CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: risk management. After the collapse of two U.S. banks, Washington moves in to stop a widening panic.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
Americans can rest assured that our banking system is safe.
CHUCK TODD:
But did the government's actions actually make the system healthier? I'll ask Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Plus: close encounters. A Russian fighter jet collides with a U.S. drone over the Black Sea.
GEN. MARK MILLEY:
We know that the intercept was intentional. We know that the aggressive behavior was intentional.
CHUCK TODD:
As tensions escalate, Vladimir Putin gets ready to welcome Chinese President Xi Jinping at what could be a pivotal moment for the war, while the GOP's top 2024 candidates no longer see supporting Ukraine as a vital national security interest.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The greatest threat to western civilization today is not Russia. It’s probably, more than anything else, ourselves.
CHUCK TODD:
Is the party of Ronald Reagan now embracing isolationism? I'll ask Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota. And: a call for protests. Former President Donald Trump claims he will be arrested and calls on his supporters to protest as he faces the possibility of an indictment in New York City. As his legal threats grow, Trump tries to use this case about hush money and an affair to distract from the more serious charges he faces in Washington and Georgia.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
The prosecutor in New York has done more to help Donald Trump get elected president than any single person.
CHUCK TODD:
Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News White House Correspondent Carol Lee, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, former Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo and New York Times Chief White House correspondent Peter Baker. 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. Brace yourself, folks. It is going to be a whirlwind of a week. It starts with the Russian president. He's hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow. It’s a pivotal moment in the war. That meeting’s on Monday. China is considering whether to arm Russia because Russia is in desperate need of munitions for the war. TikTok’s CEO, under pressure from the Biden administration, which is threatening to fully ban the world's most popular app in this country, will be testifying on the Hill this week. And already former President Donald Trump is attempting to create a circus-like atmosphere, hijack the media narrative, calling for protests ahead of what is an expected indictment sometime this week. It would be the first indictment of a former U.S. president in American history. But we're going to begin with the economy. Three years ago this week, we probably need a little perspective here, folks, the world began a complete shutdown. Countries began sealing their borders and “social distancing” became a catchphrase. This impacted our economy. Three years later, after 760 million reported Covid cases worldwide, nearly 7 million deaths from the virus, we'd all like to memory hole Covid. But the fallout has been impossible to ignore. Forty-seven percent of Americans admit it. They say their lives will never return to pre-pandemic normal, according to Gallup. Inflation, of course, has been a big fallout from this shutdown, and it remains stubborn. Government data on Tuesday showed that prices continued to rise in February. The Fed, trying to slow the economy gradually to curb inflation, has been raising rates at one of the fastest rates in decades, pulling back on so-called “easy money policies.” Supply chain has been slow to recover, the unemployment rate is super low – 3.6%. But millions dropped out of the workforce. Labor force participation rate is well off pre-pandemic highs, and we have a labor shortage because of our strict immigration policies in this country. And now the U.S. economy, which has remained resilient despite all of these challenges, is facing this new test: a crisis in the banking sector after the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. On Monday, ratings agency Moody's cut its overall outlook for our banking system from stable to negative. Markets had a volatile week, down on Friday as regional bank stocks continue to slide. The Fed is also going to be meeting this week, and they're gonna be considering another rate hike. Washington is divided, though, about what right now can be done to stem this crisis.
PRES. BIDEN:
I’m going to ask Congress and the banking regulators to strengthen the rules for banks, to make it less likely this kind of bank failure would happen again.
SPEAKER KEVIN MCCARTHY:
It seems as though the regulators didn't do their job. I don't know that it needs new legislation.
CHUCK TODD:
And joining me now is Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. She is a member of the Senate Banking Committee, and frankly has been warning of something like this happening after the 2008 decision to roll back some of these regulations on mid-size banks. Senator Warren, welcome back to Meet The Press.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Thank you. Good to be here.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me just start with a big picture question. Last week you seemed to believe we were out of the woods. Do you still feel that way this weekend? I saw some disturbing news about Credit Suisse. It's going to have to be, essentially, ended. We got more mid-size banks, can't find buyers. Is the contagion contained or not?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Well, can we just start, though – let's roll this back just a little bit about what went wrong. Remember, Gary Becker and the other CEOs of these multi-billion dollar banks came to Washington back in 2016, said, "Lighten the regulations on us." Donald Trump ran for president saying, "I will lighten the regulations on these big banks." He gets put in and he puts in bank regulators who lightened the regulations. He then goes to Congress and says to Congress, "Give them the authority to lighten the regulations even more." And Congress, with help from both parties, obliged him. Then Jerome Powell just took a flamethrower to the regulations, weakened them, weakened them, weakened them, weakened dozens of the regulations. And then the CEOs of the banks did exactly what we expected. They loaded up on risk that boosted their short-term profits. They gave themselves huge bonuses and salaries and exploded their banks. So the problem we now face is twofold, as you describe this. What are we going to do to make sure that the banks across the system are stable? That is, these big banks. The little community banks, they're doing great. But these banks that are multi-billion dollar banks, how are we going to make sure that they are stable and that we've got a set of rules in place going forward that will keep them safe? So I want to see an independent investigation. Fed doesn't just get to investigate itself. I want to see us make a change in the laws, roll back the rollbacks to put tougher regulations in place. And we finally need to step in and say, "These bank CEOs, we've got to align them so that there are clawbacks, they're giving up on these big salaries, and they don't get to go into banking again if they explode a bank." So that's how I see the overall system right now.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay. But what about in the moment? How concerned are you about this --
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
In the moment.
