pits. you saw what happened when the trade towers went down, what happened to those firemen, but under the republican bill today, they would cut 30 million veterans health care visits. the way they do that, that's including nearly 2 million health care visits for veterans in new york state because there's not enough personnel. the difference between the 2022 budget, which they want to get back to and the 2023 budget is i increased the funding for the veterans administration by $22 billion. and the reason i did it -- [ applause ] -- and the reason i did it, and probably some of you know of these folks, the number of veterans committing suicide than are being killed in battle. and so they pick up the phone and they call the va in their area, i need help, well, come in

in six weeks, come in whatever, well, we ended that. now they want to go back to the levels where we cut those folks that now provide that kind of help. this amounts to $22 billion cut in veterans health care. now they dispute this. they know where their actual proposal or exclusive protection for veterans, but they say it's unusual language we use with presidents these days, they say i'm lying when i say that. the truth is, why do so many veterans groups speak out in opposition to the republican proposal, they're not all democrats, they know what's going to happen. folks, that's a game republicans are playing, anytime you single out the impact of their overall cuts, they tell you, no, no, no, it's not true. but they're wrong. they want to protect something. they would have written it down and say we're protecting it. you can't cut this program.

you can't cut it. so he can see it. here's another example. under the republican plan, nationwide, 100,000 teachers and support staff would lose their jobs at the very time we're attempting to overcome the sufficient -- the incredible deficiencies that occurred as a consequence of what happened with the pandemic. so many kids, the average student out there is about a year and a half behind. we don't need fewer teachers, we need more teachers. [ applause ] and by the way, i'm not being solicitous. what we should be doing, and i'm proposing when i try to finish this job, i'm proposing that we, for example, if we start, instead of head start, which they want to cut 21,000 head start spots in the state alone, we should be sending -- all the studies show if we sent, no

matter what the background of a child, if we sent that child to a school at age 3, learning reading, writing and arithmetic, we increase 56% the chance they'll graduate from high school and go on beyond high school. [ applause ] but look, we're here at a community college, and by the way, this is one beautiful community college. it really is. the property here, and the consequences here would be severe. here in new york, it would cut the maximum pell grant that millions of students use to get to community college by nearly a thousand dollars. it would eliminate pell grants entirely for 5,000 new york students, and here is another devastating consequence they don't want you to know about, moodies, not a democratic outlet, said the republican plan would cost the country 780,000

jobs. yesterday i brought congressional leaders together at the white house to make sure america doesn't default on its debt, and for the first time in our history, and by the way, i know the speaker keeps saying 93 days ago i said to biden i want to talk to him, and i said fine, you put down your budget, i'll put down mine. i laid mine down in detail on the 9th of march, he didn't put down his so called budget, i don't know what you would call it, his connecting the two items, he didn't do that until five days after he did it, i invited him to the white house. folks, let's be clear, the debt we're talking about has accumulated over 200 years. the last administration alone, the last guy who served in this office for four years increased the total national debt by 40%

in just four years. over the last decade, the single biggest contribution to the debt were the trump tax cuts skewed to the wealthy and large corporations for $2 trillion. i made it clear, america is not a dead beat nation. we pay our bills. [ applause ] and i was pleased, but not surprised by the republican leader in the united states senate, mcconnell, who said after the meeting in the white house, and went to the press, he said, the united states is not going to default. it never has and it never will. we shouldn't even be talking about it. folks, republicans in congress used to understand this. under the previous president, republicans voted to avoid default three times. this is not your father's republican party, though. you know, here's what's happened if maga republicans get their way. america defaults on our debt, higher interest rates for credit cards, car loans, mortgages, payments for social security, medicare, troops, veterans,

could all be delayed. according to moody's 8 million americans could lose their jobs. our international reputation would be damaged in the extreme. we shouldn't even be talking about this situation. as you know, i do an awful lot of foreign policy with my stint as a senator for all of those years and as vice president. i have traveled the world. i have met with over 88 heads of state so far. they all are looking at me, are you guys serious? no, no, i'm serious because if we default on our debt, the whole world is in trouble. this is a manufactured crisis, and there's no question about america's ability to pay its bills. america has the strongest economy in the world, and we should be cutting spending and lowering the deficit without a needless crisis. in a responsible way. i believe in cutting spending and cutting the deficit. in my first two years in office,

i'm the only president in history that has lowered the deficit in those two years by a record $1.7 trillion. $1.7 trillion. and the budget i proposed back in march would cut the deficit again by nearly $3 trillion in the decade ahead. for example, my budget cuts $30 billion in wasteful spending on tax subsidies to the gas and oil companies. they earned -- tax subsidies aren't all bad, but they earned $200 billion last year. do they need a $30 billion subsidy? >> no. >> well, look, it cuts wasteful spending for big pharma. we pay more for prescription drugs than any advanced nation in the world. you can get the exact same drug if you fly to paris or london or germany, anywhere you travel,

