Meet the Press NOW — October 10

Real threats don't give warnings. War ride one at a time. Our integrated air and missile defense adapts to evolving threats, so our forces are always ready for what's next. Lytos, outsmart, outdo. Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio, and we have just made a new show, a TV talk show. It's called Better In Person. We have the kind of guests you don't see on every other show, and we have the kind of conversations you don't hear anywhere. I'm like, yes, chef. People home with the pork. You have the opportunity to make this little corner of the world into your ideal world, your dream world. You can watch better in person on the Freakonomics YouTube channel. You'll find a new episode there every week. This is how a conversation works. If it's Friday, the Trump administration escalates its crackdown on President Trump's political enemies, indicting New York Attorney General Letitia James as Democrats denounce the charges and accuse the White House of weaponizing the Justice Department. Plus, the first steps in the deal to end the Israel-Hamas war now taking effect, Israeli troops pulling back, allowing thousands of displaced citizens to return home, with the clock now ticking for Hamas to release the remaining hostages. And atop white... House official says the long-threatened firings of federal workers has begun and that the layoffs will be substantial with no end to the government shutdown inside.

in the last couple of weeks that started with Pam, colon, was meant to be a private message for his attorney general, Pam Bondi, and not meant to be posted publicly, even though it was posted on his social media platform. And that message included references, of course, to Letitia James and to others. But notably right now, the White House is in effect saying that we want this process to continue deferring to the Department of Justice and not weighing in specifically on this. Even though the president, when asked more generally about whether others could be facing the same fate, he did say, and specifically after we saw this with former FBI director James Comey, that there could be others, though he didn't necessarily say there was a list in an order that he was going in, Kristen. Kelly, let me turn to you if you would talk about the specific allegations against Letitia James and this piece of the case, which is that according to the government's case, James was saving less than $600 a year or less than $500, $50 a month, I should say, because of her lower interest rate. Does that in any way undermine the case against her? Well, what the government is alleging is that in applying for a mortgage for a home she purchased in 2020 in Norfolk, Virginia, that's why it's in the Eastern District of Virginia, while she is the New York State Attorney General, that she filed the paperwork improperly and called this a secondary residence. In fact, she used it as a rental property. in rental income. And the indictment reflects that she reported that rental income on her taxes. So a key question is, was this a clerical mistake? And with the intent to defraud the banking system involved here, the mortgage company, the financial institution, by using the wrong terminology to get that better rate, which, as you described, is in the life of a 30-year loan, about $18,000, and when it breaks down to about $600 a year, did she do this with a willful criminal intent to save $600 a year? That will be part of the case. Fraud, of course, is a serious offense. These are two felonies. And the argument will be made by James' counsel that they will forcefully go after this and say that this is really the president and retribution, as we've heard him talk about publicly, and that they are using the Department of Justice against... perceived political enemy. So the case is about very specific paperwork related to a home that she bought five years ago. The implications are certainly much larger, not only for James, her career, her political future, but also for the president and the relationship between the DOJ, the White House, and potential targets of any investigation.

So, Monica, let me turn back to you. You talked about that post by President Trump. There were three names on the post. Of course, James Comey, Letitia James, and Senator Adam, who has not been indicted, but we know he's been under a microscope, and he is one of the president's biggest political rivals. What are you going to be watching for in the coming days and weeks as speculation swirls about him? And also John Bolton, as I just mentioned. Yeah, exactly, Kristen. I think a lot of this is, of course, related to also one of the key people involved in this, and that is Lindsey Halligan, who was brought in to be this top prosecutor in this job to potentially look at some of these different cases, and we know overseeing some of the two that you just mentioned. But yes, California Senator Adam Schiff has also been... frequently referenced by the president and by top White House officials as being a potential target. It's unclear whether the Department of Justice will go ahead with some kind of action against him. But this does extend to others as well. When we talk about these issues of mortgage fraud, remember, that's what the White House is alleging against Lisa Cook, who is currently sitting on the Federal Reserve's board of governors. And the Supreme Court has ruled that she can stay in that position, at least until January when and they are going to hear oral arguments. And that is in a separate category, but it gives you a sense again of what... the Department of Justice and what the White House is using and talking about and looking into in more of a pattern. We've seen evidence of that mortgage fraud specifically being referenced as something certainly that's being looked into again when it comes to people that the president himself has talked about very specifically. And it was in that message to the attorney general that he said, in his words, this was about his credibility being on the line saying that he was getting killed and they were getting, quote, killed for not going after some of these people and not initiating potential investigations where he wanted to see some action really happen. Kristen. Kelly, finally, just to you, just going back to the Letitia James case, what are the next steps here? What are you anticipating? She is due to appear for her arraignment October 24th in Norfolk, Virginia, and a summons was issued, so no arrest is expected. That's the same thing that was done with James Comey, the FBI director. And we would also expect that she and her team will begin to build their defense as the next steps would go forward in her case. All right. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you so much. Monica, Alba, please stick around. We have a few more questions for you coming up. But first, we are joined now by Ty Cobb, who served as a White House attorney during the first Trump administration. He's also a former federal prosecutor. Ty, thanks so much for being here. We really appreciate it. Good to be with you. Thank you so much for having. It's always great to you, Ty. So let's start off by talking about this case against Letitia James, based on what you just heard, the public...

