since. >> detectives -- and larry value retired from the forest. the value adopted a little boy just like johnson did all those years ago. john sutton continue to pursue his dream to see again. >> i prepared or has it sunk in that you're going to be blind for the rest of your life? >> well, that is not my blind. i may not be that smart but boy i am motivated. >> the enthusiasm coming out of you as kind of inspirational. >> i am ready to roll. i've got plans for this eyesight. eyesight this sunday, the art of the deal. >> the bill is passed. >> house speaker kevin mccarthy and president biden strike a deal. >> both sides operated in good faith.

both sides kept their word. >> i think we did pretty dang good for the american public. >> can both parties claim victory? i'll talk to democratic senator joe manchin of west virginia and mike rounds of south dakota. plus, a crowded field. former vice president mike pence, former new jersey chris christie, and north dakota's governor are all set to officially announce their 2024 bid this week. meanwhile, the 2024 gop front-runners, ron desantis and donald trump begin to attack each other. donald trump, attack each other. >> he used to say how great florida was. his whole family moved to florida under my governorship. are you kidding me? >> with a crowded field help trump win? and trump on tape. the special counsel has an audio recorder of the former president taking a classified document after leaving office. >> all i know is everything i did was right. we had the presidential records act.

which i abided by 100%. >> with the grand jury set to meet again this week, will the former president face more criminal charges? i'll talk to former trump attorney timothy parlatore, who recently quit trump's legal team. join me for insight and analysis. andrea mitchell, politico playbook co-author eugene daniels, democratic strategist stephanie schriock and republican strategist brad todd. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. something rare happened in washington this week. both democrats and republicans declared victory after voting for the same exact thing. not every democrat or republican is happy but that's kind of the point. both side had to make concessions, called compromise. what politics is supposed to be. the art of the possible.

president biden, who is constantly underestimated politically, did what he promised to do, secured a bipartisan agreement. as a candidate in 2019, biden predicted republicans would have a post-trump epiphany. >> i think it will fundamentally change him as with donald trump in the white house. not a joke. you will see an epiphany occur among many of my republican friends. >> while epiphany may be a strong word, republicans haven't exactly stopped embracing former president donald trump, but biden does seem aware of the deal he cut with swing voters, breaching the divide when possible and his bipartisan list of accomplishments are starting to back up from the infrastructure bill to the chips and science act, gun safety legislation, protecting same-sex marriage.

it's also notable president biden praised house speaker kevin mccarthy, who emerged stronger this week after also being constantly underestimated politically. mccarthy managed to use the threat of a debt default to force the white house to negotiate a deal. and more than two-thirds of house republicans agreed to it. he didn't lose his speakership, even though 71 republicans didn't sign onto the deal and at least one republican, chip arroyo, a skeptic of mccarthy as speaker, called it a turd sandwich. but they voted to pass it in both chambers. because of the defense cuts proposed, only 17 republicans voted in favor of the bill in the senate. >> to my house colleagues, i can't believe you did this. to the speaker, i know you've got a tough job. i like you. but the party of ronald reagan is dying. >> but what didn't happen is also worth noting. republicans didn't destroy the economy, progressive democrats didn't tank this deal, republicans didn't destroy the biden agenda and house republicans didn't get rid of kevin mccarthy. they walked away with a pretty modest $1.5 trillion in projected savings, and that's on

the most optimistic end of the spectrum. so with the threat of default now gone until the next election, president biden believes he has an accomplishment he can now run on until 2024. >> i know bipartisanship is hard and unity is hard, but we can never stop trying, because in moments like this one, the ones we just faced, where the american economy and the world economy is at risk of collapsing, there's no other way. >> and joining me now, democratic senator joe manchin of west virginia. he voted in favor of the debt ceiling bill. he was a big part of the behind-the-scenes negotiation. senator manchin, welcome back to "meet the press." >> hey, chuck. good to be with you. >> so let me start. how much credit do you given president biden for making this happen? >> i give everybody credit. you've said it well. i've been listening to you, and you nailed it. both sides had to come together. i think that -- i give kevin and

his team a tremendous amount of credit. he got a bill out of the house, sent it to the senate, got things started. president biden did what he must do and what he does -- can do best is bring people together, use this bipartisanship. but, you know, 90 days ago we could have started this, but the extremes on both sides are pushing you further away than basically giving you encouragement to come together. that's what we've got to basically eliminate, chuck. but i was proud of both of them. i was proud of the house democrats with hakeem jeffries leading, working with kevin mccarthy and his team to basically get it out of rules, when the rules went to the floor. >> yeah. >> took the democrats to move the bill. and then together they voted and passed it on the senate side. we had house republicans and democrats working together knowing we had to avert this crisis. but why do we always come down to this brinksmanship at the end? it's just not right. it's not who we are. >> you're asking me a question i was going to sort of put to you. but let me ask it this way. >> yeah.