CHUCK TODD:
-- about this unraveling on us in the next couple of weeks?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Well, in the moment we've got the federal government obviously taking extraordinary action. They've done it to back up depositors. And I think it's fair to say that depositors should be able to take a pretty deep breath. The federal government has indicated there's going to be a lot of protections for you. But we have to worry about how much risk is in these multi-billion dollar banks because it's perfectly clear that these regulators were asleep at the switch.
CHUCK TODD:
And I want to get to that, I mean, because, you know, there's some Republican lawmakers that are arguing, "Look, the 2018 law itself didn't tell the Fed not to regulate these banks.” That essentially if they wanted to be on top of them they still could. Where do you fall on that? Is this more on the Fed or more on the law that was repealed?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
It's both, and. Because what the law specifically said is, "Here's regulations you've got to roll back, but mostly the door is wide open to roll back those regulations." And do you know how I know that is exactly what the effect of the law was? Because Jerome Powell said so. He stood up after the law was passed and he said, "Woah," that he was going to weaken a whole slate of regulations and why? It's in the same sentence. "Because Congress just told me to." So there's plenty of working together to weaken regulations. And look, that's why now what we need to do is we need to go back and take that provision that we passed in 2018 and just roll it back out and say, "No, the Fed doesn't get that ability to just go to sleep when they have ultimate supervisory responsibilities over these multi-billion dollar banks."
CHUCK TODD:
Last fall you had written a letter to Fed Chair Jay Powell, you and a lot of the lawmakers concerned about the rapid rise of interest rates. At the time you didn't mention --
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
-- the impact potentially on banking investments, and perhaps there's no reason you should have --
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
No.
CHUCK TODD:
-- at the time. You were more concerned about his intended goal of raising the rates. Considering another rate hike is on the table, do you think it would send a bad message to the economy that maybe our banks are unstable if he doesn't keep on this path? Or do you think he should keep going if that is his intent and raise a quarter point?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
No, I do not think he should raise rates. But look, I want full disclosure here. I've been in the camp for a long time that these extraordinary rate increases that he has taken on, these extreme rate increases, are something that he should not be doing.
CHUCK TODD:
Why?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
And the reason for that is, well, twofold. The first is to remind Chair Powell he has a dual mandate. Yes, he is responsible for dealing with inflation, but he is also responsible for employment. And what Chair Powell is trying to do, and he has said fairly explicitly, is that they are trying to, in effect, slow down the economy so that, this is by the Fed's own estimate, two million people will lose their jobs. And I believe that is not what the chair of the Federal Reserve should be doing. I want to make a second point on inflation as well though. There are other drivers of the cost increase. For example, price gouging, supply chain kinks, the war in Ukraine. Raising interest rates doesn't do anything to solve those problems. All it does, at least by the way the chair wants to do this, is put millions of people out of work. I opposed Chair Powell for his initial nomination but his renomination – I opposed him because of his views on regulation and what he was already doing to weaken regulation. But I think he's failing in both jobs, both as the oversight and manager of these big banks, which is his job, and also what he's doing with inflation.
CHUCK TODD:
You were a big fan of Paul Volcker. And in fact I think at one time you wanted to see Volcker --
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
I was--
CHUCK TODD:
-- be brought back as chairman of the Fed. You know, you talk to Chairman Powell and he'll say he's essentially following the Volcker model here to tame inflation. Why do you see it as different this time?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Actually he's not. And he's not following the same model. If you go back and look at the data on the slope of rate increases to get inflation under control, start with the fact that Volcker started when inflation was much higher and unemployment was much higher. And he still did it on a more tempered slope, which meant the economy could adjust as it went along. It meant lenders could adjust. It meant that overall you could kind of let this absorb. The rate at which Jay Powell has increased interest is unlike anything in modern history. And maybe it shouldn't surprise anybody that things start to break when you take these extreme steps.
CHUCK TODD:
At this point, I am curious, do you think -- it sounds like we are never going to let a bank fail. Is that a mistake? Is it okay for banks to fail?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
You know, I always want to start in this area with the resentment that our community banks feel. The regulators for years have let them fail, and they really have to bear the consequences if their balance sheets are not solid. Now, fortunately right now their balance sheets are very solid. They know their business, and they're in a secure place. But these multi-billion dollar banks, I think the thing that just downright offends me is that Gary Becker and these other CEOs were coming to Washington telling Donald Trump, telling the Republicans, telling Congress they pose no risk. They should be treated just like those small community banks that know their communities and don't take on much risk. And look, these are guys who figured out they could make a lot of money by loading up on risk. Look at just the piece on inflation. They made the bet that inflation would stay at historic lows forever. Now, why? Not because they're not smart. They made that bet because it cost money to hedge that bet, and that would've bitten into profits. And that would've bitten into the bonuses they got. So that means – this is why I have to underscore this – for these big banks that could take down the banking system, that could take down a lot of small businesses and medium-size businesses, we've got to have tough regulators. That means – and I'm going to say it again – we've got to have an independent investigation. Powell needs to turn around the regulations that are in place right now. Congress needs to step up and roll back the changes that were made in 2018, and we need to hold these CEOs accountable. That's how we have a safe and secure banking system.
