 78,000 people in each of our districts do not have a voice, do not have someone to deal with their constituent relations, are silenced. And that's what this is about; it's about the people whose voices have been taken on Capitol Hill.
CHUCK TODD:
And Representative Jones, Gloria Johnson was telling us – I think you were on with me earlier in the week – how they've changed the rules even since you got elected, and even since Representative Pearson got elected of, like, just on the House floor. Explain some of the rule changes that were made just in the last few years on expressing dissent on the House floor.
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN JONES:
Well, they've limited debate to what they say is five minutes. But in reality, you ask one question, they'll spend five minutes answering it, and your time is up. You can't reclaim your time. Or the Speaker, Cameron Sexton, an autocrat, will not even call on you; will call the question and will cut off all debate. When we went outside to support the protests, both myself and my brother Representative Pearson, our voting machines were turned off so we couldn't vote on the House floor. The Speaker, you know, I mean, he runs the Capitol like it's his private palace. And so there is no democracy in Tennessee. Tennessee is the most undemocratic state in the nation. Even in committees, you're silenced from talking about the issues. When we try to talk about the issue of mass shootings that plagued our community, we were silenced. And all they offered our community were moments of silence, in fact, and empty thoughts and prayers. And our community deserves more than that. But instead of responding to the grief and trauma of our community, the House Speaker, Cameron Sexton, once again silenced us, even the day of our protest. And that's what led us to the well.
CHUCK TODD:
Representative Pearson, when you look at the maps, right, and you see this, you can see there's an attempt to limit the political power of Nashville and Memphis, particularly in African American communities. Is there any recourse that you have here? I mean, it just feels like a very aggressive gerrymander that was beyond just protecting incumbents.
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN J. PEARSON:
Yes. What we are seeing is the intentional political dilution of votes of people who are more progressive, of communities that are filled with African Americans and people of color. And that is an intentional and systematic effort of people in the majority party to retain as much power as they can, in order to be able to dictate and control what it is that their majority Black populations and progressive populations do. In fact, the Speaker, Cameron Sexton, called himself at one point an overseer. This is the type of legislature and people in positions of power, in addition to Governor Bill Lee, who we are dealing with. And so we realize what is going on in the South, which is you have politicians choosing who to, who will vote for them, rather than the people who are supposed to be choosing their elected officials. These are the situations that we get in. And in the South in particular, we need to pay attention to what's happening with state legislatures. This is a battleground because if it's gun violence, if it's abortion, if it's education, if it's health care, the South is continuing to lag behind, and the people in positions of power are hurting us.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, there's a dramatic political lines here that have been drawn that we're going to show graphically in a few minutes. But I want to get to last few questions for the both of you. Representative Jones, do you plan to accept a reappointment if it is, indeed, the case? And if not, do you plan to run in a special election to come back?
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN JONES:
Yes and yes. You know, we will continue to fight for our constituents. And one thing I just want to say, Chuck, is that this attack against us is hurting all people in our state. So it’s not, you know, even though it is disproportionately impacting Black and Brown communities, this is hurting poor white people. Their attack on democracy hurts all of us. And I just want to emphasize that, because I don't want it to just be about race. But this is about attack on Black, Brown, and poor white communities, silencing them. These lawmakers who are more beholden to the NRA than their own people in their own districts, people like Cameron Sexton.
CHUCK TODD:
And Representative Pearson, same question for you. I know that you may get reappointed. Will you accept the appointment, and do you plan on running in the special election?
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN J. PEARSON:
Yes, I would be honored to accept the appointment of the Shelby County Commission, and to run in a special election. And I've already heard that people in the state legislature and in Nashville are actually threatening our Shelby County commissioners to not reappoint me, or they're going to take away funding that's in the government's budget for projects that the mayor and others have asked for. And this is what folks really have to realize. The power structure in the state of Tennessee is always wielding against the minority party and people.
CHUCK TODD:
And there may very well be some constitutional rights that have been violated here, and that could be something --
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN J. PEARSON:
Exactly.
CHUCK TODD:
– the federal courts could be looking at. Justin Jones, Justin J. Pearson, thank you both for spending a few minutes and sharing your views with us.
FMR. STATE REP. JUSTIN J. PEARSON:
Thank you so much. We'll keep fighting.
CHUCK TODD:
Turning now to the unprecedented scene that played out in New York City on Tuesday, as Donald Trump became the first former president charged with a crime: 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, stemming from alleged hush money payoffs he made to adult film star Stormy Daniels at the time that it's alleged to avoid a scandal ahead of the 2016 election. Trump's route to the courthouse to be fingerprinted and arraigned was tracked in an OJ-like-style overhead that you might expect from the New York City media and on the ground. He pleaded not guilty, but it is just the first chapter of what's likely to be a very busy spring of legal developments, given the civil trial for battery and defamation that begins in just over two weeks in one of two cases New York author E. Jean Carroll has brought against the former president.There's the criminal case in Georgia that's focused on the former president's efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat there. And then of course, there's the special counsel probe into the former president's potential mishandling of classified documents, where the Special Counsel Jack Smith is looking into possible obstruction. The former president addressed that probe at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday night.
