improve heart health. rush to walmart and find total bce laura coates live next on cnn

closed captioning brought to you by mesobook.com her firm only represents mesothelial most victims and their families. if you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma call us now good evening. >> i'm laura coates alongside abby phillip& our panel here in washington for a special edition of laura coates live. if what a day in trump world? >> there's court today hearing arguments on trump's claims of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for anything related to his presidency. >> several justices, even seeming open to some level of immunity, while others so much i'm trying to understand what the dish incentive is from turning the oval office into the seat of criminal activity in this country this case could

go back to the lower courts, which would severely delay the start of trump's federal election subversion trial that could ultimately mean that trump's hush money trial in manhattan may very well be the only criminal trial to actually take place before the election. and on day seven of that trial, the former national enquirer publisher, david pecker, has once again taking the stand to testify against trump, who surprisingly gave him rave reviews today was breathtaking this room you saw went on, was breathtaking and amazing testimony breathtaking and amazing testimony how well that's why you don't hear every day a defendant calling testimony in his case against him. breathtaking. well, today, david pecker testified about a deal made with playboy playmate karen mcdougal to kill her story of an affair that she alleges that she had with donald trump he also outlined

the involvement donald trump's onetime fixer, michael cohen, along with trump. question, when michael cohen said, the boss will take care of it, what did you understand that to mean? that he that i would be either reimbursed by the trump organization or by donald trump pecker also said he assumed trump was worried about stories impacting his campaign. not as family. question. now, did he ever say eighth that made you think that his concern about these stories getting out was for his family rather than for his campaign. pecker's answer. i thought it was for the campaign we have a lot to talk about within legal commentator and former trump white house lawyer, jim shultz for repel or prosecutor jean rossi, former january 6 committee investigative counsel, markets childress. former us attorney, and the author of the forthcoming book, pardon power. it can wally and former republican congressman joe walsh so glad to have all of you guys here. i want to ask you first about what took place. there was the

cross-examination here, marcus, because there was a lot i mean, this is not the michael cohen witness where everyone knows you're gonna go after his credibility. in fact, that he has different guilty pleas for false false statements and beyond this, would david pecker, a long time? friend, who has immunity, who has a non-prosecution agreement. >> how did they do what you're trying to chip away at this point on cross-examination, you're not one for knock-out, blow i mean, we've heard you talk about the jigsaw puzzle for the prosecution and defense. you're just trying to chip away whether it'd be putting more weight on michael cohen's testimony. so saying, hey, of the president going through cohen to talk two each time, if that's the case now we're really relying on michael cohen's word. i would donald trump was telling him, so i think here you're not going to get a win. you're not gonna get a knockout, you're just trying to chip away at the edges of what the prosecution trying to prove that you can argue it and your closing argument what do you think trump thinks was amazing, breathtaking testimony. i mean, he detailed catch and kill schemes that he believed that he actually had an apparent karen mcdougal, that they weren't paying money

back for what they'd cotton killed in the past, like i wasn't in the room where it happened, but i was listening. >> i think it goes to really the strongest defendants here, which is so what which is listen, this is what people do like donald trump. this is what celebrities do they don't want bad information coming out. they work these deals out. the government has to prove that there was an intent for donald trump to falsify records and that there was an intent to cover up this election crimes. i think it's hard for them on the facts the defense to actually dispute that meaningfully, that it seems like he has stab established donald trump was part of this and everybody knew this was about keeping information quiet. so the strongest defense really is where his lawyer came out in the opening statements and said, this really shouldn't be a crime. this is just hush money payments and sure. it was around election. elections are brutal and you do what you can to get elected. >> this has a lot like the attorney for donald trump said,

opening statements, right? it's not a crime to interfere with an election. you call that democracy well, i mean, you could i'm not sure that's a hunter percent true. >> i mean, what are the interesting things that i find about david pecker, right? and what he testifies to and the reason i find the karen mcdougal story so interesting is what changed between karen mcdougal and stormy daniels. he talks about not wanting to get involved in stormy daniels. he says, i am not purchasing this tour i am not going to be involved with a porn star. as i've suddenly this is a line. he's going to draw it. i am not a bank and he says about michael cohen. michael cohen was really upset. he said that the boss would be furious at me, that i should go forward with purchasing it. he was also in other parts of his testimony, he was worried about the legal implications t lawyers, he consulted campaign finance experts he has seemed to be spooked by what he had just done for karen mcdougal and didn't want to do it again, i are represented are

keith davidson. he's going to be a key witness in his trial. he's the one who negotiated the ndas with mcdougal and with stormy and the timeline is professor kim knows is crucial in any prosecution in august of 2016, keith david rohde will say this is public, that he had a meeting with dylan howard who unfortunately is not a key witness, has been brought up quite a lot. two, abbey, he discussed with karen mcdougal, haven't are on the cover of magazines, writing articles about intellectual topics the luncheon was a joke. it was to kill the case what happened was on our set october 7 access hollywood. after that tape came out, michael cohen and donald trump were you know what? i hope i don't know i was wrong.