>> realistically, is bipartisanship probably dead until november 2024 now? you know, are we going to be entering a period where everybody has to put on the jerseys? >> well, i sure hope not. we've been able to show we can do something when we have to. we have to have a permitting process now that basically encumbers everything. we've touched on that in this bill. we have some permitting reforms that were done, but we need an awful lot more. if you're going to have the energy and security our country needs, you're going to have to be able to build the infrastructure. whether it's the pipelines or transmission lines, we have to have an all-in policy, but we have to be energy independent to be secure, chuck. >> the big thing -- >> that could be a big win for all of us. >> the big thing you got out of it the mountain valley pipeline provision. a lot of democrats not happy with it. the timely completion -- let me read from the text of the bill -- timely completion of the mountain valley pipeline is in the national interest. i found something interesting that you said to politico.

you said, being undecided about running for re-election helped make this happen, that somehow if you were already a candidate for re-election, you seem to think this wouldn't have happened. why is that? >> well, chuck, i think that basically this system is so toxic anymore that whenever you are an announced candidate for anything, you're absolutely basically cannon fodder for the other side. i mean everybody wants 51. politics are basically taking over control versus the policies and basically the responsiveness we should have. my purpose is to have progressive movements to where we're doing something that helps the economy, that helps the people, helps security. i don't put politics in front. a lot of people do. >> right. >> it's about politics. mine's about policy and basically performing for my country and my state.

so i'm not going to be worried about polls and all this other stuff when i have a purpose to perform. i've got to perform. >> does getting this pipeline make you feel like you have a case for re-election that you can make that you might be able to win? >> well, what it does, it basically gives west virginia tremendous opportunities to provide the energy security our nation needs. west virginia is an energy juggernaut. we've got fossil fuels. we do it cleaner and better than anywhere in the world. in the carolinas, we have people paying ten times more whenever there's any weather interruptions. they're paying ten times more than we do in west virginia, and they're right next door. you have to be able to deliver that energy, chuck, and that's what we're doing. this has been a tremendous win for west virginia. i think spearheading this thing from day one, i've taken all the bullets, you know that, all the spears, and the bottom line is we got it accomplished. >> it's interesting to me in many of these bills you've been in the middle of, right, you've

actually been working with mitch mcconnell. are you surprised he's spending so much of his political activity trying to convince you not to run for re-election? does that make it harder to work with republicans? >> it doesn't make it harder for me. i understand this is not the most honorable profession. it's a shame to say that. it's supposed to be the most honorable profession when you can provide services to the people that you represent. but when you have to fight your own colleagues to try to do your job, it makes it pretty tough. when i said people sometimes put politics -- i think mitch is in a position where it's all about -- as i've observed, politics first, protecting his caucus. 51 votes is what his determination is. and with that, sometimes policy doesn't get the benefit. mine's about the policy end of it. if we can do something good, i don't care who takes credit because i can't do it by myself. there's no way we could pass any of this without the help of the other side. so i look at it differently. also my oath to the constitution. so my performance for my state

and my oath to the constitution more than takes care of everything i'm supposed to do versus the politics. >> before i let you go -- >> 51 on either side. >> before i let you go, you've been flirting with the no-labels movement. they're on the air right now with an ad, trying to get on the blot in maine. i want to play a clip and ask you about it on the other side. >> sure. >> blind loyalty is the opposite of choice, and choice is what real democracy is all about. no labels was formed to unite democrats, republicans, and independents to solve our country's biggest problems, bringing more choices to voters and more voices to the national conversation. >> i understand the message there and this idea of trying to bring folks together. but let me ask you this. didn't president biden sort of perform as no labels wanted him to by bringing people together and -- >> oh, i think the result -- >> -- and coming to a

compromise? >> yeah, chuck. the result you saw there was joe biden working with kevin mccarthy, kevin mccarthy taking the lead and pushing it over. okay, let's sit down and get serious. should it come to the brinksmanship in the last few days or the last day? no. what the movement of no labels has done is saying there's a middle, there's more people in the silent majority of the middle that have no voice whatsoever, so they're forced to their respective corners, far left and far right. they're not comfortable there. they're showing that now there's a place in the middle, and the middle can basically show you can't go to the left. you're not going to get elected, and you can't goven from there. decisions are made from the middle. my friend joe lieberman on that. >> i'm curious, does it make you less interested in running for president if joe biden is moving to the middle like this? >> chuck, the bottom line is -- let me just talk about what's going on right now with what happened on the debt ceiling. don't you think that we should have a risk evaluation of where we are as a country on finances?

