CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: The end of Roe v. Wade.
ABORTION OPPOSER:
Complete and utter joy that it was finally overturned.
ABORTION SUPPORTER:
It feels like a betrayal.
CHUCK TODD:
The Supreme Court overturns the right to abortion nearly 50 years after Roe.
PRES. BIDEN:
Let's be very clear: the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk.
CHUCK TODD:
States already moving to stop abortions, with more to come:
LESLIE RUTLEDGE:
Restoring the state of Arkansas the authority to prohibit abortions.
CHUCK TODD:
This morning, the legal, medical and political fallout from this historic decision. I'll talk to Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and to Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Plus, the January 6th committee:
REP. ADAM KINZINGER:
President Trump ultimately wanted the Department of Justice to say the election was, quote, “corrupt,” and, quote, “leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
CHUCK TODD:
Former President Trump's scheme to stay in power: pushing for an ally to run Justice and claim election fraud. Relying on internet rumors and baseless claims.
RUSTY BOWERS:
My recollection, he said: "We've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence.”
CHUCK TODD:
My guest this morning: Committee member Adam Schiff. And --
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI:
The motion is adopted.
CHUCK TODD:
President Biden signs the first gun safety legislation in decades, even as the Supreme Court expands gun rights. Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Chief Washington Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Kimberly Atkins Stohr, senior opinion writer for The Boston Globe, NBC News Senior Capitol Hill Correspondent Garret Haake, and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan. 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 after a week that was among the most significant in our recent history. Even before the Roe decision, the January 6th committee heard evidence of an attempted coup, led by a defeated president who sought any way possible to hold onto power. And we saw the Supreme Court significantly expand gun rights, even as President Biden signed the first gun safety bill into law in decades. But it was the Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and nearly five decades of abortion rights that gripped the nation and prompted celebrations and bitterness from coast to coast. What we know is abortion is likely to be banned in roughly half the states, and Justice Clarence Thomas suggested birth control, gay rights and same-sex marriage could be next. And we now know that Donald Trump's 2016 election -- which gave him three Supreme Court picks, all of whom voted to overturn Roe -- is easily now among the most consequential ever in our nation’s history. What we don't know is the political fallout from all this. Will there be room in the Republican Party for people who actually want some abortion rights? Can Democrats channel their anger and frustration to win elections and pull even with Republicans for this November? And thanks to how this Court was put together, its credibility has never been more in question, and this decision came at a time when the country is already dangerously divided.
[START TAPE]
PRES. BIDEN:
It's a sad day for the Court and for the country.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK:
Today's historic Supreme Court decision is a victory for the sanctity of life.
CHUCK TODD:
Nearly 50 years after Roe ...
WALTER CRONKITE:
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court today legalized abortions.
CHUCK TODD:
… the decision by the high court to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion was met with celebrations and anger, with protests in cities across the country.
ABORTION SUPPORTER:
It's shocking. This is something that women should have a right to.
ABORTION OPPONENT:
It’s a roller coaster of emotion. It's, it’s complete and utter joy.
CHUCK TODD:
The justices decided six to three to uphold Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks, the case actually before the court. But then they went further, deciding five to four to overturn Roe. All three of Trump's appointees were in the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts said he would have taken a "more measured course."
GOV. TATE REEVES:
We couldn't be happier with this decision, and I've never been prouder to be a Mississippian.
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER:
We are headed down a dangerous spiral that will erode our democracy.
CHUCK TODD:
The decision set in motion trigger bans in 13 states; in seven of those states, abortion is now already illegal. At least two dozen states are certain or likely to ban abortion soon.
GOV. KEVIN STITT:
Swift action to certify Section 861 banned abortion in our state immediately.
GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER:
We’re fighting like hell here in Michigan to protect Michigan women's access to abortion and reproductive healthcare.
CHUCK TODD:
Now there are questions about health implications – from access to care, to fertility services, to emergency contraception – about the criminalization of abortion care and about what's to come for other privacy rights.
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY:
The Supreme Court is a different branch of government. They can look at whatever comes before them.
CHUCK TODD:
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurrence: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” decisions on contraception, sex, and same-sex marriage. Alito’s majority opinion differed, saying “abortion is fundamentally different” from those precedents. Now, without the votes in the Senate to codify Roe into law, Democrats are turning to November.
PRES. BIDEN:
Roe is on the ballot.
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI:
Reproductive freedom is on the ballot.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:
The answer is simple: it's November; it’s the ballot box.