[START TAPE]
DONALD TRUMP:
You have a Radical Left lunatic known as a bomb thrower, who is harassing hundreds of my people day after day over the boxes hoax, you know, the boxes hoax, as we call it. They like to say that I am obstructing, which I am not, because I was working with NARA very nicely until the raid on my home.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Joining me now is James Trusty. He is one of the former president's attorneys in the classified documents case. Mr. Trusty, welcome to Meet the Press.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Morning.
CHUCK TODD:
Thank you for giving me a few minutes. I want to start with that Washington Post report this week. Let me read an except from it that there’s a -- they believe the special counsel is looking at obstruction of justice as a crime in this situation. "Investigators now suspect, based on witness statements, security camera footage, and other documentary evidence, that boxes including classified material were moved from a Mar-a-Lago storage area after the subpoena was served, and that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes." What's your client's response to this assertion?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Yeah. Well, that it’s nonsense. I mean, look, there's been a campaign of leaks from DOJ unlike anything I've ever seen. I was a prosecutor for 27 years. I spent 17 at this Department of Justice. I don't recognize it anymore. They are consistently leaking. The angle they're pushing on the obstruction is to try to create some sort of daylight between Joe Biden's possession of documents and President Trump's. And it's not going to work. I mean, they have literally put in everybody to grand jury you can imagine. They don't respect any privilege that President Trump holds. And it's desperately trying to find an obstruction angle that just isn't there.
CHUCK TODD:
Former president, himself, though, basically admitted to the crime. Listen to what he said to Sean Hannity.
[START TAPE]
SEAN HANNITY:
I can't -- I can’t imagine you ever saying, "Bring me some of the boxes that we brought back from the White House. I'd like to look at them." Did you ever do that?
DONALD TRUMP:
I would have the right to do that. There's nothing wrong with it.
SEAN HANNITY:
But I know you. I don't think you would do it.
DONALD TRUMP:
No. I don't have a lot of time. But I would have the right to do that. I would do that. I would do that --
SEAN HANNITY:
All right. Let me move on.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Where in the law that they have a right to these classified documents? Presidential Records Act is clear. There's no vagary here.
JAMES TRUSTY:
No. Well, you're right. But I think you're misinterpreting the Presidential Records Act. You notice, he didn't say, "I did this. I possessed it." He said, "I would have the right." He is correct, under the Presidential Records Act, which is a non-criminal statute. That's the key. DOJ and political bureaucrats at NARA criminalized something using criminal tools: grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, for a statute that says, "Look. Ex-presidents work with NARA, work with them for years, figure out what stuff they get. It took 18 years, I think, for Nixon's tapes to finally get to NARA. So, there's a delay built into the process, as they negotiate in good faith. In this case, NARA was hypersensitive, immediately trying to pounce on President Trump to say he's holding onto things he's not entitled to. But the remedy for all of that, if you have that fight between the archivists and the former president, is civil litigation.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay --
JAMES TRUSTY:
And they've jumped right past that with a very happy and willing DOJ.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, you say that, but they actually spent over 15 -- 18 months before asking for a subpoena. He signed -- he had a lawyer sign that he had returned all classified documents. So the problem is he actively misled NARA. So it forced a situation where they didn't know where else to turn, other than the law. I mean, he, himself lied, via a lawyer, which has gotten that lawyer in trouble, it appears.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Well, you're putting together a whole bunch of hoops that don't actually connect. Look, NARA had 15 boxes given to them in January of 2022. Fifteen boxes, just, "Here it is. Take it. Use these for archives." I've looked through those records, those documents, and you have a process. This is what every other president in history has gone through, is a process of communicating and resolving issues as to what stuff he wants to keep and what stuff he wants to give over.
CHUCK TODD:
None of it belongs to him.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Right.
CHUCK TODD:
He has this mistaken feeling that anything classified -- none of it belongs to him. It belongs to the presidency.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Read the Personal Records Act -- the Presidential Records Act. There is the ability of any president to deem things as personal, to say, "I'm going to keep these as personal."
CHUCK TODD:
Sure.
JAMES TRUSTY:
If NARA disagrees, they can sue in DC. That's not what happened here.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that. But he seems to, and you seem to be, I think, maybe unintentionally misrepresenting the law when you talk about Nixon. The law was passed after Nixon. Nixon had a case because the law wasn't in place. The law was effective with the Reagan presidency in 1981. Does the former -- does Donald Trump think he should get paid? Is that what's going on here? Because Nixon got paid $18 million, he wants -- is he just holding these documents for some sort of financial settlement?