information, which Kelly just laid out, what do you make of this case against Letitia James? Do you think it'll go to trial? I don't believe so. The predicate for the few dozen of these types of cases that were brought a year ago is well over $500,000. much lesser sum, where I guess they're saying that the benefit to her was $50 a month, the amount that they're seeking for the amount that they're seeking for. Assumes that it will rule term of the process is not the right legal standard. The indictment itself, very thin, doesn't really contain sufficient facts to put any defendant on notice as to, you know, what the real alleged crime is. This sort of reflects the amateurishness and lack of experience of the people who prepared it. Well, and the same people prepared the case against James' that will go to trial. He says, let's have a trial and that he's innocent. What do you make of it? Well, I think a trial would be a bloodbath for the government. I think Pat Fitzgerald and his esteemed colleague, also a talented trial lawyer, will wipe the floor with the people they had to go 200 miles to find to choke down the humiliation of representing the government in that case. But I don't think it'll get to trial. I think if there is a vindictive prosecution case. You know, that would be it. Letitia James, close second. Likewise, the level of prosecutorial misconduct and the proof problems associated with both these cases is extraordinary. I think both these cases have a good chance of being dismissed in advance of trial. I think if they get to trial, the acquittal is almost assured in both instances. But keep in mind, that's not the point here. The point is terror. The point is abuse of power. The point is making them feel the pressures that he felt that he complained about in his order to Pam Bondi to get these indictments through, regardless of the fact that in both instances, seasoned prosecutors have concluded neither of these cases should be indicted. You know, he wants to punish them. He wants to exact financial and personal... reputational harm. So that, he's achieving that to some degree. But they're both well represented, and I'm confident that ultimately, given the independent arbiters that the judges will be and the talented judges that are available to do this, that justice will be served in these cases will be dismissed or result in an acquittal. You know, Ty, Democrats say this is lawfare, pure and simple, retribution, President Trump going after his rivals. The vice president, the president's allies say it's absolutely not that the DOJ is looking at the facts before them and making decisions based on those facts. If you are sitting at home and watching the finger pointing, and of course, as you know, the vice president saying the real lawfare occurred during the Biden administration when President Trump was indicted for various reasons.

How can people at home make sense of this? What are the differences for you? Well, I would suggest two things. One, let's take the president at his word. And when he ordered Pam Bondi to indict his enemies in a message that he thought was private but went on truth social, which is a 25th Amendment consideration in and of itself. But when he did that, he made the point that, you know, these people tortured me. You know, I was indicted. You know, this is not fair. You know, kill my enemies. I think anybody that's looking to say that it's not retribution has to somehow explain that simple message. And with regard to, you know, the considerations of the legitimacy of the cases against President Trump, read the indictments. You know, those indictments aren't two or three pages. They're detailed speaking indictments that go through. piece of evidence after piece of evidence, quoting existing documents, quoting people, quoting and demonstrating exactly what the crime was, how it was committed, what the evidence is. So compare the two of the indictments against President Trump, which lay out crimes that undoubtedly occurred. You know, whether he would have been convicted or not, nobody knows because You know, Eileen Cannon in one instance, corruptly prevented a trial, and in the other case, time ran out. But... Compare those indictments. Those indictments are very, very detailed and factual. In these indictments, even James Comey, when he went to his arraignment, his lawyers had to make the point, they still don't know who the alleged leaker is. It's not identified in the diamond other than as person three, and they can't figure it out. If they can't figure it out, you know. How did the grand jury figure it out? I think the grand jury activity in both these cases will become very important in connection with emotions to dismiss. And I think we'll see a lot more misconduct on earth. I want to ask you, Ty, because you've obviously been quite outspoken against what we have seen in the second Trump administration. Are you concerned that he might try that, that the Justice Department might come after you? Oh, I don't worry about me, and I'm sort of irrelevant to this analysis. I'm trying not to be outspoken. I'm trying to just recite facts, like specific indictments that lay out detailed facts versus, you know, bald allegations that seem to not really adequately charge a crime.

