>> the jury sentenced chacey to life in prison with the possibility of parole. she will be at least 59 before she can be released. >> if she's one of those people who doesn't have remorse, i don't know. >> you will live with it. >> it took me a long time to get over his phone calls that were not coming through. >> her phone still rings, but now it's a firefighters who work with her son. >> he always told me, if something happens to me, you will have a second family. i said really? he said you have no idea. >> he was right. >> truly right. >> that is all for this edition of dateline. i am andrea canning. thank you for watching. this sunday, guilty. >> this was a disgrace. this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge.

>> donald trump becomes the first american president convicted of a felony after a new york jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. >> i did my job. we did our job. the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken. >> it's reckless. it's dangerous. it's irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict. >> how will the historic verdict impact the 2024 race? >> the real verdict is going to be november 5th by the people. >> my guests this morning, former manhattan district attorney cyrus vance, tom cotton of arkansas, and hakeem jeffries. joining me for insight and analysis are amy walter, editor in chief of the politico report. leigh ann caldwell of the

washington post. former white house press secretary jen psaki, and lahnee chen. 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 kristen welker. good sunday morning. i'm peter alexander in for kristen welker. for the first time in american history, a former president has been convicted of a crime. this past week a manhattan jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump falsified business records in order to influence the 2016 election, finding him guilty on all 34 counts, felony crimes. mr. trump, who chose not to testify, instead vented his anger outside the courtroom, claiming the trial was rigged against him and vowing to appeal. >> this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. it's a rigged trial. a disgrace. they wouldn't give us a venue change.

we were at 5% or 6% in this district, in this area. this was a rigged, disgraceful trial. the real verdict is going to be november 5th by the people. >> in the days since, the former president's allies, including vice presidential hopefuls, have lined up to rail against the trial and its outcome and have attacked democrats claiming the fix was in from the start. >> what happened there was outrageous, and you're right. the american people see it. this is a purely political exercise, not a legal one. >> this is the most outrageous travesty i've ever seen, and the problem here is democrats have crossed the line. they have crossed the line in which the court system is a political weapon. >> this is the weaponization against a political opponent and hunts republicans while protecting democrats and this was certainly a hoax, a sham. >> next up, mr. trump's sentencing. that's set for july 11th, just

days before he's supposed to officially accept the republican party's nomination. with mr. trump's other criminal cases in washington, florida, and georgia all bogged down with significant delays, the mants manhattan trial is likely the only trial mr. trump faces before election day. will the verdict impact the view of voters? our first indication, the poll conducted before the verdict shows the majority of voters say mr. trump's conviction will not affect their vote and now that mr. trump has been convicted, the biden campaign is looking for ways to shake up a race that has largely remained stagnant. this morning nbc news reports the biden team is accelerating its timetable to get more aggressive and plans it had been holding on to for later this summer that includes sharpening its message to argue that mr. trump is more focused on himself than he is on voters. president biden, who mostly stayed away from commenting during the trial, finally weighed in.

>> the jury heard five weeks of evidence, five weeks, and after careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. they found donald trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. not only to be given the opportunity as he should to appeal that decision just like everyone else has that opportunity. that's how the american system of justice works, and it's reckless, it's dangerous, it's irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict. >> and joining me now, republican senator from arkansas, tom cotton. senator cotton, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning, peter. >> do you accept the verdict that donald trump is guilty of these 34 felonies? >> no, peter, a jury can only act within the constraints a judge puts on it. this case was rigged from the very beginning.

you had alvin bragg who campaigned on getting donald trump. you have the judge who is a literal biden donor, and at every turn, he ruled in favor of the prosecution. the real verdict is going to come on election day, and it will come from the american people, and they can't pay for their rent and put food on the table for their kids, and the border is in chaos, and we have wars around the world. joe biden can't defend. he's week, failed record, and the american people see through it, and they remember that donald trump brought peace and prosperity to this country. >> let me clarify a couple of things. as you know well, this was a state case and donald trump was indicted by a grand jury in new york. he was convicted by a jury of 12 new yorkers beyond a reasonable doubt. they didn't seek this responsibility. joe biden, as you know had nothing to do with this case, senator. the manhattan d.a.'s