JAMES TRUSTY:
No. That's a cheap shot. Look, if you --
CHUCK TODD:
He keeps bringing up this Nixon thing. What other reason is he bringing it up?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Chuck, okay. So let's go more modern day, because you're right about the timing of the Presidential Records Act. Bill Clinton had multiple recordings he kept in a sock drawer, of his presidency, while in the Oval Office, talking to foreign leaders, talking to advisors. He basically said, "Hey, that stays in sock drawer. It's personal." And NARA didn't blink. Obama Foundation had millions of documents in a former, I think, furniture store out in Illinois, arguable whether it was ever really, truly secured. They acknowledged that they had classified documents, probably to the tune of thousands. And there was never any blink by NARA. They, in fact, said, "We're going to give NARA $3.3 million to help move these documents back, eventually, when we have a digitized library." That's never happened. Now, the payments may have happened, but that's never happened. NARA was perfectly comfortable accepting money for a move that won't happen for thousands of classified documents in some place near a McDonald's in Illinois and never blinked – never any criminal tools, never any criminal referrals. So, look, this has rotten underpinning, in terms of bureaucrats being politicized, followed up by an all-too-eager DOJ to criminalize something that's not a crime. That was the point of the president's comment.
CHUCK TODD:
He has done with classified documents what no former president has ever done. I mean, you keep trying to say -- all of those situations you represent, there was actual cooperation by those former presidents to deal with the dispute. In this case, not only is he not cooperating, he is actively not cooperating. And, again, he did not comply with the subpoena. That’s – the end of the day, that’s the obstruction charge. Why didn't he comply with the subpoena? There was a subpoena for all classified documents. He did not comply with the subpoena. He was caught not complying with the subpoena because of the -- the search warrant ending up turning up more classified documents. How do you explain him defying a subpoena?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Chuck, the Democratic narrative, which you're touting right now to try to draw a distinction --
CHUCK TODD:
It's just a set of facts.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Well, let me finish. Let's --
CHUCK TODD:
I mean, why call it a Democratic narrative? It's a set of facts.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Because you're ignoring --
CHUCK TODD:
He defied a subpoena.
JAMES TRUSTY:
You’re ignoring a set of facts. Let's talk about Delaware. You've got a vice president that has documents for decades in these -- in this Chinese-funded Penn Biden Center, right? You've got absolute obstruction there because we don't even have any sort --
CHUCK TODD:
How is that obstruction?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Because he had no right to have those documents. He didn't have any ability --
CHUCK TODD:
Right. And did he refuse to turn them over when he found them?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Well, I don't know. It was hidden for so many months.
CHUCK TODD:
Again, did he turn them over? What does the former president --
JAMES TRUSTY:
Did his lawyers turn that over without any sense of chain of custody or any sorts of clearance --
CHUCK TODD:
Has the former president turned this over after a legal subpoena?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Well, we don't have the leaks coming from Rob Hur's investigation to know the details of exactly how stuff was turned over.
CHUCK TODD:
So is your defense that, "You know, hey, we think other people broke the law, so let us break the law"?
JAMES TRUSTY:
No. Of course, not. Of course, not.
CHUCK TODD:
I mean, I just think that doesn't seem to be a good defense.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Chuck, the point of it is not to say that, "Somebody else broke the law and we did, too. It's okay." It's to point out that the common denominator, whether you're talking about New York, Georgia or DOJ, is differential treatment for President Trump than anybody in history. And to sit there and whitewash Delaware and to wonder aloud about 1,800 boxes that are in the Delaware University that Biden put there, I mean, we are shut out from information about a much more egregious and intentional violation of the Presidential Records Act by Joe Biden, and perhaps, even having documents that relate to Ukraine of all places. That's pretty scary stuff. Now, I'm not saying anybody should be criminally prosecuted if you're a president or a vice president for having some of these documents in your possession or having people transport them to your home --
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think -- let me ask you this. There's some reports that this, you know, some classified documents were found on a laptop, they turned over a thumb drive. Can you guarantee that no copies of these classified documents still remain at Mar-a-Lago? Do you know this, for a fact, that right now, there are no more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Yeah. Sure. And I can tell you, the leak about what happened with this additional document or several documents that were found on the thumb drive is absurd. We actually have a federal prosecutor that was in court that completely mischaracterized that. It's been the same mischaracterization that the media has run with to suggest that President Trump is just sitting on a mountain of documents. It's not true at all. It was a completely innocuous situation: 4,500 pages of documents with several mixed in that didn't stand out to a low-level staffer, period. When we found out that she had it, we said, "Did you ever make copies of this? Did it ever go anywhere?" And we chased down the chain of custody in a professional manner and immediately turned that over to the FBI and DOJ. They tried to run with that as obstruction. It's the exact opposite.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you know for sure whether the former president got involved with the unpacking and moving of the boxes or not?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Yeah. I mean, can you imagine? I mean, does anybody in their right mind really think that Donald Trump came down to Mar-a-Lago, while still president, I guess, in January and said, "Hey, these are the boxes I packed. Let's be careful with those. That goes in the dining room. That goes in the closet?”
