Meet the Press Full Episode — May 3

[0:01] This Sunday, the price of war. Gas prices hit a four-year high as the war with Iran [0:07] passes the 60-day mark. The gas will go down. As soon as the war's over, it'll drop like a rock. [0:14] And as President Trump weighs his next military move, the Pentagon reveals the growing price tag [0:20] for the conflict, and the political fight here at home is heating up. The biggest adversary we face [0:25] at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats [0:33] and some Republicans. The president must terminate this use of force until Congress [0:40] says otherwise. Plus, targeted. Former FBI Director James Comey is indicted for a second time for [0:48] posting a photo of seashells arranged on a beach that prosecutors say amounted to a threat against [0:54] President Trump. Threatening the life of the President of the United States will never be [0:59] tolerated. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And lines drawn. States move to redraw [1:07] congressional maps after the Supreme Court decision limits the Voting Rights Act. This is obviously the [1:14] right result. But we're not here to step back. We're here to fight back. What will it mean for [1:19] the midterms and beyond? My guest this morning, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Democratic [1:25] Senator Adam Schiff of California. Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News Senior Homeland [1:33] Security Correspondent Julia Ainsley, Amna Nawaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour, Mark Short, former Director [1:41] of Legislative Affairs for President Trump, and former Democratic Congresswoman Val Demings. Welcome to Sunday. [1:48] It's Meet the Press. From NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history. [1:57] This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welkin. Good Sunday morning. As the war with Iran surges past [2:05] the critical 60-day mark, gas prices are at their highest point since the conflict began. The average [2:12] price of gas is up 47 percent since late February, from $2.98 per gallon to now $4.39 per gallon. [2:21] President Trump, who campaigned on a promise to lower prices, is facing growing pressure over the price [2:28] spike as the war becomes as unpopular as the Iraq and Vietnam wars at their peaks. [2:35] Gasoline's high. Other prices are way down, but gasoline's high. But when this is over, [2:41] you'll have a world without a nuclear weapon with Iran. [2:44] When the war will end remains an open question. Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, [2:52] a president must seek congressional authorization for continued military action after 60 days. [2:58] But the Trump administration now argues it does not need approval, saying a ceasefire declared on April [3:05] 7th resets the clock. President Trump writing to Congress, quote, [3:09] There has been no exchange of fire between the United States forces and Iran since April 7th, [3:15] 2026. The hostilities that began on February 28th, 2026 have terminated. The president on Friday. [3:23] Thank you very much, Mr. President. [3:26] Because it's never been sought before. There's been numerous, many, many times, and [3:34] nobody's ever gotten it before. They consider it totally unconstitutional. But we're always in [3:39] touch with Congress. But nobody's ever sought it before. They don't like the word war. And they [3:45] call it a military operation. Because that way, you don't have a war, you don't have legal problems. [3:52] And joining me now is Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche, welcome back to Meet the Press. [3:58] Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for being here in person. We really appreciate it. Let's start [4:02] right there with the war. As you know, the War Powers Act requires Congress to authorize military [4:08] action beyond 60 days, which the U.S. passed on Friday. The president did send a letter to Congress [4:15] just to recap, saying that hostilities have been terminated given the ceasefire that was put in [4:20] place on April 7th. And yet the U.S. is actively engaged in a naval blockade of Iranian ports as part [4:27] of this conflict. Is the United States at war with Iran? No. I mean, what President Trump said [4:33] this weekend is absolutely true. My job as the acting attorney general is to make sure that [4:39] the president, that we all are doing the right thing legally. And we absolutely are. As we said [4:44] to Congress last week, there has been nothing going on, no hostilities, no exchange of fire since [4:51] in almost a month, in almost a month. And how do you end a conflict? How do you end this? [4:55] You have a ceasefire. And that's exactly what we have. And Congress knows that. And the leadership [4:59] knows that. And there's a lot of drama. I'm sure that Senator Schiff will come on here and say [5:05] something different. This has been done repeatedly for many, many years with many, many presidents. [5:10] And there's nothing inconsistent about what we're doing and what's been done in the past. [5:15] Well, you say that you're not actively at war. Here is what President Trump had to say on Friday. [5:20] I want to play it for you. Get your reaction on the other side. [5:22] They don't like the word war. And they call it a military operation because that way you don't [5:29] have a war. You don't have legal problems. Is the president effectively arguing that he can [5:35] avoid congressional approval by avoiding using the word war? He's not effectively arguing anything [5:40] except that he is trying to keep this country safe. We have kept Congress updated at every step [5:45] of the way, consistent with what other presidents have done. President Trump is doing something that [5:50] the past five presidents did not do. They promised to do it. They promised, oh, we'll stop Iran. Oh, [5:56] Iran can never have a nuclear, a nuclear weapon. President Trump is doing what others have promised [6:01] but failed to do. And, and as far as what we're doing with Congress, keeping them updated, we are [6:07] doing so. As you know, Democrats and even some Republicans say that the ceasefire is not enough [6:12] to override this 60 day benchmark. Republican Senator Susan Collins posted, quote, the president's [6:18] authority as commander in chief is not without limits. That deadline is not a suggestion. It is [6:24] a requirement. Are there any legal