don't you think we should have a risk management team the same as banks are supposed to have risk managers? can't we do something to prevent this on a daily basis versus a crisis at the last minute? all that being said, how should we govern? you kptd can't continue to be pushed to the middle and pulled to the right. >> it's notable you're not ready to sign off that joe biden's been moving to the middle. you don't buy it? >> well, this here, i think joe biden -- that's his inherent -- who he is. he's been pushed to the far left, and that far left is not basically where the country is. and the far right is not where the country is. coming back to the middle, we can continue to bring people to the middle and do our job. that's where decisions will be made. >> it sounds like i have a few more months before i'll get you to answer a straightforward political question. >> we're still working, chuck. that's why i like coming on with you. >> senator joe manchin, democrat of west virginia. thank you for coming on. appreciate your perspective. >> thank you. let's get the perspective from the other side of the aisle. mike rounds from south dakota

was one of 17 republicans to support the debt ceiling in the senate. it was a bit surprising per capita more house republicans supported the deal than senate republicans. welcome back to "meet the press." >> hey, thanks. you worked joe over pretty hard there. >> well, let me ask you this -- why do you think fewer senate republicans supported this deal? >> the defense issues. >> mm-hmm. >> clearly the concern we have is if under certain circumstances defense would actually go down in terms of the funding at a time in which we've got mayor challenges not only from russia but from china as well, and the fact that we know we're going to have to have a supplemental when it comes to ukraine at some point in the future. and those were a real challenge. one of the reasons that you heard senator graham and others talk very clearly about the concern was that we're all

pretty clear that we're going to have to have an increase in defense spending and not a decrease. if under certain circumstances if we don't do all 12 proposals under this appropriations bill, then the kevin mccarthy initial deal proposes caps. >> there's some grumbling from -- >> i understand that -- >> right. there's some grumbling from senate republicans they wish mitch mcconnell hadn't let kevin mccarthy be the proxy. essentially in the words of "the washington post," did senate republicans regret outsourcing the negotiations to mccarthy considering house republicans and senate republicans are seeing less eye to eye these days on defense spending? >> there really was not another path forward. speaker mccarthy is the leader of the majority in the house. we don't control the senate. we don't control the presidency. clearly, when senator mcconnell suggested that speaker mccarthy should take the lead for the republicans, it basically made a one-on-one then with the president rather than having not

just the minority leader in the house, the majority leader in the senate, both of whom are democrats, both participating in it. i think leader mcconnell absolutely hit it on the head. i think he's probably as responsible as anybody is for actually getting this deal done in this bipartisan way, even though we knew we were taking a risk. that's one of the reasons why on the floor of the senate you heard a lot of us going to both leadership camps saying we want commitments that we're going to get all 12 appropriation bills on the floor. that's the next major hurdle in terms of the appropriate defense spending after we get the nbaa finished this year. >> do you think we should change the way we handle the debt ceiling? or considering that republicans got a way to at least slow down spending a bit, that this only reinforces the idea that it should be used as a wedge? >> yeah. look, it's become a tool to

point out the fact that we're spending more than we're taking in every single year. and there is no real other location to go except the appropriations process, which seems to only work part of the time. we really need to overhaul the appropriations process so that we can do all 12 of the appropriation bills on a regular basis. we end up with omnibuses and with continuing resolutions. that is not good for defense, it's not good for the country, it's really not good for growing the economy in the united states. but this is the one opportunity for folks that look at this to to bring it up for everybody to see that we're not meeting our budget needs on a regular basis. >> no end in sight. when there's divided governments. >> until we find another alternative. >> let me ask you about the republican primary. you're one of few senators supporting tim scott. there are three more candidates getting in this case that arguably are sort of running in the same lane, if you want to call it that, that tim scott is running in, more mainstream republicans. are you concerned this field is getting too crowded?