CHUCK TODD:
He told Hannity he could.
JAMES TRUSTY:
No, he --
CHUCK TODD:
He is not denying any of it.
JAMES TRUSTY:
He said, "I would have the right to." He didn't pack the boxes. Come on. I mean, that's like absurd, to think that President Trump, in the middle of --
CHUCK TODD:
He didn't --
JAMES TRUSTY:
-- January of 2021 --
CHUCK TODD:
He didn't say, "I want to keep --"
JAMES TRUSTY:
No.
CHUCK TODD:
-- "certain documents." You don't think he did that --
JAMES TRUSTY:
You know, if you look at the boxes, as I have --
CHUCK TODD:
You make this just seem like it's hard to believe. To anybody that has covered or spent time with the former president — I know you're new to him — this perfectly – this is who he is.
JAMES TRUSTY:
So you're going to vouch for him packing --
CHUCK TODD:
I'm just asking --
JAMES TRUSTY:
-- the boxes? Chuck, come on --
CHUCK TODD:
I'm just asking. Like, the idea that he wouldn't do this, he himself just said it.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Chuck, listen to --
CHUCK TODD:
That he had every right to it.
JAMES TRUSTY:
-- what he said. This is the third time I've had to correct you. It's, "I would have the right." That's what he said to Hannity.
CHUCK TODD:
If he didn't do it, he'd say --
JAMES TRUSTY:
Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
-- he didn't do it.
JAMES TRUSTY:
No. Chuck, he's making the point that it's not illegal for a president to possess documents like this. But the bottom line is — I'll make it clear to you, since you seem to be struggling with it — President Trump didn't sit there with masking tape and Sharpies and say, "Hey, let's sit down Indian-style and start packing these boxes and send them to Mar-a-Lago."
CHUCK TODD:
I don't think anybody's alleged he was sitting Indian-style. I'll give you that.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Well, great point.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you this --
JAMES TRUSTY:
Great distinction. Thank you --
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you this. The former president called Jack Smith "a lunatic, a fully-weaponized monster, a political hit man." You worked with Jack Smith at the Justice Department for quite a few years. Is that the Jack Smith you know?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Well, here's the point. I would say two things. One is, the president has every right to be frustrated by being politically targeted. I mean, we are crossing a Rubicon where prosecutors can announce—and this is the New York case specifically, and Georgia: "Hey, I'm going to run for office on the idea of taking down Donald Trump." That is flipping the whole idea. I mean, I was a prosecutor for 27 years. They are supposed to be --
CHUCK TODD:
Jack Smith. I'm not talking about --
JAMES TRUSTY:
Well, let me finish. I'll get to Jack --
CHUCK TODD:
I’m not talking about Alvin Bragg --
JAMES TRUSTY:
I'm getting to Jack. You know, you are supposed to be judicious. You are supposed to pursue the evidence where it takes you. You use your discretion as a prosecutor to do what's right.
CHUCK TODD:
You stand by the comments he's made about Jack Smith, calling him --
JAMES TRUSTY:
That was --
CHUCK TODD:
-- a monster and a lunatic?
JAMES TRUSTY:
I'm telling you there's reason to be frustrated. And there's an unethical nature of this prosecution when the attorney general holds a press conference that not even a local DA in Butte would do, because they know it's against the ethics of being a prosecutor.
CHUCK TODD:
So you stand by the president politicizing these attacks on Jack Smith?
JAMES TRUSTY:
Look, the president is – he's a very resilient guy. He is a very opinionated guy. I'm not going to spend my time worrying about the politics, worrying about his poll numbers are through the roof. I mean, I don't care about that stuff. I'm here in the legal lane. And he's got a right to be frustrated. But he's not just frustrated for himself, he's frustrated for the country.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. James Trusty, the attorney for the former president. I appreciate you coming on, expressing --
JAMES TRUSTY:
All right, man. Thanks.
CHUCK TODD:
-- the president's views.
JAMES TRUSTY:
Good seeing you, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, it has been a divisive week in American politics, with battles over abortion, guns and race. And this doesn't even count the Donald Trump legal situation. The panel will break it all down next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Panel is here: NBC News Senior Legal Correspondent Laura Jarrett; Amna Nawaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour; Brendan Buck, former advisor to Speakers Ryan and Boehner on the Republican side of the aisle; and Symone Sanders-Townsend, host of Symone on MSNBC. Laura, this is your first time at the table and, my word, we have a lot--
LAURA JARRETT:
There's a lot--
CHUCK TODD:
--to discuss--
LAURA JARRETT:
--of legal news this week.
CHUCK TODD:
--thankfully. All right, I want to start with these dueling briefs here. Look, we can get into the politics of how we got to this moment, but let's go with mifepristone. Is it going to be on the market this year or not?
