Meet the Press NOW — Sept. 24

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in New York and we begin with breaking news. After a deadly shooting at an ICE facility reigniting concerns about political violence and inflamed rhetoric in this country just two weeks after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Now, according to authorities, three people were shot early this morning at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Dallas in what officials are calling an act of targeted violence. The Department of Homeland Security says three ICE detainees were shot as the gunman fired indiscriminately from a nearby rooftop. One of the detainees was killed. The shooter was found dead on the scene of a self-inflicted gunshot and has been identified as 29-year-old Joshua John. No ICE officials were injured, but officials say they are investigating this as an act of targeted violence against law enforcement based on the current evidence. I can confirm at this time that the FBI is investigating this incident as an act of targeted violence. What I can also share with you is that early evidence that we've seen from rounds that were found near the suspected shooter contain messages that are anti-ICE in nature. And I think that the takeaway from all of this is that the rhetoric has to stop. There are people out there who are seeing what is being placed online and they're coming and they're doing acts of violence against ICE employees. FBI Director Kash Patel sharing a photo of those bullets with one clearly marked, you see it right there, anti-ICE it says on it. Texas Senator Ted Cruz today speaking alongside law enforcement appeared to blame rhetoric about ICE and Border Patrol agents for the incident. Listen to what he said. To every politician who is using rhetoric, demonizing ICE and demonizing CBP, stop. To every politician demanding that ICE agents be doxed and calling for people to go after their families, stop. This has very real consequences. We should come together if we want to have a And this afternoon, Vice President J.D. Vance saying the shooter was politically motivated. An ICE facility, an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement facility, was opened fire upon by a violent left-wing extremist, a person who wrote anti-ICE messaging on their bullets. And there's some evidence that we have that's not yet public, but we know this person was politically motivated. They were politically motivated to go after law enforcement. Joining me now is Senior Homeland Security Correspondent Julia Ainsley. NBC's Jay Gray is on the ground in Dallas. Also with me, Senior White House Correspondent Gabe Gutierrez. And in a moment, we will be joined by Jim Cavanaugh, retired ATF special agent in charge and an NBC News law enforcement analyst. Julia, I would like to start with you. You just heard the Vice President calling the shooter a, quote, violent left-wing extremist. What evidence do authorities have to back that up? What more do we know about him? The only evidence that we have, Kristen, that would back that up is that there was anti-ICE written on the bullets. There seems to be some kind of evidence that the Vice President is referencing there that we have not yet seen. So that aside, what we do know about the suspect, who is now deceased, Joshua John, is that he is someone who, according to his family, was just known as unusual, but that they said he had no extreme political leanings on one side or the other, at least none that he ever brought to their attention. A colleague of mine spoke to his brother earlier today. He said the last time he saw his brother was two weeks ago at their family's house. They said John was unemployed and was thinking about moving back to Oklahoma to their parents' home. They said the parents did have firearms and that John knew how to use them. But he said that he wasn't a good marksman. He couldn't have shot somebody from 200 yards away, for example. That's what the brother said at this point. Now, when the brother spoke to NBC News, he did not at that point know that his brother was deceased. He just knew that he was a prime suspect. That was communicated by NBC, but really just totally shocked and surprised and really didn't have any understanding of what the motive could have been at that moment. Well, it's tragic that a life was taken in this case, Julia. What can you tell us about this ICE facility and the fact that detainees were shot? Authorities have obviously said they believe the shooter was shooting indiscriminately. Yeah, that's right. This is a place where immigrants can be detained for a short period of time. But, Kristen, it's usually before they're sent over to a longer-term deportation facility. It's a place I've driven by many times on my way to the airport in Dallas and would not necessarily know that that is an ICE processing facility. You also will see immigrants come in to check in there. They can get fingerprinted as routine check-ins as they proceed through the immigration system. It can be quite busy in the morning. A lot of those appointments are early. And a lot of the arrests they do in any given area are in the very early hours of the morning. And so they understand it was around 6.40 local time a.m. today. They were bringing in people who had just been arrested. DHS clarifying some of the numbers they put out today, first in a statement, then in the presser. Now they are saying, as of 30 minutes ago, Kristen, that two immigrants are injured and one is deceased. They used to say two detainees were deceased. Now two detainees are injured, one is deceased. And, Julie, obviously a lot of focus, attention, scrutiny right now on law enforcement. Again, this coming just two weeks after the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which initially the FBI director tweeted out that a suspect had been taken into custody, had to take that down. Eventually, a suspect