that is tonight's last word. the 11th hour starts right now. tonight, donald trump's high-stakes legal battles collide. the supreme court weighs his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution for plotting to overturn the presidential election. as a key witness testifies in his first criminal trial about the alleged catch and kill schemes to help his 2016 campaign. and with trump tied up in

court, biden's campaign goes on the offense, making a play for nikki haley voters in swing states as the 11th hour gets underway on this thursday night. good evening, i'm katie saying in for stephanie ruhle. we are now 194 days away from the election. but today all eyes were on the united states supreme court. the justices hearing oral arguments in trump versus the united states. this is the case that is all about the former president's controversial claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution. these are the questions at hand. what is the scope of presidential immunity? and what constitutes an official act? our own laura jarrett has more on today's arguments. >> reporter: tonight the u.s. supreme court weighing a monumental question that will decide whether the former president goes to trial for plotting to overturn the last

election and win. >> the supreme court has a very important argument before you today. >> reporter: mr. trump hoping to persuade the justices to fight him immune from federal charges. his lawyers arguing the office of the presidency would be completely hobbled without that protection. >> without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> reporter: the special counsel's office indicted mr. trump on conspiracy and obstruction charges last year for his efforts to cling to power. accusing the likely gop nominee of pressuring state officials to reverse the election results. actions doj argues were for purely personal gain and cannot be shielded from prosecution. >> there is no immunity that is in the constitution, unless this court creates it today. >> reporter: the conservatives expressing concern, if future presidents have no immunity for actions taken while in the white house, that could open the door to recriminations between political rivals.

>> will not not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? >> reporter: the liberal justices troubled by the prospect of insulating presidents from accountability, raising a series of dark hypotheticals to underscore the consequences of adopting mr. trump in precision. >> if a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune? how about if a president orders the military to stage a coup. that sure sounds bad, doesn't it? i'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. >> the justices appeared to be's apical of blanket criminal immunity for presidents. however, they could send the case back to the lower court to explore limited protections. which would, of course, further

delayed the special counsel trial against donald trump. with that, let's bring in our leadoff panel, peter baker, chief white house correspondent for the new york times. mark joseph stern, senior writer covering the courts and the law at slate. legal reporter for politico. and joyce vance, who spent 35 years as a federal prosecutor. thanks all of you for joining me this evening. it was a huge legal date, so i want to start in d.c. at scotus. the three of us were all in the courtroom today for arguments, so let's start first with your main takeaways. josh, i'm going to start with you. >> well, i thought it had to be a dispiriting day for special counsel jack smith. he saw one after another of the members of the conservative majority on the court basically signal discomfort with his position, and some degree of alignment with trump's claim that there should be at least some type of immunity or protection for a former president from criminal charges.

i have a vivid memory of sitting there and having each of those justices i'm thinking of, just as matt cavanaugh, chief justice john roberts, and justice neil gorsuch, for example, go through one by one and it pretty clear that they were not going to come out in this case the way jack smith wants them to come out. and at that point it is a numbers game that i don't think looks too good for him. >> mark, were you as surprised as i was to hear the lena questioning that came out of some of the more conservative justices, like matt cavanaugh and neil gorsuch's and samuel alito? >> i was. and the sense that i got from those justices was that to them, to their minds, the real threat to democracy was not trump's effort on january 6th to overturn a free and fair presidential election, the true threat to democracy is the justice department's effort to hold him accountable for that act. and i did not expect this kind

of minimization of january 6th that we saw from the justices. frankly my sense is that the conservative bloc just did not think that the insurrection at the capital was that big of a deal. so instead of hearing concern about what it would mean to let the president off scott free for allegedly plotting and facilitating this violent election subversion, we heard these justices try to say well, let's talk about the abstract principle here. don't we need presidents to act boldly and fearlessly? as that we haven't seen an object lesson in what happens when a president thinks he is unaccountable. and as if we are not here in this hearing, in this case to try to decide whether or not as a democracy this country is going to say even the president is not himself above the law. >> pointing out on social media that the court and the parties