canada, here you pay a lot more. big pharma, we cut the spending by $200 billion by expanding the medicare's power to negotiate prescription drug prices and making drug companies pay rebates when they raise prices faster than inflation, and we have already cut by $160 billion in savings the bill we passed last year, and it has three parts to it, by the way. one part didn't kick in until january 1. we said the price of insulin would be reduced to $35. how many of you know someone with type 1 or type 2 diabetes? and you know they need insulin to keep themselves alive or their children alive or in good health. well, guess what, the price of insulin went from 4, 5, 600

bucks a month down to $35 a month. [ applause ] for those on medicare. and here's the deal. it's not just that it made it reasonable for people to be able to stay healthy but it saved the government $160 billion because they're paying less out. and by the way, the other cuts that are coming up because of what we did with being able to negotiate with medicare, it's estimated we're going to save another $200 billion. for example, any of you know someone who's on medicare and also on a cancer drug? well, guess what, they're paying right now sometimes 12, 14, $16,000 a year for the cancer drug. well, beginning this next january, the most any senior is going to have to pay is $3,500 for all of their drugs and

beginning in 2025, they pay no more than $2,000 for all of their drugs. by the way, that saves the government another $200 billion because he's not paying out for all -- the drugs come forward, and they come at a reasonable price. my budget also cuts tax loopholes. look, i don't have anything against wall street or hedge funds executive. just pay your taxes, man. hedge funds executive pay than the middle class worker who works for them. no one earning less than $400,000 is going to see a single increase penny increase in taxes under me. they haven't yet, and they won't. if you're making more than your

fair share. we're making the biggest corporation begin to pay their fair share. i'm not talking about 70% tax rates. does anyone think we have a fair tax system in america? in 2020, you got tired of hearing me say this there were 55 of the fortune 500 companies that pay 0 in federal income tax after having made $40 billion in profits. 40 billion. so we instituted, and got passed a corporate minimum tax of 15%. well, guess what. you all are paying more than that. just 15% and it paid for everything we did. i proposed a billionaire tax.

but at least pay something. the average tax rebate, about a thousand billionaires, the average tax paid is 8%, no billionaire should be paying a lower tax rate than a schoolteacher or firefighter. there's nothing radical about this. that's why my budget also fully funds the internal revenue service. it's interesting, republicans have been consistent for the last ten years, cutting the number of irs agents. i wonder why.

so we now have legislation that passed that's in our budget. that's going to beef up the irs agents to look at the taxes of billionaires in american. according to the congressional budget office, they estimate that just that alone would raise another $200 billion a year. larry summers who's not what you call a whacko liberal, former president of harvard, he said it's more like -- my kids who went to penn would disagree, but that's okay. but i went to a great school. i went to a state school, university of delaware, but anyway. but all kidding aside, estimates it would raise $400 billion a year, a year, and still wouldn't be paying very much tax relative to their income to begin with. my budget also has some of the

strongest antifraud proposals ever. you may remember when we had the legislation to help deal with the pandemic. what trump used to keep doing is cutting the number of inspectors general to be able to find out whether or not this money is actually not being wasted. guess what, turns out there was about several billions of dollars that were being wasted. people were getting money they didn't need or didn't deserve, and they were playing the system. well, you know, i think that we should have inspectors general again looking at what, in fact, we're spending and whether it's going where it's supposed to go. it calls for an unprecedented effort to combat identity fraud, by tripling antifraud strike forces to prosecute fraudsters and seize back stolen funds. there's billions of dollars in stolen funds that we haven't gotten back yet. inspector generals and watchdogs for taxpayer dollars, every $10, every $1 we spent in firing

these folks is going to save $10. this debate is about fundamental choices. would you rather continue a subsidy of $30 billion for big oil or cut $30 billion for veterans. would you rather cut big pharma or cut health care for americans? these are real world choices. that's what's at stake, literally. you know, i ran for president to see to it that ordinary folks got an even shake. i was raised in a family that was a typical -- we weren't poor. typical middle class family. we live instead a three-bedroom split level home in a hougs -- housing development, with four kids and a grand pop living with us. i look back on it and wonder how thin those walls were for my mom and dad, but at any rate, you know, the truth of the matter is that, you know, my dad did fine.

