Meet the Press – June 20, 2021


CHUCK TODD:

This Sunday: Back from Europe.

PRES. JOE BIDEN:

I did what I came to do.

CHUCK TODD:

President Biden faces challenges here at home. A new Democratic compromise on voting rights —

JAIME HARRISON:

I am heartened to see the discussion moving forward.

CHUCK TODD:

— gets a promised filibuster from Republicans.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL:

Equally unacceptable, totally inappropriate. All Republicans, I think, will oppose that.

CHUCK TODD:

A bipartisan framework on infrastructure —

SEN. JOHN CORNYN:

I think it’s encouraging that people are still talking.

CHUCK TODD:

— could lose support from progressive Democrats.

SEN. ED MARKEY:

This is as clear as day: No climate, no deal.

CHUCK TODD:

Can President Biden get his agenda through this closely divided Congress? My guests this morning: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. Plus, after the summit.

PRES. JOE BIDEN:

The tone of the entire meeting was good, positive.

CHUCK TODD:

President Biden and Vladimir Putin take the measure of each other.

PRES. JOE BIDEN:

This is not about trust. This is about self-interest and verification of self-interest.

CHUCK TODD:

Putin deflects evidence of Russian cyberhacking but both leaders say they hope for a better relationship. I’ll talk to a Trump and Obama Russia advisor, Fiona Hill, about how we’ll know whether the summit was a success. And for the third time Obamacare survives a Supreme Court challenge —

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:

The Supreme Court has just ruled. The ACA is here to stay.

CHUCK TODD:

— signaling the likely end of the Republicans’ decade-long efforts to kill it. Joining me for insight and analysis are: Washington Post White House bureau chief Ashley Parker, Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, PBS NewsHour chief correspondent, Amna Nawaz and Republican strategist Brad Todd. 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 Chuck Todd.

CHUCK TODD:

Good Sunday morning, and a Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there. After a largely successful week of meetings with foreign leaders in England, Belgium and Switzerland, including that much-anticipated summit with Vladimir Putin, President Biden came home to find his domestic challenges waiting for him. And for every sign of hope for some progress, there is a flashing yellow light warning of disappointment. Yes, Joe Manchin released his counteroffer to protect voting access. But no, Republicans are certain to filibuster that. Yes, 21 senators, including 11 Republicans have agreed on a bipartisan framework on infrastructure. But no, progressive Democrats take a dim view of the deal for now. Yes, Republican Senator Tim Scott says he’s cautiously optimistic about passing a bipartisan police reform bill. But no, there is not a guarantee that this, like previous good-news signs on police reform, will hold up. President Biden has been remarkably silent on these issues but soon enough he’s going to have to decide how to move forward and where to exert presidential pressure, on progressives, on the centrist Democrats or on both. Because now that the overseas trip is in the rearview mirror, the road ahead is much more politics than it is Putin.

REPORTER:

The bipartisan plan? Do you have any reaction to that?

PRES. JOE BIDEN:

I’ll tell you Monday when I get a copy of it.

CHUCK TODD:

After a whirlwind trip abroad, President Biden returns to high-stakes political diplomacy at home, a test of how aggressively he will press members of his own party to spend their political capital to push his agenda through Congress. A bipartisan framework on infrastructure is gaining traction on Capitol Hill. Eleven Republicans now support it in the Senate, enough to clear the 60-vote hurdle if it doesn’t lose Democratic votes.

PRES. JOE BIDEN:

I know that my chief of staff thinks there is some room, that there may be a means by which to get this done.

CHUCK TODD:

But the deal is already being panned by progressives.

SEN. ED MARKEY:

This is as clear as day. No climate, no deal.

SEN. RON WYDEN:

I continue to believe that most of what is being discussed in this effort would heap new taxes on working people.

REP. OCASIO-CORTEZ:

If a bipartisan deal sucks up trillions of dollars in bridges to nowhere because it makes people feel good, then that’s going to be a huge concern.

CHUCK TODD:

Then there’s the problem of paying for it. Pay-fors in an early draft included raising the gas tax, something the White House has ruled out.

SEN. BILL CASSIDY:

Shall we say there are still issues.

CHUCK TODD:

Democrats are crafting their own ambitious package, which they said this week could cost up to $6 trillion dollars, and include top progressive priorities: climate change provisions, money for eldercare and paid family leave, a Medicare expansion, and legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants.

SEN. JON TESTER:

There’s plenty of reasons to do another package. But I think the key is, how are we going to pay for it? And are we going to be able to get enough votes to do it?

CHUCK TODD:

On voting rights, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who had been a holdout on new legislation, extended an olive branch to progressives, backing a narrower alternative: making Election Day a holiday, requiring 15 days of early voting and banning partisan gerrymandering, among other steps.

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

I’ve been working across the aisle with all the Republicans trying to get people to understand that that’s the bedrock of our democracy, an accessible, fair and basically secure voting.

CHUCK TODD:

Key progressives endorsed Manchin’s plan, surprising Republicans, who hoped to drive a wedge between Democrats on the issue.

REPORTER:

Is that a compromise you could support?

STACEY ABRAMS:

Absolutely. What Senator Manchin is putting forward are some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography.

CHUCK TODD:

Republican leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block the compromise offer.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL:

Equally unacceptable, totally inappropriate, all Republicans, I think, will oppose that.