discuss everything but the specific question at hand, even justice brown jackson, in my opinion, kind of got to the heart of that matter during arguments when she asked why can't we just answer the question that has been presented? because everybody was dancing around it, to mark's point. is there a reason why the court actually didn't try to address the question presented? >> so, this was an unusual argument in a lot of ways, katie. not only did they have trouble coming to the point of the question that they themselves wrote for this argument, they also had a lot of trouble talking about donald trump. this was a court that was very focused on the impact that whatever decision they reached would have in the future and on future presidents. and really not particularly interested in talking about donald trump. you and i have both been around a lot of criminal appellate arguments, and i don't think i've ever had an argument that didn't focus at least in part on the defendant and his conduct

, and how the ruling would impact him. but here that did not seem to be the focus. the court was supposed to take up the issue of whether the president had immunity from official acts, and if so, what the scope of that immunity was. and instead, we were far afield and all over the board. everything from this issue of whether presidents had to be specifically included in a criminal statute before they could be prosecuted. on the other hand, whether or not a president's personal i could be prosecuted. which was something, frankly, that trump's lawyer conceded up front. while that was ever on the table was very confusing. but justice alito had proposed this alternative test, and the conversation really went far field. it was a very messy argument. >> peter, take a quick listen to what jamie raskin had to say on how things went at the supreme court today. >> there are politicians who are not even subject to popular

election. unlike me. they should move the supreme court over to the rnc headquarters, because they are acting like a bunch of artisan operatives. >> this is not the first time we have heard criticism that the highest court in the land has been hyper politicized. considering the substance of the arguments today, does this particular case kind of raise even more questions about the credibility of scotus? >> well, it will certainly create a lot of concern and conversation about it, and it will create some criticism, the kind you just saw from congressman raskin. go back and look at history for a second. when the supreme court was presented with the question of whether richard nixon could withhold the tapes in the watergate special prosecutor, the chief justice at the time, warren burger, but it was important enough that the court would speak with a single voice. he forged an 8-0 unanimous verdict because he did not wanted to be a perception that there were differences depending on partisan

backgrounds and who might have appointed you and that kind of thing. similarly, when the court was presented the question during bill clinton's presidency whether the president should be immune from a civil lawsuit, in his case a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by paula jones, the court again spoke with a single voice. nine but zero, no, the president does not have immunity from a civil lawsuit. here what we are looking at is the potential for a split verdict. a 5-4, 6-3 kind of verdict in which the conservatives are largely on one side and liberals are largely on the other side, which will, of course, then encourage the notion that this is just ideological, partisan, political, and not really a detached view of the law. and therefore will not have the same power that those previous verdicts had. and i think that is the danger. i think chief justice roberts who has historically expressed concern about the credibility of the court as an apolitical institution faces another challenge here as we watch to see what kind of ruling they come back with.

>> josh, i wanted to ask you something i picked up on and wanted to know if you heard it. there was some conversation, albeit minor, about section 1512. and this idea of the definition of when somebody in a defendant state does something corrupt, we have heard this applied to the january 6th rioters and the prosecutions of them, but we also know that that dovetails with the prosecution of donald trump. did you pick up on that, and the fact that it sounded maybe a little bit ominous about the future of this prosecutions including that of donald trump? >> right, as you know, katie, we have a related issue there involving this prosecutions that is already pending in front of the court, was already argued. today's arguments on the trump case were the final arguments of the term, and it sounded to me based on the comments of justice neil gorsuch, but i think you may be alluding to, that the court has kind of made up its mind that there is a problem with using this obstruction charge in connection with the events of

january 6th. at that problem might extend to using it in a couple counts of the four counts against former president donald trump. and gore such zeroed in on the word corruptly that appears in that obstruction statute, and he said something like nobody really knows what that means. goodness, when someone on the supreme court is saying that some term in a criminal charge that has been used in a lot of cases, nobody really knows what it means, it does not bode well for jack smith being able to use that charge against former president trump sometime in the coming months. >> you're right, and it was he who made the statement, and it stood out to me because i was worried about what it meant. let's talk about this proposed rubric that was discussed. kicking the case perhaps back to the trial court and allowing

