tv Meet the Press MSNBC July 4, 2022 1:00am-2:00am PDT
i'll be watching you. the internet doesn't have to be duckduckgo is a free all in one privacy app with a built in search engine, web browser, one click data clearing and more stop companies like google from watching you, by downloading the app today. duckduckgo: privacy, simplified. this sunday, that stunning testimony. >> we are watching the capitol building get defaced over a lie. >> former white house aide cassidy hutchinson on donald trump learning january 6th supporters were armed. >> they're not going to hurt me. >> on mr. trump insisting he join the mob at the capitol. >> he said something to the effect of, i'm the "f"-ing president, take me to the capitol now. >> and quoting mark meadows on learning that the rioters wanted to hang vice president mike pence. >> he thinks mike deserves it.
he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. >> now with challenges to some of her testimony, republicans are dismissing her testimony. >> a partisan witch hunt. >> i'll talk to committee member zoe lofgren, and danny cevallos about the legal jeopardy mr. trump may now be in. plus, after roe. >> i don't think it could get more confusing. >> abortion restrictions are being challenged. >> the trigger law is an extreme law. >> i'll talk to hhs secretary xavier becerra. >> democrats' growing doubt about president biden. democrats have a very deep bench. it's time to allow a new generation to emerge and new talent. >> why more democrats, mostly off the record, are saying the president shouldn't run for re-election. joining me now are former homeland security secretary jeh johnson. nbc news capitol hill correspondent.
the american enterprise institute. and marriana sotomayor of "the washington post." welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> a good sunday morning. i hope you're enjoying this july 4th weekend. but even as the country celebrates, the 246th anniversary of our independence, the lines that separate us seem to be growing bolder and brighter by the way. abortion rights advocates versus abortion opponents. americans eager to limit the availability of guns versus second amendment enthusiasts. climate change versus drill, baby drill. blue versus red, left versus right. and nobody aggravates our wounds more than donald trump. on tuesday in the unscheduled fifth hearing of the january 6th committee, we heard shocking testimony that has been compared
to watergate's john dean. former white house aide cassidy hutchinson described nothing less than a violent coup attempt, urged on by a president, who was more active participant than passive observer. she testified mr. trump knew the mob was armed, wanted to go to the capitol with them. and even agreed that mike pence deserved to be hanged and was in danger of being declared unfit to serve by a majority of his cabinet. >> knives, guns, pistols and rifles. bear spray. body armor. >> three men walking down the street with ar-15s. >> i overheard the president say, i don't care if they have weapons. let my people in, they can mar march to the capitol from here. >> president trump was aware that a number of the individuals in the crowd had weapons and were wearing body armor.
and here is what president trump instructed the crowd to do. >> we're going to walk down, and i'll be there with you. we'll walk down to the capitol. >> described him as being irate. the president said something to the effect of, i'm the "f"-ing president, take me up to the capitol now. to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the west wing. the president reached up towards the front of his vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. mr. inning engle grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. we're going back to the west wing. we're not going to the capitol. mr. trump then used his free hand to lunge towards bobby engel. >> hang mike pence! >> i remember pat saying something to the effect of, mark, we need to do something more. they are literally calling for
the vice president to be hung. and mark responded something to the effect of, you heard him, pat. he thinks mike deserves it. he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. >> joining me now is democratic congresswoman zoe lofgren of california, on the january 6th committee, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning. >> let me start with your reaction to the former president and a couple people around him disputing certain parts of the testimony. i know not the larger part but some of the specific details. what do you make of that pushback, congresswoman? >> well, we always expected trump world to try and discredit her, and they're not disappointing us in that regard. i thought her testimony was credible. she has nothing to gain by stepping forward and telling the truth and trump world has everything to lose by the truth. so they are doing their best to try and attack her, to discredit her. you know, i am not surprised by