CHUCK TODD:
It's pretty clear you don't have confidence in Jay Powell. Do you think the president should fire him?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Look, my views on Jay Powell are well-known at this point. He has had two jobs. One is to deal with monetary policy, one is to deal with regulation. He has failed at both.
CHUCK TODD:
Right. Would you advise President Biden to replace him?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Look, I don't think he should be Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I have said it as publicly as I know how to say it. I've said it to everyone.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. A couple of quick, other topics. A TikTok ban. There is some thought of trying to pass this in a way, this RESTRICT Act, that essentially would target companies like Tiktok that have relationships with a perceived enemy like the Chinese Communist Party. Where are you on that?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
So look, there are two parts to this for me. One is the question about ties to the Chinese government. We got problems with a lot of companies with ties to the Chinese government. We should certainly take a close look at that. That's what CFIUS is about. We should be careful with that. But the other is the question of privacy overall about the information that's being gathered about individuals and how that information is being used. For example, here we are in the wake of Roe v. Wade being repealed. Texas, putting a $10,000 bounty on people who help someone perform or get access to an abortion. What kind of information is being collected off people's telephones? And how is that information being sold to others? This is a much bigger problem that Congress needs to look into. Calling this a TikTok problem by itself I think really misses the elephant in the room here.
CHUCK TODD:
And very quickly, a lot of progressives not happy with some recent moves by the Biden administration. Immigration is one of them. The DC crime bill is another one. But the one that, that I think, perhaps, some people see a lot of cynicism behind is the decision to approve a massive new drilling project in the Arctic. What do you make of these moves by President Biden? Are you supportive of them? Or how critical are you of them?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
No, you just named three in a row that I oppose. I thought they were wrong, I said so publicly. I’ve written letters about them –
CHUCK TODD:
What do you think the motive is behind them?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
On the other hand – look, I – I want to be clear though. Joe Biden and I don’t agree on everything, but I’m really glad he’s President of the United States. In the middle of this banking crisis, he’s kept a steady hand. He’s done the things that keep us safe, and I appreciate that. He also is someone that has really pushed hard – look at our latest budget he’s put out. He’s said to the Republicans: “You guys want to say you want to bring down the national debt? I know how to do that. And that is make the wealthy and the well-connected pay their fair share.” He said he wants to put money into universal childcare and lifting children out of poverty. And he’s already delivered the biggest climate package in the history of the world – and now, watch a special smile from me – paid for by my 15 percent minimum corporate tax on billionaire corporations. So, he’s got a lot that he’s gotten done, he’s got a lot that he’s doing. We don’t agree on everything, but boy, I’m glad he’s president.
CHUCK TODD:
You don’t think these moves demoralize any of his supporters, his more progressive supporters?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
Look, whenever someone's not doing whatever it is any one of us wants to see them do, of course, you stay in the fight and you try to persuade them about the rightness of your position. You try to urge them to find other ways to accomplish their goals. But to protect our lands, to protect our nation, to protect our economy, we need a president to do that. And I'm grateful to President Biden for as much as he's done.
CHUCK TODD:
Elizabeth Warren, Democratic senator from Massachusetts, appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us. Good to see you.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN:
You bet. Thank you for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, with Ron DeSantis joining Donald Trump in questioning the importance of Ukraine to the American national interest, it's worth asking: Is the party of Ronald Reagan now embracing isolationism? I'll talk to Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. The Republican Party's rapid shift toward isolationism accelerated this week after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis decided to align himself directly with Donald Trump on the issue of Ukraine. And he did so by sending a statement to FOX's Tucker Carlson, who has been a huge critic of this war. "While the U.S. has many vital national interests," he writes to Tucker Carlson, "becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them." DeSantis' statement comes after Vladimir Putin prepares to host Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow. The meeting begins tomorrow. And it's a week when a Russian fighter jet intentionally intercepted a U.S. drone, and it forced it down into the Black Sea. Republican hawks have hit back at the DeSantis comment. Senator Lindsey Graham even told The New York Times, quote, "The Neville Chamberlain approach to aggression never ends well," comparing DeSantis to the infamous British prime minister who famously appeased Hitler. In Iowa on Saturday Former Vice President Mike Pence also weighed in.