CHUCK TODD:
Hoping the abortion issue will divide Republicans, drive base turnout and turn swing voters – suburban women in particular – from a focus on the economy to the fight over reproductive rights.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
One of the states with a trigger law was Arkansas. And hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion, the state officially banned all abortions except to save the life of the mother. There is no exception for rape or incest. So joining me now is the Republican governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson. Governor Hutchinson, welcome back to Meet the Press, sir.
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
It's great to be with you, Chuck. Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with the – with what the Arkansas law does. No exception for rape or incest. Do you believe that's a mistake?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
Well, first of all, this is a day that those in the pro-life movement have worked for for over 40 years. I didn't think it would come this quickly. And the decision of the Supreme Court was really something that will save lives. In Arkansas, we immediately followed the direction of the law. It triggered the ban on abortion except, as you said, in the case of the life of the mother. What that means is that we're going to work hard to make sure that mothers have the services that they need. We're going to expand adoption services to meet those needs. That's what's critically important right now. And we have to remember, this is not a nationwide bad on abortion. Every state is going to have the ability under the court decision to make its own decisions. Arkansas made its choice previous to that based upon the trigger law. And other states are going to make different decisions. This is fundamental, as the court said, in our democracy that ultimately, the people decide through their elected representatives.
CHUCK TODD:
So if a 13-year-old though in Arkansas is raped by a relative, that 13-year-old cannot get an abortion in Arkansas. Are you comfortable with that?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
I’m not – I would've preferred a different outcome than that. But that's not the debate today in Arkansas. It might be in the future. But for now, the law triggered with only one exception. While you can debate whether there ought to be additional exceptions, every state's going to make a different determination on that under our Constitution. And this is going to continue to be discussed. But at this particular point, the only exception in Arkansas is to save the life of the mother.
CHUCK TODD:
There’s a few other questions I think that people in Arkansas have about sort of now what? Emergency contraception, the so-called Plan B pill, is it legal for someone in Arkansas to take or not now?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
Well, first of all, you know, the fact that Justice Thomas said that, you know, some of these other cases ought to be looked at, there was no one that joined in that opinion. So this is not about contraceptions. This is not about same-sex marriage, a very limited decision on this particular issue of abortion. And so in Arkansas, the right to contraception is important. It's recognized. It's not going to be touched. And that's, that’s the outcome here. And again, every state can debate that. But I don't see that’s a threat. And it's very important now to assure women that the access to contraception is going to be able to continue.
CHUCK TODD:
But does, does the morning-after pill qualify as contraception?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
Well, every state again will make that determination.
CHUCK TODD:
So it's not clear –
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
And those regulations--
CHUCK TODD:
– in Arkansas?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
– that they will determine will be reviewed by the court. In Arkansas, there should not be an issue.
CHUCK TODD:
What about IUDs? There are some, that’s a – it's a fertilized egg which, under Arkansas' law, might be considered an unborn child. Are IUDs part of this ban?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
No. It's a contraception, and that is continued to be permitted. It's not at issue in this. This is about abortion. And that's what has been triggered. And it's not about contraception. That is clear. And women should be assured of that.
CHUCK TODD:
And what is – what about for miscarriages? The treatment for miscarriages looks very similar to the treatment of abortion. Is there going to be a department in Arkansas that inspects all miscarriages or investigates miscarriages?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
No. Absolutely not. We’re obviously have oversight of abortion clinics to make sure that they follow the law. But again, Chuck, this is about a limited ruling on abortion that is historic in nature, will save lives. But the other decisions, when you're talking about miscarriages, the exception is, of course, if the life of the mother, if there's a medical, health emergency, and that's between the physician. They're going to make those judgments on how to handle those things. This is simply about abortion.
CHUCK TODD:
This is between a doctor and the woman then, when it comes to those decisions? I say that so the doctor can feel as if there's no criminal liability they’re under when they treat women and decide that an abortion is necessary, due to save her life? That doctor's not going to get investigated? That doctor's not going to get harassed?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
They certainly should not. But it's very important that doctors have always made life and health and death decisions. That's what they're trained to do. They have to make those medical judgments. And it's not the state's judgment to reconfigure those or to rethink those. They make those judgments. And the decision that has to be made is whether there's an abortion, and then you go after the provider as a criminal penalty, not the woman. That's a very important thing. What I've told my Department of Health is this: One, enforce the law. But secondly, I want a plan in which we can provide greater resources to women who are going through unwanted pregnancies to make sure that we have the pregnancy centers. We put more, a million dollars more into funding of those to provide resources for the women. That's what I'm telling my Department of Health.
