CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: The threat from Russia.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
We are ready no matter what happens.
CHUCK TODD:
With more Russian troops massing on Ukraine's border –
AMB. LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD:
Russia's aggression today not only threatens Ukraine, it also threatens Europe.
CHUCK TODD:
The U.S. sends 3,000 troops to eastern Europe.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
We're going to make sure we reassure our NATO allies in Eastern Europe that we're there.
CHUCK TODD:
Vladimir Putin breaks his silence and says the U.S. is ignoring Russia's security concerns –
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO:
When he puts 100,000 troops along the border, I think we should be prepared for further incursions.
CHUCK TODD:
– and gains an ally in America's superpower rival, China. My guest this morning, President Biden's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Plus: Pence rebukes Trump.
MIKE PENCE:
President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election.
CHUCK TODD:
Mike Pence responds to Donald Trump's claims he could have overturned the election. This as the RNC censures Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the January 6th investigation –
RONNA MCDANIEL:
All of those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
CROWD:
Aye.
CHUCK TODD:
– and calls the Capitol riot "legitimate political discourse." I'll talk to Mr. Pence's former Chief of Staff Marc Short. And the NFL's race problem.
BRIAN FLORES:
I think the numbers speak for themselves. There's one black head coach.
CHUCK TODD:
Some 20 years after the league pledged to do better, why do NFL coaches still look like the old boys club? Joining me for insight and analysis are: former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Amy Walter, editor-in-chief and publisher of the Cook Political Report, Matthew Continetti of the American Enterprise Institute and Helene Cooper, Pentagon correspondent for The New York Times. 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. In 2008, during the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, Russian troops invaded neighboring Georgia. The then-Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin declared from Beijing, "War has started." In 2014, Russian troops moved into Crimea just days after Putin returned from the Winter Olympics in Sochi. And now, with the Winter Games underway in Beijing and with Putin in attendance, the world is left to guess: Is Putin about to pull the trigger again, this time on Ukraine? U.S. plans for a diplomatic boycott of the games have largely fizzled, and Putin has found an ally in China's leader Xi Jinping. On Friday, Putin met with Xi, who offered strong support for Russia in its standoff with the West, at least publicly. The two issued a joint statement saying, “Friendship between the two states has no limits.” China has offered political support to Russia over Ukraine, including blocking U.S.-sponsored action at the U.N. Security Council. Our Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel has been covering the build up of Russia's military forces. He's on the border of Russia and Ukraine in Eastern Ukraine. And Richard, this is a case I think of watch what they do, don't necessarily listen to what Russia says. What do you see, Richard?
RICHARD ENGEL:
Well, we're seeing a massive military build-up. This is unlike anything I've seen since the American 2003 build-up before it launched the war in Iraq. And I think that's why you’re – we're hearing these really dire intelligence assessments coming out from U.S. officials that, if there was a war, there could be 50,000 Ukrainians killed, 25,000 soldiers, 10,000 Russian troops, one to five million refugees are internally displaced. And these dire warnings are now being heard in Ukraine. For the last several days, several weeks, people have been living in a kind of suspended disbelief that maybe this was just Russia bluffing, that Russia was trying to get some diplomatic advantage. Now, people are starting to believe this could happen, and it could happen potentially imminently. So we're starting to see rallies – in major cities. We're seeing more and more people signing up for volunteer service. We're hearing more of a fighting spirit from people. When I ask people what are they going to do, and they said, "We will fight. We will fight until the end." And I think because this country won't be a walk-over, that's why those intelligence estimates are so high for what the cost might be. But Ukrainians also know that, if it comes to fighting, they are going to have to fight Russia by themselves, that NATO has promised support, it's sending in some weapons, but at the end of the day, no one's coming in here to help. The Ukrainians will only have their own troops and their own defense systems, like these trenches, to fight off Russia.
CHUCK TODD:
Richard Engel, like I said, he's on the border right now of Russia and Ukraine in Eastern Ukraine. Richard, thank you. And joining me now is the national security advisor to President Biden, Jake Sullivan. Jake, welcome back to Meet the Press.
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Thanks for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with this warning that you guys gave to lawmakers that has now come out, and that is the intensity of the Russian military buildup, what they have there. You heard Richard's report. Many Ukrainian leaders now see that this is – this appears to be an even bigger threat than they determined. What's your sense of how soon something could happen?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, Chuck, we're in the window where something could happen that is a military escalation. An invasion of Ukraine could happen at any time. We believe that the Russians have put in place the capabilities to mount a significant military operation into Ukraine. And we have been working hard to prepare a response. President Biden has rallied our allies. He's reinforced and reassured our partners on the Eastern flank. He's provided material support to the Ukrainians. And he's offered the Russians a diplomatic path if that's what they choose instead. But either way, we are ready. Our allies are ready. And we're trying to help the Ukrainian people get ready as well.
CHUCK TODD:
The diplomatic path, what does that still look like? What are we willing to negotiate? Missile sites, things like that? What are we willing to talk with the Russians about?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
We're prepared to sit down with the Russians, alongside our allies in NATO and other partners in Europe to talk about issues of mutual concern in European security. And yes, that includes the placement of certain range systems of missiles. It includes transparency around military exercises. It includes greater capacity to have confidence building and to avoid incidents that could lead to escalation or miscalculation. We've laid all of that out in a paper that we sent to the Russians after coordinating it carefully with our allies. That paper is now out in the public view, and the world can judge for itself just how serious we are. But what we're not prepared to negotiate are the fundamental principles of security that include an open door to NATO for countries who can meet the requirements.
