PETER ALEXANDER:
This Sunday, guilty.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
This was a disgrace, this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Donald Trump becomes the first American president convicted of a felony after a New York jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.
DA ALVIN BRAGG:
I did my job. We did our job. The only voice that matters is the voice of the jury and the jury has spoken.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this is rigged because they don’t like the verdict.
PETER ALEXANDER:
How will the historic verdict impact the 2024 race?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people.
PETER ALEXANDER:
My guests this morning: former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Joining me for insight and analysis are: Amy Walter, editor-in-chief of The Cook Political Report, Leigh Ann Caldwell of The Washington Post, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. 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 Kristen Welker.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Good Sunday morning. I’m Peter Alexander, in for Kristen Welker. For the first time in American history, a former president has been convicted of a crime. This past week, a Manhattan jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump falsified business records in order to influence the 2016 election, finding him guilty on all 34 counts. Felony crimes. Mr. Trump, who chose not to testify, instead vented his anger outside the court, claiming the trial was rigged against him and vowing to appeal.
[START TAPE]
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. It's a rigged trial, a disgrace. They wouldn't give us a venue change. We were at 5% or 6%. In this district in this area. This was a rigged disgraceful trial. The real verdict is going to be November 5 by the people.
[END TAPE]
PETER ALEXANDER:
In the days since, the former president’s allies, including vice presidential hopefuls, have lined up to rail against the trial and its outcome and have attacked Democrats, claiming the fix was in from the start.
[START TAPE]
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON:
What happened there was outrageous, and you're right, the American people see it. This is a purely political exercise, not a legal one.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO:
This is the most outrageous travesty I've ever seen. And the problem here is, Democrats across this line. They have crossed the line in which now the court system is a political weapon.
SEN. TIM SCOTT:
This is the weaponization of the justice system against their political opponent. This is a justice system that hunts Republicans while protecting Democrats. This was certainly a hoax, a sham.
[END TAPE]
PETER ALEXANDER:
Next up, Mr. Trump’s sentencing. That’s set for July 11, just days before he's supposed to officially accept the Republican Party's nomination. With Mr. Trump's other criminal cases in Washington, Florida, and Georgia all bogged down with significant delays, the Manhattan case is likely to be the only trial Mr. Trump faces before Election Day. The question now: Will the verdict impact the view of voters? Our first indication, a poll conducted in the days after the verdict, shows that a majority of voters across the political spectrum say Mr. Trump's conviction will not affect their vote. And, now that Mr. Trump's been convicted, the Biden campaign is looking for ways to shake up a race that has remained largely stagnant. This morning, NBC News reports the Biden team is accelerating its timetable to get more aggressive, plans it had been holding on to for later this summer. That includes sharpening its message to argue Mr. Trump is more focused on himself than he is on voters. President Biden, who mostly stayed away from commenting during the trial, finally weighed in.
[START TAPE]
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
The jury heard five weeks of evidence, five weeks. After careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. Now he'll be given the opportunity, as he should, to appeal that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity. That's how the American system of justice works. And it's reckless. It's dangerous, it's irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict.
[END TAPE]
PETER ALEXANDER:
And joining me now, Republican senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton. Senator Cotton, welcome back to Meet The Press.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Good morning, Peter.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Do you accept the jury's verdict that Donald Trump is guilty of these 34 felonies?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
No, Peter, I disagree with the jury's verdict here. A jury can only act within the constraints that a judge puts on it, and this case was rigged from the very beginning. You had Alvin Bragg, who campaigned on getting Donald Trump. You had the judge, who's a literal Biden donor, and at every turn he ruled in favor of the prosecution. But as Donald Trump said, the real verdict is going to come on Election Day, and it's going to come from the American people. And it's going to be based on things like they can't pay for their rent and put food on the table for their kids. The border is chaos. We've got war all around the world. The reason why you have this weaponization of the legal system is because Joe Biden can't defend his weak, failed record, and that they – the American people see through it and they remember that Donald Trump brought peace and prosperity to this country.
PETER ALEXANDER:
So let me just clarify a couple things for our audience right now. As you know well, this was a state case. Donald Trump was indicted by a grand jury in New York. He was convicted by a jury of 12 New Yorkers, beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't seek this responsibility. Joe Biden, as you know, had nothing to do with this case, Senator. In fact, the Manhattan D.A.'s investigation, this case, began in 2018 when Joe Biden wasn't even the party's, the Democratic Party's, presidential nominee. So let me ask it a different way perhaps. Did the jury get it wrong here?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Peter, I do believe the jury got it wrong. Again, the jury can only decide based on what the judge puts in front of them. Just look at what happened in this case repeatedly. Again, you had a judge who is literally a donor to Joe Biden's campaign in 2020 so he could stop Donald Trump. He should've never been presiding over this case. He introduced evidence that was highly, highly inflammatory and prejudicial. He didn't allow President Trump to put on certain evidence and witnesses. He never even insisted the prosecution reveal the alleged underlying crime for which Donald Trump supposedly covered up in – in bookkeeping entries. At every turn the judge put his finger on the scales, practically forcing the jury to find – to reach this outcome.
