question her fate in humanity. >> that's all for this edition of dateline. i am craig melvin. thank you for watching. ank you for watching ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ this sunday, criminal conspiracy. former president donald trump is criminallyum charged for tryingo overturn the 2020 election and hold on to power. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. >> this is now the third criminal indictment against donald trump this year. every time they file an indictment we go way up in the polls. one more indictment and this election is closed out. nobody has even a chance.

>> will the support in the party continue to grow. >> the fake charges put forth by thet biden sham indictment, i would assume he's mentally ill. >> will his top rivals rally around him or start to attack and can our democracy survive this challenge? my guests this morning, john lura and jamie raskin, a member of the january 6th attorney and the former lead january 6th impeachment manager. joining me for insight and be analysis are hallie jackson, peter baker, republican strategist al cardenes and kimberly atkins stohr. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news washington, the longest running show in television history, this

is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. voters next fall may be faced with an unprecedented choice, whether to put former president donald trump back into the white house or to essentially sign off on his sentencing if he is convicted and send him to a prison or a secret service protected home. the latest indictment accuses trump to defraud the united states, another to deprive voters of a civil right to have voters' votes count and another to obstruct the official procedures. the director of national intelligence who he had hired, senior white house lawyers who he had hired, his cybersecurity agency, senior campaign staffers, state legislators, many of whom endorsed him and state e and federal courts in tt

there was no evidence of election fraud and that he had lost the election. trump's campaign even paid two outsiden research firms to pro his electoral fraud claims but they never released the findings because the firms disputed his theory and they could not offer any paragraph he had won. trump has repeatedly acknowledged in private that he lost theac election in contrasto his public statements and yet as the indictment lays out, it was not illegal in and of itself for trump to lie, that is protected speech, but it is the actions that he took that were illegal using claims of election fraud that he f knew were false to tr to gete state officials to chae the results, organizing fraudulent slates of electors, deceiving them to sign on, sending state's justice department letters falsely claiming that there were concerns about a specific state'sbo election outcome, pressuring vice president pence

to use his ceremonial role to fraudulently not certify the election t results and he still tried to persuade members of congress to prevent pr certification. in many ways, the predicate was set here on day one of the trump administration. the president directed his aides to insist on a lie about his inaugural crowd size and a day later here on meet the president the president's counselor, kellyanne conway, offered this awkwarday explanation. >> you're saying it's a falsehood and they're given sean spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. >> okay wait a minute. alternative facts? alternative facts are not facts, they're falsehoods. >> his presidency began with alternative facts and apparently ended with alternate electors.

it ended up with a scenario whether to put trump back in the oval office before he is sentenced. let's not forget republican senators decided not to hold him accountable. in fact, this is republican senate leader mitch mcconnell explaining his vote to acquit trump on january 6th. >> president trump is still liable for everything he did whilein he was in office as an ordinary citizen. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune byim being held accountable in either one. >> instead of doing the tough work in the senate, they left it to the voters. prosecutors have asked the judge in the january 6th case to issue a protective order over

discovery evidence after trump posted this, if you go after me, i'm coming after you citing trump's habit of attacking judges, attorneys, others associated with legal matters against him. while they claim that social media post was on something else, not on this, last night in south carolina trump didn't do anything subtly, he attacked special counsel jack smith directly. >> deranged jack smith, he's a deranged human being. you take ang look at that guy, that guy is a sick man, there's something wrong with him. >> joining me now is one of donald trump's attorneys in this specific case, john lura. welcome to "meet the press." >> good morning. >> let meme start with this. is the defense to this indictment he didn't do it or he was allowed to do what he did? >> the defense is quite simple, donald trump, president trump, believed in his heart of hearts

that he had won that election and as any american citizen, he had a right to speak out under be the first amendment. he had a right to petition governments around the country, state governments based on his grievances that election irregularities had occurred.re he had every right to speak about the important issues that were taking place after the election. certainly mr. pence, his vice president, agreed with him that there were anomalies and discrepancies in the election process and mr. trump had every right to petition government and enforce his a first amendment rights. that's why this indictment is an attack on the first amendment. the government, the biden administration would have to prove beyondld a reasonable dou that president trump did not believe that he hadat won the election. they will never be able to do that and that's why this prosecution is so ill conceived. >> you know, you mentioned that he had the right to do all these things. well, he did all of those things. he filed his petitions in court, he gotio a couple of recounts, l