i guess by the time he retired, he managed an automobile dealership, probably making the equivalent of $20,000 a year, which would be 60 or 70 or 80. i don't know what it would be. my point is, i always thought the middle class folks were getting the short end of things. i think the trickle down economy, not much ever trickled down to my dad's table that i can recall. and so when i ran and my whole career as a senator, making sure middle class folks get an even shot. that's why i believe we should grow the economy out from the middle out and the bottom out, not the top down, but the wealthy will still do very well. [ applause ] because when the middle class does well, the poor have a ladder up and the wealthy still do very well. that's fine. we all do well. we made enormous progress. look at what we have done so far. over the past two years, we have created a record 12.7 million

new jobs, more than ever in that period of time. including 800,000 manufacturing jobs. unemployment is at 3.4%, the lowest in 50 years. black unemployment is at one of its lowest levels. hispanic unemployment, across the board, in part our policies and the pace of our annual inflation has been coming down for ten months in a row. still slowed by 45%. we still have more to do. but, you know, when we're in a position to invest in america, in all of america, the way we do that is we buy american products, we hire american workers. i get to spend a lot of money that congress passes. if i have $60 billion to spend and i'm going to have to put new decks on aircraft carriers, i don't out source the work. there was a low back in the 30s that said buy american, buy american, so they have to use american products. they have to go out and make sure that they hire american workers. for a long time, democratic and

republican administrations, it was cheaper to go get the cheap labor overseas and bring back the expensive product. no more, not on my watch. not on my watch. instead of importing jobs abroad, we're exporting product and buying american workers the opportunity to make a living. folks i signed the american rescue plan which sent $27 million to this community college to keep students enrolled. [ applause ] and keep this school afloat, help vaccinate our nation, got immediate relief for folks who needed it the most and got our economy back on track. it didn't have a single solitary republican vote. then i signed the bipartisan infrastructure law which had some republicans voting for it. to build the roads, the best roads, bridges, airports, water systems, high speed internet, get rid of the pipes polluting

the water, et cetera. you know, how can we be the most prosperous economy in the world without have been the greatest infrastructure in the world. we used to be ranked number one in the world in infrastructure, you know what we rank now? 13. 13. next week is infrastructure week. remember four years of the last week, we had infrastructure week every week. under my predecessor, infrastructure week became a punch line. on my watch, we're making infrastructure a decade, a headline, we're already announced over 25,000 projects and 4,500 towns across america, across westchester county is projects for better waste water, and sewer systems, repairing dams and doing so much more. i signed the chips and science act, which i felt very strongly about. to bring back key parts of our supply chain back to america. remember when we had real trouble, when automobiles said they had to stop making

automobiles, you know, they take 30,000 chips, i mean, 3,000 chips. well, guess what, they were all being made in asia and when the pandemic hit, they shut down, so we were in trouble. folks, these are the small computer chips the size of the end of your little finger, everything in our lives, cell phones, automobiles, refrigerator, most sophisticated weapons systems, america invented these chips, we made them better. we went from producing 40% of the world's chips to producing 10%, despite leading the world in research and design. now we're turning that around. the private sector, i went around the world and home and convinced people that they had to invest in building the chip factories here, they called the we've got a commitment ofmerica

companies home and abroad for manufacturing clean energy. like syracuse, investing $100 billion over the next 20 years to build semiconductors, thanks to the hard work of chuck schumer and governor hochul. ibm investing $20 billion. putting america back in the game and creating thousands of good paying jobs. many of these jobs -- first of all, the construction takes a lot of jobs. they don't require four-year degrees once you're in these fabs. you know what the average pay is going to be, close to $100,000, and you don't need a college degree. that's progress. i know folks are still struggling with inflation. the way i think about it is the way my dad used to talk about it around the kitchen table for real. how much are the monthly bills, at the end of the month, you have enough to pay for all of your bills and have a little breathing room left, just a

little breathing room. that's why i wrote and signed the inflation reduction act. americans pay more in prescription drugs than any advanced country on earth. we're fighting for years to allow medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. we finally beat big pharma and did it without a single republican vote. it will have a profound impact and save lives. it will reduce the deficit by $160 billion just this year. and i said, diabetes, one in ten americans have diabetes. millions need insulin to stay alive. insulin has been around for a hundred years. costs ten bucks to make it. $10. package, a total of $12. and they're paying hundreds of dollars making record profits. well, we capped it at 35 bucks, as i said. and we're going to make sure, we're going to make sure it's capped at 35 for everyone. not just those on social