Let me ask you, President Trump has been deploying National Guard troops to various U.S. cities, Ty. As you know, it's been tied up in the courts. Do you think it will go to the Supreme Court and do you have any sense of how the High Court might rule? So I'm not sure it'll go to the Supreme Court, but it may well. So both statutes involved, well, excuse me, the statute that's currently under consideration, Section 12406, which is about the federalizing of the National Guard in these instances. It has some language in it that is a little bit more of a bar to what the president is attempting to do than the Insurrection Act. But the Insurrection Act itself gives Trump all the leverage he needs if he really wants to achieve this. And there are very few restrictions in that act. And I think even as to 12406, it's a very, very close level as to whether the president can lawfully do what he did. The only thing that prevented the Oregon judge from allowing the president to do it was not necessarily the facts on the ground. The facts on the ground colorably satisfied the statute, but the good faith aspect that she inserted in inconsistent with the Sterling case in the Ninth Circuit, which required her to do so, she relied heavily on the fact that... The president was relying on five-year-old videotapes when he talked about a war-torn Portland and hysterical nature of his claims about what was actually going on in Portland. That may not necessarily be as effective in the appellate cases. And I think if the Supreme Court carefully considers a very close call under 12406, but it's it's... It's not much of a close call under the Insurrection Act if the president wants to go that route because there are very few limitations there, as both parties have recognized for years, but nobody's done anything to tighten up the act. All right. Ty Cobb, as always, we really appreciate your perspective on these big days. Thank you so much. Always wonderful to be with you. Thank you so much. It's always wonderful to you, Ty. Come back soon. We want to turn back now to Monica Alba at the White House. And this big announcement, Monica, from OMB, that layoffs of federal workers have now begun and that they will be substantial. What are you hearing? And remember, Kristen, that the White House previewed this as likely being in the thousands. I was told by a White House official today that that is still the expectation. And we know from the OMB director, Russ Vought, that these rifts, the reductions in force and their plans have started to go out, which is that notices have gone to employees at a variety of different agencies. We know people at the Interior Department, for instance, at Commerce, at HHS, at D.

DHS and a few others listed there, the Department of Education also have started to receive these rolling notices. Now, what's really important to remind viewers about these is that this is a pretty complex process where the agencies have to take into consideration a lot of different factors like seniority or veteran status or whether they have worked there for a long time and what kind of an employee they've been. And then they need to be able to make a recommendation about whether they can essentially eliminate their position, and they have to give a specific amount of notice to the employee, which is typically 60 days that this is going to be happening. Now, if this sounds sort of familiar, it's because earlier in the year with the Doge efforts in Elon Musk, they did have these kinds of riffs and these plans where they were trying to shrink the federal workforce, but some of the workers said that they were basically let go in an improper fashion. There were lawsuits, and so some of those have actually been hired back by the federal government. So there are questions about exactly how this is going to work. And we know already that there have been lawsuits filed by some of the major unions that represent federal workers because they believe this is being done. properly since the White House is trying to use the justification of the shutdown, whereas other experts are saying that that is not something that they should be doing. And there's a real question mark about whether this is legal in the way that they're doing it. And we simply have to wait and see. But again, this is likely going to be faced and met with a lot of legal action. And then there's the question, of course, of just how much longer this shutdown can go and whether the... workers who are not being paid right now and not working, what will happen to them? We know the White House had been trying to look at the idea of not giving them their back pay, which they are owed by law. So this is something the White House had threatened to do, and now they are trying to at least act on some of that. Kristen. Well, we'll have to see politically how it plays out as... Will this apply pressure to Democrats to come to the table? Could it backfire against Republicans? Monica Alba, you've been covering all of the angles of this. Thank you so much for your fantastic reporting, as always, from the White House. We really appreciate it. Coming up, cutting back, we are digging deeper into the politics of layoffs, what we were just talking about, and the growing fallout of the government shutdown as the Trump administration looks to slash the size of the federal workforce even further. Plus, clash of the candidates. Virginia gubernatorial nominees. face off on the debate stage as a high-profile Democratic candidate for California governor Myers herself in back-to-back controversies. We'll delve into that. Stay with us. You're watching Meet the Press now.

Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio, and we have just made a new show, a TV talk show. It's called Better In Person. We have the kind of guests you don't see on every other show, and we have the kind of conversations you don't hear anywhere. Bank? I'm like, yes, chef, people home with the pork. You have the opportunity to make this little corner of the world into your ideal world, your dream world. You can watch better in person on the Freakonomics YouTube channel. You'll find a new episode there every week. This is how a conversation works. The GLP1 pill you've been waiting for is now on row. Yep, it's finally here with the same clinically proven ingredient. Now in a pill. And now on row. It's the first FDA approved GLP1 pill for weight loss. At the lowest price available, that's one daily GLP1 pill for big results. Now on row. Go to row.com slash listen to see if you qualify. RX only go to road.co slash safety for serious side effects and boxed warning associated with GLP1s. At DSW, we ask the important questions. Like, what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an RSVP. So own the moment. You've got big plans, and we've got just the shoes, at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe warehouse. Head to your DSW store or DSW.com today. And let us surprise you. We'll be making cuts that will be permanent, and we're only going to cut Democrat programs. We'll be cutting some very popular Democrat programs that aren't popular with Republicans, frankly, because that's the way it works. They wanted to do this, so we'll get a little taste of their own medicine. Welcome back. That was President Trump yesterday outlining his plan to target Democratic priorities with the government shutdown now set to last at least two weeks. Joining me now, Andrew Bates, former White House Deputy Press Secretary and the Biden administration. Sarah Matthews, former White House Deputy Press Secretary in the Trump administration and spokesperson for Home of the Brave. Sarah, let me start with you and start right there. The fact that we got this announcement from OMB today saying that yes, layoffs have begun. It seems like the strategy here is to try to apply pressure to Democrats to come to the negotiating table. Do you think this strategy could work or could it backfire? What are you watching for?

I think it could certainly backfire. Look, this is the first time since Trump took office that it actually feels like Democrats have the upper hand when it comes to their messaging in this fight. Obviously, Democrats are focused on talking about health care. They want that to be at the forefront of this conversation because they know that that's a winning issue for them when it comes to voters. They trust Democrats more on that issue compared to Republicans. And so I think the Trump administration right now, when we're talking about workers going without pay, military family. not receiving pay. I think then them adding insult to injury and threatening these mass layoffs, I think it could blow up in their face and come back to bite them. Andrew, how do you see this moment? Does either side have more leverage right now? It's just really unclear how this is going to end. I agree with Sarah that this is something that will blow up in their face, and the president is helping ensure that will happen by announcing that he is choosing to do this. It's not a situation where the law is forcing these kinds of things to happen to federal workers, people like first responders, people who work at the VA, people who make sure Medicare operates properly. This is something that he... the country choosing to do. Meanwhile, like Sarah also said, health care has been the top issue in this fight. And you have Republicans in the House agree with Democrats on very little, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who are. Premium rocket in the coming months. And the Republicans need to come back to the table. Well, Sarah, pick up on that point, if you will, because Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene made a lot of news this week. colleague Ryan Nobles, as Andrew is saying, that she thinks it is time for Republicans to negotiate with Democrats over this issue of health care. And what's notable is she talked about the pressure she's getting from her own constituents. How do you see that move by the Congresswoman? Is it a sign that cracks could be forming, or do you think she's on an island when it comes to the Republican Party? I just want to say first off that I am just as shocked as anyone that it seems like Marjorie Taylor Greene is the voice of reason within the Republican Party right now. But I commend her for it. And I commend her for speaking out and representing her constituents and saying that she doesn't need to be bending the knee to Trump and towing the party line that she's going to stand up for them because she knows that 22 million Americans could see their premium skyrocket as a result of this. lose coverage. And so I think it might seem like right now she's on an island, but I think that there are a lot of more moderate Republicans who are going to be in unsafe districts and their elections come the 2026 midterms who are thinking the exact same.