of -- everything you outlined as saying he had the right to do, he did have a right to do, he executed that strategy and apparently when he didn't get the result that he liked then he kept looking for another strategy. at what point does he accept the truth, that he didn't win? >> well, he believes he won and the biden administration will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't what he's being indicted for ultimately is following legal advice from an esteemed scholar, john eastman, that he could petition his own vice president and ask his vice president to pause the voting on january 6th to give the states one last chance to certify or re-audit. that was the ultimate ask that president trump made in his ellipse speech. that's clearly protected. let's go back if we could and

see what was going on on january 6th. both vice president pence and president trump saw that they had 10 million votes more than theyot had in 2016. no president has ever lost under those circumstances. they also saw that joe biden outperformed hillary clinton by 15 million votes even though she was an inspirational candidate and joe biden was sitting at home in his basement. they also saw that president trump won almost all of the disputed counties. ine addition -- in addition, ty had over 1,000 people come forward and under oath say that there were discrepancies in the election. and finally, and most importantly, what president trump and vice president pence saw were that the rules of the game had been changed by local electoral officials contrary to the state legislature. so he took what he was entitled to do, which is petition vice president pence on january 6th. once that petition was completed

and vice president pence rejected his position, it was over. there was a peaceful transition of power. >> i'm going to -- look, i have tooo unpack a couple of those things there. some of it is just sort of political spin and i understand that. let me get to this issue of the esteemed -- >> no, it's part of our legal defense. >> i understand that. the esteemed legal scholar. here's what the former attorney general said about that strategy. i want to getgesa you to react it. >> i don't think this defense of advice of counsel is going to go forward because i think the president would have to get on the stand and subject himself to cross examination. >> that's just plain wrong.

he had a very thoughtful memo by john eastman, head of a constitutional scholarship program and well p understood and well renowned, he had been a supreme court clerk and a fourth circuit clerk. even mike pence said he was the legal scholar that was developing a lot of these points. people disagree about constitutional principles all of the time. certainly mr. barr may have disagreed with mr. eastman. that happens every day in our government. it never leads to a criminal charge, but one thing for certain, president trump acted under the advice of counsel when he petitioned under the first amendment, petitioned m pence. that's not legally protected speech. >> so what you're arguing is if the president did violate the law, he did so because he got advice from counsel to violate the law? >> no. that's what people misunderstand. in order to have a violation of law you have to have criminal

intent and in this case corrupt intent and what that means is you have to have some desire to do something unlawful. if you are -- if your attorney is telling you that you have a right, then that completely eliminates any criminal intent so under those circumstances you are not violating the law. your actions require you to state your position, but it's not a -- it's not a violation. so you would be acquitted regardless of your conduct. >> right. i understand. you keep saying some certain things that vice president pence apparently agreed with. let me play what vice president pence says the former president asked him to do. here's what he said he was asked to do. >> let's be clear on this point. it wasn't just that he asked for a pause, the president specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes

which would have resulted in the issue being turned over to the house of representatives and literally chaos would have ensued. >> so he's just disputing the version of events you're describing. >> no, not at all. he's substantiating it. in this respect there were some preliminary discussions along thedi lines that vice president pence described but the ultimate ask which was done at the ellipse was to pause the voting for a period of time. now issues like this get discussed and thrashed about all the time but the ultimate call made by president trump was to ask for a pause. if you read vice president pence's book, he agrees there were some anomalies, are discrepancies, even fraud. vice president pence wanted those debated in congress. president trump zhad it be debated at the legislature.

