CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: A stunning collapse. The second-largest bank failure in U.S. history rattles the tech world and raises fears the panic could spread.
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
When banks experience financial losses, it is and should be a matter of concern.
CHUCK TODD:
Why did the government have to take it over so quickly? And are other banks at risk? I'll ask Sheila Bair, the former chair of the FDIC during the last banking crisis. Plus, legal troubles. Donald Trump faces potential criminal charges in New York, where he's been invited to testify before the grand jury this week.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Our country has become the investigation capital of the world.
CHUCK TODD:
While his biggest challenger visits Iowa for the first time.
GOV. RON DeSANTIS:
We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob.
CHUCK TODD:
Will Republican primary voters even care if Trump is indicted? And, the art of deception. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy hands over January 6 footage to Tucker Carlson, who uses it to claim the insurrection was "mostly peaceful," and it serves to divide Republicans on Capitol Hill.
SEN. THOM TILLIS:
I think it's bull****.
CHUCK TODD:
My guests this morning, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. And joining me for insight and analysis are: Marianna Sotomayor of The Washington Post, Jonathan Martin of Politico, María Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino and Republican strategist, Brendan Buck. 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:
And a good Sunday morning. It was a week, to borrow a phrase of "Everything Everywhere All at Once." Global instability and threats to democracy at home, and it ended in the second-largest bank collapse in U.S. history. All of it adds to the uncertainty many Americans have been feeling for a few years now. Around the world, Iran and Saudi Arabia agreed to restore ties in the Middle East in a deal brokered not by the United States, but by China. And it happened just as our nation's top intelligence leaders testify that China is, quote, the “most consequential threat to U.S. national security." On our southern border, the kidnapping of four U.S. citizens in Mexico -- and murder of two of them – just over our border, raise tensions on the charged issue of border security, prompting calls for President Biden to try to crack down on cartels. And there are real questions about whether the Mexican government can be a partner in this. Then there's the threat to democracy here at home. The Republican divide on the Capitol attack broke open again this week after Fox host Tucker Carlson presented an alternative reality of the insurrection, falsely describing it as "mostly peaceful chaos." And he ended up showing footage that was provided exclusively to him by the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy. Republican senators called the broadcast normalizing the attack “a mistake," "dangerous and disgusting,” one even used an expletive. But many House Republicans, they defended the broadcast. But the biggest political story of the year kicked off in Iowa as the co-frontrunners for the Republican nomination took their campaign there for the first time. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis testing his retail campaigning ability on Friday, and Donald Trump holds an event in Davenport, Iowa tomorrow. And guess what? Later in the week, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has held open a day for Donald Trump to be in front of the grand jury there, where criminal charges for Trump's role in the payment of hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels could be coming any day now. And how will voters and Mr. Trump's opponents respond to a new label -- “indicted former president” -- if indeed the Manhattan DA does move forward with those charges? But we're going to turn our attention to the bank failure. Silicon Valley Bank became the second-largest bank in U.S. history, and the first since the financial crisis in 2008, to fail. The bank is small by comparison to the nation's largest banks. It held just $209 billion in assets compared to more than $3 trillion at JPMorgan Chase. But its implosion did set off a wave of concern, not just about the banking sector, but about how venture capital firms behave in Silicon Valley. And that sent some stocks tumbling. The Biden administration tried to remain calm about all of this on Friday.
[BEGIN TAPE]
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
When banks experience financial losses, it is and should be a matter of concern.
CECILIA ROUSE:
With the reforms of the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, we've put in place stress tests and other tools that our regulators have to provide more resilience to our banking system.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Well, joining me now is Sheila Bair, the former chair of the FDIC, which had to take control of Silicon Valley Bank on Friday, and Steve Liesman is CNBC's senior economics reporter. Welcome to both of you. Steve, let me just start with you. What's going to happen tomorrow morning?
STEVE LIESMAN:
Well, we're waiting to hear what regulators say, what the Federal Reserve says. Do they do anything to try to calm market, either through a statement or any kind of programs? We don't know if that's the case at this point. It's a big, big question tomorrow morning, Chuck. Two things: One is, does the FDIC amount how much uninsured depositors will get? And that number could be fairly critical, Chuck, as to the kind of confidence that would permeate through the market. If the number is something like $0.80 or $0.90 on the dollar there might be some calm that would pervade the markets. If it's $0.50 on the dollar, then I think uninsured depositors at other banks are going to be concerned. That's one. The second thing is, does the Federal Reserve work with other agencies to provide anything regarding insurance or some kind of assistance to those who are sitting on uninsured deposits at other banks.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Sheila Bair, you ran the FDIC. What can we expect from them tomorrow morning?
SHEILA BAIR:
So I think you can expect what the advance dividend will be on the uninsured. And I want to emphasize, that might not be the total recovery on uninsured. That'll be a number that they feel confident they'll be able to recover based on the assets.
CHUCK TODD:
Will they do it as a percentage?
SHEILA BAIR:
They do it as a percentage, right. Yes--
CHUCK TODD:
Oh. Just what he was saying?
SHEILA BAIR:
Yes, exactly. So IndyMac Bank, which is the closest parallel of a failure during the Great Financial Crisis, we announced a 50% dividend. IndyMac Bank was in a lot worse shape than this bank, so I can only assume it's going to be significantly higher.