CHUCK TODD:
Jake, it seems to me that you guys have united NATO allies and European allies on a response if Putin does a full invasion. But the question I have is, if it's not that but it is something else – you know, trying to maybe annex – politically annex parts of Ukraine, things like this, how much more work do you have to do to get European allies ready to have a robust response?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, Chuck, I'm glad you asked that question because the Russian action could take many forms, including the possibility that they annex the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine known as the Donbas. Or they could take a series of hybrid actions, including cyber attacks, political destabilization, things along those lines. Or they could do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And part of the reason that we've been working so intensively over the last few months is not just to prepare for one contingency but to prepare for all contingencies and to work with our allies and partners on what a response would look like in each of those instances. We believe that we have strong alignment with our allies, that we are on the same page when it comes to severe economic consequences and the other forms of pressure that we would impose in response to any kind of Russian action that amounts to aggression and escalation against Ukraine.
CHUCK TODD:
How much more of a challenge is – Europe, Europe has not found a way to have independence from Russian energy. You could argue they should've spent more time over the last 10 years doing that. In the case of Germany, in some ways they seem to grow closer to Russia. How much does that hinder a unified response that might actually have some teeth?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
We believe that the Europeans intend to step up and impose severe costs and consequences, but again, you've asked a great question because it is true that Europe has distance to travel when it comes to weaning themselves off of Russian gas and diversifying their energy supplies. President Biden has directed his team to look to find from other places in the world LNG, liquefied natural gas cargoes, that can be sent to Europe in the event of a contingency so that the United States' help to Europe isn't merely in the deployment of troops or the supply of economic aid, that we can help coordinate the delivery of gas to keep Europeans warm through the rest of the winter. That work is well underway. And President Biden and Chancellor Scholz will discuss it further tomorrow when the chancellor is here in Washington.
CHUCK TODD:
Last week, I had Senator Rob Portman, Republican senator from Ohio on, who I know has been – basically been in coordination in some ways on Ukraine policy with the administration. And he said to me it's his understanding in private that Germany has given the United States assurance that if Putin invades Ukraine, the pipeline, the pipeline is done, that they are willing to suspend the pipeline. But they won't say that publicly. Will the German chancellor say that publicly with the president tomorrow?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
I'll let the German chancellor speak for himself. But the Biden administration at President Biden's direction has been absolutely simply clear on this. If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward. And Russia understands that. We are coordinated with our allies in Europe on that –
CHUCK TODD:
What's the definition of invasion?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
– and that will be the reality if Russia chooses to move forward.
CHUCK TODD:
Right. What's the definition of invasion there though?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, President Biden, President Biden has spoken to the fact that if a Russian tank or a Russian troop moves across the border, that's an invasion. That is an invasion. And the result of that, from our perspective, would be the imposition of severe economic consequences.
CHUCK TODD:
And have the Germans given you that reassurance on Nord Stream 2, that anything that crosses the border is an invasion and therefore suspends that pipeline?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
I'm not going to get into our diplomatic discussions with the Germans because I think it's important that we be able to coordinate with them. What I can tell you flatly and plainly one more time is, one way or the other, if that happens, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.
CHUCK TODD:
I’ve got to ask you about the Olympics here. We tried to organize a diplomatic boycott. Nine other countries joined us, not even the entire G7. It is – we've talked about Germany. We know why they're, perhaps, not onboard here. France either. How disappointing is it that this is the West? These are the 10 countries that seem to prioritize human rights, while many other of our allies apparently prioritize economic ties more than human rights?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, Chuck, I have to say that the premise of your question is not quite right. The United States did not go around the world knocking on every country's door trying to quote-unquote "organize a diplomatic boycott." What we did was come out and make a statement of principle about what we, the United States, were going to do. We were not going to send an official delegation to these games because of the grave human rights abuses of the Chinese government. And we did have some countries join us in that. Other countries made a different decision. But if you look at the broad level of alignment with our European partners, with the Quad, with our Asian allies, you can see like-minded democracies coming together on a range of challenges that China poses, whether it's in the realm of military aggression or in the realm of economic coercion or in the realm of human rights. And our statements at the G7, our work at NATO, our work through the Quad, has all laid that out. And we stand, a year into this administration, stronger and more united with our allies when it comes to China than we have been at any point in recent memory.
CHUCK TODD:
Would China be in line for any punishment if they help Russia get around sanctions?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, the sanctions that we're going to impose will in fact have an impact on China because they will go at the financial system of Russia, which of course engages the Chinese economy as well. And so China will have a choice, whether or not it complies with the sanctions, or if it chooses not to comply, then, of course, there are penalties that accrue to that. But fundamentally, from our perspective, we believe that Beijing will end up owning some of the costs of a Russian invasion of Ukraine and that they should calculate that as they consider their engagements with the Russian government over the next couple of weeks.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you have any reason to believe that Xi told – advised Putin not to do this?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
I don't have any direct evidence that he did one way or the other. I would note something interesting though. In the more than 5,000-word statement that Russia and China released when President Putin visited Beijing on Friday, the word Ukraine was not mentioned.
CHUCK TODD:
Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor for President Biden. Appreciate you coming on, sharing the administration's perspective.