you had a disagreement there. these disagreements don't lead to criminal charges. one thing that mr. pence has never said is that he thought president trump was acting criminally. indeed, vice president pence is an attorney. if he at any point said or ai thought that mr. trump -- president trump was acting unlawfully or contrary to criminal law, he would have said that. no one ever suggested that. president trump was -- >> he has said that. he said the president asked him to violate the constitution. he said the president asked him to violate the constitution which is another way of saying he asked him to break the law. >> he never said -- no, that's wrong. that's wrong. a technicalat violation of the constitution is not a violation of criminal law. that's just plain wrong. and to say that is contrary to decades of legal statutes. >> let's get out of constitutional. >> let me say one last thing. >> go ahead. >> this>> is a constitutional

case. this is going to be the most important civil rights constitutional case in decades and there'stu one other issue that's very important. everything that president trump did was while he was in office as a president. he -- he is now immune from prosecution for acts that he neighbors connection with those policies. >> you're going to try that -- >> and the biden administration has not addressed that. >> interesting legal place you're going to go. that will also create some constitutional question. i'm going to get you to respond to something that seems a bit more straightforward on intent. it's the infamous phone call in georgia. let me play an excerpt. >> the ballots are corrupt and you're going to find that they are, which isnd totally illegal. it's -- it's more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what they did and you're not reportingha it. that's a -- you know, that's a criminal -- that's a criminal offense. all i want to do is this, i just want to find 11,780 votes, whic,

is one more than we have, because we won the state. >> if he had proof he won the state, why did he threaten the secretary of state with aen criminal -- with a criminal charge? >> that wasn't a threat at all. what he was asking for is for raffensperger to get to the truth. he believes there were in excess of 10,000 votes that were counted 1 illegally. what he was asking for is the secretary of state to act appropriately and find these votes that were counted -- >> find. >> -- illegally. that was -- hold on one second. that was an aspirational ask. he's entitled to petition even state government. that doesn't involve an obstruction of federal government. what the biden administration has said is somehow president trump obstructed a federal proceeding. that relates to what was going on in the states and president

trump had every right to ask the secretary of state. i believe that this election was conducted improperly. there are deficiencies here. i want to see if there are more than if10,000 votes or whatever the number was that were counted illegally. once again, that's core political orspeech. >> bringing up a criminal violation is somehow sneech i mean, it's the way it sounds like somebody's saying that's a mighty fine -- that's a mighty fine restaurant you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it. it's no different than -- i mean -- >> oh,th it's absolutely -- >> -- a veiled threat. >> have you read- the first amendment? oh, no, no, chuck, have you read the first amendment? i mean, political speech is the most protected speech that we have underec our constitution. it's important to go back and read the text of the first amendment. so you can actually say that a government official is acted criminally. that's protected by the first amendment. if we lose the first amendment

rights then heaven forbid we lose the -- >> you're not allowed to use speech though in order to get somebody to commit a crime and what he was directing raffensperger to do -- >> you're allowed to advocate -- >> you're saying he didn't commit a crime? >> you haven't read the cases because, for example, you can encourage someone not to register for selective service. i could -- i could see you, chuck, you know, registering for vietnam andeg i can go up to yo and say, chuck, don't register for that war. >> and i've violated the law. >> keep walking. go home. >> no, that's protected speech. my speech is -- >> you coerced me to violate the law. >> no, no, no. there is a supreme court case right on point. hammerschmidt and it's right on point. we can have this discussion and people need to look carefully

for what the constitution stands for. it applies to president trump just like it applies to everyone else. if we eviscerate our first amendment rights we will no longer have a country where people can freely speak their minds. >> have you been able to find any evidence, i know the campaign paid for two studies that didn't find any evidence that would find enough fraud to overturn the election. have you found any evidence yete because you have said you plan on relitigating the 2020 election and nobody has found any evidence to back up donald trump's claims and it's been 2 1/2 years. >> we will be lit at this gating the 2020 election because much of that has not been lit at this gated, but what we do know is that local state election officials changed the rulesio i the middle of the game. they sent out absentee ballots -- >> hang on. look, i understand you said -- >> can i finish? you asked me a question but you're not allowing me to