CHUCK TODD:
The fact that they haven't found a buyer yet, is that what your successor is doing right now?
SHEILA BAIR:
Yeah. Well, I think so. I hope so. I mean, that's the smoothest way to handle these. And almost all of our bank failures during the Great Financial Crisis, we had about 400 of them. We did purchase an assumption. We sold a failed bank to a healthy bank. And usually, the healthy acquirer would also cover the uninsured, because they wanted the franchise value of those large depositors so optimally, that's the best outcome. The problem is, this was a liquidity failure, it was a bank run, so they didn't have time to prepare to market the bank. So they're having to do that now, and playing catch-up.
CHUCK TODD:
The fact that it was a bank run, Steve, and in fact it was venture capitalists, Peter Thiel's name, who had became sort of famous in political circles for getting heavily involved in the 2022 elections, it seemed like he pulled his money out and said, "Hey guys, something doesn't look good here," and it started a run. Does that tell you that maybe this is something that can be isolated, or could this happen at other banks?
STEVE LIESMAN:
Chuck, you're asking the question that Wall Street has, I think, 24/7 been debating since this happened. Let's put the context here. This is probably the first bank run in the digital age. I don't know if Sheila would confirm that. So that means a tweet can cause a bank run. I don't know that we've had a tweet cause a bank run before, but it's worth remarking that comments by people like Peter Thiel and others cause a massive withdrawal of deposits. So there's four things that are thought to make this bank unique. It had a particular risk in its balance sheet when it came to interest rates. It did not seem to move to hedge that risk. Second, it was highly concentrated in the industry so that most of its depositors and borrowers, by the way, were from the same place. Third, it had a lot of losses on its books, which by the way, a bunch of banks do, but they're unrealized. And the fourth thing was these uninsured deposits; 87%, we're told, of its deposits were uninsured compared to other banks its size, that were around 40%. So it's isolated, Chuck. But the key thing for tomorrow morning is, what do regulators do to give people comfort that, indeed, it was isolated and will remain isolated.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to, Sheila, put up here a number of companies that people might be familiar with who had deposits in here, who all need to make some basic payroll runs here. Does the FDIC… can they sort of help ease the payroll issue on their own? Or are they going to need, like, an act of Congress or something?
SHEILA BAIR:
Well, no. They only insure deposits, that's what they do. They charge premiums for the insured, under $250,000. They don't insure uninsured. If there's a systemic risk exception which would suggest there's something very wrong, then as an extraordinary procedure, they arguably could. But again, this is a $200 billion bank, a $23 trillion banking industry. $200 billion bank, I think it's going to be hard to say that this is systemic in any way. For the payroll, I think the advance dividend will help these companies make that. I know some of the names you put up there, that's not necessarily payroll. I know Circle, those are reserves behind Stablecoin. That's not their money, they can't use it for payroll. So I think you need to differentiate.
CHUCK TODD:
No doubt. But these were all the companies that have some--
SHEILA BAIR:
These were companies that had substantial uninsured deposits, that's exactly right.
CHUCK TODD:
Steve, you spend a lot of time watching Jay Powell at the Fed. Who should be watching out for these banks as they try to deal with the interest rate hikes here? Is it the Fed's responsibility to warn banks that they need to be smarter about managing the interest rate hikes? Or is this on the banks, and was this on Silicon Valley Bank, who was just sort of perhaps not realizing that, hey, these interest rate hikes might be here to stay?
STEVE LIESMAN:
So again, a question that a lot of folks are going to be asking tomorrow morning, Chuck. Let me just walk through a little bit of that. Yes, this bank was regulated by the Federal Reserve. Were there enough red flags out there? Certainly some of the post-mortems that I'm reading suggest that regulators should have seen this problem in this bank. On the other hand, Chuck, this is still a free market system despite massive bank regulation that's out there. Banks are free to fail. When you have a change of interest rates like we had over the past several months – the most aggressive rate hike cycle in two generations – some banks, business models, are not going to work anymore. Whether or not this bank should've taken steps, I think it should've. It was up to the bank in the first instance, but it's also up to the regulators in the second instance. And that post-mortem's going to look at whether or not the regulators should have seen this coming. And the next thing you're going to ask about is whether or not the Fed ought to be cutting interest rates. Certainly the market thinks that the Fed will be less aggressive now in raising interest rates--
CHUCK TODD:
I was just going to say, maybe not cut, but--
STEVE LIESMAN:
--because of possible fallout.
CHUCK TODD:
Yes, slow down the rate of increase, give banks more time to handle it? Yeah.
STEVE LIESMAN:
That's what people are thinking, that certainly the market dramatically repriced on Thursday and Friday, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Assuming that. All right. Sheila Bair, Steve Liesman. Thank you both. Shelia, I think a lot of people are going to be tapping into your expertise this week, unfortunately, I guess. But thank you for coming on.
SHEILA BAIR:
Thank you for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
It's great to see you.