obviously was placed into custody. But there's a fair amount of scrutiny on this investigation for DHS and FBI. Yeah, Kristen, I think that is going to be the takeaway from this tragic event, is the way that ICE responds to this, the way the Trump administration responds. We saw very early sharp responses, including from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who said, the vial attack was motivated by hatred for ICE. And so she's already putting a motive on the shooter before the full investigation had been conducted. That's unusual compared to what may have happened previously, when they would want to do a more thorough investigation of the suspect's motive before attributing that to him. But this, of course, follows in the footsteps of what happened to Charlie Kirk. And the calls that the White House has made against what they say is left-wing extreme violence. And you can see from the vice president's remarks today, that's exactly the category they're putting this shooting in as well. But, Kristen, we have to say, no law enforcement officers were hurt. Those hurt were ICE detainees although it's not clear what the targets were. Okay. Well, Julia Ainsley with the very latest on the investigation. We really appreciate your great reporting. Julia, thank you so much for starting us off. Jay Gray, let me turn to you. You are on the ground in Dallas. Take us to the scene there. What are you hearing from local officials, from people who witnessed what happened? Yeah, and let's start with where it happened. That's right behind us here. This is the field office for immigration and enforcement. I can tell you that it happened just before sunrise here. The shots rang out. One witness telling us that they heard as many as 20 shots. It was a woman with her nine-year-old son waiting on her husband who was inside. They dove underneath the car in this parking lot. And at that point, we're waiting it out when a Dallas police officer grabbed him, rushed him inside the facility. The shooter was apparently on top of a building just behind this field office, a building that houses immigration attorneys. And that's where he opened fire. What we're being told from Dallas police is that these were indiscriminate shots, that he was just firing at the building, at the area. And that's when he struck at least three detainees. After that, turning the gun on himself, according to FBI agents here on the ground, they located his body on that building with the weaponry, as well as the ammunition, those bullets. One of them inscribed with the message, anti-ICE. They're continuing their investigation right now. This will be locked down for quite some time, as you would expect right now, Kristen, working through what they can, what evidence they can gather. All right, Jay Gray, I know you'll continue to bring us any updates as you get them. Thank you for bringing us that account from the ground in Dallas. We greatly appreciate it. Gabe Gutierrez, let me turn to you at the White House. We heard the vice president pointing the finger at Democrats for this incident, not unlike the reaction that we saw in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination. Take me inside your conversations at the White House. What are your sources telling you about the strategy and what we can anticipate in the coming days? Well, Kristen, it's somewhat surprising that President Trump himself hasn't weighed in on this yet. We have not seen any posts on social media and we weren't expecting to see the president on camera at any point today. It's likely he probably would do it in the next few hours or so. But in the meantime, his press secretary, Caroline Levitt, has posted on social media talking about the dehumanization of ICE officers and other members of the administration, as you were just talking about with Julia, have been saying pretty much the same thing. Let's listen to a little bit more about what the vice president said a little earlier today in North Carolina. When Democrats like Gavin Newsom did say that these people are part of an authoritarian government, when the left wing media lies about what they're doing, when they lie about who they're arresting, when they lie about the actual job of law enforcement, what they're doing is encouraging crazy people to go and commit violence. You don't have to agree with my immigration policies. You don't have to agree with Donald Trump's immigration policies. But if your political rhetoric encourages violence against our law enforcement, you can go straight to hell and you have no place in the political conversation of the United States of America. Now, that type of rhetoric, no surprise, Chris, that after we've been hearing from administration officials over the last several weeks after there have been increased threats against ICE officers. And in fact, at this particular field office, there had been an incident late last month where there was someone who was charged with making terroristic threats after going to that field office with a backpack and claiming to have a detonator on their wrist, essentially posing a bomb threat to that particular field office. But we do expect White House officials, administration officials to continue making that case, pointing to that rhetoric against ICE agents. And they really came out so very soon after this incident with those social media posts, trying to draw attention to that even before we knew much of the evidence here. And in fact, the vice president referring to more evidence yet to come, Chris. All right, Gabe Gutierrez at the White House. Gabe, thank you so much for taking us inside your conversations there. Jim Kavanaugh, let me turn to you now. So we don't know a whole lot yet. We know that the FBI director posted on social media these bullets that had anti-ICE written on them. Is that enough to try to establish a motive or do you want to know more? Well, it's the beginning. And it's