finish. >> all of this was lit at this gated. >> you're likeit the biden -- >> don't get into politics with me. >> i'm getting legal with you. >> mr. lauro -- go ahead. you're trying to create a confrontation for no reason but go ahead. >> no. i don't want to, chuck, i'm just trying tohu let you know that t criminal rules are different than whatal you're talking abou. in a criminal case the government has a burden of proof. we don't have any requirement to prove anything.re all we have to do is put the government to its test and one of the things that we'll be showing at trial is there were these institutional anomaies where state election officials unlawfully broke the law and mr. trump was entitled to petition l government and assert that he's right. that's part of the first amendment election. we don't have to prove fraud. all we have to do is president trump was acting with his

conviction that this election was conducted improperly. >> right. i want to let viewers know everything you've said, he actually went to the courts, all of this was actually deemed lisle that was done in the states. all of this was but we're not debating this. >> that's absolutely false. >> i need you to get to react to what your client is saying about the prosecutor. here's what he said last night. >> deranged jack smith. he's a deranged human being. you take a look at that face, you say, that guy is a sick man. there's something wrong with zblim do you believeme he's deranged? >> president biden in april of 2022 said he wanted president trump prosecuted and he wanted him out of the race. he repeated that in november of 2022. as a result, president biden has put in motion a political prosecution in the middle of an election season and obviously everything is open to politics. i'm not involved in politics.

i'm just representing a client. i'm ensuring that justice is done in this case. president trump is everybody titled to hist day in court an he'll get it. >> do innocent people attack prosecutors? >> this is a political campaign right now. this prosecution was instituted by president biden and in the middle of that campaign people are going to speak out. my role is not to address anything about prosecutors, but i will say this, there has been a history in the justice department of rogue prosecutions. they went after arthur anderson, a major accounting firm.co destroyed the company. and the doj lost 9-0. they went after the former governor of virginia in a prosecution, republican governor who was convicted unfairly, reversed 9-0 and now the justice department, the biden justice department is going after a former president for aktsz that

he carried out in fulfillment as oath of his job in the you zblats are you confident he can be trusted with discovery and isn't going to weaponize what he learns about mark meadows or others who may be cooperating? >> well, i'm shocked and i can find you a lawyer to address this, but i'm shocked that all the news media outlets aren't protesting what the government is trying to do. they're trying to say we have discovery that's not sensitive but we don't want the press to hear about it. and mr. trump, our team is saying -- president trump is saying that if there is evidence out there that the government has that's exculpatory or informative, then the press has a right to know. but the biden administration doesn't want the press to know that and i'm shocked that there aren't petitions now filed in the district court opposing what the biden administration is doing. >> john lauro, the defense attorney for the former

president. appreciate you coming on and sharing your legal perspective with us. thank you, sir. >> good to see you as always. when we come back, democratic congressman jamie raskin next. jamie raskin next.

goli, taste your goals.

welcome back. for more than two years democratic congressman jamie raskin has been laying out the case on donald trump before and on january 6th. he said trump should be convicted for incitement of insurrection making an argument that sounds familiar today. >> president trump tried to bully state level officials to commit a fraud on the public by literally finding votes. we saw him trying to get state legislators to disavow and overturn their popular election results and replace them with trump electors. >> and as a member of the january 6th committee, he

announced the four counts. while the special counsel chose not to incite the election, he did charge the others in addition to adding the conspiracy against rights. jamie raskin. congressman raskin. >> thanks for having me. >> you spent 25 years as a constitutional lawyer. let me play one quick clip about something he said about the constitution. >> a technical violation of the constitution is not a violation of criminal law. that's just plain wrong. >> he added the word criminal law there. the it was my understanding you violate the constitution you violate the law. >> a technical violation of the constitution is a violation.

it imposes insurrection and makes that a grievous constitutional event. our constitution is designed to stop people from trying to overthrow elections and trying to overthrow the government, but in any event there is a whole apparatus of criminal law which is in place to enforce this principle. that's what donald trump is charged with violating. he conspired to defraud people by substituting the real legal process we have under federal and state law with counterfeit electors. i mean, there are people who are in jail for several years for counterfeiting one vote. if they try to vote illegally once, he tried to steal the entire election. his lawyer's up there saying that's a matter of him expressing his first amendment rights. that is deranged. that's a deranged argument. >> he seemed to hint everything he did as president may not be

