IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Meet the Press - July 3, 2022

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), NBC News Legal Analyst Danny Cevallos, Sec. Xavier Becerra, Matthew Continetti, Jeh Johnson, Marianna Sotomayor and Ali Vitali

CHUCK TODD:

This Sunday: that stunning testimony.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie.

CHUCK TODD:

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson on President Trump learning his January 6th supporters were armed:

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

I don't f-ing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me.

CHUCK TODD:

On Mr. Trump insisting he join the mob at the Capitol:

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

The president said something to the effect of: I'm the f-ing president. Take me up to the capitol now.

CHUCK TODD:

And quoting Mark Meadows on learning that the rioters wanted to hang Vice President Mike Pence:

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong.

CHUCK TODD:

But now with challenges to some of her testimony, Republicans are again dismissing the hearings.

REP. STEVE SCALISE:

A partisan committee, a witch hunt just to keep going after Donald Trump, not to get facts.

CHUCK TODD:

This morning I'll talk to committee member Zoe Lofgren and to NBC News Legal Analyst Danny Cevallos about the legal jeopardy Mr. Trump may now be in. Plus, after Roe --

DR. GABRIELLE GOODRICK:

I don't think it could get more confusing.

CHUCK TODD:

Abortion restrictions challenged in more than a dozen states --

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR:

The trigger law is an extremist law.

CHUCK TODD:

-- with abortion rights supporters woried the Biden Adminstration is not fighting hard enough. I'll talk to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. And Democrats' growing doubts about President Biden.

JOE CUNNINGHAM:

Democrats have a very deep bench, and it’s time to allow a new generation to emerge and new talent.

CHUCK TODD:

Why more Democrats -- mostly off the record -- are saying the president shouldn't run for re-election. Joining me for insight and analysis are: Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitali, Matthew Continetti of the American Enterprise Institute and Marianna Sotomayor of The Washington Post. 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 and I hope you are enjoying this July 4th weekend. But even as the country celebrates the 246th anniversary of our independence, the lines that separate us seem to be growing bolder and brighter by the day. Abortion rights advocates vs. abortion opponents. Americans eager to limit the availability of guns versus Second Amendment enthusiasts. Climate change vs. drill, baby, drill. Blue v. red, left vs. right. And no one personifies our disunity or aggravates our wounds more than Donald Trump. On Tuesday, in the unscheduled fifth hearing of the January 6th committee, we heard shocking testimony that has been compared to Watergate's John Dean. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described nothing less than a violent coup attempt urged on by a president who was more active participant than passive observer. Cassidy testified that Mr. Trump knew the mob was armed, wanted to go to the Capitol with them, even agreed that Vice President Mike Pence deserved to be hanged and was in danger of being declared unfit to serve by a majority of his cabinet.

[BEGIN TAPE]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

Knives, guns in the form of pistols and rifles, bear spray, body armor, spears.

WOMAN:

I've got three men walking down the street in fatigues carrying AR-15s.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

I overheard the president say something to the effect of, “You know, I don't f'ing care that they have weapons, they're not here to hurt me, take the f'ing mags away, let my people in, they can march the Capitol from here.”

REP. LIZ CHENEY:

President Trump was aware that a number of the individuals in the crowd had weapons and were wearing body armor, and here's what President Trump instructed the crowd to do:

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We are going to walk down and I will be there with you … We are going to walk down to the Capitol.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

Tony described him as being irate. The President said something to the effect of “I'm the f’ing president take me up to the Capitol now,” to which Bobby responded “Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm and said, “Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol.” Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel.

CROWD:

Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

I remember Pat saying something to the effect of, “Mark, we need to do something more. They're literally calling for the vice president to be f'ing hung.” And Mark had responded something to the effect of, “You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong.”

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

And joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California, who is on the January 6th Committee. Congresswoman, welcome back to Meet the Press.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

Morning.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me start with your simple reaction to, particularly the former president and a couple people around him disputing certain parts of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. And I know, not the larger part, but some of the specific detail. What do you make of that pushback, Congresswoman?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

Well, we always expected Trump world to try and discredit her, and they are not disappointing us in that regard. I thought her testimony was credible. She has nothing to gain by stepping forward and telling the truth. And Trump world has everything to lose by the truth. So they are doing their best to try and attack her, to discredit her. You know, I am not surprised by this effort, but it is not the right thing to do.

CHUCK TODD:

Can you describe the efforts the committee makes to corroborate some of the charges Ms. Hutchinson made before she appeared? Did you contact Secret Service, some of these other entities?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

Well, we had interviewed Mr. Ornato several times. His memory does not appear to be as precise as hers. We certainly would welcome them to come back if they wish to do that. But her overall testimony that the then president wanted to go to the Capitol is consistent with other testimony that we have received. Certainly, her testimony that she directly overheard President Trump saying that he didn't care if they had weapons, if the crowd had weapons, that they were not going to hurt him, and that they could march to the Capitol with their weapons after the speech. That was new and stunning, really.