this effort. but it is not the right thing to do. >> can you describe the efforts the committee makes to corroborate some of the charges ms. hutchinson made before she appeared? did you contact secret service, some of these other entities? >> well, we had interviewed mr. orano to several times. his memory does not appear to be as precise as hers. we would certainly welcome them to come back if they wish to do that. but her overall testimony that the president -- then president wanted to go to the capitol is consistent with other testimony that we have received. certainly her testimony that she directly overheard president trump saying that he didn't care if they had weapons, if the crowd had weapons, that they were not going to hurt him, and that they could march to the capitol with their weapons after
the speech. that was new. and stunning, really. >> you know, there's always cameras on the presidential motorcade. have you gotten any footage? it's possible there is footage of the alleged incident in the suv. have you guys subpoenaed that footage? whether it's from news organizations or the secret service? >> we'll look at everything. but i think it's important to note ms. hutchinson was relating a story that mr. ornato told to her. she wasn't in the vehicle, she didn't see it. she was relating what he told her. the important thing is that no one is disputing that trump wanted to go to the capitol. he even said so in his speech. there's a lot of evidence when he went back to the white house. he still wanted to go to the capitol, and was certainly well
aware of the violence that was going on. >> you made a diplomatic response about mr. ornato saying he seems to not have a precise memory. a congresswoman told me earlier this week, adam kinzinger said that mr. ornato likes to lie. has mr. ornato testified under oath in any of these interviews that you have had with him? >> it's important to note that it's -- if you lie to congress, it's a crime, whether or not you're under oath. >> was he under oath? >> it's a crime to lie to congress whether you come in for an interview or deposition. i'll say this. mr. ornato was a political appointee of president trump at the time.
unlike all prior secret service agents protecting the president, he was appointed to be deputy assistant to the president. and so he was involved in clearing the square so the president could hold up a bible in front of the church. i mean, he was involved in all of that. he's part of trump world. >> i understand that. you've been hesitant to confirm or deny whether he was under oath. i understand what you're saying, it's still a crime to lie to congress. is it that you're not sure he was under oath or he was not under oath? >> i believe he was under oath. but certainly if he wants to come back and clarify his prior information, he will also be under oath. i think it's a mistake to focus on whether or not he was lying to ms. hutchinson when he relayed that story.
the fact is, the president knew his crowd was armed. we heard the capitol, the metropolitan police describing seeing assault weapons on this crowd. he wanted to go down to the capitol with them. he said that in his speech. we have a lot of evidence even when he returned to the white house. >> let me ask you about pat cipollone. you put a subpoena out to him last week. why now? why not two, three, four months ago? >> we have been engaging with mr. cipollone. he did have an informal interview or discussion. that was all he was willing to do. but there have been ongoing discussions to see if he would come in and talk further. after ms. hutchinson's testimony, that was so informative, it's very clear that we would like him to come
in. now, i know that he's concerned about executive privilege. >> right. >> that's not -- that's not an absolute immunity. it falls when there is something more important, and that is true in this case. and certainly the current president, mr. biden, has waived executive privilege on most occasions when it comes to getting the truth about the events leading up to january 6th. >> you want him to come in for a deposition on july 6th. is that going to happen on july 6th? >> well, i hope so. our intention is to hear from him, and i think given the testimony of ms. hutchinson, that he was trying to prevent crimes from being committed on that day, i would assume he would want to come in. >> i want you to react to this "new york times" lead. the federal prosecutors working
on the case were just as astonished as hutchinson's account as other viewers. the panel did not provide them, meaning doj, with videos or transcripts with committee members before hand, leaving them feeling blind sided. is that a fair characterization, that you blindsided justice on this? >> i don't think so. we're not an arm of the department of justice. we're the legislative committee. they have subpoena power. they could subpoena ms. hutchinson. i'm surprised they have not done so. we interviewed her four times. i think that's publicly known at this point. >> yeah. >> and the fourth interview was very compelling. and it's obvious she's being intimidated, people are trying to discredit her, people are trying to dissuade her from testifying. the trump world was paying for her lawyers, which was very problematic for her.