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, former Vice President Mike Pence rebukes Donald Trump for saying Pence could've overturned the election. I'm going to talk to Mr. Pence's former chief of staff, Marc Short, who was with Mr. Pence at the Capitol during the January 6 riot.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Two events on Friday helped illustrate the centrality of January 6th and its aftermath inside the Republican Party these days. First, the Republican National Committee censured Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the congressional committee investigating January 6th. Hours later, former Vice President Mike Pence said Donald Trump was wrong when he claims that Pence could have overturned the 2020 election. Mr. Pence made his remarks as more information has emerged on Mr. Trump's efforts to stay in power after losing the election.
[START TAPE]
MIKE PENCE:
President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election.
CHUCK TODD:
Former Vice President Mike Pence on Friday - responding to Mr. Trump's false claim that he could have rejected the Electoral College results. Pence also breaking with Trump on the insurrection itself.
CROWD:
Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!
MIKE PENCE:
January 6th was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol.
CHUCK TODD:
As the National Archives announced it is preparing to release his records to the committee next month. The January 6th committee has issued dozens of subpoenas, interviewed 400 witnesses and obtained over 50,000 documents. Under this increased pressure, Mr. Trump is now defending the insurrectionists.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6th fairly. We will treat them fairly and if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons.
CHUCK TODD:
Among the recent revelations about his efforts to overturn the election. Mr. Trump reportedly directed his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it could legally take control of voting machines in swing states.
MICHAEL FLYNN:
He needs to seize all these Dominion and these other voting machines we have across the country.
CHUCK TODD:
A question he also raised with Attorney General Bill Barr regarding the Justice Department.
BILL BARR:
I see no basis now for seizing machines by the federal government
CHUCK TODD:
In Georgia, a criminal probe is heating up -- centered on the phone call Trump placed to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2nd, demanding he produce more votes in a state Joe Biden had won.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes. So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do?
FANI WILLIS:
We realize that we're coming to a place that there are enough people that will require a subpoena for us to speak to or for us to be able to get information and so yes we're headed into phase two.
CHUCK TODD:
Mr. Trump attempted to employ a slate of alternate electors. Memos published this week by the New York Times were used by Giuliani and lawyer John Eastman as they developed a strategy intended to exploit ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act
JOHN EASTMAN:
You should exercise your prerogative to legislatively designate a slate of electors
CHUCK TODD:On January 4th, Trump and Pence met at the White House with Eastman about his memo laying out steps Pence could take to delay certification and keep Trump in power, in effect a blueprint for a coup. With Mr. Trump squeezed, his allies are hitting back. A year ago, on January 6th, the RNC issued a statement saying its members "strongly condemn the violence" calling it "an attack on our country and its founding principles." But now.
RONNA MCDANIEL:
All of those in favor of the motion please signify by saying ay.
CROWD:
Ay
CHUCK TODD:
The Republican Party declared Friday the January 6th attack ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.
CHUCK TODD:
Joining me now is Marc Short. He's Mr. Pence's former chief of staff. Short was with the vice president at the Capitol on January 6th, and he recently testified before the House January 6th Committee. Mr. Short, welcome back to Meet the Press.
MARC SHORT:
Chuck, thanks for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with the motivation of your former boss, vice president – former Vice President Pence, and why this week did he choose – in fairness to him he has said something similar in the past – but he chose to give a big platform to this this week. Why?
MARC SHORT:
Well, Chuck, I think that, as you mentioned, the vice president has commented on January 6th on several occasions, including last summer at the Ronald Reagan Library. And he extended those remarks a little bit this week to the Federalist Society, primarily because the president's comments about the vice president had the ability to overturn the election, I think merited response. Of course there's nothing in the 12th Amendment or the Electoral Count Act that would afford a vice president that authority. It's why no vice president in 200 years has ever used that authority, and it's certainly not one that I think conservatives or Republicans would want Kamala Harris the ability to say she's going to reject votes from Texas or Wyoming or any other state heading into 2024.
CHUCK TODD:
But why did he stop there? Why didn't he say, "Look, it's been a year. There's just no evidence out there. This was a free and fair election. The Trump/Pence ticket lost." How come he didn't go that far?
MARC SHORT:
Well, Chuck I think like a lot of people, the vice president has significant concerns about the election. I think –and because of Covid --
CHUCK TODD:
Still?
MARC SHORT:
Because of Covid sure. I think that a lot of us do.
CHUCK TODD:
But there's been no evidence of fraud. You could disagree, you could disagree –
MARC SHORT:
There’s –
CHUCK TODD:
– on the election law –
MARC SHORT:
Yeah, so I think –
CHUCK TODD:
– but – I understand that –
MARC SHORT:
– So I think there are significant concerns about what transpired in Pennsylvania, what transpired in Wisconsin, what transpired in Georgia when you said you had a matching signatures, you didn't. You had election officials overruling state officials and saying, "We'll keep the balloting open," allowed universal access and mail-in balloting. But at the same time, the Constitution is clear what that process is. You're afforded a chance to challenge. You're afforded a chance to bring legal challenges. But at the point of the Electoral College meeting on December 14th, at that point the process is concluded. And that's why the Constitution wanted the states the ability to certify elections and not for the federal government. It's very clear in fact, in The Federalist Papers. They warned about the threat of a federal government having that sort of authority.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you believe Joe Biden was a legitimately elected president?
MARC SHORT:
I –
CHUCK TODD:
Does the former vice president believe it?