important, Kristen, because target is always included in motive. And the target here is an ICE facility. And so we know that's at least the location of the crime that's included in motive. And now we have written on the bullet anti-ICE. So yes, it feels like, looks like from the facts at hand, the evidence at hand that the killer is screaming the motive in our face through this inscription on the bullet. Now, when you're in command of one of these things, you always have to be careful that the killer or the shooter could try to misdirect you and put a name on there. But we don't have any evidence of that. There's no evidence of that. That's just something that you have to keep an open mind while you're gathering the facts. But the targeting, the ICE facility, this is written on the bullet. And also from what Jay Gray just reported to us about the witnesses saying he was shooting up the facility. You know, witnesses reporting as many as 20 and 30 rounds. And this is from a bolt action rifle. So the person has to work the bolt. Every time they fire around, they have to work the bolt manually. And that by looking at the rounds that they're inscribed anti-ICE, that's a five round clip. And it just slips in the bottom of that top of that rifle. And he has to load it every time. So if he fires 20 rounds, that's four times he has to load the rifle with that clip. He has to shoot five and then he has to reload. So that gives us a little picture into what he may have been doing. In other words, he's just spraying the building with a bolt action rifle, which is one shot, work the bolt, one shot, work the bolt. When he gets five, he has to reload with a different clip, shoot. And so who he killed and who he wounded to him might have been just people at the facility because his hatred may be aimed at ICE. And that's where all the evidence leaves us at the moment. And then let's say something else surfaces, we won't know anymore. The computers at his house, Kristen, his social media contacts, his family and friends, his prior behavior to the event, a psychological autopsy, we called it when we were doing these investigations, going back in front of this guy for at least six months and seeing what's he saying, who's he talking to, what's his motivations, should make the picture a lot more clearer, Kristen. Well, Jay, that was going to be, Jim, that was going to be my next question. What are the outstanding questions you have? Because as Julia was reporting at the top, family and friends described him as perhaps a bit odd, but that he didn't seem to be particularly politically motivated. What are the questions that you have moving forward? And again, this is not in a vacuum. This comes two weeks after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Well, exactly, Kristen, because after not only Charlie Kirk, but we had the Butler, Pennsylvania shooter on the roof with a long rifle that shot at President-elect Trump, or he was a candidate then. The guy that just convicted in Florida, he was going to shoot at the president-elect with a rifle. We have Charlie Kirk's murderer. These killers learned from the vicarious experience of others. So the fact that Kirk's killer was on a rooftop just a couple of weeks ago with a rifle and a scope, and now we have this attack. These guys learned. They learned how to do the attack from watching others, the vicarious experience. And what I'd be looking for here would be what's an event in this guy's life in the last six months that changed something, a major event, a job loss, loss of a loved one, breakup with a girlfriend, some kind of event that's maybe spun him into something, where now he's taking this on that he's going to shoot up the ICE facility. And if you can find that, it might show something. But I think it's probably been something in his mind for a while. But the tactic might have only come to him after the Charlie Kirk shooting, because it's so similar in nature and behavior to that. In other words, he learns he might be able to do it by watching that event. Two big differences, Kristen, just to close here. One is the Charlie Kirk shooter used that tactic as a sniper because he wanted to get away. This killer was suicidal, and he didn't want to get away. So his plan ended with shooting up the ICE facility. In other words, he flamed out like a bug, shot up the ICE facility, and killed himself. So there's similarities, but there's differences as well. All right, well, we know investigators are going to be looking at all of that. Jim Kavanaugh, thank you so much for joining us on yet another day of breaking news, another horrific shooting that has claimed a life. We really appreciate it. We will continue to monitor this breaking news story very closely. We'll, of course, bring you any developments as we get them. And coming up, we'll dive into the fallout and response to today's shooting from Capitol Hill, along with the rise of political violence and the president's crackdown on dissent. Senator Chris Van Hollen joins us next. Plus, Jimmy Kimmel returns to late night, responding to the Trump administration's threats against free speech for the first time since he was temporarily pulled off the air. Stay with us. You're watching Meet the Press Now. This has very real consequences. Look, in America, we disagree. That's fine. That's democratic process. But your political opponents are not Nazis. We need to learn to work together without demonizing each other, without attacking each other. Welcome back. That was Texas Senator Ted Cruz following this morning's deadly shooting at a Dallas ICE facility, calling for a toning down of rhetoric. It comes as acts of political violence are on the rise in recent decades, most recently with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Joining me now is Maryland's Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. Senator Van Hollen, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. Kristen, good