PETER ALEXANDER:
You're talking about the judge Juan Merchan. He did give $20 to Democrats, gave $15 to Joe Biden in 2020. But the appeals court, Senator, affirmed his decision to stay on the case. And as it relates to the rules, the instructions, Trump's lawyers passed on the opportunity to argue that the charges should be considered misdemeanors in the jury instructions. Republicans are attacking the judge, the jury, the legal system here instead of letting the process play out. If Donald Trump wins on appeal, is that valid?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, I think there's no question Donald Trump should win on appeal. He’s an –
PETER ALEXANDER:
So if he loses on appeal, would that be valid?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
He's an – he’s an innocent man who did nothing wrong. This judge, again, violated New York rules by giving money to Joe Biden in 2020 specifically to stop Donald Trump. I hope that the court of appeals in New York actually applies the law in an even-handed way, as opposed to do what this judge did, what Joe Biden's Department of Justice has done, which is bending the rules at every turn solely to stop Donald Trump. The only thing Donald Trump is guilty of is being a threat to Joe Biden's reelection.
PETER ALEXANDER:
And when you talk about what Joe Biden's Department of Justice has done, Joe Biden's Department of Justice is also right now prosecuting cases against Democrats. Robert Menendez, a Democrat of New Jersey, Henry Cuellar, the Democratic representative from Texas, and Hunter Biden, the case against Hunter Biden on those gun charges begins tomorrow. Let me ask you about what we've heard from former President Trump. At the first official event of this reelection campaign Donald Trump proclaimed, "I am your retribution." He talks about seeking revenge against his political enemies and says he will appoint a special prosecutor to, in his words, "Go after Joe Biden and his family." If it's so objectionable for the justice system to be, as you say, weaponized against Donald Trump, why is it acceptable for Donald Trump to campaign on weaponizing the DOJ against Joe Biden?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, first off, Peter, let me just go back to the points you made about prosecuting certain Democrats like Bob Menendez and Henry Cuellar. I've noticed that Joe Biden's Department of Justice tends to target the Democrats that are critical of Joe Biden. Bob Menendez criticized him for his weak Iran policy--
PETER ALEXANDER:
So he's weaponizing it –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Henry Cuellar –
PETER ALEXANDER:
against people who don't like him?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Henry Cuellar criticizes the president's immigration policy. They're investigating the mayor of New York because he has –
PETER ALEXANDER:
How about –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– criticized Joe –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Sir, how –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– Biden's immigration –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– about his own son –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– policy.
PETER ALEXANDER:
–Hunter Biden. The case begins –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Hunter Biden –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– tomorrow.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Hunter Biden is guilty of so many crimes he can barely even keep track of them, unlike Donald Trump, for whom they never even revealed the alleged crime that he's supposedly tried to cover up.
PETER ALEXANDER:
So just to be clear though, if he was weaponizing the Justice Department, wouldn't he want to keep any case away from his own son?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
He was forced – his own justice department tried to rig a settlement. They were forced by a judge asking questions of the prosecutor and Hunter Biden's defense attorneys –
PETER ALEXANDER:
But wouldn't he get rid –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– who had colluded –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– of it completely? Why would –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Colluded –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– he weaponize it against his own son? Just get rid of the case all together, by your argument.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, because he's going to pardon is own son after the election. And that's – that’s what you should ask Joe Biden at the White House sometime is, "Do you commit to not pardon –
PETER ALEXANDER:
So let me go back to –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– Hunter Biden after the election?"
PETER ALEXANDER:
Let me go back, Senator, to my initial question, which is if it's so objectionable for the justice system, as you say, to be weaponized by Joe Biden against Donald Trump, why is it appropriate for Donald Trump to campaign on weaponizing it against Joe Biden?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Donald Trump has said that his so-called retribution will be success, success at the ballot box –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Well, he also said –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– and then restoring –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– "An eye for an eye" –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– restoring peace –
PETER ALEXANDER:
So he hasn't said it sincerely.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– and prosperity. In 2016 when so many people insisted that Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges for doing exactly what Donald Trump was wrongly accused of doing, which is mischaracterizing legal expenses as something else, remember she paid for the dirty Russian dossier that characterizes legal expenses. She paid a fine to the FEC. Donald Trump specifically said he would not prosecute Hillary Clinton because that's not what we do in America. What the Democrats have done in New York is like something that would happen in Pakistan or Brazil. It's something that America would sanction another country for –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Sir, he –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– for engaging in –
PETER ALEXANDER:
--campaigned on--
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– election interference.
PETER ALEXANDER:
– locking up Hillary Clinton.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
And he said after the election that that's not what we do in America. If New York was--
PETER ALEXANDER:
But he campaigned –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– a foreign –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– on it then after said he wouldn't do it?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
If – if –
PETER ALEXANDER:
I guess let's get back to the question about –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
No, Peter, Peter, if New York was a foreign country, America would sanction them for trying to target the weaponization of the legal system, their political opponents, and rigging election outcomes.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Are you okay then with Donald Trump saying he will weaponize the DOJ against Joe Biden?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
He has said repeatedly that this should never happen. It shouldn't happen to him, it shouldn't happen to Hillary Clinton –
PETER ALEXANDER:
But he's campaigning on that –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
It shouldn't happen to –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– very basis.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Peter, we've been down this road before. In 2016 people called for Hillary Clinton to be prosecuted. She probably deserved it. But Donald Trump said that's not what we do in America to someone who loses an election like Hillary Clinton.