MARC SHORT:
I believe that Joe Biden is the duly elected president of the United States, yes.
CHUCK TODD:
Legitimately so. The election was legitimate.
MARC SHORT:
I think there –
CHUCK TODD:
You may disagree with voting procedures –
MARC SHORT:
I – well –
CHUCK TODD:
– but the election itself was legitimate.
MARC SHORT:
I mean, I think that's the same, it’s the same question. I think that there were significant concerns about the process of that election that's going to, going to create a cloud. But I think, Chuck, at the same time, to your point, the campaign had opportunities to bring that evidence up till December 14th and didn't. And so at this point you have to assume that he was duly elected. And the reality is that there was not enough significant fraud that was presented that would've overturned any of those states' elections.
CHUCK TODD:
Doesn't it say a lot that a year later that any – that actually more evidence has shown that no fraud happened? I mean, doesn't that even reinforce this even more a year later?
MARC SHORT:
As I said, I think there are significant concerns, and I'm glad many states are looking to rectify, Chuck. But I acknowledge that the president's duly elected.
CHUCK TODD:
When did you – I want to go back to the time before January 6th. You guys were under a lot of pressure. You were in the room when it went down. When did you conclude that all of the potential allegations that were out there, that they were baseless?
MARC SHORT:
I'm not sure that all the allegations out there were baseless, Chuck. I'm not confident of that. But I think the reality again is we're asking, "What's the constitutional role of the vice president of the United States?" We're governed by rule of laws, not rule of men. And the reality is that he was following what the Constitution afforded the vice president under the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act. And he was doing his duty, which was what he was required to, under an oath to the Constitution to defend it.
CHUCK TODD:
Had he gotten legal advice – I know he talked to Judge Luttig. Had he gotten legal advice that said, "Well, you can't decide which electoral votes are yes and no. But you can adjourn this session and delay things"? Had he gotten legal advice to do that? Was the vice president considering it?
MARC SHORT:
No, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay.
MARC SHORT:
I think unfortunately the president had many bad advisors, who were basically snake oil salesmen giving him really random and novel ideas as to what the vice president could do. But our office, you know, researched that and recognized that was never --
CHUCK TODD:
Are you --
MARC SHORT:
– an option.
CHUCK TODD:
– chalking this up to bad advisors or was the former president seeking the bad advice?
MARC SHORT:
I think at this – I don't know the answer to that question. I think that honestly he did get a lot of bad advice. But I think that it was not something that the vice president – from the very beginning he counseled the president, "I don't think I have that authority. Always willing to look at something that you want to send our way," but never thought he had that authority.
CHUCK TODD:
So when he asked you to meet with John Eastman and you met with him first, why did you meet with him before the vice president did?
MARC SHORT:
I actually didn't. I did meet with him consequently after they had the Oval Office meeting. So we did have a separate meeting between Greg Jacob, myself, and John Eastman.
CHUCK TODD:
What were you trying to get clarified?
MARC SHORT:
I think at that point there had been a push to say, "Would you simply reject ballots?" And then at some point – when it became crystal clear that that was not something that the vice president knew he had the constitutional authority to do – there was a switch to talk about sending it back to states in the last 24 hours of that.
CHUCK TODD:
Did the president ever ask his own White House counsel if anything – any of this was constitutional?
MARC SHORT:
I think you'd have to ask Pat Cipollone that. I'm not sure what those conversations were.
CHUCK TODD:
Did you guys ask for the White House counsel's opinion on this?
MARC SHORT:
I'm sure that Greg Jacob was in touch with them. And I think that Greg provided us with plenty of great counsel.
CHUCK TODD:
When – was there any point that the vice president was looking for a way – because I've seen reports that he said he wanted to look for ways that he could show empathy or sympathy for those that wanted to object. Was he looking for a way to delay the process, at any point?
MARC SHORT:
No.
CHUCK TODD:
So there was never once somebody was pressuring – he didn't feel like he had to do that. He was just looking for better words to choose? Is that the fair way to look at it?
MARC SHORT:
No, no. I don't think he was looking for better words to choose, Chuck. I think that the vice president was crystal clear from day one that he didn't have this authority. But again, keep in mind he was proud to work with this president on doing so many great things for our country.
Whether or not it was securing our border, providing tax relief, taking on China, confirming judges, it was an amazing record. And so if the president asked him to consider a different approach he's going to look at it. But it never meant he thought that he had that authority.
CHUCK TODD:
Going to January 6th, when your colleague, Mr. Jacob, gets the text or the email from Mr. Eastman and he essentially says, "This siege is the vice president's fault for not acting," what was the vice president's response?
MARC SHORT:
Greg, I think in the heat of the moment wasn't really going to worry us with what John Eastman was saying. I think we had those conversations subsequent. But in the heat of the moment the vice president's concern was, "How do we make sure we get back in and complete the work we were assigned to do today," and wanted to make sure that he was in touch with Leader McConnell and McCarthy, as well as Pelosi and Schumer and saying, "How are we going to make sure that we get back in tonight so the world sees that our democracy is functioning and working?"
CHUCK TODD:
Did the vice president ever talk with the president that day? On January 6th while he was in the Capitol?
MARC SHORT:
They did not have conversations. I –
CHUCK TODD:
Did he try?
MARC SHORT:
I had a conversation with the chief of staff during that.
CHUCK TODD:
And at what – did you get evidence? Was the president checking on the vice president's safety at any point in time during that period?