limits on the president's powers to carry out the war with Iran? [6:30] Suggesting that President Trump or this administration or the department of war [6:34] is violating the law is just completely wrong. It's not appropriate to say that. We are not, [6:40] we are complying with the law. I can tell you that as the acting attorney general, [6:44] we are doing exactly what we're supposed to do legally. And, and President Trump will continue [6:49] to do that. But are there any, to this point, do you see any limits on how he has to carry out? [6:57] Of course. Yes. Of course there's limits to what President Trump can do. And he's never said [7:00] there aren't limits. He's acting within his duty to the American people to keep us safe. What he he's [7:06] not, he's not engaged in a popularity contest when it comes to what we're doing in Iran. He is doing [7:11] something that will save us for generations. And so he's doing something again, that every president [7:17] since Reagan has said that we should do, and he's the only one willing to do it. The president Trump [7:22] said that the war powers act is unconstitutional. Do you agree with that? I'm not talking about the [7:27] constitutionality of the war powers act isn't, doesn't do anything. I will tell you the department [7:31] of justice advises the president, advises the department of war, and we are acting completely [7:37] within the law with what we're doing. All right, let's move on to former FBI director, James Comey. [7:42] A grand jury has indicted the former FBI director for this Instagram post. I want to put it up. I think [7:48] a lot of folks have seen it at this point, 86, 47 in seashells, which the indictment says, quote, [7:55] a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret [7:59] as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the president of the United States. [8:05] How does that image of seashells amount to a serious threat against the president's life? [8:12] Well, every case requires an investigation. And what you just showed is one part of that [8:16] investigation. What you just showed is the Instagram post. Rest assured that the career [8:21] assistant United States attorneys in North Carolina, the career FBI agents, the career [8:26] Secret Service agents that investigated this case didn't just look at the Instagram post and walk [8:31] away. That's why you saw an indictment last week, notwithstanding the fact that it was last May that [8:36] the post was made. So I am not permitted to get into the details of what the grand jury heard or found, [8:42] as you know. But rest assured that it's not just the Instagram post that leads somebody to get [8:46] indicted. Well, part of what the government would have to prove is intent. James Comey deleted the [8:52] post the same day. And he wrote, quote, I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with [8:58] violence. It never occurred to me. But I oppose violence of any kind. So I took the post down. [9:05] How do you prove intent, Mr. Blanche, when Mr. Comey himself said he didn't understand that some [9:12] people would look at that and think about violence? You prove intent like you always prove intent. [9:18] You prove intent with witnesses. You prove intent with documents, with materials. So again, this is [9:23] not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected [9:28] over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury. And it's not the [9:33] government. It's not the Department of Justice. It's not Todd Blanche that returned an indictment [9:38] against James Comey. It's a grand jury, part of the judicial process. And that this process has to [9:43] be allowed to play out in the courts. It's not fair to Mr. Comey. It's certainly not fair to the [9:48] prosecutors for us to be airing your view or my view of this indictment. It's something that will [9:54] present it in court at the time set by the judge. Let's dive a little deeper. Conservative legal scholar [9:59] Jonathan Turley said, quote, this indictment is facially unconstitutional, absent some unknown new [10:08] facts. Are there, are you in fact saying that there are facts beyond this Instagram post that [10:14] clearly establish an intent to threaten the president's life? I've said repeatedly, this was [10:20] an investigation that less than 11 months. If the only facts that existed was the posting of the [10:25] Instagram, obviously that wouldn't have taken 11 months. And so when Mr. Turley talks about whether [10:30] it's facially unconstitutional, absent unknown facts or circumstances, we will necessarily have [10:36] to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial every element of this crime, which we're prepared to do. [10:41] Can you and will you let the public know what any of those other facts are? [10:46] Absolutely. It's called a trial. That's what happens in every single case. We indict thousands of cases [10:51] every year. Every one of those cases, there's an indictment. And then eventually there is a trial [10:56] or some sort of disposition at the trial, a public trial that will be open to the public. [11:02] Everybody in this country will know exactly what, what, what evidence the government has against [11:06] Mr. Coleman. I know you can't give me specifics, but can you give me any insight? Are you talking [11:10] about writings? Are you talking about conversations? What does this other evidence consist of? [11:16] We are talking about evidence of all sorts, and that means documents, that means witnesses, [11:20] and that means that means the whole array of what we did. And again, we are not talking about some [11:26] political guy in D.C. running out and getting an indictment. We are talking about career prosecutors [11:31] in North Carolina, systematically investing a case with the FBI working with them, with the Secret [11:36] Service working with them, and now we have an indictment. Well, the image, excuse me, is part of [11:43] what led to this indictment. It is worth noting that on Amazon.com, we looked this up, [11:48] there are dozens of products with the same terminology. We're showing it right here, [11:52] 8647 being sold and purchased right now. Should individuals selling or buying 8647 merchandise [12:01] be concerned that they're going to be prosecuted by the DOJ? [12:04] This isn't about a single incident, okay? This isn't, I mean, of course not. That's posted [12:09] constantly. That phrase is used constantly. There