for the parsing out of what is an official act versus a private act. and if you are going to follow the logic of some of the conservative justices he would end up prosecuting only the personal or the private acts, because those will be violative of the law. but the official acts donald trump and others, talk about how fatally flawed this is going to be. we all know that it bakes in delay. but as far as legal analysis, talk about the problems that are generated by trying to do that type of different approach to this particular indictment. >> so first, i don't want to be unduly optimistic, katie, but i will pump the brakes a little bit on speculation. sometimes the final opinion that the court issues has very little resemblance to what goes on in oral arguments. it is always dangerous to read the tea leaves too heavily. sometimes the justices are talking with each other in oral arguments as much as they are with the litigants, trying on arguments for size. so it is possible that we won't see this possibility that you are talking about pan out. i felt the same way about the

comments about 1512 and the state of mind. i took it to think maybe he had come out on the losing end of that battle on the 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding case, and maybe he was expressing some sour grapes. so, we will see. but the argument that you are talking about is one where the justices would issue some sort of a rule that establishes some way of evaluating what conduct by a president was official and what was private. i think about this in terms of trump acting as president trump on the one hand, and as candidate trump on the other hand. that would then go back down to the lower court for justice to presumably make a ruling. i suppose they could also decide to send it back to the court of appeals, but trumps lawyer suggested it should go back to the district judge. >> the silver lining here is for her to make that decision, she could decide she needs to hold an evidentiary hearing and put on a mini trial in essence before she made that determination. it would be

cumbersome, it would be subject to additional layers of appeal most likely, it would, as you mentioned, engender a lot of delay. but there is this slightly rosy prospect of actually having a hearing even though there would not be a jury verdict. a hearing where the government 's evidence would become public. >> mark, i also wanted to ask you about something that brown jackson said towards the end of the hearing today. putting aside that she was asking why we can't just answer the question as presented, that we talked about at the beginning of this block. she also said that article two, which is what the lawyer for donald trump cited at the beginning of his oral arguments to say physically in views their argument or gives trump ability to make the argument that he has presidential immunity. justice brown jackson says doesn't article two allow for the type of analysis that you are asking for in this instance? meaning can you just look at article two and say these are the acts that a president can do . veto power, pardon power, foreign designation power.

former recognition power. can't you just look at article two and these are the carveouts that are giving a president immunity so you don't have to worry about the rest of it? >> yeah, i absolutely agree. i think justice jackson had a very clear and smart approach to the case that did not get a lot of purchase with the conservative justices, because the conservatives, especially brett kavanaugh, where pitching this idea that there are these other article two powers that are not specifically mentioned, that are somewhere in the penumbras of the constitution, that a president gets to wield without any kind of oversight or accountability. and that this case is really about sussing those powers out and shielding them from prosecution. and, you know, i think it's really ironic. in overturning roe v wade, the supreme court began by saying the word abortion doesn't appear in the constitution. well, the term presidential immunity certainly doesn't appear in the constitution, and yet the conservative justices, much to i think brown jackson's

dismay, kept pressing this notion that it exists somewhere and it should, at a minimum, prevent the jury from considering some of trump's actions leading up to january 6th that were somehow related to these mysterious article two the powers that are not laid out specifically in the constitution. like removing members of the department of justice who would not launch bogus claims of voter fraud. but i just have to say, i think that that kind of solution, this distinction between private and public acts walling off these official or public acts from scrutiny, i think that would really cut the heart out of jack smith in case impart. because what jack smith is arguing is that donald trump what denies the powers of his office, that he wielded the tools of the chief executive in order to further this corrupt and criminal conspiracy. it is not just that as a private citizen and a candidate he broke the law, but that he took advantage of his position

as president and use those tools at his disposal alone in order to try to keep a hold on power that he did not deserve. that is a powerful argument. it seemed to me that the supreme court conservatives want to cut it off at the knees. that would be greatly unfortunate, and it would be harder to make that case to the jury. i think it would have much less of an impact for the public. >> you know, peter, mark's answer is the perfect segue for me to ask you this. i want you to listen to the exchange that happened this morning. >> a stable, democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials. correct? >> absolutely. >> and that good faith assumes that they will follow the law. >> reg. >> and encourage to believe words that have been somewhat put into suspicion here, that no man is above the law, either in his official or private acts. >> i think that is an assumption of the constitution.