CHUCK TODD:

And joining me now is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He is, of course, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Sanders, welcome back to Meet the Press and a happy Father’s Day.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

Thank you very much. Happy Father’s Day to you.

CHUCK TODD:

Appreciate that. Look, you said on Monday that you weren’t going to support this bipartisan infrastructure deal as it stands right now. What would it take for you to support this deal, particularly if President Biden starts to sign off on it? What would it take even if you don’t love it?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

Well, Chuck, look, what we have got to do in these budgets is address the crises facing the American people. It is true that our roads and our bridges and our water systems and our wastewater plants are crumbling, and we need to invest in them. As I understand it, the so-called bipartisan plan really only provides about 25% of the money that the president asked for, about $580 billion. But the point goes beyond that, the working people of this country understand, Chuck, that for decades we have ignored their needs while the very richest people in this country have become richer. So we have a situation right now where people throughout this country cannot afford childcare. People cannot afford — elderly people cannot afford hearing aids or dental care. We have a disaster in terms of climate impacting this country right now. How do you go forward right now in this moment in history and not address the terrible climate crisis that we face and transform our energy system? How do you not deal with housing when 18 million families are spending 50% or more of their limited incomes on housing? And the list goes on and on. Rich get richer, working people are struggling. It is time we paid attention to the needs of working people. And when we do that, when we deal with climate, when we deal with infrastructure, when we deal with home health care, when we deal with childcare, we can create millions of good paying jobs. That is what the American people want. That’s what we’ve got to do.

CHUCK TODD:

Are you comfortable with a two-step process, where you do — you noted, this is 25% about of what, of what President Biden asked for. Is it worth it, in your mind to take what you can get in a bipartisan way, especially if that’s the way you can get Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to get on board a Democrats-only bill that may tackle the care economy as you just outlined?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

Well, look, as I said, what is in the bipartisan bill in terms of spending is, from what I can see, mostly good. It is roads and bridges and we need to do that. That is what we are proposing in our legislation but in much greater numbers. One of the concerns that I do have about the bipartisan bill is how they are going to pay for their proposals. And they’re not clear yet. I don’t know that they even know yet. But some of the speculation is raising a gas tax, which I don’t support, a fee on electric vehicles, privatization of infrastructure. Those are proposals that I would not support.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you get that — at the end of the day, do you think this ends up passing as a — by raising the deficit? Is that something you’re comfortable with? And then Democrats have to go it alone and possibly raise taxes on their own? Is that where this is headed?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

Well, when you talk about taxes, let us also be clear, and I think the average American, whether you’re Democrat, Republican or independent understands there’s something absurd, that a time of massive income wealth and wealth inequality, when the very rich are becoming much richer, when two people own more wealth than the bottom 40% of America, that you have billionaires out there who pay zero, not a penny, in federal income tax. Large profitable corporations pay nothing in federal income tax. So what the president has said, he doesn’t want to raise taxes on people making $400,000 or less, I agree with that. But you know what? In order to lower the cost of prescription drugs, in order to deal with paid family and medical leave because we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t provide that, yes, we are going to have to ask the wealthy and the powerful to start paying their fair share of taxes.

CHUCK TODD:

I want to go back, because you kind of ducked the question the first time, would you support or at least vow not to kill the bipartisan deal if you got a commitment from the president and some of those centrist senators to support a larger attempt, a sort of a part-two Democrats-only reconciliation bill?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

Well, Chuck, I don’t know that anybody could give you an honest answer to that because nobody really knows what is going to be in this bipartisan agreement and how it is going to be paid for. So if it is roads and bridges, yeah, of course we need to do that, and I support that. If it is regressive taxation, you know, raising the gas tax or a fee on electric vehicles, or the privatization of infrastructure, no I wouldn’t support it. But we don’t have the details right now.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you about Obamacare, the Supreme Court ruling this week. This is the, the third one. And I even heard Republican senators say, « Okay, no more. No mas. » They’re not going to try to kill Obamacare anymore. You were a reluctant supporter of it. You wanted, you preferred something bigger, Medicare for All. Where is your priority now? Making Obamacare closer to your vision on Medicare for All, lowering, you know, doing things like that? Or do you still think in the future Obamacare should be scrapped and replaced?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

Well, it’s not — Obamacare has done a lot of good for a lot of people. That’s, that’s clearly the fact, and I support that. But at the end of the day, Chuck, we are the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people as a right. We are spending roughly twice as much per capita on health care as the people of any other country, and 90 million of us are uninsured or underinsured. We pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We don’t have enough doctors and nurses and dentists, especially in underserved rural areas. This is not a system that is working. We pay a fortune, we don’t get good value. My own view is that we must move to a Medicare for All, single-payer program. And by the way, there is growing support to at least, right now, expand Medicare to cover dental, to cover hearing, to cover eyeglasses. It is outrageous that millions of seniors have trouble eating because they can’t afford dentures.

CHUCK TODD:

And very quickly, there’s a campaign by some groups, actually, that are very supportive of you throughout the years, that are calling on Justice Stephen Breyer to retire. Among one campaign ad, “It is time for Justice Stephen Breyer to announce his intent to retire from the Supreme Court.” Do you think this pressure campaign is appropriate and would you like to see him retire now?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

No, I will let the judge make his own decision. I’m not going to tell him what to do.