are constantly men and women who choose to make [12:14] threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements do not result in [12:19] indictments, of course. There are facts, there are circumstances, there are investigations that [12:23] have to take place, and we have charged dozens and dozens of men and women this year with threatening [12:28] President Trump and others. So this isn't a new charge we're bringing. [12:31] Just to be very clear, you are suggesting the seashells themselves are not at the root of this indictment. [12:38] You know, I am suggesting that every single case depends on the investigation that's done. [12:42] And of course, the seashells are part of that case. I mean, that's what the public sees. [12:47] But without a doubt, and it should be evident by the fact that it's been 11 months since [12:52] the posting and the indictment, there is an investigation that takes place. [12:56] And that's the result. The result of that investigation is the indictment that was returned [13:00] last week. Let's talk big picture. Back on September 20th, President Trump publicly posted [13:05] a private message to then Attorney General Pam Bondi, pressuring her to prosecute Senator Adam [13:11] Schiff, James Comey, and Letitia James, writing, quote, they're all guilty as hell, but nothing is [13:17] going to be done. They impeached me twice. They indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be [13:23] served now. Why should the public believe that any case brought against the individuals listed there [13:30] is an independent law enforcement decision and not retribution? [13:34] Well, because you have investigations and you have indictments and you have the result. I mean, [13:38] listen, if years later, you're judged by a simple note from President Trump, by the way, [13:44] that wasn't a private message. That was a message delivered to the entire world. [13:48] Right. [13:48] So this is not being done behind closed doors. [13:50] But it was meant to be private initially, based on my conversation. [13:52] How do you know it was meant to be private? [13:53] Based on my conversations, it was meant to be. [13:56] Well, I'm not aware of those conversations. [13:57] With top administration officials, it was meant to be private and posted by mistake. [14:01] President Trump is very clear with the American people what he expects as president of the United [14:06] States. That is not something he hides from the American people. He wants justice. He wants full [14:11] investigations where appropriate. And by the way, that's a good thing. That's not a bad thing. [14:16] Everybody in this country should want that. And so, no, I don't operate based upon concern or fear. [14:22] The American people will know exactly what we're doing and why we're doing it. [14:25] And yet, Mr. Acting Attorney General, the Justice Department has already indicted former FBI [14:31] Director James Comey, as you know, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. And a federal judge [14:35] dismissed both of those cases. Why should people have confidence that this case will actually [14:42] move forward and is rooted in facts? [14:44] Well, let's be accurate, OK? The judge dismissed those cases not based on a factual finding that [14:51] President Trump did something wrong or that there was something wrong with the underlying facts leading [14:55] to that indictment. The federal judge dismissed that case because he found that the U.S. attorney [14:59] was not properly appointed. That's not a, there was no final finding on the facts or anything like [15:05] that. So, look, those cases are on appeal. We will see what happens. But again, you're comparing [15:10] apples to oranges when you say just because that indictment was dismissed, there's something wrong [15:15] with the underlying investigation. Well, again, he did directly push to have those people indicted, [15:21] charges were brought, and then they were dropped. Does that not undercut, potentially, the trust that [15:26] people have in the Justice Department? Absolutely not. And by the way, do you think or do the American [15:31] people think that nothing was done on those cases until President Trump posted that truth in September? [15:37] No, these are ongoing investigations. Investigations take time. Investigations take effort. And so, no, [15:43] I don't, I am not concerned. What we do, what we do at the Department of Justice, the American people [15:48] can judge us. And they will. And I'm ready to be judged because we're doing the right thing. We're [15:52] restoring justice, which nobody saw for four years. There weren't guests on your show for four years [15:57] during the last administration being overly critical of what the Department of Justice is doing. [16:02] And that was a problem. And we fixed it. I want to turn now to the shooting at the White House [16:07] Correspondents' Dinner. Since we last spoke, it has been deemed an assassination attempt against [16:12] President Trump. We are all so thankful. He is okay. And everyone at that dinner, including yourself, [16:17] is okay. His lawyers say that the suspect in this case is now on a suicide watch. Are there any new [16:26] updates you can share on the investigation or new charges that the suspect may be facing? [16:31] Well, look, the investigation is ongoing. And it happened just over a week ago. And I expect that [16:37] the U.S. Attorney, Piro, that she and her team are continuing to work on understanding [16:42] why this man allegedly did what he did, any other information that they can learn from the devices [16:49] and from the search warrants that were executed. I don't have an update to provide you beyond the [16:53] fact that we are working hard. I expect in the next week or so, there will be more information [16:58] coming out. Obviously, assuming the investigation moves forward, there will be an indictment forthcoming. [17:03] And all that is typical of what happens. You say more information, more charges potentially, too? [17:09] Potentially. I mean, look, I think that's what happens, right? There's initial charges and there's [17:12] an investigation. And to the extent that the government learns more things, I assure you, [17:17] they will become charges. All right. Let's turn to the Supreme Court's decision [17:21] to remove a major pillar of the Voting Rights Act, which protected minority voters. [17:26] In his majority decision, Justice Aligo argued this, quote, [17:30] the nation had made, quote, great strides in ending entrenched racial discrimination. [17:36] Do you believe that minority voters are represented equally in this country? [17:41] Yes. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court got this decision right. It's the position of the [17:46] Department of Justice. It's the position of this administration. We argued the case. And so, [17:50] yes, there is also no doubt that the existing system was not consistent with our Constitution. [17:56] And that's what the Supreme Court found. And there's going to be a lot of criticism, [17:59] I expect, even in the coming moments on this show about that decision. But the reality is what [18:05] people cannot say is that the provision that was struck down by the Supreme Court is consistent [18:11] with our Constitution. And that's the Supreme Court's job, is to interpret the Constitution. [18:15] But the voters see this country differently. According to the latest Gallup poll, 83% of [18:22] Black Americans and 61% of white Americans believe that racism is widespread. Does that challenge the [18:31] idea that there is racial equality? The Supreme Court doesn't make decisions based upon a Gallup [18:36] poll. The Supreme Court is not allowed to make decisions because there's some poll that says some [18:40] percentage of Americans feel one way or another. They interpret the Constitution. [18:44] And keeping our elections fair, keeping our elections exactly what they're supposed to be consistent with [18:50] the Constitution is what President Trump has been fighting for for 10 years. And so this was a great [18:56] win for the American people. But the root of the Voting Rights Act was to make sure that people were [19:00] treated equally, that they had equal rights when it came to voting and representation. Does it not weaken [19:07] that ultimate goal? The fact that we're talking about this when Democrats in Congress, [19:13] for example, refuse to support basic structures to guarantee free and fair elections is laughable. [19:19] I mean, the fact that we are talking about this decision from the Supreme Court, which is just a [19:24] constitutional decision, when what we should be talking about is that there's a lot of things that [19:28] we can be doing, like voter ID. Like every time you walk into a restaurant or a club, you have to show [19:34] your ID. How about you have to show your ID to vote? That's not anything that's crazy. And that's [19:39] what we should be talking about. Certainly one of the votes on Capitol Hill right now. Quickly, [19:43] before I let you go, the position of Attorney General remains open. You still have an acting [19:49] in front of your title. Are you hoping to drop that acting title and become the Attorney General? [19:54] I am happy to do my job. President Trump can ask me to do whatever he chooses, and I'll be happy to do [20:00] my job. The Department of Justice, all of our employees are working hard every day to restore [20:05] justice, and we will continue to do that. I love my job, no matter what it is. [20:10] All right. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, thank you very much for being here to cover a range [20:14] of topics this morning. We really appreciate it. When we come back, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff [20:20] joins me next. Welcome back. And joining me now is Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. [20:37] Senator Schiff, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you. [20:41] Thanks so much for being here. Let's start with the war, where I started with the acting [20:46] Attorney General now past its 60-day mark. President Trump, as you know, sent a letter [20:52] to Congress arguing he does not need congressional approval because the ceasefire paused the clock [20:59] effectively. Do you think the administration is following the law? [21:05] No, absolutely not. And it's important to recognize this war was unlawful and unconstitutional [21:10] from the start. We didn't have to wait 60 days to reach that conclusion because under the Constitution, [21:15] only Congress can initiate a war or authorize a war or declare war. The only exceptions are if the [21:23] United States is attacked or there's an imminent threat of attack, then the president can take [21:27] action in the near term. That's when the 60-day clock begins, if there's a legitimate reason to [21:33] begin the war at the start. And there wasn't here. This is a war of choice, which has now brought a terrible [21:39] cost in 13 service members who lost their lives, scores of others injured, many seriously injured, [21:47] highest gas prices now in years. It's pushed inflation up to a high in several years. And, [21:54] of course, the opportunity cost is that we can't invest in hospitals and health care and things [21:59] that would improve the quality of life for Americans. But this war was plagued from the start. [22:04] It's also important in terms of the War Powers Act. That act, as that Susan Collins quote illustrates, [22:11] she's accurate about that, dictates that U.S. forces have to be removed after 60 days [22:17] unless Congress has intervened to authorize action. We haven't. The Navy is still deployed. It is still [22:25] blockading Iranian ports. It is still interdicting ships. There's no exception for the U.S. Navy to the [22:32] War Powers Act. So what Mr. Blanche said is absolutely wrong. I think they understand that. [22:39] And what's more, the president's claim at the outset of your segment that no president has [22:43] sought an authorization to use force is also simply wrong. George W. Bush, of course, did [22:49] both in Afghanistan and with the Iraq War. Let me ask you, because back in 2007, [22:54] you called on then President Obama. In 2011, I should say, you called on then President Obama to [23:01] seek congressional authorization for military force in Libya after exceeding the 60-day mark. [23:07] The Obama administration argued that because there was no sustained fighting, [23:12] the War Powers Act did not apply then. If Congress didn't enforce the law then, [23:19] why should Americans have confidence that it will be enforced now? [23:23] Well, I think that was a mistake then. I think it's an even bigger mistake now. The Obama administration at [23:30] the time claimed that hostilities had never begun. So they didn't make the acknowledgement that [23:36] President