CHUCK TODD:

You know, there's always cameras on the presidential motorcade. Have you gotten any footage? It's possible there is footage of the alleged incident in the SUV. Have you guys subpoenaed that footage, whether it's from news organizations or the Secret Service?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

Well, we'll look at everything, but I think it's important to note Ms. Hutchinson was relating a story that Mr. Ornato told to her. She never, she wasn't in the vehicle. She didn't see it. She was relating what he told her. The important thing is that no one is disputing that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol. He even said so in his speech. There's a lot of evidence that when he went back to the White House, he still wanted to go to the Capitol, and was certainly well aware of the violence that was going on.

CHUCK TODD:

You made a diplomatic response about Mr. Ornato, saying that "he seems to not have a precise memory." Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy told me earlier this week that, something similar, "He did not have clear memories at that time." Adam Kinzinger went further, and he said that Mr. Ornato “likes to lie." Let me ask you this: has Mr. Ornato testified under oath in any of these interviews that you've had with him?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

It's important to note that if you lie to Congress, it's a crime, whether or not you're under oath.

CHUCK TODD:

But was he under oath?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

It's a crime to lie to Congress when you come in for an interview, whether you come in for a deposition. So I'll say this. Mr. Ornato was a political appointee of President Trump. It raised a lot of eyebrows at the time that unlike all prior Secret Service agents protecting the president, he was then also appointed to be Deputy Assistant to the president. And so he was involved in clearing the square so the president could hold up a Bible in front of the church. I mean, he was involved in all of that. He's part of Trump world.

CHUCK TODD:

No, I understand that. You've been hesitant to confirm or deny whether he's under oath, and I understand what you're saying. It is still a crime to lie to Congress. Is it that you're not sure he was under oath, or he was not under oath?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

I believe he was under oath. But certainly, if he wants to come back and clarify his prior information, he will also be under oath. I think it's a mistake to focus on whether or not he was lying to Ms. Hutchinson when he relayed that story. The fact is, the president knew his crowd was armed. We heard the Metropolitan Police describing seeing assault weapons on this crowd. He wanted to go down to the Capitol with them. He said that in his speech, and we have a lot of evidence that that was true, even when he returned to the White House.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you about Pat Cipollone. You officially put a subpoena out to him this past week. Why now? Why not two months ago? Why not three months ago? Why not four months ago?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

We have been engaging with Mr. Cipollone. He did have an informal interview or discussion. That was all he was willing to do. But there have been ongoing discussions to see if he would come in and talk further. After Ms. Hutchinson's testimony that was so informative, it's very clear that we would like him to come in. Now I know that he is concerned about executive privilege. That's not an absolute immunity. It falls when there is something more important, and that is true in this case. And certainly, the current president, Mr. Biden, has waived executive privilege on most occasions when it comes to getting the truth about the events leading up to January 6th.

CHUCK TODD:

You want him to come in for, he's subpoenaed to come in for a deposition on July 6th. Is that going to happen on July 6th?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

Well, I hope so. You know, our intention is to hear from him, and I think given the testimony of Ms. Hutchinson that he was trying to prevent crimes from being committed on that day. I would assume that he would want to come in.

CHUCK TODD:

I want to get you to react to this New York Times lead. "The federal prosecutors working on the case were just as astonished by Hutchinson's account of former president Donald J. Trump's increasingly desperate bid to hold onto power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them," meaning DOJ, "with videos or transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided." Is that a fair characterization, that you blindsided Justice on this?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

I don't think so. We're not an arm of the Department of Justice. We're a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I'm surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that's publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling. And it's obvious she is being intimidated. People are trying to discredit her. People were trying to dissuade her from testifying. The Trump world was paying for her lawyers, which was very problematic for her. She changed lawyers and got an independent lawyer, and then proceeded. You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does.

CHUCK TODD:

A point some of us were discussing this morning. The last question I would throw at you is the issue of so-called witness tampering. Do you feel like you have enough evidence to prove that is what's happened?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

Well, I don't know. That's, you know, charging someone with a crime is not our opportunity. We can't do that. We're a legislative committee. But I will say this. If witnesses are being intimidated, we don't plan to just sit by and allow that to happen. We're going to raise a stink about it. We're going to refer information publicly to the Department of Justice, if witnesses are intimidated, because it's a crime. It's a crime to do that.

CHUCK TODD:

We're going to see Cassidy Hutchinson testify one more time?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

I don't know yet. I always leave the chairman to announce the future hearings.

CHUCK TODD:

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a member of the January 6th Committee, Democrat from California. Good to see you. Thank you for coming out and sharing your perspective.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN:

Happy Fourth of July.

CHUCK TODD:

You too. The hearings have raised the prospect that former President Trump faces real legal liability for his actions before and on January 6th, among them obstructing a congressional proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, seditious conspiracy, wire fraud, and, as we just were talking about, possible witness tampering. So joining me now to sort of go through this is our NBC News legal analyst Danny Cevallos. So Danny, you see those five charges there. You've watched these hearings with me. Where are the – which are the charges that the former president ought to really be concerned about?