[START TAPE]
FMR. VICE PRES. MIKE PENCE:
The war in Ukraine is not a territorial dispute. It is a Russian invasion. Anybody that thinks Vladimir Putin is going to stop if he takes Ukraine has, what we say in this part of this country, another thing comin’.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Well, joining me now is Republican senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota. He happens to sit on two committees that are pretty front and center right now of the topics we're discussing today: Arms Services and Banking. Senator Rounds, welcome back to Meet The Press.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
Hey, thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start actually with a quick banking-related question. It's a similar question I asked Senator Warren. Are we out of the woods in the next few weeks? Before we debate the longer-term issue of investigating and new regulation, are we currently out of the woods or not? The weekend's headlines seem to indicate we may not be.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
Yeah, my, my personal take on it is that it may take a couple of months to work its way through the system. I think we're going to be moving in the right direction. I did agree with what the Fed did and the Treasury did over the weekend to stop the bleeding, so to speak, on the immediate aftermath. But longer-term I think a lot of our regional banks and the smaller banks in particular are going to want some reassurances that they're going be able to compete with the big ones, the big five. And so I think it's going to take a couple of months for consumers outside to recognize that all of these banks are stable.
CHUCK TODD:
Should we – is it okay to let a bank fail?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
You know, let's think about this for just a second. When we talk about allowing a bank to fail, if – it's one thing to say, "it's okay to allow the owners of a bank to lose their resources." It's another thing to say that, "the depositors should necessarily be allowed to lose their deposits." That's the reason why we begin with a quarter of a million dollars in protection. Perhaps that's not enough. You know, we started at $200,000 a few years ago. We bumped it to $250,000 per deposit. Then the question is, is whether or not that's still appropriate as things rise, as we have inflation, and so forth. Should we bump that up? The other piece is, is whether or not within the commercial marketplace, and among the banks themselves, can they arrange for things such as interest rates swaps and so forth? Can they use those to actually protect themselves a little bit better? Kind of like buying reinsurance on those accounts. So I think among them there are some tools out there. The real question is, is whether or not all of the banks are taking advantage of the tools available to them right now –
CHUCK TODD:
Are you at all concerned though by protecting all these deposits we're sending the message to the real high-stakes private equity folks that, "you know what? We'll always back you up even if you’re – make a stupid bet"?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
No. Look, and that's a really good question, but you have to remember that because of Dodd-Frank to begin with we've identified that there are a group of banks, the very largest, that we've identified as being too big to fail. And they are significant to the entire financial services of the United States, and therefore it is, it is suggested very strongly that we won't let them fail. Now the question is, is does that mean that they should have a competitive advantage over small and medium-size banks when it comes to trying to lure depositors in? We want to make sure that the tools are available for those smaller banks to be able to spread the risk and so that if a depositor comes in, and a lot of businesses will have more than a quarter of a million dollars in their accounts, when they do, should they be able to be assured that there are commercial products available that the banks are availing themselves to so that they can actually spread that risk out And those depositors then know that they're safe in the smaller regional banks and that they don't have to move their deposits to a bank that may very well have challenges because they're so large, but that they have the backing of the federal government behind them. They’re a SIFI. And I want to make sure that we don't skewer the competition between the very largest banks and those very, very needed medium and small banks that really do the vast majority of the commercial lending in the small communities across the entire United States.
CHUCK TODD:
Seems pretty clear to me you do not believe that the 2018 rollback of medium-size bank regulation was a mistake. So do you blame regulators for not overseeing this bank better?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
Well, let's go back in and just make it clear that this was a liquidity problem with regard to the failure at – with SVB right now. It was not a capital problem. And when we talk about the liquidity problems on it, even if you would've had the liquidity requirements that would have been there before 2155, the – what we did in 2018, this bank would have qualified already. There would not have been a change in terms of what happened. And even if, even if they would have failed the test, which they would not have, but even if they would have failed the test at that time under Dodd-Frank, they still would have simply purchased more of those long-term treasuries and been solid again. So, no, it's very, very clear that the portions of 2155 that was done in 2018 did not impact this particular issue. The real question is why didn't the managers at SVB take advantage of a lot of the tools that were available to spread the risk out? Why, why did they use interest rate swaps for a period of time and then basically for the year previous to their failure they quit using them? And why did they not have a chief risk officer in place from April until December? Why didn't they have a CFO that was operational during the previous year? Those are the types of things that the investigations should focus on. And then, whether or not the actual auditing organizations, the folks responsible, the California Banking Commission and the San Francisco Fed, did they do the audits appropriately? Were they providing adequate oversight?