here's what happened. next. next three weeks. i hope i don't get kicked off the shelf. it's okay. it's three weeks. >> there was a fervent effort to kill stormy daniels fervent. >> the story, the story in october 27, nda was signed, money was transferred. >> you asked what changed it? the access hollywood tape was crucial in getting trump's attention before that, karen mcdougal was just another one of his alleged affairs. any he couldn't care less, frankly, we know jim on this point. >> is important because the timing of it is where it's these alleged that there has happened not in 20 potential either. they have years ago, allegedly. so it's important to think about that. >> but you have david pecker on the stand talking about these issues. >> we're going likely have stormy daniels, michael cohen as well. >> and then you also her donald trump today saying that he might very well take the stand as well. i know you've formerly represented him. i hit play for you what he had to say about the prospect of possibly

doing that? >> are you more or less likely you think to take the stand in the manhattan case right now. i know well, if it's necessary right now, i don't know if you heard about today. today, was just incredible. people are saying the experts, i'm talking about legal scholars and experts. they're saying what kind of a cases is there is no case okay. >> i have legal experts at the table right now, but i want to ask to you, jim, on that very point, if necessary. >> he's looking at and evaluating each witnesses testimony. what was it about david pecker's testimony? >> you think? it's making him think if it's even necessary last week, you said he would testify. >> so i think that he he's he will throw whatever out whatever he wants to throw out there. right. >> don't i wouldn't read too much into it one day he's going to say he's testified and one de is got because he needs to defend himself the next day is going to say this case is bs and i don't need to testify because it's garbage.

so you're going to hear that throughout the trial as especially as he absorbs the information day in and day out. >> i just i don't think you can give any any logical credence to the what he says about whether he testifies are not because i don't think i think at the end of the de is lawyers are gonna adamantly be against him testifying because there's a whole lot of stuff that's going to come out in the judge is going to allow it and he doesn't they're not going to want that in the public domain. standby. everyone, that very point figure out what the judge will actually limit testimony about. david pecker also testifying, say how the alleged cover up extended even into the white house. now this image of trump and pecker talking outside the oval office in july of 2017 was presented in court today. and here's how pecker describe that conversations and as we walked out, president trump asked me how house karen doing? he said, how's karen doing? so i said she's doing well, she's quiet everything

is going good. >> they here to shed more light on the testimony. >> olivia nosy, who is washington correspondent for new york magazine. you have in this courtroom following this so closely all week and of course, this candidacy in this candidate for a long time. what's this exchange between trump and pecker? tell you about the trump white house. >> no. you remember of course, how chaotic that trump white house was at his chaotic the entirety of the four years that ended in chaotic fashion, but that first year in particular, every day it was in new crisis and there was a real lack of discipline, not that it really ever got better, but it all makes a lot more sense when you learn that the president sitting in office was really preoccupied with the matter of the affairs that he had sought to sought to cover up as he sought the presidency. and it was really stunning to hear from pecker that he was meeting with trump in the oval office. he was talking about this and taxpayer funded officials, people like sarah huckabee sanders hope picks, were

involved in covering up these hush money payments i'm going to that exact point sarah huckabee sanders is name coming up. she was a senior white house official at that time. so is hope hicks. hope hicks though, we know from our reporting here to cnn, is likely to also testify, did you get a sense of what she might be? willing to maybe forced to disclose in that kind of testimony. and what is the relationship right now between trump and hope hicks, who at one time was somebody who was basically tied to him at the hip everywhere trump was hope hicks was two. that's no longer the case, but what's relationship life, i think that of all of the witnesses that the prosecution will bring in this trial who picks will probably hurt donald trump the most. i think she's the only witness who might actually get some sort of emotional reaction from trump sitting there in that courtroom. she was around all the time when i started

covering donald trump in 2015. i mean, one of my first assignments was to profile hope picks for gq magazine. i've known her longtime a lot of members of the press have known or longtime. she is a very reasonable person, a very intelligent person. she has a photographic memory, nearly. and i think that a jury will find her extremely credible. i don't know what exactly she is going to say, but the fact that she will be testifying for the prosecution think it's extremely significant also doubt that it will be voluntary, right? >> she might hear be compelled to testify and that'll be once you're under under oath. i mean, you got to answer the questions truthfully. you really do. and then by the way, there was a story of a trump tower meeting olivia back in 2017 and the attendees included soccer fbi director james comey. and then incoming cia director mike pompeo, among others, by the way here's how pecker characterized trump's introduction to the room saying quote, he said, here is david pecker. he's the owner, the publisher of the national enquirer. any probably knows

more than anybody else in this room? >> as a joke. unfortunately, they didn't laugh. now, later in that meeting, trump would ask pecker for updates on karen mcdougal again. so what does it say to you that pecker would have been in a meeting with them? >> i mean, it really goes all the way to the top. it's hard not to think about that all the president's men, while watching this trial and for all, there is something sort of cinema i can, i guess coen brothers, esq., about the whole thing. i kept thinking that it's sort of like all of the resistance fever dreams of the last several years. it's almost like it's all much more literal and much more obvious than you would think that reality could possibly allow. and yet with each detail coming out of this trial, coming out of this testimony it just gets more and more ridiculous i love a cohen the reference different minnesota avenue olivia. olivia news. thank. you so much. and back with our panel now, joe, this is maybe a perfect opportunity to just talk about the absurdity of it all you are the cia director and you're sitting in a room with the head of a tabloid publication donald