>> i mean, peter, listening to that in person, hearing it again right now, my hat off to justice sonja soto mayor for getting to the heart of this matter. no man is above the law. so many presidents, 234 years the you have had in that oval office operating under the assumption that you are supposed to be doing this in good faith. where did that get lost? >> yeah, i think what today's hearing really shines a stark relief on, sorry, a sharp light on, is the structural issue about account ability in our system. how did donald trump argue his way out of the second impeachment about january 6th? his lawyer said it is inappropriate to impeach him for this, he can be tried criminally later if there are, in fact, criminal violations. now a separate set of lawyers also working for trump is arguing no, he can't be charged criminally. he cannot be held accountable through the normal criminal justice system. and we have seen that impeachment basically with a president is almost never going

to be a tool for removing a president from office, as long as that presidents party has at least 34 votes in the united states senate. which, by the way, it almost always has had throughout our history. there is almost never been a time where the senate was at two thirds belonged to the opposition party. that means a president, as we've learned, doesn't have to be worried about being thrown out of office through the impeachment process as long as they have their own party. they also won't have to worry apparently about criminal prosecution. so where is account ability? how do checks and balances work in the system? and the framers basically were very clear about that, because that's what we are arguing about. 238 years later, as you put it. >> everyone is sticking around. and we come back we are going to go from d.c. to new york, where trump's lawyers briefly got their first crack at witness david pecker. we're breaking down his third day on the witness stand, and later, trump loves to blame his criminal trial for keeping

him off the campaign trail. so how did he spend his day away from court? golfing. 11th hour just getting underway on this thursday night. looking for a smarter way to mop? try the swiffer powermop. ♪♪ an all-in-one cleaning tool, with a 360-degree swivel head that goes places a regular mop just can't. ♪♪ mop smarter with the swiffer powermop. weeds... they have you surrounded. take your lawn back! with scotts turf builder triple action! it gets three jobs done at once - kills weeds. prevents crabgrass. and keeps it growing strong.

download the my lawn app today for lawn care tips and customized plans. feed your lawn. feed it. to me, harlem is home. but home is also your body. i asked myself, why doesn't pilates exist in harlem? so i started my own studio. getting a brick and mortar in new york is not easy. chase ink has supported us from studio one to studio three. when you start small, you need some big help. and chase ink was that for me. earn up to 5% cash back on business essentials with the chase ink business cash card from chase for business. make more of what's yours.

after advil: let's dive in! but...what about your back? it's fineeeeeeee! [splash] before advil: advil dual action fights pain two ways. advil targets pain at the source, acetaminophen blocks pain signals. advil dual action.

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.

now to donald trump's criminal trial going on right now in new york city. today former national enquirer publisher david pecker back on the witness stand as trump's attorneys began their cross examination of this key prosecution witness. here is my colleague, von hilliard. >> reporter: on his third day on the stand, former national enquirer publisher david pecker told the jury he refused to catch and kill stormy daniels's story about her relationship with then candidate donald trump. pecker said he told his right- hand man at the inquirer not to pay daniels the $120,000 she was seeking , because they had already shelled out tens of thousands of dollars to keep other stories about mr. trump quiet. if anyone should buy it, pecker said, it should be donald trump and michael cohen , trump's

former fixer. pecker said when he told cohen, quote, he was upset and said that the boss, a recording to trump, would be furious with me. pecker said today he believed mr. trump or his company had paid daniels until cohen told him in december of 2016 that he was the one who paid her. prosecutors are seeking to prove mr. trump doctored internal business records to cover up that payment. pecker also testified trump was aghast when he saw stormy daniels on 60 minutes. >> was it hush money to stay silent? >> yes. >> reporter: pecker said trump called him. he said we have an agreement with stormy daniels that she cannot mention my name. trump later denied knowledge of the arrangement. on cross-examination, mr. trump's lawyers challenging credibility and business practice. at a campaign event earlier in the day mr. trump addressed the testimony of his longtime friend. >> david has been a nice guy.