DANNY CEVALLOS:

You had the one that I think is the most pertinent dead last on that list, and it is witness tampering. And the reason I say so is that Congress specifically enacted the relevant statute, Section 1512, in order to make it more expansive, to sweep more broadly and cover any official proceeding. It doesn't need to be a grand jury proceeding or a judicial proceeding, and the witness doesn't even have to actually testify. The witness doesn't even need to have firsthand knowledge. This statute just prevents or criminalizes any kind of harassment or corrupt persuasion in order to prevent a witness from communicating information to law enforcement.

And I've got to tell you, I mean, I've defended cases where the corrupt persuasion standard is in play, and when you look up what it means to do something corruptly, the definition is "an improper purpose." So you're right back at square one. And the point I make there is that it's very malleable. And the government knows that, and that's why they succeed very often whenever they bring charges –

CHUCK TODD:

You think it's an easier case to bring, in some ways, witness tampering --

DANNY CEVALLOS:

I do. Absolutely. Any time you have that corrupt persuasion standard, and it appears in other statues in the fed – U.S. code, it makes it relatively easy to prove an improper purpose. I mean, what's an improper purpose? It might be preventing this information from going to law enforcement, not necessarily testifying under oath. That was Congress's intent when it passed Section 1512: to make the sweep as broadly as possible and protect witnesses.

CHUCK TODD:

What about his actions on January 6th? It is – more and more looks like he was an active participant rather than, as we stated earlier, a passive observer. Is there a "there" there?

DANNY CEVALLOS:

Potentially, at least according to Judge David Carter, who had an opinion several months ago. Now, I caution folks that in laying out a kind of map for prosecuting Trump and John Eastman for, say, conspiracy to, I guess, defraud the United States or to obstruct a proceeding, if you're looking for that, this opinion does give kind of a road map, but it was in the context of deciding that there was no privilege. So folks should understand it has no direct effect. It's not the effect of a probable cause finding.

CHUCK TODD:

Okay.

DANNY CEVALLOS:

It's almost like an advisory opinion. It's almost like the judge saying, "Hey, here's my take on it."

But it really only goes to whether or not privilege applies. But folks at the time pointed out, correctly, that this provided a basic road map for DOJ officials, very much like these congressional hearings are providing a road map for the DOJ. But at the same time, I put an asterisk on that because whatever power the committee has to obtain information, the DOJ has superpowers compared to the committee --

CHUCK TODD:

So that's exactly what the congresswoman was just saying. And in fact, when she was sort of responding to this idea that Justice was shocked by Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, she just said, "Yeah, basically, more powerful subpoenas than Congress does. What are you guys doing?" What does it tell you that a witness surprised them? Does it tell you that their investigation is not as thorough yet?

DANNY CEVALLOS:

It tells me, if that's true, that Hutchinson must have flown under their radar. And by "they," I mean the DOJ. Because the DOJ has vast abilities to investigate, much more than a congressional committee. By the way, Chuck, in the last few years, we've all seen what happens if a witness really doesn't want to comply with a congressional subpoena. "Forget it. I'm not showing up."

CHUCK TODD:

Uh-huh. (AFFIRM).

DANNY CEVALLOS:

And it's up to Congress to try and go through its, well, let's say questionable abilities to enforce those subpoenas. Meanwhile, the DOJ, when it wants a subpoena enforced, it enforces the subpoena. They also can go to a judge and get a search warrant, which is even more powerful, where they do the searching themselves. And in a grand jury proceeding, everything's secret. We don't even know --

CHUCK TODD:

Right.

DANNY CEVALLOS:

– what they're looking at unless and until they indict.

CHUCK TODD:

All right. So let's take their surprise at their words that she flew under the radar. What part of this – it does seem as if they've got a lot of effort on the people who went after the Capitol. They got a lot of effort on some of the far-right violent groups. They're doing something on the elector front. We saw all that action. It does not look like they've penetrated the West Wing, and that's essentially what they're admitting here if they're shocked by Cassidy, that they have not yet touched the president. You think that's a Garland decision?

DANNY CEVALLOS:

It is a Garland decision. I mean, it could be said that all of these committee hearings are for the American public, but they're also for an audience of one, and that's Merrick Garland. But the DOJ is going to be circumspect about what they have and what they don't have. Do I think they were truly shocked by what Cassidy Hutchinson said? Only if she stated something under oath the other day that was for the first time never before disclosed. That's really, in my mind, the only way the DOJ could have been surprised. Because, Chuck, this is an institution, the DOJ, that was built to investigate. It was built to persuade witnesses to come in and talk to them or to testify. I mean, when you see a witness testify under oath, that's kind of the end of the long path. The DOJ has so many tools to get somebody to come in and bare their soul, not the least of which, reminding them that they may be in huge trouble for even lying to a federal agent.

CHUCK TODD:

Realistically, we know how long DOJ has been working on this. When do you think they would feel that they have enough to start pursuing indictments? Are we six months away, a year away? What's your estimate?