CHUCK TODD:
Let's turn now to the Southern border. Four Americans were abducted and two were killed this week, kidnapped just a mile – just a mile – across the border from Brownsville, Texas in Matamoros, Mexico. Four friends from South Carolina traveled to Mexico, where Latavia McGee intended to get cosmetic surgery. In the days that follow, they were moved to at least three different locations, allegedly by members of the Gulf Cartel. Two were dead by the time Mexican security forces located them on Tuesday morning. The Biden administration is already in a bind, politically, over its immigration policies, caught between Republicans eager to exploit border security failures as a campaign issue and Democrats angry about Biden's new asylum limits and that the administration is considering bringing back family detentions. Do we now also have a national security crisis just over our Southern border? So joining me now is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's a member of the banking committee, too, by the way. It's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez. Senator Menendez, let me start with the banking committee. I, obviously, I invited you on before all of this happened. Have you gotten a briefing over the weekend? And what's your sense of what we can expect tomorrow morning?
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Well, Chuck, I have not gotten a briefing yet. But I think that your previous panel pretty much had it right on. The question will be, number one is, what are the excesses beyond the insured amounts and the ability to deal with those and the companies, in terms of meeting payrolls? The broader question will be, should the regulators have been on the ball to ensure that this bank could not have had this risk? And what else is out there, in this regard? As someone who sat in 2008 on the banking committee when we met with that last crisis, the goal is to try to avoid a crisis, not to deal with it. And that'll be questions that will be raised.
CHUCK TODD:
And in just a simple way, are you more concerned that maybe regulators underreact or overreact here? Are you more concerned that government underreacts or overreacts?
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Well, what I'm concerned is that we get it right, right? That doesn't mean over or underreaction. It's a question of getting it right. Did the regulators get it right? Did they allow this to take place in a way that's to be expected in the market, or should they have been more forward-leaning in saying to this and other banks, "Hey. You have risk here. You need to mitigate your risk"? That is something that we'll have to see in the days ahead.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think the FDIC should insure more than $250,000 per deposit? Should that ever go up?
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Well, it's served us well for a long time. And the question is where we are in the marketplace today, does that make sense? Of course, that would require additional insurance proceeds in order to cover it. That's a question to look forward in the future. But, you know, at the end of the day, depositors know that they're covered up to $250,000. So they can make choices to diversify their deposits, as well, so that they are less at risk of anything like this.
CHUCK TODD:
Bottom line, it sounds like you're not ready to offer them a bailout.
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Oh, I'm not ready to offer them a bailout by any stretch of the imagination. We have to see exactly everything that is pertinent to this specific set of circumstances and to see what else is out there, if anything else is out there that we should be thinking about.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Let me move to what happened to those four Americans this weekend, what it exposed, which is the fact that this is an administration in Mexico that has chosen a different tact in dealing with the cartels, meaning they don't want to deal with them the way the previous administration did, and they don't seem to want to work with the United States and get our help in dealing with these cartels. How do we deal with this when you have a Mexican government that may not be on the same page?
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Well, this is one of our great challenges. President López Obrador talked about, when he took office, about, "Kisses, not bullets." Well, that's not working too well. The reality is along the border communities it is the cartels that run the border communities, not the government of Mexico. Mexico has a responsibility, first and foremost, to its own citizens to establish safety and security within its own territory and to those who visit its country, as well. And so we need to up, dramatically, in our engagement with Mexico. It can't be all about economics. It has to be about safety and security, as well. And I am afraid that we are headed in the wrong direction in Mexico on that and on democracy questions, as well. So this is a present danger that we have to deal with. And we have to engage the Mexicans in a way that says, "You've got to do a lot more on your security." We can help them. We have intelligence. We have other information we can share. But we need them to enforce in their own country.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think designating the cartels as a foreign terrorist organization helps or hurts that ability to work with the Mexican government?
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Well, slapping a designation isn't in and of itself going to change anything. The question is: How do you go after the cartels? How do you dry up their money? How do you go after their leadership? How do you put them away? How do you deny visas for Mexican government officials who ultimately are not engaging in the act of prosecution of the cartels? Those are some of the things that you can do that ultimately mean something at the end of the day.
CHUCK TODD:
How would you vote on this? It may come to a vote. Would you vote to designate these cartels terrorist organizations?
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Well, that has a certain designation. We should save that for truly terrorist organizations in the world. Certainly, they are consequential to questions of national security. I'm more interested in doing something that ultimately seeks to destroy the cartels than to just name them. You know, you name them a foreign terrorist organization, that in and of itself means nothing. You ultimately go after their leadership. You jail them. You ultimately go after their money. You dry it up. You ultimately go after those who are supposed to be enforcing the law. And now you have a real consequence.
CHUCK TODD:
You have been critical of the new changes in border policy that Secretary Mayorkas has done at DHS. What's the alternative? And do you have – what's your level of confidence in Secretary Mayorkas?