>> did you know about the payment to stormy daniels before the 2020 election? >> reporter: pecker also testified today about the payment his company did make the former playboy model karen mcdougal to keep her alleged affair with mr. trump quiet. pecker said he coordinated with cohen because he was concerned paying mcdougal could violate campaign finance law. so they worked up an agreement to pay for contributions to magazines owned by american media, adding he believed trump was aware of the payment. the prosecution asking pecker was your principal purpose to suppress her story so as not to influence the election? pecker responding yes, it was. >> and we have peter baker and joy spent still with us. joyce, i wanted to start with you. let's talk about the fact that the day began before david pecker cut back on the witness stand, with the manhattan d.a.s office saying there four alleged violations, brand-new ones, of the expanded gag order, judge merchan setting a hearing for next thursday. we don't have a ruling from the

first motion for contempt? so what is the delay, because we now have four new violations. >> we do. we have ongoing violations, and the issue that the judge basis is either this gag order has teeth and he will enforce it, or it does not have teeth and in which case donald trump can do anything he wants to do with regard to this jury, witnesses, or the court families for that matter. so this has to come to a head. the delay likely gives the judge a little bit of extra room to gather additional evidence, but the statute gives them very limited options. he can either impose a penalty of a $1000 for each violation, or he can impose up to 30 days of custody. there is no room to maneuver between those two options. he will have to make a decision. he is apparently made a decision that it is best to put it off, to hold some of his power over donald trump's had

for a little bit longer, to see if he can get him to conform his behavior or alternatively to prove that the only option is for the judge to begin to impose sanctions. >> you know, peter, one thing that stuck out to me today with the testimony from david pecker that ami paid the $150,000 to karen mcdougal and he never got reimbursed. never got paid back by donald trump, even though it was for his benefit and the benefit of the campaign. but then at the end, david pecker has to say i have no hard feelings for mr. trump. i thought he was my mentor. i felt like , peter, david pecker encapsulates maga world. he keeps on grafting and he completely dupes his followers. but then they sit there and they still pay homage to him. talk about whether or not you think that this trial so far has been moving the needle in any way in terms of public sentiment when it comes to donald trump.

>> yeah, you know, it reminds me of a story i was told once by a new yorker his parents work for donald trump as contractors. we all know that donald trump is not always very good about paying the contractors. i said this person, did he pay your parents? he said no, he didn't. discussed that i had to sue him to get their money. i said okay. he said well, i got $.50 on the dollar back. but you know what? they voted for trump. i said why would they vote for trump if they believe he cheated them on their money? he said well, if he cheats us, he will cheat everybody else on behalf of america. he will cheat the rest of the world on behalf of america. so there is a sort of interesting view of him as somebody who was able to manipulate the system, work the system, bypass the system, whatever it is that seems to earn respect on the part of people who admire him. and it is kind of curious in a lot of ways, it would be something you would expect. and yet, somehow he has

managed, despite all of the examples where he has, in fact, tried to run around the system and cheat in various ways that has not actually heard the base court support he has. i don't think his base is going to be all that troubled by what they are hearing. they know most of these facts. most of the stocks of been reported before. i think a lot of people, even people who like him, assume they are more or less true. the only question is, are they legal? does it match the crimes as outlined by alvin bragg lexi does a guilty verdict change anybody's mind? but the facts of the case is being presented by the prosecution may or may not be enough to change public views. because i think a lot of people assume that donald trump has done a lot of these things, and they either care a lot and they think it is outrageous, or they don't care and they think that he is being persecuted here. >> josh, to peter's point, does the evidence fit the crime? i mean, the burden of proof is always going to be on the prosecution in a criminal case. do you share any concerns like some others have expressed, that the misdemeanor crime exists,

