'This Week' Transcript 4-28-24: Trump’s Legal Landscape, State of Play in Battleground Georgia, and White House Natl. Security Comms Adviser John Kirby

A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, April 28, 2024 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC "THIS WEEK" ANCHOR: Campaigning from courtrooms.

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is a trial that should have never happened.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Donald Trump facing four legal battles over efforts to corrupt two presidential elections.

KRIS MAYES: I will not allow American democracy to be undermined.

BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: This case has huge implications for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This morning, Aaron Katersky breaks down the historic week, and our legal experts analyze all the consequential developments.

Critical aid.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When our allies are stronger, we are stronger.

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Biden signs the foreign aid package sending crucial assistance to U.S. allies as protests spread across college campuses.

CROWD: Free, free, free Palestine.

STEPHANOPOULOS: White House National Security Spokesman John Kirby joins us live. Plus our powerhouse roundtable.

And –

RACHEL SCOTT, ABC NEWS SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you believe that President Biden and the Democratic Party take black voters for granted?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, most definitely. Most definitely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Just over six months to Election Day, Rachel Scott reports on the state of the race in Georgia, kicking off our new series on the battleground states.

ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, it's THIS WEEK. Here now, George Stephanopoulos.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning, and welcome to THIS WEEK.

Until now no American president had ever faced a criminal trial. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment for retaining and concealing classified documents. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment or a state indictment for trying to overturn an election or been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two other states for the same crime. No American president ever faced hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments for business fraud, defamation and sexual abuse. Until now, no American presidential race had been more defined by what's happening in courtrooms than what’s happening on the campaign trail, until now.

The scale of the abnormality is so staggering that it can actually become numbing. It's all too easy to fall into reflective habits, to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power.

But that is not what's happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven't seen since the Civil War. It's a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens.

This morning we're going to do our best to put it all in perspective and analyze what it means. Senior investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky starts us off.

Good morning, Aaron.

AARON KATERSKY, ABC NEWS SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: And, George, good morning to you.

Let's add one more to your list. No American president has ever had the publisher of the nation's most well-known supermarket tabloid testify about scheming on his behalf by running hit pieces on rivals and quashing stories about sex.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATERSKY (voice over): From a Manhattan court to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Arizona attorney general's office, this week the legal life of Donald Trump took an extraordinary path.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Trump, how’s it going?

KATERSKY (voice over): For most of it, Trump sat inside a New York courtroom, where for the first time in history a jury began hearing testimony in a criminal case against a former president. Manhattan prosecutors have charged Trump with falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, to keep her from revealing a sexual tryst that Trump denies.

TRUMP: I was paying a lawyer and marking down it as a legal expense.

KATERSKY (voice over): The first witness has known Trump for decades and said he considered him a friend and mentor, former “National Enquirer” publisher David Pecker.

TRUMP: David’s been very nice. He’s a nice guy.

KATERSKY (voice over): Over four days Pecker revealed the dark art of catch and kill, buying and burying damaging stories to protect Trump's 2016 campaign. The jury saw "The National Enquirer’s" agreement to pay “Playboy” model Karen McDougal $150,000. “I believed the story was true,” Pecker testified. “It would have been very embarrassing to Trump and also to his campaign.” And he told the jury, Trump hosted a thank you dinner for him at the White House.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Trump, do you still like Pecker?

KATERSKY (voice over): The defense argued Trump wanted to quash salacious stories to protect his family, but Pecker said he thought it was for the campaign. His family was never mentioned, Pecker testified, only the impact it would have upon the election.

The judge refused to let Trump skip court on Thursday so he could be at the U.S. Supreme Court when it weighed his unprecedented claim that presidents cannot be prosecuted for conduct that occurred while in office.

TRUMP: The argument on immunity is very important. The president has to have immunity.

KATERSKY (voice over): For Trump, it means special counsel Jack Smith cannot prosecute him for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

D. JOHN SAUER, LAWYER FOR DONALD TRUMP: Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it.

KATERSKY (voice over): Conservative justices appeared to suggest presidents deserve some level of immunity, so if they lose re-election they won’t face prosecution from a political rival.

SAMUEL ALITO, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilize the functioning of our country as a democracy?

KATERSKY (voice over): Liberal justices appeared skeptical.

ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law.

KATERSKY (voice over): How and when the court decides could push the special counsel's election interference case past this November's election.

Meanwhile, in Arizona, the state filed a criminal case over the 2020 election and named Trump unindicted co-conspirator one.

KRIS MAYES, (D) ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL: The defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. The scheme, had it succeeded, would have deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KATERSKY (on camera): And, George, one note about the case charging Trump over his handling of classified documents. Newly released evidence quotes a witness as saying that Trump’s co-defendant and valet, Walt Nauta, was told that he would get a pardon if Trump is re-elected. And another witness said that the storeroom at Mar-a-Lago, where Trump kept classified documents for more than a year, was no more secure than an ordinary household bathroom. George, the judge in Florida has not said when that case is going to trial.

George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK, Aaron Katersky, thanks.

Let's bring in our expert legal panel.