that she's saying so i think that that could be the beginning of it and that she's kind of giving them that allowance to come forward and also break with the party on this issue so i do think that there will be others who will follow suit if this fight drags out and i think it will force the hand of the republican party look it seems like the democrats right now are all singing from the same song sheet when it comes to their messaging and that is rare it seems like nowadays in the democratic party that they have their messaging together but for the first time since Trump took office, like I noted, it does seem like they have the upper hand in this fight. And make of what Sarah is saying. And I've interviewed a number of Democrats on this program and asked them, where is the of compromise? What are you willing to give up? And I still haven't gotten an answer. Ultimately, do Democrats have to concede something? I think that this is a moment when we should look back at what Donald Trump's top promise in the campaign was. He said he was going to lower costs. I remember when you interviewed him shortly after the election, he said he was going to bring grocery prices way down. But like Marjorie Taylor Greene also said, those are up now. And immigrants like Sarah mentioned, who are being disciplined and they are talking about costs. They're talking about health care costs. And that is resonating with people. And it's Republicans who are fragmenting because two-thirds of Trump voters, according to Trump's own poll, Tony Fabrizio, agree with Democrats that these health care tax credits should not be terminated just so rich people can have yet another tax break. So I think what needs to happen here is the Democrats have been offering to negotiate for months. Trump turned down on TV for months. And he needs to be open to talking with them about something that two-thirds of his voters agree with Democrats about. Let me ask you all about. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Sarah. No, no, go ahead, Sarah. Just to piggyback off of what Andrew said, I think something that is worth noting in this conversation is that it is the. States and districts that are going to see their premiums skyrocket the most. And so this is a political loser for Republicans. And health care is the last thing I would imagine that these people want to be talking about heading into 2026 and that being the focal point. But it's exactly what Democrats want to be talking about. As Andrew noted, Democrats are smartly talking about costs because that is what the voters are concerned about the most. It's something that Trump campaigned on and he promised to bring down. We haven't seen that happen. And it seems like instead that his priority is going after his perceived political enemies rather than doing what he campaigned on and he promised. All right, guys. Well, fantastic conversation. Sarah, I'm glad you. point because I do think it could be one of the pressure points we see in the coming. But we'll have to see how long this drags on. Andrew and Sarah, thank you so much for joining me on this Friday. I hope you both have a great weekend. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Coming up next, all eyes on Gaza on the first day of the ceasefire. We'll get a live report from Israel where preparations are underway for the remaining hostages to be released as tensions in the region remain high. Stay with us. You're watching Meet the Press now.

Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio, and we have just made a new show, a TV talk show. It's called Better In Person. We have the kind of guests you don't see on every other show, and we have the kind of conversations you don't hear anywhere. I'm like, yes, chef. People home with the pork. You have the opportunity to make this little corner of the world into your ideal world, your dream world. You can watch better in person on the Freakonomics YouTube channel. You'll find a new episode there every week. This is how a conversation works. Want a $1,000 weight loss medication for $50? It all starts with Rowe's free GLP1 insurance check. Just upload your insurance card to see if you have coverage, then relax. Over 200,000 people have qualified for a $50 copay through Rowe. Go to row.co slash health. Half of comfort patients have a $50 per month copay or less for medication, plus $1.45 monthly Roe membership fee. Deductible cost may apply, and final cost varies by insurance plan. For safety information about GLP1 medications, including boxed warning, go to row.com, safety, RX only. At DSW, we ask the important questions. Like, what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay. The right shoes can make or break an RSVP. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe warehouse. Head to your DSW store or DSW.com today. And let us surprise you. Welcome back. A ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas officially went into effect early this morning. Israeli forces say they have completed their initial withdrawal from parts of Gaza as agreed upon in the first phase of President Trump's peace plan. As part of that agreement, Hamas has 72 hours from the start of the ceasefire to gather and fight all of the Israeli hostages being held. 20 believed to be alive and 28 bodies. That would mean the hostages should be released by early Monday morning. Just as President Trump is expected to travel to the region and address the Israeli parliament. Meanwhile, thousands of displaced Palestinians are now tracking north along the seashore, returning to parts of Gaza they had been forced to flee. An Israeli military official telling NBC news, in the coming days, Israel will allow up to 600 humanitarian aid trucks to enter Gaza daily. Join me now as Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel in Tel Aviv and former NBC News Tel Aviv Bureau Chief Martin Fletcher. Thanks so much to both of you for being here. Richard, an incredibly dynamic situation where you are the ceasefire deal now in effect. Walk us through the preparations for the hostage release and the latest in what's happening in Gaza.

Absolutely, Kristen. It's good to be back sharing a screen with my old colleague, Martin Flesher. I'm actually in Jerusalem at the moment. We were in Tel Aviv earlier today. Preparations are being made on many fronts. Let me tell you first about the preparations that are being put in place for the hostages. There are medical preparations that are being established. In fact, the main hospital that will be receiving the hostages has been running drills. at the hospital who were dressed up like the hostages and dressed up like family members in distress who were trying to distract the doctors to get their attention collapsing a very emotional scene they were running through the So that when the hostages arrive, the 20 living hostages, when they greet their families so that they are ready, ready to treat them for malnutrition, how to reintroduce feeding, how to reintroduce them psychologically, back into society. These hostages have been held in some cases in isolation, in some cases in groups, in many cases underground in tunnels that are up to 100 feet deep. I spoke with the... chief doctor who is responsible for evaluating the hostages. And she told me that one of the most important things is not just the physical condition, it's the mental condition. It's allowing them to empower themselves. They, for the last 730 plus days, have been at other people's, like other people's property. They have been told what to do, where to go, what to say. And it is a difficult process, she said, not just to get their bodies back into shape, but also to allow them to become human again. That is being done here on the Israeli side in society. And Martin can talk more about this. There is a great sense of hope, of anticipation, some trepidation that this deal is not going to work. And then in Gaza, as you mentioned. Gazans today in the tens of thousands, as Israeli troops pulled back from the centers of Palestinian towns and cities and pulled back to a, it's still inside Gaza, but back to a pre-agreed line perimeter, the Palestinians were going back to their homes to see what was left of them, and in many cases they are finding only rubble, and the director of Gaza's large... Hospital said that already just today people, as they are going back to their homes, have found more than 40 bodies of people who died in this war. Such emotional scenes there that you are describing Richard Standby. I share your gratitude that we have Martin Fletcher on this day. Martin, let me turn to you with the question that Richard poses, which is what is the reaction and the level of concern that this ceasefire may not hold? There are so many complicated steps that have to occur in the wake of these first huge, significant strides that we're going to see in the coming days.