LAURA JARRETT:
So as of this moment, it is. Nothing has changed. But we could be entering into a period of significant legal uncertainty if that order in Texas is actually upheld within the next week, if another judge doesn't block it, another Appellate judge doesn't block it, then it is as if the drug was never approved in the first place because he has put the effective date of it on hold, which is not exactly what the plaintiffs in this case had actually asked for. But that's what he's done. And yet, at the same time, you have another federal judge, with the exact same level of authority and jurisdiction, who has said the exact opposite. And so that's why I think folks are likely predicting it could be headed to the Supreme Court's doorstep.
CHUCK TODD:
Will it go through the appeals, each of the two circuits first, or does this get fast-tracked?
LAURA JARRETT:
Well, it depends on what the Justice Department does. I think you're going to see that this week. It's a strategic call. They have already filed a notice of appeal in the Fifth Circuit. But we know the Fifth Circuit tends to lean conservative. At the same time, now that they have filed that notice, they could also decide to go straight to the Supreme Court and not wait for the Fifth Circuit to act. It's just a discretionary judgment call whether--
CHUCK TODD:
Could the Supreme--
LAURA JARRETT:
--they want to do that.
CHUCK TODD:
--Court just step in and say, "No, no, no. We'll take this now. We see this dispute?" Or is it--
LAURA JARRETT:
They've got to wait for the Justice Department to tee it up.
CHUCK TODD:
This is a conservative majority. Is it in line with the federal judge from Amarillo, Texas?
LAURA JARRETT:
Well, it's interesting because the whole rationale for when they overturned Roe was to say, "Let's leave this to the states. Let's let the states decide what to do." This judge in Amarillo, Judge Kacsmaryk, has effectively set a national policy for the entire country and has decided the FDA simply didn't have the authority to do this for the entire country.
CHUCK TODD:
So we throw Wisconsin in with this, Amna, and now we have a full-fledged – It is hard for me to imagine, and I say this with some trepidation, but it certainly looks like 2024's going to be another abortion rights election.
AMNA NAWAZ:
I think that's right. I mean, I think if anything we saw from Wisconsin from the last year of special elections, and certainly from the November midterms, abortion remains a politically potent issue. And we saw that all the way back to Kansas last August, Michigan and Minnesota earning trifectas in the midterms as well. And then last week, as you mentioned, in Wisconsin. But I think the context here that Laura is hitting on is particularly important because the unprecedented nature of what we're seeing is what's mobilizing people to turn up on this issue, right? You've never had a court, correct me if I'm wrong here, legal expert, weigh in and overturn an FDA approval in this way. And now we're seeing that uncertainty Laura was mentioning as well, that's what's guiding people to come out because they don't know what their future is. Where you live increasingly determines how you live and your rights as a woman.
CHUCK TODD:
Brendan, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, who would like to see Republicans get some power again politically, warned them, "Republicans had better get their abortion position straight and more in line with where the voters are, or they will face another disappointment in 2024." They say total ban is a loser in swing state. I think total ban is a loser in every state. I don't think this is just about the swing states anymore. Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin. There's a pattern here.
BRENDAN BUCK:
Yeah, I don't know how many more warning signs we need that this is a political problem for us. And yet, we keep going deeper and deeper in this direction--
CHUCK TODD:
Why do you think it is? I have a theory that it's the infrastructure the party has relied upon, the pro-life community--
BRENDAN BUCK:
Absolutely.
CHUCK TODD:
--for so long for money and organizing, that they don't know how to quit it.
BRENDAN BUCK:
Yeah. We've made a deal with this part of the party for a very long time and made a lot of promises. Look at it in a political sense, there are a lot of people who firmly believe that this is the right moral position to have and so you can't just walk away from that. But if you take a bigger picture look at it, the politics of it are devastating for us. We can't win without them. But obviously, winning with them is coming at a significant cost.
CHUCK TODD:
Symone, feels like a long way away, remember when Joe Biden's abortion position was getting questioned--
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
Oh my--
CHUCK TODD:
--by Democratic--
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
--goodness.
CHUCK TODD:
--activists in the primary?
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
I remember vividly. I think I was there--
CHUCK TODD:
I guess we're a long way away from that.
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
Very long way away, Chuck. Look, I think what Brendan said should be underscored here because for a very long time, this is what the Republican party apparatus organized around. They did not organize around jailing women for getting an abortion, fining and jailing, potentially jailing doctors. They did not organize around forcing girls to have babies by their rapists. But that is exactly what is happening because of the positions they have advocated for. So when The Wall Street Journal says, "They've got to get their position straight with the voters," I'm confused and don't understand because I think they've been quite clear on what their position is.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, I think that's the problem though, isn't it?
BRENDAN BUCK:
Yeah. We said that we were going to send this back to the states because we were going to have some reasonable limitations on abortion. And now state by state doesn't look very reasonable and we are at the mercy of a bunch of state legislatures. And there's not a very good way to run a party.
