Panel of senior judges to oversee proceedings in legal action over McGloin replacement process
County President Judge James Gibbons issued an order Friday noting the matter will proceed before a panel of Senior Judges Carmen D. Minora, Robert A. Mazzoni and Vito P. Geroulo, who will hear arguments and rule on issues raised in a petition that county solicitor Donald Frederickson and attorneys with the Scranton law firm Myers, Brier & Kelly filed Monday on behalf of Gaughan and the county.
That petition asks the court to amend a March 6 order on the replacement process so it complies with Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908, effectively removing the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee from the process of filling McGloin's seat for the almost three years remaining on his unexpired term.
The March 6 order signed by former county President Judge Trish Corbett maintained a replacement process established by the county's Home Rule Charter that tasks the county Democratic Committee with providing a list of three potential appointees for consideration by the judges of the county court. It's a process that played out controversially last month, when county Democratic Party leaders used a scoring rubric to shrink a list of 18 applicants to three finalists — former county economic development Director Brenda Sacco, Olyphant Borough Council President James Baldan and Scranton School Director Robert J. Casey — before the executive committee voted to advance those candidates to the judges.
Corbett's order reset the clock on that process, giving the party five days from the date of the order to furnish the court with three potential appointees. County Democratic Party Chairman Chris Patrick resubmitted the same three names, those of Sacco, Baldan and Casey, to the court the next day.
By maintaining the Home Rule Charter process, Gaughan and the county contend the order violated Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908. Adopted by the state Supreme Court in 2019, that rule says the county court, not a political party, 'shall receive applications from any interested candidates for the position' pursuant to a deadline established by the court.
Gibbons, who succeeded Corbett as president judge Monday, paused Wednesday the process of replacing McGloin, staying the March 6 order Gaughan and the county challenged. He issued a rule to show cause giving the county Democratic Committee until April 7 to answer as to why the relief sought by Gaughan and the county shouldn't be granted.
In his Friday order, Gibbons noted that under both the Home Rule Charter and Rule 1908 'the Commissioned Judges of this Court are charged with filling this vacancy.'
'Prudence suggests that the determination as to which process controls should be in the hands of those not involved with the appointment of a successor Commissioner itself,' he wrote.
The three-judge panel of Senior Judges Minora, Mazzoni and Geroulo will accordingly handle the matter and schedule proceedings in accordance with its availability, Gibbons' order notes.
Gaughan, who last month introduced Dunmore Mayor Mark 'Max' Conway Jr. as his preferred choice to succeed McGloin, has sharply criticized the Democratic Committee's replacement process as opaque and politically tainted. Patrick, the county Democratic chairman, has repeatedly defended the process the committee employed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
41 minutes ago
- Politico
States are trying to keep disasters apolitical in the new Trump era
'This decision was petty. This decision was partisan, and this decision was punishing.' Moore said. And after the Los Angeles wildfires in January, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was quick to propose that politics could play a role in Trump's approval or denial of funding for his state. 'He's done it in the past, not just here in California,' Newsom said on Pod Save America. 'The rhetoric is very familiar, it's increasingly acute, and obviously we all have reason to be concerned about it.' A review by Seattle-based public radio station KUOW in June found that FEMA denied six of the 10 major disaster requests that Democratic states filed between February and June, while denying just one of 15 requests from Republican states. Asked about the analysis, a White House official said that 'Democrat state requests were denied in the first six months because they were not disasters. In the past, states have abused the process. President Trump is right-sizing FEMA and ensuring it is serving its intended purpose to help the American people.' Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs became the rare governor to criticize the federal government's disaster management in mid-July when she called for an investigation following a destructive fire on federal land that burned down a beloved Grand Canyon lodge. Hobbs said that she does not intend her call for an investigation to be viewed as a criticism of the Trump administration. 'I don't, and I think it's really important,' Hobbs said in an interview, adding that good working relationships between officials managing tribal, federal and state land are key. 'This is not intended to undermine that collaboration, but … we need to look at what led to that decision being made.' Steve Ellis, former deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management who worked for the agency and the U.S. Forest Service under multiple administrations, said that any federal agency involved in managing a fire of the magnitude and destructiveness as the one in the Grand Canyon should be launching an investigation without a governor's need to call for it.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
NY Dems aim to de-mask ICE agents to scare them off their raids — NOT to protect the public
Supporters claim a bill introduced by Democratic state lawmakers last month banning ICE agents and police from wearing masks during raids will ensure safety and prevent authoritarianism. One backer, Sen. Patricia Fahy, fumes that ICE is 'operating like masked militias' and 'paramilitary secret police' and so must be reined in. Nonsense: The awkwardly and misleadingly named Mandating End to Lawless Tactics Act is actually little more than an attempt to thwart immigration enforcement by making ICE agents fear for their personal safety. It joins similar efforts in other states and in Congress to 'unmask ICE.' In the words of GOP Sen. George Borrello, 'This bill is driven by ideology, not a genuine concern for public safety.' The Left's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering. Progressives — including many of the MELT Act's supporters in the Legislature — have opposed mask bans for criminal suspects and rioters, such as Nassau County's common-sense ban, which has exceptions for law enforcement. Yet for all their sympathy for those involved with the criminal-justice system, they have no qualms about painting cops as criminals and subjecting them to mask bans. If these lawmakers truly cared about public safety, they'd go after the rioters and real criminals who've routinely hidden their identities to evade accountability following the 2020 George Floyd unrest and Oct. 7 demonstrations. ICE and other law enforcement don't mask up because they have machinations of becoming a 'paramilitary secret police.' They do so to keep themselves and their families safe from multinational gangs such as Tren de Aragua. Facial-recognition technology, now rapidly improving due to AI, gives anyone — including nefarious actors like Antifa or cartel members — the ability to reverse image search the unmasked face of an ICE agent. They can then obtain and post their names, addresses and information about their relatives to social media. While the Justice Department can prosecute those responsible for such doxxing, it is nonetheless a frequent threat to agents and loved ones. Addresses of hotels where agents stay during operations