CHUCK TODD:
Okay. Let me move to what I started our conversation with in introducing you, and that was Governor DeSantis' designation of the war between Russia and Ukraine as a territorial dispute. Do you agree with him?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
Look, I don't think it's a territorial dispute. While he may be taking territory, and it's technically accurate to say that there's territory being taken, this is bigger than that for us. I focus on what our major issues are. And number one, China is our near-peer competitor. They are our focus right now. Russia is right behind them. But in this particular case you have a couple of items that bring it all together in the big picture. Number one, when we pulled out of Afghanistan the way that we did that sent a message to both Xi Jinping and to Putin that we were withdrawing from the international scene and that maybe they could test the waters about whether or not we would actually exercise our capabilities internationally in the future. So taking out the issue of Afghanistan, and then moving into the fact that Putin now tests the waters by walking in or attempting to take over a sovereign state right next to them that we had back in 1995 agreed that they would have sovereignty over that specific part of the land. Well, Xi Jinping looks at that and says, ‘I'm going to watch this very carefully’ because Xi Jinping would like Taiwan. And he's already committed that one way or another he's going to get it back. He wants to see how we respond and whether or not we can keep our allies together, whether or not NATO stays together, or whether or not it strengthens NATO. So this is a bigger picture than just territory.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think --
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
And this is --
CHUCK TODD:
-- the governor is misinformed --
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
-- something that I think we have to stand strong on.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think he's misinformed or --
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
I'm not sure --
CHUCK TODD:
-- simply playing primary politics here?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
Well, I think primary politics may very well have something to do with it. But I think it's also a matter of looking at the big picture. And I'm not exactly sure yet, because I haven't seen the entire interview, if perhaps part of it was taken out of context in terms of how does that measure compared to other issues. And do you look at the border as a big issue? Do you look at the economy as a big issue? Do you look at China as a big issue? And do you try to separate those out? I just think that what's going on in Ukraine can't be separated out from the major issues surrounding the United States' relationship with China.
CHUCK TODD:
Unlike yourself, Governor DeSantis rarely allows reporters to ask follow-up questions. It was unfortunately in a statement to an infotainer. Let me ask you about former President Trump and his call for protesters to the Manhattan courthouse next week. You think that's appropriate behavior?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
To begin with, let me make it clear there's a difference between the former president and what he did on January 6th as the president of the United States and his call for support at the Capitol, versus an individual person, today, asking people to show up to protest if he is indicted. And recognizing that I'm assuming that you're talking about the possibility of an indictment, which has not yet --
CHUCK TODD:
We have no idea --
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
-- happened.
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
And second of all, we don't know what the indictments would be. So we're kind of getting into some grounds in which we're making some assumptions that we don't have a whole lot of --
CHUCK TODD:
Well, he made --
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
-- the facts on yet --
CHUCK TODD:
-- the assumptions.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
It might be better to ask those same questions --
CHUCK TODD:
No --
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
-- later on.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that. Are you at all concerned though that this only adds to distrust? You know, it's sort of almost he's fomenting the distrust.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
Yeah. Look, I don't know if he's fomenting distrust or not, but clearly we don't know whether or not this is actually going to happen. We don't know whether or not there's actually going to be an indictment. Clearly, he's following some leaks, apparently that are coming out of a DA's office that should not happen. But most certainly you don't want to have any threats towards the implementation or the attempt to implement justice. And that's something that you always have to take seriously, whether it's from an individual person or a former president of the United States.
CHUCK TODD:
I'm just curious, have you ever had second thoughts about your decision not to vote to convict after January 6th with former President Trump?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
It's very clear in the Constitution, in the way that the Founding Fathers had laid that out that you were looking at whether or not an individual was the president of the United States or was just an individual. At the time of that trial, Mr. Trump at that time was an individual. He was not the president of the United States. Founding Fathers clearly did not want indictments to start on former presidents. They didn't want that to happen. They saw it going on in England at the time. And most certainly they don't want, and they didn't feel that it was appropriate to go back in and find former officers of the United States and impeach them.
CHUCK TODD:
You could have barred him from ever running for office again. That was the point of that exercise.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
Actually, the idea behind an impeachment is to take away the shield of office. That's all it does. After that other things can occur. But, but – and right now the shield of office is gone, and now it's up to the courts.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Mike Rounds, Republican Senator from South Dakota, former Governor of South Dakota as well. It's always good to get your perspective on here. Thanks for coming on and sharing it. Good to see you.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, President Trump says he expects to be arrested, and he's calling on his supporters to protest. Why's he doing it? What does he think he gets out of this? Panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Panel is here: NBC News White House Correspondent Carol Lee; Peter Baker, the Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times; former Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo of Florida; and Jen Psaki, who is here on the debut of the host of her show, Inside with Jen Psaki. It launches today at noon after you watch this show, of course, on MSNBC and streaming on Peacock. Welcome, and congrats --
JEN PSAKI:
Thank you so much.
CHUCK TODD:
-- formally. Very exciting. And thanks for doing a little pre-game with us. Carol, I want to start with what the former president is up to. This was a strategic decision. This is a campaign strategy, you know. They don't keep it a secret. They know -- they believe focusing on this Manhattan case will essentially trickle down -- sort of what the Steele dossier did to the Mueller investigation, they hope Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg does to the special council in Georgia. Is this the strategy?
CAROL LEE:
Yeah. That's exactly right. And we've seen this playbook before. It's pre -- trying to prebut -- set the tone, create the narrative. The former president stepping out, saying that he's going to be arrested on Tuesday, which his spokespeople then had to say no one's told them that. The president -- former president's gleaning this from news reports. And this is something, in talking to Republicans over the weekend, where they feel like this helps Trump -- gets him attention, gets him fundraising. It puts him out there in a way that -- where he's the victim and he, he gets his supporters riled up about this, but it hurts the party, which wants to talk about inflation and Joe Biden and crime and issues like that. And so once again, you're seeing Republicans having to answer this question of whether they feel like the president is being wrongfully targeted.
