i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier.

get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity. katy tur. >> and this hour we're going to be exploring the political and the practical consequences of thursday's momentous decision. we'll dig deeper into how donald trump's sentencing will play out when he's back in that new york city courthouse 41 days from now . >> it is just a handful of days before the republican national convention, but we're going to start right there on the political side, on the ledger with the republican party seeming to relish what would

have once been the unthinkable, backing a convicted felon as their presidential nominee. that decision won't officially come until the rnc convention mid-july. again, just days after donald trump's sentencing, but it seems all but assured based on the party's near total embrace of the former president since his guilty verdict came down, with speaker mike johnson taking the lead. >> this is a purely political exercise, not a legal one, and everybody knows that. they know intuitively that it's wrong and the people are outraged. people see what is going on. they see that the democrats are so desperate because president trump is crushing joe biden in the polls, they see the democrat party on the left so desperate to stop him that they'll risk the destruction of our entire legal system to do it. that is not hyperbole. that's what's going on here. >> the ferocity of the outcry from rps has been remarkable, tossing aside the usual

restraints that lawmakers and political figures have observed in the past when refraining from criticism of judges and juries. only one republican senate candidate larry hogan called out what he calls toxic partisanship speaking in favor of the rule of law. well, there was a five-word response from trump senior adviser chris lacivita quote, you just ended your campaign. i want to bring in yasmin vossoughian, former missouri democratic senator, claire mccaskill, an msnbc political analyst and co-host of msnbc's how to win 2024 podcast. matt dowd helped lead the bush cheney 2004 campaign, david french is an opinion columnist for "the new york times," and with us on set, host of the bulwark podcast, tim miller. also an msnbc political analyst and former communications director for jeb bush's 2016 campaign. what a power panel we've got. thank you all for being here. claire, let me start with you.

is it at all surprising in any way that your former colleagues, republican colleagues in congress aren't just complaining about this verdict, they are complaining about the justice system itself. they're making what sounds like threats to people who support the justice system and what are the consequences of that? >> well, first, i think you can look at the various responses and discern a little bit about the politics of the folks behind the words. i will be honest, i was surprised about mcconnell and susan collins. i don't know on what basis mcconnell thinks this is going to be overturned on appeal. this was new york law as passed by the new york legislature. he certainly understands that. i was surprised that susan collins talked about it would certainly be overturned on

appeal. i just don't think there is a legal basis to make that. so the fact that everyone is falling in line, you know what it tells me, chris, it tells me they are so worried about taking the senate. they have outsize worry about republican senate races and the problem they're going to have if they don't stay united, and so i think that's what's behind it. it's not right. it's not healthy. it's particularly bad for the rule of law in this country that they are all shopping the idea that somehow somebody made up these facts and somehow this law was not on the books. this is just simple. there were facts in evidence and law, they were presented to a jury that was duly selected with input from both sides, both the defense and the prosecution, and he was convicted. it's not complicated. >> david, i know you've been -- you've written about how you've been a little bit nervous about the political implications of

all of this. plain your thinking now that there is a conviction, 34 felony counts. >> the conviction is not surprising at all. the prosecution had a very compelling story to tell about donald trump was covering up an affair right after the access hollywood came out. stormy daniels approaches and says i've got a story to tell, and it was the last story he needed out in the public square at that time. he pays the hush money. we now know from the testimony of the case, this was an extremely very exploitive encounter, very much how he described how he behaved in that access hollywood tape. it's not surprising that under the facts of this case which are very bad for donald trump. the note of caution is the underlying legal theory that transforms this from a misdemeanor to a felony, tieing this to, for example, a federal campaign finance violation that was not prosecuted, that is

untested. okay. so there is an untested legal theory. that does not mean specious. that does not mean meritless, but one concern that i do have is that a jury that find the facts properly, that he did what the prosecution said that he did, but then you would have this case potentially overturned on appeal because the legal theory is untested. i could be wrong about that. that is a very real risk here. >> let me follow up, david. the appeal will not happen before the election. so if it is overturned on appeal and i was involved in a state case before when i was covering the governor of the state of maryland, he was convicted, sent to jail and then it was overturned by the supreme court, and he came out and said something like -- something similar to the labor secretary under ronald reagan, he said where do i go to get my reputation back. that was many, many years ago. that could be overturned on

appeal. this is a novel case and all of our lawyers have told us that. it's never been done before quite in that fashion. still, as has also been pointed out, this was a jury where the trump defense only used one peremptory challenge. this was a jury of his peers, and there was someone on that jury who said in their media preferences that their media preference was truth social. there was a pretty good mix on that jury, even though it's a manhattan jury. so david, between now and the election that's not going to happen. a lot of other things could happen. >> right. right. you're exactly right. i mean, the attacks on the jury are specious. like, the jury -- >> and dangerous, i should point out. people are outing them, their names and addresses. >> it's horrible. they literally -- they're literally risking their lives to serve on this jury given the way maga responds, and so attacking the jury is dangerous and it's specious. the prosecution just presented a much better case than the defense. it had a very easy story to tell