DANNY CEVALLOS:

That's always the big question: "When?” and “Do they have enough?" And, again, the DOJ was designed to investigate and for, what, since their inception, they do not let you know. They don't give a status report on where they are with investigations. They remain silent. And sometimes you or anyone else who may be investigating --

CHUCK TODD:

We're counting on people like lawyers, people like you to tell us, "Hey, this happened. This happened." That's the only way --

DANNY CEVALLOS:

Exactly, yeah --

CHUCK TODD:

– to find out, yeah.

DANNY CEVALLOS:

– I mean, and people who may be targets may never have known they were targets if the DOJ declines to indict. I mean, that's how secretive they are and how many more tools they have to not only persuade people to come in and talk to them --

CHUCK TODD:

Right.

DANNY CEVALLOS:

– but obtain documents, search warrants, things like that. So this whole part about the Cassidy Hutchinson shocking the DOJ, that might be a little bit of spin on their part. It has to be, because if she was anywhere on the radar, the DOJ would have been all over it. And they would have been over it silently.

CHUCK TODD:

And if she's not on their radar, it makes you wonder how thorough they're being. Danny Cevallos, I really appreciate it. Thank you, sir. When we come back, Tuesday's hearing portrayed Donald Trump as a bit out of control and bent on sedition. How much does it matter to a Republican Party that has been in thrall to him? Panel is next.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back, panel is here. NBC Capitol Hill correspondent, Ali Vitali; former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Matthew Continetti of the American Enterprise Institute; and Marianna Sotomayor of The Washington Post. So with Donald Trump, we've been here a million times. Started with attacking John McCain, and we go down the line. And you have Access Hollywood tape, and you think, "Boy, this is the one. No, this is the one. No, this is the one." Matthew, let me start with you. Is this the one? Is this week “the one?”

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

No. There have been so much –

CHUCK TODD:

Bold.

MATTHEW CONTINTETTI:

There's been so much smoke from these smoking guns over six years that the clouds rise. And I think there is some questions about the testimony of Miss Hutchinson. I think it's still a long way from her testimony to getting Merrick Garland to file charges against a former president of the United States. So while I think this is a reminder to the country of Donald Trump's irresponsible and impeachable actions after the election of 2020, I don't think it's a smoking gun.

ALI VITALI:

Isn't there so much space between those two things, like, getting the DOJ to file and anything changing for Trump? There's so much space between those things. And I think that when you see people like the Washington Examiner coming out and saying that he shouldn't be president again, I mean, there are metrics that are changing. And it was always true during the Trump years that Republicans were always more comfortable saying privately in our text messages, than they were on television, that this was a very, very bad thing. But I think that you're sort of getting to a point where you almost can't avoid saying that when the thing in dispute here is like grabbing at a steering wheel. But the thing that's not in dispute is the fact that he wanted to go to the Capitol and lead the rioters.

CHUCK TODD:

Marianna, have you heard from Republicans quietly? Like, "Ugh, all right. I'm out." Or not yet?

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:

Oh no. I mean, I was texting a couple of aides who work for lawmakers who are still very close to Trump. And everyone is pushing it aside. They were – before even Trump said on his social media platform, you know, "Cassidy Hutchinson, none of this is true, she is an outsider to us," these aides were already saying that. They all say that this is not going to play a role in the midterms, no one's paying attention to this. If you ask them about '24 though, and what this means for Trump potentially running, that's when they start to get a little squeamish. But for the--

CHUCK TODD:

Yeah, it's easier for them to say that.

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:

Correct.

CHUCK TODD:

Jeh?

JEH JOHNSON:

I have to begin with this. While a lot of men are hiding under their desk in lawyers' offices, this hearing has really been a profile in courage among women: Caroline Edwards, Cass Hutchinson, and Liz Cheney. I think that this hearing has been choreographed exceptionally well for the attention span of the average American in 2022. I see a case being developed of the criminal charges that Danny laid out, plus giving aid and comfort to an insurrection, what happened on January 6th was the very definition of an insurrection. I'm concerned as the former federal prosecutor in me – that gets you a lot of cred these days on television – I'm concerned that the committee may have overreached on the incident in the vehicle. It was colorful, it was vivid, it was collateral to the central charge. If – and it was secondhand hearsay.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, let me pause you there, because it's funny you say that. Because the fact that the former president is obsessing over the incident and nothing else of the testimony I think speaks volumes. Take a listen to how he's characterizing this.

[BEGIN TAPE]

DONALD TRUMP:

This lady yesterday, there's something wrong with her. Is there something wrong? She said I jumped from a car and I started strangling. Think of this. I started strangling a secret service agent –

MALE VOICE:

Right.

DONALD TRUMP:

– who I know very well. I grabbed the steering wheel of a car. She said that I wanted guns at my rally. I didn't want guns. I have to speak too and I don't want guns for anybody--

MALE VOICE:

Did you grab the steering wheel? Is there any truth to that? Is that--

DONALD TRUMP:

Of course not.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

What's fascinating is that they try to find, I mean, what Trump's always been good at, is finding a specific he thinks he can, you know, deny to try to cast doubt on everything.