>> we suspected that it would get crowded, but at the same time, there's a weeding-out process that gives the american people a chance to look at all the alternatives. a lot of us think that it's time for somebody with a positive message. and i go back. chuck, you've heard me talk about this before. i think if ronald reagan was here today, i think he would win the republican nomination for the presidency. i think tim scott has a lot of the same things, the same focus. i think when people hear him speak, they're going to hear that same ability to convince people there really is a brighter time ahead for our country and he can bring people together. that's why a lot of us will support tim and believe he would make a very good president. a lot of people at this stage of the game -- really early right now -- i think you'll find that tim has a real good shot at it. yeah, the front-runners are out there and people pay attention because if you look that far ahead, what are you going to do? but with tim, once they meet him and hear him and see him, i think they'll find out he is the guy behind door number three. >> are you resigned to support

whoever the republicans nominate, even if it's the former president? >> well, right now i'm hoping it's going to be tim scott, and if it's not, then i'm going to have to reassess because i've always supported the republican nominee in the past. i hope tim is the nominee. there will be other good people as well, but i'm going to hold that back until we find how tim does. i'm going to support him at this point. >> i was going to say -- >> i think he's got a good shot. >> the fact you're not ready to automatically pledge it says a lot. are you waiting to see what the legal -- what the legal issues are with the former president? >> not so much that. i just simply think there are some very good republican nominees out there, and i'm going to wait and see which one comes out ahead. but i've supported the republican nominee in the past. i hope i can support the republican nominee in the future. if it's tim scott, i know i can support the nominee, and i think there's a whole lot of republicans out there and

independents who would like to see tim win this as well. >> you are borrowing some of the tactics of mr. manchin before me, not quite answering, but you're giving me a hint. people will be reading between those lines. senator rounds, thanks for joining us. thank you, sir. when we come back, he resigned from the trump legal team after internal conflicts over how best to defend the former president and whether to conduct additional searches at l. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small,

easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do.

(david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music)

trump mishandled classified documents apparently includes an audiotape that some consider could be a smoking gun. on that recording, the former president apparently admits he knew he was taking with him documents that had remained classified when he left the white house. what will his defense do next? joining me now, his former attorney timothy parlatore. he just resigned from the former president's defense team two weeks ago over what he called irreconcilable differences with other members in the legal team. welcome. >> thanks for having me.

>> let me start there. you left two weeks ago. you said it was -- is it advice not being followed? how else would you characterize it? >> it's something that i -- i discussed it on cnn at the time. i had a difficulty being able to do the job that i know how to do. i discussed it for specific reasons at the time, but it's not something i really want to expand on too much. >> i understand. conflicts with sort of the lead counsel there. >> right. >> do you feel like the president himself was taking your advice, or could you just not get to him? >> you know, i'm not going to be able to get into the conversations and communications directly with him, but certainly, you know, we would come up with strategies, we would present it, and we would do what we could. >> let me start with your understanding of where the special counsel is. we have the report this morning at nbc news that says the grand jury is convening this week. what does that tell you? >> well, that's the first thing i've heard about any action by the grand jury in several weeks. and, you know -- >> what does that mean?

>> well, when the grand jury went quiet several weeks back, i kind of looked at it and said, okay, this indicates that either they're coming to a charging decision or maybe they're moving to a stage where investigation is complete, and now jack smith is going to start writing up the report because ultimately if there are no charges, he's still going to have to write up a report just like we recently saw from the other special counsels. >> right. >> so the lack of action, you know, certainly would indicate the transition. >> but now that he's convening, in your mind is there going to be a potential charging decision? >> not necessarily. i mean, certainly, it could be that they're continuing an investigation into other things. it could be that the reason for the break is the last grand jury simply expired and they had to convene a new one. i'm not sure specifically. i certainly haven't heard of anything new that would, you know, require new testimony. i can't imagine that there's anybody else in mar-a-lago. >> you've dealt with the feds.

this is the reason you were hired. would you be surprised if the former president isn't charged with something here? >> no, not at all. not at all. i think this is a case where, you know -- you have to evaluate every case based on, you know, what are the facts and the law and is it something that's provable, but then there's also the other atmospherics that is this something that -- you know, from a discretion point of view, is this something where a prosecution makes sense? you know, is it something where it is a slam-dunk case where some of these things could be interpreted a few different ways, and also when it comes to a specific issue like this where we're talking about potentially national defense information, is it the type of things where they want to declassify these things, if they haven't already been declassified and put them out publicly?