security. [ applause ] because guess what, it saves the taxpayer money. the federal government doesn't have to write a check for 400 bucks. it writes a check for 35 bucks. look, inflation reduction act also makes the biggest investment in fighting climate change anywhere in the history of the world. it's creating tens of thousands of jobs, a giant step towards saving the planet. tax credit for consumers to weatherize their homes, purchase energy efficient doors, appliances, electric vehicles, save an average of a thousand bucks a year. look, tax credits for states and businesses, solar, wind, hydrogen and more. not a single republican voted for this law, and now they want to get rid of it all. why would they want to repeal a law that's creating american jobs and lowering costs to american families? well, when have we heard of a

republican opposing tax credits for businesses. that's what they're doing this time. take a look at "the new york times" yesterday, what they wrote. i think it was the front page. texas now is becoming one of the leading states in the nation in renewable energy. the number of wind farms they have, solar farms and hydrogen, but now the republicans want to get rid of this law and these tax credits. why do you think that is? because the fossil fuel industry wants to get rid of them, that's why. even though they're creating jobs, taking on climate change, they don't want it because it's so much more costly to go the other route. they say it costs too much. the truth is it's too schl. successful. and here's the real truth, big oil doesn't want it, and republicans are carrying their water. that's what this is all about. let me close with this. we made so much progress, but

there's so much more to do. we're on the cusp of a major change. we're creating jobs again. american manufacturers are booming again. where's is it written americans can't lead the world in manufacturing. we're lowering the deficit. times that had been forgotten and left behind are coming alive again. bringing back a sense of pride. all those chip factories will be all over america. >> the president finishing his comments on the debt ceiling and republicans, but we want to take you live to the courthouse on long island where george santos, the congressman has pled not guilty to all 13 charges against him. let's take a listen. okay. he hasn't quite come out to the microphones yet, but rehema ellis is this for us. what can you tell us about what happened inside that courthouse, and i do think we are expecting to hear from congressman santos any minute now, right? >> reporter: chris, we are indeed. what we found out just a few

moments ago, that he pled, as you pointed out, not guilty to all of the charges. he was ordered to pay $500,000 in a cash bond, which was put up by three unidentified people. they put up the money. he's due back in court to respond to these charges on june 30th. there is -- i think you can see behind me, there is a whole slew of cameras and photographers who are just at the door of the federal courthouse behind me. we hope they will take a picture, and then the hope is that congressman george santos will come down and walk to a line of cameras that is here just 15 feet away from me and take questions from reporters. he has been in this courthouse all day. he was scheduled to go for the arraignment at 1:00. it was pushed back to 2:30, and then it was only about 2:20 this afternoon that we got word of what i just mentioned to you in terms of his appearance in the

courthouse. these charges against him are some of what some people were expecting here because of the stories that have been swirling around george santos for some months as the freshman congressman has been trying to shore up his reputation that has come under fire. 13 federal counts in this indictment including fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and false statements. and he has said all along that he is not guilty, and he has also said that he would not leave his seat in congress despite the fact that there are people in this community that he is from that said he deceived them. they voted for him based on a deception. i asked people here today were they surprised that these charges were filed against him, they said no. and i asked one man in particular, do you expect now that these charges have been filed that george santos will resign, and in a word, he said no. it is important to point out na george santos has filed his intention for reelection to this

seat, despite the fact that these charges have come out. moments ago we hear that he has pled not guilty to all of these charges, a 500,000 cash bail is being put up by three unidentified people who put up the money, and he's due back in court to address these charges on june 30th. chris. >> rehema ellis, thank you for that, and we'll come back when we see george santos outside the courthouse. we want to take a look at the legal challenges he's facing. i want to bring in matt sanderson, an msnbc law analyst. you've seen the indictment, we've just talked about it, wire fraud, money laundering, stealing public funds, lying on disclosure forms. what's your read on this indictment? >> well, being a politician does not give you across the board license to lie. you might be able to mislead voters about your professional background or your heritage but at the end of the day, it's a very serious matter as he is

accused of to lie to the government to get covid relief. it's a felony to lie on your personal disclosure forms, and it's a felony to lie to dnors and tell them you're going to use money for election purposes, he's accused of those things, may be accused of additional crimes as this proceeds, but these are very serious charges. >> let's talk about, for example, one of the things that you just mentioned, which is the accusation that he used political contributions to pay for things like closing, luxury items, to pay credit card bills, that's something with a paper trail, right? that's not a he said, she said. that is not necessarily witness statements. this is something they've either got hard evidence on or they don't. >> that's exactly right. and it does seem from the indictment that the government does have the paper trail.