that trump paid hush money to coverage up an affair at a crucial moment in a campaign and then tried to conceal that fact. that's a very simple story to tell, and the defense just was inadequate is the kindest way i can describe the defense. the actual jury verdict here is no surprise at all. the question is the appeal, but as you said, the appeal won't happen until after the election. and here's what does worry me. if you have an appeal where like a number of these other public corruption cases bob mcdonald in virginia and you can go through some others, the conviction is reversed, that will be extremely upsetting to a number of people, rightfully so i might add, if there is a campaign run on trump's a felon, trump's a felon, trump's a felon and then it turns out six months after the election, no, actually, our bad. this wasn't a felony.

that's a problem, and i think people need to understand that that is a potential outcome here. >> what do you think, claire, though, the chances of that are? and this is part of our system too, right? the system that most people we hope believes works, that if you're convicted, you get the right to go back and appeal, and sometimes appeals are successful. i recognize this is not any case, but what do you think about what you're -- what this conversation and what we're talking about and the chances of a successful appeal. >> well, you know, i get the point that david is making, and i understand it. however, it is -- having read the new york law, it appears this is all what they intended, what the new york legislature wanted to do was to make it a misdemeanor to file a false business record, but if you did it in furtherance of any other bad act, if you did it in

furtherance of any other crime, it didn't specify what kind of crime, but if you did it in furtherance of other crimes, that makes it a felony, and so if you look at the legislative intent, it seems to me this set of facts falls firmly within that legislative intent, clearly there was a reason they were hiding these records and what they were trying to do is keep information from the public. they were trying to use it in a way that helped his political campaign, and it cost money. so listen, i'm not saying it's not possible it's overturned on appeal, but for the people who are saying with certainty it's going to be overturned on appeal, i'm not sure they've read the law. >> interestingly -- not interestingly, consequentially donald trump has been running on we can't trust our elections. 2020 was stolen. can't trust it. now we -- it seems like he's

also running on you can't trust our courts. they're all corrupt, and democrats can't prosecute republicans, and -- >> and the other members of the republican party are piling onto that. >> they're signing on to this, tim. except for the former governor of maryland, notably. does the republican party, do they have any regret? will they have any regret for -- i'm serious -- for attacking yet another institution, yet another way in which this country functions? we don't function well right now. and it is only getting worse. why do they believe that it's okay to do this? what bargain are they making? >> i hope they have regret. there's no sign of any regret. we're almost a decade into this now, katy, you and i have been doing this since 2015. >> and the line keeps getting further and further away. every time you think that's got to be the line, it gets crossed

and you wonder how you could ever draw a line. >> i remember when we were on the campaign trail and we were like he called him low energy jeb. >> norm breaking. >> there was an exclamation point. >> that was not my fault. look, i think it's really dangerous, and i think there's huge downstream consequences, and i think people are going to have regret a decade down the line, but they're all making short-term political calculations, and i think there is this bunker mentality in the republican party right now where these people, they only talk to their own friends. they only talk to their own media outlets, and they have taken in donald trump's grievance and they've taken it upon themselves, and they feel aggrieved. they feel like they're being treated unfairly, and they're lashing out. it's delusional, but it's a real feeling. >> having covered the senate and you now see mitch mcconnell, john thune, bill cassidy it's been pointed out, they want to regain the senate. i mean, this is confirmation. this is everything, this is the agenda, and you just saw, by the

way, that, you know, that joe manchin has reregistered as an independent in west virginia. >> yeah. >> that could be the pivotal case. i mean, we realize that he's running up against jim justice and he's got a real problem there. so he's now disavowing the democratic party, which is kind of creating a reality. >> here's the thing, andrea, i just listened to you say that. that rationale is what got us january 6th literally, right? there were those two senate runoffs in georgia, january 5th, so why did mitch mcconnell who knew better, who knew the stop the steal thing was nonsense, why did he go along with it for those two months? i'll be the senate majority leader and we'll take care of donald trump after that. it's the same rationale. we'll just go along with it through november so we can hold the senate. then that justifies these attacks on our system. but you can see there are downstream consequences of those

kinds of attacks on the system you can't predict. >> let me suggest there is a downstream consequence that's not so downstream that the city of kharkiv is at risk right now of falling to the russians. the president of the united states has changed the policy about being able to go to fire into russia. that just happened in the last 24, 48 hours, that all happened because of the stalemate in the senate and the house on the supplemental from february on when lindsey graham flipped over because of a golf game he had, and he discussed this with donald trump, and everything that transpired and during those several months, that's when i was in munich, and that's when zelenskyy said we're going to have to start retreating, and they did. . >> you're right. >> they don't care about -- >> congressional dysfunction is not new, but this is -- >> is this life and death. >> -- and the things that get ignored is a new level. >> you can talk about the