Yeah, well, this could fall apart at any moment. We hope it won't, but there are many of these such an uncertain situation. But we're talking about the hostages and their families. Remember this. Only three weeks ago when Israel attacked the Hamas leaders in Qatar, pretty much the hostage families were giving up almost saying, oh my God, this is the end of our hope to get our boys back from Gaza. Everybody was saying, well, this is the end of the hostages. Think of the whiplash that the families are feeling. Suddenly, after three weeks, instead of that being the end of their hopes to get their boys back, it seems to have been the beginning of the end game to get them home again. So the emotional roller coaster that these families are on, and all of Israel is mind-boggling. And also, as Richard's mentioned, you know, this is a two-way street. We're going to get about 2,000 Palestinians released. many of whom have been jailed for life terms for murder, whose families also pretty much gave up on ever seeing them at home again. And now they're going to be going home. 250 people apparently with very long jail sentences in Israel, another 1,700 or so who've been picked up from Gaza since the attack on Israel. People not involved in the attack, but arrested in Gaza. They're all going home, too. So there's this, on the one hand, both sides are waiting for an explosion of... joy at the return of their loved ones, but it's very, but also at the same time, they must be on tenterhooks because this could fall apart, as I said before, very quickly. One, one assassination, one murder, one, you know, a Hootie rocket on Elat, which they've been firing rockets now for months, which suddenly kills many Israelis. That could. The next couple of days, God forbid. But there are so many unknowns at the moment. Hopefully, this will all be resolved. And by midday Israel time on Monday, the hostages will be back, according to the agreement. Yeah, the whole world is hoping for that, Martin. And I want to put this question to you. And then I'll turn back to Richard. We know that the U.S. military is preparing options to deploy as many as 200 troops to Israel. Part of the peacekeeping force, broadly speaking, what if any role do you anticipate the United States will need to play in the long-term role of who is going to govern Gaza? Well, those troops come in the 200. Everybody has said there's going to be no American boots on the ground in Gaza. But the long term question about who will govern Gaza, there's going to be a summit meeting apparently in Cairo next week. Apparently Israel won't be there, but there'll be about a dozen countries involved, including the United States, to discuss in that summit what will be the future of Gaza. The question of who will run Gaza, you know, Hamas.

is out, according to Israel, according to the United States. We're not sure yet whether Hamas has actually internalized that, even though Arab countries have said they don't want Hamas to be part of it. But it seems very difficult to imagine that Hamas will just disappear and accept whatever the dictator is. Look, there's going to be... Arab money, mostly from the Arabs, from the Gulf states coming in to help rebuild Gaza. About 89,000 homes have been damaged or destroyed and need to be rebuilt in Gaza in a short time. There's going to be this committee of an international leadership committee that's going to oversee the reconstruction, rebuilding of Gaza. We're not too sure exactly how that will work. There are so many open questions involved. Will Hamas agree to be? Who will run that? Many questions to be answered. Very sensitive time. It absolutely is, and you lay it out so clearly, Richard, to those 200 U.S. troops are expected to be stationed in Israel. What will their role be? And again, as Martin says, this promise, no U.S. boots on the ground inside Gaza. Can that hold?

Well, as Martin was just saying, there is supposed to be an international force that will supervise Gaza. But the force hasn't been specified. It wasn't clearly laid out in the deal. It was really not mentioned in the deal at all. It was something that President Trump has mentioned. It's something that the negotiators have talked about. But we don't know. what this force is supposed to be doing, who exactly is supposed to be made up, who is supposed to make up this force, where are they going to be getting their troops from, where their guns from, where their responsibilities be. Apparently, according to two U.S. officials, these 200 or up to 200 American soldiers won't be going into Gaza, but they will work in a coordination. with this still to be formed force that will, at some eventual stage, replace Hamas and provide a kind of police force and security force, an internal security force, for the Gaza Strip. All right. Well, Richard Engel, Martin Fletcher, thank you both so much. We really appreciate your insights on this momentous Friday as we anticipate the release of the hostages in just a few days now. Coming up after the break, countdown to Election Day, what to watch for in the final weeks of the 2025 campaign season with key races in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York set to be major pre-midterm tests for both parties. Stay with us.