there are a lot of additional, you know, problems or procedures that you have to go through with that type of a case, especially when it's politically sensitive. and i know not a lot of people are going to agree with this parallel but to me, even if he did a lot of the things that they're saying that he did, prosecuting him, there is the same reasons why you wouldn't want to prosecute him as to why back in 2016 i was of the opinion that hillary clinton shouldn't be prosecuted, because there are all of these other problems. you have to -- classification is not binding on the -- >> yeah. >> you have to actually take these documents, show them to the jury, and then prove to them that it constitutes national defense information. in doing so -- >> -- you're declassifying things. >> exactly. >> i see where you're going there. we shall see. i want to ask you about the voice mails of evan corcoran, a former co-counsel, turned over to the special counsel. i was surprised these were recordings, not just other stuff. how damning do you think these voice mails could be? >> not at all. >> why is that? >> not at all. i have -- obviously, i'm not going to go to the specific content, but there's nothing that i saw that indicates any

difference from any other communication with a client. anytime that a client who's not a lawyer, who's not experienced in these things, receives a grand jury subpoena, they're going to ask the standard questions. you know, i sit down with them hundreds of times and they say, you know, do i have to do this? do they really have the power to do this? do we have to give them everything? don't they have to get a warrant? don't they have to tell us why? is there any way to -- any way to stop this? is there a way to do a motion to quash or they usually say motion to squash. >> right. >> so that is the ordinary attorney/client conversation that you want to have with every client that you would expect to have with somebody who's not experienced. and it's the reason why you have -- >> all right. do you think he misled them, where these documents were? do you feel that the lawyers were misled, mr. corcoran in particular was misled on where these documents were? >> based on everything i've seen, no. he was told where all of the documents were brought from the white house. he searched there.

he was not given a much longer period of time. you know, later, doj came back to us and, you know, through a whole series of events, we went back to expand the search. >> right. >> but the fact that maybe it was not something that was oh missed -- in place at the time, the fact that maybe it's an omission, one judge apparently in a sealed document -- let me read this from what the judge said here. notably, no excuse is provided as to how the former president could miss the marked classified documents found in his own bedroom in mar-a-lago. it seems there is a -- >> sure. >> he seemed to know he had documents he wasn't supposed to have. >> actually, that's an interesting quote you pulled out, because there were no classified documents in his bedroom. what she's talk about there was this folder that there's been discussion about a folder, classified evening summary, which is in and of itself not even a classification level.

it doesn't mean anything. and here's an important piece -- not only did he know it was there but the fbi knew it was there. when the fbi conducted the raid of mar-a-lago, that folder was there. they saw it. they recognized it's not classified, not something subject to any of these. and the fbi left it there. >> mm-hmm. >> so, you know, there were no classified documents in his bedroom. that's -- it's one of those things where, you know, things get kind of missed in the weeds. >> let me ask you, the former president did that town hall and he was asked about it, he again talked about, hey, we were negotiating with the archive. >> yeah. >> what do you negotiate? i mean, there is no -- i don't understand what the negotiation was. >> sure. >> was it financial? >> no, no, no. the negotiation is over the next two years, after any president leaves office, they're supposed to go through all of the records and they're supposed to separate out what is personal, what is presidential. >> right. >> personal, they get to keep. all presidential records end up at the national archives headquarters in d.c. this ordinarily happens where they get a facility in the town where the president has moved to, so in chicago for obama, down in texas for the bushes, and all of them are held in that facility. here, what nara did is chose not to get a facility like that, had gsa move everything to his house

and then asked him immediately to send everything from his house back up to d.c. where he wouldn't be able to go through them. >> again, what did he think the negotiation was about? again, i know he's obsessed with the fact that nixon got paid for his archives. >> the negotiation was over them wanting all the documents back right now, him saying i'm going through them, and they went through the first 15 boxes, sent those back. quite frankly, nara said i have an idea, get a facility in palm beach and move them there, that would have solved everything. >> have you attempted to get the president to talk with the justice department? or did he not want to or did justice not want to? >> i never heard anything like

that. when i was on the team, communications with the justice department were minimal. you know, it's not something where -- you know, everybody talks about whether we're being cooperative and everything, but the justice department team that i dealt with was very oppositional and very, you know, not open to any conversations, even about simple things. this team -- and it's primarily made up of national security division people who are not ordinarily criminal prosecutors. it's so different from working with any u.s. professional attorney's office. >> let me ask you about january 6th. >> sure. >> you seem to play down the possibility the former president will be charged with anything on january 6th. the january 6th committee had four criminal referrals they thought could be used to charge the president -- obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy of a false statement,

conspiracy to defraud the united states, and the incitement, assist or aid and comfort an insurrection. you believe none of those four will be charges the former president has to deal with. >> correct. >> why? no that committee -- that was a political committee. when it comes to actually looking into the statute, all of those require them to prove that at the time he knew that all of these allegations of fraud in the election were false. >> you mean the fact that every single person that worked for him told him it was false, all of those judicial rulings told him there was no "there" there? i mean, how many more times was he had to be told before that is seen as he knew? >> if that's what the evidence is. but that's not what the evidence is. he had some people telling him there was fraud, some people telling him there was no fraud. the judicial rulings, some reached a partial ruling based on the merits. a lot of them said, you know, it was threshold issues of standing. and so, yes, there were a lot of judicial rulings against him, but none that said, okay, you