JEH JOHNSON:

Here's where I would've hesitated on that. If Ali Vitali tells me that Marianna told her that Matt told Marianna that Chuck Todd hit him, I would want to know exactly what Matt has to say about that incident firsthand before I would go out--

MATTHEW CONTINTETT:

I would be willing to testify too.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, good to know. Under oath?

JEH JOHNSON:

Right, under oath –

CHUCK TODD:

Okay.

JEH JOHNSON:

A federal law enforcement officer under oath. So the committee perhaps knows something that the rest of us don't know. But before I went out with the second-hand hearsay, which is going to get a lot of attention, I'd want to know what the first-hand witness has to say or--

CHUCK TODD:

I think by the time she told us the story was technically, we're in our third version. It's a third-hand account.

JEH JOHNSON:

It depends on how you interpret hearsay. But, you know, that testimony would not have been admissible in a courtroom. And as you know, secret service agents don't normally talk about what they see, what they hear from their protectees. I was a protectee of the secret service for three years. And they have to be in a position to hear and see all kinds of very sensitive things.

ALI VITALI:

But look, lawmakers were briefed late on what the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony was going to be. Like, the rank and file of the committee were briefed late on this. There was some discussion among them, I'm told, on whether or not this key detail should've been included--

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

Interesting.

ALI VITALI:

And that now, they're at a point where this is out there, right? And we know that people like the vice chair of the committee, Liz Cheney, have really wanted to push the envelope of what the committee includes. This is obviously one of those headline-grabbing details. But I do think that it's fair to wonder whether or not her testimony would've been as shocking as it was. And I would argue that it would have been even if you didn't have just those few details of what happened in the limo. Because, again – and I think this is where the committee continues to come down on it – is they don't want you to miss the forest from the trees on this.

CHUCK TODD:

You know, they could've shared the same incident and not with that detail, that he was irate, that he kept urging--

ALI VITALI:

Right, that he wanted to go.

CHUCK TODD:

--and the secret service had to tell him, "No, no, no." It's the same allegation--

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

I mean, the bottom line is this hearing in particular, but all of the J6 committee hearings have riveted the beltway. And the question is, is it getting beyond the beltway. And when you look at Republican Party voters, they are slowly less enthusiastic about Donald Trump in 2024.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, isn't that a sign that it’s working?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

I think that's more a function of time and looking for something new than it is all of these salacious details coming from the committee.

CHUCK TODD:

But Marianna, I think you hit on something. It is easier to criticize Trump as it's a bad idea for you to run again, than it is to have to directly deal with this, right?

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:

Exactly. Yes. And, you know, a lot of aides right now were kind of wondering when, if, Trump decides to run, when does he want to announce? And they don't want him to talk about--

CHUCK TODD:

Whenever the indictment comes down, right?

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:

Well, they don't want him to talk about this at any point in time ahead of the midterms. Because he is such a liability. He's such an unknown. Republicans are on the path to take back the majority in the House. It's possible they do it in the Senate. They don't want a random announcement by Trump, because he can be a liability to a lot of swing voters.

CHUCK TODD:

The irony is that if the Republicans fail, wherever they fail, it's all Donald Trump's fault, either directly or indirectly. Either how, Matthew, he got involved in primaries for bad candidates, you could argue Roe v. Wade in an indirect way, and obviously January 6th. Like, the "but, for" paragraph on the day after the election, if Republicans have a disappointing night, is all going to be Trump, right?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

Think about the Georgia special elections for the Senate on January 5th by 2021, right? Donald Trump is not a political winner for the Republican Party. And yet many Republicans don't seem able to accept that fact.

CHUCK TODD:

Jeh, I'm very curious, this little dispute between the committee and Justice. If Justice was surprised by Cassidy Hutchinson, to me, that sounds like Justice isn't really pursuing the West Wing yet.

JEH JOHNSON:

Well, the dispute between Congress and the Department of Justice is not new. Any incident that is investigated by both branches, there's always a fight about who gets to go first, whether or not the committee has to turn over all the testimony and so forth. If in fact the Department of Justice didn't know what Cass Hutchinson was going to say, that suggests that they're not focused on this.

CHUCK TODD:

They've got a long way to go, don't they?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

Or they have a long way to go.

ALI VITALI:

Also makes sense why they want the committee transcripts, right?

JEH JOHNSON:

But--

CHUCK TODD:

Sure, but as Zoe Lofgren said, they have a lot more powerful subpoenas.

ALI VITALI:

Of course.

JEH JOHNSON:

They're focused now. I am certain they are focused now.

CHUCK TODD:

That's probably a fair point. All right. We're going to pause there. Up next is: is the Biden Administration fighting hard enough to secure abortion rights? Not according to many Democrats. I'm going to talk to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra when we come back.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. The Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade has left Democrats both angry and exasperated. Angry, because it took away a right they had supported and counted on for half a century. And exasperated because many Democrats feel the Biden administration was not prepared for something that they had a little bit of lead time on. And they still believe that he's not doing enough to ensure abortion rights. Well, HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra argues there's not a lot the administration can do.