I'm gonna. Welcome back with less than a month to Election Day. We are watching some key bellwether races with potentially major implications for next year's midterms, including for Virginia governor, where last night Republican lieutenant governor, Winsome Earle-Sears, and former Democratic congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, faced off in their only scheduled debate, which largely focused on a candidate, not on stage, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General Jay Jones, whose unearthed text messages from 2022, which suggested one of the top Republicans in the state be shot have triggered condemnation and calls for him to exit the race. Take a look at this exchange. The comments that Jay Jones made are absolutely abhorrent. I denounce them when I learned of them, and I will denounce them every opportunity I get. My opponent, unfortunately, only denounces violence when her side is the target. Don't highlight that, Abigail. You routinely refer to me as your enemy. Ms. Winsome Earle-Sears, just please give her a chance to respond. your enemy. I'm not your enemy. You are not my enemy. We are political opponents. I denounce them as soon as I learned of them. She denounces murder. And importantly, at this point, as we move forward, the voters now have this information, information that was withheld for them. You're running presumably for political reasons. But the voters now have the information and it is up to voters to make an individual choice based on this information. Meanwhile, as the shutdown drags on, Winsome Earle-Sears dodged when pressed whether she'd asked the president to work with Democrats to reopen the government. Look at that. So the president has already said that he would do that. But you know, before anything gets to the president, it's in the Senate right now. Eight Senate Democrats, and we cannot find any, because they're playing political football, as you have been Abigail. all this time. The current lieutenant governor of Virginia Warner has not stood up for Virginia workers. My opponent has cut and spliced my words so that it would look like I did not care. Joining me now for more is NBC national political reporter Bridget Bowman. Bridget, thanks so much for being here for this election segment. We really appreciate it. We just heard some of that fiery debate from last night in Virginia. What were your other key takeaways? Yeah, that's right. It was clear right from the jump that Winsome Earle-Sears seized these texts from Jay Jones as a big opening in her race against Abigail Spanberger. The first question was actually about the car tax in the state, and in her answer, Winsome Earle-Sears pivoted to the Jay Jones controversy. But it remains to be seen whether this is going to actually narrow this race in any way. So far, Abigail Spanberger has had a double-digit lead in public polling. She has a big lead in fundraising. She's outspending Winsome Earle-Sears on the airwaves. And Republicans I've talked to are a little more...

optimistic about the Attorney General's race, then the governor's race at this point, even amid this controversy because of the disparities that we see here. And, of course, the shutdown coming up as a major issue in the debate as well, which you mentioned. Virginia adversely affected by this with a number of federal workers and the federal layoffs through Doge has been a big issue throughout this campaign as well. So we're going to have to see how that plays out. All right. Let's pivot to another state, New Jersey, the Trump presidency looming very large in that governor's debate. Take a look. Let me be clear. No matter who is that's in the White House, my job is to stand up with the 9.3 million citizens of this state, and I will. I will fiercely advocate for them at all times. But let me also say this. Then in times of need, it's best to have a relationship whoever occupies the White House, and I will. Congresswoman? He's shown zero signs of standing up to this president. In fact, the president himself called Jack 100% MAGA. And he's shown every sign of being met. What grade would you give President Trump for his second term? Right now, I'd certainly give the president a day. I think he's right about everything that he's doing. Amazing. I think that tells us all we need to know about who Jack Ciattarelli is supporting. I'd give him an F. Okay, Jack Ciattarelli, of course, the Republican, Mikie Sherrill, the Democrat. Okay, so let's just set the scene here, Bridget for folks. New Jersey, of course, had a Republican as recently as 2018 and Chris Christie, but in 2020, he's clearly walking that fine line with President Trump. Yeah, that's right. And Republicans I've been talking to about this race, including folks who worked on Christie's campaign, say that his allegiance to Trump really is going to help him more than hurt him in this election. And that's because, in their view, voters to whom opposite... is a big issue. They don't think those voters are going to be voting for Jack Ciattarelli anyway. And what Jack Ciattarelli really needs is he needs to turn out these infrequent Trump voters, folks who are maybe less likely to turn out in an off year and an odd year election. That's going to be key to his victory. Republicans I've been talking to say that his allegiance to Trump is really important to do that. We've also seen Jack Ciattarelli really leaning into trying to appeal to these voters campaigning in Democratic parts of the state where the president was able to make some big gains last year. So we're going to see if that actually works, of course, in November. And Democrats, on the other hand, believe, as you heard Congresswoman Cheryl say right there, hurt him among voters and making this case that he's not going to stand up to Trump, even when his policies may hurt New Jersey in their view. So the key question of this race is, is it going to be a referendum on President Trump or is it going to be a referendum, as Republicans believe, on Democrats and Governor Phil Murphy on Democrats running the state government? All right. Well, we will watch it closely. We have to go out to California this viral moment with the California gubernatorial candidate and former congresswoman Katie Porter. It's gotten a lot of attention for this uncomfortable interview she gave to a local station. Let's take a listen. What do you say to the 40% of California voters who you'll need in order to win who voted for Trump?