CHUCK TODD:

Senator Bernie Sanders, the independent progressive from Vermont. I appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us, thank you.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

Thank you very much.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, let’s dive deeper into this bipartisan, potential bipartisan agreement. Joining me now is Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. He’s been a lead negotiator in these bipartisan infrastructure talks. Senator Portman, welcome back to Meet the Press. So, I’ve got to ask first this before I get you to respond to Senator Sanders. Given what we heard from Senator Tester on Friday about the gas tax, I’ve got to ask you: are all 21 of you still on board this deal if you haven’t agreed to how you are going to pay for it?

SEN. ROB PORTMAN:

Yes, and in fact we do have pay-fors. I was interested in hearing from my colleague Senator Sanders. He said at one point, with regard to the $6 trillion package, the list goes on and on. And that’s the problem, I mean, it’s not about infrastructure. It’s kind of a $6 trillion grab bag of progressive priorities. Ours is about core infrastructure, and it is paid for. And so, it is paid for without raising taxes, which is key. And I do think we have agreement on that, and I do think there’s some very creative ways to pay for infrastructure that wouldn’t be available for other expenses. As an example, the infrastructure bank, which is a bipartisan proposal that says, “Let’s use the power of the federal government to borrow at lower rates to be able to leverage private sector funding as well as state and local funding.” But also we’re repurposing Covid funding, Chuck, and over $100 billion in the proposal is repurposing in three ways funding that has not yet been spent with regard to the Covid-19 packages that have gone out, including the latest $350 billion package to state and local government. They would like to spend some of that on infrastructure. My state of Ohio certainly would, and we would permit them to do that and that helps pay for the package. So, there’s some creative ways to pay for infrastructure.

CHUCK TODD:

So the gas tax is out?

SEN. ROB PORTMAN:

Well, the administration has said that is out for them. We don’t have a gas tax per se. It is going forward, indexing the gas tax to inflation. It’s been the same since 1993. So the group does support that, but we understand that the administration has very strong views on that, so it’s a — it’s a user fee. We also think that the user fee on electric vehicles is appropriate. Shouldn’t electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles pay their fair share in terms of our infrastructure needs, roads and bridges? So, I think there’s some discussion left on those topics.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, is that code for it may end up not being in the final package?

SEN. ROB PORTMAN:

Well, it may not, but the administration, therefore, will need to come forward with some other ideas without raising taxes. What we don’t want to do is hurt the economy right now as we’re coming out of this pandemic by raising taxes on working families. And that’s frankly what’s done in the, in the $6 trillion package. It’s the largest tax increase in American history, in addition to this huge spendings. So it’s, you know, it’s important that we have pay-fors, but we don’t want to raise taxes.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, let me ask you this, and this is, you know, why shouldn’t either Jeff Bezos, the individual, or Amazon, the corporation, be contributing more to our infrastructure?

SEN. ROB PORTMAN:

Well, they should be paying taxes. And that’s actually part of our proposal too. We have about a $63 billion pay-for that is hoping to close the tax gap that assumes about a $40 billion investment in the IRS, including, by the way, in better taxpayer service which is really important right now. But also enforcement and let’s be sure that we’re closing that tax gap. We don’t want to do it in a way that’s too intrusive in the lives of Americans who run small businesses. But I think that’s a good sweet spot, kind of a compromise. The administration talked about a $700 billion fund there. That really is not appropriate, in our view. But there’s a bipartisan agreement on helping to close that tax gap.

CHUCK TODD:

I am curious though, it does seem as if all the pay-fors, you know, there’s this big list. And yes, you called it creative ways. You know, the average person looks at it and says, “Eh, this is accounting maneuvers. This is only going to increase the deficit,” and it seems like, there seems to be comfort, that okay, let the deficit go up, if it’s for infrastructure. Is that where your head is — is that where this is going to end up being?

SEN. ROB PORTMAN:

No, no, absolutely not. I, I, I would disagree there Chuck, I,I think when you look at infrastructure you have to think about what it is — it’s long-term investments. As an example, we’ve got a bridge over the Ohio river in downtown Cincinnati, where I am, that has been in need of repair for a couple decades now. It’s about a $3 billion project. It’s going to take a long time to do it, probably five to 10 years, and it’s about a 50 year project, we hope. In other words, these hard, hard assets will last for, for many many years, so you finance that differently, just as you would in your business or your family. So, this is supporting long-term investments, to increase our productivity as a country, to increase our competitiveness. All the economics of this work well for our long-term economic growth and that’s what this is about. So it’s, it’s something that can be paid for differently. It has been traditionally. Traditionally, we have allowed the federal government to provide relatively low interest loans that get paid back, and that’s what we have in the proposal the so-called infrastructure bank, which is a revolving loan program. Much is being done right now, with regard to things like water infrastructure or the grid, of course, the ratepayers themselves, we’ll pay that back. So it is, it is a way to pay for it, not going further to deficit, but understanding that these are long term capital assets that we need to do to. By the way, we don’t get good marks on our infrastructure in this country and we’re losing to other countries in terms of our competitiveness, so it’s important to do it.

CHUCK TODD:

There are many Democratic activists whispering in the White House’s ear going, “Don’t trust the Republicans. Mitch McConnell is going to pull out the rug from under them, and suddenly you think you have 11 Republicans and then the deal dies or this is being dragged out.” How committed is this group of 11 Republicans to sticking by this deal, even if Mitch McConnell says he can’t vote for it?