[START TAPE]

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

There is no magic bullet. But if there is something we can do, we will find it and we will do it at HHS.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

And Secretary Becerra joins me now. And let me pick up on what you said there. You've been spending some days trying to find new avenues. Is there any avenue you've found that can actually expand abortion rights in places that it's going to be taken away?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

Chuck, if you look at our laws and the way we administer them, when the Supreme Court speaks, unless we're all going to say that the word of the Supreme Court will no longer have value, we have to heed the word of the Supreme Court. And so we will. But we will continue to find every avenue possible to make sure women have access to the care that they need, including abortion care.

CHUCK TODD:

Let's talk about one of the proposals that was out there that got shot down pretty quickly. It was something that a couple of Democrats called for, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which is, maybe, temporary clinics on federal land. Fight it in the – let the courts say no, and instead try it. Did you guys look into this at all?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

I think we're continuing to explore everything that's out there. The difficulty is that simply because it's an idea doesn't mean it can go out into practice. And so what we want to make sure is we can put things out into practice. Because you have people who are right now in need of abortion care services. So we're going to do what we can to give people something as quickly as we can, even if it may not be everything they'd like, we want to make sure we're providing everything we can.

CHUCK TODD:

One of the things that maybe the federal government can strengthen is access to the medications for abortion. What actions do you think you can take that would essentially speed up the process at the FDA?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

Well, we want to make sure that medication abortion, which is currently available in America, continues to be such, that it can be accessed by those who need it most. We will continue to protect those federally required aspects of medication abortion. And we'll do everything we can, where it's possible, for example, in terms of emergency care, to make sure that women have access to the services that they need.

CHUCK TODD:

You said something to my colleague Kate Snow about transporting women to other states. It was something that maybe HHS would take the lead on and help with officially. Have you looked into that? And can you legally do it?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

We are exploring the opportunity to work with others to make sure that if a woman is trying to access that care that she needs, that we'll be supportive of that. There are a lot of partners, public and private, who are looking into this. We're one of those partners.

CHUCK TODD:

What are you looking in to see? Is it a legal question? Does it have to do with the Hyde Amendment? What is it that you're concerned about legally?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

All of the above. We have to make sure, Chuck, that we stay within the confines of the law, and that we have the resources to do it, and that our authorities allow us to do it.

CHUCK TODD:

It's interesting you say, "confines of the law." One of the hallmarks of the last administration was he obviously pushed the envelope and essentially let the courts stop him. There are many Democrats now who say, "You know what? Make the courts stop you. Try this. Get caught trying, whether it's on federal lands, whether it's on transportation." It sounds like you've got a directive from the president that says, "Don't push the envelope." Is that fair?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

I think it's just the opposite. The president in his first announcement said that he was tasking us at HHS to take on a number of issues, including medication abortion. And so he has asked us to seek as aggressive a strategy as we can. But unlike the previous administration, we do intend to respect the law.

CHUCK TODD:

What do you tell your former congressional Democratic colleagues who just feel as if the administration-- I looked at the list of things that you guys are doing, and there's not much you can do. I looked. And it's pretty clear. Because you don't want to get outside the law, what do you tell these congressional Democrats that feel like the party's not fighting hard enough?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

Well I tell them, "Give us some good ideas." We're going to explore everything we can. And I also would ask them to please pass a law. They have it in their power, if they can find the votes to actually codify the Roe decision, which is what we need more than anything else. Executive action. We will find what we can and do as much as we can. But when you are stripped of a right, as the Supreme Court has just done to every woman of childbearing age, it is tough to overcome. It took 50 years for us to get as far as we did. Now we have to figure out how to do this. It will not be easy.

CHUCK TODD:

So the bottom line it sounds like the administration is essentially saying, "Look. If you want to fix it now, Congress is your only route. There's not much the executive branch can do." Fair?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

Well, Chuck, I wouldn't go that far, because we will find ways to make sure women exercise their rights and that women are protected. It's just not going to be easy. The fastest route is to reinstitute that right that women had until five justices on the Supreme Court decided to use their authority in ways that deny millions of Americans the right to good health and perhaps even their life.

CHUCK TODD:

Have you thought about the fact that at times when you were in Congress there were some big Democratic majorities, was this just something that folks thought was never really at risk and that's why it never got brought up for codification?

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

I've been around long enough to know that nothing's ever totally safe. But remember, we still haven't even been able to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. And so this country has a way to go. But certainly I don't believe this decision by this court and Dobbs is going to stand long. This is just not America. We're not about taking rights. Most people around the world haven't looked at the U.S. as the beacon of light because we do things like Dobbs. Just the opposite. So I'm confident that we're going to get past this. It's just that for now the five justices on the Supreme Court have made life very difficult and, in some cases, impossible for some women.

CHUCK TODD:

So that means this has to be done legislatively. There is no other way to fix this because the court is the court for quite some time.