she changed lawyers and got an independent lawyer. and then proceeded. i was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. what are they doing over there? they have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does. >> that's a point some of us were discussing this morning. the last question is the issue of so-called witness tampering. do you feel like you have enough evidence to prove that is what's happened? >> well, i don't know. charging someone with a crime is not our opportunity. we can't do that. we're a legislative committee. but i will say this. but if witnesses are being intimidated, we don't plan to just sit by and allow that to happen. we're going to raise a stink about it. we're going to refer information publicly to the department of justice if witnesses are intimidated. because it's a crime.
it's a crime to do that. >> we're going to see cassidy hutchinson testify one more time? >> i don't know yet. i always leave the chair to announce the hearings. >> congresswoman lofgren, good to see you. thank you for coming on. >> happy fourth of july. >> you, too. the hearings have raised the prospect that former president trump faces real legal liability for his actions before and on january 6th. among them, obstructing a congressional proceeding. conspiracy to defraud the united states. seditious conspiracy. wire fraud. and as we were just talking about, possible witness tampering. joining me now to go through this is our nbc news legal analyst danny cevallos. which are the charges that the former president ought to be really concerned about? >> you had the one that is most pertinent, dead last on that
list and that is witness tampering. the reason i say so is that congress specifically enacted the relevant statute in order to make it more expansive and cover any official proceeding. it doesn't need to be a grand jury or judicial proceeding, and the witness doesn't even have to testify. the witness doesn't even need to have firsthand knowledge. this statute criminalizes any kind of harassment or corrupt persuasion in order to prevent a witness from communicating information to law enforcement. and i've got to tell you, i have defended cases where is the corrupt persuasion standard is in play. and when you look up what it means to do something corruptly, the definition, is an improper purpose. so you're back at square one. the point i make there is that it's very malleable. and the government knows that and why they succeed very often -- >> you think it's an easier case to bring? >> absolutely. any time you have that corrupt
persuasion standard, and it appears in other statutes in the u.s. code, it makes it relatively easy to prove an improper purpose. what is an improper purpose? it might be preventing this information from going to law enforcement. not necessarily testifying under oath. that was congress' intent when it passed section 1512. to make this sweep as broadly as possible and to protect witnesses. >> what about his actions on january 6th? it more and more looks like he was an active participant rather than a passive observer. is there a there there? >> according to judge david carter, whom had an opinion several months ago. now, i caution folks that in laying out a kind of map for prosecuting trump and john eastman for say conspiracy to, i guess, defraud the united states or to obstruct the proceeding, if you're looking for that, this opinion does give kind of a road map, but it was in the context of deciding that there was no privilege. so folks should understand it has no direct effect.
it's not the effect of a probable cause finding. it's almost like an advisory opinion. it's almost like the judge saying here's my take on it. but it only goes to whether or not privilege applies. but folks at the time pointed out correctly that this provided a basic road map for doj officials, very much like these congressional hearings are providing a road map for the doj. but at the same time, i put an asterisks on that. because whatever power the committee has to obtain information, the doj has super powers compared to the committee. >> that's exactly what the congresswoman was just saying. in fact, when she was responding to this idea that justice was shocked by cassidy hutchinson's testimony. she basically said they have more powerful subpoenas than congress does. what does it tell you that a witness surprised them? does it tell you that their investigation is not as thorough yet? >> it tells me, if that's true, hutchinson must have flown under their radar, because the doj has vast abilities to investigate, much more than a congressional committee. by the way, chuck, in the last
few years, we have all seen what happens if a witness doesn't want to comply with a congressional subpoena. forget it, i'm not showing up. it's up to congress to go through its, well, let's say questionable abilities to enforce those subpoenas. meanwhile, the doj, when it wants a subpoena enforced, it enforces the subpoena. they can go to a judge and get a search warrant, which is even more powerful, and in a grand jury proceeding, everything is secret. we don't know what they're looking at unless or until they indict. >> let's take her word that she flew under the radar. it does seem as if they have a lot of effort on the people who went after the capitol, they have a lot of effort on some of the far-right violent groups. they're doing something on the elector front. we saw all that action. it does not look like they penetrated the west wing. that's essentially what they're admitting here, that they have not yet touched the president. do you think that's a garland decision?