the falsification of the business records, but to elevate it to the 1st degree felony that it is, are you hearing enough? because i am hearing the common denominator of messaging from david pecker, which was everything that was done, the catch and kill, et cetera, was done to benefit the campaign and not donald trump personally. >> right, i think that might have something to do with why we are hearing these nice comments about pecker from the former president. if he can somehow get jurors to have the feeling that these payments took place because of personal warmth between pecker and trump, or the fact that they have been friends for a long time, that does start to undercut the case somewhat. so we will see, as the cross- examination continues here, whether trump's defense tries to bring out more of that possible motivation here. they have been friends for a long time, and maybe ami and

pecker might've done this sort of thing to help trump even if he wasn't running for president, because it sounds like based on the practices of ami and pecker that this is the kind of thing they did for various celebrities at different times. >> and you know, mark, david pecker already announcing that he is there pursuant to a subpoena to testify, so he is not there voluntarily. we do here today, though, something with it was surprising. we heard that david pecker/ami getting a nonprosecution agreement with the manhattan d.a.s office and the new york county d.a.s office, so talk a little bit about what you think the impact might've been on the jury hearing that ami got one of these kinds of get out of jail free cards kind of thing, because he is giving this testimony and the cooperation he gave a few years ago. >> yeah, so we know that pecker has this nonprosecution agreement with state authorities. we also know that the s.e.c. had warmed pecker and ami that

this kind of catch and kill practice done to benefit a political campaign could constitute a contribution in violation of law. pecker has clearly been skirting the limits of what is permitted under both state and federal law. no surprise that he is in court under a subpoena. a little bit of a surprise that he has this history and court that we had to learn about until today. but i think this ties in with another interesting exchange that occurred in manhattan today, where the prosecutors kept talking about a conspiracy that pecker was part of this conspiracy, that ultimately engulfed cohen and trump, paying off stormy daniels. the defense attorney objected and said you have to stop using this word. this is not a conspiracy. and prosecutors say look at the election statutes we are citing and claiming trump attempted to violate. they use the phrase conspiracy. so it is perfectly legitimate for us to use it. and judge merchan agreed, i

think rightly so. i think with this testimony is doing is setting up for the jury the sense of how this works in this rather sordid world, so that when it comes time to drill down on the stormy daniels payments, they have a good idea of all the moving pieces here. and when the prosecutors are laying out the step-by-step of the stormy daniels payments, they will see that through the lens of a similar conspiracy. but it is not just a kind of cd tabloid scheme, but rather a criminal effort to skirt campaign finance laws and state election laws to influence an election on behalf of a candidate. that is unlawful under new york statute, and that is what alvin bragg says is going to essentially bootstrap what should be misdemeanor charges into the felony offense that he is charging mr. trump with. >> and with excess reliability law in new york, they can all have dirty hands. it doesn't make a difference because they all under principal theory have criminal

exposure. peter, mark, josh, and joyce, thank you for joining me, i really appreciate it. when we come back, trump spent his day off from court on the golf course. while biden shoots his shot with nikki haley voters. will it work? our political panel joins us when the 11th hour continues. hey dave, don't knock it 'til you smell it. new gain relax flings. an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement.

♪♪ with fastsigns, create factory grade visual solutions to perfect your process. ♪♪ fastsigns. make your statement™.

i have active psoriatic arthritis. but with skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, count me in. along with clearer skin, skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. there's nothing like clearer skin and better movement. and that means everything! ask your doctor about skyrizi today. learn how abbvie could help you save. i still love to surf, snowboard, ask your doctor about skyrizi today. and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust.

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. for weeks donald trump has complained that his many legal

obligations are keeping him off the campaign trail. take a listen to what he said just last week. >> i can't go to my son's graduation. i can't go to the united states supreme court. i am not in georgia or florida or north carolina. the democrats, that is exactly what they want. this is about election interference, that's all it's about. >> i'm going to fact check in real time, almost all that he said was not true. so you would think that when he finally had a day off he would use it diligently and campaign. but no, not donald trump. he had more pressing things to do. sources telling cnn that he went golfing. but the biden campaign on the other hand wasting no time trolling the former president, emailing supporters about trump's campaign events on wednesday, noting that he had not area for more on this i want to bring in donna edwards,

former democratic congress woman of maryland, and former chief communications adviser for republican speakers paul ryan and jon weiner. my thanks to the both of you for being here tonight. i want to start with you. donald trump playing golf and doing campaign stops at a bodega in new york. is there the possibility that there is a very real impact because of this trial on the flow of his campaign? >> absolutely. look, running for president is a hard thing, and it is exhausting. so i don't blame him that he is not out there every single moment doing it. but i think that is i would happen in the supreme court today could have an incredible impact on the rest of this election. it could actually sway the election. the current case, it will last a few weeks, and if that's all he has to do that he might be able to survive that. but if he is stuck in a courthouse for months on end throughout this campaign, and that is the context in which we are seeing donald trump, if

that is how people are associating him with it, forget the fact that he is not campaigning. if that is the story of donald trump's election, he could be a huge trouble. so what is happening in new york right now is damaging. what could happen the rest of the year could be really big. >> and i have to ask about my home state of florida. biden has opened, president biden opened these first field office there. everybody kind of writes off florida. i get it, we are not purple anymore. we are decidedly more red than purple. but biden himself saying that florida is at play, especially considering that constitutional amendment on the ballot in november when it comes to abortion access. your thought about whether or not this is just a kind of hopes and dreams thing going on and for, or if there is a very real possibility that he could make some headway there? >> well, i think one of the things that you get, especially when you raise the money that president biden has, and he is opening field offices really across the country, that it gives him a lot of electability to expand that map, and

certainly florida should be part of that quotient. and really, that constitutional amendment on the ballot, we know that these issues really drive voters to the polls, and voters that they drive to the polls are exactly the ones that the biden campaign needs. particularly among women, expanding that gender gap that he enjoys. so i think it's a really smart move on the part of the president and his team, and let's just stretch that map across the country. >> brandon, we heard also that president biden making a play for nikki haley voters, for example, going to court them in the state of pennsylvania. but brandon, that's 135,000 votes, by my count. i mean, what is the possibility for biden to be able to pick up a nikki haley voter in the general? >> quite significant. this is going to be an incredibly close election. so any voters you could pick up

could potentially change the outcome. and we know for certain, donald trump is not going to try to win back nikki haley voters. he is constitutionally incapable of bringing himself to appeal to moderates. he is perfectly fine upsetting nikki haley voters. so that presents an incredible opportunity for the biden folds that they are able to do it. it is not about nikki haley, their ad seems to be defending nikki haley. i don't think those voters care about nikki haley. he needs to provide a safe place for someone ago. and there is the sense that there are a lot of republicans who are willing to do this. the chris christie's of the world. but they can create that narrative, and you can pick up 100,000 votes in a state that could absolutely be enough to turn the outcome. >> and i want to take us back to new york into that trial that is going on. you know, we don't have cameras in the courtroom, we actually don't even have audio. it's kind of broadcast publicly. because there are no cameras, a lot of people don't get to see

donald trump looking old, sometimes looking like he is sleeping in court, looking tired and disinterested in judicial proceedings that actually have his liberty at stake. do you think that is to donald trump's benefit that we do not have the american public looking in and seeing what he is like inside the courtroom? >> well, i have to tell you, while i want to see what's going on the courtroom, i also know that a camera in that courtroom would be exactly what donald trump would want and need so that he could play to it. so i'm not really sure that we are disadvantaged or that the trial is disadvantaged in terms of not having cameras there. but i will say, i do think that the reporting that is coming out of the courtroom, the snippets that the american public is getting, that there is a way that people are beginning to experience what is happening there. and look, you can see from his demeanor when he comes out of the courtroom that it is really taking its toll on him. and i think the american people are going to process that.