parties have conducted complete discovery, you've actually gone through everything, and based on the merits, this is what the decision is. in fact, a lot of those lawsuits at the time, they were seeking these injunctions without discovery. and i think that, you know, in retrospect, had some of those people said, look, we're not seeking an injunction now, we're seeking expedited discovery -- >> he had a bad legal team? is that what you think? >> i think that the way that some of these things were conducted, certainly some of to the sidney powell lawsuits were conducted are things that can be criticized after the fact. i think if they had gone to discovery and said we have an indication of smoke, we don't know whether there's a fire, if there's a fire it's right there. tell them to open the box and take a look. if they'd done that from the beginning, that would be a different story. instead, i have smoke, can you overturn the election? the judge said no. >> timothy parlatore, i have a lot more questions, but we only have so much time. thanks for coming in.

>> thank you. when we come back, former governor ron desantis and the man who takes credit for winning that office. they went head-to-head in iowa this week jockeying for position. can ron desantis gain ground on donald trump with more candidates joining the race?

is it possible to protect my business from cyber threats? it is, with comcast business. helping every connected device stay protected. yours. your employees'. even... susan? -hers, too. safe. secure. and powered by the next generation 10g network. with comcast business, advanced security isn't just possible. it's happening. get started with fast speeds and advanced security for $49.99 a month for 12 months. plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

welcome back. nbc news chief washington correspond ent and c welcome back. nbc news chief washington correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. white house correspondent for politico eugene daniels. partner at on message strategies and stephanie, welcome. let me kick off the conversation by kick off trump v. desantis this week. point counterpoint. here we go. >> we will fight the woke in the schools, fight the woke in the corporations, in the halls of congress. >> i don't like the term "woke" because i hear woke, woke, woke. it's just a term half the people can't even define it. they don't even know what it is. >> let's just be clear, it really does take two terms as president to be able to finish this job. >> but what i heard desantis go out and talk about eight years, we need eight years, you don't

need aid years. you need six months. we can turn this thing around so quickly. >> brad, i have to ask you, this is your side of the aisle, how is the party going to look after six months of that? >> well, i think only the party paying attention to its for the most part. >> okay. >> i also think you look at your nbc poll most recently, the presidential primary, donald trump has about 45%. everybody else together has about 45%. so there's still plenty of people in the shopping mode, and donald trump has a ceiling, so you're going to see more of this. >> andrea, next week, three more candidates getting in. is this a reflection of trump or desantis? >> it's a reflection of trump really and desantis because desantis has not proved himself. he's stumbled out of the gate. i think he is still the strongest challenger to donald trump, but the fact that a lot of people believe there needs to be an alternative to desantis, that somebody has to challenge trump, and that nobody has stepped into that. what you're mostly seeing is the newer candidates, chris christie, willing to take on donald trump.

>> is there a constituency for him in the republican primary? >> it's hard to say. >> i don't know. >> yeah. if not taken already. it's hard to see, right. there are three lanes a lot of republican strategists are thinking about this primary -- donald trump, ron desantis, and kind of everyone else, right? and chris christie should be in one of the first two lanes, right? his personality is more of a desantis than a donald trump. but he doesn't have a base at this point, right. that could change. a lot could change. we like to leave that open. at the same time, this is a party that is fully on board with donald trump. >> so, stephanie, when you look -- if you're the biden re-election campaign and you see trump and desantis going after each other, it's almost playing out exactly as you want the next six months to play out, is it not? >> oh, messy republican primaries are the best thing for president biden, absolutely. you get chris christie, do you have a constituency, no. do you think he'll say anything

about desantis and trump? yes, i do, because he's going to fight like he's from new jersey. it's just going to get muddier and messier with louder voices coming in. >> can christie get on that debate stage? 40,000 donors seems like a big hill to chime. >> i think it is. it costs about $4 person to obtain on email. that's going to be a big focus. they'll use every dollar they get in hard money to try to raise it. i do think he'll fill up eugene's playbook every day. >> christie? he will. >> great potables. i want to do a tweet. you know, it's interesting, you sent it to me, other republican operatives sent it to me. it's this brian kemp tweet. "taking our country back from joe biden does not start with congratulating north korea's murderous dictator," andrea mitchell. trump's praise of kim jong-un. >> nikki haley jumped on that in iowa. that is a bridge too far. almost everything else that he says is a bridge too far. >> i thought putin was a bridge