>> it is a garland decision. all of these committee hearings are for the public, but also for an audience of one, and that's merrick garland. the d.o.j. is going to be circumspect about what they have and what they don't have. do i think they were truly shocked by what hutchinson said? only if she stated something under oath that was never before disclosed. that's in my mind the only way the doj could have been surprised. because chuck, this is an institution, the doj, that was built to investigate. it was built to persuade witnesses to come in and talk to them or to testify. i mean, when you see a witness testify under oath, that's kind of the end of the long path. the doj has so many tools to get somebody to come in and bear their soul, reminding them they may be in huge trouble for lying to a federal agent. >> we know how long doj has been working on this. when do you think they would have enough to pursue indictments, six months, a year? >> that's the big question, when and do they have enough?
the doj was designed to investigate, and for what, since their inception, they do not let you know. they don't give a status report on where they are with investigations. they remain silent, and sometimes you or anyone else -- >> that's why we need people like you to tell us this happened, this happened. >> people who may be targets may never known they were target it is the doj declines to indict. that's how secret they are. how many more tools they have to not only persuade people to come in and talk to them, but obtain documents, search warrants, likes like that. so this whole part about cassidy hutchinson shocking the d.o.j., that might be a little bit of spin on their part. if she was on their radar, the doj would have been all over it. >> if she's not on their radar, you have to wonder how thorough they are being. when we come become, tuesday's hearing portrayed donald trump as out of control.
stop companies like google from watching you, by downloading the app today. duckduckgo: privacy, simplified. welcome back. the panel is here. >> so with donald trump we've been here a million times, started with attacking john mccain, and you have the "access hollywood" tape and you think this is the one, this is the one. is this the one? is this week the one? >> no. there has been so much smoke from these smoking guns over six years that it clouds your eyes there is questions about the testimony of ms. hutchinson. i think it's still a long way from her testimony to getting merrick garland to file charges against a former president of the united states.
while i think this is a reminder to the country of donald trump's irresponsible impeachable actions after the election of 2020, i don't think it's a smoking gun. >> there's so much space between those two things like getting the doj to file and anything changing for trump, there's so much space between those things. when you see people like the washington examiner coming out and saying he shouldn't be president again, there are metrics that are changing. it was always true during the trump years that republicans were always more comfortable saying privately and in text messages than they were on television, that this was a very bad thing. but you're sort of getting to a point where you almost can't avoid saying that, when the thing in dispute here is like grabbing at a steering wheel. but the thing that's not in dispute is the thing that he wanted to go to the capitol and lead the rioters. >> have you heard from republicans quietly, like, all right, i'm out or not yet? >> oh, no. i mean, i was texting a couple of aides who worked for lawmakers who are still very close to trump.
everyone is pushing it aside. before trump said on his social media platform, cassidy hutchinson, none of this is true, she is an outsider to us. these aides were already saying that. they all say that this is not going to play a role in the midterms. no one is paying attention to this. if you can them about '24, though, and what it means for trump and actually running, that's when they get a little squeamish. >> it's easier for them to say that. >> i have to begin with this. while a lot of men are hiding under their desk in lawyer's offices, this hearing has really been a profile in courage among women. caroline edwards, cassidy hutchinson and liz cheney. i think that this hearing has been choreographed exceptionally well for the attention span of the average american in 2022. i see a case being developed of the criminal charges that danny laid out.
plus, given aid and comfort to an insurrection, what happened on january 6th was the very definition of an insurrection. i'm concerned as the former federal prosecutor in me that gets you a lot of cred these days on television, i'm concerned that the committee may have overreached on the incident in the vehicle. it was vivid, it was collateral to this central charge. and it was secondhand hearsay. >> it's funny you say that. the fact that the former president is obsessing over the incident and nothing else speaks volumes. take a listen to how he's characterizing this. >> this lady yesterday, there's something wrong with her. is there something wrong? she said i jumped from a car and i started strangling -- think of this, i started strangling a secret service agent? >> right. >> who i know very well. i grabbed the steering wheel of a car that said that i wanted guns at my rally?