How would I need them in order to win, man? Well, unless you think you're going to get 60% of the vote. You think you'll get 60%? Everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote for you. That's what you're saying. In a general election? Yes. If it is me versus a Republican, I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump. What if it's you versus another Democrat? I don't intend that to be the case. The question is, what do you say to the 40% of voters who voted for Trump? Oh, I'm happy to say that. It's the do you need them to win part that I don't understand? I'm happy to answer the question as you haven't written and I'll answer it. And we've also asked the other candidates, do you think you need any of those 40% of California voters to win? And you're saying, no, you don't. No, I'm saying I'm going to try to win every vote I can. And what I'm saying to you is that... Well, to those voters. Okay, so you... I don't want to keep doing this. I'm going to call it. What a moment. She notably, of course, dismissed the idea of a Democratic opponent, even though California has top two primary. So how big of an influence could this be with one year out, Bridget? Yeah. As you point out, there's a long way to go before this primary, of course. But this is really one of the first big moments of the race beyond former Vice President Kamala Harris saying she's not going to run for governor. So we'll see if this really breaks through to voters. We certainly see Congressman and Katie Porter's opponents trying to make. sure that voters are aware of this. One of her opponents actually launched some ads, including an ad on TV that shows the entire CBS clip trying to make this case to voters early. There has been really limited public polling in this race. The few surveys have shown Katie Porter leading the pack with a slight lead, but a big chunk of voters are undecided. So how is this going to affect how they view the Congresswoman that remains to be seen? All right. Well, you and I have a busy several weeks ahead of us. Bridget, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Thanks, President. All right. We want to turn now to another conflict overseas. The war in Ukraine, where Russia conducted a massive series of strikes. Ukrainian infrastructure overnight, leaving hundreds of thousands without power in Kiev, damaging an apparent block, and killing one and injuring 20 in the southeastern region of the country. That's according to Ukrainian authorities. Russian officials claim the attacks came in response to Ukraine's targeting of Russian civilian infrastructure. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says Russia has increasingly been targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure as winter approaches and temperatures fall. Meanwhile, at the White House, First Lady Melania Trump announced she has been working with Russian President Vladimir Putin to return Ukrainian children who were kidnapped into Russia during the war. For more on this, NBC White House correspondent, Gabe Kutierrez, joins me now. Gabe, thanks so much for being here. So what more did we hear from the First Lady today? Hi there, Kristen. Well, it really was remarkable for the First Lady and the Grand Forer here at the White House making those comments. She spoke for about six minutes or so. And as you said, she had been having these back channel.

President Vladimir Putin, she says, for the last three months, and she was urging him to return children separated from their families during the war in Ukraine. Let's listen to some of what she had to say. President Vladimir Putin and I have had an open channel of communication regarding the welfare of these children. For the past three months, Both sides have participated in several back channel meetings and calls, all in good faith. Now, the first lady had written a letter to President Vladimir Putin that President Trump had given to the Russian leader during his summit in Alaska, during his summit in Alaska. So it was pretty remarkable, Kristen, to see her that she had been having these talks with Vladimir Putin. And she says that more children will be released in the future. Yeah, remarkable indeed. We know this is a big issue for her. We'll continue to track it. Gabe Gutierrez. Thanks so much. We will be back Monday with more Meet the Press now. And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your local NBC News station. I'll have interviews with Vice President JD Vance and Senators Mark Kelly and Lindsey Graham. There's more ahead on NBC News Now. Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio, and we have just made a new show, a TV talk show. It's called Better In Person. We have the kind of guests you don't see on every other show, and we have the kind of conversations you don't hear anywhere. I'm like, yes, chef. People home with the pork. You have the opportunity to make this little corner of the world into your ideal world, your dream world. You can watch better in person on the Freakonomics YouTube channel. You'll find a new episode there every week. This is how a conversation works.