SEN. ROB PORTMAN

I think we’re absolutely committed to it, and I think there’s a number of others as well on both sides of the aisle. Last week, I heard from a lot of my colleagues saying, I just need to look at one other issue, you know, can you do this, can you do that but there’s, there’s a lot of interest in having a bipartisan proposal. And Chuck, this is growing the vote from the middle out. So, I think, unfortunately, that’s where we are right now in Congress is it’s, it’s, it’s more likely we’ll have success in doing that. You recall that at the end of last year we did the same thing with regard to a Covid-19 package, which helped to get that final package done at the end of the year after, really, almost a year of no activity on something that was really necessary. This is the same thing. Everybody wants to do infrastructure. President Trump had a $2 trillion package that he was proposing. President Biden proposed one in his campaign and, by the way, this helps President Biden keep that pledge of having an infrastructure package but also to keep his pledge of doing things across the aisle and getting something done.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, speaking of building something from the middle, I want to ask you about Joe Manchin’s idea on voting reform. He put out a blueprint in a memo, five bullet points, they look fairly reasonable, I’m curious what you think. Make Election Day a public holiday, mandate at least 15 days of early voting, ban partisan gerrymandering, require states send absentee ballots to eligible voters and require voter ID, including things like utility bills. Is that a basis to start a conversation in your view?

SEN. ROB PORTMAN:

Well first of all, I appreciate what Joe Manchin is doing here. He’s trying to find some middle ground. Unfortunately, what he does is, what the larger bill S1 does, which is it takes the election system in this country and federalizes it, so it’s a federal takeover of our election system, and as you know under the Constitution, the states are given that power and —

CHUCK TODD

Is that a takeover? You know, I mean —

SEN. ROB PORTMAN

— only in extraordinary circumstances — well yeah because —

CHUCK TODD

Wait — only because there’s usually a baseline —

SEN. ROB PORTMAN

It would be telling my state of Ohio that —

CHUCK TODD

The Federal government tells the state —

SEN. ROB PORTMAN

No, he’s saying to our states —

CHUCK TODD

— how to spend transportation money, sometimes.

SEN. ROB PORTMAN

Well, that’s true, there’s, and there’s federal money provided for that. In this case, what he’s saying to the state of Ohio, or your state of Florida, we’re going decide how redistricting is done. We’re going take it away from the democracy in effect which is right now in Ohio, you know, our state legislature makes that decision, and these are elected representatives, and he wants to take it away and make it a federal responsibility through some kind of a commission. But even provisional voting, I mean he says that if you get a provisional vote outside of the precinct, you know, you have to, you have to include it, well that’s a state rule, you know, that some states allow and some don’t. So the bottom line is: we should make it easy to vote in this country, we should also make it hard to cheat. I’m proud of our Ohio election system and I think they do a very good job, and it’s based on a you know a bipartisan approach because we have Democrats and Republicans at every election and an election board in every county, and why take that away from the state of Ohio. So that’s a concern about what Joe is trying doing, although, again, I appreciate you trying to find that middle ground, and who knows, maybe something can be done.

CHUCK TODD:

Senator Portman, happy Father’s Day, sir. Appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective.

SEN. ROB PORTMAN:

Happy Father’s Day to you, Chuck. Thanks for having me on again, take care.

CHUCK TODD:

You got it. Coming up, the Biden/Putin summit. Was it a success or was it a mistake? I’ll talk to Fiona Hill, a Russia expert and a former national security official under the Trump administration when we come back.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. To borrow a line from The Godfather, last week’s Biden/Putin summit wasn’t personal. It was strictly business. It was less Joe and Vladimir than it was president to president, a brief, no-frills meeting between two men who can neither trust nor verify, especially when it comes to Russia-based cyber-attacks. So was it a success? Or was it a mistake? Joining me now is Fiona Hill who was a top advisor to President Trump on Russia. And who was so alarmed by his behavior at that infamous Helsinki summit that she says she considered faking a medical emergency. And you may also remember Hill testifying during Mr. Trump’s first impeachment. And she also briefed — helped brief President Biden before this trip. Dr. Hill, welcome to Meet the Press.

FIONA HILL:

Thanks so much, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:

So let me start with this. Instead of trying to ask you to gauge was it worth it, when will you decide whether this Geneva summit was worth it? What’s the — what should we watch for to find out whether this summit was a good idea or not?

FIONA HILL:

Look, I think that’s truly the right approach, Chuck, looking forward. I think what we’ll have to see is whether there are additional meetings at high level. You know, we’ve heard as we’ve come out of the summit that there have been some plans for having strategic stability talks. Those are the talks about how are we going to manage our respective nuclear arsenals. The Russians have got a lot of new, novel weapons that can sort of hit us in all kinds of unfortunate ways. The Russians themselves are extraordinarily concerned about some of our long-range provision strike conventional weapons. And we have to find a way of talking about them. The old treaties that we’ve had in the past, the INF Treaty, we’ve pulled out of. The New START Treaty, we’ve extended it for a short-term period, but that has to be basically renegotiated. And the whole nuclear world is much more complex than it was before because we’ve got China as an increasingly worrying nuclear power on the strategic side. But the main problem is really in cyber, which I think you were alluding to in the run-up to this discussion. And that’s where we’re going have to see whether we’re able to actually sit down and have some serious cyber-talks. Not just at the working level, but something that takes it up to try to reach some kind of agreement.