PETER ALEXANDER:
So you disagree with Senator Marco Rubio, who says he should get even.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Donald Trump has said as recently as last month that his retribution will be success, success at the election and then restoring the peace and prosperity that he brought to America for four years that Joe Biden has destroyed.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Since Thursday's verdict there has been a spike in violent rhetoric online directed towards the jurors in particular, including calls to publish their addresses, physical attacks. Will you condemn those threats?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, Peter, I don't know what obscure websites that you've gone to –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Well, no, this –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– find these kind of things.
PETER ALEXANDER:
– is from Truth Social. It's not an obscure website. An individual says, "I hope every juror is doxed and they pay for what they have done. May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay."
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Again –
PETER ALEXANDER:
You can condemn that threat, can't you?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Again, I will always say that violence has no place in our politics. Again, I don't know what obscure account you found on social media –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Well, it's on Truth Social.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
But I’ll say –
PETER ALEXANDER:
It's on his website.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
But I'll say this: Where – where's the justice when you have Democratic street militias marching outside the homes of Supreme Court justices carrying flex cuffs and hooligan tools so they could break into the home of justices and try to assassinate them. Exactly one person has been charged when every single person who were trying to intimidate those justices violated federal law. Why isn't the Department of Justice using the same techniques on those Democratic street militias that they're using for every grandma who wore a red MAGA hat within a country mile of the Capitol on –
PETER ALEXANDER:
So we can agree –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– January 6th?
PETER ALEXANDER:
– that those threats should be condemned on all sides, correct? Let me ask you about your certification of the 2020 election. You did certify the 2020 election results after Donald Trump lost. Will you commit to certifying the 2024 election results no matter who wins?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, Peter, I don't think Congress has the constitutional authority to reject electors that have been certified by a state. I – I will accept the results of the election and certify them if it's a fair and a free election.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Who gets to decide if it's fair?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, ultimately, it is up to both – ultimately, it’s up to the voters, but any candidate of any party has a perfect right to pursue legal remedies if they believe there's been fraud or cheating in an election, just like Al Gore did in dozens of lawsuits in 2000. That is perfectly appropriate. And then the states certify the electors. I don't think Congress has the authority to reject those electors. I also think every candidate has a right to wait until the election is conducted to ensure it's been conducted in a fair and free fashion.
PETER ALEXANDER:
And – and that's different than what Donald Trump thought. Let me show some of your words from January 6th of 2021. You said, quote, "It is past time for the president to accept the results of the election and quit misleading the American people." That was more than three years ago, Senator. Donald Trump still has not accepted the results. Does it still bother you that he is, to use your words, misleading Americans?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
No, that – that disagreement was about what should happen in Congress on that day. Once the states have certified electors, I don't think Congress has the authority to reject those electors. I wouldn't want Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris next year to reject Donald Trump's winning electors. This is about Congress' authority. I agree with Donald Trump that there were many irregularities in the election, including Democratic cities and states changing their rules and practices in the weeks leading up to the election or for that matter networks like yours trying to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop because 51 Democratic intelligence operatives colluding with the Biden campaign put out –
PETER ALEXANDER:
But, sir –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– a letter saying this –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– to be clear, I'm talking about your words here. So I just want to get to the heart of it. What did you mean when you said that he was misleading Americans?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Look, we had a disagreement about what should happen that day. I don't think Congress has the elect – the constitutional authority to reject electors. And, as a practical matter, it was never going to happen –
PETER ALEXANDER:
What was he –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– because Nancy Pelosi –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– misleading the American people about though –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
That – that any vote we took that day was going to make a difference about certifying those electors. I don't think Congress has the constitutional authority –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Is he still misleading the American people?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– and I don't think Nancy Pelosi's House was ever going to do that.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Is he still misleading the American people?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Look, he has said that the election had many irregularities and there was fraud and cheating on the way up to it.
PETER ALEXANDER:
So my question –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
I believe that as well. We disagreed – we had a disagreement about what could happen on that vote on that day. It's not going to matter next year, in my opinion, because he's going to win in such a huge landslide with more than 300 electoral votes that there won't be any dispute at all.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Another place you had a disagreement on that day, January 6th, you called the people who attacked the Capitol insurrectionists and said, quote, "They should face the full extent of federal law." What message is Donald Trump sending by promising to pardon these people in a second term?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, Peter, I – I use the same term to describe the BLM rioters and the Antifa rioters in the previous summer. I've long said that anyone, anyone, anyone on January 6th who attacked a law enforcement officer or damaged public property should face legal consequences. There are hundreds –
PETER ALEXANDER:
But Donald Trump's not making that distinction though.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
He has.
PETER ALEXANDER:
So should he pardon –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
He – he absolute –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– those individuals as well?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
He absolutely has.