are routinely spread on social media so that protesters can harass them. Agitators are so well-organized that an app was created to report and rush to ICE raid locations, as seen in Los Angeles riots this year. The Department of Homeland Security has reported an 830% increase in assaults on ICE personnel this year, attributed to an increase in doxxing and rhetoric against agents. Worse still, even if the MELT Act passes, its effects would be largely symbolic. Lawmakers like Fahy clearly don't understand federalism. Because the Constitution gives federal law precedence, any federal regulation would immediately supersede the MELT Act if passed, rendering it largely symbolic. Additionally, federal agents are immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within the scope of their authority. The MELT Act would also require that all law enforcement agents display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms, hamstringing the plainclothes units of local New York police departments, which now must only provide this information verbally. Some of the bill's supporters mention a more realistic point that masking without wearing identification might allow for easier impersonation of ICE officers. They might also argue that a lack of masking deters possible police misconduct, despite the widespread use of body cameras. Those are valid concerns. But there are ways to protect the public even with masked law enforcement. Public-education campaigns should remind residents that ICE agents and other law enforcement are legally required to identify themselves as police as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so. New Yorkers under arrest should keep in mind their constitutional protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Masked or not, imposters can still pose as ICE or any other law-enforcement officers. Requiring names or badge numbers does nothing if there's no reliable way to immediately verify the person's legitimacy. The answer isn't a largely symbolic law to neuter real agents; it's to strengthen identification through local cooperation. The only way to fully reassure New Yorkers is cooperation between local police and ICE, whether via collaborative task forces, such as through the federal 287(g) program already adopted by several counties, or by having nearby officers accompany raids to keep public order, which would help quickly debunk any imposters. This type of public partnership would not be a political statement about immigration, rather a commonsense way to put the public at ease and ensure all involved in raids are safe. The MELT Act is symbolic theater that punishes law enforcement while doing nothing to realistically stop imposters. New Yorkers would be safer if lawmakers scrapped this bill and instead fostered real cooperation between local police and ICE to deter fraud and protect both the public and the agents doing dangerous work. Paul Dreyer is a cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Meet the Press – August 17, 2025
KRISTEN WELKER: This Sunday: Russian roulette. President Trump meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, trying to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: There's no deal until there's a deal. PRES. VLADAMIR PUTIN: Next time in Moscow. KRISTEN WELKER: But after rolling out the red carpet, was this high-stakes meeting a setback or a step forward to reaching a deal? My guests this morning: Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Plus: guard duty. President Trump orders National Guard troops to the streets of D.C.,taking control of the city's police force and pledging a crackdown on crime in the nation's capital. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: We're starting very strongly with D.C., and we're going to clean it up real quick. KRISTEN WELKER: Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Chief Washington Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; Jonathan Martin of POLITICO; former State Department spokesperson Ned Price; and Republican strategist Sara Fagen. Welcome to Sunday, it's Meet the Press. ANNOUNCER: From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. KRISTEN WELKER: Good Sunday morning. President Trump is preparing to welcome Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelenskyy to the White House on Monday after rolling out the literal red carpet for Russian President Vladimir Putin for their high-stakes summit in Alaska. Yet following a tarmac greeting, a military flyover and a ride for the Russian leader in the president's limo – where Putin could be seen smiling – it remains unclear what, if anything, was agreed to in efforts to end Russia's war in Ukraine. The president, vague, in his post-meeting statement to reporters. [BEGIN TAPE] PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I believe we had a very productive meeting. There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there's a deal. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: Later, putting the pressure on Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to make a deal to end the war. [BEGIN TAPE] SEAN HANNITY: Based on today, when you talk to Volodymyr Zelenksyy, what's your advice to – PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Make a deal. SEAN HANNITY: Make the deal. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Russia's a very big power. And they're not. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: On his long flight back to Washington, D.C. from Alaska, the president held talks with President Zelenskyy as well as European leaders. NBC News has learned they discussed the potential of a NATO-like security guarantee for Ukraine. For months, President Trump has threatened to impose crushing sanctions on Russia if it did not agree to a ceasefire, saying this aboard Air Force One earlier in the day on the way to Alaska: [BEGIN TAPE] PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I'd like to see a ceasefire. I wouldn't be thrilled if I didn't get it, but everyone says you're not going to get the ceasefire. It'll take place on the second meeting. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: But later, reversing course, posting on his Truth Social account: "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which oftentimes do not hold up.' With seemingly no plans to punish Putin for his refusal to end the war, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the president, saying, "Trump handed Putin legitimacy, a global stage, zero accountability and got nothing in return." Mr. Trump's comments on Friday in stark opposition to what he vowed earlier in the week: [BEGIN TAPE] REPORTER: Will Russia face any consequences if Vladimir Putin does not agree to stop the war after your meeting on Friday? PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Yes, they will. Yeah. REPORTER: What will the consequences be? Sanctions? Tariffs? PRES. DONALD TRUMP: There will be consequences. There will be, I don't have to say, there will be very severe consequences. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio. Secretary Rubio, welcome back to Meet the Press. SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Thank you. KRISTEN WELKER: Thank you for being here. So heading into the meeting with President Putin on Friday, President Trump said he wanted a ceasefire agreement. Now, he is saying he wants a broader peace deal. We know that Ukraine, we know that European allies want a ceasefire first. Is a ceasefire now off the table, Mr. Secretary? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: No, it's not off the table. I think what the president said, in fact you just read it on – on the air a few moments ago, is it was agreed to by all that the best way to end this conflict is through a full peace deal. There's no doubt about that. I mean, who would be against the fact if tomorrow we came to you and said, "We have a full peace deal, and it's done." I think that's the best way to end the war. Now, whether there needs to be a ceasefire on the way there, well, we've advocated for that. Unfortunately, the Russians as of now have not agreed to that. But the ideal here, what we're aiming for here, is not a ceasefire. What we ultimately are aiming for is an end to this war. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, I want to drill down on that exactly and what happened because, as you just heard before the meeting with President Putin, President Trump warned there would be, quote, "very severe consequences for Russia if it didn't stop the war." Here's a little bit more of what he said on the plane ride over. Take a look. [BEGIN TAPE] PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I want to see a ceasefire rapidly. I don't know if it's going to be today. But I'm not going to be happy if it's not today. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: So what exactly changed? Is it that Putin would not agree to a ceasefire? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, first of all the Russians are already facing very severe consequences. There's not a single sanction that's been lifted, not – not one. I mean, they're facing all the same sanctions that have been in place today. All the American support continues for Ukraine. And, ultimately, look, if we're not going to be able to reach an agreement here at any point, then there are going to be consequences, not only the consequences of the war continuing, but the consequences of all those sanctions continuing and potentially new sanctions on top of it as well. But what we're trying to do right now is end the war. And in order to end the war, you've got to give every opportunity that exists. You have to – you have to be open to any opportunity that exists to bring it about. And here's the thing to remind everybody – and when the president says this is not our war, but let's be frank, this is not our war. The United States is not in a war. Ukraine is in a war. And we've been supporting Ukraine. We happen to be in the role of the only country in the world with the only leader in the world that can actually bring Putin to a table to even discuss these things. Now, the president has traveled, you know, all the way to Alaska, all the way back, has dedicated months and months of work, him, our entire team on this matter because we want to see an end to the war. But – but if tomorrow the war continues, life in America will not be fundamentally altered. So I – I think that what we have to understand is that this has been a priority for this president because he wants to promote peace. He wants to promote the end of a war. And I think we should be happy that we have a president that's trying to promote peace and bring a war to an end. KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. Secretary, let's look at the state of the war. It's really captured in this chart. I want to put it up on the screen for our viewers. It shows that Russian attacks on Ukraine have nearly doubled since President Trump came into office. And in fact, in July, Russia launched more than 6,000 missiles and drones. That's the highest amount of attacks since the war began. What do you say to Ukrainians who worry that without a ceasefire in place, you are giving Putin more leverage at the negotiating table and a green light to drop more bombs? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, the problem with that is that we've – we've been asking for a ceasefire for a long period of time. We think usually it's very hard to negotiate when you're in the middle of hostilities. But that said, the only way to have a ceasefire is for both sides to agree to stop firing at one another. Beyond that – and the Russians just have not agreed to that. Beyond that, I would say that one of the complications about ceasefires is they have to be maintained, which is very difficult. I mean, every single day we keep an eye on what's happening between Pakistan and India, what's happening between Cambodia and Thailand. Ceasefires can fall apart very quickly, especially after a three and a half year war like what we're facing now. But I don't think anyone disagrees that the ideal here, what we're aiming for is not some permanent ceasefire. What we're aiming for here is a peace deal so there's not a war now, and there's not a war in the future. KRISTEN WELKER: But why not impose more sanctions on them and force them to agree to a ceasefire instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, first I think that's – that's something that a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force him to accept the ceasefire. They're already under very severe sanctions. I think that it should be – you could argue that that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a ceasefire or the end of hostility. But there is no evidence that more sanctions, because sanctions take months and sometimes years to bite, and we may very well wind up in that place. I hope not because that means that peace talks failed. But we have to give opportunity for peace a chance – KRISTEN WELKER: So – SEC. MARCO RUBIO: – in this particular case. And that's what we're trying to do here. And so those options remain to the president. The minute he takes those steps, all talks stop. The minute we take those steps, there is no one left in the world to go talk to the Russians and try to get them to the table to reach a peace agreement. So that moment may come. I hope not because I hope we get a peace deal. KRISTEN WELKER: But so, Mr. Secretary, a lot of people have heard President Trump threaten sanctions for months, and they are wondering, "Are they empty threats?" Why hasn't he punished Putin to date for this war since taking office? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, again, every single sanction that was in place on the day he took over remain. And every – the impact of all those sanctions remain. You know, when the Russians landed in Alaska, they were there to refuel. They had to offer to pay in cash to refuel their airplanes because they can't use our banking system. They face consequences every single day. But at – the bottom line is that that has not altered the direction of this war. That doesn't mean those sanctions are inappropriate. It means it hasn't altered the outcome of it. And here's what we do think is important, and that is we end this war. To end this war, you have to be able to engage with the Russians. As much as people may not like it, as distasteful as people may find it, the only way to end this war is to get the Russians to agree, as well as the Ukrainians, but the Russians to agree to a peace deal. And the minute you issue new sanctions, your ability to get them to the table, our ability to get them to table, will be severely diminished. That moment may arrive. But when it comes, what you're basically signaling is, "There is no opportunity for peace at this point. So just let's put on more sanctions and allow more people to get bombed and more people to be killed." And that's what we're trying to stop. KRISTEN WELKER: So Mr. Secretary, what will Russia have to give up? What concessions will Russia, the aggressor, have to make as a part of this peace agreement? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, that's – that's what these negotiations are about. And as you can imagine, everybody goes into a negotiation wanting 100% of what they want. That includes Ukraine, but obviously, the Russians. And the only way to reach a deal on anything, whether it's in business or in politics or in geopolitics, the only way to reach a deal is for each side to get something and each side to give something. And that's been very difficult. If it was easy, this wouldn't have been going on for three and a half years. Understand the longer these wars go on, the harder they are to end unfortunately. Because one side is always looking for leverage on the other, in this particular case, the Russian side as well. And so I think that that's the core of what we're trying to work through here. That's why Zelenskyy's coming tomorrow. That's why European leaders are coming tomorrow. That's why the president called them from the airplane, spent two hours in the middle of the night talking to them. And that's why we've been engaged with them every step of the way is we are trying to find what can we get to that both sides can agree on. And it's been difficult. This is a hard issue set. But we're dedicating a lot of time to it. And the president deserves credit for dedicating time to it. KRISTEN WELKER: And I understand that these negotiations are ongoing. But can you name one thing that President Trump is asking Russia to give up in order to get peace? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, I'm not going to disclose those things because if we do, then you can imagine our negotiations could fall apart. These negotiations – look, I know everybody wants to know what's happening. And to a certain degree that's important. But what's more important is that these negotiations work. And for us to run to the press. Like, you see these leaks sometimes that are completely inaccurate, and in many cases sometimes you see leaks out there that undermine the negotiations. Okay, these negotiations, in order for them to be successful allow – require for us to allow both sides to agree to potential concessions or discuss potential concessions without it finding its way in the public sphere and creating all kinds of internal problems for one country or the other country. So here's the bottom line: we all know what the elements of such a deal. There has to be talk about what the territories are going to look like and what the border lines are going to look like at the end of this conflict. There has to be talk about Ukraine's legitimate desire for security in the long term to make sure they don't get invaded again. There has to be talk about how Ukraine is rebuilt. And how do you rebuild a country that's been attacked as often as it has over the last three and a half years? These are key elements of any agreement. We understand that. And each side – if there's going to be a deal, each side is going to have to give up on something. KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. Secretary – SEC. MARCO RUBIO: That's just a fact. KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. Secretary, I want to show folks what Ukraine looks like right now. This is a map of Ukraine. That red section there, that's the area currently under control by Russia. It's about 20% of the entire country. There are reports that Putin is asking to keep all of this territory in a potential deal. Is that what's being discussed? Can you confirm that? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, I can confirm that he's given speeches in which he has said that repeatedly. KRISTEN WELKER: So he's asking – SEC. MARCO RUBIO: That he's asked for territories, that – KRISTEN WELKER: – for that now in these private conversations? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, look, ultimately, if – if the Ukrainians are not willing to give that up, and no one's pushing Ukraine to give that up. And so I don't think –if there's going to be a peace deal, it's not going to look like that. But he certainly is making demands. He's certainly asking for things that the Ukrainians and others are not willing to be supportive of and that we're not going to push them to give. And the Ukrainians are asking for things that the Russians are not going to give up on. I know this sounds, you know, I know everybody wants to have more detail. But we're trying to have a serious negotiation here and see if we can find any middle ground between two warring parties in a very difficult war where the Russians feel, as they always do, like they have momentum on their side. And – and the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave in fighting back and in the defensive posture they've taken. The Ukrainians have inflicted a tremendous amount of damage on the Russians. I think last month alone, 20,000, 20,000 Russian soldiers were killed in one month in this war. So the Ukrainians have inflicted tremendous amount of damage on the Russians as a result of this. Both sides are very dug in. This is a difficult one. But we're going to continue to work on it because the president's made it a priority to try to end the war that should have never happened. KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. Secretary, you were one of the few people in that room with President Putin and President Trump. You got to look him in the eyes. Do you believe that President Putin believes in Ukraine's right to exist based on what you heard and saw? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, look, I – I wasn't playing any of those games about looking people in the eye and trying to read their minds. I'm reading actions. And that's what we're looking at is actions. What will you agree to, what will you commit to, and what will you follow-up on? And in order for this war to end, Russia will have to take actions. Ukraine will have to take action. Ukraine's partners and allies will have to take actions as well to enforce that peace in the long term. That's what we're interested in. You know, I get all the drama around this stuff. And, but at the end of the day, we are talking about a war in which people are being killed and maimed every single day in which a country has been dismembered by 20%, as you just pointed out, and it's really important to bring this war to an end. This war doesn't get better. It gets worse as time goes on. It gets worse. It actually threatens to spill over into other areas. So it needs to be stopped. That's why the president's made it a priority. And that's what we're focused on, concrete actions by both sides, especially the Russian side, to bring this conflict to an end. And we're going to do everything we can to make it happen. Is it possible? I don't know. But we're going to try. We've tried. We've spent a lot of time on this issue. We have a lot of other issues to focus on. But the president's made this a priority. And he deserves credit for that. KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. Secretary, a couple more questions, and we're almost out of time. NBC News is reporting this morning that NATO-like security guarantees for Ukraine were discussed as a part of this agreement. Can you tell us what role would the United States play in such a security agreement? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, there'll have to be some security guarantees for Ukraine, right? I mean, it's one of their fundamental plans – demands is that if this war were to end, they have to make sure this never happens again. They don't want to get re-invaded. They don't want to wait three or four years from now and find another, you know, war on their hands. So there's going to have to be some security guarantees as part of it. How that's structured, how that's built, what our role will be, that will be the kinds of things we'll have to work through. But again, that – that is going to be a key element of this deal. And it is something that in order for there to be a peace, the Russian side is going to have to accept that Ukraine is a sovereign country that has a right to defend itself and has a right to enter into alliances with other countries to defend itself. How that's constructed, what we call it, how it's built, and what guarantees are built into it that are enforceable, that's what we'll be talking about over the next few days with our partners who are coming in from overseas tomorrow for a series of meetings and in the days to come. We had a long phone call about this yesterday with several of the national security advisors from various countries in Europe. KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. Secretary, I want to play something you said about President Putin. This was right after the invasion in March of 2022. Take a look. [BEGIN TAPE] SEC. MARCO RUBIO: This guy lies, habitually lies. He's never kept a deal they've ever signed. And he lies all the time. And I don't know why, but he plays us like a – like a violin in the West because the West wants to believe that you can cut a deal with everybody. You can't cut a deal with guys like this. He's a professional, experienced liar. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. Secretary, given that, what makes you think that if you are able to reach a deal with President Putin that he would stick to it based on, as you just said, he's a liar? SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Well, that's the point. That's why the deal has to have enforceable mechanisms in it. That's why the deal has to have things like security guarantees. That's the point I was making a few minutes ago when you were asking me about looking someone in the eye. What's – what's important here is action, not words, not paper documents. Those are all important. Those are elements of a deal. But they have to be enforceable. They have to be verifiable. They have to be enduring. There's no point here in signing a deal that's going to be violated in three or four months. There's no point in doing that. It actually would make things worse. So that's why this is such a difficult thing. Not only do you need a deal, you need a deal that's verifiable, that's enforceable, and that's enduring. If you don't achieve that, then I think you could have a ceasefire for a few months, a few weeks. And then the war will start again and more people will die. That's not the outcome we're interested in. That's not the outcome anyone wants. So that's why this is so difficult. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, thank you so much for joining us after a historic week. We really appreciate it. SEC. MARCO RUBIO: Thank you. KRISTEN WELKER: When we come back, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut joins me next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Senator Murphy, welcome back to Meet the Press. SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: Yeah, thanks for having me. KRISTEN WELKER: Thank you so much for being here on a very big week. You just heard my conversation with Secretary Rubio. We specifically started talking about the fact that President Trump initially said he wanted a ceasefire agreement. Now, he wants a broader peace deal. Secretary Rubio defending that approach, basically saying the Russians wouldn't agree to a ceasefire. Do you think that it's the right strategy to now focus on that broader peace deal? SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: That meeting was a disaster. It was an embarrassment for the United States. It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted. I mean, first of all he wanted that photo op, right? He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world. He was invited to the United States. War criminals are not normally invited to the United States of America. He is intentionally murdering civilians. He's kidnapping children. And now he got to stand next to the president of the United States, legitimized in the view of the world. Second, he didn't have to give up anything. Nothing, right? President Trump said he wanted a ceasefire. It appears the ceasefire wasn't even seriously discussed. And, then third, there's no consequences. Trump said, "If I don't get a ceasefire, Putin's going to pay a price." And then he walked out of that meeting saying, "I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions." You heard Secretary Rubio downplay sanctions. And, so, Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia. KRISTEN WELKER: What about the argument that you heard Secretary Rubio make, which is he said he doesn't think that sanctions would make a difference in terms of forcing a ceasefire agreement? Does he have a point? I mean, after all, we have seen President Putin continue this war, dropping bombs relentlessly, despite the fact that there have been all of these sanctions imposed against him. SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: So he is right that sanctions have not had any practical impact thus far. But that is in part because our sanctions are directly levied on Russia. And there's very limited economic relationship between the United States and next sanctions that we're talking about, that Congress is considering authorizing, are actually secondary sanctions, sanctions that would make it hard for Russia to continue to do business with countries like China and India, who are essentially funding the war. So this next set of sanctions could be much more impactful. The problem is in the Senate, the Republican leader won't even bring up a vote, a debate on this bill, because Donald Trump doesn't even want a discussion about these sanctions because he's so worried that it might upset his great friend Vladimir Putin. What is most impactful, and what will be most impactful on this war, are more weapons for Ukraine. And here's where Putin has the upper hand. So long as Trump is still opposed to continuing to arm Ukraine, Putin knows that it is just a matter of time before he can gain the advantage. So Putin walks away from the summit with no economic sanctions, with no sense that Trump is going to continue to send weapons to Ukraine and essentially, a green light to continue the war on his terms. KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask you about this new reporting that we have that basically President Trump did in a call with European allies, with President Zelenskyy, say that the United States would be willing to enter into a NATO-like security agreement, not including U.S. troops, but that the U.S. would back European troops that were there. Is that enough? SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: Well, that is an essential element of a peace agreement because any commitment that Vladimir Putin makes to not invade Ukraine again isn't worth the paper that it's written on. He's made that commitment many times. So yes, there has to be a guarantee that if Putin were to enter Ukraine after a peace settlement, that there would be some force there, a U.S. force, a U.S.-European force, there to defend Ukraine. But there are also reports from that call that Trump is willing to give more territory to Russia than they even occupy today, which would be a stunning development. Again, another sense that Putin is just in charge of these negotiations. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, to that very point, if you talk to military experts, they say, "Look, the reality is Ukraine likely cannot win a prolonged war militarily." Senator, do you think from a realistic standpoint, Ukraine will need to cede some of its territory in order to end this war, in order to stop the killing? SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: That question is up to the Ukrainian people and to President Zelenskyy. And if they want to enter into that negotiation, the United States should support them. The only way they would do that is if they had that security guarantee from the United States. So that has to be a conversation that is probably brokered by the United States but is a direct conversation between Ukraine and Russia. And the only way that Ukraine would even consider that is, is a realistic threat that the war would continue, and that the United States would continue to get Ukraine's back with additional weapons if those negotiations fell apart. And so long as Putin knows that the flow of weapons is about to end from the United States to Ukraine, there is zero incentive for Russia actually to come down and sit legitimately and realistically at the negotiating table with Ukraine. KRISTEN WELKER: President Trump was asked what his message will be to President