MARC SHORT:
I think it was communicated by both Keith Kellogg and by myself to Mark Meadows.
CHUCK TODD:
Communicated what?
MARC SHORT:
That we were safe and secure in the location that we were in.
CHUCK TODD:
Describe what you saw that day.
MARC SHORT:
Well, I think that from the time that the vice president was evacuated I came back up to his office in the suite right off of the Senate floor. And at that point Secret Service had tried to move him twice, but the vice president was resolute and said, "I'm not going to let the free world see us fleeing the Capitol, and I'm staying." But the third time the head of our security, Tim, said, "There's a glass door here. I can't protect you. We need to move you." At that point they evacuate us into a secure location at the bottom of the Capitol. You know, at one point there was an attempt to again put the vice president into a motorcade.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
MARC SHORT:
But he was clear to say, "That's not a visual I want the world to see of us fleeing the Capitol." And we stayed there and worked to try and bring the business back together and complete the work that night.
CHUCK TODD:
Did you ever hear those chants, "Hang Mike Pence"?
MARC SHORT:
I did not. From where –
CHUCK TODD:
Did he? Did he ever?
MARC SHORT:
I'm sure. We've all seen it --
CHUCK TODD:
Now you've --
MARC SHORT:
– since then --
CHUCK TODD:
– seen it since then, but in the moment had you heard it or any of that?
MARC SHORT:
In the moment, in the moment I didn't. I don't know whether he did.
CHUCK TODD:
What was your reaction when you heard it?
MARC SHORT:
I mean, look, I think that, again there was a sense of tragic day, sense of loss, but also a sense of pride in what we'd accomplished for four years and feeling that this was going to be an unfortunate taint on that record. And looking at some of the people who we never recognized as people we saw at rallies throughout the country. And I think it's unfortunate that for 74 million Americans who voted for the Trump/Pence record that in many ways that's tarnished by I think the way – I think candidly, Chuck, some of the media wanna portray all those 74 million as represented by a few hundred thugs who were at the Capitol that day.
CHUCK TODD:
Did you see legitimate political discourse that day?
MARC SHORT:
From my front row seat, I did not see a lot of legitimate political discourse. But, Chuck, to your question, you know, in talking to some members of the RNC, I think there is concern that there are people who were there peacefully protesting who have been pulled into this what I think has more become a prosecution by the January 6th Committee and feel like they're being unfairly treated.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you about a few other things that have come to light. Did you hear anything about seizing voting machines?
MARC SHORT:
I did not, no.
CHUCK TODD:
You were not – nobody tried to- -
MARC SHORT:
Not part --
CHUCK TODD:
– bring you into --
MARC SHORT:
– of those conversations.
CHUCK TODD:
– these conversations. Did you – what about the alternative slate of electors? Did anybody tell you that they were organizing alternative slates of electors?
MARC SHORT:
There were discussions about alternative slates in certain letters that we received. But, you know, when we had a conversation with the parliamentarian she made it clear that candidly every year they receive notes from random Americans saying, "Here's my slate of electors."
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
MARC SHORT:
And so, you know, unless they're certified by the state they're candidly meaningless. And so didn't put much weight into that.
CHUCK TODD:
If the vice president is subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee is he going to cooperate?
MARC SHORT:
I think that would be a pretty unprecedented step for the committee to take. It would be, I think very difficult for me to see that scenario unfolding.
CHUCK TODD:
You've cooperated though.
MARC SHORT:
Well –
CHUCK TODD:
And how should they read this?
MARC SHORT:
You know, I was compelled to cooperate via a subpoena.
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
MARC SHORT:
I don't know how often you've been subpoenaed, Chuck, and if you view that as cooperation, but I view that as following the law.
CHUCK TODD:
Right. So obviously the former vice president, if he's subpoenaed, he's going to follow the law?
MARC SHORT:
I think it's very different to subpoena a former vice president to talk about private conversations he had with the president of the United States. It's never happened before. And I think we have significant concerns about the committee, Chuck. The committee truly is not really a bipartisan committee. When it was set up it was supposed to have five appointees --
CHUCK TODD:
Who's fault is that?
MARC SHORT:
– it was supposed to – well, I think it when speaker --
CHUCK TODD:
Mitch McConnell?
MARC SHORT:
No, when Speaker Pelosi rejected Kevin McCarthy's appointees I think it made this a much more partisan venture.
CHUCK TODD:
The rejection was the Senate Republicans rejecting a bipartisan committee. Was that the initial mistake?
MARC SHORT:
You know as well as I do that Nancy Pelosi rejected Jim Banks and rejected --
CHUCK TODD:
But that – this is after the Senate --
MARC SHORT:
– and rejected --
CHUCK TODD:
– Republicans --
MARC SHORT:
– Jim Jordan from serving on that committee based on the basis that they had not voted to certify the election. Think about that for a second, Chuck. The chairman of this committee voted not to certify in 2004 Bush/Cheney.
CHUCK TODD:
Right, but this is not the –
MARC SHORT:
Where's the mainstream media looking at his decision?
CHUCK TODD:
But Marc the issue is –
MARC SHORT:
There are other members on that committee who also –
CHUCK TODD:
– the Senate Republicans – the Senate Republicans shut this down. That's why we don't have a bipartisan committee.