border, donald trump went after immigration today, he started his campaign going after immigration. he's still doing it today. there was a fix in congress. maybe it wasn't perfect, but there was an attempt to fix what is happening at the border, to slow down the stream of immigrants that are crossing. it gave president biden the power to close the border. this is what republicans wanted. it was a bill that leaned republican. it didn't go anywhere because donald trump got on the phone with republican lawmakers and put it out on truth social. what are the republicans running on? are they running on just put us in power? because we'll be angry for you, or are they running on actually doing something? because they're not doing anything right now at the behest of donald trump. >> well, we're in a politics where rational fixes give way to emotional responses, and donald trump operates in the field of emotional responses, and he wants an emotional response on the border and immigration is an

emotional response. i don't think the republicans would have gone along with him but for they also, i think, calculated politically the case among the republican base. i would argue when we look at this thing politically, i think too often we defer to, what are the republican -- what are the base maga voters doing and how are they responding to what happened, and what's going on in this? they're not going to change their mind, but they only represent about 30% of the elect rat. about 30% of the electorate is the maga hardcore trump vote. what really matters in how this thing unfolds, his verdict and everything related to the republican party is three groups of voters -- and i can tell you this from an event that happened with bush in 2000, the three groups of voters that matter and how they're going to respond to this are soft trump voters who don't like him, people that don't like donald trump but are voting for him, they're soft. what do those people do? undecided voters, i know it's a small group, it's 5% or 6%, and

the third which we often forget about is what does this verdict do in what donald trump has said and done over the last few months in the course of this, how does it affect the democratic base and how it will motivate the base? i'll take you for two seconds down memory lane. in 2000 -- i don't often want to recall this -- >> in 2000 george w. bush had a dui that no one knew about. it was in maine that no one knew about. it got reported on on thursday before election day against al gore. most people thought, oh, it's not going to have any effect. people have already baked in their feelings about this, we -- and i did these, we commissioned polls that weekend. we lost 3% across every electoral state in all of the key states between thursday and election day. we thought we were comfortable in some places we no longer were. and who moved in that five days or four-day period were undecided voters and soft bush

voters. that's who moved in those five days over a dui from 30 years ago. >> and i'd just point out that when jim comey came out on the sunday before the election with another reminder like that last minute 11 days earlier laptop thing, that was not a deal so it's okay. the tracking of the clinton campaign showed that that was just another reminder of what they really didn't -- what suburban women perhaps did not like about hillary clinton, the suspicions, and that really tanked them. although they went straight down for those last 11 days. but yasmin, jump in here because you were there and the former president, katy was there, of course, and we all watched when he was speaking, and the fact check is just extraordinary. 15 pages we just pointed out earlier of inaccurate statements that need to be corrected. but bring us your take on all of this and how his grievance campaign will now become more so

than ever, the center of his candidacy. >> right, more so than ever, i think that's the keyword because it has been the center of his campaign since 2015 when he announced his candidacy to run for president back then. it's been a grievance campaign since then. now he actually has something more legitimate to grieve about as the victim, right? he said if this can happen to me, it can happen to all of you to try and bolster his popularity as he's tried to do since those 34 counts came down as guilty. and also, to mislead the public about what took place in that courtroom, right? he talked about his witness, right? the former fec chair bradley smith and how juan merchan would not allow bradley smith to testify. that's not what happened. what happened is judge juan merchan said he cannot testify to the law. that is my job during those jury instructions. we got those 55 plus pages of jury instructions in which the election law was in there, right? that was the direction from judge juan merchan. it was not that bradley smith cannot, in fact, testify. he cannot just testify to the

law, and that is why he did not take the witness stand. i want to take little bit more of a listen to what the former president had to say in trump tower behind me, and then we'll talk on the other side. >> we're losing our country, and i really think that this is an event, what took place yesterday with this judge. look, we have conflicted, but he's a crooked judge, and you'll understand that and i say that knowing that it's very dangerous for me to say that, and i don't mind because i'm willing to do whatever i have to do to save our country and to save our constitution. i don't mind. >> reporter: i think matthew dowd is exactly right. i think it's going to be interesting to see how this plays especially with independent voters, right? i think we know how this is going to play with trump's base of support. he has had a significant amount of support out here this

morning. it has now kind of gone down to a certain extent. earlier today as he was speaking, he had a significant amount of support, and i think the real question is as we looked with the indictments, right, the poll numbers, they spiked with the former president, when each and every one of those indictments came out. i'll be interested to see how he polls after this verdict came out yesterday and how it plays with those independent voters because when asked about whether or not if we were to be found guilty, if they were to continue to support him, oftentimes they would say they would have to rethink that. it was about the jack smith d.c. election case, it was not necessarily about the hush money case. so i wonder if this will play differently than their reactions would have been to the d.c. election case, guys. >> it is difficult to poll a hypothetical. david, i want to get one last one to you. i ask this of tim. donald trump's running against elections, 2020 he said was stolen, now he's running against it seems the law. he's got republicans who are doing it alongside of him