they show that george santos started up an llc, that he sent texts to donors or directs otherwise to solicit donors to give money to that llc, misrepresented what it was for, what type of entity it was. he told people that it was going to be used for his election campaign, and then ultimately much, if not all of the money according to the indictment was spent on personal debts and luxury goods. that is problematic to say the least. you are not able to do -- it's not only problematic to solicit money under false pretenses but there are also some additional potential campaign finance violations that aren't in the indictment now but could be supplemented in a later filing. >> let me also ask you about one of the other things that caught a lot of people's attention. that is the fact that he said he had a charitable organization. there's reporting that the irs

had no records of there actually being a filing for this charitable organization, but that he raised money through it, that was supposed to pay for an operation for the dying dog of a veteran. you can't make this stuff up to be honest with you. that is impossible not to have that tug at people's heart strings. but again, something that would have a paper trail, right? >> that's right. and there could be additional -- as i mentioned, there could be additional fire given that there's this much smoke. and, you know, what he's accused of in the indictment is a version of that, right? that he said he told two donors, at least two donors according to the indictment that he had started up what's called a 501c4, a social welfare organization, that much of the money would be used for election purposes or at least for public purposes. and then use the money for his own personal expenses, and so that's a, you know, he started up what -- he told a couple of

donors that he was starting up what would be a quasi charitable social welfare organization and it was used for luxury goods and personal debt of his. >> if you could stand by, matt, i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin who's here. let's talk briefly about what happened today, including a $500,000 bond. what do you make of that amount in a case like this? >> i think it shows, first of all, that there is some fear of a flight risk with george santos. >> really? >> $500,000 is not an insignificant sum of money, particularly for a person who is constantly robbing peter to pay paul so to speak, right, but i think that it is at least serious enough to demonstrate that while george santos has his freedom, it's not so low that the judge is saying to himself

or herself, the magistrate judge, that george santos would never flee the country. we know that george santos lived in brazil for a long period of time. that he is wanted on criminal charges there. there's some risk that george santos has a place to go. and i also question, chris, in looking at this indictment, some of the allegedly criminal behavior that we know george santos has engaged in that we were just talking about, isn't in this indictment. that suggests that not only the department of justice intends to supercede or add more charges at a later point in time. they may have been aware of some circumstances that caused them to think that indicting george santos now was absolutely necessary. >> what would that include? if you feel like it's absolutely necessary now, what would motivate that? >> foreign travel. i mean, you know, i go back to thinking about lev parnas and his friend igor who were on their way overseas to europe with rudy giuliani when they were sort of unexpectedly

indicted, not because no one expected they wouldn't come back, per se, but they had a one way ticket to go overseas in europe. in the event they weren't going to come back, it was necessary to indict them at that moment. i don't have any knowledge that's what's going on here, but given the complexity of charges that could have been brought against george santos, that's one reason why the department of justice could have indicted him now before fully fleshing out campaign finance and other charges that could be brought and may be likely brought against him. >> matt, let me ask you, and i'll come back to you, lisa, and ask you the same question. what do you think the chances are there could be a plea deal here or a deal period that might get made here? >> i think in normal times, it certainly would have been possible, we've seen that with past indicted members of congress, they've ultimately reached plea deals. but i think, you know, george santos is not your normal congressman. this is not your father's or

mother's republican party, and so it remains to be seen what he will do. i could see him very well making this a political fight, that he is defying the odds, he's defying the witch hunt, so to speak. i could see him trying to fight this out and making political hay out of it. so i do expect that, you know, plea deal will be explored and if he's given some sober advice, that may end up being what he does, but i don't think this is a normal circumstance and a normal defendant in this case. >> well, if past is prologue, one of the things we have learned about george santos is he's pretty defiant. what do you think the chances are there are going to be conversations like that? >> i think there will be conversations like that. again, federal prosecutors, their practice in new york is what we call eating the indictment, right? if you're going to plead guilty, we often, federal prosecutors

traditionally expect that you are going to cop to some of the criminal conduct here, and the conduct here even though it doesn't represent the full what we understand george santos might have engaged in, it still is serious conduct. and given george santos' defiance, despite the fact that i think the conversations are happening and ongoing, i'm not sure they will be particularly fruitful, chris. the other thing that i want to point out to you and our viewers, the thing that jumped out to me reading this indictment, it could be a little bit of a dress rehearsal for future trump indictment, and here's how. the charges here brought about campaign finance contributions, they are wire fraud charges. they're not campaign finance charges, and essentially george santos sent fraudulent e-mails to potential contributors and under false pretenses got them to contribute money to his company, telling them it was a 501(c)(4) organization and he was going to use this money for television advertisements and

the like. if that sounds familiar, it's because during the january 6th hearings we heard congresswoman zoe lofgren talk about how trump used money after the 2020 election that he was going to use it to election related litigation, to litigate the 2020 election, and that's not what he did with those hundreds of millions of dollars at all. instead, he raised over $170 million, i believe, in small contributions, most of which at this point has been used for his own legal defense, payroll of his campaign apparatus, and the criminal defenses of others associated with him. so, you know, again, if past is prologue, i read this also as a warning about what might be to come from the department of justice in the future for a defendant whose name is not george santos at all. >> i want you both to stick around. since you brought up donald trump, as we learn more about santos. mike pence is weighing in on the verdict against his former running mate, donald trump.