i didn't want guns there. >> did you grab the steering wheel? >> of course not. >> what's fascinating is trump finding a specific he can deny to cast doubt. >> here's where i would have hesitated on that. if he tells me that marina told her that chuck todd hit him, i would want to know exactly what matt has to say about that incident firsthand. >> good to know. >> under oath, a federal law enforcement officer under oath. the committee perhaps knows something that the rest of us don't know. before i went out with the secondhand hearsay, which is going to get a lot of attention, i would want to know what the first hand witness has to say. >> technically, we're in our third version. >> it depends how you interpret hearsay. that testimony would not have been admissible in a courtroom. as you know, secret service agents don't normally talk about
what they see, what they hear from their protectees. i was a protectee of the secret service for three years. they have to be in a position to hear and see all kinds of very sensitive things. >> lawmakers were briefed late on what the cassidy hutchinson testimony was going to be. the rank and file of the committee were briefed late on this. there was some discussion among them on whether or not this key detail should have been included. and that now they're at a point where this is out there, right? and we know that people like the vice chair of the committee, liz cheney, have really wanted to push the envelope of what the committee includes. this is obviously one of those headline grabbing details. but i think it's fair to wonder whether or not her testimony would have been as shocking as it was. i would argue that it would have been. even if you didn't have those few details of what happened in the limo. again, i think this is where the committee continues to come down on it, they don't want you to miss the forest for the trees on this. >> they could have shared the same incident, but not with the
detail, that he was irate, and the secret service had to tell him no, no, no. it's the same allegation. >> the bottom line is, this hearing in particular, but all of the committee hearings have riveted the beltway. the question is, is it getting beyond the beltway? and when you look at republican party voters, they are slowly less enthusiastic about donald trump in 2024. i think that's more of a function of time and looking for something new than it is all of these salacious details coming from the committee. >> i think you hit on something, it is easier to criticize trump as a bad idea to run again as it is to directly have to deal with this. >> exactly. a lot of aides right now are wondering, when, if trump decides to run, when does he announce? >> when ever the indictment comes down. >> they don't want him to talk about this ahead of the midterms. he is such an unknown. republicans are on the path to take back the majority in the house and the senate. they don't want a random
announcement by trump, because he can be a liability to a lot of swing voters. >> the irony is, if the republicans fail, where do they fail? it's all donald trump's fault, either directly or indirectly. how he got involved in primaries for bad candidates, you can argue roe v. wade in an indirect way. and the but for paragraph on the day after the election, it's all going to be trump, right? >> think about the georgia special elections on january 5th, 2021, right? donald trump is not a political winner for the republican party, yet many republicans don't seem able to accept that fact. >> i'm very curious this dispute between committee and justice. if justice was surprised by cassidy hutchinson, to me that sounds like justice isn't pursuing the west wing yet. >> the dispute between congress and the department of justice is not new. any incident that is investigated by both branches,
there's always a fight about who gets to go first, whether or not the committee has to turn over all the testimony and so forth. if, in fact, the department of justice didn't know what cassidy hutchinson was going to say, that suggests that they -- they're not focused on this. >> they have a long way to go. >> or they have a long way to go. >> also makes sense why they want the committee transcripts. >> sure, but they have a lot more powerful subpoenas. >> they're focused now, i'm certain. >> we'll pause now. up next, is the biden administration fighting hard enough to secure abortion rights? not according to many democrats. i'll talk to the hhs secretary when we come back.