CHUCK TODD:
Whatever you thought of Roe, that decision never forced anybody to do anything they didn't want to do. This decision now will force a woman to carry a pregnancy that they perhaps didn't want to do. Does that at all make you uncomfortable, that we know – you're forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do? Roe didn't do that. This ruling does.
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
Well, no, I think it's a very appropriate ruling. Obviously, when you're looking at the government and the power of the government forcing someone to carry a child to term, you've got to think that through. And legislators are thinking that through. And whenever you're looking at the opportunity to save the unborn child, that is the rare circumstance in this case that you use the power of the state to say, "Unless the health of the mother is at risk, let's carry that child to term." And so when you're saving life, that's an appropriate role of the state. And that's what the courts have said the states can determine. Other states might make a different judgment. That's why we have elections. That's why we have elected representatives to make these best judgments pertaining to life. And that's what Arkansas did under the circumstances. It'll continue to be debated. But for right now, that's the judgment that we've made.
CHUCK TODD:
You're thinking about running for president. Former Vice President Mike Pence is pushing for a nationwide ban on abortion. If you run for president, if you got elected president, would you advocate and sign into law a nationwide ban on abortion?
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
The answer is I don't believe that we ought to go back to saying there ought to be a national law that's passed. We’ve fought for 50 years to have this returned to the states. We've won that battle. It's back to the states. Let's let it be resolved there. I think there's also a constitutional issue as to whether the federal government has that authority to begin with under the Commerce Clause. But also would add that it's important that in the Republican Party, we're a broad-based party. And we're going to have people disagree on this issue. And this is healthy for the debate. We're not going to start excluding people because they might have a different nuanced view on this. That's what a robust party does. That's what the debate will be in the future. By and large, it's different in the Democrat Party that says abortion without any limits. We say there ought to be limits. We ought to work to protect life. But there's a lot of debate within that, and that will continue.
CHUCK TODD:
Governor Asa Hutchinson, Republican from Arkansas. Appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective on this issue, sir.
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON:
Great to be with you. Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
Joining me now, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Congresswoman, welcome back to Meet the Press. Look I -- before I get to my first question, I want to get your reaction to the governor of Arkansas, especially specifically to this issue of -- it is -- that he is comfortable with the government essentially forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, you know, I think naturally I couldn't disagree more with Governor Hutchinson, but I think what's really important is honing in on this idea that, that the government – the governor and the Republican Party and, frankly, the Republican legislature in Arkansas, cares about the life of a woman and the life of a mother. The state of Arkansas and Governor Hutchinson govers – governs over a state that has the third-highest maternal mortality in the United States. Seventy-one percent of the women who die are Black women as well. This is a state that has 26% child poverty, where one in four children are living in extreme -- are living in poverty in the state of Arkansas. And forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will will kill them. It will kill them, especially in the state of Arkansas, where there is very little to no support for life after birth in terms of healthcare, in terms of childcare and in terms of combating poverty. This decision and this policy will kill people, no matter what their – their spin and what their talking points are. And that's what the data shows, and that's what the statistics show.
CHUCK TODD:
Congresswoman, I know most of what may change things is going to have to be done at a ballot box, but what would you like to see the Biden administration do between now and November?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I think what we need to do is show the American people that when they give the Democratic Party power and when they actually do vote for us, that we will be using and we are willing to use the power that they do give us in order to merit increased expansions in our majority. So, in terms of what I think the presidential admin – the president's administration should be able to do, we have many ideas. We have some ideas coming from Senator Warren, signed a letter along with 25 other Democratic senators, asking President Biden to explore opening healthcare clinics on federal lands in red states in order to help people access the healthcare and abortion services that they need. We also must -- and President Biden did indicate that he was going to start looking into expanding abortion access via the pill, as well as educational efforts henceforth. But also what we – what I believe that the president and the Democratic Party needs to come to terms with is that this is not just a crisis of Roe; this is a crisis of our democracy. The Supreme Court has dramatically overreached its authority. We had two conservative senators in the United States Senate, Senator Manchin and Senator Collins, come out with a very explosive allegation that these -- that several Supreme Court justices misled them in their -- during their confirmation hearings and in the lead-up to their confirmation. This is a crisis of legitimacy. We have a Supreme Court justice whose wife participated in January 6th and who used his seat to vote against providing documents that potentially led to evidence of such to investigators in Congress. This is a crisis of legitimacy and President Biden must address that.
CHUCK TODD:
It's interesting you say that. I want to put up the Joe Manchin quote in particular on his reaction because he empha -- he used the word -- he said they testified “under oath.” He made sure that was in his release. It sounds like you believe, okay, that -- he might as well be saying they lied to him, that he feels like they lied to him and they lied --
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
They lied.