Our chief legal analyst, Dan Abrams, the assistant dean of the Yale School of Global Affairs, Asha Rangappa, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Kate Shaw, former Trump attorney Timothy Parlatore, and Brookings Institution senior fellow Norm Eisen, author of “Trying Trump; A Guide to Hist First Election interference Criminal Trial.”

So much to cover. Dan, let's begin with the Supreme Court.

I guess you could come up with one bottom line from all the hours of oral argument. It doesn't look like there’s going to be a trial this year.

DAN ABRAMS, ABC NEWS CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: No, and that's really the important question is the timing of this. What's clear from the arguments is that the justices are going to figure out some standard for what is deemed to be an official act. Meaning, the Trump team has now waved the argument that there's absolute immunity, right? In the lower courts, they were arguing that the president should be immune completely and totally for private and official acts. They've now said, OK, OK, we get it, that's not a viable argument.

Now the question becomes defining, where does the line get drawn when it comes to what is an official act? I think, A, that’s going to take a long time for the court to decide, and, B, after they decide it, they’re going to probably send it back and that will be additional delays.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to bring this to Kate Shaw.

KATE SHAW, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW PROFESSOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It does appear that a majority in the court is ready to carve out some immunity for presidents.

SHAW: Yes. That’s right. And I do think that more than just timing is at stake here, right? So, I'm a constitutional law professor. I have never taught my students about the doctrine of the criminal immunity of ex-presidents from prosecution, even for official acts. And that's for the very simple reason that there is no such doctrine, right? If the court chooses to create one in the case, it really does sound as though they will be creating it in order to protect Donald Trump, rather than because anything in a text or structure or history of the Constitution supports that kind of doctrine.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Asha, many of the conservative justices seem like – they just didn't want to deal with Trump at all. They didn’t want to deal with anything that happened on January 6th. Most remarkable, Justice Alito, who seemed to suggest – not didn't seem, who suggested that the greater threat is not the president who tried to overturn an election, but the threat of prosecution for a president tempted to overturn an election.

ASHA RANGAPPA, ASSISTANT DEAN, YALE SCHOOL OF GLOBAL AFFAIRS & FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Yes, it was very interesting to see the conservative justices who are typically not pro-defendant or anti-law enforcement by any means, suddenly preoccupied with systemic bias in the criminal justice system. I mean they almost sounded woke, you know? They seem to say -- seemed to be thinking, as you said, that the greater threat, the bigger threat to the stability of our democracy is the criminal justice system, not a wanton lawless rogue president sitting in the Oval Office. And that's kind of a very Trumpian worldview.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Timothy Parlatore, your read on the Supreme Court?

TIMOTHY PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY & FOUNDER AND MANAGING PARTNER, PARLATORE LAW GROUP: I do think that they're going to chart a middle road here and, you know, certainly Trump, you know, brings people together on issues of the two-tier system of justice.

You know, having done that investigation myself, I will tell you that there is, you know, risks along with any investigation into a former administration. If they were to adopt the Jack Smith position, then that would open things up to where every time the administration changes hands, the new administration could open a grand jury and then call the vice president, the White House counsel, the attorney general, basically everybody in, vitiate all those privileges and force them to testify about anything. If Trump wins he could, you know, open one into, you know, every decision-makingprocess of Ukraine and China. Every drone strike, and so I do think that there is a slippery slope to where --

STEPHANOPOULOS: If that's a threat how do you explain -- how do you explain why it's never happened before now?

PARLATORE: It hasn't happened before now probably because most presidents just want to stay away from it. But unfortunately, politics, you know, has devolved to a point where some form of immunity does make sense to at least define. And if there is no immunity, then define that, too, so that everybody knows what the rules are.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Norm Eisen?

NORM EISEN, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Well, my friend, Tim, is dead wrong on this, George. We have survived 2 1/2 centuries as a nation without any president ever having engaged in this kind of conduct or having needed to cloak themselves in absolute immunity for criminal prosecution.

The safeguards are ample and multiple. The courts that the Supreme Court are at the head of can knock that kind of a case out right away. We should not be lulled into thinking anything normal is happening at this Supreme Court.

Both the delay that they've occasioned already, moving much slower than comparable cases of national import, and contemplating this needless test put them squarely in the direction of cloaking Donald Trump in impunity, and making them, if they go down this route, both delaying further and creating this unneeded protection for their favorite candidate will make them complicit. They're acting -- the majority is acting more like Donald Trump's general counsel than the Supreme Court of the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's turn to the trial that is already happening this year. Dan, you've been a skeptic of this prosecution from the start. We're now deep into the testimony. What do you make of it?

ABRAMS: Look, I’m still a skeptic of the fact that he brought the case, right? Two separate questions, should he have brought the case? And the second question is, is there a possibility for a conviction? Meaning, is there enough evidence?

I think you have to view it through the prism of a technical violation. I think this is a souped-up misdemeanor. With all that said, they have certainly presented evidence of falsified records, right? And now you've got these first witnesses demonstrating, particularly in David Pecker, that it does seem that there is an argument that this was done to impact the campaign.

And that will be the legal question, that the jurors will be deciding, not the question of should the case have been brought. That's for us to decide out here, right?