calling into question our system of justice. this is a man who's now been found guilty by a jury of his peers on 34 felony counts. we'll see what the appeals court does. i think your point is really well taken. do you see there being a line? is there something else that might get crossed between now and november, or say donald trump wins again, will there be a line for republicans? say he tries to stay in office. he wins and he tries to stay in office or he tries a blatant political persecution, who knows what? do you think there's a line among republican lawmakers, or are they now all completely -- well, you tell me, what do you think? >> there is no line. let's just be honest. there is no line. there will be individual republicans who will bail on trump if, you know, if he becomes more authoritarian. if he defies say the supreme court, if he's president. there will be individuals who do that, just like there were individuals from 2016 to 2020 who did that, but the republican

party as a whole is a wholly-owned subsidiary of donald trump inc. right now. there's just no question about that. think, katy of what's happened over the last year. a jury found him response for sex abuse. he was found responsible for defaming a sex abuse victim. he's found responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud. he's now been found guilty by a jury of his peers of felony violations related to a hush money scheme surrounding an affair with a porn star on his third wife right after the birth of his third child. none of that moves the needle with the bulk of republicans. what you can see is erosion. this is where some of the dynamics of the race are really important. where is trump doing the best? trump is doing the best not with the engaged votes with a high propensity to vote, he's doing the best with the disengaged voters, and what are two words that can breakthrough even to the most disengaged voter? trump guilty or trump convicted. and that might breakthrough with

enough disengaged voters to begin to chip away, to erode his support, but the gop right now is just a subsidiary of the trump organization. >> say he wins and say he tries to become authoritarian, tries to become a dictator, these things that sound ridiculous coming out of your mouth. they say okay to that? then where are we going? >> they will. >> are you worried about our future? >> yes, absolutely i'm worried. whatever trump does, whether it's this project 2025 or, you know, the more authoritarian impulses of his christian nationalist far right wing, whatever trump does, the gop is going to acquiesce to except for specific individuals. that's been the pattern for eight years. it's going to be the pattern again. i don't think there's any question about that, and so the best way to prevent authoritarianism is not elect an authoritarian. the second best way -- >> i want to hear the second best way. hold on, hold on. >> go ahead. >> the second best way is to

then if he's elected hem him in with the rule of law, and hem him in by constitutional restrictions and constraints that prevent him from enacting his vengeance on the public. that's the second best way, but it's very much second best. it is very much second best. >> is this supreme court going to do that? you cover them, you saw that they had to rule that he was an insurrectionist and shouldn't be on the ballot in colorado. do you think this supreme court as is currently made up would draw that line. >> or a senate or house that is completely stalemated? >> it rejected the effort to steal the elections. the supreme court clearly rejected the effort to steal the election, unequivocally. we do know it has a backbone. it has rejected a number of other very reach maga legal arguments. it's rejected them one after another. but we'll see what happens with the immunity decision. i think you'll see that the supreme court will deny him the immunity that he wants. but i have more confidence right now in the supreme court than i do in congress, that is for certain. >> claire, david is not alone in

his concern for sure, and we are coming up, we believe, on president biden who's supposed to speak on the middle east. does he need to say something about what we saw in court yesterday and what it means to us as a democracy, this country, or not? >> well, i do think joe biden needs to always think about exuding strength and that should include being strong about the value of our institutions, and chief among that is the rule of law, and the way our justice system works, that we have a right to a jury trial, and it's a jury of your peers, and they decide who's telling the truth, and there are all kinds of due process protections. so i think, yes, joe biden should lean in to strongly protecting the institutions that have made america great, and it is great, and he needs to lean into that as a theme, not the details of this case and certainly he shouldn't dwell on

trump's now felon status. >> just among us and all of our viewers that the stated purpose of his coming into the state dining room, and we see the shot up there in the lower right hand of your screen, he's going to come into the state dining room to talk about developments in the middle east. several developments have taken place. the israeli army, the idf has moved further into rafah. >> central rafah, that's right. >> and we don't know if that crosses whatever their unspoken, un-ill-defined red line is, but there has been a lot more taking place there, more developments. egypt is on the precipice point because israel has taken control of what was previously a no man's land, a sort of buffer area between israel and between gaza rather and egypt, which was israeli controlled. so that puts at risk what goes

back all the way to camp david, which is an israeli egyptian peace agreement, which is the first of the arab peace agreements, chris. >> and at the same time, and you know this well, national security adviser jake sullivan is meeting on the hostage situation. the president coming to the podium. let's listen. >> good afternoon. before i begin my remarks, i just want to say a few words about what happened yesterday in new york city. the american principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed. donald trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. it was a state case, not a federal case, and it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens, 12 americans, 12 people like you. like millions of americans who served on juries, this jury was chosen the same way every jury

in america is chosen. it was a process that donald trump's attorney was part of. the jury heard five weeks of evidence, five weeks. and 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, and it's irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict. our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is a corner stone of america, our justice system. the justice system should be respected, and we should never allow anyone to tear it down. it's as simple as that.