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

Well, the Court is the Court. The Court can undo the injustice it just visited on millions of women. But I don't expect five justices in this court to do that. And so the next-best route is to pass a law to codify Roe.

CHUCK TODD:

Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Health and Human Services. Appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us, sir. Thank you. Happy Fourth.

SEC. XAVIER BECERRA:

Thanks, Todd. Thanks, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:

When we come back, Clarence Thomas suggests that the Supreme Court might want to reconsider other rights, like same-sex marriage. Why that might not be so easy politically. Stay with us.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back, data download time. Last week's Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe had many wondering what could be next. In fact, Justice Clarence Thomas wondered himself. He wrote in a concurring decision about his desire to reconsider some other social contract precedents, including 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage. But reversing that decision won't be easy, as it would land among a public that has already rapidly evolved on that issue. As you can see at the start of this century, support for same-sex marriage was actually below 50%; just 42% of the country supported it, 55% were against. You saw all those ballot initiatives. That was the George Bush reelection. And then what you saw, you saw slow agreement of it. President Obama endorses it. The numbers get close to 50. Obergefell happens. It was already at 55. And then after it's legal, it shoots up to 71. And in fact, the legalization of same-sex marriage appears to have made more people comfortable identifying honestly about what they are. In fact, in 2012 just 3.5% of the country identified as LGBTQ. That number has more than doubled in less than ten years. And it's being driven mostly by a younger generation who has grown up in a world where same-sex marriage is legal. So, for instance, among Gen-Z, 20% of Gen-Z identify as something other than heterosexual. I mean, as you can see, you go down by age groups and you can see those that have lived more in a world with legal same-sex marriage is more likely to be comfortable identifying as something other than heterosexual. And you can just see the changes there. And just to give you a breakdown of the entire LGBTQ population these days, 30% are in -- under the age of 25, according to polling. And as you can see, the numbers get a little bit lower. But under 35, you see nearly a quarter is under 35, and then the numbers get lower. But that is what's happened here, as -- the longer same-sex marriage has been legal, the more comfortable many Americans are identifying publicly. When we come back, some Democrats are saying President Biden might want to think about not running in 2024. You know who's not listening? Joe Biden. Back in a moment.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. Democrats appear to be getting a bump, at least for now, after the Supreme Court's abortion decision. But you know who is not benefiting? President Biden. Take a look at this NPR/Marist poll that we've put together here. In April, Republicans had a three point lead in the generic congressional battle. President's approval rating sat at 41%. Flash forward to June. Same pollster. Now it's Democrats up seven points. Mr. Biden's approval rating? It actually went down a point. It's obviously margin of error stuff, at 40%. Jeh Johnson, it's pretty clear that one of the predictions that was out there was that this abortion decision could energize Democrats in a way that Joe Biden hadn't. And not only is it energizing Democrats, it's still not helping Joe Biden.

JEH JOHNSON:

You're asking me the political question. So, I think that voters are just -- and this is probably a hangover from the Trump years -- just in a cranky mood about whoever is the leader these days. We're just not happy with all the things happening around us, and we tend to want to blame the person in charge right now. On abortion, I think that rather than crafting legislation to somehow codify Roe -- Roe was a constitutional right for 50 years; you can't create by statute a constitutional right. Congress should devote its energy to, it has -- claiming the power to regulate interstate commerce, that's in the, in the Constitution -- so that we make it plainly available for any woman in state A who wants to go to state B to get an abortion, that she should be able to do so. She's free to do so. Congress can regulate and legislate that.

CHUCK TODD:

You keep -- you’re nodding your head to that, Matthew.

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

Oh, I think that's -- that’d be an effective pro-choice strategy, and achievable, by the way, because you can point to it in the Constitution, which is much harder to do with the abortion right. But I just want to say one thing: it’s not just the voters are cranky; things are bad. We have record inflation. We have a record poor performance in the stock market. We have consumer sentiment plunging. The economy is still the number one issue in voters' minds. And they tie this economy to Joe Biden and his economic policies. It's different in some of these Senate and gubernatorial races, where voters can make an individual decision based on candidate attributes.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, I want to lean on the abortion issue a little bit. Ali, there’s been congressional Democrats very frustrated. I can put up some. Here's Cori Bush: "We just can't tell people, 'Well, just vote -- vote your problems away.’ Because they're looking at us and saying, ‘Well, we already voted for you,’” referring to an all-Democratic control. Charlie Crist who's running for governor in Florida: "Frustration requires action and there's no vent for it." And then Elizabeth Warren: "Democrats have the tools to fight back, we just need to use them." What are all they -- how are they going to react to Xavier Becerra and the sort of, "there's not much we can do?”

ALI VITALI:

I think that that's what I hear the most from my sources on the Hill, as well as in advocacy groups is, yes, Congress and the White House are pretty hamstrung in terms of what they can do to tangibly protect women's right to access this health care, but at the same time, they just want them to do something. Do something at the state level, whether it's on federal lands, and governors asked Biden about this again today as they met with him -- the idea that they want them to push the envelope on this to the point where, okay, if it does end up in a court somewhere, at least Democrats are trying. And I would also make the point that as much as Republicans want to continue pointing to this as a moment in economics, abortion is an economics issue for women across the country. And I think that women are frustrated. They are enraged, and they'll vote on this. And the polling is bearing that out.