wanna help kids get their homework done? well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. welcome back. the supreme court ruling overturning roe v. wade has left democrats angry because it took
away a right they counted on. and exasperated because many feel the biden administration was not prepared and they are not doing enough to assure abortion rights. well, the hhs secretary argues there's not a lot the administration can do. >> there is no magic bullet. but if there is something we can do, we will find it and do it at hhs. >> and let me pick up on what you said there. you've been spending some days finding -- trying to find new avenues. is there any avenue you found that can actually expand abortion rights in places that it's going to be taken away? >> chuck, if you look at our laws, and the way we administer them, when the supreme court speaks, unless we're all going
to say that word of the supreme court will no longer have value, we have to heed the word of the supreme court. and so we will, but we will continue to find every avenue possible to make sure women have access to the care that they need, including abortion care. >> let's talk about one of the proposals out there that got shot down, something that a couple of democrats said, which is maybe temporary clinics on federal land. you know, fight it in the courts, let the courts say no and instead try it. did you look into this at all? >> i think we're continuing to explore everything that's out there. the difficulty is that simply because it's an idea doesn't mean it can go out into practice. so what we want to make sure is we can put things out into practice, because you have people who are right now in need of abortion care services. so we're going to do what we can to give people something as
quickly as we can. even if it may not be everything they like. we want to make sure we're providing everything we can. >> the -- one of the things that may be the federal government can strengthen is access to -- access to medication for abortions. what actions do you think you can take that would essentially speed up the process at the fda? >> well, we want to make sure that medication abortion, which is currently available in america, continues to be such that it can be accessed by those who need it most. we will continue to protect those federally required aspects of medication abortion, and we'll do everything we can, where it's possible for example, in terms of emergency care to make sure that women have access to the services that they need. >> you said something to my colleague kate snow about transporting women to other states was something that maybe
hhs would take the lead on and help with officially. have you looked into that and can you legally do it? >> we are exploring the opportunity to work with others to make sure that if a woman is trying to access that care that she needs, that we will be supportive of that. there are a lot of partners, public and private, looking into this. we're one of those partners. >> what are you looking in to see? what is it that you're concerned about legally? >> all of the above. we have to make sure, chuck, we stay within the confines of the law and we have the resources to do it and that our authorities allow us to do it. >> it's interesting, you say confines of the law. one of the hallmarks of the last administration was he obviously pushed the envelope and essentially let the courts stop him. there are many democrats who say, you know what? make the courts stop you. get caught trying, whether it's on federal land, whether it's on transportation. it sounds like you got a directive from the president
that says don't push the envelope. is that fair? >> i think it's just the opposite. the president, in his first announcement, said that he was tasking us at hhs to take on a number of issues, including medication abortion. so he's asked us to seek as aggressive a strategy as we can. but we do, unlike the previous administration, we do intend to respect the law. >> what do you tell your former congressional democratic colleagues who feel as if the administration -- i looked at the list of things that you guys are doing. there's not much you can do. i looked and it's clear because you don't want to get outside the law. what do you tell these congressional democrats that feel like the party is not fighting hard enough? >> well, i tell them give us some good ideas. we're going to explore everything we can. i would ask them to please pass a law. they have it in their power, if they can find the votes to
actually codify roe, the roe decision, which is what we need more than anything else. executive action, we will find what we can and do as much as we can. but when you are stripped of a right as the supreme court has just done to every woman of child bearing age, it is tough to overcome. it took 50 years to get as far as we did. now we have to figure out how to do this. >> it sounds like the administration essentially saying look, if you want to fix it now, congress is your only route. there's not much the executive branch can do. fair? >> chuck, i wouldn't go that far, because we will find ways to make sure women exercise their rights. and that women are protected. it's just not going to be easy. the fastest route is to reinstitute that right that women had until five justices on the supreme court decided to use their authority in ways that deny millions of americans the right to good health and perhaps even their life.