that's america. that's who we are. and that's who we'll always be god willing. now to another issue. i want to give an update on my efforts to end the crisis in gaza. for the past several months, my negotiators of foreign policy, intelligence community and the like have been relentlessly focused not just on a cease fire that would inevitably be fragile and temporary, but on a durable end to the war. that's been the focus, a durable end to this war. one that brings all the hostages home, ensures israel's security, creates a better day after in gaza without hamas in power and sets the stage for political settlement that provides a better future for israelis and palestinians alike. now, after intensive diplomacy carried out by my team, my many

conversations with leaders of israel, qatar and egypt and other middle eastern countries, israel has now offered -- israel has offered a comprehensive new proposal. it's a road map to an enduring cease fire and the release of all hostages. this proposal has been transmitted by qatar to hamas. today i want to lay out its terms for the american citizens and for the world. this new proposal has three phases, three. the first phase would last for six weeks. here's what it would include. a full and complete cease fire, a withdrawal of israeli forces from all populated areas of gaza, release of a number of hostages including women, the elderly, the wounded in exchange for the release of hundreds of palestinian prisoners. but our american hostages who would release at this stage, and

we want them home. additional remains of hostages who have been killed would be returned to their families bringing some degree of closure to their terrible grief. palestinian civilians would return to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of gaza including in the north. humanitarian assistance would surge with 600 trucks carrying aid into gaza every single day. with the cease fire, that aid could be safely and effectively distributed to all who need it, hundreds of thousands of temporary shelters including housing units could be delivered by the international community. all that and more would begin immediately. immediately. during the six weeks of phase one, israel and hamas would negotiate the necessary arrangements to get to phase two, which is a permanent end to

hostilities. now, i'll be straight with you. there are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two. israel will want to make sure its interests are protected, but the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the cease fire will still continue as long as negotiations continue. the united states and qatar would work to ensure negotiations keep going. all agreements, all agreements until all the agreements are reached and phase two is able to begin. then phase two, there would be an exchange for the release of all remaining living hostages, including male soldiers, israeli forces would withdraw from gaza, and as long as hamas lifrs up to its commitments a temporary cease fire, the cessation of

hostilities permanently. finally in phase three, a major reconstruction plan for gaza would commence, and any final remains of hostages who have been killed would be returned to their families. that's the offer that's now on the table and what we've been asking for. it's what we need. the people of israel should know they can make this offer without any further risk to their own security because they've devastated hamas forces over the past eight months. at this point, hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another october 7th. it's one of israel's main objectives in this war, and quite frankly, a righteous one. i know there are those in israel who will not agree with this plan and will call for the war to continue indefinitely. some, some are even in the

government coalition, and they've made it clear they want to occupy gaza, they want to keep fighting for years and the hostages are not a priority to them. well, i've urged leadership in israel to stand behind this deal despite whatever pressure comes, and to the people of israel, let me say this. as someone who's had a lifelong commitment to israel, as the only american president who's ever gone to israel in a time of war, as someone who just sent the u.s. forces to directly defend israel when it was attacked by iran, i ask you to take a step back and think what will happen if this moment is lost. we can't lose this moment. indefinite war in pursuit of an unidentified notion of total victory will not bring israel -- will not bring down -- will only bog down israel and gaza,

draining the economic, military, and human resources and furthering israel's isolation on the war. that will not bring hostages home. that will not bring an enduring defeat of hamas. that will not bring israel lasting security, but a comprehensive approach that starts with this deal will bring hostages home and will lead to more secure israel. and once a cease fire and hostage deal is concluded, the possibility of a great deal more progress including, including calm along israeli's northern border with lebanon. the united states will help forge a diplomatic resolution, one that ensures israel's security and allows people to safely return to their home without fear of being attacked. with a deal of rebuilding of gaza will begin. arab nations and international

community along with palestinian and israeli leaders to get it done in a manner that does not allow hamas to rearm. the united states will work with our partners to rebuild homes, schools, and hospitals in gaza to help repair communities that were destroyed in the chaos of war, and with this deal, israel could become more deeply integrated in the region including it's no surprise to you all, including potential historic normalization agreement with saudi arabia. israel could be part of a regional security network to counter the threat posed by iran. all of this progress would make israel more secure with israeli families no longer living in the shadow of a terrorist attack and all of this would create the conditions for a different future, a better future for the palestinian people. one of self-determination,

dignity, security, and freedom. this path is available once the deal is struck. israel will always have the right to defend itself against the threats to its security, and to bring those responsible for october 7th to justice, and the united states will always ensure that israel has what it needs to defend itself. if hamas fails to fulfill its commitments under the deal, israel can resume military operations, but they have assured me and they are continuing to work to ensure that hamas doesn't do that. the united states will help ensure that israel lives up to their obligations as well. that's what this deal says. that's what it says. and we'll do our part. this is truly a decisive moment. israel's made their proposal. hamas says it wants a cease fire.