CHUCK TODD:
Speaking of being at the mercy of the local state legislatures, this situation in Tennessee, Symone, look, there are loud echoes from our recent past in the south and in the '60s. But this also feels like the inevitable moment that you have when you have these gerrymandered super-majorities that have become calcified--
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
Absolutely.
CHUCK TODD:
--because this is what it felt like: a whole bunch of people who just don't deal with dissent.
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
Absolutely. I mean, look, I was down in Nashville. I spoke with the Tennessee Three and state legislators there. What is happening in Tennessee, and frankly across the South, is in fact Jim Crow. What Jim Crow was was blocking Black people from the ability to have participation in their government. Disenfranchising lawmakers. And its again, it's not just Tennessee. Look at what's happening in Mississippi. Coming into Jackson and the statue legislature stepping in. Look at what’s – Governor Abbott in Texas. Look at what's happening in Florida. This is an all out assault.
CHUCK TODD:
Government Abbott, I know we wanted to be quick, and I appreciate you doing that with time, but he looks like he's okay if there's a pardon of a Travis County, a blue county, prosecution, a murder conviction of a Black Lives Matter protester--
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
He put out a statement and said, "I welcome the pardon on my desk so I can sign it." And so it is an assault. And I think these young people, young state legislators, who stood up, they have galvanized the movement.
CHUCK TODD:
Brendan, not a single national Republican leader has supported what Tennessee has done. It is no doubt in my mind the silence is at least sending a message of, "Oh my God, that looks terrible," but I don't think it's helping the party's image.
BRENDAN BUCK:
No. I mean, what do they do? I mean, this happened in Congress in 2016. We had a sit-in where Democrats took over the House floor and we had members who wanted us to arrest them, wanted us to arrest John Lewis on the House floor. But you realize that's a bad look. And here's another situation where you have a statue legislature who is defining the party. No one is in charge. And there’s no consequences for any of these legislatures. As you said, their districts are such that they're not going to be voted out because they did this--
CHUCK TODD:
Half of them didn't face any opponent, Brendan. Half of them didn't face any opponent at all. It's stunning.
BRENDAN BUCK:
Yeah. Well, this is again a situation where there's no infrastructure. There's nobody calling the shots. We are being defined as extreme and it's why Republicans are on the run in just about everywhere across the country.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. When we come back, despite the widening partisan divide, there is one area this week where U.S. lawmakers were unified, and intentionally so: defying China's display of military force in Taiwan. My exclusive interview with House Foreign Affairs Chairman Mike McCaul from Taiwan is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Despite the domestic political divisions on full display this week, the effort that the United States made this week to show a united front on Taiwan was extraordinary, when you think about it, as lawmakers at home and abroad met with Taiwan's president and promised a U.S. commitment to the island's security. It was bipartisan. In response, China launched three days of military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, deploying at least 71 fighter jets into Taiwan's airspace and surrounding the island with war ships, all in an attempt to simulate a naval blockade. On Saturday, I spoke exclusively to House Foreign Affairs chairman Mike McCaul, at the end of his congressional delegation’s visit to the island of Taiwan, and I began by asking him about whether the drills represented an escalation.
[START TAPE]
REP. MICHAEL McCAUL:
We have a large number of sorties, those are Chinese aircraft fighter jets in the air right now as I speak from the island. And this is in response to President's Tsai's trip to the United States, but also our delegation's visit to Taiwan and with President Tsai. This is an intimidation tactic that they're known for. The size of this one is – is quite large, one of the largest ones we've seen. And – but it's not going – it’s not going to intimidate us. We have every right to be here, to meet with President Tsai. And it actually strengthens our resolve.
CHUCK TODD:
The Taiwanese themselves seem to be downplaying this. Look, you've got a first-hand look. How would you assess their defensive capabilities right now?
REP. MICHAEL McCAUL:
They're not where they need to be. If we're going to have deterrence for peace, we need to get these weapons into Taiwan. I’ve – I sign off on all foreign military weapon sales. Twenty-two weapon systems over three years ago, Chuck, that have yet to get into Taiwan, onto the island. That will provide deterrence to Chairman Xi to think twice, you know, about an invasion. And, and secondly is the combat training that is occurring on the island. We need to ramp that up to a larger scale so they can provide that projection of strength and deterrence. They're not where they need to be right now.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you have a sense of what the Taiwanese people want? And I say that in that we know pre-sort of what China did before it took over Hong Kong, it was always this sense that you know, a lot of people in Taiwan wanted some sort of relationship with mainland China that was negotiated, that was sort of respectful. Is that what they still want? Or do they think some sort of military confrontation is now going to be inevitable?