to be with you. I want to start off by reading a post that we just got from President Trump. He posted this on his Truth Social account. I'm just reading this in real time along with you. He says, quote, I have been briefed on the deadly shooting at the ICE facility office in Dallas, Texas. It has now been revealed that the deranged shooter wrote anti-ICE on the shell casings. This is despicable. The brave men and women of ICE are just trying to do their jobs and remove the worst of the worst criminals, he says, out of our country. But they are facing an unprecedented increase in threats, violence and attacks by deranged radical leftists. Senator, he goes on to say, and this is another quote, I'm calling on all Democrats to stop this rhetoric against ICE and America's law enforcement right now. Your response to the president and the vice president's reaction to this? Well, Kristen, we now have another awful example of political violence in America. And we should all unite to condemn political violence regardless of the source and not try to exploit this for political purposes, not engage in finger pointing. And unfortunately, what we see from the vice president and now the president is what we saw after the terrible tragedy of Charlie Kirk's assassination, which is rather than unite the country in opposition to political violence or violence of any kind. They decide to engage in finger pointing for political purposes. That does not accomplish the goal of reducing political violence. It's an attempt to take these tragedies and silence legitimate criticisms of the actions of the Trump administration. And your gut reaction, Senator, when you learned about yet another deadly shooting in our country? Yeah, it was awful. I mean, I saw this when it was breaking early this morning. My heart goes out to the family who lost a loved one, those who had injuries. My thanks to law enforcement and all the public safety officials. This is a moment where we need to allow our judicial system to work and not exploit this tragedy for political purposes. And it's very troubling to see the vice president and the president doing that in this instance, as they did in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk shooting, where they then decided to go after Jimmy Kimmel, where they've tried to use the power of the government to suppress dissent or anybody else they disagree with, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. So everybody should understand that political violence is unacceptable. It's also unacceptable for the president, the vice president to try to exploit these terrible tragedies for political purposes. And Senator, you bring up Jimmy Kimmel. I know that you and a group of Democratic senators are actually demanding answers from Nexstar and Sinclair about their refusal to air Jimmy Kimmel. What recourse can you actually take, if any? What power do you have to impact the decisions that these stations are making? Well, people, of course, can vote with their pocketbooks. I mean, one of the reasons ABC reversed itself was it appeared that people were withdrawing some of their subscriptions to Disney Plus and other things. So I think that most Americans agree with the simple premise that you don't have to agree with the speaker, but you support their right to engage in First Amendment expression. And what we're seeing from these companies is essentially caving into the FCC because they have things that they want out of the FCC. So shame on the FCC for trying to use its power to punish speech. That's flat out illegal. But these other companies should not be capitulating because that only feeds the illegality that we're witnessing. Let me ask you about your bill. You and your Democratic colleagues introduced the No Political Enemies Act, aimed at protecting Americans from politically motivated attacks, from persecution from the government. Tell me what specifically this act does, given that the First Amendment already protects free speech. What gap is this filling? Very fair question. This is a bill I introduced with Senator Murphy and others. It does two things. One is it creates more deterrence against government officials abusing their powers to crack down on dissent. So, for example, greater penalties for those who are found to be trying to silence dissent through illegal means by using the powers of government to silence people. And on the other side, it helps those who are the targets of attempts to silence speech with more tools to defend themselves. So, for example, when you have a case, they would be able to get attorney's fees so they wouldn't face those costs that you normally would face. They'd be able to pick up the costs of getting the information about the political targeting that they were subjected to. So it does two things. It provides more defenses and tools for those who are the targets of these political prosecutions. And it also does create more deterrence against bringing them. Well, we'll track that very closely on Capitol Hill. I have to ask you before I let you go, Senator, about government funding. We are less than a week away from the deadline. Will you continue to oppose the House pass the Republican CR, even if that does, in fact, lead to a government shutdown? Well, Kristen, as you saw, the President of the United States, who calls himself the great negotiator, walked away from a negotiation. And what he said is that Democrats in Congress should act like Republicans in Congress and essentially give him a blank check. I, for one, will not give this lawless president a blank check to continue to engage in illegal withholding of funds. We also want to defuse this ticking time bomb on Americans' health care that will go off at the end of this year, where millions will lose access to health care. Tens of millions will see big spikes in their premiums and costs as they're also facing other rising costs. So I'm