too far. what happened to that? >> probably putin as well, but he's backed off maybe a little bit. but kim jong-un is a killer. putin's a killer too. but the fact is he loves strong men. republican voters seem to really love fighters. that's what they want. but not someone who is willing to align himself there. i was really fascinated by what mike rounds said to you. >> he won't commit yet. >> not willing to commit to the pledge? that tells me, you know, there are a lot of people who really like tim scott. he's got that reagan, you know, optimism, he's positive, but other people inside the party think he kind of gets -- >> is he selling dog food to cats? like, do people want optimism? >> it feels like a completely different party. this is not a republican party that is happy and looking for a reagan person. if it was, donald trump wouldn't be getting 45% of the nbc poll. that is a completely different party. we talk to folks who are strategists who are in that world, and they try to compare it to obama in 2007, we had a

democratic party that was angry and that you bring in someone talking about hope and change and it worked. i don't know if it works as well. >> tim scott has not gotten specific on policies. >> go ahead. >> underestimate tim scott at your own peril. he's going to have real power in iowa. he's the best dressed. he's most connected with evangelicals. he's going to do well. >> the question is does that matter. let me put up a reminder here. here are the republican winners of iowa in the last three races, and all lost the nomination. winning iowa is a guarantee to basically make it to the convention and that's about it. >> it's a very different situation than the democratic side of the aisle. but i think -- i think what we're dealing with here is donald trump is really hard to beat. and as i believe more and more republicans jump in because, yes, they're upset with --

desantis is moving so far to the right. but republicans that are starting to jump in are not the ones you think that are super far to the right. you think they're ones that are the more business republicans. there's a huge problem with the -- i don't even know if i want to call them moderate republicans anymore -- the old republican party. they're looking for solutions, but the base is not. they want donald trump, and somebody like him. >> getting back to your original question about brian kemp, i think that was a real tell. >> he's in the bullpen. we think he's warming up, you know. >> he doesn't have the advantage that perhaps youngkin has to can come in late because he can sell funds. but brian kemp is very popular, he's done very well, and stood up against trump. >> one more clip from joe biden because i'm wondering if this was meaning. or a troll. take a listen. >> i want to commend speaker mccarthy. you know, he and i, we -- and our teams, we were able to get along, get things done. >> brad, was kevin mccarthy

happy or sad that biden said that? i mean, i've had a lot of republicans say that's going to be a problem. >> kevin mccarthy had the best week of his speakership this week. you can't make him unhappy. this is the best weekend he's had. so i don't think he cares if joe biden says that about him. joe biden is using him as a prop because biden has not been bipartisan for three years so he's trying to lean on kevin mccarthy and get the bipartisan help he wanted. >> does the left stay quiet or get cranky about biden? >> the left has already been cranky for 2 1/2 years, and they'll continue to be a little cranky. but the truth is biden knows -- the biden organization knows that this is about running through the middle and getting things done. >> yeah. >> and folks are looking for that, once they can advertise that out. >> all right. this week's episode of "meet the press reports," this week's episode takes a look at the art of the con and how successful it

is, not just business, but politics. here's a sneak peek. elizabeth holmes, the founder of blood-testing theranos, was once worth $4.5 billion and celebrated as a woman who could own the future. >> you get the same results that you get through theranos if, in fact, you went to a doctor and had him take a vile of blood from your veins. >> we do. >> but in 2015, "the wall street journal" began unraveling the con, questioning whether theranos' technology worked. >> this is what happens when you work to change things, and first they think you're crazy, then they fight, you and then all of a sudden, you change the world. >> at the end of may, holmes reported to prison after being sentenced to more than 11 years for defrauding investors, including rupert murdoch, larry ellison, and the walton family, founders of walmart. >> it kind of throws into question, like, the success of some successful people who we might resent for being successful. >> hey, famous people are just like us. i can get scammed. so can they. >> right.

>> you can catch the episode on news now at 11:30, anytime on our website and peacock and youtube. when we come back, america's population is aging. "data download" is next. "data download" is next. there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal.

i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control,

everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music)

"data download" time. the united states is getting older, but the differences across regions and demographic groups could have big policy impacts as the nation faces questions around program funding

and cuts. ecade the 65 and over the last decade the 65 and older population has been growing at a pretty fast rate here, nearly four percentage points since 2010. our under-18 population is actually shrinking per capita, down to 22% of the population, a two percentage point drop. when you look at it across regions, you can see it's the northeast and the midwest that is aging faster here, nearly at 4%, at a 4% clip. the south and the west a bit younger. that has to do with the fact there are more hispanics in the south and west because i'm going to show you that in a minute. if you look at it by states, maine and florida are one, two, amongst the oldest states or the oldest 65-plus population. and it's utah and texas that are among the youngest there, utah being the youngest state, texas with its hispanic population also skewing younger. and check this out because it's by ethnicity that shows you the dramatic differences here on age.