trump bringing his tawdry excesses into the white house and the oval office, putting aside the legalities of it all that is something unlike we have ever seen. >> well almost unlike we have ever seen in american history, and the degree to which it really went from the campaign all the way into the white house. that colors everything that came after that and you don't want to brush away the legalities because that is a big deal, but ebi, it is absurd for four years. i mean, clearly, i think there's a part of trump that never thought he'd win in 2016 and anyone and then he was obsessed with making sure he want and nobody thinks that russia inner fared. so we spent all four years worrying about how people thought about how one and then obsessed with the 2020 race and it's amazing that anything got done. but abby, you're right.

it was all about the campaign even in the white house day after day i wonder too about how this all plays because, you know this quite well. that this idea of the american public might not know the inner workings of how politics works, right? >> we will get a lot of our news in terms of our insight and things like that from frankly television, what we learned about in the news but that seems to be part of this strategy here sorry to say, let's say, well this, this is how the sausage is made. people wake up your naive think anything different the prosecutors have to overcome that. >> yeah. >> and with this, i wonder kim, which you think about this jury though, when i think about the composition of this jury, this is a manhattan jury tuple all different stripes, but you've got a couple of lawyers in there. you've got some people who have some knowledge. how does that kind of overly simplistic argument play with that? >> well, i was actually when i was at doj, i was on a jury. they have to do that in washington. and when that happens, that person can become the person who explains the jury instructions. objections

explains what it means to have elements of a crime. what does it mean to have to have a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that kind of thing. that being said when it comes to credibility and that gut instinct that's going to be a juror by juror situation and other jury that i was on, there were a couple of jurors that just said, i i don't believe police officers there were witnesses that were police officers and so that the defendant was acquitted. but this is this is not helpful jury for donald trump. it's going to be very different if the mar-a-lago case in florida ever goes forward and there's some things artificial about empaneling a jury and saying, can you set aside your previous views? can you set us? side? your biases i'm not a psychologist or sociologists, but i think that's difficult to ask anyone to do in day-to-day life. we everyone has a sense of whether donald trump's should be held accountable and that i think is going for the prosecution and for alvin bragg. and of course,

we're going to looking at that a jury questionnaire. they were all asked about that it was extensive and find more elaborate than probably any of you have seen in jury selection before for that very reason, standby everyone. we've got a stunning decision and another case harvey weinstein's new york sex crimes conviction it's out. nick could have a hell of an impact in donald trump's hush money trial. i'll explain why next what is. >> it about the titanic why are we so obsessed with this ship every piece of evidence tells a story 100 years later. it's still leading people adapt. >> this special while we're titanic familiar, how would really happen sunday had not cnn stein for news about the new sling tv has the same news

programming you love starting at $40 a month. it's the same news programming you love starting at $40 a month. that's what i just said, right? >> it's this less starting at $40 a month i was born with wings, but psoriasis whooped into clip them. it crushed my confidence but no longer will psoriasis get a piece of me? >> i can love my skin again with benzoic only been zell ics targets in blocks il 17 a plus f to calm inflammation, i can control my plaques and start getting myself back in xilinx helps adults with moderate to severe psoriasis control plaques to deliver clearer skin fast for results that last i will give myself back then freedom of shorts, standard where black again from head to toe most people got 100% clear skin, saw him after the first dose serious side effects including suicidal thoughts and behavior, infections, and lowered ability to fight them, liver problems and inflammatory bowel disease have occurred. >> tell your doctor if these

happens? i've been or worsen or if you've had a vaccine or plan to start to get yourself back with bim zealous. >> asked her dermatologist about doing zelig today smile. >> you found it the feeling of bindings, psoriasis can't filter out the real you. >> so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only so take to a one let's daily pill for moderate to severe prac psoriasis and the chance that clear or almost clear skin, it's like the feeling of finding yourself ready for your close-up are finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. >> once-daily subject to was proven better, getting more people clear skin than the leading pill don't take if you're allergic to so take too serious reactions can occur. so ticked, you can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb, serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides or had a vaccine or plan to tick to as a tick to inhibitor, tick two as part of the jack donnelly, it's not known as a tiktok this is the

same risks as jak inhibitors. fine with plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only once of two. aspirin by name. so clearly you so pick too. >> hey, they're brenda. >> it's carroll actually. >> so which library operating on? >> you mean arm it's all connected, asking the right question can greatly impact your future. you sure you're an orthopedist. >> actually, i'm a sagittarius especially when it comes to your finances give a question. >> are you a certified financial planner? >> yes. i'm a cfp professional cop professionals are committed to acting in your best business. it's not a nine-to-five proposition. it's all day and into the night. it's all the things that keep this world turning. the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business. see why comcast business powers more small businesses than anyone else.