Zelenskyy on Monday, he said, 'To make a deal.' What is your message to President Zelenskyy heading into these high-stake talks tomorrow? SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: Well, I mean, listen, I would love to tell him that there is still a bipartisan consensus to support Ukraine in the United States Senate. But, as I mentioned to you, we actually have a very tough sanctions bill that gives the president the ability to levy these new sanctions against Russia. But the Senate leadership won't even bring it up for a vote. Why? Because, in the Congress, the Republicans essentially work for President Trump. And if President Trump tells them that his number one priority is to keep Vladimir Putin happy, not to actually levy the kind of sanctions that would create a realistic negotiating table, Senate Republicans are going to listen. So this is a really dangerous moment because Senate Republicans, House Republicans are not willing to support Ukraine if Donald Trump won't give them the green light. And as you saw coming out of that summit, it seems that Trump's number one priority is just keeping his friend Vladimir Putin happy. KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask you about what is unfolding here in the nation's capital. Federal troops patrolling the capital under what President Trump has called a 'crime crackdown.' Republicans, as you know, have long tried to brand Democrats as being soft on crime. If you look at the polls, actually, Republicans get higher numbers when it comes to the public trusting them to be tough on crime. Do you think, and what is your message to people in the capital and elsewhere who buy into this argument that President Trump is making that these cities are unsafe, in part because of Democratic policies? SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: Well, first, let's just look at the actual numbers. In Washington, D.C. and all across the country, crime was going up during Donald Trump's first term. And when Joe Biden became president crime started to come down. In fact, it's been coming down precipitously in Washington and in cities all across the country. So it's just not true the allegation that they are making. What's happening here in Washington, D.C. is just a stunt. Donald Trump didn't like the fact that the walls were closing in on him, that his own base was questioning why he wouldn't release the Epstein files, why he was protecting very powerful people. He didn't want to talk anymore about the fact that our health care system is about to collapse because of the cuts that they have made, that premiums are going to go up by 75% on Americans. And so true to form, he just decided to create a new news cycle. Nothing different is really happening in the United States' capital today. Crime will continue to go down whether or not there are U.S. troops to your National Guard troops here. He's just trying to distract from the stories he doesn't want Americans to be talking about. KRISTEN WELKER: I hear you calling it a stunt, and yet the question is do Democrats need to step up their response to this? And let me read you, this is framed by Maureen Dowd, of course a columnist with the New York Times. Here's what she wrote: "Progressives should not fall into Trump's trap and play down crime. Once more, getting on the wrong side of an inflammatory issue. Even if Trump is being diabolical, Democrats should not pretend everything is fine here because it's not." Do Democrats need to take this issue head on? SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: Democrats absolutely need to, as we have, take the issue of crime and violent crime seriously. That's why we made it a priority to reach out across the aisle and pass legislation when Joe Biden was president to dramatically reduce the flow of illegal guns into these cities, to put money on the streets to interrupt violent crime. It was working. Crime was coming down. And then Donald Trump suspended many of the funding sources that help cities clean up their crime rates. He stopped many of the enforcement mechanisms that stopped the flow of illegal guns into these cities. We saw crime rates plummet all across this country when Joe Biden was president. We'll see what happens when Donald Trump treats the issue of crime, you know, more as a distraction, rather than as an issue that legitimately needs to be addressed. KRISTEN WELKER: All right, Senator Murphy, thank you so much for being here today. SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: Thank you. KRISTEN WELKER: We really appreciate it. And when we come back, is President Trump moving closer to Putin after his face-to-face meeting? The panel is next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. The panel is here. NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs and Chief Washington Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; Jonathan Martin, Politics Bureau Chief and Senior Political Columnist for POLITICO; Republican strategist Sara Fagen; and Ned Price, former State Department spokesperson under President Biden. Thanks to all of you for being here. Andrea, I have to start with you and some of what we just heard from Secretary Rubio. And as we're having this conversation, we are learning that more European leaders are joining President Zelenskyy at the White House on Monday: the leaders of Finland, Germany, the NATO Commander as well as – Secretary General – as well as Keir Starmer, the U.K. prime minister. What do you make of the fact that Secretary Rubio said that effectively a ceasefire is not off the table, but he doesn't think sanctions would basically be effective at pushing for a ceasefire? ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, he made a lot of news there because he confirmed that it was Vladimir Putin, as we had assumed, inferred from the dynamics of the meeting and what the president said afterwards, that it was President Putin who said no to a ceasefire right from the get go. And President Trump went into this saying that he wants a ceasefire, and if not, there would be severe consequences, and he said they would be economic consequences. We all understood that to be the secondary sanctions, and the only country not yet officially announced to be sanctioned that is the biggest purchaser of Russian oil is China. So that raised all sorts of other complications for the U.S., but he was just prepared to do that on Air Force One traveling out. And then at the end of the meeting, there are no consequences, and there are no sanctions. And Secretary Rubio confirmed that today, that sanctions take too long, they take months, they take years. Well, secondary sanctions do bite. And that would have an impact. But that's – there's no punishment for Vladimir Putin. He got what he wanted. He got the photo op. The foreign ministry spokeswoman in Moscow is crowing about that – that he's no longer isolated. So is Medvedev, the former president of Russia who trolls, you know, President Trump all the time. They're both, you know, they're bragging about this. So Putin comes out as the victor. He's no longer isolated. He's got his summit. He got his ride in the limo. He got the red carpet. And – and what we're hearing today is that the ceasefire is not on the table, and Russia, as you pointed out, is escalating its attack. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, and the fact that you heard Secretary Rubio basically say, "Russia didn't agree to a ceasefire." JONATHAN MARTIN: Right. KRISTEN WELKER: I mean what do you make of where this stands and – and where these talks could potentially go? JONATHAN MARTIN: I mean Putin came to this summit kind of like Corleone in The Godfather. He said, "My offer is this: nothing." Because what is Putin offering in terms of? You tried to press Rubio on what is – what is Russia offering as far as concessions, and he didn't answer because the answer is basically what Putin is saying is, you know, "If you basically sign over a fifth of your country, Ukraine, I'll take it and I'll give a piece of paper that says, 'I, Vladimir Putin, will be a good boy and stop invading my neighbors.'" Well, that – that paper isn't worth what it's even written on. So, you know, Putin is offering nothing, and he gets everything from that summit. And Trump doesn't push back because Trump doesn't want to walk out of that summit a la Reagan in Reykjavik because Trump wants to keep the deal alive because Trump desperately wants this deal. And so we'll see what happens this week. I think it's smart of the Ukrainians to bring allies. Trump likes comfort food around him, literally and metaphorically. I think that's smart to bring some of his friends from Europe, and hopefully, Trump will listen to the last folks in the room. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, Ned, we should remind people you were in the Biden administration, of course, when Russia went into Ukraine in 2022. But pick up on that point. I pressed Secretary Rubio: name one thing that Putin's being asked to give up, and there was nothing. And that's not to say that there wasn't something that was privately discussed, but at least publicly, they are not saying what Russia is being asked to give up. NED PRICE: Well, because the answer might be simple: Russia might be asked to give up very little or nothing at all. President Trump likes to give Putin concessions, not to make demands of him. Look, there has been a lot made of this question, "How much will Ukraine have to give up? Will Ukraine have to give up land to see peace ultimately?" Of course, we would all like to see Ukraine retain the land that it had – that it had not only in 2022 but in 2014 when President Putin's little green men first went into Crimea, into eastern Ukraine. But if you listen to Ukrainians, and sometimes, they'll only say this privately, that's just not all that realistic. Ultimately, just as the senator said, this has to be up to them. And there's going to be one thing that will ultimately dictate what Ukraine looks like, and that's leverage. How much leverage Ukraine has in the first instance on the battlefield, and ultimately, in turn, how much leverage Ukraine has at the diplomacy – at the diplomatic table. And the United States has to be the key provider of that leverage. Unfortunately, Ukraine coming out of Friday has less leverage, not more. KRISTEN WELKER: Sara, how is this playing inside Republican circles? SARA FAGEN: Well, I mean one thing we saw in recent weeks is polling that showed the Republican base moving to the side of the Ukraine, in part because of President Trump's comments against Russia and against Vladimir Putin. I mean, look, coming out of this summit, it feels uncomfortable to sort of have seen the pageantry for a – a warmonger, you know, effectively. But it is one inning in a – in a long process. And so the question, ultimately, is, you know, the president not getting a ceasefire, the president not imposing sanctions doesn't mean that he won't get those things. And so – so Monday is very important in terms of sort of how does this play out over the course of the next several weeks and potentially months. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, you take us to the next part of the conversation beautifully, because Andrea, inning two takes place at the White House with President Zelenskyy and these European allies on Monday. What will you be watching for? Particularly, the fact that this is President Zelenskyy's first trip to the White House since that explosive meeting he had with the vice president, President Trump. I'm told Vice President Vance will be in this meeting as well. ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh, you can be sure that Vice President Vance will be in there. The lineup on the couch will include Vance, Rubio and all the rest, Witkoff clearly, Bessent. But on the other side will be von der Leyen from the EU and, you know, the NATO secretary general, the other Europeans, Macron, and we understand Starmer. In the U.K., Prime Minister Starmer has been coaching Zelenskyy ever since that disastrous Oval Office because Zelenskyy was, many people feel, ambushed. And he felt that he had to defend his – his own country. He's got a political audience at home, but what this president has never – what President Trump has never agreed to, and this was clear in his conversation a week ago Monday, in fact, when he talked about Zelenskyy: He has never accepted the fact that Russia invaded, that Russia was the aggressor. You've never heard that come from him. And until he or unless he acknowledges that, I don't know how he can mediate this dispute. JONATHAN MARTIN: The Europeans have conceded what was the Putin line, now is the Trump line, which is, "Forget the ceasefire. Let's go straight to a bigger deal." If that's the case, can the Europeans at least get from Trump a concession from Trump that, "Yes, we will send some kind of, you know, U.S. assets as part of a western security force in Ukraine after this war." That, to me, I think is important coming out of this meeting is, look, if we're not going to do a ceasefire, what can we get to at least save some face? We being the Europeans and Ukraine. And I think they're going to try to get something from Trump in terms of a concrete promise to have American assets in Europe. KRISTEN WELKER: Ned, what do you think the best thing Zelenskyy can get at this point is? NED PRICE: Well, clearly I think he needs to bring back President Trump to his side. Look, to the extent there was any good news coming out of Friday, it was not entirely the surrender summit. It wasn't entirely the betrayal at the Bering Strait. But that's where the good news sort of ends for Ukraine and for the West. I'd say Friday was a very bad day. In some ways, Saturday was an even worse day for Ukraine, for the West, because that's when President Trump came out and started pushing Vladimir Putin's proposal for a peace agreement rather than an immediate unconditional ceasefire. Look, Secretary Rubio said this. A peace agreement might sound nice. It might sound good. But if you think about peace as merely the absence of war, the absence of violence, well, Ukraine could've had peace on February 25th of 2022. They could've raised their hands. They could've waved the white flag. They could've said, "Here, Russian invaders. Take the keys to our city. Take the keys to our country." That's not a just, endurable peace. What President Zelenskyy needs to do is to bring President Trump onto his side to push for that end goal of just, endurable peace. KRISTEN WELKER: As you're saying, a lot of Republicans still support Zelenskyy. What do you think is going to happen? SARA FAGEN: Well, I think the president I mean, there are reports of Russians cash reserves being way down. They're having difficulty recruiting soldiers. And so Vladimir Putin also needs this to end because what we know about him is that he cares more about his own political power than – than anything else. And so to the degree that this extends and these additional sanctions are put forward, he will start to ultimately face pressure internally. KRISTEN WELKER: All right, well, we're all going to be watching very closely. Stay with us. We'll have more in just a bit. But when we come back, Ronald Reagan coined the phrase, "Trust but verified," when negotiating with the Soviets. Our Meet the Press Minute is next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Another high-stakes U.S.