PETER ALEXANDER:
No, he hasn't.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Yes, he has –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Sir, he has not –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Peter. Peter, there are hundreds of people who were at the Capitol or even outside the Capitol that day who did not attack a law enforcement officer, who did not damage public property, who are face – who are facing more time in jail than the sentence– than the crimes for which they are charged, many of whom are about to have their convictions erased by the Supreme Court –
PETER ALEXANDER:
To be clear though –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Yet there's – compare – compare the techniques the Department of Justice used to pursue the BLM rioters or these Democratic street militias outside the Supreme Court.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Let me get back to the question though. You disagree with the president on this. The president to Time magazine in the last several weeks said that he would consider pardoning all of them. You would disagree with that--
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, there's –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– correct?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– a difference in saying he would and saying he would consider it. I think –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Should he pardon all of them, by your standard of what's appropriate?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Peter, he should evaluate each case on the merit –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Including the four who are convicted of seditious conspiracy, sir?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
– which is what he did when he was the president the first time. And anyone who is charged with silly misdemeanors about parading on public grounds without a permit, who did not attack a law enforcement officer, who did not damage public property, their pardon should be considered. In many cases I would say it should be granted because many of them, frankly, are about to have their convictions or their charges erased by the Supreme Court in just a few weeks.
PETER ALEXANDER:
To be clear, you're making a distinction that Donald Trump has not publicly made. Let me talk about your future. You are reportedly on Donald Trump's short list of possible running mates. Would you accept if Donald Trump asked you?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Well, Peter, Donald Trump's going to make this choice. I suspect only he knows who's on his short list.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Has he spoken to you about this?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
I have not talked to the president or his campaign about his vice presidential selection or any position in his administration.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Would you accept it if offered?
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Peter, any great patriot, if offered a chance to serve our country by the president, would have to consider it seriously. But what I'm focused on, like the president, is making sure that we win this election in November, and I want to help him govern successfully to restore the peace and prosperity that he brought to America for four years that Joe Biden has destroyed.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Senator Cotton, we appreciate your time and your perspective. Thanks for joining us on Meet The Press.
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
Thank you, Peter.
PETER ALEXANDER:
And coming up right here when we come back, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries joins me next.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Welcome back. In Philadelphia this past week, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris made a rare joint appearance to strengthen their support among Black voters and to keep former President Trump from making any further inroads with a key Democratic constituency.
[START TAPE]
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
I've shown you who I am. And Trump has shown you who he is. And today, Donald Trump is pandering and peddling lies and stereotypes for your votes so he can win for himself, not for you. Well, Donald Trump, I have a message for you: Not in our house and not on our watch.
[END TAPE]
PETER ALEXANDER:
And joining me now is House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat from New York. Leader Jeffries, welcome back to Meet the Press.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Good morning.
PETER ALEXANDER:
I want to start by asking you about this historic verdict. President Biden opened his remarks on Friday saying, "It is irresponsible for anyone to say the verdict was rigged just because they do not like it." This crime was more than eight years old. There are questions about the validity of the legal theory – untested legal theory that was used to prosecute it. Would this case have been brought against anyone other than former President Trump?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Yes, of course. This verdict in the case of People v. Trump was a validation of the American judicial system. Donald Trump was entitled to the presumption of innocence. He received it. Donald Trump was entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers. He received it. Donald Trump was entitled to a vigorous defense. He received it. Twelve jurors, 12 American citizens, after five weeks of a trial, evaluated the facts, the evidence and the law, and came to a unanimous decision as it relates to convicting Donald Trump on 34 felony counts. That is an affirmation of the American judicial system. This is America. We are not a system that is occupied by a monarch or a king or a dictator. We are a democracy. And in a democracy, no one is above the law.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Congressman Jeffries, Donald Trump's attorney, as you've certainly heard, said that they will appeal the verdict. If it is overturned on appeal, will you accept that result?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Yes.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Simple as that. Let me ask you about Thursday's verdict. And in the time since, the Trump campaign claims that it has raised tens of millions of dollars. How concerned should Democrats be that this conviction will help Donald Trump get re-elected?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Well, this election will present a clear contrast between President Biden and Democrats in the House and the Senate who will always continue to put people over politics. Extreme MAGA Republicans are going to continue to lie for Donald Trump. President Biden and Democrats are going to continue to solve problems for hard-working American taxpayers. Extreme MAGA Republicans will continue to lie for Donald Trump.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Sir, those –
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
President Biden and Democrats are going to work on delivering real results as has been the case for the last three and a half months. And we're going to see that extreme MAGA Republicans will continue to lie for Donald Trump and present no real vision for dealing with the issues of importance to the American people. That's a contrast. And I'd rather be on President Biden's side of that contrast than on the extreme MAGA Republican side.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Sir, I want to drill down on that with you. And excuse my interruption with the delay and the satellite. Those close to the Biden campaign tell me that Mr. Trump's conviction is not going be a central message of this campaign. Is that the right approach?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
I think the right approach is to make clear that real progress has been made on behalf of the American people. Because of the leadership of President Biden, we were able to rescue the economy from a once-in-a-century pandemic –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Should this be a central issue though –