get started for $49.99 a month plus ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. don't wait- call today. slash shave to claim your $7 trial. >> i'm omar jimenez at columbia university. and this is cnn today in new york and appeals court ruling four to three to toss out harvey weinstein sex crimes conviction. >> and now they're ruling could reverberate through hush. trump's hush money trial how

well in weinstein's case, the court found that the judge in that case made a mistake by allowing prosecutors to call witnesses this is who's accusations were not part of the charges against weinstein, by the way, that's not all because the appeals court all said the judge was wrong to allow other alleged wrongdoing to be brought into questioning if weinstein had testified, i remember in trump's trial, judge juan merchan is all saying that if trump wants to testify he could be questioned about certain past legal run-ins. and by the way, this is a manhattan de a case which means alvin bragg will be the one to retry this case. want to bring back in the panel here, james, and this has exactly what appellate lawyer salivate over when you talking about so-called prior bad acts when you bring in uncharged conduct to show a pattern of something, the mo we were talking about earlier. >> they're going to have to tread lightly now, knowing that they can't go too far without prejudicing them yeah.

>> i think look, you're going you're gonna see those arguments down the road about this whole line of questioning about karen mcdougal, right? because it's really not charged conduct at the end of the day. >> i made this. yeah, but i think in this case, i think it ends up because it shows a pattern of conduct. i think i think the the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect on it. i think a court will find that, but there is some risk associated with every witness they bring in. they kind of talks about things that aren't related to the charge conduct. >> how about the national enquirer headlines? i was moment he worth talking about all the different discussions about the not only the catch and kill schemes, but also pointing out negative press for their rivals. >> well, as indicated that for the judge, they have to really decide what is prejudicial, what is unfairly going to taint the defendant and his constitutional rights. and what's probative and it's a very sensitive nuance

case-by-case piece of evidence by piece of evidence, type issue. the judge does get some deference on appeal, but at the end of the day, that's what we're talking about and i agree in this case, when you're talking when they're trying to establish the cuts and catch and kill scheme, they're trying to establish donald trump's knowledge of it. that's probably different than the harvey weinstein where listen, this guy is just a sex addict, marcus, from your opinion, does the access hollywood, being able to be referenced but not plate because that's when the judge did this sort of prejudicial versus probative or otherwise informative value so you can't play it. it's too prejudicial, but you can reference it or the fallout from it. does that help to get ahead of what could be an appellate issue? >> i think it does, i think is actually pretty safe, conservative way of a judge to preserve the record for that appeal risks luck. you have to have something to reference. otherwise, the jury's by wires or fall out. what are we talking about here? so you have to be able to reference but as a prosecutor, you also can't take it too far, right? so reference so the jury has a point of context, but then

don't really argue it and then continue with the evidence that's actually before the jury and court. was just wondering, i put into prosecutor's argument that this case is different than weinstein. it's for at least two reasons. the government is arguing conspiracy under new york law and has kim's knows, when you have a conspiracy, you find a starting point which was august of 2015. that's the four-legged stool. that was the conspiracy slash scheme where pecker agreed to be the eyes and ears? absolutely. and hope hicks, i may be in it needing the conspiracy just continues on these events. the dorman the karen mcdougal, and of course, stormy, which is charged, they're overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alternatively, if you don't have conspiracy, it's part of the four-legged scheme and the dorman and karen mcdougal are part of the scheme that eventually ended with family. daniel, stormy daniels. but i want to go to hope hicks. hope hits is going to be an explosive witness based on my

knowledge of the case and meeting with the prosecutors in the trump us attorney's office mr. jordan said it's a bragg case. this started off as a trump justice department us attorney case. they had four brilliant prosecutors. i met with them with my client, so it started in an sdny. it's not a bragg case but i want to go to whole picks after the access hollywood tape. >> there was a flurry of communication between my client michael cohen and indirectly hope hicks, who was on the plane would trump in a nose three weeks. >> hope hicks was conveying information from then candidate trump two cohen. and you can guarantee it was all focused on how do we shut her up because it's going to affect the election and that gets you said at the beginning, keep it simple, stupid, the false invoices are driven and they

are the seed and number result of affecting the election. the false invoices would not be made. but for that deal, jim, are you buying that yeah. look, i don't know the facts. as you know them, but i hope hicks is certainly going to be an important witness for the prosecution. she certainly we're going to path to be compelled to come in. i can guarantee a whole picks, doesn't want to testify in this case. it doesn't want to sit before a former boss. >> and but i also know who picks is going to come and tell the truth right. and she's gonna come in and tell the truth no matter how much it it pains her to do so to come in and testify generally she's going to come in and tell the truth because that's that's who she is. that's what you'll do. >> well, i will say all right, it's explosive let's see what happens. >> everyone standby for us just up ahead for us, our presidents immune if they order a coup. for example, that question was before the supreme court today the answer has huge implications for what trump's january 6 trial could look like and what it could start inside