CHUCK TODD:

So did we — there’s some concern that we may have given Putin a new status quo because he amassed troops to the border of Ukraine and he got this summit. So then he pulls them back. But he’s still got Crimea. We got him to agree, apparently, not to kill Navalny. But Navalny’s still in prison. You know, did — did Putin get more out of this than we realized?

FIONA HILL:

Well, in terms of the symbolism of having a sit-down with the American president, absolutely that is a very important win for Putin. But it’s not a win if nothing happens after this. That is just an episodic event. And, you know, he can’t take that to the bank for a long time and cash it in. He’s got to basically present himself at home as the great statesman because he, himself, has to subject his presidency to a reelection. I mean, we keep hearing he’s going to stay out until 2036. But in 2024, he’s got to have elections as well. He’s got to show he’s still popular. And in the meantime, coming up, there are parliamentary elections for the Russian Duma. You know, so basically the ruling party, United Russia, also has to subject itself for reelection. And they’re not looking very popular. And on the back of that, Putin actually has a big problem right now with Covid and the pandemic. So he’s got a lot of problems on the domestic front. He’s only got about 10 percent of the population vaccinated. He spent all of this time being an anti-vaxxer, talking down on the vaccines, including AstraZeneca and Pfizer and Moderna. And now Russians don’t want to have shots in their arms either. So Putin’s got to figure out how to navigate things. And he can’t just basically live off an episodic meeting with the United States president in Geneva for months to come. So he’s got to show something out of it. And the problem with the previous administration, with President Trump, for Vladimir Putin is fantastic meetings from his perspective. He was able to push all of our political buttons, make fun of us, humiliate us, alway have sit-downs that he wanted to, or telephone calls. But he never got any kinds of agreements. And so that really, you know, wasn’t all that worthwhile. So he has to get something out of this as well, something more than just the meeting in Geneva.

CHUCK TODD:

What are we miscalculating on our ability to just sort of punish Putin or change his behavior? Because if I look back on the last decade, there has actually been quite a bit, an array of attempts. Whether it’s embarrassing him in front of the International Olympic Committee, the Panama Papers, the various sanctions. It isn’t as if we haven’t tried new things. And haven’t tried to do this. And none of it seems to work. Why?

FIONA HILL:

Well, look, you have to have a very clear red line and a very clear unified response. Some of our problem is our own inability to have collective action. And the previous segments this morning, you know, showed part of that problem. We’ve got so much partisan in-fighting that we can’t even agree on what should seem to be some simple things like an infrastructure bill. For anybody who’s riding around, you know, in their car, anywhere in the United States, filling potholes should be, you know, a fairly simple thing to do. So it’s the collective action. It’s the fact that we can’t get Congress to work together on foreign affairs or national security as well as on domestic fronts. It’s our inability, sometimes, to work with our allies because often we’ve been at odds with them. But the thing is, it does actually work. I’ll give you one episode that did work with Russia. And it’s not a very pleasant one. But everyone will recall in 2018, there was an incident in Syria. Our military was very clear to the Russian military, « You fire on our guys, we’ll fire back. » So the Russians tried covert subversive action by putting in some paramilitary forces and militia the Wagner Group. They shot at our guys pretending to be rebels. They got shot back at. And the Russians accepted that they’d overstretched the mark. That they’d gone over the red line. And this was a massive mistake.That’s the kind of action and response that we need to be able to set up. So we have to try to find that in cyber as well. It’s no good telling the Russians what we’re going to do and reporting on it all the time. But what we have to do is make a clear red line and then have a response that they know why that response happened. And that then they have to recalculate.

CHUCK TODD:

You brought up the 2024 elections that Putin’s got happening. And I guess the question is what comes after Putin? And how soon do you think that post-Putin world begins?

FIONA HILL:

Well, that’s a really good question, isn’t it? When he said that he’s going to stay until 2036 which will make him 84 years old and he’ll have been in power then for 36 years, having come in in January of 2020. So in some respects, there seems to be never anything out of — beyond Putin in our lifetimes. What he’s signaling, however, is that he wants to make the decision about who is the next president. Just as he did when he stepped down for a brief period and put Dmitry Medvedev in place as president for a four-year period. He certainly doesn’t want Alexei Navalny to become president, although Navalny’s made it clear he wants to be and has been incredibly brave in returning to Russia, only, of course, to be put into jail. What Putin wants to do is choose someone, probably one of his proteges, a younger version of himself, perhaps, from the security forces or somebody else that he’s installed in one of the regional governor’s, for example, or somebody else from the inner circle. So he has to show that he is in complete control to make that happen. What he’s trying to do, of course, is to stifle the choice, the democratic choice of the Russian people to decide for themselves. So what comes after him could very well be another Putin, in some respects. But perhaps, somebody from a different background. Not somebody from the old KGB, the FSB. So we might, you know, see something a little different. But he’s trying to just say it’s more of the same of him to protect himself and all of those around him.

CHUCK TODD:

Wow, you sound like you’ve described a little bit of what we just saw in Iran where essentially the leaders are picking who gets to be on the ballot to be the leader. Anyway, Fiona Hill, it’s —

FIONA HILL:

Exactly.

CHUCK TODD:

— great to have your perspective on here. Thank you.

FIONA HILL:

Thanks, Chuck. Happy Father’s Day.