Trump has here that he began a war two months ago. They claim because of the limited nature [23:42] of our engagement, the limited risk of escalation, that hostilities as defined in the act never began. [23:48] Now, I think that's wrong and that's a mistake. And you're right. Both parties have fallen down on [23:53] the job in terms of asserting Congress's war power. But we've never had a full-fledged war like this [23:58] that the president himself acknowledges is war. And once more, as we talked about, the ceasefire [24:07] of some of the bombing does not toll. There is no tolling provision in the War Powers Act. So that's [24:12] just plain wrong. But you're right. Both parties have been at fault here. But I don't think we've ever [24:18] had such a clear violation of the act as we have right now. Let me ask you about the impact here at [24:23] home. Obviously, the center of it, those high gas prices, they rose to a four-year high this week. [24:30] Democratic Senate nominee James Tallarico has called to suspend the federal gas tax of 18 cents per gallon [24:38] until prices start to fall. Is that something that you would support in the Senate suspending the federal [24:45] gas tax? You know, I've argued in the past, under circumstances much less egregious than this, [24:53] that we could suspend the gas tax, but we needed to pay for it with a windfall profits tax [24:58] on the oil companies that are making money hand over fist. So I would support a proposal like that, [25:04] that won't deplete us of revenue to fix our roads. But really, the best remedy to bring down gas prices [25:09] is to bring this illegal war to an end. And I don't think anything short of that is really going to make [25:15] a demonstrable impact on price at the pump. The way prices are going up and the speed they're going [25:21] up, it would very quickly eat up any savings from suspending the gas tax. But I'd be willing to [25:27] entertain that if the oil companies who are making such big profits have to pay for it. [25:31] Well, let me follow up with you and ask about your state specifically. California has the highest tax on [25:37] gasoline ranging between 60 cents to 70 cents per gallon. Would you call on Governor Gavin Newsom to [25:45] suspend the gas tax in your state? Well, again, I'd be open to that as long as we place that windfall [25:53] profits tax on the oil companies. But look, in California, we have some of the dirtiest air in [25:59] the country. We've made a lot of progress in trying to address it. Some of these revenues go to helping us [26:05] do that as well as maintain and improve our roads, our bridges and a lot of the deferred maintenance, [26:10] which is very much a need. So we have to continue to invest in infrastructure. Again, I think the [26:17] way to try to reduce prices as well as make sure we have the resources to invest in our cities is by [26:23] making sure oil companies are paying their fair share, not gouging people. And that's in addition to [26:29] ending this war, I think the kind of steps we need to take. Let me ask you about former FBI Director [26:34] James Comey indicted, of course, over that social media post, which federal prosecutors say was a [26:41] threat to harm President Trump. You just heard my conversation with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche [26:46] about this. You have called the case, quote, a vindictive prosecution. But a grand jury did sign [26:53] off on the case. Are you saying that you do not have faith in that grand jury? Look, as one judge [27:03] notably said, a skilled prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. The prosecutor gets to show the grand [27:08] jury what it wants to show the grand jury. It is not, you know, the grand jury doesn't get to see [27:14] a lot of the exculpatory evidence, doesn't have independent legal experts to talk about how frivolous [27:19] this case is. I'm sure none of that was done here. And look, the only facts that distinguish this case [27:26] from those people buying things on Amazon or posting things on Amazon is not any particular facts [27:32] that are not visible to the public. It's the fact that James Comey is a political opponent of the [27:38] president's. It's the fact the president has called upon him for prosecution. It's the fact that [27:43] Todd Blanche wants to keep this job. It's the fact that Pam Bondi didn't successfully bring a case [27:49] against one of the president's enemies. All of that is deeply illegitimate. I was a prosecutor for [27:55] almost six years. I never saw such a weak case. And I think, Kristen, in the future, [28:01] in the Department of Justice, if anyone ever suggests bringing a case this week, [28:05] there'll be a new name for it. They'll be called seashells cases. Are you telling me we should bring [28:09] another seashells case? I think this case is likely to be thrown out even before it goes to a jury. [28:15] It will absolutely be thrown out by the jury. But the fact that we're spending time on a seashells case [28:23] and the top leadership of the Justice Department is so focused on it means they're not focused on [28:28] violent crime cases. They're not focused on rape cases and child trafficking. They're focused, [28:34] no, on James Comey and seashells. And it's the American public that suffers. [28:38] As you know, and as I just read, your name was on that list. Are you concerned, [28:44] Senator, that you could be next? [28:47] I'm not concerned in the sense that if they bring a case against me, [28:52] it will suffer the same fate as this one is likely to suffer. But what I am concerned about is, [28:58] you know, all that is lost in the Justice Department, a department that, you know, [29:02] I loved and venerated my time there. We now have scores of seasoned prosecutors who are leaving [29:09] by the hundreds, by the thousands, who are asked to do unethical things and, you know, [29:14] properly are saying no. We're seeing indictments, as we saw in New York, [29:18] dismissed against a corrupt mayor or a mayor facing corruption cases or allegations because he's [29:24] willing to help the president on an unrelated issue like immigration. I'm talking about the [29:29] former mayor of New York here. These kind of abuses mean that the department isn't going after oil [29:35] companies that are price gouging. It's not going after companies that are abusing consumers. It's not [29:41] protecting us from monopolistic conduct