today's arguments. that's next god says new album is breaking records who gets to say what country? comey country beyond say a nashville's renaissance, april 26, streaming exclusively on mats. >> what's the greatest invention of all time, new hands-free sketcher slipping so we just slip in and they're on. it's like they have an invisible built-in shoe horn. so your foot slides into place without bending down or touching your shoes, then he'll pillow technology keeps your foot coffee and secure hands-free sketch your slippers verizon small business days are here april 22 to the 28. get a free tech check special offers, like a free 5g phone when you switch, no trade in required partner with our experts today, you know, i spent a lot of time thinking about dirt at three in the morning and he time what people don't now, is that not all is the same. you need dirt

with the right kind of nutrients. look at this new organic soil from miracle grow, everybody should have it worked great for us. this is as good as gold in any garden. >> if people only knew that it really is about the dirt, your dirt nerd huge turret nerd. i'm proud of it at morgan stanley school hardware meets bold new thinking at 88 years old we still see the world with a wonder of new is helping you discover untapped power it's abilities and relentlessly working with you to make them real old-school grit, new world ideas. morgan stanley by my mom, di go. >> so phi is helping me get my money right to achieve my ambitions. want to see starting

with refinancing my mba loans, so i can lower my right and potentially say thousand here come pizza vagal. thanks, man if i can have fund all your ambitions, like saving up for your own place refi your student loans. you could save thousands and pay no fee so phi get your money right it's time yes. >> but time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. every day. moore dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmers dog made by vets. and delivered right to your door? >> thanks to the portion for your dog's needs it's an idea whose time has come it's okay. ready one more, one, two, and three not so fast. the general's coming with you, mom. he gave us a brca1 or car

insurance and he'll look after you too. yep. with flexible payment options for new drivers okay. >> but why shack coming to to show you how it's done

this is a shell energy 100% renewable electricity plan lighting every soccer match at shell energy stadium. we're moving forward with the houston dash. because we're moving forward with everybody. shell. powering progress. w to 369369. today the assignment with potty cornish listen wherever you get your podcasts the second act and donald trump's legal double feature today occurred about 200 miles south of i95 from new york. >> while some of his legal team spent the entire day in the courtroom. >> and laura manhattan, other lawyers were arguing before justices at the supreme court on trump's claim of what he calls absolute immunity now, they were signaling today that they could very well send this case back to a lower court, which of course would delay the special counsel's 2020 election subversion case that was supposed to start back in march. it's almost may. >> but they also sounded

skeptical about trump's blanket immunity defense trump lawyer john sauer, argued that trump's actions were official acts of the office. >> but in one exchange, that trump appointed to justice amy coney barrett. question was actually wasn't official act and what was a private act to benefit trump? >> petitioner turn to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results. private, as i want to jamming, we do speed the allegation, but sounds private. >> sounds private petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing and court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations this is support a challenge. so sounds brian three private actors to attorneys including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you ready quickly. i believe that private with b now is jack ray code. so that

surprise winning author, historian and professor at stanford, he also signed onto an amicus briefs is court rejecting trump's immunity claim. thank you for joining us this evening. >> it sounds like this immunity question may not be close to being resolved completely and could actually go back to the lower courts. >> what is your opinion of if that were to happen? and you don't get the answer resolved fully by this supreme court suppose my basic answers would be a political disaster for the country as a whole and i think the basic reason for that is speaking sense on behalf of the founders, which is what the historians group of whom have a part, have been studying. i think the framers of the constitution, the founders more generally would have expected a matter of this urgency to be resolved in advance of an election and not to be slow walked in the corky pace we've been moving yet. so the people would not be able to have an informed judgment about the

qualifications of leading candidate i mean, as you describe it, it makes sense to think that the idea of whenever you have a president, you want some urgent clarification as to what the bounds of their power actually is. >> elections are important, but also there are a president, right now, i wonder what you made of the hypotheticals that we're proposed about the future or not? not. there was a lot of time spent on january 6 or election subversion case, but more as i think it was gorsuch, you says deciding a case for the ages what did you make of the focus from this court on this issue? >> well. the issue is so anomalous just as you try misbehavior is so anomalous that the idea that you can take the one hand quirky, but also really deeply troubling circumstances. it's around january 6 and say that on the basis of their one situation, you can decide a case for the ages we'll strike most most of legal commentators, certainly most historians. it's big a deeply problematic statement i

think justice barrett and in exchange with salary of the petitioners, attorney, i think she nailed the key points that there were there were a number of very specific matters. then once you're focus on and justice alito, when when when he intervened in his own way, i kept kept trying to deny the importance of the immediate issues to speculate about what might happen in the future. we have an urgent issue right now. that issue needs to be resolved now, we can worry about the future when the feature columns we have to get through the current crisis, the republic, which is why i think the courts should be acting expeditiously while said. >> i mean, listen to this, exchange as well between justice elana kagan and sour about this hypothetical question of prosecuting a former president who for example, staged a coup i don't feel like leaving office. i wanted to stage a coup is that immune? >> if it's an official ads, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand

because the framers viewed the that kind of official act isn't an official act. if it's an official act, it's impeachment and official on the way you've described that hypothetical, it could well be now of course in your an amicus brief with other historians, you forcefully argue against this assertion that a president can only be prosecuted, only after being impeached and convicted. >> so what do you make of his answer that he gave today and i would know he also doubled down earlier on this assertion that a president could order say seal team six under an official action to even hurt a political rival from an historian's perspective, if we don't deal hypotheticals we do with the things that things had actually happened and views that people actually adopted. >> i think the most important thing we'd say is that in the 17th and 18th century, both england and america the dominant theme and constitutional thinking was how do you cab and how do you

control, how do you restrain? how do you constitutionalize executive power the souring the attorney made a big point of appealing to the vesting clause of article two. it says the executive power shall be vested in a president united states there clauses is bickering. lot of interpretive weight recently, probably more than it really deserves because it's adopted very late and without much discussion. but if you ask the question, what is the nature of what is the nature of the executive power is vested in the president. i think the historians first definition would be that he she'll take care that the laws be faithfully executed. and i think the best commentary and this actually came from john dickinson at the federal convention, where he says that the, the real virtue of vesting the executive power in a single person, it's not the question of acting with energy and with dispatch it's those were two terms that the framers used. it's also the question of

responsibility. so the idea of recognizing this open-ended, unconstrained and certain ways, unimaginable degree of immunity. there's no way you can square that with the dominant value of anglo-american thinking from the late 17th century down into the time of the revolution. and the constitution, which tries to make executive power responsible in de, which concentrates the executive power a single person to enhance that end. so the whole immunity argument would strike all the historians you might by my friends and colleagues we're the cosine or the brief just strikes us as says historically nuts and that's why we need historians. >> thank you so much. jack ray koh. thank you so much for joining us tonight. i want to bring back in our panel historically knots i like i mean, that's a, good one, might be a new brand. >> it called planters marcus, you were actually in the supreme court and i'm just wondering what that was like in those modes. >> we were all listening to it and getting a sense from the outside. >> but what was the atmosphere

like in there? >> what was that was a tense. was it relax? >> tell me about it. so i remember the very first primetime hear from a couple of summers ago. >> it was probably the heaviest feeling i'd feel before hearing. we wanted to get it right as a committee and you just felt like like a stress before it started? i felt the similar way three was waiting for you to really was and our work was gonna be judged for history, right? and i felt like the supreme court, you can tell the justices could tell that what they were going to decide in the next month or two would be remembered historically, i mean, that's kinda how they started out trump's council saying that no president's, as we know, it, will be the same moving forward if they don't have absolute immunity, right? and so it just felt like it was very historical moment there were a few moments where jokes were may like justice alito saying you can get a ham sandwich indicted that made us laugh a little bit to bring in back, but it was a very tense two and hours and 45 minutes in that courtroom good. i do not understand why the supreme

court decided to take this case. i still don't an especially now after today because it seems pretty clear that they could the court has leeway to decide what they take what they decide to settle it, what they don't, they're a lot of legal issues out in the world that are not settled, not all of them need to be settled right now. this one does not strike me as something that needs to be settled, right now. why are they doing this? >> because donald trump is a candidate for president. and several of the justices were appointed by him but i just wanted to think also that they might be worried about establishing those boundaries of where the presidential power is in the event of a donald trump presidency, you in which he might test some of these things. >> i agree and i predict this justice roberts i believe we'll be thinking about dred scott plessy versus ferguson the nixon tapes case. and he will know that where he stands, majority minority will haunt him for the rest of his life. and he wants to establish

himself in history. they've read the papers. so i predict i have i'm being a pollyanna. i think justice roberts is going to do the right thing. and you could possibly see a five to four opinion rejecting absolute immunity. and it's justice roberts and for women i predict that could be at i do want to add one last thing. nobody has mentioned is there should have been eight justices hearing that case today. joseph gland, thomas, justice thomas, i teach legal ethics, professor kim does. there is no ethics lecture at law schools or any level that would say there's not an actual conflict or at a minimum, an apparent conflict, he should not be hearing this case, period end of story. >> okay. well, you know, it's funny. we're talking about no more kings that professor this idea that historically the whole point of the revolution was no more kings. and we've created nine kings. we have a supreme court that essentially has no accountability and

that's why we're in a position where someone with these egregious conflicts of interest that really give him an incentive to favor donald trump because his wife was involved, et cetera there's all these public conflicts are their justices being jetted around by billionaires with interests before the court. but there's no enforcement mechanism for ensuring that these people are nonpartisan. other than in life tenure, which ironically get makes them even more. i think above law in this moment. so i wasn't frankly that's surprised that they took it for that reason. it's almost just candy, it's too tempting. but the problem to abby's point was the way they frame the issue on appeal. they could have framed it very narrowly like justice barrett did, what when you're trying to take an election from the voters are legitimate president. but through violence using the power of the office. is that immune? and that's generally what judges do. they call balls and strikes on narrow cases.