dasha burns joins us now with her exclusive interview with the vice president. what did mike pence have to say, dasha? >> reporter: well, chris, to your point, not only is donald trump mike pence's former running mate, he's also his former boss and also potentially his future political rival. in that interview he told us that he will be making his decision public about whether or not he's going to run for president by the end of june. but, chris, this is the problem that anyone who is in this presidential race or is going to get into this presidential race is going to have to contend with. donald trump and his controversies, his scandals, taking up all of the oxygen, and the question as this news came out just a couple of hours before i sat down with the vice president, the former vice president, was what's he going to do here? is he going to take the opportunity to criticize the former president or at least distance himself to denounce sexual abuse, or is he going to

stand by his former boss or punt or dodge? i asked him if this verdict changes his view about whether or not donald trump is fit to serve as president again. here's part of what he said. >> it's just one more instance where at a time when american families are struggling, when our economy is hurting, when the world seems to become a more dangerous place almost every day that it's just one more story focusing on my former running mate that i know is a great fascination to members of the national media, but i just don't think it's where the american people are focused. >> reporter: he also told me that in his time serving alongside the former president, he never witnessed any behavior of that nature, and you maybe heard some sound in the background of our interview there, chris, our interview was

actually interrupted by some protesters, some lgbtq rights protesters showing up outside the event mike pence was speaking at and that just sort of goes to show, he was booed at an nra rally recently by members of the right wing. he has been, you know, now protested against by members of lgbtq rights groups, so as he's mulling, you know, this potential white house bid, he's sort of taking it from all sides right now. but you heard him there on e. jean carroll verdict. so far most folks in the republican party really along similar lines here, chris. >> dasha burns, thank you for that. it is a one-two punch of bad news for republicans, over the course of hours. former president trump found liable of defamation and battery, and congressman george santos pleading not guilty to criminal charges we first learned about yesterday. with lies and the legal system, catching up to two of the gop's

most high profile members, the party is being forced to confront an uncomfortable question. how long do you stick by two candidates who are mired in legal quick sand. maybe more to the point, will swing voters, particularly suburban women tire of the drama and vote for democrats? former gop communications director on capitol hill, and currently senior adviser for the lincoln product, with me, nick contasori, an msnbc political analyst, and msnbc's lisa rubin is with me here. it's one thing to argue that trump's vulgar comments on the bus about grabbing women were locker room talk. it's another to decide to support someone who a jury said sexually assaulted a woman. does this give republicans, even trump supporters pause, maybe give them time to reassess his viability as a candidate or no?

>> i think you're going to see a handful of people possibly say that. we saw a few republicans come out, but that's not the majority. that's not the republican leadership, and that's not the republican base. we've seen that they have stuck by donald trump regardless of the litany of transgressions that he has been accused of and that he has engaged in from the time he was a candidate to now. so the republicans have a suburban problem, they do, and they know this. the people are smart, political observers in the party, understand it's a numbers game and in places like pennsylvania, for example, chester county, bucks county, where donald trump lost badly to joe biden, and lost to hillary clinton, they continue in suburban areas like this as a party to lose voters, and issues like this, and the chaos around trump, and the chaos around party leaders like

marjorie taylor greene and others, and you have george santos who has been an absolute despicable spectacle, this does not encourage confidence in the party's governing abilities. these are not serious people. so, sure, we look at this situation, do i think that donald trump being found guilty of liable of sexual battery is going to move the needle? not necessarily, when you have people like tommy tuberville who wants to vote for him twice. and called the jurors of new york city, our legal system, a joke. these are not serious people, and i cannot see how this is possibly a good political strategy for republicans moving forward to continue to support trump in this way. >> nick, let me ask you about recent polling by nbc news. we went and looked at, you know, did a deep dive on it, and that poll among suburban women, again, who have often decided these elections, 54% say trump

is being held to the same standard as everyone else. just 39% say he's being unfairly targeted and i bring that up because that 54% is a higher number than in many other categories. it tells us they're more sensitive to this or more willing to accept the fact that he's being treated fairly. does that tell you something? >> look, this is bad news for trump: don't let anybody try to spin this as 3d chess, come out stronger because of this. it's terrible. he was found liable for sexual battery, it's a terrible thing, and most people think it's a bad thing that's going to hurt him, not help him. i think for the 39%, this kind of stuff is baked in, right, it's part of, you know, what they knew about him. they don't care. what's more important is his battles with the deep state and wokism. this case is not easily roped into that narrative. it's small, it's tawdry. right? it's from a long time ago.