Inside that courtroom, that's not really the question they should be assessing. The only question is going to be, is there enough evidence? And the prosecution is now presenting evidence that I think could in the end become a technical violation, although as you and I have talked about, I’m convinced there will be a hung jury.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring it to Tim Parlatore.

Maggie Haberman in “The New York Timers” has an interesting article this morning about how Trump's lawyers are doing as much to please him as they are to convince the jury on what happened here.

Are you concerned that by failing to concede anything about his conduct, they are making it a tougher case?

PARLATORE: Oh, very much so. I mean, this is a case where all of the Pecker testimony, I believe, is all true. I believe it's not criminal. I mean, the idea of paying somebody hush money, the idea of, you know, putting out false stories against rivals as amoral and reprehensible as that is, it is legal. Other campaigns have done it.

I mean, even, you know, during that same campaign we had, you know, the Steele dossier, Clinton pee tape, things like -- er, Trump pee tape, things like that. And so, that’s all legal.

And so, it's much better off as a defense attorney saying all of this stuff here, that's not in dispute. We agree with all of that but it's not a crime. The only crime is this thing right here just focused right in on these records, and really laser focus on that.

And if you do that, you can make things much simpler and make the jury sit here and say, you know what, I just listened to eight weeks prove things that aren't even in dispute. So why don’t we just focus on this one thing?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Norm, Dan talked about a hung jury. That does seem to be the strategy for the Trump team.

EISEN: That's right, George. They're going for one angry juror.

I’m in the courtroom every day, observing and writing about the trial and one of the things I do is look at the jury, particularly when they come in and out, when Trump moves in the courtroom.

And so far, it's not working. The prosecution has very effectively -- again, I have to disagree with Tim -- they have very effectively argued in their opening and then presented evidence through David Pecker of a criminal conspiracy to influence an election.

If you pump money to individuals to kill negative stories to benefit a campaign, and Pecker testified they agreed to that, that is a violation of law. And people have been prosecuted for that, have plead guilty to that. That is against the law.

And then if you cover it up with 34 false documents, you have 34 very serious felonies. And the prosecution has made this case, George, as an election interference case. They've emphasized to the jury the seriousness of the case. They did try to tear down David Pecker, but they made a mistake.

The same kind of misleading conduct that their client has engaged in. They showed Pecker a document and the judge said it was misleading. And I’ve never had to do this. And I was telling Tim the other day, I’ve never had to do this in 30 – over 30 years of going to court. They made Trump's lawyer apologize when we started court on Friday morning.

So, I think we're headed for a conviction, and with it, as I wrote in "The New York Times" this week, possible jail time.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Kate Shaw, before we get to that, the president – the former president also facing the prospect of possible jail time for being in contempt. Unlikely but it – but the judge still has not ruled.

SHAW: Yes, and may not rule until after the trial concludes. So – so, we don't really know. I think that the judge has a very different – the trial judge here has a very difficult – a number of objectives, has to sort of see the trial through and decide what to do about these pending contempt proceedings while –

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not rule until after the trial?

SHAW: I think at least until there’s – there could be another hearing. There could – the trial could conclude and a ruling could happen after. Now, I think Trump has, you know, not total control over this, but his conduct between now and the end of the trial, I think, will influence what the judge decides to do. But I think it's at least possible that, you know, a ruling on the contempt – the violation potentially could happen after the trial concludes. I think it’s at least possible.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Asha Rangappa, one of the four – one of the attorneys in the courtroom with Trump this week, Boris Epshteyn, who’s one of 53 Trump associates who have now been charged with election interference in four separate battleground states, Arizona, Michigan, Georgia and Nevada. What is the import of these cases?

RANGAPPA: The import of these cases is that it is adding to the underlying scheme that Trump has been charged for. Now, in the Arizona case, what's really notable is that there's one absent defendant, which is Donald Trump. And I think, to bring it back to the Supreme Court case, it goes to some of the inconsistency of this theory of immunity that he can engage in illegal conduct and potentially not be held accountable, but all of these people who participated in that same scheme can be. The same thing is happening in the hush money case, you know, with Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty. So, I think it illuminates some of the contradiction that's happening in terms of his own criminal liability and that of all the people who follow him.

ABRAMS: This is why it’s dangerous – this is why it’s dangerous to call the hush money case a big election interference case, right? There are all these other cases out there that in my view really do address big picture election interference. To say, oh, this is all – this is election – it loses the significance of what election interference means. And I think the prosecutors risk in that case, with the jury, saying, the prosecutors are overpromising. This is a grand election interference and then they finish the case and they say, wait a sec, this is about paying off a porn star. That’s very different, right?

STEPHANOPOULOS: To influence an election.

ABRAMS: Yes, yes, yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s the – that’s the –

ABRAMS: But my point is that – that, again, even for us in talking about election interference, if we start lumping in that case with some of the other cases with much more serious and dire conduct, I think it – it sort of minimizes the significance of it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tim, we've already seen it in Georgia, Jenna Ellis, who was, of course, one of Donald Trump's attorneys, turn and – and start to provide testimony. We're seeing that with some of the other people who have been charged as well. Are you concerned about that as these cases go forward in the states?