MARC SHORT:
There was – there was going to be a bipartisan committee as well in the House, Chuck. And Kevin was not afforded the opportunity to put his five people on because she decided to unilaterally reject both Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. So it did – it has put this committee on a very partisan track.
CHUCK TODD:
So you don't agree with Mitch McConnell that what the committee is finding is quite interesting and quite legitimate.
MARC SHORT:
I am hopeful that the committee does end up providing an impartial review. But I think there's good reason to be skeptical that they will because truly it has taken on a more partisan committee.
CHUCK TODD:
Would Mike Pence serve as Donald Trump's running mate if asked ever again?
MARC SHORT:
I'm not going to try to answer a hypothetical. I think that Mike Pence every time he's considered what he's going to do he's taken time to pray and say, "What is our family being called to do? And where can we best serve." That will the decision he --
CHUCK TODD:
Knowing the former vice president I know he would say he will always have – try to have a relationship with the former president. But realistically, is that relationship severed?
MARC SHORT:
I don't know that it's severed. I think that the vice president remains incredibly proud of what they accomplished for four years. He really does --
CHUCK TODD:
None of the former president's actions has made him question the character of the former president, whether this was --
MARC SHORT:
I think that he's been very clear commenting about what happened on January 6th and where he disagrees with the former president.
CHUCK TODD:
But he sees it as just a disagreement on issues, maybe not a character or moral mistake?
MARC SHORT:
I think he's been very clear to say that he believes the president was wrong, believes the president was given bad advice on the day. It does not – it does not take away from what they accomplished working together for four years for the American people.
CHUCK TODD:
Does he still think Donald Trump should be the leader of the Republican Party?
MARC SHORT:
I think Donald Trump has an incredibly important voice in the Republican Party moving forward. I hope that the president looks forward. I hope he looks to talk about, "What are we going to do to fight inflation? What are we going to do to resecure our border? What are we going to do"--
CHUCK TODD:
You think it's a mistake --
MARC SHORT:
– "to end" --
CHUCK TODD:
– that he focuses so much --
MARC SHORT:
– "this silly virtue signaling and mask mandates in schools." We should be looking forward more --
CHUCK TODD:
So you think --
MARC SHORT:
– than looking back --
CHUCK TODD:
– he's making a mistake how often he looks backward.
MARC SHORT:
That's up to the president. I think our party should be looking forward and not backward.
CHUCK TODD:
Marc Short, former chief of staff to the former vice president. Thanks for coming on.
MARC SHORT:
Chuck, thanks for having me. It's good to see you.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, the growing pro versus anti-Trump rift in the Republican Party. Is it a real rift? Panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Panel is here. Amy Walter, editor-in-chief and publisher of The Cook Political Report; former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Matthew Continetti of The American Enterprise Institute, and Helen Cooper, the Pentagon correspondent for The New York Times. Well, Mike Pence, Marc Short. What'd you learn, Amy?
AMY WALTER:
This tightrope that Republicans are forced to walk, and will continue to be forced to walk at least for the conceivable future. You know, there is this theory that you can have Trump without the Trumpism, right? Whatever comes next will look more like Trump in terms of who's the next leader of the party, if it's not Donald Trump, will look a lot more like him than a Mitt Romney, than a Liz Cheney. I think that's true. But the next question is how many times will Republicans have to go back and pretend that January 6th was not as significant as it was, or agree with, or have to answer for it was legitimate political discourse? Or was this a free and fair election? Was this legitimate? That puts the party then firmly, they have not, even as much as they try to, they have not been able to cut from Donald Trump.
CHUCK TODD:
Jeh?
JEH JOHNSON:
It is amazing to me that the RNC can label January 6th legitimate political discourse. And it's probably true that there's a lot of the Republican base that will accept that. I mean, to most of us, that's the equivalent of saying, "The World Trade Center didn't collapse on 9/11." What's interesting is the rank and file seems to be moving closer and closer to Trump's point of view, while people like Mike Pence are moving away from him. And what the former vice president said legally was immaterial. We all know that he didn't have the power to reject the election result. But he's obviously become more assertive in his political rhetoric, moving away from the Trump base.
CHUCK TODD:
Matthew, and maybe I'm squinting too hard to see it, but it does seem like the more Donald Trump squeals about this, the more there is a – there are people going, "We've got to push back. We've got to stop this Electoral Count Act." And even the RNC tried to water down, and then they came up with this, to me, a stain that I don't know how they ever get rid of. "Legitimate political discourse" feels like something the RNC, it's going to haunt them for decades.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
Well, the Democratic ads write themselves. I mean, you could just see it from this program. You contrast that statement with the video from January 6th. There's your attack ad. I think the Republicans believe every minute they spend talking about 2020, January 6th, is an opportunity lost. You heard it from Marc Short. They want to talk about inflation. They want to talk about masks. They want to talk about the border. Unfortunately, the person who's making them look in the rear-view mirror is President Trump. And he wants to force the issue, I think, to the detriment of the Republican Party, and I would say to his own detriment too. People forget: Trump had a forward-looking agenda when he ran for president in 2016. All he cares about now is revenge.
CHUCK TODD:
It's pretty clear. There's no coherency to it.