CHUCK TODD:
-- under oath. You think the House Judiciary Committee should begin the process of an investigation there?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under, under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, issue without basis -- if you read these opinions -- issue without basis, rulings that deeply undermine the human and civil rights of the majority of Americans, we must see that through. There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and a hostile takeover of our democratic institutions. To allow that to stand is to allow it to happen. And what makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court nomin -- confirmations and seats on the Supreme Court. This is what we're saying --
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think lying -- do you think lying in a confirmation hearing is an impeachable offense?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I believe so.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I believe so. I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense. I believe that violating federal law in not disclosing income from political organizations, as Clarence Thomas did years ago, is also potentially an impeachable offense. I believe that not recusing from cases that one clearly has family members involved in with very deep violations of conflict of interest are also impeachable offenses. And I believe that this is something that should be very seriously considered, including by member -- senators like Joe Manchin and Susan Collins.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to ask you a slightly bigger picture question here. Jason Linkins wrote this in “The New Republic” and it seemed to ring true with a lot of folks. Under the headline "The Democrats' Theory of Change: Wait for the Republicans to Screw Up.” "For the GOP, change comes after long periods of hard work, steady funding, and maintaining enthusiasm and momentum through periods of setback. For Democrats, change is reactive, coming only after the GOP's ambitions have hurt just enough people to make Republican rule untenable." What do you make of that?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, I think that it does speak to a generational change within the Democratic Party. You know, I believe that there are, you know, there is an establishment within the Democratic Party that has a nostalgia for a better time of politics from decades ago. You hear this very often when you hear certain Democrats say that they wished for a strong Republican Party. But the fact of the matter is is that we have a new and very different Republican Party that more people are recognizing, but frankly the roots of which have already been there, which is a lack of of respect for the -- for American institutions, a lack of respect for the law and a deep desire to debase very, very critical underpinnings of our democracy. And so, I do believe that there has been a weak Democratic strategy in the past, and we cannot continue to use those same playbooks.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Right now, as – as I say, is that this is overtime for our democracy and we must be aggressive.
CHUCK TODD:
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat from New York, I appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us. Thank you.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Of course. Thank you very much.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, the legal, medical and political fallout from this monumental Supreme Court decision. The panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Panel is here. NBC News Chief Washington Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Senior Capitol Hill Correspondent Garrett Haake, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr, senior opinion writer for The Boston Globe. I want to start with Susan Collins and what she put out. "Throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for a half a century is not conservative. It is sudden and a radical jolt to the country that will lead to political chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government." John Roberts used judicial restraint, Peggy. I'm curious of what happened to “small-c” conservatism in judicial restraint here.
PEGGY NOONAN:
Well, another way – I understand what Susan Collins said, but another way to view this is a long 50-year struggle that observed all processes and appealed to the public and tried to get support and played the long game, and, and did its very best, has suddenly – it seems, but after 50 years – succeeded in the Court. And the end result of that is that a big, huge dramatic question will not be settled by the Court as it were, as it had been 49 years ago, but will actually go back to the people of the country who, state by state, will decide through their legislators and representatives what their local abortion law will be. I do not see this big decision as a settlement of this question. But I do think it has put forward a legitimate, and to me desirable, democratic settlement. And it'll be turbulent for the next few years, it just will.
CHUCK TODD:
Kimberly, what was interesting, she talked about the long 50-year campaign on the right to get this done. One thing the campaign never succeeded at doing was changing public opinion.
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
No. Public opinion has changed here.
CHUCK TODD:
Stayed.