and here the judges, the justices have given them the themselves the power to legend justly to basically put a new brand new constitutional provision in for constitutional immunity and make up a bunch of tests. and for you or a former legislator, what do you think of that? >> i want to yell i want to give i want a belt out a non-legal scream listening to the last 15 minutes, this split screen of hush money to a porn star and the guy who tried to overthrow an american election. and the hush-money to the porn stars. the only trial that we're going to have this year. >> and it's nobody these going to address the trunk caught such a freaking break that this is the first and probably only trial he tried to overthrow an american election. >> i serve with jim jordan. i don't want to scream, i'd like to punch jim jordan. no the voters deserve to know before they vote in 24. if the the republican candidate was convicted of trying to

overthrow the 20 election, the voters need to know that and we're not even going to get to it now well, you look at these issues though, and that's your point at the why not why now, all things, well, they could have easily just not taking up the case and the lower court ruling would have stood right there, couldn't have that warranty. >> sorry, december more for august happen when they could have said i didn't narrowly, let's deal with the trump part of this. we don't need to answer all these. it's called a can of worms as my mother when he they opened up a can of worms and here we are. we'll have to deal with it. >> well, lab door there again, and of course we don't know when they're actually going to rule. they have until the end of their term and they usually wait for media issues to the very end. unfortunately, sam, by everyone, a lot of question that today's flurry of trump legal development that we've got answers to your live calls and questions next seven companies who met online will finally meet in person. you will be living which a person. but will react what do you mean true romance. >> a beautiful enough to have

the never, ever met. all new friday eight, seven central it's shrimp. >> your way to three flavors for just $20, like nukes, street corn shrimp, and are famous garlic for him, scampi it's time to grab some cheddar bays and good flavor, full, hurrian to try shrimp, your way only at red lobster, smile, you found it the feeling of findings, psoriasis can't filter out there the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only so tick to a once-daily pill for moderate to severe prac psoriasis& the chance that clear or almost clear skin, it's like the feeling of finding yourself ready for your close-up are finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background once daily. so tiktok was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to so take too serious reactions can occur. so ticked, you can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb, serious infections, cancer there's including lymphoma, muscle problems and changes in

certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides or had a vaccine or plan to tick to as a tick to inhibitor a few as part of the jack donnelly, it's not known as a tiktok has the same risks as jak inhibitors find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one, so tick two. so aspirin my name. so clearly you so take to oh, yeah. >> taken from your inner child, what you really need in life is some fricking torque dodge horner good are totally torqued out crossover my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis held me back. now with sky rizzi, i'm all in with clear skin thanks again we've sky rizzi three out of four people achieved 90%

clear skin at four months most people were clear even at five years sky rosie is just four doses a year after to start or doses serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or alone or ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms had a vaccine or planned to now the time ask your doctor about ten, rosie, the number one dermatologist prescribed hi biologic and psoriasis. learn how api can help you save only from simply save 24/7 lifeguard protection allows simply safe agents to help stub crime in real time, stop police for instance, intruder deterrence and faster police response. >> now, give 40% off this simply safe system. there's no safe legs simply safe juvenile, there's no p in skechers. >> what has always been scheduled. these sketches slippery get to slip bands

ready to get robbed thing is always in sketches. >> everybody wants super straight, super white teeth. they want that hollywood white spiral news censored in clinical white rights, two sheets, whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitive your production. i think it's great product. it's going to help a lot of patients we are in a large don't kill, letting extreme residue bill got to put finished jet dry to the test dishwashers are designed to object, right? >> to defend against top residues. for are practically spotlight, shine whether, you're doing it yourself for hiring the pro today, let's paint. >> maybe bear exclusively at the home depot. salon pass lidocaine flex plus super thin flexible patch with maximum otc strength, light acain that contours to the body to relieve

pain right where it hurts. and did we mentioned it really really sticks salon pos. it's good medicine i'm dr. sanjay gupta. and this is cnn an absolutely huge de and the trump legal world. i know you all have a lot of burning questions and we're taking your calls tonight not that lowering tone. who's better to help answer them that our fabulous panel, again, if you want to participate, just go to cnn.com slash trump trial questions fill out the form, typing your question there, and then we'll reach out to have you call in as a trial unfolds. let's get to our first caller tonight. >> we've got george from newton, massachusetts. >> hey, george, what's your question okay. >> so many politicians are routinely guilty of political faction so how is a boundary between criminal and non-criminal political deception defined? and also with the judge provide some

guidance on this distinction to the jury. >> hey, that's a great question. i'll let mark is take that answer. >> the judge is actually going to instruct them on the crime that stake. so let's say the elections subversion case, it's the conspiracy to defraud the united states to overturn the election. and the evidence in support of that is pressuring state legislators, calling georgia looking for 11,700 votes, creating a fraudulent state of electors. that's the crime. it's not this exception piece. it's conspiring to overthrow the election. and so you always got to tie it back to a criminal statute is not just political deception here. here there's a criminal statute play in the judge will instruct the jury about it and the evidence that can be considered and how it can be considered. >> so is that line so blurred for politicians, it's completely blurry in and this goes to what you said at the beginning of the shower. >> trump doesn't think this is a big deal. so what everybody you cover your tracks because you're trying to get elected pay off a porn star big deal. and i think a lot of voters think the same thing. >> that's unfortunate. well, next up for is martha from colombia maryland. columbia, maryland, marble. what is your question?

>> hi, laura. i'm the watcher and oh, great. thank you my question is, we heard the names of some of the witnesses that are going to testify for the prosecution in the trump trial. >> that has the defense put out a list of the witnesses they plan on calling to testify on trump. >> that's a good question. you've answered because trump's laura said that they do plan to call at least two witnesses in this case. one is bradley smith, a former commissioner of the federal election commission. other person, alan garten, the top legal officer of the trump organization. and of course, merchan does have some limited scope here. but jim, what's your take in the pretrial submissions that both parties chapter disclosed to the court who they're going to call now in the case of the prosecution, i think they've held back some of the names so far. the judge has the discretion whether the turners over the fence and he's given a couple of names, but not all of them at this point. >> where do you think we have two? would you turn over your whole list at this point? no defense attorneys usually get a little break the required to

disclose a little bit of a list, but you can always say, your honor, when the trial began, we weren't sure what they were going to say in a prosecution sayyed. so we're adding this these witnesses have rebuttal so it's not uncommon for the defense to give a short list that i remember just a couple of days ago when the prosecution was fighting over whether to hand over the name of their first witness on sunday. lyle from bellingham, washington. what is your question? hey, lyle? >> hello lauren. thank you for taking my call tonight. thank you. my question is my question is is if after all the evidence is presented against mr. trump in this case and the trial ends in a hung jury. can mr. trump be tried again on the evidence? and if so, how soon afterwards? >> it's a great question. let's go to kim. >> well, if it's a hung jury, they can they couldn't actually try them again, but i think given the timing and given that you're talking about a former president and given that there are some flaws in the case, that probably means trump walks number. >> is that over fraud? the idea

of a hung jury though, how about the idea of double jeopardy? >> they want to know about that as well with that attach instantly now it's done. >> i think double jeopardy of attaches once the jury is seated. but if there's if problems in the conviction, then in certain circumstances or can be a second trump. >> really important. thank you so much for our panel for helping to answer these really important question. and thanks to everyone who also called in, hey, do you have a question you like answered well we want to hear from you and you've got to submit your questition at cnn slash trump trial questions thank you all so much for watching. i love being next to abby phillip, our coverage continues. anderson cooper is next live from the nation's capital, one of the most unforgettable nights in dc, misra will read back here again, president biden and comedian collin joseph headline the white house correspondents dinner, live saturday at seven eastern non cnn when the jinx came out, i thought, oh my god

when bob has a friend expects blind loyalty turns out, when you have a whole lot of money people are willing to do things for you what do you do when your best friend kills your other best friend robby surprises and surprises the jinx part two. streaming exclusively on macs you open your mailbox and see the envelope from your health insurance company. >> you hold your breath will they pay for your child's treatment this time? you open the letter and find that you've been denied. again a month later, another letter arrives your premiums are going up again they are banking record profits and still plan on increasing their rates by 12 how can the health insurance company get away with this? >> don for news about the news

sling tv has the same news programming you love starting at $40 a month. it's the same news programming you love starting at $40 a month. that's what i just said, right? it's this less starting at $40 a month don't choose only last a month, but brobeck do last 12 weeks, nearly three times longer, longer? only bra vector protect from fleas and ticks nearly three times longer than the other choose that's 12 weeks a protection use with caution and dogs with a history of seizures or neurological disorders with nearly three times longer protection. >> why use anything shorter vogue vector wrong with you if you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan that's smart now, i'm 65 and really smart later. >> i'm 70 consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from united health care. with this type of plan, you'll know upfront about how much your care costs, which makes

planning your financial future easier. so call unitedhealthcare today to learn more about the only plans of their kind with the aarp name and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare. >> okay. we got orders coming. >> saarinen business is never easy. starting to eight months pregnant. that's a different story. >> i couldn't slow down. we were starting a business from the ground up. people were showing up left and right. and so did our business needs the chase car made it easy. when you go for something big like this, your kids need it and they believe they can do the same, earn the limit 1.5% cash back every purchase with the chase ink unlimited ca mileston

with custom gear, get started today, accustoming.com, how it really happen? sunday at nih on cnn closed captioning brought to you by mesobook.com her firm only represents mesothelioma victims and their families. if you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma,

call us now good evening from new york for the tabloid publisher who said the former president was a mentor to him described today what he did to help that mentor when the winehouse hi from washington where the supreme court heard arguments today for and against making any former president immune from criminal prosecution for acts in office. >> and letting this one off the hook for trying to stay in the white house despite losing the election to courtrooms. >> two cases, one person at the center of both, which in itself is something that a single individual should be you are responsible for today's legal traffic jam and tonight's split-screen special primetime coverage here in new york, the former president's criminal trial continued with more testimony from his onetime friend and former tabloid publisher, david pecker. in it, pecker described his role in suppressing the stories of karen mcdougal and stormy daniels, who both said they had a ferrets with donald trump this photo, one of several admitted into evidence. today shows pecker and the former president walking past the white house, rose garden. former president askin