constitutional to charge him with this. sounds like the old nixon defense. i can do it because i was president. >> he's charged as part of a conspiracy so there were lots of people involved in doing it, but in any event, the law that applies to the rest of us also applies to the president of the united states. a principal they understood very well during the impeachment when they were saying let's not do it during the impeachment. he's already left the office. that's what senator mcconnell said and a bunch of the cases. america can see what's going on here. this is a guy who wants to appoint himself completely immune from the rule of law that applies to the rest of us. >> he chose not to charge insurrection. it sounds like jack smith wanted to avoid a debate over the first amendment. >> well, there's a criminal

statute, aiding and abeding or giving aid and comfort to the insurrectionists which to the mind of the january 6th committee, donald trump did. he's calling them great patriots, never forget this day. he towns laud them. when he gets back in he's going to pardon all of those people. they're convicted of assaulting our police officers and he's talking about pardoning them. a lot of them have pled guilty to seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to overthrow the government. >> right. >> so, yeah, he's being charged with conspiracy to obstruct the federal proceeding, the joint session of congress and conspiring to defraud us out of our voting rights. >> do you like how jack smith did this or do you wish he had aeded the insightment? >> i understand there were

prudential tactics. abraham lincoln said it best. he said an insurrection, an intent to topple an election, is an attack on the first principle of the government. >> if you read the indictment it's strong. there is actions that are specific actions taken, really sort of throws away the whole speech defense because it was -- you start to see everything. during the impeachment trial you didn't have the scope of the alternate elector scheme. obviously by the time you guys had finished the committee. you did. do you think if you had had the scope then? >> it should have made a difference psychologically for the senators like mcconnell who voted no, but in a sense what they were saying was the sentences senate did the not have jurisdiction to try trump because he was a former president. seven republicans rejected that,

all 50 democrats rejected that. it was the most widespread, bipartisan vote in american history to convict a president. of course, trump is bragging about the fact that only 57 senators voted to convict him of that. he beat the constitutional spread in this way, but i think he's met his match now in a special counsel who is holding him to the letter of the criminal law. >> we are going to have a campaign that is filledwell a lot of what aboutisms. republicans will talk a lot about hunter biden. the real scandal in washington is what's legal. should there be a code of conduct or something for family members here? the appearance of what hunter biden did is not good? >> yeah. we know there is a lot of, you

know, influence in washington that's based on people's family connections. >> last names matter a lot. >> i have repeatedly asked chairman comber on oversight committee for us to look at that in a serious, substantive, methodical way but he's instead decided to pursue the hunter biden thing as a one off as a way to scourage the political points. he doesn't want to talk about jared kushner who brought back $2 billion, not million, $2 billion to saudi arabia to a company the day after the trump administration ended. >> why do you think a thrice former president is neck in neck in the polls? >> well, it's a great question. i wish lincoln were around here to pose it to him.

that was a pro immigration, anti-nothing and now it's become a cult of an authoritarian personality. even the candidates running against trump dare not challenge his clear betrayals of his constitutional oath. donald trump knew exactly what he was doing and we have lots of testimony about that before the january 6th committee. his white house counsel told him he was wrong. the attorney general of the united states said the arguments he was following were bs. he had to know. 50 state and federal courts rejected every argument they brought forward and still he went ahead. even if he believed what he did, you might believe your bank owes you the money. you don't have a right to go rob the bank. >> jamie raskin, appreciate your time. >> thanks so much for having me. president trump now faces a

total of 78 felony counts across three criminal cases and more criminal charges could be coming in the state of georgia later this month. why is trump's legal jeopardy fueling more support it feels from within the party? panelists next. good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general. mmm, popcorn. (alternate voice) denture disaster, darling! we need poligrip before crispy popcorn. (regular voice) let's fix this. (alternate voice) poligrip power hold + seal gives our strongest hold and 5x food seal. if your mouth could talk, it would ask for... poligrip.