not going to give a lawless president a blank check. And unfortunately, after saying he would sit down and talk about these things, he's decided he wants to let that ticking time bomb go off on people's health care, and he wants to continue to illegally withhold funds. So this is the President's decision. He's taking us toward a shutdown. So just to be very clear, Senator, given that there are no talks scheduled, are you bracing for a shutdown? Do you think that's where the country's headed right now at this point? I think when Donald Trump decided not to have the talks that he previously said he welcomed, yes, he is taking us right toward a government shutdown. All right, Senator Chris Van Hollen, thank you so much for joining us on yet another tragic day for the nation. We really appreciate it, appreciate your perspective. Thank you. Coming up after the break, the President of Finland speaks to the United Nations and then meets the press. The leader of one of NATO's newest members joins me here in studio with his response to President Trump's stunning turnaround on Russia and Ukraine. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Ukraine, Russia, and the entire international community are grappling with President Trump's surprise 180 on his view of the war in Ukraine. Yesterday, after meeting with President Zelensky, the President posted on social media, quote, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe, and in particular NATO, the original borders from where this war started is very much an option. President Zelensky called the post a big shift and very positive, and touted President Trump as a game changer in ongoing war. Moscow, meanwhile, is rejecting his suggestion that Ukraine could win the war, calling it a misguided proposition, with some in the Kremlin also questioning whether the President's position will be a lasting one. Joining me now on set is the President of Finland, Alexander Stubbe. Finland, we should remind you, joined NATO just two years ago and borders Russia. Mr. President, thank you so much for being here. Thanks. It's a real honor to have you. We appreciate it. We know you're very busy, so thank you for stopping by. I have to start off by getting your reaction to President Trump's post. When you hear him say Ukraine can, in fact, reclaim all of its territory, what's your reaction to that? Yeah, I think it was a very strong posting, and as I've told many of my friends, you should never underestimate the capacity of President Trump to negotiate peace. And I do think this was potentially a game changer, had the chance to talk to President Zelensky about it and also exchange a couple of words with President Trump about it last night at the reception. I think Putin should realize that President Trump is very serious and he's running out of patience. Can you give us some insight? What specifically did the President say to you that makes you know he is serious? And Russia says, well, he could change his mind, but you say that's not what's going to happen. Well, it's a very strong statement. Remember that, really, this war is about three things. It's about the independence of Ukraine, the sovereignty of Ukraine, and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. So if, as a negotiating position, the President of the United States says that, as a matter of fact, Russia has no right to claim that territory, then I think the negotiations will begin in earnest. And I've been stressing from the beginning that we need to do this in two phases. First phase is a ceasefire, so that's when the killing stops. And after that, you start negotiating. So I do think that we're moving in the right direction. Strong words doesn't need to be backed up by action. And of course, the United States is calling on European nations to stop buying oil from Russia. Is that part of what needs to happen first? Oh, definitely. I mean, strong words backed by action. And I think, in my mind, the action is on three pillars. The first one is security guarantees, which we have been negotiating together with the United States ever since we met in the White House a few weeks back. And they're pretty much finalized. Secondly, it's about Europe stopping to buy Russian oil and gas. And there, I think the finger pointing is very easy. It's Hungary and Slovakia. What about France? Well, France on liquefied gas. But basically, we brought down, I think, gas by 80 percent and oil by 90 percent. Now the European Commission is working on a total ban. And I think President Trump is absolutely right on that point. And the third issue is secondary sanctions. But I stress all the time that President Trump is the only one who can end this war. But we need to do this as a team together, Europe and the United States. So Europe needs to take those actions. And then does the United States, from your perspective, need to impose stiff sanctions? Well, the U.S., of course, decides for itself. But I do think that this is very much a team effort. So we're trying to find the right ways. What do we do with the frozen assets? How do we stop buying oil and gas? What kind of secondary sanctions do we do? Why do we do this? Because we do not want to finance the Russian war machinery. The Russian economy is actually doing very poorly. And I think that's one of the reasons that President Trump reacted. Mr. President, I have to get your reaction to something else that President Trump said yesterday that made a lot of news. He said he believes NATO should shoot down Russian aircraft if it enters its airspace. Do you agree with him? Well, we have a very strict protocol on how we work in these types of situations. Obviously, we've had many violations of airspace over the years. And the protocol that we follow is very rigid. I think you have to look at it case by case. I think the basic message right now is that Russia is testing us. It's testing us with drones. It's testing us with