and it involves physical assault. it's not some ideological battle for the soul of the country. that's why i think it hurts. >> i want to play what we heard from some republican senators, not a majority, just a few of them. they do have concerns. let me play that. >> one of the things that's most important to me, which conservative candidate represents the best opportunity to beat joe biden and on that measure, things like what we're experiencing today will certainly factor in. >> i do not think he could win the presidency, and so i think regardless of what you think about him as an individual, to me, electability is the sole criterion. >> to me, it's like what is the line for a lot of folks who say we got to jump ship because we're going to lose and we're going to lose big. >> it's so muted, those comments, and i think, look, it's the chicken's way out to say, well, he can't win, so he shouldn't be nominated. think about winning, it saves

those senators from having to weigh in on the underlying behavior and the merits or lack thereof of the behavior, but as analysis, they're probably right. you know, he is not the strongest candidate in a general right now. he is the strongest in a primary. and that's the box -- >> by far, according to the polls. >> and that's the box for the party that they all want to see a way out of and can't find a way out of right now. >> i'm not going to ask you a political question about the cumulative effect, lisa, of both santos and trump happening now, but there is a question of timing, right? we know now that george santos is going to be going back to court on june 30th. the question is how much does it stay in the headlines, how much does it get into the public psyche and to your point, how much might come out that we don't know from incredible investigative reporting, what do you see as the time line for the santos case? >> i don't see the santos case resolving, unless he pleads guilty. i don't see it resolving any sooner than about a year from

now. that's partially because i expect the government will supercede their indictment and bring new charges against him, but also just the normal course of a federal prosecution here in new york, and the complexities of that. obviously we'll know more on june 30th when he appears before judge sybert in the eastern district of new york. my prediction right now is probably at this time next year, we are still looking forward to a santos trial if he continues this defiance. >> could be right in the middle of the campaign season. okay. tara sutmayer, and lisa rubin, and please stick around in case george santos walks out of that courthouse, which we're expecting anytime now. the e. jean carroll verdict, and what it means to women all over the country. we're going to talk about that next. he country we're going to talk about that next get a private 5g network. so you can do more than connect your business, you can make it even smarter. now ports can know where every piece of cargo is. and where it's going. (dock worker) right on time. (vo) robots can predict breakdowns and order their own replacement parts. (foreman) nice work.

(vo) and retailers can get ahead of the fashion trend of the day with a new line tomorrow. with a verizon private 5g network, you can get more agility and security. giving you more control of your business. we call this enterprise intelligence. from the network america relies on. i think i'm ready for this. heck ya! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college. kids moving back in after college. ♪ finally we can eat. ♪ you know you make me wanna...♪ and then we looked around and said, wait a minute, this isn't even our stroller! (laughing) you live with your parents, but you own a house in the metaverse? mhm. cool...i don't get it. here's to getting financially ready for anything! and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha?! ♪ yeah, yeah ♪ my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of

face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. we really don't want people to think of feeding food like ours is spoiling their dogs. good, real food is simple. it looks like food, it smells like food, it's what dogs are supposed to be eating. ♪ we put our heart into everything we do. we are farmers, bakers, florists, and makers who grow and create with a passion. 1-800 flowers. share with love.

newspaper headlines are hailing the verdict in e. jean carol's civil case against former president donald trump as

a win for women. an astounding moment of accountability, a bolstering of the me too movement's legacy. carroll herself said this moment is bigger than just her case. >> we did away with the perfect victim concept. the perfect victim always screams, she always goes to the police, she always writes the date in her diary, she always folds up and is a sad person. we smashed that concept. and so every woman in the country, this is for you. >> i want to bring in rebecca, writer at large for new york magazine, first to publish carroll's accusation against donald trump in 2019. it's great to have you here. you've written about this case obviously extensively, what do you think this verdict means for women across the country? >> i think it's a pretty