CHUCK TODD:

Thank you very much. And when we come back, do Republicans want to make deals with Democrats? Or do they want to deny President Biden any victories? Panel is next.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. The panel is here. And when I say here, I mean here. Look. Studio, with us, first time in more than a year. And better yet, this is our new studio. It’s the first time we’ve had anybody in this new studio. Washington Post White House bureau chief, Ashley Parker, Democratic pollster, Cornell Belcher, Republican strategist Brad Todd, and PBS NewsHour chief correspondent, Amna Nawaz. By the way, both Brad and I’s middle name is “No Relation” on that front. Ashley, when you read the tea leaves of Sanders and Portman, right, it looks close. This seems close. You’re the White House bureau chief, okay. It’s all about President Biden at this point. I think he wants this deal. Is he going to get it?

ASHLEY PARKER:

He does want this deal. And especially when you talk to Republicans on the Hill, they think that he wants this deal even more than some of his staff. That’s why in these moments where it starts to fall apart you see these Republican senators, much to the chagrin of their staffs, unable to blame President Biden. Right? They think he wants to get to yes, his staff is pulling him back. I think we’ll see, this is a different animal than the Covid rescue plan which he just felt tremendous urgency to do. First, we should say, he does define that as bipartisan even though it got no Republican votes. But he was just going to push it through. And when you talk to his team, this is something where they are proceeded to go it alone, but they do really want that bipartisan buy-in.

CHUCK TODD:

And, Amna, I think what we’re all trying to figure out on the progressive side of things is how much patience do they have? Would they really kill a deal that President Biden endorsed?

AMNA NAWAZ:

Yeah, and what you’ve seen progressives early, I mean, to Ashley’s point, I think this next bill is so different from previous ones. Coming back from that foreign trip, this is the real test now. How can President Biden move forward with that promise of bipartisanship which he campaigned on? Right? He said, « I can do this. I have the relationships from my time in the Senate to pull this off. » You saw progressives say, you know, those first 100 days actually exceeded expectations with what we expected from this Biden administration. Now there’s starting to be some fraying around the edges there. And you’re seeing much more of that consternation and frustration growing. This is kind of an issue of just competing ambitions for Biden though, right, because he wants to be this president who comes out with a big, bold plan to move America through this time of great turmoil and uncertainty, and coming off a global pandemic. At the same, he has to get things done. So he, at some point, is going to have to make a choice.

CHUCK TODD:

Cornell and Brad, let’s do this, sort of the political calculations. Cornell, first to you, do Democrats need to — does Biden need to have a small bipartisan deal to succeed or does he need something big with Democrats but risk it maybe not happening for an entire calendar year?

CORNELL BELCHER:

The answer is either. Right? I think you take either and then you sell it. Look, the Americans are always talking about how they want bipartisanship. They want bipartisanship, bipartisanship. You hear it all the time. We also know there’s a legislative grim reaper by the name of Mitch McConnell who’s 100% against the Biden agenda. So any ideal that, look, as Mitt Romney says, like, « Let’s be open to the conversation. » Manchin is saying, you know, praising the Senate leader for giving bipartisanship a chance. I think the optics of it, look, sausage making is ugly. But the optics of it, right, they’re giving bipartisanship a chance. They’re trying. And in the end, if they do get a bipartisan bill, I think it’d be, quite frankly, politically good for both sides because infrastructure is something that Republicans and Democrats and independents all want.

CHUCK TODD:

You know, Brad, I had a Republican staffer admit that the fact that the Republican base is more worried about critical race theory gives them room to do this deal. That there isn’t — if you think about what happened during Obamacare, the whole world —

BRAD TODD:

Republicans can support an infrastructure deal if it’s concrete, water, and fiber, broadband, roads. But it can’t be a Trojan horse for Bernie Sanders’ wildest fantasies. And so you have to have a deal that Bernie Sanders will vote against to get a significant number of Republicans. And I think that’s what the White House has to decide. Is it willing to lose 15 Democrats in order to get a deal that includes 20 Republicans?

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you this — I had somebody say if you don’t like the $6 trillion deal, is it better to pass something or let the Democrats go it alone?

BRAD TODD:

I think it’s incredibly risky for Democrats to run everything for two years on party-line votes. That’s a recipe for Republicans to take both chambers of Congress. And I think the fact that you hear so many progressives act as if Democrats have 70 senators and not 50 tells you exactly the tug that this White House is now feeling.

CORNELL BELCHER:

I don’t think that if there’s a bipartisanship bill, the progressives are going to kill it. Progressives are not going to let it die —

CHUCK TODD:

Sanders didn’t sound like he was going to kill it. He —

CORNELL BELCHER:

— no, he’s not going to kill it.

CHUCK TODD:

He talked about what he liked.

CORNELL BELCHER:

Right. And that’s politics. You’re supposed to say, you know, « I want this, I want this, » and you hold out until, and try to get it. So I don’t think that progressives are going to kill this bill. But I also think, at the same time, it’s going to be hard for Republicans to run the next fall midterm election with the idea that we tried to block everything that Biden tried to do.

ASHLEY PARKER:

And I would also add I think bipartisanship is incredibly important. As you said, Democrats don’t want to do everything, go it alone. But if you talk to some of the Biden people, results are equally as important. And you hear them often say they learned the lessons of the Obama years. And they point to the 2009 bailout package and say, « Who remembers the three Republicans who voted for it? » You maybe remember, Chuck. But nobody else does. And they look at the COVID relief bill and they say, « There were no Republican votes. But it was checks in pocket, shots in arms and that’s what matters. » So that is always in the back of their minds when they’re deciding what to do.