PARLATORE: Oh, absolutely. I mean I – I read the Arizona indictment and I thought it was actually very well written. I thought it was the first time that I saw a really coherent theory about this whole, you know, tension between the alternate electors versus fake electors theory. And they have emails apparently from Mike Roman and Boris Epshteyn to back it up. You know, will that actually, you know, reach its way up to, you know, Rudy Giuliani and to Mark Meadows? I – I don't know if they're going to be able to show that because, you know, knowing Boris as I do, he sometimes says, oh, this is authorized from above when it's not. But could that pressure somebody like him or Mike Roman to, you know, to turn? Absolutely. So, I do think that that’s something that is a risk.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Norm, how do these play out before the election if at all?

EISEN: Well, that will depend on how Alvin Bragg and his team of very capable prosecutors do in that courtroom, George. The – what we're seeing unfold, the gravity of it, the weight of it in the courtroom, my read of the jurors, certainly the judge does view it as an election interference case when he summarized for the jury what it is. It is a very serious matter of the identical pattern to 2020, deceiving voters to grasp power and then covering it up. If Alvin Bragg makes that case to the court of law, to the judge and jury, but also to the court of public opinion, I think you'll see a powerful resonance from a likely guilty verdict in that case.

And then the sentencing, George, poll after poll shows that, if the former president is convicted and sentenced, that that creates huge swings in -- in the polling, up to a 14-point swing in the key six states. And I think that a conviction is likely. And with it -- I looked at over 10,000 of these cases for my book -- a jail sentence as well, if convicted.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Kate Shaw, before we go, we haven't even talked about the classified documents case. It appears that the judge seems to be slow-walking that case as well. But in the meantime, lots of evidence comes out. And one of the ironies here is that that is the case where the evidence seems most locked-tight against former President Trump.

SHAW: Yeah, it's incredibly powerful evidence, and yet I think it's right that it is on, in some ways, the slowest track, in terms of I don't think anyone thinks there's a real chance of that trial seeing the light of day before the election.

But there are all kind of parallels in terms of the immunity arguments that Trump is making in the January 6th case, but he could also -- he has made and he could further make arguments that he's absolutely immune for some or all of the conduct charged, actually, in all of these cases, state and federal.

And in some ways, the expansiveness of the argument Trump was making in the January 6th case in the Supreme Court, I think, has, you know, potential repercussions in all those cases. His lawyer was arguing he could not be criminally prosecuted even if he directed the military to assassinate a rival, if he ordered the staging of a coup. And that would sweep in lots of other conduct that could be deemed "official" and yet could never be subject to criminal prosecution.

So those are the stakes of the argument he is making both in the January 6th case and, I think, in all the other cases as well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This will not be the last time we discuss these issues in this campaign. Thank you all for coming in.

Up next, the White House's John Kirby weighs in on the latest in Gaza and those rising college campus protests. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary of State Antony Blinken returns to Israel this week on the heels of Hamas releasing new video showing American and Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. The images have sparked new calls for the Netanyahu government to secure a cease-fire.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby is going to join us after this report from foreign correspondent Tom Soufi Burridge.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KEITH SIEGEL, ISRAELI HOSTAGE OF HAMAS: (SPEAKING IN HEBREW)

TOM SOUFI BURRIDGE, ABC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: This week, two American-Israeli hostages...

HERSH GOLDBERG-POLIN, HOSTAGE HELD BY HAMAS: (SPEAKING IN HEBREW).

SOUFI BURRIDGE: ... seen in captivity in Gaza for the first time in Hamas videos, 64-year-old Keith Siegel breaking down with emotion and 23-year-old Hersh Goldberg-Polin, both men, speaking under duress. Both imploring the Israeli government to do everything in its power to set them free.

One of Keith's daughters demanding Israeli leaders watch the video of her dad and see their father crying out for help.

And Hersh's mom Rachel with this moving message to her son.

RACHEL GOLDBERG, HERSH GODLBERG-POLIN’S MOTHER: Hersh, if you can hear this, we heard your voice today for the first time in 201 days, and if you can hear us, I am telling you, we are telling you, we love you. Stay strong. Survive.

BURRIDGE: As that Hamas video of Hersh came out, police clashing with protesters who want a cease-fire to get the hostages free.

There's real tension on the streets of Jerusalem tonight. People are trying to block the road. Police are trying to pull them back. This movement says the cry of Hersh is the cry of all of the hostages.

Amid deadly Israeli air strikes in Rafah, Palestinian families grieving for their children and the youngest victims of this war.

This baby born premature rescued by doctors by C-section after her pregnant mother was killed in an air strike. The baby named Sabrine (ph) initially surviving and dying just five days old.

In another hospital in southern Gaza, a grim scene. Officials from the Hamas-run government saying they exhumed nearly 400 bodies from mass graves inside the Nasser Hospital compound.

The Israeli military planning to soon start trying to move hundreds of thousands of civilians out of the southern city of Rafah possibly into these newly constructed tented areas ahead of a planned invasion which aid groups say would be catastrophic.