CHUCK TODD:
We're seeing him try to also hijack the press here a little bit, hijack the media narrative. He did it so well in '15. This is an interesting first test, Peter.
PETER BAKER:
It is. But, you know, let's just step back for a second. Like, traditionally politicians want to capture the media cycle by some remarkably good, successful thing, not the fact that they may be arrested.
CHUCK TODD:
Not this guy.
PETER BAKER:
The extraordinary thing --
(OVERTALK)
CHUCK TODD:
But this has always been the case with him.
PETER BAKER:
I know, right? You know, and yes, there's a tactical, you know, "Am I getting ahead of the curve? Am I going to appeal to my political base and everything?" Let's not forget that this might be the first time in American history that a former president has been indicted. Now, it's not for the big crime that a lot of his critics would like to have him charged with, which, of course, is January 6th and the effort to overturn an election. It seems small by comparison to that. But it may only be the first of many. And I think we’re in a -- the next two months are going to be really momentous potentially for our rule of the game when it comes to presidents and former presidents. What is accountability? How do we look like, the justice system? Do we look like it's partisan? How do we play it out? It's going to be a really important test of our system.
CHUCK TODD:
Carlos, it was an interesting bat signal, though, that he put out because it worked. Kevin McCarthy put out his own statement a couple hours later and he said this. "Here we go again. An outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA who lets violent criminals walk, as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump." And then he promises to have, essentially, an investigation of the investigators to see if there are politically-motivated prosecutions. He's getting the party leadership to support him. I mean, you didn't hear Mike Rounds doing it, but you do see these House Republicans doing it.
CARLOS CURBELO:
That's right, Chuck. This is the Trump trap, right? Republicans need to check the box, "appease Donald Trump," and then put some of their more vulnerable members in peril. I mean, this is good for the Trump base. And a lot of House Republicans for their primaries, of course, depend on that Trump base. But this is bad for those majority makers, right? And there are only five, really. I mean, it's a five-seat majority. So these members, I'm thinking people from South Florida, suburbs, Long Island, all over the country, I mean, they don't like this. This is a distraction, as you said, for the party. It's very harmful long-term. But, for Kevin McCarthy, someone who's had a little bit of an unstable situation in the House a few weeks ago, to --
CHUCK TODD:
You’re right.
CARLOS CURBELO:
-- his credit, I mean, the House has been --
JEN PSAKI:
Such a nice way of saying it.
CARLOS CURBELO:
-- relatively quiet for some time, but this is one of the ways that he guarantees that stability, by appeasing Trump.
CHUCK TODD:
Jen, you know, it's interesting. Alvin Bragg, there are some people who are going to claim that he was bullied into this. And then I can just see this inevitably, right? He was going to get blamed if he didn't do it. And there are going to be others that are going to blame him for ruining the other prosecutions, right? Like, no matter what, he seems to be in a no-win situation.
JEN PSAKI:
That's right. And Trump knows that, as everybody on this panel has been saying. And so, his statement yesterday, I mean, the surprising thing to me was not about, "I may be arrested on Tuesday," even though we now know that he doesn't know anymore than maybe we do, it's that he was sending a bat signal to his party. "Go after the DA. Let's create some manufactured outrage because we want to delegitimize him before he does anything at all." And a lot of people followed suit. Kevin McCarthy, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even Vice President Pence --
CHUCK TODD:
I saw that.
JEN PSAKI:
-- followed suit. And that's his whole goal. They're doing what he wanted them to do.
CHUCK TODD:
And ironically, to me the biggest development in the Republican presidential race had nothing to do with Donald Trump. And, Carol Lee, it had to do with Governor DeSantis aligning himself with the sort of isolationist wing of his party. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Paul Gigot and company, called it, "His first big mistake.” "Mr. DeSantis has sounded more hawkish notes on Russia in the past. And the press will play those up as contradictions." Wall Street Journal Editorial Page forgetting that it is press. This could become less a policy issue than a matter of character. What does Ron DeSantis believe anyway? It's a big moment.
CAROL LEE:
It is a big moment, Chuck. And if you look at it, it's the first time that Ron DeSantis has had to weigh in publicly on a national issue that's not related to his home state. And so it was a bit of a test. And Republicans, some of them privately say that – I mean, The Wall Street Journal says that publicly – but say that he failed the test. Trump-lite, essentially, doesn't work. And that he could've taken a position that would've set him apart, and he chose not to. And --
CHUCK TODD:
But Carlos --
CAROL LEE:
-- he's getting blow-back for it.
CHUCK TODD:
-- I'm going to put up these numbers here. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page may be part of the Republican establishment, but it is not where Republican voters are. On aid to Ukraine, Republicans are not divided on this. It's two-to-one that are done, that want to limit the amount of new funding and weapons to Ukraine here. What's going on in your party, Carlos?