-Russia meeting took place 40 years ago when President Ronald Reagan met Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev amid an intensifying arms race between both nations. The 1985 Geneva Summit marked a turning point in the Cold War, breaking the ice after years of hostility, opening the door to arms control and signaling a shift toward deescalation. Then-Secretary of State George Shultz joined Meet the Press days after that historic meeting. [BEGIN TAPE] SEC. GEORGE SHULTZ: The president speaks about realism and about the necessity for realism as we approach our relations with the Soviet Union, and it has been unchanged. At the same time, the president has had a chance to meet directly with the new Soviet leader, Mr. Gorbachev, and his associates, and have a intense discussion with them. And he's done that because he thinks that, with all of our differences and all of our difficulties, nevertheless here we are two countries that either one of which could blow up the world. And we just have to see if we can't put together a more stable and constructive relationship, and that's what he's trying to do. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: When we come back, President Trump takes over the police force in Washington, D.C. and orders up the National Guard. More with the panel next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. The panel is still with us. Andrea, let's start off by talking about this federal takeover of the D.C. police department. President Trump has deployed the National Guard, saying that the city of D.C. is crime ridden, despite the fact that crime statistics have gone down. He's signaling he wants to impose similar situations in other cities and states. How do you see this playing out? ANDREA MITCHELL: It's, first of all, it's expanding, it's escalating, because now he is also bringing in West Virginia, South Carolina, Missouri, potentially Ohio, other states, red states with Republican legislatures, Republican governors. And so more troops are coming in. And it's not clear what they're doing. They are performative. And you see humvees outside Union Station and Washington Monument, but it seems like more for show. The arrest statistics are not up. They're in fact lower than the normal police arrests on an average night. This is a city of 700,000 people. Clearly they are cleaning out and clearing out homeless encampments, and there's a quality-of-life issue there as well. But whether these are real arrests, and, no, there's no predicate for an emergency or a crisis in the city. KRISTEN WELKER: Ned, he is trying to paint Democrats as being soft on crime. Since 2016, he's said, "I'm the law-and-order president." What do you make of this and how Democrats are responding? NED PRICE: Yeah. Look, Kristen, I've spent my career at the CIA, at the National Security Council, at the State Department. I've seen militarized streets in a number of capitals. None of them have been in thriving democracies. So, of course, we're talking about what this means for our country. We should also think about the signal this sends to the rest of the world. You know, President Trump says he wants to 'make America great again.' He's been truly effective at making us somewhat mundane because there are so many people in un-free societies who recognize what's going on here. But you raised the point of how Democrats should talk about this. And there's a debate of, you know, "Do we talk about this?" "Do we talk about the tariffs?" "Do we talk about his tax-and-spend bill?" "Do we talk about Epstein?" I think the answer to all of that is very clear: It is yes. Yes, we have to talk about all of it because there are certain through lines that flow through all of this. It's self-dealing. It's corruption. It's abuse of power. It's putting his own interests over the national interest. This is very clearly an abuse of power, just as is his weaponization of institutions. KRISTEN WELKER: Sara, is it? SARA FAGEN: I mean, look, theatrics aside, crime in this city is a problem. And, you know, we hear the comments out of the Democrats about, "Well, this city is more crime, or this city, so why not go there?" Washington, D.C. is different. Every major corporation, every country, every university has a presence here and does business here. And the fact that you can't go north or east of the White House and the Capitol and feel safe is a problem. So, so again, some of the theatrics, you know, maybe we don't need people in uniforms around the gallery of art. More bodies on the street is helpful and needed. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Well, we'll watch how it unfolds. There's a big court fight right now unfolding as well– ANDREA MITCHELL: I would just question whether, I mean, I live in the neighborhoods. I've lived here for 50 years in the same– SARA FAGEN: I own property here too in those neighborhoods I described. ANDREA MITCHELL: And, and I just don't think–I think it can be a problem in any urban area. It's not a crisis. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Well, another big flash point right now certainly is this debate, J-Mart, over gerrymandering– JONATHAN MARTIN: Yes. KRISTEN WELKER: –Which is the technical term for basically trying to carve out new districts. Texas Republicans trying to find five new Republican seats. Governor Gavin Newsom of California responding in kind, saying, "Okay. If you do that, we're going to find more Democratic seats here in California." Take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say this week. [BEGIN TAPE] We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt. And we have got to meet fire with fire. And we've got to be held to a high level of accountability. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: How do you — JONATHAN MARTIN: Well — KRISTEN WELKER: —see this playing out in 2016 and 2028 based on what we saw there? JONATHAN MARTIN: Yeah. KRISTEN WELKER: — based on what we saw there? JONATHAN MARTIN: — exactly. Let's take this first looking at the midterms, 2026. The upshot of this is it creates a mess. These states, Texas, California, and everybody who follows, red and blue, are now going to be locked in court fights, protracted legal battles. We're not going to have lines for a lot of these states' house districts until well into calendar year 2026. There is an arms race. It is now fully engaged, and it's going to be a mess going into the midterms. I think the upshot of this is there are more red states that can deliver more seats for the Republicans than there are blue states available. But let's focus on 2028 for a minute though. This is a gift for Gavin Newsom. Donald Trump loaded the weapon and handed it to Gavin Newsom. And now Gavin Newsom is thrilled for this opportunity because it puts California front and center this year. KRISTEN WELKER: Sara? SARA FAGEN: Well, I agree with Jonathan. This is good for Gavin Newsom. I'm not sure it's good for the Democratic Party. You know, here you have this prolonged conversation around Texas and going in and doing redistricting. And the longer that played out, the worse it was going to be in the eyes of independent voters toward the Republican Party. And now, it is, it's just a jump ball, and it's both sides fighting. NED PRICE: Look, I think the difference is the Republicans are doing this out of zeal. Democrats are doing this in response. They're doing it somewhat out of sorrow, somewhat out of regret. This is what they have to do in order to maintain parity. But, look, I think we also want to see backbone. We have seen so much folding. All of our institutions, most of our institutions have caved. Academia, law, corporate media. I think what Gavin Newsom is finding, and others are finding it as well, is that when people stand up, stand up to President Trump and to power grabs and to Republicans trying to do the same, they're applauded. We need to see more of that. JONATHAN MARTIN: The Democratic base wants to see fight. Gavin's giving them fight. What I would watch for is JB Pritzker, Wes Moore also eyeing 2028. Do they follow suit and gerrymander their own states to give Dems more seats in Maryland and Illinois? KRISTEN WELKER: All right. There's a lot to unpack in this fight that we're watching. Thank you all so much for a fantastic conversation. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