among whites, the white population is aging at the fastest rate, five percentage points followed by asians and african americans. look at hispanics. the 65-plus population only aging by less than three percentage points. so we are a country that is aging overall with certain population centers and regions aging faster than others. this week, former first lady rosalynn carter's family revealed she's been diagnosed with dementia three months after jimmy carter had to enter hospice care. the family says mrs. carter continues to live happy together with her husband at their home. in 1976, the longtime mental health advocate joined "meet the press" and talked about the special community and her experience hitting the campaign trail. >> what appeals to you other than the life you're living? >> well, i've always enjoyed doing things with my family. i enjoy plains, georgia, being

at home in a small town. everybody knows everybody. everybody's friendly. no matter what happens in our community, if there's an illness or some kind of sickness, everybody cares. and i think that gives you stact that to me is so important. and i enjoy that. i enjoy the public life. i've had a chance to travel the whole country, and it is just -- it's just a great experience. i go into convalescent homes, nursing homes, golden age clubs, homes for elderly, every single day saying, "will you vote for my husband?" the problems they have -- my mother is 70 and just retired from the hospital. it was traumatic for her to have to give up her work. jimmy's mother is 78. she takes care of amy for me. we know their problems first hand. but still when you go in the country and see things, i think that this last year and a half brieving into the country has probably been the greatest experience of my life. s probably been the greatest experience of my life.

we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes)

(chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch. welcome back. i have a personal announcement.

while today is not my final show, this is going to be my final summer here at "meet the press." it's been an amazing nearly decade-long run. i'm really proud of what this team and i have built over the last decade, and, frankly, the last 15-plus years that i've been here at nbc, which also includes my time at "politico." i've loved doing so much of this job, helping to explain america to washington and explain washington to america. when i took over "meet the press," it was a sunday show that had a lot of people questioning if it could have a place in the modern space. i think we've answered that question and then some. it's an important political franchise. from the "meet the press daily" show, our magazine show, "meet the press reports," our newsletters and podcasts, we've successfully expanded what makes "meet the press" special on sundays to make it special, no matter the topic or where it airs or when it airs. that includes our annual "meet the press" film festival as well, which has somehow become one of the most important film festivals for oscar buzz and news-driven documentary. but the key to survival of these media entities is for leaders

not to overstay their welcome. i'd rather leave a little too soon than stay a tad bit too long. i've had two amazing professional chapters, and i have plans for my next chapter, including some projects right here at nbc news that i've been very focused on, among them docuseries and docudramas focused on trying to educate the public better, bridge our divides, pierce our political bubble. so, while i may be leaving this chair, i'm still going to help nbc and coach colleagues in this 2024 campaign season and beyond. but this is also an important time for me personally. i've let work consume me for nearly 30 years. i can't remember the last time i didn't wake up before 5:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. and as i've watched too many friends and family let work consume them before it was too late, i promised my family i wouldn't do that. and just as important, and this is what really makes me happy, i'm also ready to take a step back because i have so much confidence in the person who i'm going to pass the baton to. she's somebody who's been ready for this for a long time, kristen welker. i've had the privilege of

working with her from essentially her first day here in washington. and let me just say she's the right person in the right moment. and for what it's worth, this is always how i hoped this would end for me, that i'd be passing the baton to her. i'll officially do that in september. i'll be honest, though, i leave feeling concerned about this moment in history but reassured by the standards we've set here. we didn't tolerate propaganda, and this network and program never will. but it doesn't mean sticking your head in the sand either. if you ignore reality, you'll miss the big story. being a real political journalist isn't about building a brand. it's about reporting what's happening and explaining why it's happening and letting the public absorb the facts. if you do this job seeking popularity, you are doing this job incorrectly. i take the attacks from partisans as compliments, and i take the compliments from partisans with a grain of salt. the goal of this and every "meet the press" episode is to do all of the following in one informative hour -- make you mad, make you think, shake your

head in disapproval, and nod your head in approval. if you do all of that in one hour of this show, we've done our jobs. so, again, this isn't good-bye, but know this, no matter who sits in this chair, if it's sunday, it's "meet the press. startling moments over the washington, dc, area yesterday as fighter jets are scrambled to track a private plane that ultimately crashed. we'll have the latest in that investigation in just a moment. plus, new action is expte