astonishing chapter in the very very long story that is, you know, the fight for gender equality, and inclusion, the sort of legal battle to be able to address sexual assault and harassment. and to lay claim to, you know, protection from the state, for women and victims of harassment and assault, i don't think it's -- you know, the thing that's made clear to me about this verdict in this case is the length of time that this has been playing out, both in a very recent context, you know, going back to before the 2016 election, when, in fact, two of the corroborating witnesses for e. jean carroll told their stories of having been assaulted by trump, and there was the access hollywood tape, and none of those things impeded his election in 2016, but then the fury about that election led to a women's march and a period of real protest and fury, and very gendered terms that then brought

us to the fall of 2017, the reporting on harvey weinstein, in the wake of that, the activism by survivors who pushed for this window of opportunity to reopen a civil case that e. jean carroll used to bring the case because the criminal was over. there was victory and loss and reaction and loss and victory, they build on each other in a way that takes a long time, and i think that's an important lesson to draw from this result. >> you know, we can't lose sight of the fact, and i've heard some -- this question raised a few times. carroll is a woman of means. she's a woman who's going up against a very famous defendant, and so she had access because of that to people who would support her, both financially and legally. most women who find themselves in this horrible situation are not sexually assaulted by a famous man, don't get in the headlines, and for them, the

very real possibility of what the consequences might be, and the lack of support for that is very different. and so within that context, do you think that there is an overstatement of what this means for women. should we look at this as just another small step in what is still a pretty high mountain to climb? >> so there's a very tricky balance to hit. part of what i just described were these -- i don't believe that there are beginnings or ends or clean victories or clean losses in all kinds of movements for greater inclusion and equality, all kinds of social movements, they are long processes that sometimes mov th and then steam ahead at astonishing speed, and it's very attempt to go want to make the call. this is where we are, and this is what we won, and for example, when e. jean carroll says she smashed the idea of the perfect victim, i think there's damage

that's been done to that narrow and confining notion to what it means to have a plausible story and have a voice that can be raised. i don't think that's the end of the use of the perfect victim stereotype to limit which kinds of womens' voices can be raised. your point is well taken. we need to think about the people who do not have means, who do not access to the media, which e. jean carroll did, to get her story told. women and men who do not have economic stability to be able to take the risk to tell the story of what happened to them at their workplace or an assault that they experienced. and so, no, there's no neat victory, but it is also, you don't want to scold people into not celebrating the tremendous moment that this is. this is really important that donald trump, whose election, despite allegations of assault sort of provoked a period of

anger and fury and a drive to address the inequities that enabled that election. and he's finally facing one of the first instances of legal accountability that we've seen, and that is because of, you know, all of this history that's built upon itself. it's also because of the willingness of e. jean carroll to come forward and challenge many of those stereo types about perfect victim hood, raise her voice, tell her story and a jury believed her. >> and they believed her to the tune of $5 million against the leader of the free world. your writing has been extraordinary on this, from the cover story when you first broke it. we appreciate you taking the time to come on and share your thoughts with us today. that's going to do it for us this hour. at any moment we are expecting to see george santos walk out of the courthouse. our coverage will continue with "katy tur reports" after this break. h "katy tur reports" after this break.

are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters keep your laundry smelling fresh waaaay longer than detergent alone. if you want laundry to smell fresh for weeks, make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters. ♪ ♪ why are there two extra seats? are we getting a dog? a great dane? two great danes?! i know. giant uncle dane and his giant beard. maybe a dragon? no, dragons are boring. twin sisters! and one is a robot and one is a knight. and i'll be on the side of... the octopus. rawr!!! the volkswagen atlas. more room for possibilities. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria.

visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. why give your family just ordinary eggs when they can enjoy the best? eggland's best. the only eggs with more fresh and delicious taste. plus, superior nutrition. which is now more important than ever. ♪♪ when i first started ancestry, i had no idea what to expect. ethnicity inheritance. nigerian east central from you. benin. my dad's side. it's 30% japanese. thank you, mom. i love how it gives you a little bit of history. yeah! i feel like reading this, like, these are my roots. there's just still so much to discover. now on sale for mother's day. ♪ ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, ♪ ♪ but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪

♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 24/7 in your body to flush out some sugar! and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ ♪ the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ narrator: it's called, “shared leadership.” driven by each community in a groundbreaking setting: california's community schools. where parents and families, students and educators, make decisions as one.

creating the school and shaping futures - together. based on the needs of their students... ...steeped in local culture. curriculum from cyber security to gardening. and assisting families with their needs: wellness centers, food pantries, and parental education. california's community schools: reimagining public education. our customers don't do what they do for likes or followers. their path isn't for the casually curious. and that's what makes it matter the most when they find it. the exact thing that can change the world. some say it's what they were born to do... it's what they live to do... trinet serves small and medium sized businesses... so they can do more of what matters. benefits. payroll. compliance. trinet. people matter.