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Well, look. This is not about Secretary Mayorkas. It's about the administration. The best part of the administration's immigration policy over the first two years is that they ended family detention, which proved to be a failure under both the Obama and Trump administrations as a way to deter individuals from coming. What we need is a comprehensive plan to deal with the border, and what are the elements, the push and pull factors, that bring people to this country? We need to have a surge at the border that deals with asylum officers, uses border security, that ultimately can process those who have a legitimate claim for asylum and to deport those who have no legitimate claim for asylum. We'll need to find legal pathways so that people don't surge to the border because they are fleeing, because if my situation is I am in a country where staying means I will most certainly die, see my daughter raped or my son forced into a gang, I'm going to flee. Well, we need to understand that and deal with it. We need to work with Central American and the Mexican government to also be part of the solution. And lastly, we need to look at the question of temporary protected status in a way that ultimately helps us meet the challenges.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
The three biggest countries, by the way, Chuck, that are coming to the border now are Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua. They all have dictatorships, people fleeing those dictatorships. When the administration opened up a legal pathway for those fleeing, it dramatically saw the reduction. It's just an example of what you can do in a way that both is good for the border and preserves our nation as a nation that preserves asylum. But if not, if the administration does go down this path, I am afraid that the president will become the “Asylum Denier-in-Chief.”
CHUCK TODD:
Well, Senator Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, as I said, boy, we had a week and so did you, of all the different things that are on your plate and your responsibilities. I appreciate the time. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, Donald Trump is facing the possibility of running for president while being charged with multiple crimes. Will it even matter? Is there a GOP alternative? Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, who is also a member of the banking committee, joins me next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Two divides played out in the Republican Party this week on Capitol Hill. Senate and House Republicans split on the Fox Corporation's attempt to rewrite the history of the Capitol insurrection with Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, criticizing Tucker Carlson for falsely portraying the attack as peaceful. Many House Republicans, though, defended the broadcast, calling it a must watch.
[BEGIN TAPE]
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
I don't take any part in whitewashing January 6th. It wasn't a stroll through the Capitol.
SEN. MITT ROMNEY:
It's awful what some people are willing to do to get some eyeballs and get a little extra money.
SEN. THOM TILLS
I think it's bull (CENSOR BEEP).
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Then there's the 2024 divide emerging in Iowa, where the frontrunners for the Republican nomination are kicking off their campaigns. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who's not an official candidate yet, held two events on Friday. And Donald Trump, with the pressure of a possible indictment looming in New York perhaps as early as this month, appears there tomorrow night.
[BEGIN TAPE]
DONALD TRUMP:
Our country has become the investigation capital of the world. Actually, that's all we do.
GOV. RON DeSANTIS:
The one thing I could say if you talk to Floridians, there's no drama in our administration. There's no palace intrigue. They basically just sit back and say, "Okay, what's the governor going to do next?" And we roll out and we execute.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Well, joining me now is Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. And as I said, also a member of the Senate Banking Committee. Senator Cramer, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Great to be with you. Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
And as I said to Senator Menendez, we booked you before this banking, this collapse, but our good fortune that you're on the Banking Committee. So let me ask you this, what have you learned over the last 48 hours? What do you expect to happen tomorrow morning?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Yeah. Well, first of all, when you hear from Steve Liesman, you almost don't need to ask anybody else, because he really, he really is the guy that -- in the know, and the smart thinker, and all these things. So I'd probably call him for advice. I actually think he covered it very well. My sense of it, Chuck, is – my sense is that it is a fairly localized issue. The problem is that we live in a very emotional time where markets are emotional – the reference to social media as being an accelerator, if you will, of some of that emotion, I think is, can be problematic. But I hope that with the weekend came some calm and certainly some strategy as well. But there are so many unique things about Silicon Valley that aren't necessarily applicable systemically. So my hope is it's very localized and we can address it in that way.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you at all -- you know, in 2018, you were a member of the House, you were a co-sponsor of a repeal of part of Dodd-Frank that loosened some regulations on smaller banks. There are some that are pointing to that loosening, saying maybe that would’ve, that was something that perhaps would've prevented Silicon Valley Bank from putting themselves in this position. Do you think these smaller banks need more regulation, or less?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Yeah, I don’t – they certainly don't need any more regulation. That doesn't mean that you can be mismanaged. Now, we have to throw in the obvious – and I think you talked about it in the first segment – and that is the fact that we have seen a rather sharp increase, increase in interest rates, which have put some smaller banks at odds with their own balance sheet. And now, of course, we have the Federal Reserve trying to change its balance sheet at the same time. And perhaps we need to do a little more review of all of that. But I don't think smaller banks need more oversight and more regulation – maybe better oversight, but certainly not more regulation.
CHUCK TODD:
With all this volatility right now, is this the time to have a debt ceiling fight?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Yeah, no, it's a great point. We are living in, you know, pretty much a debt crisis right now. And it's not just about America’s, the government's debt ceiling, but many individuals have hit their own debt ceiling, and their savings accounts are being drained. And so we have kind of a crisis, if you will, on our hands that requires lots of things. We don't need to have a fight on debt ceiling, but this is why I think it's foolish for the president to simply say, "I'm not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling." This is the time to have a negotiation.
CHUCK TODD:
Is it, though?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
And do something in a –
CHUCK TODD:
I mean, is it better to just have --
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Sure, it is.
CHUCK TODD:
– a debate about the debt ceiling, don't mess with the economy right now, and then actually have a budget debate? Put out a budget and have two budgets and actually do it the old-fashioned way, not use the debt ceiling.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Well, the problem with the old-fashioned way is that it has eluded us now for a decade. I've been in Congress over a decade and I've never seen the old-fashioned way. We've never had regular order, as they call it.