in the market. It is instead focused on the president's [29:47] agenda of retribution. And that's a terrible use of resources and a terrible precedent to set. [29:55] Let me turn to redistricting, of course, the Supreme Court. There are concerns that this latest ruling [30:04] could limit the use of race in redistricting and could grant Republicans a handful of seats, [30:09] concerns among some Democrats. Let me get your reaction because Democrats promised that some [30:15] of these redistricting efforts were going to be temporary. But leader Hakeem Jeffries said, quote, [30:21] we are in an era of maximum warfare everywhere all the time. Should Democrats break their promise [30:29] not to redistrict and continue with these redistricting fights, Senator? [30:35] Well, first of all, I think it's important to understand what's behind all of this. [30:39] Why did President Trump begin the redistricting wars? Why is the Supreme Court, which is no longer a [30:44] conservative court, it's merely a partisan court, a conservative court would have some respect for [30:49] precedent. They don't. Why did they bring that voting rights case to begin with? And it's because [30:54] their agenda is so deeply unpopular. They feel they're going to lose their majority unless they [30:59] can gerrymander the districts, unless they can affirmatively use race to disenfranchise people. [31:05] So this is why this whole redistricting war began. And yes, Democrats made the decision, [31:11] we're going to fight this fight if that's the task at hand, if we need to do it, [31:16] to make sure that voters actually have a choice in the policies of this country. [31:21] Whether that will be temporary or permanent, I hope it is temporary. I hope that Congress will pass a [31:27] bill that I've sponsored and co-sponsored for years, which would outlaw the gerrymander nationwide. [31:33] I hope the country gets so sick of this, of politicians writing their own maps and choosing [31:38] their own voters instead of voters choosing their own elected officials, that they insist on a national [31:43] redistricting reform. But I suspect if the Republicans continue to do this, Democrats are going to find [31:51] the necessity and feel the necessity of fighting fire with fire. But this is really a poor trend, [31:57] an anti-democratic trend for the country. And I hope that when Democrats take power in both houses [32:03] and once again take power in the White House, that we will insist on a national redistricting reform [32:09] and end these gerrymanders for good. [32:11] All right. Quickly, I want to ask you about the gubernatorial race in California, the primary, [32:16] just about a month away. You endorsed a former representative, Eric Swalwell, who withdrew [32:22] and you withdrew your support amid allegations of sexual misconduct. The primary, again, [32:29] right around the corner. Will you endorse a new candidate? And who is that? [32:33] You know, I haven't decided myself who I'm going to support in the governor's race. The field is a [32:41] different field and it is changing every day. But I will say this. What would get me to be involved [32:49] is if I felt that the concern, that the risk that with this jungle primary system, which I think is a [32:55] terrible system, if it produced two Republicans in the runoff and Democrats didn't even have a choice [33:02] in November, if I felt that the odds of that had increased to the point where really we must act, [33:08] then I would. Barring that, I first want to decide who I'm supporting myself and I'm reluctant to get [33:15] involved again. All right. Well, when you make that decision, please come back. Let us know. [33:20] Senator Adam Schiff, thank you so very much for being here. Thank you. [33:25] When we come back, gas prices hit a four year high. How will it impact the midterms? The panel is next. [33:32] Welcome back. The panel is here. Julia Ainsley, NBC News senior homeland security correspondent [33:43] and author of the new book, Undue Process. PBS NewsHour co-anchor Amna Nawaz, former Democratic [33:50] Congresswoman Val Demings, and Mark Short, former Trump director of legislative affairs. Thanks to all [33:57] of you. Welcome. Let me start with you, Amna. Let's talk about what we heard from the acting [34:02] attorney general about the war in Iran. I asked him point blank, is the U.S. at war? He said no, [34:10] and argued that there is a ceasefire. Therefore, the clock's been halted on that 60-day deadline. What [34:16] are you hearing? We know President Trump was briefed about a range of potential options, [34:20] including military options. Well, we know President Trump has not taken military options [34:24] off the table since the start of these actions. He never has. I doubt he ever will, [34:28] because this is a president who likes to keep his options open. I found it interesting, [34:33] the legal argument he was making there, because we should also point out this is not the first [34:36] president to argue about the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Act. I'm old enough to remember [34:42] Obama and the signature drone strikes, George W. Bush and enhanced interrogation techniques. [34:46] Nixon tried to vitro the War Powers resolution, right? But we had Harold Ko on the show last week on [34:53] NewsHour, who made the argument that this is not this is a game clock, essentially. The ceasefire [34:57] doesn't stop it. The War Powers resolution is what it is. That clock ran out last week. [35:02] This now comes down to a legal argument, and it also comes down to whether or not Republicans in [35:06] Congress choose to enforce it. We know privately they've had some concerns about that. You shared [35:11] what Susan Collins has had to say publicly. But there have been six votes before lawmakers when they've [35:16] had the chance to be able to exercise their authority and oversight and have chosen not to. So, [35:21] whether or not there's a deal, whether there's military action, the legal argument is a separate [35:25] issue. Mark, do you see any more Republicans getting on board? And how much concern is there [35:31] that while the war, the ceasefires dragging out, gas prices continue to go up and the midterms are [35:37] around the corner? Well, let's separate those. I really don't think you'll see too many more [35:41] Republicans. Susan Collins is obviously in a competitive race. And so I think for her to show [35:45] her