investigation, this case began in 2018 when joe biden wasn't even the party -- the democratic party's presidential nominee so let me ask it a different way. did the jury get it wrong here? >> peter, i do believe the jury got it wrong. again, the jury can only decide based on what the judge puts in front of them, and just look at what happened. you have a judge who was a donor to joe biden's campaign in 2020 so he could stop donald trump. he should have never been presiding over this case. he introduced evidence that was highly, highly inflammatory and prejudicial. he didn't allow president trump to put on certain evidence and witnesses. he never even insisted the prosecution reveal the alleged underlying crime for which donald trump supposedly covered up in bookkeeping entries. at every turn the judge put his finger on the scales, practically forcing the jury to find.

>> juan merchan did give $20 toed bien in 2020, but the appeals court affirm his decision to stay on the case. the instructions, trump's lawyers passed on the opportunity to argue that the charges should be considered misdemeanors in the jury instructions. republicans are attacking the judge, the jury, the legal system here instead of letting the process play out. if donald trump wins on appeal, is that valid? >> well, i think there's no question donald trump should win on appeal. >> if he loses on appeal, would that be valid? >> he's an innocent man who did nothing wrong. this man violated new york rules by giving money to joe biden specifically to stop donald trump. i hope that the court of appeals in new york actually applies a law in an even-handed way as opposed to what this judge did, what joe biden's department of justice has done, which is bending the rules at every turn solely to stop donald trump. >> and when you think joe biden's department of justice is also right now prosecuting cases against democrats, robert menendez, henry cuellar and the

case against hunter biden on the gun charges begins tomorrow. let me ask you what we heard from former president trump. at the first official event of this re-election campaign, donald trump proclaimed i'm your retribution. he talks about seeking revenge against his political enemies and says he will appoint a special prosecutor who in his words to go after joe biden and his family. if it is so objectionable for the justice system to be, as you say, weaponized against donald trump, why is it so acceptable for donald trump to weaponize it against the doj and joe biden? >> bob menendez and henry cuellar, i noticed that joe biden's department of justice are critical of joe biden. >> he's weaponizing against people that don't like him? >> henry cuellar criticized the president's immigration policy. they're investigating the mayor of new york because he was

criticized -- hunter biden is guilty of so many crimes you can barely keep track of them, unlike donald trump who they never revealed the alleged crime he supposedly tried to cover up. >> to be clear, if they weaponized the justice department, wouldn't he want to keep it away from his own son? >> they were forced by a judge asking questions of the prosecutor and hunter biden's defense attorneys -- >> why would he weaponize it against his own son and get rid of it altogether by your own argument? >> he had to pardon your own son. >> that's what you should ask to joe biden -- >> let me go back to my initial question, if it is so objectionable for the justice system to be weaponizing against donald trump, why is it promote for donald trump to campaign on weaponizing it against joe biden? >> donald trump has said his so-called retribution will be success, success at the ballot box. >> he said an eye for an eye. >> in 2016 when so many people

insisted hillary clinton should face criminal charges for doing exactly what donald trump was wrongly accused of doing, which was mischaracterizing legal expenses, that's something else. remember, she paid for the dirty russian dossier. she paid a fine to the fec. donald trump specifically said he would not prosecute hillary clinton because that's not what we do in america. what the democrats have done in new york is like something that would happen in pakistan or brazil. it's something that america would sanction another country for, for engaging in election interference. >> he campaigned on locking up hillary clinton. >> he said that's not what we do in america. >> he campaigned and then after ward he said he wouldn't do it. >> peter, if new york was a foreign country, america would sanction them for trying to target the weaponization of the legal system, their political opponents, and rigging election outcomes. >> are you okay with donald trump saying he will weaponize the doj against joe biden?