KIMBERLY ATKING STOHR:
And it seems – that's what is remarkable at how the conservative bent, the fast change of this Supreme Court that was done by design, by pure construction, has gone so far against public opinion. I personally don't believe that people's civil rights and constitutional rights should be up to public approval. But the fact that it is going so far against it speaks to that. And my quibble with what Peggy has said here is that it's interesting that the Court picks and chooses when they take this democratic route. They didn't do so with the Second Amendment. They impose their will on even states that wanted to put better protections there. But on this issue, they're deciding to. And it’s not – this goes so far beyond abortion. And abortion is important, and reproductive health care is important because it touches that. But this is getting to the very heart of the Fourteenth Amendment of what protects all the vulnerable people in this country. And what they are saying is, unless you have a long history of having this country respect and protect those rights, then you may be out of luck when we have the cases in the future. And as a Black woman in America, that's terrifying.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, Andrea, we’re, we’re, what’s – I've actually talked to some legal experts, building off what Kimberly said, that said, eventually if this gets back to the Supreme Court, it may be under an equal protection standard because of, look at what we're going to see around the country. You’re not going to – women are not going to have the same equal rights depending on the state they live in.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, this is contributing to the Balkanization of our country. Our country is now going to be so divided, just legally divided. Half the states are not going to permit abortion. And that is going to prohibit abortion from those who cannot travel. And immediately, there are people in Arkansas and Mississippi who are going to have to go 1,000 miles. That is absolutely – to Illinois. I was talking to several people in those states yesterday as we were anchoring, on, you know, on this subject. And they can't travel 1,000 miles. They don't have the money. They don't have the money for daycare. They don't have the ability, to – to get there for all of the pre-testing that you're supposed to have, and for the follow-up exams. And what is so remarkable is that when Roe was decided and – you know, I'm old enough to have lived as an adult pre-Roe, and I know what the situation was. And actually, public opinion has not really changed –
CHUCK TODD:
Not at all, no.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
–over these 49 and a half years. What's happened is that the Court has changed. You now have a supermajority where the chief justice does not even have sway, and has not for the last year and a half or so because of the super majority who is basically ignoring public opinion. And they're not supposed to be political, but they're going their own way, a supermajority that can do things, whatever they choose to do. Roe was decided seven to two in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, a Republican, supported by justice – Chief Justice Burger, a Republican, during the years of Richard Nixon, and was decided, you know, on a basis of what they interpreted – now, it has been questioned because they chose privacy and not equal protection. But what you're now going to see is more of this red/blue state division –
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
– and on a powerfully emotional issue.
CHUCK TODD:
Garrett, bring me into Congress. You know, when Roe was decided in '73, the two parties were equally divided on abortion.
GARRETT HAAKE:
Uh-huh [AFFIRMATIVE].
CHUCK TODD:
There were a lot of pro-life Democrats. I mean, and look, a lot of people have noted, one time, Donald Trump was pro-choice. One time, Joe Biden was pro-life, right? I mean, we've been through this. George H.W. –
GARRETT HAAKE:
Right –
CHUCK TODD:
– Bush, the Bush family, donors to Planned Parenthood back in the day. Is there a – if this new Republican majority comes in the House, is there going to be an abortion ban?
GARRETT HAAKE:
Kevin McCarthy certainly left that option on the table, suggesting that he would put forward, you know, or would support a 15-week abortion ban if one came up in the House, as I suspect one probably will, especially if the majority is big enough in the House. I mean, ironically this has been Kyrsten Sinema's position on not getting rid of the filibuster, that this vote will come up, and that the filibuster may be the only protection that Democrats have left, either, you know, in two years from now or potentially in four years from now under a Republican president, to prevent a national abortion standard. Now, conservatives have made the argument that they want this to be decided at the state level. But I think Democrats, as you just heard from Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, you know, read the writing on the wall here. You can say one thing, whether it's in a confirmation hearing, or what have you. But Republican – everything they have done suggests they want to see this banned at a national level. And, you know, to your point about the parties being Balkanized on this, you're not winning a Republican primary for a State House seat in Missouri, or Texas, or a state like that unless you believe in, you know, abortion ban with no exceptions. That's the direction that party's going, and Democrats have to be prepared for it.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, Peggy, politically, during the era of Roe it was the Democrats that would be infighting over, "Where do you draw the line? Late-term abortions." Republicans did a great job of wedging. Because they’re – now, all of a sudden it's the Republicans–
PEGGY NOONAN:
Yeah, that’s true.
CHUCK TODD:
–that are going to have to because some are going to want exceptions. Governor Hutchinson talked about it. But Garrett brought up a point. Is that going to survive primaries?
PEGGY NOONAN:
Well, this is going to work its way out. I would say everybody here, I think, agrees that when polled, the American people say they're for Roe. They're for – for the right of abortion as seen in the Constitution. But the minute you get beyond that, to questions of the cutoff, "Is it 12 weeks or 14?" Then, then support goes down.
CHUCK TODD:
Sure.
PEGGY NOONAN:
It all becomes more complicated. The fact was, I think, legally Roe and Casey just were sort of incompatible with getting all of those reservations worked out in the law. So I think that is part of what drove it. Look, you know what the Republican Party should do now? It should use this victory, if you see it that way, to change itself and become a party that helps women –
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But that’s not going to happen.
CHUCK TODD:
All right --
PEGGY NOONAN:
– change its reputation –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
But that’s not going to happen.
PEGGY NOONAN:
– and become a party that helps women and children, becomes –
CHUCK TODD:
All right –
PEGGY NOONAN:
– responsible –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
Why are we here?
PEGGY NOONAN:
–and supportive.
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
We are here because Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell got together and made a litmus test for overturning Roe for Supreme Court nominees. Sandra Day O'Connor did not have that litmus test. David Souter didn't have it. Anthony Kennedy didn't have it.
GARRETT HAAKE:
Uh-huh [AFFIRMATIVE].
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
That is why we are here is because Republicans from the top set the tone.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And Merrick Garland did not even get a hearing.
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
100%.
CHUCK TODD:
Here's the good news. I'm going to give you guys more time, but just not right now. It'll be later in the show. When we come back, the story that in any other week would have led our show and dominated the news, the riveting testimony about former President Trump's schemes to stay in power. Congressman Adam Schiff joins me next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Almost lost in all the news about Roe v. Wade was the consequential week in the January 6th hearings. We had two of them. On Tuesday, the congressional panel tied former President Trump to a plot to have states create fake elector slates. And they showed how he pressured state officials to overturn his election loss in any way they could find. Then on Thursday, we heard how Mr. Trump sought to install an ally at the head of the Justice Department, Jeffrey Clark, to falsely claim the election was fraudulent and coerce states to flip their results.
[START TAPE]
RICHARD DONOGHUE:
I said, "Mr. President, within 24, 48, 72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?"
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
The actions of Rosen and Donoghue there basically kept us within two hours of a constitutional crisis. Joining me now is Congressman Adam Schiff, who led Tuesday's hearing. Mr. Schiff, welcome back to Meet the Press.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
Good to be with you.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with what's coming first. We were going to have two more hearings this coming week. You've delayed two weeks, I know. Can you give us a little bit more on what more has come in, and on what specific areas has more information come in, that you feel as if you need more time?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, the next couple hearings will cover the run-up to January 6th, the marshaling of this mob that appeared on the mall that day and attacked the Capitol. And then the final hearing will cover what the president was doing, and more importantly, what he was not doing as we were being attacked.
CHUCK TODD:
In those hours on January 6th itself.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
Exactly. Basically, the president's flagrant dereliction of duty while the Capitol was being attacked. And this will give us a little bit more time to get prepared for those two hearings. A lot of work, as you might imagine, goes into each and every one of these hearings, and we keep learning new information all the time that we want to incorporate. So this will give us a little more breathing space to do that.
CHUCK TODD:
You've spent a couple hours with a documentary filmmaker. You've now gotten all of his video information. Does it add, does it add any facts that you did not know?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
You know, it's hard for me to characterize because we have information from other sources that the public hasn't seen yet. But it certainly adds to the footage of that day, some new perspectives that we haven't had, at least captured on film. I don't want to get too far ahead. Part of what's made these hearings successful is their combination of what's already known and things that the public hasn't known yet. And, most important, we do try to tie it all together and show the public where it all fits its pieces.
CHUCK TODD:
Look, one of the – if there's a search for a smoking gun here, it is to find evidence that Donald Trump knew he lost, but went about this anyway. Have you found specific evidence to know that he knew he lost and that this belief defense is one that is just not going to work?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
I think we continue to see powerful evidence of that. And just this week, and every now and then, you see something that tells you in microcosm what it's all about. In the last hearing, the president saying to top Justice Department officials, "Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republicans." That's an acknowledgment by the president after making all these fruitless claims of fraud and being told, "That's not true. That's not true. That's not true." The president didn't care. What he wanted them to do was just say it was corrupt. And Jeffrey Clark, this unqualified environmental lawyer that he was going to put at the top of the Justice Department, drafted a letter to Georgia falsely claiming that the Justice Department believed there was sufficient fraud to overturn the election and Georgia should call its legislature back into session. The president understood that all the Justice Department leadership thought that was completely bogus. And he was prepared to go along with it, except for the threat of mass resignation.
CHUCK TODD:
So that – by the way, that meeting, January 3rd, that two hours from the constitutional crisis, is it when that fails, should we then see the pressure campaign on Pence that basically begins 48 hours before January 6th? It intensifies. Does that no-go intensify this? Is that the connective tissue there, the conclusion we should draw?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
I think you see the pressure continue to build, and build, and build. These lines of effort that were failing were never completely walked away from. The pressure on the state legislators continued right up until the sixth. The effort to get these fake electors counted by the vice president, the pressure campaign against the vice president, all of that continued. But on the sixth, the last ditch effort was to get that crowd to stop what was happening in the building. And we see then that January 6th was not a day in isolation. It was the culmination of several efforts, the violent culmination of an effort to overturn the election.