[ tires screeching ] jordana, easy on the gas. i gotta wrap this commercial, i think i'm late on my payment. it's okay, the general gives you a break. yeah, we let you pick your own due date. good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general. every business next scene might take a while. that's why comcast business de is launching theal.

mobile made free event. with our business internet, new and existing customers can get one year of unlimited mobile for free. it's our best internet. powered by the next generation 10g network and with 99.9% reliability. plus one line of free mobile for an entire year. it's the mobile made free event-happening now. get started for just $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get one free line of unlimited mobile. comcast business, powering possibilities.

welcome back. panelists here. i'm glad to get more legal help here. here's what donald trump said last night about his attorneys. >> every time they file an indictment we go way up in the polls. we need one more indictment to close out this election. one more indictment and this election is closed out. nobody has even a chance. we've already defeated the

republicans. >> hallie jackson, that was actually friday night. he had done his rallies both friday night and last night. he's been right so far. >> fair, and there's new polling out even today that shows more than half of republicans think that these indictments against donald trump are an attack against people like them. he is reflecting and channelling what he hears from his base, from the people who support him, from his loyalists. the dynamics don't seem to have changed. we've seen a semi-sharp tone from pence and desantis. >> those closer to trump but not so tough. here it is. >> anyone who puts themselves over the constitution should never be president of the united states. >> another sad day for america.

now we have former president that's under indictment three times. >> in d.c. they will go after you if you're a republican. the facts are damned. republicans don't have a fair shot there. >> doj continues to weaponize their power against political opponents. seems like they spent a lot of time protecting hunter biden. >> like most americans, i'm tired of commenting on every trump drama. i've lost track of whether this indictment is the third, fourth, the fifth. >> al carden, those at the bottom of the polls feel comfortable. those that think they can win the nomination are trying to go after the prosets. is that any way to win? >> well, look, at this point in time donald trump has effectively tied the indictments to joe biden and the political maneuver. once this goes to trial, this is

no longer about joe biden. this is about a jury who has convicted him of very serious crimes. if that leads to a sentencing hearing, that's a whole new set of circumstances. so far it works well. are we forecasting it will work through the election? not if there's a conviction of his peers. >> it's pretty hot. so everybody's focused on it. come april or may -- >> that's right. it will be showcased day after day after day after day. the republicans will largely have chosen their nominee. they'll be stuck with him. the convention will be afterwards. somebody could try to -- >> how's that going to go over

with republican voters? >> in many states delegates are legally tied to the person they voted for. >> politically speaking, with this indictment in particular, it naturally blunts what donald trump's biggest argument is. they're coming after me to come after you, meaning trump supporters. the count in the indictment, count four talks about how donald trump attacked the civil receipts of every american. it was the opposite. he was not protecting you, he was attacking you. that will naturally blunt him in the same way we saw after the january 6th committee hearings. we will see that. we could see that shift. >> i still go back to what -- if you don't debate trump on this, how else are you going to get into the primary discussion? >> and i talked with one person close to former vice president mike pence in preparation for today said, listen, he's leaning

into it. he's selling hats that say too honest. >> what choice does he have? >> that's exactly right. >> he's going to be on the witness stand. >> the person i talked to didn't rule that out. he's written a lot about it in his book but this is a guy who believes in the rule of law, et cetera. on the other side i've spoken to sources with desantis who said you will hear more from desantis about this. not because he wants to be talking about it, their new strategy is get him out talking more, do more media. they think he's going to be asked repeatedly. >> al, if biden won by 10 points, they would be having a different discussion. >> of course they would. you have to think about the consequences. there's an election. people want one thing more than anything else, get elected, re-elected. >> they're frayed of alienating the trump supporters.

>> they're afraid of alienating them. trump's numbers keep going up, they won't speak out against him. >> is this counter effective? one suggested it's counter programming. >> that shows how badly it's broken. they're willing to break the constitution rather than lose an election. that's what democrats need to point out to make it clear to voters. >> all right. we are headed to the abyss of anybody figuring this out. when we come back, the boycott of bud light is causing a problem with beer. it's okay, the general gives you a break. yeah, we let you pick your own due date.

good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general.