>> he said repeatedly it shouldn't have happened to him. >> he is campaigning on it. >> peter, peter, we've been down this road before. in 2016 people called for hillary clinton to be prosecuted, and she probably deserved it, and that's not what we do in america. >> you disagree with senator marco rubio who said he should get even. >> donald trump has said as early as last month that his retribution will be success and restoring the peace and prosperity he brought to america for four years that joe biden has destroyed. >> since thursday's verdict there has been a spike of rhetoric against juniors including calls to publish addresses and physical addresses, would you combine those threats. >> i don't know what obscure websites -- >> this is from truth social. >> i hope every juror may pay for what they've done. may god strike them dead. you can condemn that threat,

will you? >> i don't know what obscure account you found on social media. >> it's on truth social, his website. >> where is the justice when you have democratic street militias marching outside the homes of supreme court justices carrying flex cuffs and hooligan tools to break into the home of justices and try to assassinate them? one person has been charged when every single person who were trying to intimidate those justices violating federal law. why isn't the department of justice using the same techniques against those than the grandma who wore a red maga hat within a country mile of the capitol. >> you agree those threats should be condemned on all soid sides, correct? you did certify the 2020 elections after donald trump lost. will you commit to certifying the 2024 election results no matter who wins? >> well, peter, i don't think congress has the constitutional authority to reject electors that have been certified by a

state. i will accept the results of the election and certify them if it's a free and fair election. >> who gets to decide if it's fair? >> ultimately it is up to the voters, but any candidate of any party has a perfect right to pursue legal remedies if they believe there's been fraud or cheating in an election just like al gore did in dozens of lawsuits in 2000, and that is perfectly appropriate and the state certifies electors. i don't think congress has the right to reject those electors. i also think each candidate has a right to ensure it's been conducted in a fair and free nation. >> and that's different than what donald trump thought. let me show you your words from january 6th of 2021. you said, quote, it is past time for the president to accept the results of the election and quit misleading the american people. that was more than three years, senator. donald trump has still not accepted the results. does it still bother you that to your words, he is misleading americans? >> that was a disagreement about what happened in congress that day. i don't think congress has the authority to reject those

electors. i wouldn't want chuck schumer and kamala harris next year to object to donald trump's winning electors. this is about congress's authority, and there were many irregularities including cities and states changing their rules and practices in the weeks leading up to the election and for that matter, networks like yours trying to suppress the hunter biden laptops because 51 intelligence operatives colluding with the biden campaign. >> to be clear, i'm talking about your words here. so i just want to get to the heard of it. what did you mean when you said he was misleading americans? >> we had a disagreement about wahl happened that day. i don't think congress has the constitutional authority to reject electors, and as a practical matter, it was never going to happen. >> what was he misleading the american people about though? >> that any vote we took that day was going to make a difference about certifying those electors. i don't think congress has the constitutional authority -- >> and is he still misleading the american people? >> look, he has said that the election had many irregularities and there was fraud and cheating

on the way up to it. we had a disagreement about what could happen on that vote on that day. it's not going to matter next year in my opinion because he's going to win in such a huge landslide with more than 300 electoral votes because there won't be any disagreement. >> another place you had a disagreement on that day, january 6th, you called the people who attacked the capitol insurrectionists and. what message is he sending by promising these people a second term? >> i used the same term to describe the blm rioters and the antifa. i have wrong said anyone who attacked law enforcement on january 6th should face legal consequences. >> donald trump is not making that distinction though. should he pardon those individuals as well?

>> yes, he has. there are hundreds of people who were at the capitol or even outside the capitol that day who did not attack law enforcement officers and who did not damage public property, who are facing more time in jail than the crimes for which they are charged many of whom are about to have their convictions erased by the supreme court -- >> to be clear -- >> -- compare the techniques the department of justice used to pursue the blm rioters or the militias outside the supreme court. >> let me get back to the question. the president in "time" magazine said he would consider pardoning all of them. >> there's a difference saying he would and he would consider. >> should he pardon? >> he should evaluate each case on the merit -- >> including the four convicted seditious conspiracy? >> anyone who is charged with silly misdemeanors about parading on public grounds without a permit, who did not attack a law enforcement officer, who did not damage public property, their pardons should be considered because many are about to have their convictions or charges erased by

the supreme court in just a few weeks. >> to be clear, you're making a distinction that donald trump has not made. let me ask this. you are on donald trump's short list of possible running mates. would you accept if donald trump asked you? >> donald trump will make this choice. i suspect only he knows who is on the short list. >> i have not talked to him about his position in his campaign. >> would you accept his offer? >> any great patriot if offered a chance to serve the president and our country would have to consider it seriously. what i'm making sure is we win the election in november and i want to help him govern to recover the peace and prosperity that he brought to america that joe biden has destroyed. >> senator cotton, thank you for joining us on "meet the press." >> thank you, peter. house democratic leader hakeem jeffries joins me next. hakeem jeffries joins me next.