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
– with shots in arms, money in pockets, kids back in school. I think that the issues of importance to the American people such as the progress that has been made and the need to continue to build upon that progress and finish the job by working on continuing to build a healthy economy from the middle out and the bottom up, lowering housing costs, addressing the challenges at the border, and ending price gouging will be central to the message that President Biden and House Democrats articulate moving forward. Can the extreme MAGA Republicans point to a single issue where they've actually made progress for the American people? A single issue? They cannot.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Let me –
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
And so as a result, what we see are conspiracy theories being spewed at the direction of Donald Trump.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Sir, let me ask you about another question that we'll be watching and will make headlines this week. Hunter Biden, the president's son, goes on trial for gun charges beginning tomorrow. President Biden said last year, quote, "My son has done nothing wrong." The Wall Street Journal, as you see here, the Editorial Board said at the time, quote, "That's a highly inappropriate message from a president. He's essentially telling prosecutors that they are wrong to bring an indictment because Hunter is innocent of any criminal behavior." Why was it appropriate for President Biden to publicly comment on his son's case?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
President Biden commented as a loving father, as I would hope any loving father would do. Hunter Biden of course is entitled, as was Donald Trump, to the presumption of innocence and to a trial by a jury of his peers. And this Justice Department is going to proceed in that fashion, present the facts and the law. And then we'll all have to wait for a determination that is made by a jury as to Hunter Biden's guilt or innocence.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Let me ask you about what's been taking place overseas. Right now in news that was made just this morning, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel just accepted the invitation from you and your congressional leadership colleagues to address a joint session of Congress. We don't have a date for that yet. But the Senate's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, recently called Netanyahu, quote, "a major obstacle to peace." So do you agree with Schumer's assessment that Netanyahu is a major obstacle to peace?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
It's my hope that the prime minister upon his arrival in the United States Congress will address the Biden peace plan that has been put forth that I think comprehensively provides a way forward to bring the hostages home, to end the conflict in Gaza, to allow for a just and lasting peace to be put into place, which is what every reasonable person –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Is he a major obstacle –
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
– would want to see –
PETER ALEXANDER:
– to peace though, sir, to my question?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
It's my hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu, consistent with what has been done by the Israeli war cabinet, which is to unanimously adopt the Biden peace plan, will conduct himself in a manner consistent with that Israeli war cabinet. It's on Hamas, as far as I can tell, as President Biden indicated, to accept the peace plan so we can end this conflict and move towards a just –
PETER ALEXANDER:
So you –
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
– and lasting peace.
PETER ALEXANDER:
– don't have any criticism of Netanyahu's conducting of this war to this point?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
I think that there will be ample room to be able to assess what was done right, what may have been done wrong. I certainly criticized the Israeli air strike from earlier this week. It was –
PETER ALEXANDER:
Dozens of Palestinians killed.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
– a tragedy. It should not have happened. And we mourn for the loss of people.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Leader Jeffries, I want to ask you about the president's challenges, specifically with Black voters. It has been a focus of the campaign for the last several weeks. As you know well, President Biden promised legislation on police reform, on voting rights. He failed to deliver on both. Why do you think he is struggling with Black voters right now, in particular, Black men?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Well, as I indicated earlier Peter, President Biden does have a track record of success with respect to increasing home ownership opportunities, lowering the unemployment rate within the Black community to its lowest level in recorded history, record investment with respect to historically Black colleges and universities, increasing entrepreneurial opportunities. But of course, there is more that needs to be done. And that will be part of the vision that is articulated for a second term, that we recognize we want to continue to promote entrepreneurship with Black men and throughout America amongst people of every race. Promote home ownership and promote the creation of wealth so that everyone has a fair shot at the American dream.
PETER ALEXANDER:
So you acknowledge he has some work to do with the Black community. Before I let you go, I want to ask a question that I asked your Republican colleagues as well which is: Will you vote to certify the results of the 2024 election no matter who wins?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Certainly. That has always been the case because in America the peaceful transfer of power is sacrosanct. That's one of the reasons why many Americans – Democrats, independents, and traditional Republicans – have been troubled by the election denialism or the denial that we've seen coming from the other side of the aisle. I'm hopeful that this will be a campaign focused on the issues. And Democrats are going to continue to articulate our vision for solving problems for hard-working American taxpayers to create a bright future for everyone.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. Mr. Leader, we appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Thank you.
PETER ALEXANDER:
When we come back, will the Trump conviction hold up on appeal? The former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance joins me next.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Welcome back. President Trump's weeks-long trial for falsifying business records was not his first legal battle with the Manhattan district attorney. Our next guest spent more than two years investigating the business dealings of the Trump Organization before prosecuting the company and its chief financial officer but not the former president. And joining me now is the former three-term Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance. Cy, welcome back to Meet the Press.
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Good morning and thanks for having me back.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Donald Trump's campaign, as you have seen, is leaning into the idea of this untested legal theory behind the case that escalated state misdemeanors into state felonies, based on, among other things, a violation of federal election law. Prosecutors – this is from Elie Honig, the former federal prosecutor, I'll put it up on the screen. He said, "Prosecutors got their man, for now at least, but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey." You chose not to bring these charges against Donald Trump when you were DA. How much did this being an unprecedented legal, novel theory weigh into your decision-making?