And despite more aid trucks entering the strip, the World Food Programme saying sufficient supplies are still not reaching northern Gaza to avoid potential famine. U.S. military personnel now in the region to construct a temporary pier off Gaza's coast so large shipments of aid can get in.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks to Tom Soufi Burridge for that.

Let's bring in White House national security communications adviser, John Kirby.

John, thanks for joining us again.

Let's start out with Secretary Blinken's mission. He’s going to be in the Middle East tomorrow.

What's on the table? What are the prospects for getting that cease-fire and hostage release?

JOHN KIRBY, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNICATIONS ADVISER: That's going to be right at the top of the list for Secretary Blinken, to keep pushing for this temporary cease-fire. We want it to last for about six weeks. It will allow for all those hostages to get out and, of course, to allow for easier aid access to places in Gaza, particularly up in the north.

So, he's going to be working on that very, very hard and also be talking to the Israelis about their intentions and their thinking about Rafah, military operations and sort of where they are in the planning stages for that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Doesn’t -- I mean, but if they go into Rafah, cease-fire is off, any prospect of any short-term -- of a short ending to the war is completely over.

KIRBY: Well, look, I think, again, we have to have a better understanding from the Israelis about what they want to do. As a matter of fact, we've had several staff talks with them. We intend to do that more. They've assured us they won't go into Rafah until we've had a chance to really share our perspectives and concerns with them. So we'll see where that goes.

Obviously, George, if we're able to get this hostage deal in place and are still working at that, Hamas has not fully rejected it. They are considering this proposal on the table.

If we can get that in place, then that gives you six weeks of peace. It gives you no fighting for six weeks and that includes no fighting in Rafah and what we're hoping is that after six weeks of a temporary cease-fire, we can maybe get something more enduring in place --

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: We want to see an end of the conflict as soon as possible.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The humanitarian crisis is so dire right now. How quickly can this pier get put up and why is that better than intensifying land operations?

KIRBY: I wouldn't say it's better, George. It's another alternative. It certainly will help increase the volume of aid getting into Gaza but nothing can replace, quite frankly, nothing can replace the ground routes and the trucks that are getting in.

And I will say that they have been increasing the amount of trucks that have been getting into Gaza. Now, there are still challenges on the ground in getting it up into the north but that's starting to happen and the Israelis have started to meet the commitments that President Biden asked them to meet.

This pier is now being constructed. It will take probably two to three weeks before we can really see it in operation. I mean, it's a fairly complicated procedure to get that in place and we’re working closely with the Israelis about how the operation of the pier would work.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're seeing these protests cascade across college campuses here in the United States. What is -- what is the administration's response to these protests? And what do you think about the use of police -- bringing in the police to break them up?

KIRBY: The president knows that there are very strong feelings, George, about the war in Gaza. He understands that. He respects that.

And as he has said many times, we certainly respect the right of peaceful protests. Now, people should have the ability to air their views and to share their perspectives publicly but it has to be peaceful.

Now, we'll leave it to local authorities to determine how these protests were managed, but we want them to be peaceful protests. And obviously, we don't want to see anybody hurt in the process of peacefully protesting.

But, again, the president understands that. We absolutely condemn the antisemitism language that we've heard of late and certainly condemn all the hate speech and the threats of violence out there. These protests, we understand they're important, but they do need to be peaceful.

STEPHANOPOULOS: John Kirby, thanks as always for your time.

Up next, Rachel Scott kicks off our battleground state series with a look at what's at stake in Georgia. We're back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, (R) GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: We've never found systemic fraud, not enough to overturn the election. We have over 250 cases right now. We don't see anything that would overturn the will of the people here in Georgia.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there's no doubt in your mind President Trump lost the State of Georgia, lost the election?

RAFFENSPERGER: Yeah. Sad, but true, I wish he would have won. I'm a conservative Republican and I'm disappointed, but those are the results.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger after the 2020 election when Joe Biden became the first Democrat to win Georgia since Bill Clinton. Ballots were counted there three times, the outcome not in doubt even as Donald Trump continues to falsely claim he won, and Trump, of course, is facing criminal charges over his post-election actions in Georgia. But the race will be tight in 2024. Here's Rachel Scott, starting our series on the battleground states that will determine the outcome.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RACHEL SCOTT, ABC NEWS SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Six months out from an anticipated rematch between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the race to secure Georgia's 16 electoral votes is in full swing.

TRUMP: With your vote, we are going to win the State of Georgia in an epic landslide.

(CROWD CHEERING)

BIDEN: Over here today, you know, you're the reason why we're going to win.

SCOTT (voice-over): While there are many issues animating voters in the state --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To me, our financial situation is huge.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My most important issue is student loan coverage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Closing the border.

SCOTT (voice-over): 2020 election denial still looms over the 2024 race in Georgia, where Trumphas pleaded not guilty to 10 criminal counts over his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 results there.

But Biden’s lackluster approval and charges he hasn’t lived up to his campaign promises call into question whether he can reassemble the coalition that delivered him his slimmest margin of victory over Trump four years ago. Polling suggests it will be an uphill battle for Biden, with Trump leading by an average of six points in a head-to-head matchup.

SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK, (D) GEORGIA: Oh, there's no question that this is going to be a close election.

SCOTT (voice over): Senator Raphael Warnock, who has been on the ballot five times over two years, knows his state's voters well.

WARNOCK: I would urge him to do what we're doing, and that is to keep telling the story about the work that we are doing. The other side doesn't have anything to talk about.

SCOTT (voice over): To win in November, Biden needs to turn out voters, especially black voters and metro Atlanta’s Democratic stronghold, places like Fulton County, home to Cascade Skating roller rink, a mainstay in Atlanta’s black community. For owner Greg Alexander, an Air Force veteran, Biden is the clear choice.

GREG ALEXANDER, OWNER, CASCADE SKATING: I cannot, in good conscience, support Donald Trump.

SCOTT (voice over): But he says the president needs to do a better job at selling his record.

ALEXANDER: What I’m hearing is, what has Biden done for the country? What has Biden done for black people? He has to really focus on getting the word out on, this is what I’ve done. This is what I stand for.

SCOTT (voice over): Bucky Bassette isn't sold on either candidate.

SCOTT: Is there any scenario where you just sit this election out?

BUCKY BASSETTE, GEORGIA VOTER: That's – that’s a strong possibility as well.

SCOTT (voice over): And he's not alone. A January poll from "The Atlanta Journal Constitution" found that one in ten black voters in the state say they don't plan to vote in November.

SCOTT: Could that significantly hurt the president?

WARNOCK: I think that Georgia voters, black voters included, are going to show up for Joe Biden the same way they showed up for me. Not to vote is to vote. It is to push Donald Trump a little bit closer to the White House. And that is a dangerous proposition.

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hello, Georgia.

SCOTT (voice over): But a Trump victory is exactly what several Georgia voters we spoke to are hoping for.

TOMMY THOMAS, GEORGIA VOTER: I'm going with Trump all the way. He's my man.

SCOTT (voice over): Tommy Thomas owns Thomas Barber Shop in the affluent Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta. In here they're always talking politics.

SCOTT: Do you think that Trump can win this state again?

THOMAS: I think if people look at their pocketbooks, I think they're going to change their mind this time.

SCOTT (voice over): To retake the state, Trump will also have to win over voters like Lynn Dinkens, a self-described big Nikki Haley supporter. Lynn supported Trump in 2020, but this time she says his priorities are off.

LYNN DINKENS, GEORGIA VOTER: I feel like there's just so much drama associated with him at the moment. And I'm not convinced that he is necessarily focused on the issues at hand right now.

SCOTT (voice over): Out in Rockmart, just over an hour outside Atlanta, a much different sentiment. Like the city’s congressional representative Marjorie Taylor Greene –

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): We’re going to re-elect our favorite president –

SCOTT (voice over): People I spoke to here in Polk County, where Trump earned 78 percent of the vote in 2020, are still firmly behind the former president.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I like his vibe (ph).

SCOTT (voice over): At a local bar and grill, the Rails at Rockmart, we met Sharon Capes. She says her support for the former president is unwavering.

SCOTT: Would you still support Trump if he was convicted of a crime?

SHARON CAPES, GEORGIA VOTER: Absolutely.

SCOTT: No questions asked.

CAPES: No questions asked. No questions asked. I would bail him out if I could afford it.

SCOTT (voice over): Sharon believes Trump’s false claims that the last election was stolen.

SCOTT: What will get you to actually have trust in the November election in the system?

CAPES: I guess if Trump wins, I would probably have trust in it again.

SCOTT (voice over): Gabriel Sterling, the chief operations officer in the Georgia Secretary of State's Office says that position undermines American democracy.

GABRIEL STERLING, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER: What happens if he wins Georgia but loses the country? Do you accept it then? What happens if he loses Georgia but wins the country? Do you accept it then? I mean you can't base your belief in the outcome based on whether your side wins or not. That's just not logical.

SCOTT (voice over): A lifelong Republican, Sterling supported Trump in 2020. But when Trump refused to accept that he lost, he became one of the loudest voices defending Georgia’s election. His plea to voters this cycle, have faith in the system.

STERLING: Anybody saying I – I feel safe about my vote here but I don't know about those guys over there, we do know about those guys over there. It's a little bit different, but it’s safe and secure everywhere in America.

SCOTT (voice over): For THIS WEEK, Rachel Scott, ABC News, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks to Rachel for that.

The roundtable’s up next.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: The roundtable is here and ready to go. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: The 2024 election is in full swing and, yes, age is an issue. I'm a grown man running against a six-year-old.

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN: Age is the only thing we have in common. My vice president actually endorses me.

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN: I'm sincerely not asking you to take sides, but asking you to rise up to the seriousness of the moment. Move past the horse race numbers that got you moments and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics, and focus on what's actually at stake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Biden at the White House Correspondents' dinner last night. Let's talk about it on our Roundtable. Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile; Former Trump Justice Department Spokesperson and Dispatch Senior Editor Sarah Isgur; USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page, author of the new book "The Rulebreaker: The Life and Times of Barbara Walters;" and our White House Correspondent Selina Wang. Thanks to Selina and Susan for driving through the night --

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- from the White House Correspondents' dinner to be here with us. And Selina, that speech last night really capped off the first full week of the split-screen campaign.