CHUCK TODD:
Fair enough.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER
So I agree with you. We need to get back to that. But I think the debt ceiling situation is one of the opportunities to demand that, and maybe all get together and work, work with one another.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me turn to a couple political issues. Do you think the former president -- you were an early supporter of the former president. You haven't endorsed him yet for 2024. You've said you'd like to see somebody like him, and you haven't ruled out endorsing him. But if he is indicted – regardless of whether it's Manhattan or Atlanta or in Washington – do you think it's healthy for the party if he keeps running, or do you think he should step aside?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Sure. Well, first of all, Donald Trump's not going to take advice from the party or from me. But I think what will happen is if he's indicted, that becomes one of the factors in whether he wins the primaries or not. The other factor is who else is in the race and who can make the best case. Obviously, you've highlighted Governor DeSantis, who has certainly earned the right to be at the head of the class through -- not just through his political rhetoric, but through his successful governing of a very large state. And I think, you know, seeing him around the stump a little more now, doing the things that potential presidential candidates do, I think, will help that debate along. The challenge becomes if there are too many people in the race. And there are other good ones: Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo certainly, my friend Tim Scott would all be good candidates who understand the Trump doctrine but have a demeanor that's probably more suitable to the, to the swing voter. And at the end of the day, what's most important for primary voters to think about is not just who they love the most, but who can win for the country and who can win for the party. Because we're in desperate need of some new leadership at the top.
CHUCK TODD:
So you think electability should matter a little bit more than it usually does?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Well, I think it should always matter for primary voters, certainly. There's no, there’s no glory in losing spectacularly compared to winning humbly. So I'd rather see, I’d rather see a humble victory.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, I've got to ask you about January 6th because there were just two different reactions to what we saw this week. Tucker Carlson said on his air about January 6th that, "A small percentage of them were hooligans. They committed vandalism. But the overwhelming majority weren't. They were peaceful. They were orderly and meek. These were not insurrectionists. They were sightseers." And then Vice President Mike Pence last night to the Gridiron dinner said this: "Make no mistake about it. What happened that day was a disgrace. And it mocks decency to portray it any other way." Where do you come down – on Tucker Carlson's side or on Mike Pence's side?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Well, first of all, both sides can be right rhetorically, but the problem is, is a four-hour stroll through the Capitol that's marred by a half hour of rioting doesn't make it a peaceful protest. And nobody was supposed to be in the Capitol. So there's not a single person who's completely innocent of wrongdoing. But not everybody that day is at the same level of crime. Five hundred and eighteen, by the way, have confessed to committing crimes that day. Four hundred and twenty have been prosecuted and sentenced. So clearly, it wasn't a peaceful protest. That's not to say that the vast majority of them don't have regret, or they didn't understand the severity of what they were doing or the severity of what some other people are doing. I do think it's unfair to put them all in the same bucket. I've never felt like democracy is actually in trouble. We survived a Civil War. We're going to survive this as well. What frustrates me as much as anything, Chuck, is that we're talking about it again. Here we had the January 6th Commission wrap up its work –
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
– mostly people not caring or paying any attention. It was very partisan, to say the least. And here we were moving forward. We should be talking about the southern border, as you were discussing.
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
We should be talking about China and the challenge it possesses. And talking about inflation and a budget that drives up deficits forever. And those are, those are winning arguments for Republicans. Not re-litigating January 6th, 2020 or 2021.
CHUCK TODD:
You're a regular guest on Fox News. You've seen all this internal communications. Has it given you pause about how they conduct themselves with you?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Well, first of all, I don't confuse my job with anybody at Fox News, and least of all the entertainers in primetime. That's not to say they don't add some value. I don't confuse Tucker Carlson with Bret Baier, or Dana Perino, or Bill Hemmer any more than I confuse some of the MSNBC personalities with what you do on Sunday mornings. I just think that there's just way too much entertainment out there. What I do regret probably as much as anything about the release of the 41,000 hours is it was released to one person in primetime who is, you know, rather sensational in his approach. And rather than just releasing it to everybody. I think transparency absolutely is the best way to go. I think Kevin McCarthy's right to do it. I just wish he would've released it to everybody at the same time.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, neutral transparency. If you really wanted it, that's how you would've done it. Senator Cramer, Republican from North Dakota, really appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us. It's always, it’s always good.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Always my pleasure.
CHUCK TODD:
Thank you, sir.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, Donald Trump's biggest rival is meeting with voters in Iowa. Can he steal the spotlight from Trump?
[BEGIN TAPE]
GOV. RON DeSANTIS:
You can't just say, "Let it go," because then we're going to be living under an oppressive "wokeocracy," and we can't let that happen.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, panel is here: Marianna Sotomayor, congressional reporter for the Washington Post; Jonathan Martin, senior political columnist for Politico; Brendan Buck, former advisor to House Speakers Ryan and Boehner; and María Teresa Kumar, the president of Voto Latino. Look, I want to get into Iowa and the presidential stuff. However, I want to start very quickly with the banking crisis. María Teresa, you were just saying you were surprised you haven't seen Powell or Yellen out more forcefully already, Jay Powell, Federal Reserve chair.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
If you actually look at which bank this is, this is the Silicon Valley bank. This is a startup bank. This is also oftentimes the Democratic ATM bank of all those investors and so the fact that you don’t have – the investors that invest in the people – so the fact that you don't have someone actually talking from the administration and being so forceful, I do think that what we're going to see are Republicans saying, "Oh, you shouldn't bail this one out." And it's going to be, I think, very much along political lines.