this deal is an opportunity to prove whether they really mean it. hamas needs to take the deal. for months people all over the world have called for cease fire. now it's time to raise your voices and demand that hamas come to the table, agrees to this deal, and ends this war that they began. of course there will be differences on the specific details that need to be worked out. that's natural. if hamas comes to negotiate ready deal, then israel negotiation must be given a mandate, the necessary flexibility to close that deal. past eight months have marked heartbreaking pain, pain of those whose loved ones are slaughtered by hamas terrorists october 7th. hostages and their families waiting in anguish. ordinary israelis whose lives are forever marred by the

shattered event of hamas's sexual violence and ruthless brutality. and the palestinian people who have endured sheer hell in this war. too many innocent people have been killed, including thousands of children. far too many have been badly wounded. we all saw the terrible images from the deadly fire in rafah earlier this week following an israeli strike against targeting hamas. and even as we work to surge assistance to gaza with 1,800 trucks delivering supplies these last five days, the humanitarian crisis still remains. i know this is a subject on which people in this country feel deep, passionate convictions, and so do i. this has been one of the hardest, most complicated problems in the world. there's nothing easy about this. nothing easy about it. through it all, though, the united states has worked relentlessly to support israeli

security, to get humanitarian supplies into gaza, to begin a cease fire and a hostage deal to bring this war to an end. yesterday with his new initiative, we've taken an important step in that direction. and i want to level with you today as to where we are and what might be possible. i'm going to need your help. everyone who wants peace now must raise their voices and let the leaders know they should take this deal, work to make it real, make it lasting and forge a better future out of the tragic terror attack and war. it's time to begin this new stage. the hostages come home, for israel to be secure for the suffering to stop. it's time for this war to end.

for the day after to begin. thank you very much. >> mr. president -- donald trump referred to himself as a political prisoner and blames you, what's your response to that, sir? do you think the conviction will have an impact on the campaign? we'd love to hear your thoughts sir? >> should he be on the ballot, sir? >> president biden taking no questions, but in a matter of less than 15 minutes, two major pieces of news here. his first response to the conviction of donald trump, his almost certain opponent for president of the united states saying the american principle that no one is above the law was affirmed, that donald trump could have testified, and he can still appeal, but saying it is reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible to say the system is rigged just because you don't like the outcome, and then what we just heard, much more

extensively, which is israel's new proposal now in the hands of hamas, a three-phase proposal that would include a cease fire, a withdrawal of all israeli troops from gaza. that would allow a major influx of humanitarian aid and the return of palestinians to their homes and ultimately, the return of all hostages including those who have been killed, their bodies being returned to their families. i want to bring in nbc's aaron gilchrist near the white house, nbc's raf sanchez is on the phone from tel aviv, israel, "new york times" chief white house correspondent, peter baker is back with us as well as former democratic senator claire mccaskill. msnbc political analyst tim miller as well. raf, i want to start with you. obviously the president making an appeal that this is a decisive moment. don't lose this moment. it does seem that there are new parts of this proposal unlike what we have seen before. put it all in context for us.

>> that's absolutely right, chris. we heard things tonight from the president of the united states that we have not heard be ever, and -- before, and most importantly, president biden saying that the israeli government has agreed to what he called a cessation of hostilities permanently and to withdraw israeli forces from gaza in exchange for this deal that would lead to the release of all the hostages. that is not something we have heard from the u.s. before. it is certainly not something we have heard from the israeli government before. ly i will tell you, chris, it feels at odds with what we have heard from prime minister benjamin netanyahu and his senior officials in recent weeks. they have said very consistently that they plan to continue this war until hamas is completely destroyed. president biden saying tonight in the judgment of the united states, israel has effectively done enough. that it has done enough damage to hamas, that the terrorist act

of october 7th cannot be repeated, that israelis can live confidently that they are secure in southern israel. so what is very striking to me, chris, is that president biden making this announcement in the earlyish afternoon in the united states, but right after sundown here in israel. that means we are in shabbat, the jewish sabbath. the israeli government does not make official statements during shabbat, so it is going to be another 24 hours or so until we hear from the israeli government and we get the chance to ask the israeli government is the outline that president biden described something that you agreed with, and i will tell you one of the reasons it is surprising is that hostage families met with israel's national security adviser yesterday afternoon, the defense

ministry in tel aviv. we spoke to one relative of a hostage who was in that meeting, and the national security adviser said in pretty blunt terms that prime minister benjamin netanyahu will not agree to end the war even in exchange for all the hostages unless the polling shows that it is politically advantageous to him. here in israel, there is a strong feeling that netanyahu is not moving towards the end of the war, but we just heard from the president of the united states that apparently he is moving and is prepared to agree to what president biden called a cessation of hostilities permanently, which would be a major, major development. and then you heard president biden there urging hamas to come to the table, to take the deal and to take what this group says it wants, which is an end to the fighting in gaza, reconstruction, and humanitarian aid coming in. we will see. this feels like a critical 24 hours as we wait to hear from the israeli government and then from hamas. >> raf, this is andrea mitchell, and certainly as you point out

it seems to be, first of all, it's a different posture than what netanyahu has been saying, despite pressure from his defense minister gallant, and also from the opposition, former general benny gantz. so a lot of pressure on him and from hostage families as well. but it's also different from what the united states has been saying because this is the first time that any u.s. official has specifically on camera and now at the highest level, the president of the united states laid out the specifics of what they say is the israeli offer. they've all been very careful to say this on background or even without any attribution at all to tell us, you know, how many would be released and what the details would be. so this seems to me to be pressure. if this is coordinated with israel, it's pressure to put the pressure on hamas because now clearly the ball is in hamas's court. and try to get back to where we were a couple of weeks ago, raf, before everything fell apart. i was in the middle east as you

remember, and that's when, you know, secretary blinken had just been about to schedule that meeting to have that meeting on a wednesday with the prime minister and on the tuesday, the prime minister came out and said, deal or no deal. we're still going into rafah. which was the predicate for hamas and israel being back at it and, you know, and everything falling apart, and it was a very tough day there as you remember when the secretary was in -- was in israel. raf. >> yeah, that's absolutely right, andrea, and as you said, this is the first time that we have seen an american official in public going into the real nitty-gritty of what these negotiations involve, and this is not just any official. this is the president of the united states inserting himself into these negotiations to a certain extent putting his own credibility on the line because

if he announces that israel has agreed to all of these things and 24 hours from now prime minister benjamin netanyahu says, no, we haven't, then that is something of an embarrassment. but as you said, he put the ball very firmly in hamas's court, almost, if you will, calling hamas's bluff. hamas has said repeatedly that they are prepared to release all the hostages, and we got a video from hamas earlier that appears to include the voice of noah argamani who our viewers will remember, she is the young woman being kidnapped from the music festival on october 7th, terrified on the back of the motorcycle being led into gaza as her boyfriend is being marched marched by other militants nearby. that video just released today, so hamas has said they are prepared to release all the hostages in exchange for an end to war, in exchange for israel's

withdrawal from gaza, and president biden is saying all of that is on the table if hamas will say yes. i did think it was notable that president biden said there are some in israel who do not want this war to end, who want israel to resettle gaza, who take the absolute most extreme position. he said, for these people, hostages are not a priority. and he went on to say, some of those people are in israel's government. they sit around the cabinet table along with prime minister benjamin netanyahu. didn't name them, but it was very clear he was referring to national security minister, ben-gvir, a member of the far right, a man who has criminal convictions for inciting racism, he seems to be referring to the finance minister, a member of the far right. while he was putting pressure on hamas, he also seemed to be urging prime minister netanyahu and the other more moderate elements of the israeli government, you need to stay

strong, even if you come under pressure from the far right of your own system. >> raf, let me ask you a question. this was a notable omission from the president, and it wonder what your take is on how the israelis are going to react. the president made no mention of the day after and whether hamas can still exist. the whole stated goal of this war for israel was to get rid of hamas. eradicate hamas, end hamas. the president made no mention of that today. >> yeah, that's right. he made a sort of general reference to the possibilities of peace on the other side of the war, the possibility that israel could have a peace treaty with saudi arabia, you know, the home of islam on the other side of this war, but, you know, if a cease fire deal is checkers, a two-state solution, with saudi arabia, that is three dimensional. that is a long way off. there is a lot that needs to go

right for that to happen, and right now we are talking about just trying to get the guns to go quiet, just trying to get the hostages out. i thought it was really notable, katy, that the israeli government has said consistently that the goal of the war is to destroy hamas, and president biden said today the united states judges that hamas has destroyed enough, if you will. he said that over these eight months of war, israeli forces have devastated hamas. he said hamas no longer capable of carrying out another october 7th. and as i keep saying, the sun is down here in israel. i'm looking out over a darkened mediterranean sea and we will find out when the sun goes down tomorrow night local time whether prime minister benjamin netanyahu is prepared to say publicly, if he's prepared to tell his people, prepared to tell the far right of his own government that hamas has destroyed enough because that is