SELINA WANG, ABC NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It was and it was perfectly encapsulated in his speech, which is the tact that this campaign has been taking, which is don't directly comment on Trump's legal troubles but joke about it, allude to it. We heard the president do that last night. They are taking full advantage of Trump being stuck in court as he's been across the battleground states, and as one Democratic strategist put it to me, to see Trump in court looking grumpy and old and frustrated is perfect imagery for Biden.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Susan, the President personally has (inaudible) not just in the jokes but also out on the campaign trail every day, has been stepping up his attacks in a way we haven't seen before.

SUSAN PAGE, USA TODAY WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Yeah, he used to call him my predecessor, as though he didn't have a name and now, he is really on the attack against Donald Trump in very specific ways. And you know, this court case has been I think surprisingly difficult for Trump because we've seen that these indictments helped Trump, boosted his - solidified his support in the Republican Party, but he looks humiliated and small and out of control and silenced during these long court hearings and that is not Trump's brand. That is the opposite of the brand that had brought Trump to the White House.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sarah, I wonder if you agree with that. Clearly, the indictments helped Trump during the primaries. I was struck by something that Stuart Stevens wrote this week, suggesting that it could continue to help him through the general election.

SARAH ISGUR, FORMER TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON & THE DISPATCH' SENIOR EDITOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I don't know is the answer because, as Susan said, this moment that we're in doesn't seem to be helping him and you're seeing that in some of the trend lines of the polls. Donald Trump went into this month ahead in every swing state and you see Joe Biden starting to narrow at least some of those margins in those swing states, though Donald Trump is still ahead in the vast majority of them.

But, are people really tuned into this? Are they seeing sleepy Don, et cetera? This seems like only the high information voters are paying attention and so, after this, when we get a conviction, whether there's a sentencing, is there going to be another trial at that point? I think that's --

STEPHANOPOULOS: You assume there is going to be a conviction or (inaudible).

(LAUGHTER)

ISGUR: I actually think there is a chance that there's not a conviction, but I think there's a higher chance of conviction at this point. I think the problems with this case are legal problems, not necessarily fact problems. But all it takes, remember, is one juror, that's why jury instructions are so important and that's why jury selection in this case, probably the most important part of this case, already is over.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Donna, you've worked in several presidential campaigns. It is hard to wrap your head around a presidential campaign that is playing out in criminal court.

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: George, I've never been here before and I never thought in the years, almost 30 years that I worked in presidential politics and campaigns, that I would never have to figure out talking points when your opponent, in the case of Donald Trump, is sitting in court all day and not on the campaign trail. So, you have very little to react from and what I see coming from what I often refer to as the messaging points from the Democrats is, hey, go ahead and point out what Joe Biden is doing for the American people, how he's lifting people out of poverty, how he's providing jobs, getting industries back on their feet, and don't get into the salacious, lurid details of this court case, and that's been great.

You know, I went out and bought a "National Enquirer" because I thought catch-and-kill was about trapping a mouse in the house or --

(LAUGHTER)

BRAZILE: -- figuring out if there are rats around you. I never thought it was about burying stories. There's so much legalese in all of this that I think it's just passing over everyone's head. But I have to make a statement because I remember Bush v. Gore as if it were yesterday. I do believe that the Supreme Court is dangling to election interference by slowing it down. I'm not a lawyer, Sarah, but I had to listen to the oral arguments the other day and what I heard again was, they weren't talking about the facts of the case.

They were coming up with all these hypotheticals. That's election - they should go ahead and allow this trial on January 6th to go forward in the district court, and we should know the results before the election.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sarah, you are a lawyer. You worked at the Justice Department.

(LAUGHTER)

ISGUR: I disagree strongly with that. The Supreme Court decides questions, not cases. That's what they're supposed to do. They take issues of national importance. I will be surprised if this is not a unanimous decision coming from the Supreme Court that holds that it's not going to be about official acts versus unofficial acts; it's going to be something more like qualified immunity, where, if it is so clearly outside the bounds of presidential authority, ordering the assassination of a political rival, of course, that is not going to be immune.

But don't forget, 1982 this court held that presidents were absolutely immune from civil liability. It's why they had to take this case. It's not election interference. This is actually the job of the third branch of government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Perhaps that's one element of the case, but it was remarkable how the -- many of the conservative justices refused to address what Donald Trump did on January 6th.

ISGUR: You heard that from all of the justices, saying this is not about Donald Trump. This is a rule that we're making for the ages. This is a rule that's going to have to apply to future presidents. You saw Justice Kagan asking many of the same hypotheticals as anyone else.

So that's why I think this will be a unanimous decision, and I think people took snippets from that oral argument, not understanding that's how the Supreme Court does this. They don't make a rule for this case. They make a rule for all of the cases.