i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight?

sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity. with absorbine pro, pain won't hold you back from your passions. it's the only solution with two max-strength anesthetics to deliver the strongest numbing pain relief available. so, do your thing like a pro, pain-free. absorbine pro.

in philadelphia this past week president biden and vice president kamala harris made a rare joint appearance to strengthen their support among black voters and to keep former president trump from making further inroads with the key democratic constituency. >> i've shown who i am, and trump has shown you who he is, and today donald trump is pandering lies and stereotypes for your vote so he can win for himself, not for you. donald trump, i have a message for you, not in our house and not on our watch! >> joining me now is house minority leader hakeem jeffries, democrat from new york. leader jefferies, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning. >> i want to start by asking you about this historic verdict. president biden opened his remarks on friday saying it is irresponsible for anyone to say the verdict was rigged just because they do not like it. this is eight years old and there are questions about the validity legal theory, untested legal theory to prosecute it.

would this case have been brought against anyone other than former president trump? >> yes, of course. this verdict in the case of people v. trump was a validation of the american judicial system. donald trump was entitled to the presumption of innocence. he received it. donald trump was entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers. he received it. donald trump was entitled to a vigorous defense. he received it. 12 jurors, 12 american citizens after five weeks of a trial evaluated the facts, the evidence, and the law and came to a unanimous decision as it relates to convicting donald trump on 34 felony counts. that is an affirmation of the american judicial system. this is america.

we are not a system occupied by a monarch or a king or a dictator. we are a democracy, and in a democracy, no one is above the law. >> congressman jefferies, donald trump's attorney, as you've certainly heard, said that they will appeal the verdict. if it is overturned on appeal, will you accept that result? >> yes. simple as that. let me ask you about thursday's verdict. since then, the trump campaign claims it has raised tens of millions of dollars. how concerned should democrats be that this conviction would help donald trump get re-elected? >> this election was press not a clear contrast between president biden and the house and the senate that will put people over republicans. extreme maga republicans will continue to lie for donald trump. president biden and democrats are going to continue to solve problems for hardworking

american taxpayers. extreme maga republicans will continue to lie for donald trump. president biden and democrats are going to work on delivering real results as has been the case for the last three and a half months, and we will see that extreme maga republicans will continue to lie for donald trump and present no real vision for dealing with the issues of importance to the american people. that's a contrast, and i'd rather be on president biden's side of that contrast than on the extreme maga republican side. i want to drill down on that with you, and excuse my interruption with the delay in the satellite. those tell me that mr. trump's conviction will not be a central message of this campaign. is that the right approach? >> i think the right approach is to make clear that real progress has been made on behalf of the american people because of the leadership of president biden, we were able to rescue the economy from a once in a century pandemic with kids back in school. >> i think that the issues of

importance to the american people such as the progress that has been made and the need to continue to build upon that progress and finish the job by working on continuing to build a healthy economy from the middle out and the bottom up, lowering housing costs, addressing challenges at the border, and ending price gouging, will be central to the message that president biden and house democrats articulate moving forward. can the extreme maga republicans point to a single issue where they've actually made progress for the american people? a single issue? they cannot. and so as a result, what we are seeing are conspiracy theories being spewed at the direction of donald trump. >> sir, let me ask you about another question that will make headlines this week. hunter biden goes on trial for gun charges beginning tomorrow. president biden said last year, quote, my son has done nothing wrong.