REP. MICHAEL McCAUL:
Well, they don't want a military confrontation. We certainly don't want that. I think after Hong Kong, it was a wake-up call for the people of Taiwan. President Tsai, we spoke with her today. That obviously helped her in her re-election. But I also think Putin's invasion in the Ukraine was an eye-opener, right? It – it woke up the Taiwanese people that now you're seeing what we haven't seen since World War II, and that is dictators invading sovereign territory and getting away with it. So Putin in Ukraine, wake-up call here. Chairman Xi in his addresses to his congress about wanting reunification of Taiwan to China, I think they're very nervous. Now there's a political debate here, the two different parties. One party wants to talk to China. President Tsai's party does not want to be a part of China. And I think the next elections in next January are going to be extremely important because I do believe with the former President Ma in China right now, China's going to try to influence this next election and take over the island without a shot fired.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to play something that Speaker McCarthy said, because he – it seemed to at least shift a perception of where he is on the issue of Ukraine. Let me play it.
[START TAPE]
SPEAKER KEVIN McCARTHY:
I think what's happening in Ukraine is an atrocity, and I think Ukraine – not just Ukraine, the world has to win there. What Russia has done is wrong. And a phase that I used, the "blank check," I use that for anything. Well, I look at every dollar of taxpayers that we would use. But the one thing I know that, in Ukraine, we have to win, because it also would save Taiwan at the same time.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Are you reassured now, and should the Ukrainians, should President Zelenskyy be reassured that House Republicans are not going to stand in the way of more aid to Ukraine?
REP. MICHAEL McCAUL:
You know, I traveled with Kevin, Speaker McCarthy, to Poland, Romania. He's always believed this, felt this way. When you're over here, Chuck – when you talk to – and I've talked to the prime ministers and the presidents of Japan, you know, South Korea, and Taiwan, what's happening in Ukraine will determine what happens in Taiwan and the Pacific. I think the prime minister of Japan going down to Ukraine to signal their support – and he said himself, "What happens in Ukraine today will happen in the Far East tomorrow." I believe the best deterrence to Chairman Xi is a failure for Putin in Ukraine.
CHUCK TODD:
I have one political question for you. I know this is a very bipartisan trip. Really, there's been – you know, not about partisan politics, and I know that's the message that's being sent. The Republican Party's had a rough week, your party here, while you've been overseas. You've had the former president's indictment. You had what happened to the conservative in Wisconsin, this situation in Tennessee. I don't know how closely you've followed that. But if you put all of it together, it's not a good look for the Republican Party. Are you concerned that the Republican Party is not being as responsive to, say, the middle of the electorate right now, whether it's on abortion, whether it's about Donald Trump, or even democracy?
REP. MICHAEL McCAUL:
You know, I have to say, Chuck, I'm kind of a Reagan Republican. I grew up, you know, 1980, first president I had the opportunity to vote for. I believe in what Reagan stood for, and I ask the question of my colleagues: What would Reagan do? Reagan, who brought down the Soviet Union, what would he do in Ukraine? What would he do in – with respect to Taiwan, and freedom, and democracy, and human rights, which Reagan stood for? I personally think my party needs to go to, you know, rejuvenate itself with the principles of Ronald Reagan, who I think was a very popular president for a lot of reasons. But what he stood for is what many of my colleagues stand for in the House and Senate. We may not just be the loudest ones in the House.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. You seem to – I get that you sort of ducked this question, but do you think, right now, the party's headed in the wrong direction?
REP. MICHAEL McCAUL:
No, I don't. I mean, look, we still believe in, you know, limited government, strong national security. There is a bit of an isolationist wing in the party that, you know, concerns me with respect to foreign policy. And we're going to have those internal discussions, you know, as a family. But, you know, I don't see President Biden's policies working so well. Since Afghanistan fell, we've been projecting weakness, and this is precisely why you're seeing aggression from Putin, and Chairman Xi, and the Ayatollah, and Kim Jong-Un, all four of them and the struggle for the global balance of power. And I think that the turning point was Afghanistan, when this president started to project weakness. So I think – I disagree with your premise. I think Republicans have a very strong argument when it comes to, particularly, national security and foreign policy.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
As you might suspect, I have a fuller interview with the Chairman, with Mike McCaul, and you can see the entire thing on MeetthePress.com. When we come back Wisconsin is not the only state where abortion was a losing issue for Republicans in a post-Roe era. We'll break down that lessons a string of setbacks in the states in some keys states have for the GOP ahead of 2024.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Data Download time. By electing Janet Protasiewicz to the state Supreme Court this week, Wisconsin voters handed liberals their first majority on the court in 15 years. And it gives them the power to decide the fate of many pivotal issues in the state. Most central, of course, to the campaign was abortion rights. So how did this issue deliver the rare double-digit victory for the left in a perpetual battleground state and the most polarized state in the union of Wisconsin? Let me show you because it's not a story that just stays in Wisconsin. Look, here's the 2020 presidential map there. Biden carried 14 counties. Here's the Supreme Court map. Protasiewicz carried 23 counties. And look where it is. Any urban area essentially became an abortion rights supporter here. Kenosha, she carried. This is where La Crosse is. This is where Green Bay is. These are areas Joe Biden couldn't carry. The old days, Democrats used to carry those areas, but not anymore. But they did for this issue. Let me show you Kansas. We had five counties that Biden carried in Kansas. The abortion referendum in August of '22 showed you other urban and suburban areas also supported abortion rights. Wichita, Topeka, Kansas City suburbs, you can see. Michigan had an abortion referendum along with the governor's race. Again, here's the map of Joe Biden. And look at the map of the abortion referendum. Basically, in each case, wherever there's a college town, wherever there's even a small size city, the abortion rights side seem to do well. We see it in Michigan. We see it in Wisconsin, and we saw it in Kansas. Then there's the issue of turnout. This is the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. In 2019, they had one of these in the spring: 1.2 million votes. 2023, 1.8 million voters. The biggest difference, Dane County and the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Young voters turned out in droves. That made the difference. When we come back, it was overshadowed by the spectacle of Donald Trump's surrender at a New York City courthouse, but President Biden may have shifted his reelection timeline again. How much longer does he plan to wait before formally getting in? Panel is back after the break.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. There's been a lot of political news this week. I do want to get a little more politics out of the way here. Symone, President Biden's reelection numbers are just not great. There are more Democrats who would like to see somebody else than Joe Biden. I know we've just spent a lot of the show, at least two different polls out this week again. And every week that goes by that he doesn't announce his reelection and, you know, the whispers begin. What's going on? What are you hearing? Is he going to announce sooner, or is he just enjoying the amount of time he seems to have to do this?