AMNA NAWAZ:

Can we also say that we saw some movement on Mitch McConnell, I’m not sure this counts or not. But to say bipartisanship is dead after the talks between Shelley Moore Capito and President Biden broke down, and then to come back a few days later and say 50/50 chance, like, maybe that’s progress.

CHUCK TODD:

Hey, let me ask a real cynical question for both Cornell and Brad. Had Stacey Abrams attacked Manchin’s compromise, is Mitch McConnell more open to it? Cornell, Brad —

CORNELL BELCHER:

You should have went to Brad first.

CHUCK TODD:

I thought it was fascinating that because Stacey Abrams endorsed it, it was like, « Well, we can’t touch it now. »

BRAD TODD:

I think that’s the wrong question. I think Stacey Abrams endorsed it with the intent to kill it. She knows that it has to die in order for her to get what she wants with S1 which is the Democrats —

CORNELL BELCHER:

You know, I’m cynical. I’m not that cynical. I think it was a good faith. Because quite frankly, most of the things in that bill are common sense. And you talked about it sort of. These are hard things for Republicans to reject like redistricting. And the senator went on and talked, you know, this takes away the rights of Ohioans. No, even 57% of Republicans want, sort of, redistricting to be taken away from this partisan games that we play. And look, you and I make our livings from this, the gerrymandering has to stop. We’re not even having fair federal elections anymore because incumbents keep winning because we keep gerrymandering their district.

CHUCK TODD:

Hey, Amna, do want to circle the Bernie Sanders non-answer on Stephen Breyer. He wanted no part of that.

AMNA NAWAZ:

That was a short and direct —

CHUCK TODD:

Said a lot.

AMNA NAWAZ:

— succinct answer. Yeah.

CHUCK TODD:

Yeah, it did.

AMNA NAWAZ:

It said a lot without saying a lot.

CHUCK TODD:

That– that– that’s what I thought too. All right. God, it was a weird conversation. Exchanges. I don’t know what to do. Anyway, as we go to break, I want to remind you all, by the way, that this season’s episodes of Meet the Press Reports are available anytime on Peacock. Binge away. Check out our recent shows on extremism, athlete activism, Millennial politics, much more. And our final episode is a really good one. It looks at whether the U.S. military is ready for the next war which could start either in space or cyber. Up next, there were celebrations across the country yesterday marking Juneteenth which is now a federal holiday. When we come back, how the belated recognition of Juneteenth may tell as much about our future as our past.

CHUCK TODD:

We are back. It’s Data Download time. And this time, we are marking a new federal holiday, it’s the first time a federal holiday has been added to the calendar in over 35 years. But before Juneteenth was a federal holiday, it was a state holiday almost everywhere. But that didn’t happen overnight. Let me show you the journey of Juneteenth in the states. It began, of course, in Texas in 1980. Of course, Texas was the first state to acknowledge Juneteenth, which of course is their acknowledgment that they were the last state essentially to acknowledge emancipation. And then by 1999, three other states were added: Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Florida. It was really in the first decade of this century that momentum for Juneteenth really took off. Thirty-plus states added it from 2000 to 2009. And in fact by the time Congress voted on it, every state but two had Juneteenth as a state holiday. Just South Dakota and Hawaii didn’t have it as a state holiday. North Dakota was the most recent state to add it in April. What’s interesting here is just sort of where public opinion has been on this. Overall, just 35% of adults say that Juneteenth should be a federal holiday. But don’t mistake that for a lack of support. It’s more of a lack of knowledge about it because 40% said they didn’t know. In public opinion, that tells you there is a bit of a knowledge gap on the issue overall. What’s interesting on this knowledge gap is how much it is by age. A real generational divide. As you can see here, among younger folks a majority believe Juneteenth should have been a federal holiday. Older folks got, the less they thought Juneteenth should do that. And this plays out in other issues involving racial justice, for instance reparations, the idea that descendants of slaves should be compensated. Well, support for it, there’s still a majority that do not support reparations. But check out this generational divide. 42% among 18-34 believe that, yes, there should be some reparations. And as you will see, the older the respondent gets, the less support there is for it. But what does this tell you? Juneteenth is not the end of something when it comes to marking racial inequality in this country. It may be the beginning of a new conversation. Because as this younger generation gets older, the discussion of racial justice and equality is only going to become more central. So keep an eye on that. When we come back, Mike Pence gets heckled at a Christian conservative conference.

[BEGIN TAPE]

MIKE PENCE:

I’m deeply humbled by —

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

Just another sign that on the right these days, if you’re not 100% with Donald Trump, you’re considered 100% his enemy. Stick with us.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. Well, we saw what happened to Mike Pence, and this whole idea — how do you cater to the Trump base. Well, let me show you some examples of some potential once and future presidential candidates, or Senate candidates, or gubernatorial candidates and what they’re doing to cater to the Trump base. Take a look.

[BEGIN TAPE]

GOV. RON DeSANTIS:

We felt very strongly that our tax dollars should not be going to teaching these theories that are not based in fact and that really divide people, and it’s effectively a form of state-sanctioned racism.

FMR. GOV. ERIC GREITENS:

I am right here on the ground in Arizona, Maricopa County, at the election audit.