airspace violations. It's testing us with sabotaging underwater cables. And my message always as a Finn is to first, be calm, cool and collected, look at the situation and then take the decisions. So you don't think automatically these drones should be shot down? Automatically, we have a procedure on how we deal with these types of issues. And it's our defense forces and our military that does it. And of course, if someone violates our airspace, they have the right to react. I had the opportunity to interview President Zelensky several months ago. He said his big concern is that Russia is, in fact, planning to go into other European nations. Do you share that concern? And could these, sending these drones into NATO airspace, be an indication that that's what he's eyeing? I think it's good to start from the basics. I think what Putin and Russia have done in Ukraine is one of the biggest strategic and military failures in recent history. He was supposed to walk into Kiev in four days. Now we're almost four years into the war. In the last 1,000 days, he has advanced 1% of Ukrainian territory. So what we need to understand in Europe is that Russia doesn't have the capacity to do these kinds of moves, but they do have the capacity to test us. And that's what we have to prepare for. Based on what you are saying, do you think it's realistic for Ukraine to be able to reclaim all of the territory that Russia illegally took? I think it's realistic that we work towards that aim. And that decision can be taken only by Ukraine itself. I think the key is that they retain their independence and their sovereignty to decide EU membership, NATO membership, security guarantees, and military, and then make sure that we never accept any land acquisition coming from Russia towards Ukraine. Certainly, Finland will never accept that. I want to play just a little bit more of what President Trump had to say at his speech at the UN yesterday. Take a look. Inexcusably, even NATO countries have not cut off much Russian energy and Russian energy products, which, as you know, I found out about two weeks ago, and I wasn't happy. Think of it. They're funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one? What did you make of that part of his speech? And obviously, you're saying it is time to take a hard look. I think it was spot on, you know, and it's good for the President of the United States to tell that to his NATO allies in the UN. I mean, of course, it's easy for me to say because we've cut off Russian oil and gas a long time ago, so we don't have a problem with it. But it's good to do some finger pointing and increase the pressure. And I think he's absolutely right. What is your message to Vladimir Putin as we sit here today? Please come to the negotiating table. I think it's very important to understand that this war will end up, of course, in a negotiating table. And what we need to have first is a date and a place for the first meeting between Vladimir Zelensky and President Putin. And then we start after a ceasefire peace negotiations in earnest because too many people are dying. All right, President Stubbe of Finland, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Coming up next, Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with Russia's foreign minister at the United Nations after President Trump's surprise show of solidarity with Ukraine. We'll delve into that meeting. Stay with us. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. As we mentioned, Ukraine and NATO are cautiously welcoming President Trump's latest comments, suggesting Ukraine could reclaim all of its territory from Russia. It's, of course, a stark contrast to comments President Trump made earlier this year when he told President Zelensky he had no cards to play in the matter. Joining me now on set is Elise Lavitt, host of the Cosmopolitics podcast. Elise, thank you for being here. It's great to see you. I just want to start off by getting your reaction to what we heard from President Stubbe. He Russia has it wrong that President Trump's not changing his mind and his tone this time. He's serious about the fact that he wants to fight for Ukraine to get its territory back. What do you make of what we just heard? Well, I mean, look, we'll have to see. And we've always talked about how President Trump, you know, changes his tune when somebody else is meeting with him. You know, he's trying to send a message, clearly what officials are saying. He's trying to pressure Putin. Putin is really good at, you know, this is a former KGB agent. He might try to play back, you know, play. Let's meet again. Let's talk again like they did in Alaska. But I do think President Trump is finally coming around to the fact that this dialogue and this talking with Vladimir Putin isn't about peace. It's about Putin playing for time. And you and I have talked on this show many times that President Trump doesn't like to get played. And I think he's looking at the situation, you know, as the president said, the economy president of Finland, the economy is bad. They're not really gaining on territory. They have to use North Korean soldiers. I mean, Russia is suffering in this war. And I think President Trump smells a little weakness from from Putin and is trying to push on that. You know, it's interesting, Elise, because, again, this is an about face. President Zelensky even said he was surprised by this. But you surprised, but pleasantly pleasantly surprised. But you heard the president of very firmly say it needs to be backed up by action. Do you think we will see that kind of action, both from the United States, European allies in the United States itself? I think it's pretty clear that the U.S. is reluctant to take action, you know, in a week, in a month, in a couple of weeks. You know, Secretary of State Rubio was at the U.N. Security Council even before President Trump made these comments, saying, look, at some