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Well, we did investigate the former president on a range of issues. I ultimately believed that our investigation was best focused on financial crimes. First, we had a lot of time spent, lost, during COVID, where our investigations were interrupted. We had to go to the Supreme Court twice to ultimately have the highest court in the country rule that the president's tax returns were – were not privileged and had to be turned over to investigators and that reaffirmed the constitutional principle that even a sitting president can be investigated for crimes that occurred before he was president. So we looked at all – we looked at all the legal issues, Peter. We spent years. And I'm confident that we made the right choice for us at that time in pursuing the financial crimes investigation. As you know, it resulted in convictions.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Cy, if I can, let me ask you though, when you were the Manhattan DA, as you said, you charged the Trump Organization, you charged the CFO, chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, but you did not pursue charges against Donald Trump himself. How much did the fact that he was a sitting president, then former president, weigh into that decision?
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Well, I think of course it weighs into the decision because of the significance of a decision to charge a sitting president. But ultimately, we did pursue those charges that we felt were appropriate and which were backed up by the evidence and which were significant. In – in the first indictment it was systemic tax fraud and double bookkeeping in his company, and that's what we felt the charges should be. And that's where we, unfortunately, ran out of time at the end of my administration. And then DA Bragg took over. He redirected the efforts of the office.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Yeah, and to be clear, as you have said, that there was additional evidence that DA Bragg was able to collect. Donald Trump's attorney says they're going to appeal this verdict. Do you think the prosecution's case will withstand an appeal?
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Well, certainly there will be strong appeals, and there are going to be issues that will be carefully considered by the appellate courts.
PETER ALEXANDER:
What's the best grounds for an appeal, Cy?
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Well, I'm really not going to comment on something that I don't think is my place to comment on. But they've identified this issue about charges that are not necessarily identified, a choice between three charges, sort of Russian nesting doll theory. But I want to address that, if I can, Peter. You know, that's not – that's not necessarily totally unusual in New York law. You commit burglary in New York, burglary of a dwelling, where you enter a person's home with intent to commit a crime therein. The jury's not required to find beyond a reasonable doubt what that crime is. And so – so my point is that in other areas of law this has been sustained, and I think that will be informative and perhaps decisive to the appellate courts as they look at the president's appeal.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Mr. Trump's sentencing, as you know, is going to take place on July 11th, next month. These are the lowest-level, nonviolent felonies. They are punishable by a fine, probation, or up to four years in prison. Donald Trump turned 78 this month. He's almost 80. He has no prior record. Here's what he said this morning in an interview with Fox on the topic of possible jail time.
[START TAPE]
PETE HEGSETH:
The judge could decide to say house arrest or even jail.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He could. He could.
PETE HEGSETH:
What that would look like?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I'm okay with it. I saw one of my lawyers the other day on television saying, “Oh no, you don't want to do that to the pres –” I said, you don't beg for anything. I don't know that the public would stand it, you know, I'm not sure the public would stand for it.
[END TAPE]
PETER ALEXANDER:
If you were still DA, would you recommend jail time?
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Well, I'm not going to answer that question because that's really just for Mr. Bragg to decide. If you ask me do I think the court will impose jail in this case, as I said to you I think yesterday, I think not. But ultimately, that's Judge Merchan's decision. The president has made this a little more complicated by having been found in contempt ten times during the court, but I think that with the proximity of the Republican convention four days after his sentencing and then if he is the candidate for the Republican Party the proximity of the election, I would be surprised that he would be sentenced to any imprisonment.
PETER ALEXANDER:
What do you think going to jail would do for Donald Trump?
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Now, that said, the court could adjourn sentencing until after the general election and then essentially decide then.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Let me ask you about one of the key criticisms here. Mr. Trump and his allies, they keep taking aim at Judge Juan Merchan. He did give $15 to the Biden campaign in 2020, gave an additional $20 to Democratic causes then. Even if he wasn't technically required to recuse himself, should Judge Merchan have recused himself just to avoid even the appearance of a conflict?
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
I really don't think a $20 donation and a $30 donation rise to the level of a serious appearance of a conflict. Obviously, Senator Cotton and others who are speaking for the president strongly disagree with that. I look at that both as de minimis and, secondly, that it has been reviewed by the courts in New York and determined not to be a grounds for recusal. I know Judge Merchan. Obviously, we were before — Judge Merchan, he was our grand jury judge when we prosecuted the Trump Organization. And I think he is honest as the day is long. He was careful. He was caring. And I think he handled a very difficult trial with a neutral hand and gave the president every benefit of the doubt that he was entitled to under the law.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Then quickly to conclude, Donald Trump and his allies have branded this case a witch hunt. You've heard that in particular they have been critical of DA Alvin Bragg and a key member of his team who was hired directly from the Biden Justice Department. How do you respond to the criticism that this was a political prosecution?
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Do you remember when Michael Cohen was indicted by U.S. Attorney Bharara in 2015? The president – incoming president, President Trump, asked Bharara to stay on and that investigation continued. So President Trump fired Bharara and he brought in a Republican U.S. attorney, Geoff Berman, excellent man, great lawyer. Geoff Berman continued the investigation into the president so the president fired him too. So this has really – the Justice Department under a Democrat and this president investigated this president's conduct, and the president's response in both instances was to kill the case.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Cyrus Vance, we appreciate your joining us. Thanks for coming back to Meet The Press. When we come back, why drawing –
CYRUS VANCE JR.:
Thank you.
PETER ALEXANDER:
– a red line in the Middle East is complicated. Our Meet The Press Minute is next.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Welcome back. As Israel expanded its military operation in Rafah this week, killing dozens of Palestinian civilians after an airstrike, the White House insisted Israel's actions did not cross President Biden's "red line." Critics say Mr. Biden is caving on his promise of withholding certain weapons if Israel launched a major military operation there. Drawing red lines in the Middle East has been a controversial topic for decades. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for his own red line in 2012 when he appeared on this program, on the topic of Iran.
[START TAPE]
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:
I think a red line in this case works to reduce the chances of the need for military action because once the Iranians understand that there’s no-- there’s a line that they can’t cross, they are not likely to cross it, you know, when President Kennedy set a red line in the Cuban missile crisis, he was criticized. But it turned out it didn’t bring war, it actually pushed war back and probably purchased decades of peace with the Soviet Union. Conversely, when there was no American red line set before the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and maybe that war could have been avoided. They are very close, they are six months away from being about ninety percent of having the enriched uranium for an atom bomb, I think that you have to place that red line before them now before it’s – it’s too late.
[END TAPE]
PETER ALEXANDER:
When we come back, what impact will the historic verdict have on the 2024 race? The panel is next.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Welcome back. The panel is here: Amy Walter, editor-in-chief of The Cook Political Report; Leigh Ann Caldwell of the Washington Post; former White House press secretary Jen Psaki; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. This is a smart panel. I'm glad to be here with all of you guys today. Leigh Ann, let me get started if we can for a second. If there's one thing that Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree on at the end of this past week, it's that this thing ultimately will be decided by the voters on November 5th. How much though does this verdict shake up this race?
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL:
Well, there's some things we know, and there's a lot we don't know. What we know is that this will absolutely motivate the Trump base. What the Biden campaign hopes is that this shores up the Biden base, which has drawn away from him recently. What we're also looking for is where independent voters, especially those voters who haven't been paying attention, miraculously, yet to anything, where they go. Do they think that this is going to push them toward Trump because he is a victim, or is this going to push them toward Biden because they don't want to vote for a felon? And so that's what we don't know. But what the Biden campaign is saying though is that what they think is that this will absolutely not grow Trump's base, this does not bring in new Trump voters. And we'll have to see if that is actually what happens though--
PETER ALEXANDER:
Amy, there's only limited polling so far. This was a hypothetical. Now, it's a reality. We really have to wait. Anyone who tells you they know is lying to you right now. But is there any evidence that this would backfire, that this would hurt Donald Trump?
AMY WALTER:
Well, I think this race ultimately is going to come down to the 20% or so of Americans who say they dislike both candidates and they are not interested in either one of these candidates; they see liabilities in both. And so ultimately this race is about: Where does that spotlight go in October? Today, at this moment it is on Donald Trump and his liabilities, which I think hurts him. It has for most of this campaign been focused on the president himself, Joe Biden and his liabilities, which we've seen in the polling is not helping him. So where is that spotlight once we get closer to the election? That's where those 20% or so will decide.
PETER ALEXANDER:
That's why there's a fear about RFK, about Kennedy, also a fear about erosion: people just decide to sit this one all out together and who that impacts. Jen, President Biden blasted Mr. Trump for calling the justice system rigged, and the Biden campaign started to lean into this strategy of calling him a convicted felon. I've been speaking to Biden allies. They say this is not going to be a central message going forward. What is the sharp strategy here? Should this be a key message going forward?
JEN PSAKI:
First, I think it's important to say it's better not to run as a convicted felon, and Trump doesn't have that choice. And so for the Biden team, their challenge is: How do you appeal to the people Amy referenced, right, the double-haters—you can call them anything you want; the people who are not excited about either choice—while also shoring up the base of your party? And for President Biden, a lot of people in the base of the party would love to have him wearing a T-shirt with Donald Trump behind bars, but that may not be appealing to that group of people who he needs to pull to his side. So the biggest moment that I'm watching is the debate, which is 25 days away—Lanhee just reminded us of—and how President Biden does, how he handles this in that debate. Is he going to scream "convicted felon" at Donald Trump? Maybe—we're in unprecedented times—but it doesn't sound like his style to me. But he's going to have to draw the contrast on this while also reminding people that he is the one who's going to defend abortion rights and all of the other issues that people really care about. That's tricky.
PETER ALEXANDER:
And the debate is largely performative in a lot of ways too, right? How do these two men—one, 78 this month; and one 81—perform for this debate event? Lanhee, Mr. Trump is casting himself—you've seen the campaign effort so far—as a political prisoner. Obviously, that's not the case. He has legal representation. He has the right to an appeal. He's not been detained, hasn't been imprisoned. But his supporters are now attacking the judge, the jury, the entire legal system. Is there a risk that this backfires on Donald Trump?
LANHEE CHEN:
Yeah, I'm really not sure that any of this aftermath that we're looking at matters. Let us return to the fundamentals of this race, okay? You have a president with a historically low approval rating, 39%. For comparison, Barack Obama at this stage of his presidency was at 48%. George H.W. Bush at 40%, Donald Trump at 42%. So historically low approval ratings. You have an economy. We had inflation numbers on Friday that show us inflation's basically sideways. What does that mean? People are still struggling with the cost of living. The economy remains the top issue for this election. And then the final thing is: Who are the voters that we really care about when it comes to deciding this election? You know, there's 99% awareness of this verdict against Donald Trump. You mentioned about a quarter, about 25% of voters are the double-haters. I'd say who we really care about from the perspective of the election are about 6/100ths of 1% of voters, all right? And that's people in the six swing states. And will it really matter to them? I'm not sure that it will because fundamentally the issues they care about—the economy, immigration—those are the ones I believe this election hinges on.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Jen, you're trying to get in.
JEN PSAKI:
I was just going to say I do think when you talk to candidates – we were talking about this a little bit earlier – nobody knows what the impact of this will be. And some of it may be hard to measure because there are things like character, baggage that's hard for people to measure in polls. But I do think issues like abortion rights. Any candidate you talk to, that's what they want to be talking about in this election: ones who are up for vulnerable reelections or who are candidates challenging Republicans. So it's not that they don't want to talk about Trump as a convict, but they want to talk about other issues that they feel there's a bigger contrast.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Amy, let me ask – oh, Leigh Ann, please.
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL:
I was just going to add to that. And you can see the difference in the parties. If you look on what's going to happen on Capitol Hill this week, you have Republicans who are going to lean into this verdict to defend Donald Trump, trying to slow down everything that's happening in the Senate, while also trying to bring in Alvin Bragg before a committee. Meanwhile, you have Democrats in the Senate who are focusing on IVF, abortion, contraception because they think that those are going to be the winning issues. So you have this split screen happening on what this campaign should look like.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Amy, President Biden, according to the Cook Political Report's own polling right now, is trailing down-ballot Democrats in a ton of these key races right now. Why is he struggling so much with Democrats?
AMY WALTER:
Well, it goes all right to what Lanhee's saying about the economy. People are looking at this election through that lens. They're not looking at it as much through the lens of abortion rights or IVF or the issues that are beneficial to Democrats. When it is about – these last few years, Donald Trump has been the center of everything.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Yeah.
AMY WALTER:
This is the first time where he's not. Now, at this moment he is because we're talking about this historic trial. But in a few days from now, we're going to be talking about the things that we've been talking about for the last few years, which is: what is happening on the economy, what's happening overseas, how are voters are reacting to that day to day. But the fact that this race is as close as it is given, as Lanhee pointed out, how low his job approval ratings are tells you that what's baked in is assumptions about both of these candidates.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Lanhee, how do we mark this moment in history? This was – this was a huge week in American history regardless of your opinion of the verdict.
LANHEE CHEN:
Well, it's an interesting time in American politics because you have the degradation of institutions, right? And this is something that both people on the left and the right for their own reasons believe. For example, the judicial system has been either validated or corrupted. You have people who believe that going forward all of these institutions that we used to hold in such regard are no longer ones that we hold in high regard. But going forward, I do think this is a much more difficult pirouette for Biden and the Biden team in terms of thinking about how do you take this bundle of issues and how do you refocus voters on the things that they might actually care about going into November. And I think for Trump it's always been about making lemonade out of lemons. And I think that's something that Trump and the Trump team are pretty good at, frankly.
PETER ALEXANDER:
Jen, last thought please.
JEN PSAKI:
I just was going to say, I mean, their opponent is a convicted felon. I don't know that it's harder for them. They have to just make that mean something to the public. Not just about his moral failures but how him being in the White House would impact them. That's the pivot.
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL:
I just was going to say on the degradation of institutions, you've seen this over and over again through the Trump White House, with the judicial system, the electoral system, the federal bureaucracy and it's going to further continue.
PETER ALEXANDER:
All right. Guys, this is a great panel, but I do have some more important news than any of you. I apologize. Before we go, we are thrilled to share some very happy news with you. The Meet the Press family officially has a new member. Kristen Welker and her husband John have just welcomed John Zachary Welker Hughes to the world. Look at the nugget. This little guy was born on Thursday, May 30th, weighed in at a cool seven pounds even, measured almost 20 inches long. John Zachary's big sister Margot, as you can imagine, she is extremely proud welcoming home her baby brother yesterday. Kristen shares that their surrogate, who she calls her “angel on earth,” is doing great. From all of us here at Meet the Press, a huge congratulations to Kristen and John and Margot and all the grandparents. And to John Zachary, we know you're watching. We can't wait to meet you. We thank you for watching. And, remember, if it is Sunday, it is Meet the Press.