GOV. GREG ABBOTT:

The federal government has a legal responsibility under the federal immigration laws to do it. But because they are not doing it, Texas taxpayers are having to step up.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

And I, let me include Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel. There are no words to this one. I think the image speaks for itself and the burning of the mask there. You know, Brad Todd, we were talking earlier. I said some Republican Senate staffers are sort of admitting, « Hey, the base isn’t focused on infrastructure and what’s going on on Capitol Hill, so there’s some room to maneuver. » But is the best way to win a Minnesota Senate primary to go to Arizona for this audit? Like, what, what is this political theater about?

BRAD TODD:

Well, for about 12 years, being outside rather than inside has been far more important in Republican primaries than the ideological scale of right to left. And so you cannot be nominated in a Republican primary unless you can first prove you’re going to be a disrupter. There are a lot of shorthand ways to do that. And I think that’s really what you’re seeing in many ways because Republicans now, by and large, are agreeing on a lot of policy issues, especially when you’re in the minority, that tends to happen. So therefore, proof of how you’re going to be a disrupter and how you’re going to be someone who’s going to advance a musket or pushback to the left is the first step to check.

CHUCK TODD:

Is not having though a unified sort of,you say it’s sort of, what are the issues that the party stands for, right? That seems to be the missing piece here, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ:

Yeah. And specific to this idea of critical race theory, I have to tell you, I just spent some time reporting on this county in Virginia about an hour outside of Washington. And- and to your point, this is something that is mobilizing people and resonating very deeply. It was about a 100 degree day. Dozens and dozens and dozens of parents, mostly white, in this largely affluent county, showed up to a school board meeting—for many of them, the very first school board meeting they’d ever attended—specifically because of this one issue.

BRAD TODD:

That’s important to note, that you mentioned critical race theory a couple times. This is a parent-led backlash at the grassroots level.

CHUCK TODD:

But it’s manufactured —

BRAD TODD:

No.

CHUCK TODD:

— and then sort of —

BRAD TODD:

— elected officials —

CHUCK TODD:

— the fire was lit.

BRAD TODD:

I disagree. I think it started because parents have had it with the education bureaucracy after Covid. They’re fed up with it. They tend to trust Democrats when it comes to education funding, but they trust Republicans on education accountability. I think that what the backlash you’re seeing on critical race theory in schools is another example of parents trying to hold educators accountable.

CORNELL BELCHER:

It’s coordinated. It’s aggressive. It’s intentional, right? This is, this is part of the, the tribalism play. The critical race theory is yet another tool in the, in the, in the racial tribal bogeyman’s toolbox to drive and inflame tribalism, which Republicans think helps them in, in elections. This is-this is-this is Trump 2.0. This is, it’s a, it’s a continuation of this, right? Critical race theory is an, an arcane sort of ideal. Why is it front and center right now? The same reason that Mitch McConnell attacks Stacey Abrams when she came out for the, for the, for the voting bill. It is racial. It is tribalism. We’ve seen it grow under Trump. And this is part and partial of it. And they think this helps ignite their base. There’s no way this is not grassroots. And, Brad, you know this is organized and is being paid for.

CHUCK TODD:

But, you know, Ashley —

BRAD TODD:

We’re not very good at organizing anything on our side. Like —

CORNELL BELCHER:

You all are better than us.

CHUCK TODD:

You know, in 2018, Trump went culture with the caravans, right? And sort of some would even argue that there’s some similar motivations with it. Democrats went substance with health care, and they won the midterms. Certainly some, some rural states on the Senate side you could argue responded to the immigration message. But is there a risk here that Republicans are too focused on their culture war, that they may turn off swing voters?

ASHLEY PARKER:

That’s definitely possible. But the problem is you have Republicans right now, as they were for the past four years, who are just terrified of Donald Trump, and him coming out against them. It’s unclear how much Donald Trump can affirmatively help, say, a House member get elected.

But can he absolutely torpedo them in a Republican primary by showing up and doing a Friday night rally in their state or their home district? Absolutely. And so when you talk about the substance, you know, a picture of them, you know, paying homage to him at Mar-a-Lago going viral can be just as valuable as a, a plan to reduce the national debt.

CHUCK TODD:

Hey Brad, is it bad that Ron DeSantis beat Donald Trump in a straw poll? I, I, I’ve been waiting. Do you want to be the first person to look like you’re beating Trump?

BRAD TODD:

I don’t know that Ron DeSantis is going to be calling on Mar-a-Lago in the next few days until the next straw poll comes around, if that’s what you’re asking.

CHUCK TODD:

Yeah.

BRAD TODD:

But that was interesting. I think you’re talking about the Western state —

CHUCK TODD:

I was, yeah.

BRAD TODD:

— straw poll. You know, straw polls basically are great fodder for all of us in our, in our business. And I don’t know they really mean much of anything–

CHUCK TODD:

You know who cares about straw polls? Donald Trump cares about straw polls. All right? He cares about fan polls. He cares about a lot of polls. Not the accurate ones, but he does care about them. Hey guys. It’s great to have you in the building.

CORNELL BELCHER:

Good to be back.

CHUCK TODD:

I appreciate it. Before we go, you know, we love documentary film and we are once again partnering with our friends at the American Film Institute to sponsor the annual AFI Docs Film Festival. They’ve got 75 new films this year. You can watch them starting this Tuesday, June 22nd through June 27th. Tickets are on sale now at docs.AFI.com, so go check it out. That’s all we have for today. Thank you for watching. Enjoy your Father’s Day, whether you’re a dad or you’re with your dad. And we’re back next week, because if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.

Laisser un commentaire