point, you know, we're going to have to do something. He did meet today with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. It was a very tense meeting. You could even see by the photo op there were no smiles. There was a terse one line statement talking about Russia needing to take steps. So clearly, the U.S. President Trump in particular is impatient. He wants to get this done. And I think, you know, to their credit, NATO allies have really kind of adjusted. They've learned how to deal with President Trump, and they're dealing with him pretty beautifully by saying, President Trump, you're the only one that could end this war. And he, President Trump, likes it. And we've talked. He wants that Nobel Peace Prize. Listen, if he can get an end to this war, he could be in contention. So they're pushing on his desire to make peace. Well, so many fascinating developments. And you're reporting about the meeting between Rubio and Lavrov, just really important, an important data point as we continue to track all of this. Elise Lavet, thank you so much. Great to be with you. Great to have you here. We really appreciate it. We are also following some breaking news at this hour. The Justice Department is weighing whether or not to charge former FBI Director James Comey with lying to Congress. Two DOJ officials and a person familiar with the matter tell NBC News. Joining me now is NBC News National Law Enforcement and Intelligence Correspondent Tom Winter. Tom, what can you tell us about this development? Yeah, Kristen, so it appears that there's still a bit of an ongoing decision making or deliberation process within the Justice Department. But the reporting with my colleagues Kelly O'Donnell, Mike Kosner and Laura Jarrett just kind of lays it out as this is very much a live issue. We have a quote from one official saying there are still internal matters being sorted out. They're deliberating it. You might wonder why now? Why is this coming up? Well, one of the reasons that we're being told about is that the charges which could come out of the Eastern District of Virginia are charges that could be related to testimony that Comey had before Congress in a back and forth about who authorized a leak and some dispute about that between Comey's testimony and then his deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe. And he was in a back and forth with Ted Cruz. That testimony, what is not so much important at this very moment is what was said. But the timing of that, which was September 30th of 2000 of 2020. So December 30th, 2000, September 30th, 2020. That would put this at the five year statute of limitations expiring next Tuesday. So if they were going to charge on that, Kristen, they would need to charge and make that decision and file that paperwork less than a week from now. So obviously, that's an important consideration here. And that's something that we've heard about before as a potential area where the Justice Department was looking into with respect to Comey. Obviously, a former FBI director, somebody who was subject to the president of the United States' ire, which is perhaps an understatement of significant proportions. But basically, Comey is somebody who the president has been talking about, targeting about. And there's been a number of references, including in a True Social post, which I know you've talked about this week, over the weekend, where he seemed to be making a specific reference to his attorney general about when more arrests could be coming, whether or not Comey is a part of that. Time will tell whether or not charges are ultimately filed. Time will tell. A representative for Comey tonight declining comment. So we'll just have to see where all this goes from here. Kristen, it should be noted that there have been some resignations, including Eric Siebert, who is the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. He resigned last week, and it had to do with this potential indictment. Lindsey Halligan, part of President Trump's defense team, was appointed as the interim U.S. attorney in that office as a result. So a lot of moving pieces here. Bottom line, I think, tonight for people to know is that the Justice Department is definitely considering the possibility of indicting the former FBI Director James Comey. Well, it is a significant development indeed, Tom Winter. We know you will continue to stay on top of all of these developments. Thank you so much. And we have much more ahead, including reaction from our panel to that breaking news surrounding former FBI Director James Comey. Keep it right here on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. We have more now on the breaking news, with sources telling NBC News that the Justice Department is weighing whether to charge former FBI Director James Comey with lying to Congress. Joining me now is the panel, former Secretary of Homeland Security Jay Johnson and Noah Rothman, senior writer at The National Review. Thanks to both of you for being here. Secretary Johnson, I'm going to start with you. You know James Comey. You hear this news that the Justice Department is weighing whether or not to indict him. What is your reaction? Again, this is all breaking right now. It's absurd. I've known Jim for 37 years, since we were assistant U.S. attorneys together here in Manhattan, both hired by Rudy Giuliani. And we were also colleagues when I was Secretary of DHS and he was FBI Director. I consider Jim a personal friend. I didn't always agree with everything he did as FBI Director. But to label, accuse Jim Comey of being a criminal in a federal indictment is absurd. And this explains why the previous U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia was either pushed out or resigned and replaced by someone who apparently has little or no criminal experience, let alone the experience of being a prosecutor. So this is, to me, this is stunning. Noah, President Trump has made