CARLOS CURBELO:
Well, Chuck, but I think their point about credibility is valid. Ron DeSantis has been a hawk his entire career. He would come on the House floor. He would come to move letters, advocating for a muscular foreign policy, having the U.S. lead in places like the Middle East, Latin America. So now, you know, this sharp turn to the left, to the right, U-turn, whatever you want to call it, is strange. And it isn't believable. And by the way, if you want to beat Donald Trump in a Republican primary, you're not going to do it by being a cheap imitation of Donald Trump. Ron DeSantis has a record to run on. The state of Florida's doing well, you know, by many metrics. Yet, he's choosing to follow Donald Trump. And that just doesn't seem like it's going to work long term.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you expect that Biden's reelection, he might be able to frame where he – the Ukraine issue is all his? Is he comfortable with that?
JEN PSAKI:
He might be. I don't know that it's just about Ukraine. I think it's about are you up to the task of the job? Can you meet the Commander-in-Chief test. Biden has decades of experience. China is watching what Trump and DeSantis say. Putin is watching because, guess what? It doesn't stop in Ukraine. And that's something even Republicans have said about DeSantis and Trump's comments. So it's about --
CARLOS CURBELO:
And by the way --
JEN PSAKI:
-- larger values and --
CARLOS CURBELO:
-- the Russians must be very happy. The top two Republican candidates are now taking the position that what they're doing is okay.
CHUCK TODD:
It's fascinating. Right now everybody else is on the other side there. I'll be curious to see how long everybody else stays there. Up next, since the midterms, election deniers have actually won campaigns for state party chair positions in Colorado, Kansas, and Michigan. We're going to show you how the GOP under-performs when they put known election deniers on the top of their ticket.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, Data Download time. As the Republican Party gears up for 2024, they can't seem to leave behind the 2020 presidential election, with many Republicans still refusing to accept or acknowledge that Biden actually won over Trump. In fact, just last week, the Colorado Republican Party decided to select an election denier to be its chair, following the state parties in Michigan and Kansas that both did the same last month. This is after the 2022 election results. And new data from some researchers at Stanford University shows that the political pickle the Republican Party has put itself in when it nominates these election deniers, it hurts them at the ballot box. Look, these election-denying Republicans, according to these Stanford researchers, they do get a two percentage point bump in primaries, but what happens is, even if they get the nomination, it costs them on average 2.3%. They did this study across the board. Obviously, it'll go up and down. Let's look at these gubernatorial candidates. All of these folks, from Kari Lake, to Tim Michels, to Dixon, to Mastriano in Pennsylvania, they all benefited from being election deniers. They won their primary because of it, thanks to that and a Trump endorsement. And look, look what 2.3% might've been the difference. If she wasn't an election denier, Kari Lake might actually be governor of Arizona today. The Wisconsin race would've been a coin flip. Obviously, this is on average, so I don't know if it would've closed the mark there in either Michigan or Pennsylvania, but it certainly would've changed the landscape there. And what does 2.3 percentage points mean? This is -- this is what the overall data says. Well, look at this. In the 2020 presidential election, these are the states that were decided by less than three percentage points. So the Republican Party has to ask itself, election denialism: is this the road to 270 in the Electoral College? According to this map, it is not. Before we go to break, our Meet the Press Minute this week. There are questions right now about whether the GOP is still the party of Reagan. We've been discussing it on the show. Well, back in 1991, with his boss facing a primary challenge from an America-Firster on the right, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney warned against isolationism in the GOP. And it happened to be ten days before Mikhail Gorbachev's resignation, which of course formally brought an end to the country known as the Soviet Union.
[BEGIN TAPE]
ROBERT NOVAK:
Secretary Cheney, you're a politician. And as a politician, can you admit that with Pat Buchanan running a serious challenge against President Bush in the New Hampshire primary on a platform of America First, you are seriously constrained on how much taxpayer money you can pour into the former Soviet Union?
FMR. VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY:
I don't think that's the problem at all, Bob. I think this dichotomy between foreign policy and domestic policy or the future of what happens inside the Soviet Union somehow is unrelated to and separate from what happens here at home is just hogwash. It’s not true, and the American people are sophisticated enough to understand that. We have spent trillions of dollars building first-class defenses and winning the Cold War because of what was going on inside the Soviet Union. What goes on inside the Soviet Union has a direct impact here at home. I think you have to be naïve to assume the American people don't understand that.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
One of the first sovereign countries after the breakup of the Soviet Union: Ukraine. When we come back, how Republicans, with the help of a Texas Democrat, sabotaged Jimmy Carter's reelection. The secret finally revealed after four decades.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. As we indicated, I want to do a little update on TikTok. TikTok's CEO – Carol, I know you have some important news here – is going to testify this week to try to save his company from an American ban. It's pretty clear. The politics – he is – China's actions in Moscow have only made his job, I think, impossible. What should we expect?
CAROL LEE:
Well, it's not going to be a friendly crowd, obviously. But one of the things – so currently, TikTok says it has 100 million people in the U.S. who are active, regular users. What I'm told is that the CEO is – when he testifies on Thursday before the House committee – he is going to say that number has now jumped to 150 million users.