CHUCK TODD:
What have you heard, Marianna? Like have they already been, where’s – are people wondering why the administration isn't-- because they've been, and I get it, the other argument is, "Hey, don’t – you don't want to come out too forcefully because it might create a new panic."
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:
Right. A lot of, especially House lawmakers that I know have been briefed on this. But they're still kind of trying to get together all the facts. "What should we do? How should we position ourselves?" And I think leaders are just also starting to get online about this. There hasn't been anything concrete yet as to even reactions, really, from a number of lawmakers, which is significant, right? I think they are not only just trying to understand what to say, but the issue at hand.
CHUCK TODD:
I think they're all just hoping that a big bank takes this bank over and takes all of this off of their hands. Because I know nobody wants to vote for a bailout. Let me turn to politics. We got a Des Moines Register poll, and what was interesting to me, Jonathan, was how everybody looked at it through the prism of what they want to have happen, right? So you look at Trump's numbers here. You can look at it one way and say, "Hey, Trump doesn't look as strong as he used to." In June 2021, his definitely/probably, number was a lot bigger than it is now. But when you look at his net favorable rating, you sit there and say, "Oh look, it's dropped from September '21 in Iowa. It's down from plus 84 to plus 62." And then when you put it in a ranking with the other candidates that were tested in this Des Moines register poll, Trump is plus 62 just below DeSantis. Those aren't weak numbers to me. They're just not as strong as they used to be. Trump doesn't look weak, does he?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
No, he's somebody who would win out there, but he wouldn't win by 30. He'd win by 15 in a divided race. And that's the key, of course, right? The numbers that weren't tested in that poll – I think all of us want to see is what's the head-to-head, Trump versus DeSantis. Especially if it's just those two, or at least a group of four or five. I think that's going to be the more revealing number. You know, for a race that seems to revolve around Donald Trump, I actually think the next six months are going to be more about DeSantis. And here's why. I think if he can prove his mettle, and it's clear that he is the alternative to Trump –
CHUCK TODD:
For now.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
– we're going to know that. And I think if that's the case, this race gets a lot more clear. It's more of a head-to-head race. If he's not that clear alternative, if he can't take a punch and throw a punch in a Republican primary – not against the left, not against the media – but in his own party, then it's going to be a more complicated race.
CHUCK TODD:
Brendan, you're nodding.
BRENDAN BUCK:
Yeah, I mean, look, Ron DeSantis is clearly the alternative. And the argument for anybody other than Ron DeSantis is pretty thin at this point. But he is very untested. And there is something that, I think, every successful candidate for the presidency in recent years has had something – i's called charisma. And we don't know if Ron DeSantis is able to connect with people yet. He obviously is able to animate the Republican base. But when you're running for president, you're under that spotlight. People want to see whether you have the emotional appeal. And Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, everybody had it. And it's unclear if he does. And when Donald Trump comes swinging at you, you're going to have to respond.
CHUCK TODD:
It is – I hate to bring that up. He doesn't pass the beer test, DeSantis, right? He just doesn't, right? The, you know – George W. Bush, and people used to make fun of that, but to some people, that matters.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
Absolutely. Well, and it's also about likability, and that's what we're getting at. But, you know, oftentimes people say that DeSantis is a strong opponent to the Democrats because he is where woke goes to die. And the challenge that he doesn't realize is that woke is what got Americans ACA. Woke is what basically wants to make sure that people have gay marriage. Woke is what gives women agency over their bodies. Woke is making sure that a child in their classroom is not as fearful that they're not going to lose their life. And that is actually a juxtaposed to what the majority of Americans actually want.
CHUCK TODD:
It sounds like you think Democrats should retake woke and fight for it, rather than sort of ignore the attacks.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
Right. I mean, corporations actually want woke, right? They don't want a DeSantis regulating what they can and cannot say. Look at what's happening with Disney right now. And this is an opportunity for them not only to reclaim it, but to recognize that it is actually their strength. It is what got Joe Biden to the White House because it animated not just women, but it animated a whole generation of young people.
CHUCK TODD:
This woke issue, Marianna, it's the only thing that keeps Republicans united, whatever it means.
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:
Oh yeah, exactly. I mean, you ask them, "What does woke mean?" and they really can't give you a firm answer just because what does woke mean, right? And I think the interesting thing about DeSantis, too, is yes, he's been able to do all of these things in Florida, but the closest lesson we have is the midterms, where we saw in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, key swing states, a lot of Republicans or Republicans who went independent or even moderate Republicans saying, "I don't want Trump. I don't want someone who's acting like Trump. I just completely reject this extremism." Which, to your point, Democrats are totally looking forward to have that debate and frame both of them.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, and that's the question. I don't know if DeSantis is going to be talking to swing voters. Here's one of the things he said in Vegas yesterday. Take a listen to this.
[BEGIN TAPE]
GOV. RON DeSANTIS:
We're also the first state in the country to establish every November 10th, the day in our schools is earmarked, to teach our students at all grade levels about the evils of Communist regimes throughout history. We're going to tell the truth about Marxism and Leninism.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
You know, Jonathan, it's sort of like, look, being a Floridian, I sort of know what he's trying to --
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Who he's talking to there.
CHUCK TODD:
What he's trying to play there and all of that. But I would tell him, I went to Florida public schools. You know, we were taught this, it was called history. It just seems like a weird politicizing, you know, he's going out of his way to politicize something.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
But, Chuck, you said it, right? Donald Trump is to Democrats what wokeism is to the GOP. It is the singular, cohesive unifying force, okay? The backlash to the perceived excess of the left – which is basically what wokism is, okay – is what galvanizes the GOP right now. It's not any policy agenda. It's that. So of course, he's playing into that. Here's something, I was talking to voters and donors alike about DeSantis, which is going to help him, they want him to be the guy. They're almost grading him on a curve because they so want this to work. They almost want to will this to be the real deal against Trump. And that helps him because even if he goes to Iowa and he's not great on the rope line, they still want it to happen, right?
CHUCK TODD:
You know, Brendan, I am curious. You know, there was a cocoon of protectors around Obama when Hillary attacked him in '08. Will there be a cocoon of protectors of DeSantis if Trump comes after him?
BRENDAN BUCK:
And Jonathan and I were talking about this earlier. He is the one person, when Donald Trump swings at him, that people are like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa."
JONATHAN MARTIN:
It hits different, yeah.
BRENDAN BUCK:
If he hits Mitch McConnell, or if he hits Nikki Haley--
CHUCK TODD:
They don't care, yeah.
BRENDAN BUCK:
– it's, "Oh, that's pretty funny." But if you hit Ron DeSantis it's like, "Whoa, we don't hit other Republicans." It's like, "Since when?" Yeah, that speaks to something, as Jonathan said. People are rooting for him. Whether that is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing for him is an issue.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
And real fast, watch for group hard liners in the House to come out for DeSantis and give him some insulation on the right to protect against Trump.
CHUCK TODD:
Interesting.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
I would say that the only Republican voter that really matters on DeSantis and Trump is Rupert Murdoch. And you actually see Fox News --
CHUCK TODD:
You might not be wrong.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
– pivoting to DeSantis.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Is he a voter?
CHUCK TODD:
They've tried it before. We'll see if they can pull it off. Up next, what's the over/under? Well, as March Madness approaches, we're going to look at how much money is at stake for the growing sports betting market in this country, and just how it's now starting to become a real funding source for state governments.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, Data Download time. Today is not just any Sunday, it is Selection Sunday, when the NCAA names the 68 teams that are going to play in the upcoming college basketball tournament. But what you may not realize these days is when you throw a couple of bucks into your office March Madness bracket pool, you're contributing to what has now become a multi-billion-dollar industry, thanks in part to the growing number of states that have made sports betting legal. It has been transformational over the last few years. Already, just in the – just on this NCAA tournament, the expectation is $10 billion is going to be wagered just on March Madness. Fifty-two percent of folks will be making some form of an online wager now. And by the way, for the first time, it looks like this year legal revenue from gambling, $6 billion, is going to outnumber the illegal revenue from gambling. Why? Because since 2018 when the Supreme Court said states could have sports gambling, 36 states have legalized it already. And it is all over the country. It is red, it is blue, if you look at it. There's been no political trend, if you will. The states that don't have legalized betting yet, just about all of them are going to try to get it. Maybe Utah and Hawaii might be the only two states over the next decade that don't actually make a serious attempt at it. And if you want to look at how states have already benefited, check this out: For the first time, in 2022, state tax revenue from sports gambling crossed the billion dollar threshold. Now the real question for state lawmakers, is this going to be revenue that they add to improve schools and roads? Or is it revenue that they use to replace – in order to replace revenue and it doesn't really help the state in the long run? We'll find out. And sports gambling has led to gambling on other issues. The Oscars can actually be something you bet on in a smaller number of states. Six of them allow it for tonight: Colorado, Louisiana, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts. So if you have a favorite actor, you can throw a couple bucks on them as well. And speaking of Hollywood, politics and Hollywood have often been intertwined. Donald Trump is just the latest celebrity to leverage the power of his fame to launch a successful political career. Well, in 2004, during his first appearance on Meet the Press as governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger talked about how his experience as an actor helped him sell his policies as governor.
[BEGIN TAPE]
TIM RUSSERT:
Ronald Reagan said that you can't be a good president without being a good actor. Do you believe that your background and training as an actor has helped you as governor in Sacramento?
GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER:
I think one of the things in acting that you learn is how to sell, how to promote things. And because you go always on those promotion tours and you try to sell tickets for your movies and all those things. So I think it is the same thing. In order for you to get any kind of a program going in your state or in your country, you have to go out and you have to communicate with the people. The better you can communicate with the people, the more that you can let them know of what you're trying to accomplish in the state. The more you can connect with the people, the better it is and the more they will vote for your program.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, President Biden's new immigration policy is dividing Democrats. But are his new rules working?
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. This week, Marianna, the – we have this border debate about immigration. And then Americans get killed literally a mile over the border. And it's one of those things – you know, I had talked with a senior national security official about a few weeks ago who said, "You know, northern Mexico is perhaps the most – one of the most dangerous places on the globe right now. No different than a Syria that you have, and that there is parts of Mexico that are not governed by the Mexican government." What do we do as America?
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:
Yeah, I mean, that is the question. And I'll be honest, I haven't heard Republicans or Democrats necessarily on Capitol Hill talk about this specific issue. And a big reason why, I mean, honestly, any House Democrat, House Republican, Senate, they will say that just tackling the border and immigration generally is probably the most politically toxic issue for each party.
CHUCK TODD:
Nobody wants it.
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR:
Nobody wants it. And you do have this new generation of Latino Republicans who genuinely want to do something, who are calling out their party and saying, "I'm living this every day. I represent the border. We need to do something about this." But people – I mean we've all lived through immigration attempts, how they've gotten so close. And obviously this is a different scenario. But I don't necessarily think it's going to add that much pressure on Congress to act and do something about it.
CHUCK TODD:
And it's – and it’s a separate issue, but it is linked, María Teresa.
MARÍATERESA KUMAR:
Well, this is what's wild. If you can believe, I think we sat at this table almost ten years, ten years ago when we were talking about the Gang of Eight. It is the ten-year anniversary of this, of this domestic policy issue of what to do with the 11 million people here who are undocumented. And we allowed it to be conflated with what's happening at the southern border. And it's time for the administration to recognize that we have two issues. We have 11 million undocumented, who are married – who are married and who live in mixed-status households, who will vote on this issue. But then you also have what's happening at the border, which is a Western Hemispheric issue. It is some time for us actually to start paying attention to Latin America. It's been almost 25 years that we haven't. But you know who's paying attention to Latin America? Russia and China. Russia has invested and has military in Nicaragua right now. We have, we have China, who's actually invested close to --
CHUCK TODD:
Belt and Road, yeah.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
– half a billion dollars in infrastructure in Central America. And so the more that we look over the Atlantic on what's happening over in Ukraine, we actually say, "What is our domestic policy and international democracy building here at home?"
CHUCK TODD:
You know, and the other complicating factor, Brendan, is that even if you want to get tough on the cartels, if the Mexican government doesn't want to get tough on the cartels there's not much you can do. And it really, I think, does, I think this is why, as Marianna said, there's been almost not much said because you can do the finger pointing game, the real problem is AMLO.
BRENDAN BUCK:
Yeah, it's a political problem. It's also a real policy problem that's not easy to solve. And I think you make a great point, that we've, we’ve long sort of held off on seriously addressing either one of these issues, for hoping there will be some kind of grand bargain. I think we need to realize the grand bargain's not in the offering any time soon. And so you do need to address the border. And I think Democrats, candidly, have been a little behind the curve on this politically for a long time. This is an issue that absolutely sets independents on fire. We know it sets Republicans on fire.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
BRENDAN BUCK:
And they just seem to have a blind spot. The border is a serious issue. It's only getting worse. And I think Joe Biden is probably recognizing it now, but the problem is so bad that it might not be – it may not be easy to resolve.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
Well, they've have some --
CHUCK TODD:
By the way, Bob Menendez called him -- that was a tough --
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
That was tough.
CHUCK TODD:
What did you think of that?
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
That was tough because he was basically dangling what --
CHUCK TODD:
“Asylum Denier-in-Chief.”
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
“Asymum Denier –” because he was dangling what the left had said to Obama, that he was – that Obama was a “Deporter-in-Chief.” So that was not a small --
CHUCK TODD:
Obama won reelection.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
He won. But I think to what you're saying --
CHUCK TODD:
I mean, isn't that the --
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
Yes, but I do think that the administration recognizes the vulnerability of Latin America. It's one of the reasons why you know Kamala Harris -- the vice president has invested close to $3.5 billion. But the most important part is we have to divorce these two issues because there -- what we're finding in our polling is that among young Latinos, who are 35% of the voter base, it's a top three issue, immigration is for them.
CHUCK TODD:
Immigration, and --
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
Because it's their parents.
CHUCK TODD:
– and they separated it from the border issue.
MARÍA TERESA KUMAR:
Right, absolutely.
CHUCK TODD:
Right, it's a different thing. Real quick.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
But the Senate – tomorrow you can probably find 60-plus votes for a fairly comprehensive bill addressing immigration, if you had some compromise on both, right? You find a gang, Sinema and Tillis to do it. The problem is Kevin McCarthy is never going to bring up any immigration compromise bill because effectively he'd be turning over his speakership.
CHUCK TODD:
But we all know what would happen in the Republican primary. So he’s -- there is, there is something there. But we're going to pause this there. Before we go, my colleague Lester Holt is going to be sitting down with the new Prime Minister of the U.K., Rishi Sunak. It's his first American network interview. Get to know the new British prime minister by tuning in Monday on Nightly News with Lester Holt. That's all for today. Thanks for watching. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.