not something he has ever said publicly, and it is frankly, a contradiction to what the israeli government has been saying publicly and privately for a long time now. a lot of questions to be answered when the sun goes down tomorrow. >> it's also true that several prominent israeli generals have said to netanyahu, hamas cannot be eliminated, they do say you have to get rid of sinwar, the master mind of october 7th but hamas cannot be eliminated. that is what the u.s. military says as well. that's not a goal that's possible. >> you can't eliminate an ideology with warfare. 24 hours before anyone's going to comment on this, i wonder if that was on purpose for president biden to have this 24 hours -- >> it's hard to imagine they're not aware. >> hold on, also this, talking about eliminating hamas, there

were rockets fired into israel towards tel aviv just the other day. there's an element capable of fighting back. >> there have been major strikes in rafah with u.s. weapons according to the reports on sunday and dozens also injured in rafah in areas that were supposed to be safe areas. so it's been going both ways. >> as you pointed out before we went into the president's remarks, the movement into central rafah continues right now, and so we also have aaron gilchrist, peter baker. let me go to you because of your extensive experience, i'm struck by what's on the screen, there's nothing easy about this, which may be the under statement of the century, to talk about the middle east in general, incredibly complex. this situation in particular, which has divided, really, this country in many ways, so there's the politics of it. there's also the immediate

reality on the ground, the humanitarian crisis, the hostages that continue to be held including americans, on and on and on. so when we talk about there not being anything easy, what are the road blocks, the obvious you see on both sides, as well as the u.s. president? >> yeah, i mean, first of all, i was struck by how much this event seemed to be an acknowledgment by the president that this is as much his war as it is israel's, right, that he is so indelibly associated with it, like it or not, and he has taken ownership of it politically, domestically here at home, and internationally abroad where he has defended israel, and while there's obviously been tension between washington and jerusalem with the conduct of that war quite strenuously, in fact, that he is the one out there announcing the potential of how this war can end, not the israelis. that's very striking. you mentioned the timing, how deliberate was it? we don't know. that's something obviously that our reporting will have to

examine. the israelis, as rafah said have not openly said what president biden said. it is time to end this war. that's what he's saying. it is time to end this war. and a lot of reasons for him why he thinks it's time to end it. he expressed a lot more empathy today, i think, for the plight of the palestinians than he has in other instances up until now. critics have complained not just that he hasn't done enough about stopping or reigning in israel, but he hasn't expressed the empathy for the people on that side of the war. while he has been very very personal about his, you know, feelings about the victims of the october 7th terrorist attack by hamas. all the different road blocks is actually coming to fruition are enormous. we have seen time and time again that hamas has not been willing to agree to various iterations of this deal until now. there's no sign or indication that we know they're going to agree to this one.

what the president would like to do is put the onus on hamas, not on israel at this point to say if it doesn't happen, they're the ones blocking the deal, not the israelis or americans. >> and one other quick point that the president mentioned is that the remains would be released. there are eight americans involved, eight american hostages, we have been close to the hostage families. they are supposed to meet with jake sullivan from later told, from not just all countries but israel, and there are only five surviving americans. but these families are desperate to get the remains of loved ones home. and part of this is that they want its burial, religious, emotional, and moral issue to get their families home. >> aaron gilchrist, let me ask you a question regarding the timing of this and just the fact that i was so struck as president biden was speaking and, peter, you got to this point, this is president biden making this announcement. it was not benjamin netanyahu making this announcement.

how much does the white house signal? do they say? are they ready to admit what the actual actions are speaking, which is that this is as much president biden's war as it is israel's war, he's so closely linked to it. >> the white house has said that president biden and his team have been intimately involved in every step of the process from day one, really, in trying to resolve this conflict between israel and hamas, and i think what we saw today was really, as you said, the maximum application of the president's power and authority to put out front the issue that is ahead of him in a way that i thought was very sobering. we heard the president here speak very slowly and carefully and deliberately about the details of this plan and i think he was very frank about how fragile the situation is. what struck me as odd as that we

have not heard before the president or other members of the administration really get out ahead of any of the cease fire proposals, release proposals that have been on the table before. there have been several instances in the past where we knew that there was a deal that was being considered by one side or the other, and typically, the white house, the administration has said, we're not going to get ahead of the process. we're not going to get ahead of the deal. we're not going to lay out details. we typically have gotten details from sources here in the states and in the middle east, and in this instance, we saw a deal that seems to have come together very recently that was handed over to hamas, and the president of the united states himself, upon returning to the white house from spending time at his home in rehoboth beach, delaware, and visiting his son's grave yesterday, he made his first stop before the cameras to announce the details of this deal, something that has been as we've said, a priority for the administration, an issue, a problem that has plagd