HELENE COOPER:
No, there's not. It's sort of - it’s really sad. I've been thinking about this a lot in the past few weeks because, as a Pentagon reporter, I've been focused on Russia and Ukraine. And there's always been this expectation of American exceptionalism when you look at other societies where you see strong men rulers and you see a society accepting things that, from the outside, we see as, like, completely crazy. And now, I don't have this feeling of American exceptionalism anymore because I think what happened on January 6th and the reaction of the Republican Party to it since then has shown that we're as easily led as anybody else.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, Jeh, it's funny, and I'm going to draw a long line here. But I can't help but wonder our inability to get the world to follow us on a diplomatic boycott of China on something that's fundamental about sort of what we believe should be freedom bigger than financial ties makes me think, "Well, maybe the example of our democracy's not so good, so people are thinking, 'Why are we following you guys?'" I mean, it's hard not to see that.
JEH JOHNSON:
The first thing that I thought of after January 6, following up on what Helene said, we used to say, "Peaceful transfer of power. Peaceful transfer." We are --
CHUCK TODD:
Made us different.
JEH JOHNSON:
Right. Made us different. We can no longer say that. I actually think that the situation with the Olympics is somewhat unique. I believe that our response to Ukraine actually has been a nice reminder of how coalitions led by the United States can respond effectively --
CHUCK TODD:
Assuming we're effective. Assuming the response is effective.
JEH JOHNSON:
As we sit here, it does seem as though Vladimir Putin is on the defensive at the moment.
CHUCK TODD:
I think that's a fair --
JEH JOHNSON:
And the coalition, I believe, has served as a multiplier effect on the pressure that can be put on him, as opposed to going it alone.
CHUCK TODD:
I guess, Matthew, the question though going back to the issue inside the Republican Party is you do have Mitch McConnell that is sort of the Bill Belichick mindset, onto November and focus forward. But Kevin McCarthy doesn't have that luxury. It seems like he has to appease this wing of the party more than McConnell. This feels like this is inevitably going to continue to cause more problems.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
Well, it's going to cause a lot of problems, especially if the Republicans take back Congress, as they look to be on the path of doing, right? And right now they have --
CHUCK TODD:
What can their agenda be?
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
– no agenda. Think about the Republican Party. The last time they put out a platform was 2016. So we get legitimate political discourse, but we don't get a platform. We don't get an agenda.
CHUCK TODD:
Ad lines. You just wrote another one.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
It's the truth, you know? And so you get into a position where the Republicans are in power next year. All of these fights are going to come out into the fore if you don't have substantive policy to rally behind.
AMY WALTER:
Well, they do have substantive policy, theoretically, which is, "We're going to be whatever the opposite is of what Democrats and Biden are doing." I think you raised this earlier, which is what every Republican in the Mitch McConnell mode is trying to talk about. But many of the Republicans who are going to come to Congress, remember, they're coming because not only were they endorsed by Donald Trump, but because they sought out that stamp of approval, and feel as if it is their job to take that into Congress, not to simply be a voice against whatever policies.
CHUCK TODD:
Helene, I want to spend this last minute pivoting a little bit more to Ukraine in this respect. There’s been – the U.S. has wanted us to take their word on a lot of allegations they've made against the Russians here. It seems as if this is a weird stance to take when we don't like when the Russians do the disinformation game. We need to have a little more trust, but verify here, and they seem to be on the defensive. Why aren't they being more forthcoming?
HELENE COOPER:
They will tell you that they're not being more forthcoming because they're trying to protect intelligence assets --
CHUCK TODD:
If I hear the phrase --
HELENE COOPER:
– the intelligence sources.
CHUCK TODD:
"-- sources and methods" one more time. It is such a crutch.
HELENE COOPER:
It is. The - the scene at the State Department briefing this past week between --
CHUCK TODD:
Go, Matt.
HELENE COOPER:
– Matt Lee --
CHUCK TODD:
God love him.
HELENE COOPER:
– of the AP and Ned Price --
CHUCK TODD:
Matt really --
HELENE COOPER:
I know we all love Matt Lee.
CHUCK TODD:
Matt Lee is one of the good – He's fun.
HELENE COOPER:
Yeah. He's great. But he was completely right.
CHUCK TODD:
Correct.
HELENE COOPER:
And Ned saying, you know, "Read what I said," you know? That’s like – that doesn't necessarily work, but we're entering --
CHUCK TODD:
You're just the spokesperson. Right. That's not evidence.
HELENE COOPER:
Yeah. We're entering a new phase right now of information warfare that the Biden administration is trying to wage against a master in that game, which is Vladimir Putin. But, you know, they haven't done that poorly so far.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, there you go. We're going to pause here. When we come back, the NFL and race. It's been nearly two decades since the NFL promised to increase minority hiring using something called the Rooney Rule. So why is there only one Black head coach in the league right now? Stay with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Data download time. What should've been an exciting time for the NFL leading up to next week's Super Bowl has turned out to be a week of headlines about racial inequality in the league's upper ranks after recently fired Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores brought a class-action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in the league's hiring process. The suit sparked a lot of discussion about the discrepancy between who calls the plays and who executes them. And this is a case where the numbers just don't lie. Here's obviously the makeup of the league. 70% of the league is made up of players of color. It's pretty clear. Now look at the distinction of head coaching, right? See, 70% of the players are of color. Three out of 32 head coaches right now are of color. Twenty-six of the current head coaches, there are still some vacancies, belong to white men. Now let's take a look at why this is. The last ten years the NFL has tried. They've had the Rooney Rule. The league has tried to encourage these owners to essentially do better. They've not required it. They've kind of coerced. Well, they haven't done so well. Among head coaches in the last decade, there’s been 51 white head coaches, just 11 of color. On general managers, the ratio is about as poor: 31 overall, just six of color over the last decade. And if you look on the coordinator level, among offensive coordinators in particular, it's a terrible ratio. And guess what? It's offensive coordinators that are suddenly getting all of the head coaching hires these days. It's slightly better among defensive coordinators. Still though, two to one basically, white to nonwhite, when it comes to those there. And then look at coaches overall. One of the problems here for coaches of color is they don't have family ties in the league. Of the 792 coaches, basically more than 10% of them have relatives, are related to other coaches in the NFL. And look at it among head coaches. A third of NFL head coaches are related to other coaches. As you know, one of the coaches is the grandson – in the Super Bowl this year is the grandson of a former NFL coach. When we come back, the NFL just pledged to do better on this score again. Is there any reason to believe them this time? Stay with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Baseball may claim it's the national pastime, but the NFL is these days. Jeh, look, I think the NFL's popularity means we believe it needs to culturally be with or ahead of the country, not so far behind. But the NFL continually looks like it's much further behind really than every other sport.