CHUCK TODD:
A couple things, this week, boy, the Department of Justice has certainly let the public know it was doing a lot more on January 6th than we'd seen in the past. I think there were subpoenas served on at least nine people in four states. A search warrant was executed on the home of Jeffrey Clark. You've been critical in the past of the Justice Department. You felt as if there was maybe, maybe they were being a little passive. Do you still have that criticism or do you look at their actions this week and does that reassure you a little bit?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
It certainly seems that there's a greater sense of urgency than I've seen before. At the same time, I have yet to see any indication that the former president himself is under investigation. And I concur with what Judge Carter out in California said, that there's sufficient evidence to believe the former president violated multiple federal laws. And you can't hold anyone immune. You can't say there's a different standard, different rule of law for former presidents. Particularly when you took the position while they were in office that they couldn't be indicted.
CHUCK TODD:
This country's, I'd characterize it as dangerously divided right now. And an indictment of a former president, that could throw gasoline on this fire. Choosing not to hold him accountable could also throw gasoline on this fire. What is – there are no good outcomes here. What's the worst outcome on that front, and do you understand why the attorney general may be really struggling with this decision?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, I think it's a very difficult decision, but I don’t think it’s a difficult – that is, to prosecute. It's not a difficult decision to investigate when there's evidence before you. And I think the worst-case scenario is not that Donald Trump runs and wins, but that he runs and loses and they overturn the election. Because there's no deterrent, because there's no effort to push back and to hold people accountable.
CHUCK TODD:
What if you prosecute him and he gets off?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, that's always a risk. But the fact is, if you follow the evidence where it leads, if you believe that you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have a duty to prosecute. And the decision not to investigate or not to prosecute becomes a political decision that, well, this person is immune from the rule of law.
CHUCK TODD:
Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat from California. So we’ve got a two-week break, and then a couple more hearings. Thanks for coming on and sharing your perspective.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, the other, other big story of the week: The Supreme Court's expansion of gun rights. The ruling was on a New York state law that was over 100 years old. But what happened in New York is not staying there. Back in a moment.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, data download time. The abortion decision was not the only news from the Supreme Court this week. On Thursday, the high court struck down a New York law that strictly limited who can carry a gun in public. It was over 100 years old. The 6-3 ruling immediately, though, raised questions about similar laws in other states. The long term, it could have even broader impacts on all sorts of other gun rules nationwide. Let me show you. First of all, the law that was impacted was New York state, but it could impact laws on the books that are very similar to New York's when it comes to who can carry a gun in California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey. Bottom line is it may be only a handful of states, but a lot of people reside in these handful of states, 25% of the population impacted by that ruling directly. Now, what was interesting is what was said in the ruling. The justification of this ruling was this: “[To] justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” It's a pretty broad new standard that the Supreme Court wants to apply to all sorts of gun laws. So what could that mean? Well, how about high-capacity magazine bans? About 10 states plus the District of Columbia has those. Are those in the tradition of gun regulation that goes back more than 100 years? It's unlikely the court would find that. Those could be targeted by gun rights organizations to try to get those bans ruled unconstitutional. Then there's red flag laws. In fact, the U.S. Senate, the Congress and President Biden just signed into law a new bill that would actually encourage more states to have red flag laws. But that doesn't mean that gun rights organizations think they are constitutional. And they may go back to the court to see if that standard could be used to rule these 19 states and some others unconstitutional. Bottom line, a lot of gun laws under a lot of jurisdictions could now be vulnerable with this new standard that the Supreme Court has come up with. When we come back, why former President Trump thinks the abortion decision may be bad politics for Republicans.
CHUCK TODD:
We are back. One person whose legacy is going to get defined by the overturn of Roe v. Wade is Donald Trump. And Andrea Mitchell, Donald Trump doesn't seem to be very excited about this. He’s, you know, he called it a victory for life at his rally in Illinois yesterday, but he is mumbling and grumbling all over the place about this. And he believes this is going to hurt Republicans in the midterms.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
No, absolutely. Look, he — when he ran, he's a fake evangelical and he's a fake supporter of banning abortion. And all of this was antithetical to him, and it was politically important in Iowa and other places as he was running. So this is not his core beliefs because he is not ideological. He's just pragmatic. And he can see the handwriting on this is that that while the economy is the biggest issue and will continue to be the biggest issue, and inflation, driving the midterm elections, it is going to be abortion rising as a big issue. And it's especially going to be important in trigger states, in states with a total ban, in Michigan, Wisconsin, where governors could change hands. The people who could veto Republican legislatures. One thing that has been overlooked is how in 2010, this really emerged, and Republican activists, not Republicans generically, but activists who really wanted to ban abortion, seized on this with the Tea Party movement in 2010 and it was a census year, so they grabbed state legislatures – about 10 state legislatures changed hands from Democratic to Republican. And it is at the state level, as Asa Hutchinson says. But at the state level, this became baked in with redistricting. And more and more states now have Republican legislatures who will ban or restrict abortions if governors or state officials are not there to veto it.