"the wall street journal" as you see here said, that's a highly inappropriate message from the president. he's essentially telling prosecutors that they are wrong to bring an indictment because hunter sin h innocent of any criminal behavior. why was it appropriate to comment ons he son's case? >> president biden commented as a loving father as any loving father do. hunter biden was entitled, as was donald trump as a presumption of innocence, to a trial with a jury of their peers and we'll all have to wait for a determination to be made by a jury as to hunter biden's guilt or innocence. >> let me ask you about what's been taking place overseas right now in news that was made this morning. prime minister benjamin

netanyahu just accepted the invitation from you and congressional leadership colleagues to address a joint session of congress. we don't have a date for that yet. but the senate's top democrat, chuck schumer, recently called netanyahu a major obstacle to peace. so do you agree with schumer's assessment that netanyahu was a major obstacle to peace? >> it's my hope that the prime minister upon his arrival in the united states congress will address the biden peace plan that has been put forth that i think comprehensively provides a way forward to bring the hostages home to end the conflict in gaza, to allow for a just and lasting peac to be put into place, which is what every reasonable person should want to see. >> is he a major obstacle to peace, sir, is my question? >> it's my hope that prime minister netanyahu consistent with what has been done by the israeli war cabinet which is to unanimously adopt the biden

peace plan will conduct himself in a manner consistent with that israeli war cabinet. it's on hamas, as far as i can tell, as president biden indicated, to accept the peace plan so we can end this conflict and move toward a just and lasting peace. >> so you don't have any criticism of netanyahu's conducting of this war to this point. >> i think that there will be ample room to be able to assess what was done right, what may have been done wrong. i certainly criticize the israeli air strike from earlier this week. it was a tragedy. it should not have happened, and we mourn for the loss of people. >> leader jeffries, i want to ask you about the president's challenges specifically with black voters. it has been a focus of the campaign for the last several weeks as you know well, president biden promised legislation on police reform and voting rights and he failed to deliver on both. why do you think he is struggling with black voters right now, in particular, black men? >> as i indicated earlier, peter, president biden does have

a track record of success with respect to increasing home ownership opportunities and lowering the unemployment rate to its lowest level in recorded history. record investment with respect to historically black colleges and universities, increasing on tre prenurial opportunities, but, of course, there is more that needs to be done, and that will be part of a vision that is articulated for a second term, that we recognize that we want to continue to promote entrepreneur ship. with black men among people of every race from home ownership and promote the wealth so everyone has a fair shot at the american dream. >> so you acknowledge work to

the black community. and before i let you go, i want to ask, will you vote to certify the results of the 2024 election no matter who wins? >> certainly. that has always been the case because in america the peaceful transfer of power is sacrosanct. that's one of the reasons why many americans, democrats, independents and traditional republicans have been trucks by the election denialism or the denial that we've seen coming from the other side of the aisle. i'm hopeful that this will be a campaign focused on the issues, and democrats are going to continue to articulate our vision for solving problems for hardworking american taxpayers to create a bright future for everyone. >> leader hakeem jeffries of new york. mr. leader, we appreciate your time. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. when we come back, will the trump conviction hold up on appeal? the former manhattan district attorney cyrus vance joins me next. istrict attorney cyrus vance joins me next

these underwear are period-proof. and sneeze-proof. and sweat-proof. they're leakproof underwear, from knix. comfy & confident protection that feel just like normal. with so many styles and colors to choose from, switching is easy at knix.com nexium 24hr prevents heartburn acid before it begins. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium.

welcome back. president biden's weeks-long trial for falsifying business records was not his first legal battle with the manhattan district attorney. our next guest spent more than two years investigating the business dealings of the trump organization before prosecuting the company and its chief financial officer, but not the former president, and joining me now is the former three-term manhattan district attorney cyrus vance. cy, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning and thank you for having me back. >> donald trump's campaign, as you have seen is leaning into the idea of this untested legal theory behind the case that escalated state misdemeanors into state felonies based among other things a violation of federal election law. prosecutors -- this is from elie honig, the former felony prosecutor -- prosecutors got their man for now at least and they contorted the law to snare

their prey. you chose not to bring these charges against donald trump when you were d.a. how much did this being an unprecedented legal novel theory weigh into your decision-making? >> well, we did investigate the former president on a range of issues. i ultimately believed that our investigation was best focused on financial crimes. first, we had a lot of time spent lost during covid where our investigations were interrupted. we had to go to the supreme court twice to ultimately have the highest court in the country rule that the president's tax returns were -- were not privileged and had to be turned over to investigators and that it re-affirmed the constitutional principle that even a sitting president could be investigated for crimes before he was president. so we looked at all of the legal issues, peter. we spent years.