JEH JOHNSON:
Well, first, I need to be a little careful here because my law firm represents the NFL in--
CHUCK TODD:
The league?
JEH JOHNSON:
--certain matters. When I look at those numbers, first of all, the most interesting statistic you put up was the familiar connections between and among coaches. I had not seen that before. But when I see those numbers, first thing I think of is 1973. I'm old enough to remember when all the quarterbacks were white. And 1973, '74 was huge in that all of a sudden, the Pittsburgh Steelers had a Black quarterback, Joe Gilliam from Tennessee State. It's Black History Month, so. And today, depending on how you count, there's something like ten starting Black quarterbacks in the NFL. Progress can be agonizingly slow sometimes around this issue.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, Amy, the league's been under pressure before. And they've whiffed on these things. And yet, they get away with it because they keep making money and the game's so popular. But look, the league put out a statement admitting that you can't look at one Black head coach and say --
AMY WALTER:
That we have--
CHUCK TODD:
--they've succeeded.
AMY WALTER:
--made progress.
CHUCK TODD:
So they're admitting it. I think they have an ownership problem.
AMY WALTER:
Yeah, that the owners, are there any owners of color?
CHUCK TODD:
Not right now--
AMY WALTER:
Right? It's all white owners, all of a certain age. It also looks a lot like --
CHUCK TODD:
Billionaire Robert Smith is among those that might bid for the Denver Broncos. That could be an interesting development.
AMY WALTER:
Now, look at the NBA, which also has most of its players are Black players, and yet 40-something-percent of its coaches are Black. So it is possible to do this. There isn't, like, "Oh gosh, it's just too hard to get a pipeline." There's a pipeline there. It's just that there's not the incentive, as you've pointed out. And you have to be very intentional about this. So intentionality isn't just putting out a statement saying, "We have this Rooney Rule, so go ahead and interview." Intentionality says, "No, we're going to set metrics. We're going to make sure that at the end of each one of these interviews or at the end of each season, we're going to assess this," and that the owners themselves will self-assess and be intentional. That's just not happening.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, it's easy to pile on Roger Goodell. People love to jump on him. But this is a case where now you could say he's been weak in how he did it, Matthew, but he's tried to create incentive. Like, "Come on, guys. We've got to get better here. We're going to do a second Rooney. Now you've got to do two interviews. We'll give you a draft pick." And they didn't get the hint.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
No. And, you know, the NFL, because of the way it's structured, Goodell has only so much leverage over these owners. And at the end of the day, it's the owners who make the decisions and the GMs who they also hire. And so it's going to be a very personal decision. Until you find some leverage or some way to incentivize even further to have more Black coaches, I'm very pessimistic about the chances because another thing we haven't mentioned too is the coaching trees, right?
CHUCK TODD:
Right. Set up --
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
So you have --
CHUCK TODD:
– the tree.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
--one Super Bowl coach, and all of a sudden, all the other teams, they start to hire all of his assistants.
CHUCK TODD:
Oh, except with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, that didn't seem to happen.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
Isn't that weird?
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, they had --
MATTHEW CO NTINETTI:
Exactly.
CHUCK TODD:
– two coordinators that didn't get hired, both African American, after they won the Super Bowl last year.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI:
So the NFL has a lot to overcome before they have more diversity in the coaching.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, Helene, you were comparing the situation to the Premier League in saying, "Boy, it's stark there too." And Premier League actually has an NFL owner in it.
HELENE COOPER:
They do.
CHUCK TODD:
Couple of them.
HELENE COOPER:
Yeah, both the Premier and the Championship League have Black coaches as well over in the U.K. But the reality is that you could say this about any different corporation, the whole American corporate structure. I mean, this is not just football. I mean, basketball is a little bit different, but this is a symbol of American society, where the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of white people. And the only reason why this is so glaringly obvious with the NFL is because we're watching it every Sunday and Monday, and because so many of the players are Black.
CHUCK TODD:
Go ahead, Amy.
AMY WALTER:
Oh. No, I was saying that's exactly right. It's a structural issue that is not just about one game.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, I'll be very curious to see how the Denver Bronco sale goes because that is an opportunity, at a minimum, for them to try to at least show at least symbolic acknowledgment of this inequality issue. And that's all we have for today. Thank you for watching. Enjoy the Olympics. And remember, if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.