GARRETT HAAKE:
This has always been a challenge for Democrats to keep their voters focused on state legislatures, state houses, governors' races, AGs' races, you know, having Barack Obama for eight years is one thing. But if all of these state legislatures are flipping, you're in a world of hurt. And I don't see this issue playing as much on the federal level, maybe at the margins in some of these Senate and House races. But again, if you're running for governor, if you look at the governor's race in Pennsylvania, could be ground zero. Some of these state House races in places like Michigan, that could go either way. I'm curious if it has an effect in Texas at all. This doesn't play. A total abortion ban doesn't really play in Plano or The Woodlands. But is that enough to help the Democrat running for governor in Texas?
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
But the problem for Democrats here, is as we've seen with Republicans, this is not something you can flip overnight.
GARRETT HAAKE:
No.
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
This is a generation-long movement on the right that has led us here. And the Democrats, it's not clear to see if they've even started what will have to be a generation-long movement to move this backwards. Not just with the Supreme Court, but at the state level. As you are saying, I think it's going to take horrific details about how women are dying because of complications in a pregnancy and other terrible outcomes for this, before the public really understands how important this is.
GARRETT HAAKE:
I actually wonder if there's a blueprint in what we just saw with the guns legislation, where it was a decade in that case, but it took Sandy Hook and the absolute horror of that for Democrats to get electorally organized around the issue of guns. They spent a decade doing it. They were able to get a big breakthrough this week, whether this ruling is enough to start a process --
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They don't have decade. They've got a presidential election and a midterm. And they're going to lose control, potentially, and won't be able to do anything. There's no way that they can do anything in the Senate unless they get rid of the filibuster rule.
GARRETT HAAKE:
No, not happening.
PEGGY NOONAN:
Can I note?
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
PEGGY NOONAN:
I think something that is important for liberals now, realize this: a big decision came down. For 50 years, the courts had put it one way. Liberals will now have to get in the game in a whole new way democratically. And that is through persuasion, not anger, rage, all of that stuff.
CHUCK TODD:
But persuasion didn't --
PEGGY NOONAN:
Persuasion.
CHUCK TODD:
The right didn't need persuasion.
PEGGY NOONAN:
Oh, the right I think talked about this.
CHUCK TODD:
But they never got it. But they never – I don't mean – the persuasion argument never worked.
PEGGY NOONAN:
I think you are wrong. No, no. People said consistently, "Yes, Roe. Abortion rights." But the minute you got past the fourth, fifth, and sixth week, that's where the persuasion was.
CHUCK TODD:
Sure. But do you think, though, that they --
PEGGY NOONAN:
But that's where they did, I think, change minds.
CHUCK TODD:
I guess, Peggy, what I just don't understand and what, it feels like why a boomerang is coming, it’s, the life side was winning incrementally. And now it's like they've rushed to crash the car. And now, you know, we don't like when anything is rushed and overdone.
PEGGY NOONAN:
Well, I don't think it was rushed, but it sure feels sudden. Do you know what I mean?
CHUCK TODD:
Abrupt.
PEGGY NOONAN:
Yes, abrupt. I experienced that so much on the day of Dobbs, so many emails and texts came in from people, normal humans who said, "I had no idea this was happening."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But Peggy --
PEGGY NOONAN:
And they were just shocked. So there was an abruptness. But I think persuasion was part of this whole thing, you know? You had to persuade a lot of people to make a movement triumph.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But you cannot just--
PEGGY NOONAN:
It wasn't just raw muscle. Sorry.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
You can’t have persuasion – no, I'm sorry. That was bad on me. You can't have persuasion when you have a young Supreme Court. They are going to be here for decades. This is a super majority that is not going anywhere anytime soon. And it was done because of, as I say, Merrick Garland not getting a hearing, and then three Trump justices who misled the Senate. And so whether you like that or not, it can't be done --
CHUCK TODD:
All right.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
--at the Senate level.
CHUCK TODD:
That is all we have for today. This conversation will keep going, but I have to turn the cameras off. Thanks for watching. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.