no secret of the fact, going back to his first administration, that he is no fan of Jim Comey's. He has talked about wanting authorities to go after him. And now here we're seeing this play out. What do you make, and you hear how Secretary Johnson is characterizing it, what do you make of this? That is the context of it, right? Not knowing the charges, I heard that it has to do with a perjury allegation. If this were ever to go to a jury, which I kind of doubt, they would be informed of all the circumstances around it, that the President has said he wants to prosecute you, that the Eastern District attorney resigned, having no ability to both get James Comey and to prosecute mortgage fraud charges against another of the President's adversaries. A good attorney will say to a jury if they were to ever meet a judge, which it probably is not, look at all this context, don't you think that this deserves an acquittal? Which is why it's probably not a trial case, it is an intimidation case. Do you think some of these people who have been named and called out by the President, by the administration, have taken preemptive steps, have braced for the possibility of a moment like this? I know they have, yes. And I agree with Noah, a good criminal defense attorney will make sure that a jury knows the full context. But yes, there are a number of my former colleagues from the Obama administration, from the Biden administration, who have taken preemptive steps, who are very concerned about whether they're next. This President is not making any attempt to hide his motive of going after his political enemies. And I would be shocked, well, be interesting to see whether the U.S. attorney in Virginia can find line assistant U.S. attorneys willing to prosecute James Comey. Well, we'll continue to track it very closely. It does come as we're also having this national debate over free speech. Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily suspended by ABC after he made comments in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination. He was pulled off the air. He was back on the air last night for the first time responding. I wanna play some of that for you, get your reaction on the other side. I never imagined I would be in a situation like this. I barely paid attention in school. But one thing I did learn from Lenny Bruce and George Carlin and Howard Stern is that a government threat to silence a comedian the president doesn't like is anti-American. That's anti. No, what do you make of the monologue? Listen, I agree with Jimmy Kimmel that the threat is civically contemptuous. And what Brendan Carr has done by being kind of a bully to this network, to ABC, to singling out content that he doesn't like, that's not something that the executive branch should do. However, what we heard over the weekend from Democratic politicians is that the president exercised his extra constitutional authority to silence a critic. Did all of the sudden over the weekend the president lose interest in silencing his critics? Did the FCC suddenly say we're no longer going to burden you with litigation and compliance problems? No, none of that happened. The Occam's razor situation happened here, which was that the affiliates said this content is not right. We don't like it. We want you to apologize. He did not. And the network took action. That is the simplest sequence of events here. And Democrats blew it all out of proportion in order to generate a political narrative. And it had consequences. The person who shot up an ABC affiliate did so, according to prosecutors, because he was frustrated with what the coverage was about this, that the president had done this to Jimmy Kimmel. And that was wrong. Your response, and we should say that Sinclair and Nexstar didn't air Jimmy Kimmel and dozens of affiliates across the country continuing in their opposition to the country. I'm going to respectfully disagree with my colleague. The threat of regulation coming from the FCC was out there. Stipulated. And this, in my opinion, reflects yet another example of the power of our federal government when those who are at the steering wheel are willing to use it in excessive and unlawful ways, whether it's the FCC, whether it's the FTC, whether it's the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, whether it's the SEC, whether it's higher ed law firms. If a president and his administration are willing to threaten government authority on private actors, this is this is the effect. This is the fallout. What about those threats? No. Can you discount them? This didn't happen in a vacuum. And President Trump threatened to sue ABC again last night. Yeah. As I've written about this, there are certain things we don't know and certain things we cannot know, like the effect that those threats were having on the thought process to say nothing of conversation, stuff that we will never see and will not come to light. That being said, the outcome here is that the ABC bucked the president, which tells you something about the limits of the president's power in our system. And it also tells you something about the sequence of events, which I don't think matches the notion here that the president reached out to silence one of his critics and succeeded. We have about 30 seconds left. Does Noah have a point that I look forward written by somebody inside the White House to find out whether or not the president personally directed the attorney general, the FCC or other regulatory agencies to do this or whether they were acting because they thought that he wanted them to? Well, we will have to wait for that book. We appreciate this robust debate. That's what it's all about. Thank you so much, Jay Johnson, Noah Rothman. Great conversation. We are back tomorrow with more meet the press now, but there is much more ahead on NBC News. We thank you for watching and remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel.