KRISTEN WELKER:
This Sunday: party takeover. Donald Trump may be leading in the polls, but it’s President Biden who has the cash advantage in the 2024 campaign.
LARA TRUMP:
We have to raise a lot of money.
KRISTEN WELKER:
As his legal bills mount, Trump wants campaign donors to help pay them.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We have a lot of cash and we have a great company. But they want to take it away. They’d like to take the cash away, so I can't use it on the campaign.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is that a winning strategy? I'll speak with Ronna McDaniel, the former chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. Plus: supreme decisions. Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer speaks out about the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Did you think that a compromise was possible, before the leak, around 15 weeks?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
I usually hope for compromise.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And his decision to step down from the Court.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How difficult was it for you to decide to retire?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Chief Political Analyst Chuck Todd; Kimberly Atkins Stohr, senior opinion writer for the Boston Globe; And Stephen Hayes, editor of The Dispatch. Welcome to Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday morning. Former President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election is putting an unprecedented stress test on American institutions, ahead of the 2024 election. With the Supreme Court already deciding Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado, now weighing whether he has total immunity in prosecution for his election subversion efforts. This week, I spoke exclusively with former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Beyer, where I asked him about the weight a justice feels while considering these cases that have become central to the presidential election.
[START TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you describe the weight that you felt – that one feels as a justice, when you are presented with a case in the middle of a presidential election?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
It's not just an election. Imagine you were on the court that decided Brown v. Board of Education. Imagine that you were on the court that – that had to decide, for example, whether President Nixon was immune from giving – didn't have to turn the tapes over to Archie Cox. Imagine that.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
More of my interview with Justice Breyer is coming up. But first, I’ll be joined by former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel in her first interview since stepping down as party chair. In full disclosure to our viewers, this interview was scheduled weeks before it was announced that McDaniel had become a paid NBC News contributor. This will be a news interview and I was not involved in her hiring. This week, we learned just how much Trump's grip on the Republican Party is impacting the GOP's bottom line. The Biden campaign reported it has more than double the cash on hand of the Trump campaign, while the president himself has sharpened his attacks against his predecessor over his mounting legal debts. As those legal bills are growing, Trump has a new joint fundraising effort with the Republican National Committee that will filter donations to both his campaign and the super PAC paying his legal fees before the RNC even gets a cut. With Trump installing two hand-picked loyalists to run the RNC, Michael Whatley and his daughter-in-law Laura Trump, the party is now fully formed in Trump's image.
[START TAPE]
MICHAEL WHATLEY:
We are going to determine the fate of not only the United States, but of the entire world and this body, the RNC, is going to be the vanguard of a movement that will work tirelessly every single day to elect our nominee Donald J. Trump,
LARA TRUMP:
We are going to make sure that every single penny of every dollar raised goes towards one goal, which is winning.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me now is former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel. Ronna, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you for being here.
RONNA McDANIEL:
Great to be with you. Thanks for having me.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let's dive right into this and start with your decision to step down as RNC chair. If you can, take me behind the scenes a little bit. Were you pushed out of your role?
RONNA McDANIEL:
Well, there's no question that, as RNC chair, you have to remain neutral, and we had a primary process. And so we did have debates, right? We had debates, and there was tension and a little friction that started during that process. It was well played out in the media. And I knew at that point, when I was doing that role and we were going to have debates, that when the nominee came forward – and it was likely to be President Trump, that they would want a switch. And that's his right as nominee.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And – and so were you pushed out by him?
RONNA McDANIEL:
He absolutely wanted me to move aside and wanted Michael Whatley and Lara Trump to come in.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And you say you were neutral. You did put out that statement before he was officially the presumptive nominee, effectively calling on Nikki Haley to step out of the race. Can you say you were really neutral?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I can. I mean, we had a neutral primary. We had debates. I mean, look at the Democrats. They didn't have debates. Now they have RFK Jr. running as a third party. Imagine how the world would be different if they'd have allowed those debates to take place. I think that's so important to our public discourse. So, yes, I was neutral. But, as I said at that time, there was no math and no path, and that was true. And so we did need to consolidate – consolidate behind the nominee, and that's what I did.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You talk about the tensions around the debates. Was there a breaking point with former President Donald Trump and you?
RONNA McDANIEL:
It was a lot of tension with the campaign. He really did not feel like we should have debates. He said this publicly. I got a lot of phone calls. And there were –
KRISTEN WELKER:
From him?
RONNA McDANIEL:
– people –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Phone calls from Trump directly?
RONNA McDANIEL:
From everybody in his campaign. And I did talk to him. And also you saw it from Trump supporters, right? "Don't support the RNC. Don't give to the RNC. Don't have debates." Listen, there are a lot of people who support President Trump in our party, but there are others who didn't. And they needed to see that process to play out, to say, "This was fair. My candidate was given an opportunity to speak to the American people. The voters decided, and this is the nominee." And because we let that process play out he has – he's the nominee without a third party running against him, which is the opposite of what the Democrats did.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You were replaced by Donald Trump's hand-picked allies, including his daughter-in-law Lara Trump. There's now this fundraising agreement, which basically means that donations go to the Super PAC to pay for his legal bills before they go to the RNC. Is it appropriate for Donald Trump to ask donors to pay for his legal bills?
RONNA McDANIEL:
Well, I think as long as the donors know that that's what they're doing. And so, it is in the waterfall of it, it's the Save America before the RNC. What I also think that means is that the campaign’s – or the RNC's being truthful when they're saying they're not going to pay the legal bills, that it is going to continue to run through the Save America PAC.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But ultimately, these donations are going first to pay his legal bills. People who may be struggling in some cases to make ends meet. Is there not an ethical challenge with that?
RONNA McDANIEL:
If – if they feel strongly to support his legal bills, then they have every right to do so. And I think he's being very open that they're helping with his legal bills.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And you of course paid $2 million for his legal bills while he was still in office. Do you have any regrets about that? Do you think that was an appropriate use of RNC funds?
RONNA McDANIEL:
You know, as – as a former president, as somebody who raised a lot of money into the RNC, we paid less than $2 million in legal bills. And we – we didn’t – once he became a nominee or a candidate, we cut that off. It's different when you're a former president than when you're a candidate.
KRISTEN WELKER:
One RNC member told Politico that you were a, quote, "Failed chair." Another said, quote, "We lost the House, the Senate, and the White House while she was chair." Did you deserve to stay on with that track record, Ronna?
RONNA McDANIEL:
You know, I push back on that very hard. You know, the fact that under my time as chair we've had more women in Congress ever than in the history of our party, that we've had more minority growth in our party. And that didn't just happen. I had offices open in Black, Asian, Hispanic communities that we had ignored as a party, and we've seen growth as a result, which by the way, we're seeing in this election as well. And then I'm going to point out to this: The RNC, we don't do the messaging. We don't pick the candidates. We're turnout. So if you look at 2022, just 2022, we turned out four million more Republicans, and we would've won the Electoral College based on that turnout. So when I – what I say to people is, "If we're building the road that all the candidates drive on and if one candidate got to the finish line, the road wasn't the problem. It's candidate to candidate." And I can go to every race in 2022. So I view my tenure as RNC chair as a success.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Well, let's talk about the election now. Donald Trump says one of his first acts if he is reelected to a second term would be, quote, "To free those charged and convicted of crimes related to January 6th." Do you support that?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I want to be very clear: The violence that happened on January 6th is unacceptable. It doesn't represent our country. It certainly does not represent my party. We should not be attacking the Capitol. We should not be having violence. I said it that day. I put a statement out that day that this is not acceptable. If you attacked our Capitol and you have been – have – and you’ve been convicted, then that should stay.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So then – but to the question though, do you disagree with Trump saying he's going to free those who've been charged and convicted?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I do not think people who committed violent acts on January 6th should be freed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you disagree with that. He's been saying that for months, Ronna. Why not speak out earlier? Why just speak out about that now?
RONNA McDANIEL:
When you're the RNC chair you – you kind of take one for the whole team, right? Now I get to be a little bit more myself, right? This is what I believe. I don't think violence should be in our political discourse, Republican or Democrat. And I disagree with that. I agree with him on a whole host of other things. Let's close the border. Let's make sure we have good incomes for people. Let's make sure we do a lot of great things. But on that point, I don't think we should be freeing people who violently attacked Capitol Hill police officers and – and attacked the Capitol.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Ronna, that is such a fundamental point, people would argue, such a fundamental point to our democracy. You say you still support him. I assume you're still going to vote for him based –
RONNA McDANIEL:
Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– on that. What do you say to those who hear your answers to that question and feel like it's hypocritical to then vote for him?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I – I think we have to make a choice, right? And everybody's looking at their candidates and they may say, "I don't love everything about this. I disagree with this. I don't like how they say this." But for me, when I look at my state of Michigan and I look at the – the cost of food, the cost of rent, the cost of insurance, that I feel less safe – crime is on the rise, that we're seeing fentanyl come across our border, that we're seeing an open border – I don't think there's any choice but to vote –
KRISTEN WELKER:
And –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– for the Republican. Even though you may have disagreements, it's him or Biden, and that's the choice.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just – just to be clear though, studies show that crime actually is going down in major cities, and the fentanyl that is getting into the country is coming across legal ports of entry. But let me turn to this next question. Mitch McConnell said that Donald Trump was practically and morally responsible for the attack on the Capitol. Do you agree with him?
RONNA McDANIEL:
You know, I don't think he wanted that attack to happen on the Capitol, but I will say that that attack is a dark day in our history. There's nothing to be proud of about that day. There's nothing that we can look back and say, "This was good." It's changed our – our whole country. And so I condemn what happened on January 6th. Do I think he wanted that to happen or pushed that to happen? I don't.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, now he seems to be very proud about it. He calls it a beautiful day. Again, he's talking about freeing those who've been convicted. He – if you ask some of those who were convicted, they say they were there because Trump asked them to be there. Does he not bear –
RONNA McDANIEL:
I want to –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– responsibility –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– be really clear –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– for that day –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– first of all, the RNC was not there on January 6th.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But what about Trump? I want to – I want to ask you about Trump because Mitch McConnell says Donald Trump was practically and morally responsible for the attack on the Capitol. Was he?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I’ve said – I don't think he wanted the attack on the Capitol. I – I –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Was he responsible though? He may not have foreseen it, but was he responsible –
RONNA McDANIEL:
Well, when –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– for it?
RONNA McDANIEL:
– I say that I don't mean he – he wanted that to happen. So I don't hold him responsible for that. But I do think that it was a terrible day, and it's not something to be celebrated and it wasn't a beautiful day. The RNC was not there. We did not coordinate. We were not – we were not part of planning that day. But I also take it a different way, Kristen. When my kids see this on the internet and they see all these flags and it looks like the Republican Party's part of this, it changes them. They say, "Mom, what is going on? Why is this happening?" It's frightening. This is a dark day in our history, and we can never back away from the fact that we should all be condemning the events of January 6th.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to turn now to your actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
RONNA McDANIEL:
Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
On November 17th you and Donald Trump were recorded pushing two Republican Michigan officials – election officials not to certify the results of the election. And on the call you're recorded as saying, quote, "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. We will get you attorneys." Do you have regrets about that phone call and your actions –
RONNA McDANIEL:
I'm so glad –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– that day?
RONNA McDANIEL:
– you asked me about this, because I've never had a chance to respond to this. And if you know the course of what happened that night these two individuals went into a hearing, they voted no. They didn't vote not to certify. They said, "You know, we want an audit." There were some problems in Wayne County. They've been consistent. They've been well documented over subsequent elections. And they said, "As canvassers, we think we should have an audit before we certify." That's all they asked for. Once the public hearing opened they were called such vicious names, such vile names, family members were being threatened, that they changed their vote, and they left shaken. And I did call them and say, "Nobody" – and I think we should agree with – on this as Republicans and Democrats – "Nobody should be threatened or bullied or pushed to change a vote." And that's what happened to them. And I want to finish by saying our call that night was to say, "Are you okay?" That's my recollection. It was three and a half years ago. These are people I knew. I live in Wayne County. "Are you okay? Are you all right? Vote your conscience," not pushing them to do anything. And then let me finish – let me add one other thing. She was threatened to such a degree, Monica, that somebody's gone to jail. I'm not going to say the threats that she had –
KRISTEN WELKER:
But – but –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– but we can't, as parties, say, "We shouldn't be attacking election workers.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
I –
RONNA McDANIEL:
“Election workers need to be safe," and then when it happens to Republicans –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
RONNA McDANIEL:
– ignore it and only – only report it when it happens to Democrats.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Ronna – I – I understand –
RONNA McDANIEL:
Someone went to jail for these attacks.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I understand what you're saying about the concerns about her safety. But you got on the phone with her with the then-president of the United States. How can anyone think that--
RONNA McDANIEL:
Saying that you –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– is anything other –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– should not be bullied –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– than –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– to change your vote.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you said, "Do not sign it. If you can go home tonight, do not sign it." How can people read that –
RONNA McDANIEL:
That's –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– as anything –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– saying –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– other –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– "Vote your conscience."
KRISTEN WELKER:
– than a pressure campaign?
RONNA McDANIEL:
No, the pressure was being put on them from the hours and hours of threats and abuse they were receiving that coerced them to change their vote. And they shouldn't have had to deal with that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But if they're on the phone with you and Donald Trump, who was then the president –
RONNA McDANIEL:
I was not –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– of the United States –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– telling them to do –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– wouldn't they –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– anything –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– feel –
RONNA McDANIEL:
What I'm –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– pressured –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– saying is, "I support you voting your conscience." We should all say that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Knowing what you know now, do you regret making that phone call, Ronna?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I regret the fact that people are being threatened for doing their job in this country. I think it's wrong to say, "I want a simple audit," and to have your family be threatened, your daughter be threatened, your livelihood be threatened, being called racist. Go look at the transcripts. And this is the one thing: We can't have one standard for Democrat election workers –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Understood –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– and not Republican.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But, Ronna, ultimately, there were 250 audits. They never found there was any corruption.
RONNA McDANIEL:
Then why not have them?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Did you not have a responsibility as the RNC chair to say – before January 6th – "The election is not rigged," that Donald Trump lost, given that there were audits, given that there were more than 60 court cases that occurred all across the country and that Donald Trump lost?
RONNA McDANIEL:
The reality is Joe Biden won. He's the president. He's the legitimate president. I have always said, and I continue to say, there were issues in 2020. I believe that both can be true. You can say, "Massive laws were changed. They were changed through courts or through secretaries of state and not through the legislative process, in the name of the pandemic, that took away safeguards to the election" –
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you acknowledge those, what you're talking about, did not rise to the level in any way of overturning any –
RONNA McDANIEL:
Remember, Kristen –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– of the state's election results?
RONNA McDANIEL:
– in November, which, by the way, is when that call took place, in November, the election happens in November. We're getting so much incoming. We have a job to say, "This was done correctly." And I'll just finish about Wayne County, you know, there were precincts that didn't align. That's a fact. That's not propaganda. That's a fact. So why can't you say, "Hey, listen, these precincts aren't aligning. Let's take a look under the hood"?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me just stop you because you just said Joe Biden's a legitimately elected president. This is the first time you have said this.
RONNA McDANIEL:
It's not. I have said it many times –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, this is what you said a year ago to Chris Wallace. I want to play you what you said.
RONNA McDANIEL:
Sure.
[START TAPE]
CHRIS WALLACE:
Are you saying, as the chair of the Republican Party, that you still have questions as to whether or not Joe Biden was the duly elected president –
RONNA MCDANIEL:
Joe Biden's –
CHRIS WALLACE:
– in 2020?
RONNA McDANIEL:
– the president.
CHRIS WALLACE:
No, I didn't ask you whether he's the president.
RONNA McDANIEl:
No. I don't think that – I think there were –
CHRIS WALLACE:
Do you think –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– lots of problems –
CHRIS WALLACE:
– he won the election?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I think there were lots of problems with 2020.
CHRIS WALLACE:
Do you think he won the –
RONNA McDANIEL:
Ultimately, he won the election.
CHRIS WALLACE:
Pardon?
RONNA McDANIEL:
But ultimately he won the election, but there were lots of problems with the 2020 election, 100%.
CHRIS WALLACE:
And that's fair.
RONNA McDANIEL:
But I don't think he won it fair. I don't. I'm not going to say that.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you didn't say, "He won it fair," at that point. Can you say, as you sit here today, did Joe Biden win the election fair and square?
RONNA McDANIEL:
He won. He's the legitimate –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Did he win –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– president –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– fair and square –
RONNA McDANIEL:
Fair and square he won. It's certified. It's done. But I do think –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Ronna, why has it taken –
RONNA McDANIEL:
– Kristen –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– you until now to say that?
RONNA McDANIEL:
– let me just say something –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Why has it taken you until now to be able to say that?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I'm going to push back a little, because I do think it's fair to say there were problems in 2020. And to say that does not mean he's not the legitimate president.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But, Ronna, when you say that, it suggests that there was something wrong with the election. And you know that the election –
RONNA McDANIEL:
You know what? There were problems.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– was the most heavily scrutinized. Chris Krebs said it was the most secure election in modern history. When you say there were problems –
RONNA McDANIEL:
I'll give you an example.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– it suggests, still, that you're giving credence to these allegations of fraud.
RONNA McDANIEL:
When you have states like Pennsylvania go from 260,000 mail ballots in 2016 to 2.6 million saying, you know what, when you get rid of ID for all mail-in ballots, that's a concern. We should all be concerned about the care, custody, integrity of every ballot. That's all I'm saying. And you know what? This is a viewpoint of a lot of Republicans, and they think Joe Biden's the president, but they also think there were problems. And both can be true.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But even the Supreme Court, Ronna, didn't take up concerns about the election results in Pennsylvania and a slew of other states. Let me just stick to though, I want to allow you to continue to answer questions about your role in the 2020 election. Beyond the call that we were just discussing, the RNC helped the Trump campaign assemble fake electors in Michigan, provide a platform for Trump lawyers to hold that news conference, with Rudy Giuliani alleging a global conspiracy to rig the election against Trump, and you yourself called the election rigged multiple times. Did you enable Donald Trump to spread election lies?
RONNA McDANIEL:
Let's go back to time.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But did you?
RONNA McDANIEL:
Initially in November of 2020 there were concerns everywhere. Imagine you saw videos being put out, all types of things. You have to track that down. So, where I was in 2020 and the quotes that are being taken from a very long time ago, three and a half years ago, to where I am today, you've got to allow the process to play out. And I think it is fair to say there were concerns then. But, no, Biden is the president, and we need to move forward. And this is important for our country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Ronna, I think what people struggle with is by the time January 6th happened all of those court cases, more than 60 court cases, had already been litigated. Donald Trump had lost. The Supreme Court said they're not going to take up concerns. As the head of the RNC, did you not have a responsibility to say, "Joe Biden won"?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I've said that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
At the time. At the time, before January 6th, before January 6th? And you're still saying that there were concerns this morning, as you sit here.
RONNA McDANIEL:
Saying there's concerns about the election doesn't mean he didn't win, and that's the only thing I'm going to say. Listen, we are in 78 lawsuits right now at the RNC. I'll give you one example. One's in Montana right now with Democrats suing to say, "You should be allowed to be registered to vote in two states." Why are they suing on that? Why are you suing to allow voter ID to be removed in states? I disagree with that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Ronna, do you – to the people who feel like you enabled Donald Trump and his lies about the election – do you owe people an apology? Do you owe this country an apology?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I think the fact that we looked at things as what Democrats have done, Republicans have done. We're allowed to look after elections and say, "I want to make sure this was done in a transparent and fair way." And I certainly do not agree with violence or any attacks on our Capitol. And I'm going to be very clear: That is something I condemn wholeheartedly.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, Ronna, before I let you go, you seem to be changing your tone, as it relates to Joe Biden being legitimately elected. Why should viewers, why should people, trust you believe what you're saying right now?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I don't think I'm changing my tone at all.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But why should people trust what you're saying right now?
RONNA McDANIEL:
One, I will say this: Kristen, voters right now in this country are going to be making a choice in November, and they don't care about 2020. Republicans and Democrats –
KRISTEN WELKER:
A lot of people do. A lot of people say it is fundamental to the country's democracy, Ronna.
RONNA McDANIEL:
I think they're thinking about inflation, the border, crime, their kid's schooling. And I think it's really important. I represent 50% of this country, whether you like it or not, to be able to have different viewpoints and say, "I disagree with that viewpoint, but it's important to hear it," is important to our country. I am not changing my tune. This is where I have been. And right now we're heading into a pivotal election.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Speak to the people who hold you responsible for enabling Donald Trump and his mistruths, his lies about the election. Why should they trust you, when they say they don't?
RONNA McDANIEL:
I think you should trust me. I mean, I can't speak to people who don't trust different voices. I think you should be able to hear from different voices. And I haven't been able to talk to you about the concerns I had going into that election, and I wish there was more of a dialogue from that. But let me be very clear. I love this country. I come from a state that's been overlooked. I don't see my state represented in a lot of news media. I don't go home as chairman Ronna McDaniel. I'm Mom Ronna McDaniel. I go to the grocery store. I do all these things. And I really feel like, if our country is going to survive, we need to be able to have difficult conversations like this in a respectful way. We need more of that in our country. But we also can't go into our echo chambers and say, "I'm only going to listen to what Democrats have to say," and, "I'm only going to listen to what Republicans have to say." Listen to it and make your own opinion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Ronna McDaniel, thank you very much for being here this morning.
RONNA McDANIEL:
Thank you for having me.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, Donald Trump's legal battles are testing the limits of his party and the courts. The panel joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. The panel is here. Chuck Todd, NBC News chief political analyst; Kimberly Atkins Stohr, senior opinion writer for The Boston Globe; and Stephen Hayes, CEO and editor of The Dispatch. Chuck, let's dive right in. What were your takeaways?
CHUCK TODD:
Look, let me deal with the elephant in the room. I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation because I don't know what to believe. She is now a paid contributor by NBC News. I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn't want to mess up her contract. She wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for it. So she has – she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who's paying her? Once at the RNC she did say that,"Hey, I'm speaking for the party." I get that. That's part of the job. So what about here? I will say this. I think your interview did a good job of exposing I think many of the contradictions. And, look, there's a reason why there's a lot of journalists at NBC News uncomfortable with this because many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the last six years have been met with gaslighting, have been met with character assassination. So it is – , you know, that's where you begin here. And so when NBC made the decision to give her NBC News' credibility you've got to ask yourself, "What does she bring NBC News?" And when we make deals like this, and I've been at this company a long time, you're doing it for access, access to audience. Sometimes it's access to an individual. And we can have a journalistic ethics debate about that. I – I – I’m willing to have that debate. And if you told me we were hiring her as a technical advisor to the Republican Convention I think that would be certainly defensible. If you told me, "We're – we’re talking to her, but let's see how she does in some interviews” and maybe vet her with actual journalists inside the network, see – see if it's a two-way, what she can bring the network. So I do think, unfortunately, this interview's always going to be looked through the prism of, "Who is she speaking for," right? I think you did everything you could do. You got put into an impossible situation, booking this interview, and then all of a sudden the rug's pulled out from under you. You find out she's being paid to show up. That’s – that’s unfortunate for this program, but I am glad you did the best that you could, and that's why the three of us are on here to try to bolster that editorial independence.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, I appreciate that. Go ahead –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
To your –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– Kimberly –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
– point about credibility, as a journalist and as a lawyer, I think about credibility all the time, credibility of sources, credibility of witnesses. And for the reasons that you laid out and also the timing, that she is only here after she got ousted from Trump's RNC, her credibility –
CHUCK TODD:
I feel like this shows –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
– is –
CHUCK TODD:
– there have been attempts to book her, as RNC chair, on this show for years.
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
So her credibility is completely shot. So I have to do what Maya Angelou said, I believe what they do and not anything that she said today. And in that I know that she habitually lied, she habitually joined Trump in attacking the press – members of the press, including this network, in a way that put journalists at risk, in danger. And we do know that she carried water for Donald Trump, and we knew that she did participate in efforts to keep votes in Detroit, from – my hometown, so I take this both journalistically serious and personal, to keep the votes from mostly Black voters in Detroit from being counted that night. We know –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Part of that –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
– that that's what –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– was that phone –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
– she did –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– call that we were –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
Correct –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– talking to her about –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
Part of that –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– that –
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
– pressure campaign that Donald Trump stands accused in the court of law of doing. So that's what I'm believing when it comes to Ronna McDaniel, not anything that she said today because of those credibility problems –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Stephen, where do you fall on this?
STEPHEN HAYES:
Yeah. I mean, look, on the other hand, if you've read some of the criticism of NBC that has come since the announcement it is very clear that some of the critics just don't want to be confronted with Republican voices or conservative arguments. So there is that. And that's bad. We should want to have a robust exchange between people who believe different things. But I agree with what's been said here. I mean, that's not what Ronna McDaniel is doing. That's not what she's been doing. And she has huge credibility problems, not because she's been a partisan spinner on behalf of the Republican Party, but because she not only presided but directed, drove, the QAnonization of the Republican Party during her tenure. And it is the case that when you look at what she did with the fake electors specifically, she wasn't on that phone call because she felt bad about somebody. Donald Trump was on the call. He was telling them – she was saying, "We'll get you lawyers," because the entire six-week period after the November 2020 election was about making the case that the election had been stolen. She did a tremendous disservice to the country by making the argument that led to the erosion of faith. Half of the Republicans right now believe the election wasn't fair. And even today, confronted with her past quotes, she couldn't give you a straight answer until your fourth or fifth time pressing her on it –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Chuck, final 10 seconds.
CHUCK TODD:
Look, it is important for this network and for always to have a wide aperture, okay, and covering voters that have disparate beliefs. Having ideological diversity on this panel is something I prided myself on. We take – you and I both took plenty of grief when you have ideological and political diversity. I think all of us in mainstream media do a terrible job sometimes of geographic diversity and all this stuff. But I sort of call into question and sometimes people think they understand the politics of this country when they're sort of in a very, very, very blue city. You know, this is a Washington operative who I don't think is going to bring the network what they think it wants to bring to the network. I understand the motivation, but this execution I think was poor.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Someone said to me last night, "We live in complicated times." Thank you guys for being here. I really appreciate it. When we come back, my conversation with retired Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, his thoughts on overturning Roe V. Wade, the state of politics in this country, and his decision to retire. That's next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back, he sat on the highest court in the country for almost 30 years. Justice Stephen Breyer, confirmed in 1994, helped shape the nation's laws through four presidential administrations and retired the same year of the Dobbs decision, which overturned the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade. I sat down with Justice Breyer at Harvard Law School last week, where we discussed the controversial Dobbs decision and his new book, "Reading the Constitution," in which he urges the justices to look beyond the words as originally written in the Constitution to the real world consequences their rulings may have.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You told The New York Times of the Court today, "Something important is going on." What did you mean by that?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Oh, I meant, really, what I've been writing here: That I don’t – I think the most important thing or characteristic to focus on is a change in the way that people are interpreting, in general, this document and the statutes towards – what did people originally, when this was written, what did they take these words to mean in general? It's very attractive. You say that – textualism – all you have to do is read this. Fabulous. You've got the answer. Yeah, just read it, and it's simple. And it'll stop the judges from doing what they – they'll be bound by the text. You say, "Sounds good." Sounds good, but it doesn't work very well, in my opinion. And that's why I've spent a year and a half trying to explain why.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about the immunity case if I could. In April, the court is going to hear arguments about Donald Trump's claim to be immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Why do you think the court took the case, and was it necessary for the court to take the case?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
No, that's another – If I'm sitting around the table, I've read the briefs-- and that isn't being coy. It's true. My goodness, you can make mistakes just by saying what your initial opinion is. And – and my goodness, how often it really occurs. I'm not just trying to get out of the question, because I can get out of the question by just saying I'm not going to answer the question. But – but the point is there are so many times when you think – look, this is how decision making – and I bet it's true for you, and I bet it's true for the people who work with you, and I bet it's true for business people and others. And that's why it's genuinely important to understand as best you can the details that are relevant to an important decision. And I think that's true of everyone who makes those decisions. But it's certainly true of a justice of the court.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me try it this way. Were you surprised that they took up the case, or were you expecting them to?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
I – I didn't even – if – I may have thought about that. But I’m – that's too close. Too close.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask it this way. You are a judge who knows what it is like to take up a critical case in the middle of a presidential election. Can you talk about –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
That was Bush v. Gore, you mean?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes, Bush v. Gore –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Yes. I do remember that –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you talk about –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
And in my opinion I wrote they shouldn't have taken it up. That's what I thought about Bush v. Gore. I said, "They shouldn't have taken up the opinion. And now, having taken it up, I think they should decide it the other way." That was my view, all right? But it was a view reached after a considerable amount of work.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I know that you're not going to weigh in on the current cases before the court, but big picture, Justice Breyer, do you think that the people of this country deserve to know a verdict in the election subversion case before November, as a legal matter?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
You're still going. And you have a lot of good questions, but they're all aiming at the same place.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Big picture.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Big picture –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
All right, big picture –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– do the people of this country deserve to know?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Big picture? The big picture is I'm not going near –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Before November?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
– a case that has to do with this election –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
That is an even bigger picture, and that is –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Then, let me just ask you this –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you tell me what you thought on January 6th as those events were unfolding?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
No, on January 6th? The biggest picture is, to me, that I tell myself, "Don't go near these issues." I was – I mean, there were many, many –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Was it a tough day for you?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
– many, many, many advantages and privileges when I think that I was a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. And there are a few disadvantages. And one of those disadvantages is, "Don't sound off on things that are relevant, might become cases, et cetera," particularly whether you're on the court or not. You were on the court.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let's talk about Dobbs. It will be two years since Dobbs, as you know, ended the constitutional right to get an abortion. You dissented. What do you think the impact of Dobbs has been?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
It has been – see, what I put in this book – and I want to stick to that, because Dobbs is a recent case. I said, "I haven't said anything in this book that I didn't write when I was on the court in a dissent."
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
And so, in that dissent the three of us wrote together, Sotomayor, Kagan, and myself, and one of the things we said is, "What we fear: They think this will be simpler, the majority, because it will leave it all up to the states. We don't think it will be simpler. We think that there will be a lot more cases coming up." I mean what's going to happen when a woman's life is at stake and she needs the abortion? Do you think if a state forbids that, that that won't come to the courts? I don't know. We thought it probably would. And we thought there would be a lot of issues coming to the courts coming out of – of the decision to overrule Roe v. Wade. That's what we said in the opinion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah and – and you also said, "The majority's refusal even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment of its decision." Those are very strong words.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
We strongly – we felt strongly on that case, yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and I guess the question is – is what you anticipated, has it come to pass –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
No, that's what I can't – I want to stay away from – It's not that I don't –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
– have answers for these things in my mind. But I want to stay away publicly from – I want to stick as closely, on a recent case, as possible to what I said in this book.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
And I – and I did my best to stick, as close as possible, to what is already public. In other words, we have totally opposite interests there, because my interest is not to make news.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well – I'm trying hard, Justice Breyer –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
I know. I know. I know. I know. I know.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you. In Texas, there were estimated to be more than 26,000 rape-related pregnancies in the first 16 months after the state's near-total abortion ban was in effect. And part of the dissent does talk about the concerns about a patchwork of laws. Is that part – was that part of your concern when you dissented to Roe being overturned?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
I – I – I thought Roe should not be overturned. I thought Casey should not be overturned.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you see a world, a possibility in which Dobbs is overturned one day, in another 50 years, say?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Don't know.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It's possible?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Oh, it's possible. But who knows?
KRISTEN WELKER:
How disruptive was the leak to the court and to the relationships that you describe?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
It was unfortunate.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Were you angry?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
You try to avoid getting angry. You try, in a job, you try to remain as calm, reasonable, and serious as possible. I think it was unfortunate, that leak.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How much discussion was there about a potential compromise around 15 weeks when –
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
You know as much about that as I do. You saw what –
KRISTEN WELKER:
You probably know more.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
– Chief Justice Roberts wrote. And when you see what is written, the normal situation is before something is written in the conference, people, in some form or other, will discuss what they're thinking of writing. Not always, and not identical. But there's usually some discussion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Did you think that a compromise was possible, before the leak, around 15 weeks?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
I usually hope for compromise.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So, you were hopeful there could be a compromise?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Oh, you want to put words in my mouth. I'm careful what I say on this because I say our interests are different.I don't want to make news. I've written what I thought. If you think there's news in here or in the dissent, go right ahead. But I don't want to say something in addition.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. Just to – just to be clear, though, did you think a compromise was possible?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
I always think it's possible. I always – I always think it's possible. Usually up until the last minute.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Were you surprised that the internal investigation didn't determine who was actually behind the leak?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
You better ask – If you want to ask that question for somebody who knows something about it, ask the people who do internal investigations like that –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
They're the people to ask. And they occur all over the government.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But did you feel betrayed by the leak?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
That's a stronger way of putting what you've already asked. I was disappointed. I was sorry about the leak.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And do you have a theory of the case? Do you think that the leaker was someone who wanted to sound the alarm about Roe being overturned or wanted the draft opinion to be locked in place? Do you have your own theory?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Do I have my theories about it? Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you're not going to share them with me.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Correct.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you talk about it in that broader context, though? Do you have a sense of what the motive of the leaker was?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
That's part of the theory.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And fair to say, the fact that you're disappointed, you were not behind this in any way?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
I'm not even going to say that. I'd be amazed if it was a judge.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
There. But I don't know. We never know.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Dobbs happened in part, obviously, because Amy Coney Barrett replaced the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court, who passed away while she was still on the bench. Do you think there should be age limits on the Supreme Court?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
I've said, and I think it's true, I don't think that's harmful. If you had long terms, for example, they'd have to be long. Why long? Because I don't think you want someone who's appointed to the Supreme Court to be thinking about his next job. And so, a 20-year term? I don't know, 18-long term? Fine. Fine. I don't think that would be harmful. I think it would have helped, in my case. It would have avoided, for me, going through difficult decisions when you retire – What's the right time? And so, that would be okay.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How difficult was it for you to decide to retire?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
It's difficult.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you miss being on the Supreme Court?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
Of course. Yes. But, you know, human life is tough. And, moreover, you get older. And 85, which I am now, 83 – you've been there for quite a while. And other people also should have a chance at these jobs. And, at some point, you're just not going to be able to do it. And I think I could do it, but nonetheless, there comes a time you have to figure out, "What's the right time?" There are lots of considerations.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Was the ideological balance on the court part of your consideration to retire when you did?
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER:
There are a lot of things therein, probably. Part.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. Trust in the Supreme Court is near an all-time low, yet another sign of our hyper partisan politics. The last four confirmations to the high court all mostly came down to party line votes. And of course, President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland was never even brought to the floor. But it wasn't always this way. Nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Justice Breyer was confirmed by an 87-9 margin. Here's how the Senate leaders at the time talked about his confirmation process.
[START TAPE]
TIM RUSSERT:
Let me ask you first about the Supreme Court, the nomination of Steven Breyer, Senator Dole, your reaction?
SENATOR DOLE:
Good choice. You know, not a conservative. But I think not as liberal as Blackmun, a man of great intellect. He's respected by Republicans, Democrats. Unless something unforeseen happens, it'll be an easy confirmation.
TIM RUSSERT:
Senator Mitchell.
SENATOR MITCHELL:
I think he will be confirmed easily. He's an outstanding choice, a solid record, a good jurist. I don't think these labels "conservative or liberal" mean very much when applied to judges, especially now judges who have a lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. I think history indicates that it's not particular predictable either as to the issues that will occur during his tenure, or what the reaction will be. I think he's a very good judge of sound legal mind, good training, well experienced. I think an excellent choice by the president.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
A very different time. More from the panel next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
The panel is back. Kimberly, I'm going to start with you as our lawyer at the table. What were your takeaways from Justice Breyer?
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR:
Well, first of all, it did not surprise me at all that he was not going to speak about anything before the court. That is a known tradition at the U.S. Supreme Court. But with respect to his book, which is about the reading of the Constitution, right, this idea from the conservatives that you look at the text and somehow magically it tells you all the answers about what the founders intended. The book is meant to lay that bare. And it's not just justices like Breyer who talk about how just – not just unwise that is, but just now nonsensical it is. You actually can't do it because there are conflicts within different rights in the Constitution. There are others,, you know, appointed by Republicans that have said the same thing, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter. I wish that they would speak too about the misguided way that the conservatives are reading the Constitution in the name of originalism.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And Stephen, Dobbs is at the center of the argument that he makes. He says there are real world consequences.
STEPHEN HAYES:
It is. Well, look, there's a long and proud history of textualism. And I think there's – there’s – there’s a good defense to be made for textualism. And if we had more time I would make it. But on Dobbs – on Dobbs, interesting to me that Justice Breyer spends a lot of time talking about the potential compromise on Dobbs. Isn't it better to just adjudicate rather than to seek course trading compromises?
CHUCK TODD:
Look, let's remember why do folks think the court's been politicized. Because the United States Senate politicized the court.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Right. Right.
CHUCK TODD:
The justices themselves have not wanted to do this. This has been brought upon our politics on that. What is broken is the confirmation process. Hopefully that perfect doesn't then destroy the judiciary. But it is on the U.S. Senate to fix this, not the court.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And he talks about his concerns about the loss of public trust. Thanks, you guys. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We will be back next week. Because if it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press.