>> have you thought about the fact that at times when you were in congress, there was some big democratic majorities. was this just something folks thought was never at risk and that's why it never got brought up for codification. >> i've been around long enough to know that nothing is totally safe. but we haven't been able to pass the equal rights amendment. this country has a way to go. but certainly, i don't believe this decision by this court in dobs is going to stand long. it's just not america. we're not about taking rights. most people around the world haven't looked at the u.s. as the beacon of light because we do things like dobs. so just the opposite. i'm confident we're going to get past this, but five justices have made life very difficult. and in some cases impossible for some women. >> so this has to be done legislatively. there is no other way to fix this, because the court is the
court for quite some time. >> the court is the court. the court can undo the injustice it just visited upon millions of women. but i don't expect five justices in this court to do that. and so the next best route is to pass a law to codify roe. >> secretary of the health and human services, appreciate you coming on, sir. thank you. happy fourth. >> thanks, chuck. when we come back, clarence thomas suggested that the supreme court might want to reconsider other rights, like same-sex marriage. why that not be so easy politically. stay with us.
welcome back. data download time. last week's supreme court decision to overturn roe had be wondering what is next. justice clarence thomas wondered himself and wrote about his desire to reconsider some other social contract precedence, including the legalizing of same-sex marriage. while reversing that decision won't be easy, as it would land among a public that's already rapidly evolved on that issue. as you can see, at the start of the century, support for same-sex marriage was below 50%. you saw all those ballot initiatives. that was the george bush re-election. and then what you saw, you saw slow agreement of it. president obama endorses it. the numbers get close to 50. it was at 55% here. after it's legal, it shoots up
to 71%. in fact, the legalization of same-sex marriage appears to have made more people comfortable identifying honestly about what they are. in fact, in 2012, just 3.5% of the country identified as lbgtq. that's more than doubled in less than ten years, being driven mostly by a younger generation who has grown up in a world where same-sex marriage is legal. so for instance, among gen-z 20% of gen-z identify as something other than heterosexual. you can see those who have lived more in a world with same-sex marriage is more likely to be comfortable identifying as heterosexual. you can just see the changes there. just to give you a breakdown of the entire lbgtq population these days. 30% are under the age of 25, according to polling. as you can see, the numbers get
lower. under 35, you see nearly a quarter is under 35. and then the numbers get lower. but that is what's happened here, as the longer same-sex marriage has been legal, the more comfortable many americans are identifying publicly. when we come back, some democrats are saying joe biden might want to think about not running in 2024. you know who's not listening? joe biden. back in a moment.
small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. welcome back. democrats appear to be getting a bump, at least for now, after the supreme court's abortion decision. but you know who's not benefitting? president biden. take a look at this poll that we have put together. in april, republicans had a three-point lead in the generic congressional ballot. biden's approval rating, 41%. now in june, same pollster, now democrats up seven points, biden's approval rating, went down a point. 340%.
-- 40%. jeh johnson, it's pretty clear that one of the predictions that was out there was that this abortion decision could energize democrats in a way that joe biden hadn't, and not only is it energizing democrats, it's still not helping joe biden. >> you're asking me the political question? so i think that voters are just -- and this is probably a hangover from the trump years, just in a cranky mood about whoever is the leader these days. we're just not happy with all the things happening around us, and we want to blame the person in charge right now. on abortion, i think that rather than crafting legislation to somehow codify roe, roe was a constitutional right for 50 years. you can't create by statute a constitutional right. congress should devote its energy to -- it has claiming the
power to regulate interstate commerce. that's in the constitution, so that we make it plainly available for any woman in state a who wants to go to state b to get an abortion, she should be able to do so. she's free to do so. congress can regulate and legislate that. >> that would be an effective pro choice strategy, and achievable, by the way, because you can point to it in the constitution, which is much harder to do with the abortion rights. but i want to say one thing, it's not just that voters are cranky, things are bad. we have record inflation. we have a record poor performance in the stock market. we have consumer sentiment plunging. the economy is still the number one issue in voters' minds, and they tie this economy to joe biden and his economic policies. it's different in some of these senate races where voters can make an individual decision based on candidate attributes. >> i want to lean on the abortion issue a little bit.