and i'm confident that we made the right choice for us at that time in pursuing the financial crimes investigation. as you know, it resulted in convictions. >> so, cy, if i can, let me ask you. when you were the manhattan d.a., you charged the trump organization, chief financial officer alan wieselburg, but did not pursue charges against donald trump himself. how much was the fact that he was a sitting president, former president weigh into that decision? >> well, i think, of course, it weighs into the decision because of the significance of a decision to charge a sitting president, but ultimately we did pursue those charges that we felt were appropriate and which were backed up by the evidence and which were significant. in the first indictment, it was systemic tax fraud and double bookkeeping in his company, and that's what we felt the charges

should be, and that's where we, unfortunately, ran out of time at the end of my administration. and then d.a. bragg took over and he redirected the efforts of the office. >> and to be clear, as you said, there was additional evidence that d.a. bragg was able to collect. donald trump's attorney says he was going to appeal this verdict. do you think the prosecution's case will withstand on appeal? >> certainly, there will be strong appeals and there are going to be issues that will be carefully considered by the appellate courts? >> what's the best grounds for an appeal, cy? >> well, i'm really not going to comment on something that i don't think is my place to comment on, but they've identified this issue about charges that are not necessarily identified, a choice between three charges like a russian nesting doll theory, but i want to address that if i can, peter. you know, that's not necessarily

totally unusual in new york. you commit burglary in new york, burglary of a dwelling where you enter a person's home with the intent to commit a crime therein. the jury is not required to find beyond a reasonable doubt what that crime is. >> yeah. >> my point is, in other areas of law, this has been sustained, and i think that will be informative and decisive to the appellate courts. >> mr. trump's sentencing will take place on juul 11th, next month. they are punishable by a fine, probation or up to four years in prison. donald trump turns 78, almost 80, has no prior record, and here's what he said with fox on the topic of possible jail time. >> the judge could say house arrest or even jail. >> he could. >> i'm okay with it. >> i saw one of my lawyers saying oh, no, you don't want to do -- >> you don't beg for anything. i don't know that the public would stand it, you know? i'm not sure the public would

stand for it. >> if you were still d.a., would you recommend jail time? >> well, i'm not going to answer that question because that's really for mr. bragg to decide. if you ask me do i think the court will impose jail in this case, i think not. that's judge merchan's decision. he has been found in contempt ten times during the court, with the republican convention four days after his sentencing and if he is the candidate for the republican party and the proximity of the election, i would be surprised that he would be sentenced to any imprisonment. >> what do you think going to jail would do for donald trump? >> that said -- that said, the court could adjourn sentencing until after the general election and decide then. >> let me ask you about one of the cree criticisms here. mr. trump and his allies keep taking aim at judge merchan.

he did give $15 to the biden campaign and gave an additional $20 to the democratic causes then. even if he wasn't technically required to recuse himself, should judge merchan recuse himself just to avoid even the appearance of a conflict? >> i really don't think a $20 donation and a $30 donation rise to the serious appearance of a conflict. obviously, senator cotton and others who are speaking for the president strongly disagree with that. i look at that both as de minimis, and, secondly, that it has been reviewed by the courts in new york and determined not to be grounds for recusal. i know judge merchan. obviously he was our grand jury judge when he prosecuting the trump organization, and i think he is honest as the day is long.

he was careful, he was caring, and i think he handled a very difficult trial with a neutral -- with a neutral hand and gave the president every benefit of the doubt that he was entitled to under the law. >> quickly to conclude, donald trump have branded this case a witch hunt. you heard that in particular you have been critical of d.a. and alvin bragg and a key member of his team who was hired directly from the biden justice department. how do you respond to the criticism that this was a political prosecution? >> do you remember when michael cohen was indicted by u.s. attorney barrera in 2015? the president -- incoming president, president trump asked barrera to stay on and that investigation continued. so president trump fired barrera and he brought in a republican u.s. attorney, jeff berman, excellent man, great lawyer. jeff berman continued the investigation into the president, so the president fired him too. so this has really not been -- it's been -- the justice department under a democrat and this president investigated this president's conduct, and the president's response in both

instances was to kill the case. >> cyrus vance, we appreciate you joining us. thanks for coming back to "meet the press." when we come back, why drawing a red line in the middle eeftd is complicated. our "meet the press minute" is next. press minute" is next

smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background.

once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. welcome back. as israel expanded its military operation in rafah this week, killing dozens of palestinian civilians after an air strike, the white house insisted israel's actions did not cross

president biden's redline. critics say mr. biden is caving on his promise of withholding certain weapons if israel launched a major military operation there. drawing redlines in the middle east has been a controversial topic for decades. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu pushed for his own redline in 2012 when he appeared on this program on the topic of iran. >> i think a redline in this case works to reduce the chances of the need for military action because once the iranians understand that there's no -- there's a line that they can't cross they're not likely to cross it. you know when president kennedy sets a redline in the cuban missile crisis, he was criticized, and it turns out it didn't bring war. it pushed war back and pushed peace with the former soviet union. when there was no redline set, saddam hussain innovated kuwait. they had the uranium for an atom

bomb, and you have to place the redline before them now, before it's too late. when we come back, what impact will the historic verdict have on the 2024 race? the panel is next.

her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal.

and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. welcome back. the panel is here. amy walter, editor in chief of the cook political report. leigh ann caldwell of "the washington post." former white house press secretary jen psaki, and lahnee chen. this is a smart panel. glad to be with you today. leigh ann, let me begin with you. if there's one thing that joe biden and donald trump agree on at the end of this past week is that this thing ultimately will be decided by the voters on november 5th. how much, though, does this verdict shake up this race? >> well, there are some things we know and there's a lot we don't know. what we know is that this will absolutely motivate the trump base. what the biden campaign hopes is that this shores up the biden

base, which has drawn away from him recently. what we are also looking for where there's independent voters especially those voters who haven't been paying attention miraculously yet for anything, where they go. do they think this is going to push them toward trump because he is a victim or will this push them toward biden because they don't want to vote for a felon? so that's what we don't know. but what the biden campaign is saying is what they think is this will absolutely not grow trump's base, this is not bring in new trump voters, and we'll have to see if that is actually what happens. >> amy, there's only limited polling so far. this was a hypothetical and now it's a reality and anyone who tells you, is lying to you. is there evidence that this would backfire? that this would hurt donald trump? >> well, i think this race ultimately is going to come down to the 28% or so of americans who say they dislike both candidates, and they're not interested in either one of these candidates. they see liabilities in both,

and so ultimately, this race is about where does that spotlight go in october? today at this moment it is on donald trump and his liabilities which i think hurts him. it has, for most of this campaign, been focused on the president himself, joe biden and his liabilities, which we've seen in the polling is not helping him. so where is that spotlight once we get closer to the election? that's where those 20% or so would decide. >> that's why there's a fear about rfk, about kennedy, and a fear about erosion, and people are sitting this one out altogether. joe biden blasted donald trump for calling the justice system rigged, and the biden campaign started to lean into the strategy of calling him a convicted felon. this will not be a central message going forward. what is the sharp strategy here. should this be a key message going forward? >> first i think it's better not to run as a convicted felon, and trump doesn't have that choice.

and so for the biden team, their challenge is, how do you appeal to the people, the double haters? you can call them anyone you want, the people not excited about either choice while also shoring up the base of your party and for president biden, a lot of people in the base of the party would love to see him having a t-shirt with donald trump behind bars and that may not be appealing to the group of people who he needs to pull to his side. so the biggest moment i'm watching is the debate, which is 25 days away, which lahnee just reminded us of, and how he handles that debate. will he scream convicted felon to donald trump? that doesn't sound like his style to me. we are also reminding people is he is the one that will defend abortion rights and all of the other issues that people care about. that's tricky. >> and the debate is largely performative, right? one 78 this month, and one 81, they'll perform for this debate.