BRAZILE: You can still argue the timing. I mean, the -- the District Court of Appeal rendered this decision in February. Jack Smith said all along, the special counsel, back in December, "Go ahead, make the decision." And they are dragging their feet. And let me tell you, Justice delayed --

(CROSSTALK)

ISGUR: If this had been a normal case, Donna, they would put it on the merits docket for the next fall.

BRAZILE: Justice delayed is democracy denied. I mean, that is what's at stake here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Selina Wang, we also saw President Biden give this interview to Howard Stern on Friday where he said he's ready to debate Donald Trump.

Do you really believe it's going to happen?

WANG: I mean, that was a really, really big surprise, and very interesting he chose Howard Stern as an example for that, because it's another stance of Biden choosing to go with more non-traditional media outlets. This was a very long-ranging interview about the entire arc of his life.

I mean, I think the debate could actually happen. The question is, is it held by the committee on presidential debates, which, you know, the Democratic Party has a lot of issues with, or is it held in some other way or sense?

But I do think the debate could actually happen. And President Biden was very clear in his response.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Susan, I've long been a believer in debates, but I admit to being conflicted this year.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wonder if a useful debate can happen under the circumstances we face right now, looking at the experience of what happened in 2020, looking how difficult, in real time, on live television, it will be to actually have a substantive debate based on facts.

PAGE: Well, you know, I moderated the vice presidential debate last time, and it was hard. And I'm not sure it could -- was as useful as it could have been. But I believe in debates. We ought to have a debate. I think we will have a debate.

I think it will be -- I think Donald Trump will want to have one because he assumes that he will eviscerate Joe Biden. And I think a sitting president should not have the political option of avoiding debating his opponent for re-election.

BRAZILE: Look, I'd support having a debate. If anything else, I mean, the entertainment factor will be really great. I hope the temperature is at Donald Trump's liking so he doesn't complain...

(LAUGHTER)

BRAZILE: ... that it's too cold. And I hope nothing smelly happens.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sarah, before we go, I want to ask -- also want to talk about the campus protests, what we're seeing play out across the country this week. It really has, sort of, cascaded across the country this week. And it seems to be posing much more of a threat to Joe Biden's campaign than Donald Trump.

ISGUR: Well, look, I am upset. I'm horrified that Joe Biden, who said he ran because of the Unite the Right rally, won't say the same things about what's going on now that he did then. Because what we're seeing is the right and the left, a large minority of both of those political movements, rejecting liberal values like free speech, like persuasion. They now think that those aren't necessary, that, in fact, they should just be in charge in this authoritarian manner.

That's what these campus protests are about. They're not about persuasion. They're not trying to convince anyone. And they're not for peace. They're fine if there's violence as long as it's against Jews, as long as it's against Israel.

It's so outside the bounds of what we should be seeing in the United States of America. And where are the people on the political left saying the same things that us on the political right were saying about the Unite the Right rally, about the anti-liberal values on the right? Where are they now, Donna?

BRAZILE: On campus, trying to lead the dialogue.

ISGUR: A dialogue?

BRAZILE: Trying to...

ISGUR: Can you imagine dialoguing with the Unite the Right rally folks?

BRAZILE: Let me just tell you something. I'm on those campuses every week. I'll be on another one tomorrow. And it is important that we engage in civil dialogue. Yes, some students are crossing the line, pitting students against students, and there's no place for the kind of rhetoric that threatens students and threatens an entire Jewish faith and Jewish community. There's no place for this on campus.

But, yes, we have to have dialogue. We have to talk to students. We have to make sure they understand what's at stake. And we should also encourage them not to cross the line, whether they're taking over buildings and threatening their own students. So...

ISGUR: What does it mean that an entire generation doesn't believe in free speech anymore?

BRAZILE: Well, you know, I see that on both the left and right.

ISGUR: I agree.

BRAZILE: So, I see that everywhere.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Selina, this is posing a challenge for the White House.

WANG: It is and I think the White House, and I've heard Democratic allies, they have brought up the Harvard I.O. (ph) people that shows young people in fact care more about the economy than any other issue including the war in Gaza. But the reality is, this is going to be a close race. This is very much animating young people and I just want to push back a little on that because I have been speaking to Arab and Palestinian community leaders who say the vast majority of these students, they are against hate. They are against bigotry. They are there to protest what's happening in Gaza, the destruction and death of many of their family members, in fact, and their relatives, that it is being pulled into something that it's not for the vast majority of these students.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This debate is being defined by the extremes.

PAGE: That's right. And this particular debate over Gaza and Israel is a big political peril for Joe Biden. You know, there's a new CNN poll out this morning that shows eight in ten voters under 35 disapprove of the job Biden is doing in handling this issue. A majority of Democratic voters disapprove of what he's doing and it raises the prospect of the protests we saw last night at the White House Correspondents' dinner. Think what we are going to see --

STEPHANOPOULOS: How serious was that protest last night?

PAGE: Well, it was hundreds of people chanting. There wasn't any violence. So in that way, it's just the kind of protests that we're accustomed to in Washington, but watch out for the Chicago Convention and what happens there on this issue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We will be watching. Thank you all for a great discussion. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That is all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out "World News Tonight" and I'll see you tomorrow on "GMA."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)