independence, she wants to break with Trump on something. But look, the War Powers resolution was [35:49] passed in 1973 at the height of the Vietnam War. It has not been tested by the Supreme Court. [35:54] And I think that there's a lot of Democrats who want to call on it today. But, you know, [35:58] when President Obama was president, we had military troops in Libya starting in March of 2011. [36:04] They went until October of 2011. Democrats were not calling for contesting War Powers Resolution [36:09] and what the executive power was there. So this is a partisan game that gets played every time the [36:13] executive branch chooses military action. The reality is that this president has a chance to [36:17] make historic changes in the Middle East. And if he's successful, the risk premium that we pay on [36:22] energy prices will go down. But I think his challenge is that that has not been well articulated [36:27] to the American people. It's been explained that one time we're doing this to make sure they have [36:31] no nuclear weapons, another time for regime change, another time to basically debase their military [36:35] capability. And when Chris Wright comes on your show and says gas prices may not get below $4 [36:40] hours. So next year, he gets his hand slapped. And I think it would be helpful to explain to the [36:44] American people, here's what would happen if there was actually freedom in the Middle East. [36:48] And what would happen if in no longer this regime for 47 years has been murdering and killing [36:53] innocent people was removed? And what would happen to energy prices long term? That is an argument [36:58] they should be making the American people today. Congresswoman, pick up on that. And how should [37:03] Democrats navigate that in the midterms, given the long-term argument that Mark and, quite frankly, [37:10] President Trump are making? This is about the long-term safety of security of the United States [37:14] and the whole world, quite frankly, and gas prices, the president argues, will start to come down once [37:21] the world is. Well, look, the safety and security of our nation should be our number one concern. [37:26] But Democrats' message has to be rooted and grounded in reality. The reality is gas prices are high. [37:33] Matter of fact, everything's going up. Groceries are high. Gas, I filled up my husband's Ford truck [37:41] last week. I was doing him a favor. It was $146. I won't be doing that favor again anytime soon. [37:48] But fertilizer, farmers are feeling it. Democrats are hearing every day from their constituents, [37:54] look, what are y'all doing to make my life better and lower prices? So I think that Democrats, [38:01] while safety and security is the number one concern, that's not what they are hearing [38:06] about every day from people on the ground. People want to know, when are my costs of living going [38:12] down? The president is the one who said that on day one, he would lower price and not get in any [38:18] forever wars. Just the opposite has happened. Yeah, he's getting very low marks on his handling [38:22] of the economy, higher marks on his handling on immigration and deportation. Julia, [38:26] that takes me to your book. Let me just hold it up. Undue Process, the inside story of Trump's mass [38:33] deportation program. You explore the president's mass deportation program. You also explore his use [38:40] of executive authority. Talk about why this book in this moment and what you think the implications are [38:46] as we look ahead to the midterms. Yeah, you know, Kristin, I really think that this book will walk people [38:50] through what an issue was that started as Trump's biggest political asset turned into his biggest [38:56] political liability, perhaps going into the midterms. I've covered immigration since 2014. [39:02] You and I talk about it a lot. But 2025, I realized what I was covering was unlike anything I had seen [39:07] before. And I started to document every change in policy, whether it was using the Alien Enemies Act [39:12] to deport people without due process or a number of changes that they were making throughout. And what I [39:18] found was a vast expansion of executive power. And what I tell people is, no matter how you feel [39:23] about immigration, whether you're for deporting every illegal immigrant who's living in the United [39:27] States, anyone who crossed the border illegally, or you think everyone who crossed the border should [39:31] have asylum, this is a vast expansion of executive power. In fact, one of the things that I reveal in [39:37] the book was a program that they wanted to expand that would allow technology to scan social media of [39:43] foreign students who are legally in the United States and find anything that they were posting [39:48] that was just anti-Trump priorities, and then to take that list and find underlying crime so they could [39:53] revoke their visas and deport them. This is coming from a president who also said, after sending people [39:58] to CICOT prison in El Salvador, what if we did that for Americans? So I think even if people, even if [40:03] people are picking up this book, and immigration isn't their top issue, it's not something that brings [40:08] them to the polls. They're going to learn just how far things could have gone, and all of the moments [40:13] that led up to the flashbangs that we saw throughout the summer really leading to Minneapolis. [40:18] Well, Julia, thank you for being here to talk about an undue process. It's a great book. I've started [40:23] reading it, and as you say, has big implications for the midterms. We're going to have much more on the [40:28] midterms, so please stick around, guys. When we come back, an historic visit from King Charles, [40:33] how the British monarchy has endured in our Meet the Press Minute. Next. Welcome back. King Charles [40:45] arrived in Washington this week for an historic state visit, meeting with President Trump and [40:50] addressing a joint session of Congress in a speech filled with humor. He's only the second British [40:56] monarch ever to address Congress after his mother, Queen Elizabeth, 35 years ago. And it marks the first [41:03] official UK state visit to Washington since 2007, when Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip were [41:09] hosted by President George W. Bush. Prince Philip joined Meet the Press back in 1969 at a time when [41:16] monarchies across Europe