you've seen campaign, efforts as far as a political prisoner, and that's not the case. he has legal representation and the right to an appeal, and he's not been detained and hasn't been imprisoned, and his supporters are attacking the judge, the jury, and the entire legal system. is there a risk that this backfires on donald trump? i'm not sure that any of this aftermath that we're looking at matters and let us return to the fundamentals of this race. you have a president with a historically low approval rating and barack obama was at 48 and george h.w. bush at 40 and donald trump at 42. historically low approval ratings and you had the economy and inflation numbers on friday that show us inflation's basically sideways. what does that mean? people are struggling with the cost of living and the economy remains the top issue with this election. and then the final thing is who are the voters that we really care about when it comes to deciding this election? three's a 99% awareness of this verdict against donald trump. you mentioned a quarter, about 29% of votes are, i say who we care about from the perspective

of the election is 0.06, and will it matter to them? i'm not sure they will because fundamentally the issues they care about. the economy, immigration, those are the ones this election hinges on. >> i do think when you talk to candidates, we were talking about this earlier and nobody knows what the impact of this will be and some of it is hard to measure because there are things like character baggage and hard to measure in polls and abortion, and that's what they want to talk about. candidates challenging republicans, so it's not that they don't want to talk about trump as a convict, but they want to talk about other issues that they feel is a contrast. >> i was just going to add to that, and you can see the difference in the parties. if you look at what's going to happen on capitol hill this week, you have republicans who are going to lean into this verdict to defend donald trump to try to slow down everything happening in the senate and also bring alvin bragg before a committee.

meanwhile, you have democrats in the senate who are focusing on ivf, abortion, contraception because they think that those are going to be the winning issues. so you have the split screen happening on what this campaign should look like. >> amy, president biden, according to the cook political report's own polling right now, is trailing down ballot democrats, and a ton of these key races right now. why is he struggling so much with democrats? it goes to what lahnee's saying about the economy. people are looking at this the election through that lens and they're not looking at it as much through the lens of abortion rights or ivf or the issues that are beneficial to democrats when it is about -- these last few years, donald trump has been the center of everything. >> yeah. >> this is the first time where he's not. at this moment he is because he's talking about this historic trial, but in a few days from now we'll be talking about the things that we've been talking about for the last few years which is what is happening is on the economy and what's happening overseas. how are voters reacting to that day to day?

the fact that the race is as close as it is, given as lahnee pointed out how low his job approval ratings are tells you what's baked in is assumptions. >> how do we mark this moment in history. this was a huge week in the history regardless of your opinion of the verdict. >> it's an interesting time in american politics because you have the degradation of institutions, right? this is something people on the left and the right for their own reasons believe if, for example, the judicial system has been validated or corrupted. you have people who believe that going forward, you know, all of these institutions that we used to hold in such regard are no longer ones that we hold in high regard, but going forward, i do think this is a much more difficult pirouette for biden and biden team. in terms of how do you take this bundle of issues and how do you refocus voters on the fact that you might care about going into

november, and for trump, it's about making lemonade out of lemons, and that's something the team is -- >> their opponent is a convicted felon and they have to make that mean that something to the public and not just his moral failures, but him being in the white house, how will that impact them. that's the pivot. >> i was going to say, you've seen this over and over with the trump white house, with the electoral system, and the federal bureaucracy, and it will further continue. >> guys, this is a great panel and i have more important news than any of you, i apologize. we are thrilled to share some very happy news with you. the "meet the press" family officially has a new member. kristen welker and her husband john have just welcomed john zachary hughes, look at this nugget. this little guy was born may 30th and weighed in at a cool 7 pounds and measured 20 inches long, and john's sister margot,

as you can imagine, welcomed him. their surrogate, an angel on earth, is doing great. from all of us here on "meet the press," congratulations to kristen, john, margot and zachary, we can't wait to meet you. remember, if it is sunday, it is "meet the press." ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ can't wait to meet you. remember, if it is sunday, it is "meet the press." ♪♪ ♪♪ the judge could decide to say house arrest or even jail. >> i'm