CHUCK TODD:

Marianna, there was another sort of tone that I thought Secretary Becerra took, which is like “look, we’re” -- and it's clear this is coming I think from President Biden -- "we're not going to push the envelope. We're not going to do what those guys did." And I know this is a Joe Biden stubbornness: “Gosh darn it, we're going to restore these institutions." And I know a lot of Democrats are going, "Stop doing it. Get caught trying. Let the courts say no."

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:

One hundred percent. That's exactly what you're hearing, especially from progressives who, since last Friday, were outside of the Supreme Court basically saying just that, promising women who were there --

CHUCK TODD:

How many times did Trump try to build his wall?

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:

I mean, a zillion.

CHUCK TODD:

And how many different ways did he --

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:

And House Republicans and Senate also tried to do that. They obviously had their issues. They couldn't get a lot of immigration stuff done. And, you know, the House Democrats are going to try to respond to this. And they, of course, can pass any bill under the sun because they have the majority. But they're looking at things like, you know, can a woman not be charged, penalized for going and getting an abortion out of state? That's something that they likely will vote on this upcoming month. Something also is reproductive rights -- reproductive data on apps. Right, exactly. They're going to try and also put Republicans on the record to codify a number of different things -- gay rights, birth control. But again, it's going to die in the Senate.

ALI VITALI:

But there's concern over that --

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:

And nothing's going to happen there --

ALI VITALI:

– strategy there too, right? There's concern that I've heard from some who say, "Yes, we want to just do a vote on rape and incest exceptions." There's a concern that if they did that, especially in the Senate -- as they try to make this a wedge issue in the midterms, which clearly the polling is working -- that it's going to make some Republicans, and give them the opportunity to look a little bit rational on this, and not as extreme as Democrats want them to be.

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

But Democrats can also seem extreme on abortion, it’s important to realize. And if you -- when you get to brass tacks, and you say you want to have unrestricted abortion throughout the pregnancy, many Americans blanch. Americans want to have abortion access in the early stages of pregnancy. But then they want to increasingly regulate as you get closer to term. That's something Democrats need to be aware of as well.

ALI VITALI:

Women don't go to term and have an abortion late in their pregnancy --

MATTHEW CONTINETTI:

I'm talking about the politics and the public opinion.

JEH JOHNSON:

This is the problem with Washington. It's got to be about more than just energizing the base. Focus on the things that are doable to protect a woman's ability to have an abortion in states where it is legal and safe right now. And there are things Congress can do to protect that right, to go from state A to state B through its interstate commerce power. It's got to be more than just energizing the base for the midterms.

CHUCK TODD:

All right. Let me switch a little bit to this issue of Joe Biden. Jeh, I'll let you take the first crack at it. Joe Biden is really upset. He feels he's being disrespected. It feels as if the party has never -- there is a little bit of Rodney Dangerfield in him. You know, "They've never really given me respect. And all I do is -- you know, they didn't want me to run in '15 and look what happened in '16. Then they didn't want me to run in '20, and look what happened. I actually won. Now they don't want me to run in '24." Does he have a point?

JEH JOHNSON:

In a sense, yes. And I don't know that -- and this is just instinct -- I don't know that Joe Biden has definitively made up his mind to run in 2024. I'm sure at some point, he's going to have that conversation with his family. My advice would be unconventional: make that -- if you're not running, make that announcement sooner rather than later, even before the midterms.

CHUCK TODD:

That opens the floodgates, that's for sure.

JEH JOHNSON:

But it gives others an opportunity to prepare and to get organized for 2024. Do the opposite of what Donald Trump's going to do, which is to keep us all in suspense till the last minute.

CHUCK TODD:

Ali, where is most of this hand-wringing about Biden coming from? I don't sense it comes from Congress. I sense it comes from governors and maybe those that want to run for president.

ALI VITALI:

But, of course it would, right? I mean, I also do think that there is some consternation around the idea that Biden came in saying he would restore institutional norms. And maybe it's because we're going through the January 6th hearings. And maybe it's because the economy looks the way that it does. But there's this feeling like, "You promised me it would be normal, and this doesn't feel like a normal --"

CHUCK TODD:

Nothing's normal.

ALI VITALI:

"-- that I want to accept." So certainly, we're post-normal in whatever sense that that means. I do also think though that -- and I'm not saying this because I have a book coming out about this -- but it feels like there is an agitating moment for female leadership right now. And that could be where part of this is coming from, where people look to the fact that Kamala Harris is the vice president. There are female leaders in the party that could be part of it too.

CHUCK TODD:

Guys, it's time for hot dogs, fireworks, and all sorts of things. And let's get to 247 as a country after we celebrate 246. That's all we have for today. Thank you for watching. Please enjoy your Independence Day weekend, and remember what it's really all about and what America is about. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.