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
I am hearing that there – that there are contours of a reelection campaign being put together. But it will be President Biden who will make his announcement. Obviously, I think he has a trip to Ireland coming up. So anyone looking to see an announcement in the next two weeks, honey, you don't announce a presidential campaign and then hop an international trip. It doesn't work like that. So my guess is something early – early May perhaps.
CHUCK TODD:
Are the Trump legal – because that's what I was being told, was early May. Are the Trump legal problems at all making them think, "Oh, stay – let's wait on being a political candidate?”
SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND:
I don't think that the – I don’t think that the Biden folks are making decisions based on what Donald Trump is experiencing. But I think the reality is that this week demonstrates that the president and vice president actually are in a very strong position. It was Joe Biden and Kamala Harris who were down speaking with the state legislatures in Tennessee. And they told me that that support spoke volumes.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to move to another story that broke this week. ProPublica had an extensive story about a long time relationship he's had with a billionaire donor, conservative donor to a lot of causes. And Clarence Thomas took yachts and private planes, all sorts of trips. I think one of the more egregious elements of this story was funding an organization that Ginni Thomas ended up getting a salary – a six figure salary for. Here's Justice Thomas' response: "Early in my tenure at the Court, I was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends who did not have business before the Court was not reportable." Amna, how serious is this? And is this going to put a spotlight on the Supreme Court that justices are going to feel uncomfortable about?
AMNA NAWAZ:
I think it's definitely going to increase the heat of the spotlight on the Supreme Court that's already been there. And to be clear, you know, there had been some reporting around this for years. L.A. Times was reporting on this back in the early 2000s, but certainly not to this extent, and not to the degree that ProPublica dug into it. Yeah, if you're the average American reading about this, this is going to feed into the perception that there are biases and there are problems within the Supreme Court, an institution that has been slowly losing trust in the American public, as have all institutions of power in America more recently. I think the bigger question is, what are the rules? What is the law? What is the policy around these rules for Supreme Court justices? The answer right now seems to be they aren't really clear.
CHUCK TODD:
Laura, look. Chief Justice John Roberts is the head of the judiciary branch, not just the chief justice of the Supreme Court. He pushes back whenever Congress attempts to put some constraints on the judiciary here. But he also is well aware that he doesn't want the Court's reputation to be sullied.
LAURA JARRETT:
Well, the fact of the matter is that, unlike other federal judges, the Supreme Court justices are not subject to the same rules. There is no ethics code, despite protestations from Democratic members of Congress regularly trying to make sure that they get one. They don't have the votes in Congress to get that done right now. And so essentially, Roberts has said, "Look, we look to the ethics code as guidance," but in reality, they're policing themselves. They're supposed to disclose gifts. But this whole issue of personal hospitality, which is what Clarence Thomas is alluding to, it was a major loophole until last month.
CHUCK TODD:
Brendan, the fact of the matter is Congress has much stricter requirements than any of the judges, isn't it?
BRENDAN BUCK:
When I worked on the Hill, you could accept a coffee mug, maybe a t-shirt. That's about it.
CHUCK TODD:
You couldn't get a yacht?
BRENDAN BUCK:
You couldn't fly around the world, yeah, with a billionaire. Yeah. I think that's the scandal here is that there really are no rules. And I think there will certainly be – there's a lot of interest recently in legislating congressional ethics. I could very easily see that focus shifting over into the Supreme Court. There has to be some level of accountability here. And clearly, it doesn't exist.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. What a week. And it was supposed to be a holiday. That's all we have for today. Enjoy the rest of your holiday weekend. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.