♪♪ welcome back. date at that download. anheuser-busch announced a 2% drop. it's not just bud light. they seem turned off by companies taking stands.

have you boycotted them? do you do these things? more people boycott than buy when a company takes a stand and that is across the board. a majority boycott. again, take a company stand, you're going to cost yourself money. bud light, chick-fil-a, we've seen it. left or right, it doesn't seem to matter. a few other things we've seen here. who does the boycotting. income matters here. the more you make, the more comfortable you might be. the less you make, the more inappropriate it is. you just want the cheapest product. also of note, there's been an age disparity here.

younger folks don't mind it, older folks can't stand t. perhaps a lot of older voters drink bud light, not younger ones. the thread of a third party candidate is becoming more likely as voters say they are opposed to another biden-trump runoff. cornell west is seeking the green party. in 1980 as jimmy carter faced off against ronald regan, a match-up some people didn't like, john anderson decided to lead his party and launch an independent bid. here's how he pitched his candidacy on the bid. >> in contrast to these two, both of them exgovernors, i think i represent the broad political center of this country. i will make it abundantly clear that you don't have to go back to some prior decade to find the solutions to the problems of the future. you don't have to be content with the kind of demonstrated incompetence that we have seen in the white house for the last

four years, that there is a third way and i represent that third approach of the american voters. >> john anderson would end up winning less than 7% of the vote. as former president trump went to court, president biden went for a bike ride. how president biden plans to handle his rival's potential legal problems.

welcome back. i want to start with something written jed in the paper. country lacks a unifying voice in the aftermath of the charges. the country lacks a singular voice of moral authority. we are staring into the abyss, on the edge of a cliff. we can pick our metaphor, but the rule of law is on the ballot and nobody's reassuring us everything is going to be okay.

>> institutions are under attack. the faith is being diminished, whether it's the supreme court, congress, the media. and now the justice system, right? now increasingly largely because trump is out there telling people this, a lot of americans believe the justice system can't be trusted. what did john loura say to you, he didn't say the special counsel, he didn't say the justice department, he said the biden administration. they're trying to make this as political and partisan as possible. it worked. a lot of people don't believe in the -- >> i was going to say the issue with that is why john loura and the others are latching this to the biden administration, it's a bit of a one-sided fight. the biden administration and biden adviser tells me, they feel like they absolutely want to be keeping this arm's length distance. it undermines everything that president biden said he would do, which is not interfere wft workings of the justice

department. i wonder though if that doesn't create some dissatisfaction who would like to see -- >> it should. if it hasn't, it should. there is a way for them to say this is a special counsel. i am demonstrating how they do not just rule a justice department but keeps hands off but at the same time candidate biden has to say, look, i am the candidate who will continue to protect the right to vote, protect the rule of law. i am the president who signed the electoral reform act. the other person who was charged with trying to subvert democracy. he has to be able to make that claim. that has to be the top part of his campaign going into 2024. he can't enunciate that message, he's in trouble. >> all i know is that the country is more unhappy than it's ever been before. the political system seems to be broken. more than 50% of the voters don't like either candidate.

you've got almost two years of divisive trials coming up. you've got so much at stake in this country. you've got foreign wars. you've got global stress. this country will go through 18 months that will truly test our ability to -- >> i think we're all wondering if we have the leaders to meet the mark. >> i am very worried. >> inflation is down, employment is up. and yet his rating is the one that is not changing. it is stubbornly wearing it down. >> trump's numbers never moved. are they get being punished because of this political depression? we're not in a recession, a depression. i feel like they punish all of that. >> it's true.

we haven't had a new generation come up. >> which is why we were talking about the third or fourth options for this country. there's no doubt in my mind the third and fourth options -- >> if our system allowed for it, it would be a home run. our system makes it so hard to do this. the pressure is building. at some point this -- >> they have qualified 12 states. >> in april or may, when we're at trial, people are going to be shopping. they'll pick small or large. >> that's all we have for today. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."

he said the president asked him to violate the constitution which is another way of saying he asked him to break the law. >> he never said -- he never said -- no, that's wrong. that's wrong. a technical violation of the constitution is not a violation of criminal law. that's just plain wrong and to say that is contrary to decades of legal statutes. >> let's get -- >> that's donald trump's lawyer in the federal 2020 election case offering up another bizarre defense for his client. meanwhile, the former president spent theke