were in decline following World War II. Why do you think the British monarchy [41:24] is so strong despite the fact that so many monarchies in Europe have died? Well, I think the British are [41:32] more liberal in their outlook. Most of the monarchies in Europe were really destroyed by their greatest and [41:40] most ardent supporters. It was the most reactionary people who somehow rather tried to hold on to [41:47] something without letting it develop into change. I think in the United Kingdom, the monarchy, I think, [41:53] for a long time has been much closer to the population as a whole and therefore has responded to, [41:58] has been more in touch and responded to different attitudes. Whereas I think the monarchies of Europe [42:05] are much more stylized and much more rigid in that context. And this has eventually destroyed them. [42:12] When we come back, a Supreme Court ruling on voting rights uphends the political map [42:16] ahead of the midterms. The panel is back with us next. Welcome back. The panel is still with us. [42:27] Julia, let me start with you because this week Congress finally voted to end the longest partial [42:32] government shutdown, DHS shutdown, but still not funding ICE and CBP. And you've been reporting it [42:38] could take some time actually to get DHS back online. Yeah, especially in the way TSA workers [42:43] are hired. 1100 quit. It takes some time to onboard people and to convince them to come work for an agency [42:49] that could lose funding again in September. That's why we saw Delta this week say they want to see a [42:54] separate package to make sure that FAA workers and TSA workers keep getting funded during a shutdown. [43:01] But you know, as I explained in my book, this is a behemoth agency that started in 9-11 and now you have [43:07] some very practical agencies that everyone needs like FEMA that have been tied to these controversial [43:12] policies. So it could happen again. There are problems for Congress as well as for the American [43:17] people who could continue to see long lines at airports this summer. Well, I know you and we will [43:21] all be watching it very closely. Amna, let me talk to you about another huge headline this week. I was [43:27] talking about it with our guest, the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana has [43:32] already postponed its primary elections as it looks to potentially redraw its max. How do you see this [43:39] playing out in the midterms, but also 2028? I mean, I think what we saw within the first 24 to 48 hours [43:45] after the decision gives us some indication. We saw a number of states where there was litigation [43:51] related to potentially racially gerrymandered maps that had already been decided that is now up for [43:55] play again. Other cases where maps were being disputed and this court decision now comes into play. [44:03] We've seen calls in Georgia for Republican lawmakers to try to redrop their maps to an Alabama as well. [44:09] And you mentioned Louisiana, where we should point out voting was already underway in those primaries [44:13] that have now been suspended. So look, in states where there were potentially racially gerrymandered [44:19] maps, it's now much more difficult to challenge that. That is just the new lay of the land for [44:25] these maps and for the legal landscape. What I've heard from experts though, it's less about 2026, [44:30] because a lot of those rules are already in place. Candidate filings are in place. It will be more about 2028. [44:35] Val, how do you see it? And are we now going to see a prolonged tit-for-tat over redistricting nationwide? [44:43] Well, I think we should definitely deal with redistricting nationwide. And let us not forget that [44:52] the president started this redistricting war. And I believe because he did not want to be held [44:58] accountable if Democrats took back the House. And so in Florida, as you well know, we have just gone, [45:06] the governor just presented maps, hopefully trying to give Republicans three or four additional seats. [45:15] The fact that states, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and others are so willing to deny black and brown [45:25] voters equal representation, and also so willing to engage, continue to engage in voter suppression, [45:33] just shows me that the original architects of Jim Crow may be dead and gone, but their ghosts live on [45:41] in a new generation. Florida has a problem though. In 2010, 63% of the voters voted in favor of [45:51] the law saying that you cannot draw districts to favor a political party. Yet the governor clearly [45:57] indicated that the maps would help Republicans in the House. And also the maps were color-coded [46:04] to show just that. And so we have a problem. Got to respect the law. [46:08] Mark, Congressman Demings is saying that the ghosts of Jim Crow live on in this. How do you see it? [46:14] Look, Congressman knows how much respect to have for her service, not just in Congress, [46:18] but also as a police chief. But the thing I agree with John Roberts, the best way to end [46:22] discrimination is to stop discriminating based on race. The reality is that thankfully this is not [46:27] the 1960s. It's not the Jim Crow era when it comes to race relations in America anymore. [46:32] A federal court ordered Louisiana to draw a specific African-American majority district. [46:37] That's what the Supreme Court overturned. They did not gut the Voting Rights Act. They said you [46:41] can't do that. You have to have evidence of current discrimination, not something from 1960. [46:47] I think that, you know, when it comes to redistricting, I've been on your show and said that I think [46:51] this will be a wash at the end of the day. I don't think this has been helpful. But I do think [46:54] there's a little bit of selective memory here. In 2022, right after Biden, in the first midterms, [47:02] Democrats voted to redraw New York until the courts threw it out. In Virginia, [47:06] the governor ran one of those dishonest, disingenuous campaigns in modern history on redistricting. [47:10] All right, guys. Black people are discriminated every day in the United States of America. [47:16] We will continue this debate offline. Unfortunately, we're out of time. Thank you so much for a great [47:20] discussion. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week, [47:24] because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.