congressional democrats are very frustrated. there's cori bush, where you can tell people, just vote, your problems away, because they're saying we already voted for you, referring to all democratic control. charlie crist in florida, frustration requires action, and there's no vent for it. and then elizabeth warren, democrats have the tools to fight back, we just need to use them. how are they going to react to, there's not much we can do? >> that's what i hear the most from my sources on the hill, as well as advocacy groups, yes, the house is pretty hamstrung in terms of what they can do to tangibly protect women's rights to access this health care. but at the same time, they just want them to do something. do something at the state level, whether it's on federal land and
governors asked biden about this today as they met with him, the idea that they want him to push the envelope on this to the point where if it does end up in a court somewhere, at least democrats are trying. i would make the point that as much as republicans want to point to this as a moment in economics, abortion is an economics issue for women across the country. i think that women are frustrated, they're enraged and will vote on this, and the polling is bearing that out. >> there was another sort of trope that i thought the secretary took, which is look, we're not going to push the envelope. we're not going to do what this guys did. i know this is a joe biden stubbornness. gosh darn it, we're going to restore these institutions. and democrats are saying, stop trying, let the courts say no. >> that's what you're hearing, especially from progressives, saying just that, promising women who were there -- >> like when trump built his wall. >> and they obviously have their issues, and the house democrats are going to try to respond to this. they can pass any bill under the sun, because they have the
majority. but they're looking at things like, you know, can a woman not be charged, penalized for getting an abortion out of state? that's something they'll vote on in the coming months. apps. they're going to try to put republicans on the record to codify a number of different things. gay rights, birth control. but, again, it will die in the senate. and nothing will happen. >> there's concern that i've heard from some who say yes, we want to do a vote on rape and incest exceptions. there's a concern they did that, as they try to make this a wedge issue, it will give some republicans the opportunity to look rational on this and not as extreme as democrats want them to be. >> but democrats can also seem extreme on abortion. when you say you want to have unrestricted abortion throughout the pregnancy, many americans
blanch. americans want to have abortion access in the early stages of pregnancy. but then they want to increasingly regulate as you get closer to term. that's something democrats need to be aware of, as well. i'm talking about the politics of public opinion. it's got to be more than just energizing the base. >> this is the problem with washington. it has to be more than just energizing the base. focus on the things that are doable to protect the woman's ability to have an abortion in states where it is legal and safe right now. and there are things congress can do to protect that right, to go from state a to state b. interstate commerce power. it has to be more than just energizing the base. >> all right. let me switch a little bit to this issue of joe biden. jeh, joe biden is really upset. he feels he's being disrespected, he feels as if the party have never really given me respect. a little bit of rodney dangerfield. all i do -- they didn't want me to run in '15. look what happened in '16.
then they didn't want me to run in '20, and then i won. and now they don't want me to run in '24. does he have a point? >> in a sense, yes. and i don't know that -- and this is just instinct -- i don't know that joe biden has definitively made up his mind to run in 2024. i'm sure at some point he's going to have that conversation with his family. my advice would be unconventional, if you're not running, make that announcement sooner rather than later, even before the midterms. >> it opens the flood gates. >> it gives others the opportunity to organize. do the opposite of donald trump, which will be keeping us in suspense. >> i sense this comes from governors and maybe those that want to run for president? >> of course it would. i do think there's some consternation around the idea
that biden said he would restore institutional norms. maybe it's because we're going through the january 6th hearings and the economy, but there's this feeling like you promised it would be normal and this doesn't feel like a normal i want to accept. so certainly we're post normal whatever that means. i do think, and i'm not saying this because i have a book coming out about this, it feels like there's an agitating moment for female leadership right now. that could be where part of this is coming from, where people look to the fact that kamala harris is the vice president, there are female leaders in the party that could be part of it, too. >> guys, time for hot dogs, fireworks and all sorts of things. let's get to 247 as a country after we celebrate 246. thank you for watching. please enjoy your independence day weekend. remember what it's really all about and what america is all about. remember, we'll be back next week, because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."