CHUCK TODD:
Why is that relevant?
CAROL LEE:
And so that's relevant because, as Washington sort of figures out what to do with TikTok, they've had this review, national security review going on for three years, Congress is trying to figure out what they want to do with it, it's just becoming more and more entrenched in Americans’ lives – daily lives. And so one of the things you're going to see TikTok do is pull out a lot of stops this week. They're bringing these creators to Washington. And these are people who are small business owners, entertainers, things like that. And they are going to make an economic argument. So they're basically going to say, "Here, look, if you ban TikTok, it’s going to hurt us financially because we rely on TikTok to basically build our businesses," and things like that. And so –
CHUCK TODD:
Even though there are – YouTube – there are alternatives?
CAROL LEE:
Right, but –
CHUCK TODD:
It's going to be a tough argument to make.
CAROL LEE:
– TikTok has a big reach. So they're trying that. And then just – if you look at these numbers, Chuck, they're young. It's, like, 31 is the average age. And so that, politically speaking, could hurt Democrats if there was a ban because younger voters are more likely to support Democrats. And so, it's very fraught.
CHUCK TODD:
Is there a political impact here, Jen?
JEN PSAKI:
Yeah, potentially. I mean – it is so hard to reach young voters. This is always a challenge for every Democratic candidate, no matter how hip they are. And so TikTok is a, a platform where it doesn't require Joe Biden or Kamala Harris to do TikTok dances. They can go on there and do policy, have conversations with creators and reach that audience they're trying to reach. And so they've been playing around with this at the White House. They use – they meet with TikTok creators –
CHUCK TODD:
Can you both use TikTok and criticize it as an influence operation –
CAROL LEE:
Apparently.
CHUCK TODD:
--at the same time?
PETER BAKER:
Doesn’t seem like it’s stopping them.
JEN PSAKI:
Well they – think about this. Democrats, including Joe Biden, do that with Facebook. They do that with Twitter. You can't take yourself off the field of these things. So they are doing that while criticizing it, yes.
CHUCK TODD:
Peter Baker, you had an incredible scoop for – and it would've been huge news in 1980.
PETER BAKER:
Give it enough time –
CHUCK TODD:
And I'm sure Jimmy Carter--
PETER BAKER:
– we'll get to it.
CHUCK TODD:
– who may be watching now and, and absorbing this right now – obviously, he's been in hospice care – and a suspicion that the hostages were held up from being released for politics, you’ve got confirmation from a former Democrat.
PETER BAKER:
Yeah. No, it's interesting. For years, of course, the Carter people had suspected something happened there to keep the hostages in Iran until after the election so Ronald Reagan could win.
CHUCK TODD:
They were released –
PETER BAKER:
The investigation –
CHUCK TODD:
– on January 20th, on –
PETER BAKER:
They were –
CHUCK TODD:
– Inauguration Day –
PETER BAKER:
Minutes after inauguration –
CHUCK TODD:
That was – that was always like, "What's your evidence?" "That." Yeah, yeah.
PETER BAKER:
Yeah, exactly.
CHUCK TODD:
Was always, yeah.
PETER BAKER:
Exactly, and there've been investigations though and books written and so forth. And nobody ever actually kind of proved it. But we now have testimony from an on-the-record source, Ben Barnes, a former Texas lieutenant governor, a very widely respected Democrat in his state, powerful figure in his time, tells us that he took a trip in the summer of 1980 with John Connally. Connally had been the Texas governor and a Republican presidential candidate, secretary of Treasury for Nixon. And during this trip around the Middle East, that John Connally told all these Middle East leaders, "Get a message to Iran. Tell them to hold the hostages until after the election. and Reagan will be better than Carter." And we've never had an on-the-record source like Ben Barnes telling us a story like this before. And most intriguingly, he says that when they get back from this trip, they meet with Bill Casey. Bill Casey was the campaign chairman for Ronald Reagan. Now, we don't know that Reagan knew anything about it. We don't know anything from Casey. He's passed. Connally has passed. Obviously, we cannot really verify the story 100%. But Ben Barnes has a lot of credibility. And it's, it’s hard to imagine why he would make this up at this point.
CHUCK TODD:
It's astonishing, and we wonder, Carlos, very quickly, why Americans believe conspiracy theories.
CARLOS CURBELO:
Well, there are, there are some conspiracies out there –
CHUCK TODD:
Some turned out to be true.
CARLOS CURBELO:
Just not as many as –
CHUCK TODD:
That's right.
CARLOS CURBELO:
– some people believe.
CHUCK TODD:
Some of them may turn out to be true. Before we go, I have a quick opportunity for you tonight to see one of the terrific films we screened at this year's Meet the Press Film Festival, “The Recall Reframed.” It explored the aftermath of the 2016 sentencing of that Stanford swimmer named Brock Turner, the recall of a California judge, Aaron Persky, the role of the legal system in seeking justice for sexual assault victims. It was a terrific documentary. You get to watch it tonight for free on one of our platforms at NBCUniversal, MSNBC, and it will be streaming on Peacock as well. Enjoy it. That's all for today. Thanks for watching. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.