>> i'm going to tell you guys right now, the pictures you just saw of him, that's not what he looks like when he is in court. donna edwards and brandon buck, thank you so much for being here. i appreciate it. when we come back, campus protests over the israel hamas war intensify over the country. and now they are impacting graduation ceremonies. we get into it when the 11th hour continues. may the best bird win. brick. you may be a legend on the court but you're an amateur up here. heads up lar. so get allstate... save money and be protected from mayhem... ...like me. now you're the bird stuck in the attic. so this is pickleball? it's basically tennis for babies, but for adults. it should be called wiffle tennis. pickle!

yeah, aw! whoo! ♪♪ these guys are intense. we got nothing to worry about. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? got him. good game. thanks for coming to our clinic, first one's free. ava: i was just feeling sick. and it was the worst day. mom was crying. i was sad. colton: i was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma. brett: once we got the first initial hit, it was just straight tears, sickness in your stomach, just don't want to get up out of bed.

joe: there's always that saying, well, you've got to look on the bright side of things. tell me what the bright side of childhood cancer is. lakesha: it's a long road. it's hard. but saint jude has gotten us through it. narrator: saint jude children's research hospital works day after day to find cures and save the lives of children with cancer and other life-threatening diseases. thanks to generous donors like you, families never receive a bill from saint jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food, so they can focus on helping their child live. ashley: without all of those donations, saint jude would not be able to do all of the exceptional work that they do. narrator: for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the life-saving research and treatment these kids need. tiffany: no matter if it's a big business or just the grandmother that donates once a month,

they are changing people's lives. and that's a big deal. narrator: join with your debit or credit card right now, and we'll send you this saint jude t-shirt that you can proudly wear to show your support. nicole: our family is forever grateful for donations big and small because it's completely changed our lives and it's given us a second chance. elizabeth stewart: saint jude's not going to stop until every single kid gets that chance to walk out of the doors of this hospital cancer-free. narrator: please, don't wait. call, go online, or scan the qr code below right now. [♪ music playing ♪] my life is full of questions... mom, is yellow a light or a dark? how do i clean an aioli stain? thankfully, tide's the answer to almost all of them. why do we even buy napkins? use tide. can cold water clean white socks? it can with tide. do i need to pretreat guacamole? not with tide. this is chocolate, right? -just use... -tide...yeah. no matter who's doing it, on what cycle, or in what temperature, tide works.

so i can focus on all the other questions. do crabs have eyebrows? ahh... for all of life's laundry questions, it's got to be tide. you know, i spend a lot of time thinking about dirt. at three in the morning. any time of the day. what people don't know is that not all dirt is the same. you need dirt with the right kind of nutrients. look at this new organic soil from miracle-gro. everybody should have it. 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. you're a dirt nerd. huge dirt nerd. i'm proud of it! [ryan laughs]

one of the biggest universities in the country has canceled its main graduation ceremony. officials say new security measures make it impossible to hold the event. it is the late protest movement. here is my colleague liz. >> reporter: in an unprecedented move, the university of southern california canceling the main commencement ceremony attended by 55,000 people. this stunning decision coming a day after nearly 100 protesters were arrested for trespassing after a contentious rally. the school's administration has canceled the speech for their

pro palestinian valedictorian citing safety concerns. law enforcement appears to use zip tie to restrain the protesters, even tazing one person. at columbia, the epicenter of the protest, those camping out given a dead timeline to disperse by 4:00 a.m. these protests are spreading here in california as well. here at ucla, students have begun gathering, pitching tents in campus. tonight these rising tensions igniting a debate about free speech versus hate speech on college campuses. professor freedman criticizing

them for escalating. >> you believe their first amendment rights are violated? >> absolutely. they are criticizing a nation state for their actions in war. not criticizing a faith. a faith very close to me. >> reporter: some jewish students say they feel the demonstrations have crossed a line. >> i don't believe that advocating for the right to the palestinian people are inherently antisemitic. but some of these chants and some of the ways in which they attribute and target jewish students, that is antisemitic. when we come back, a heartfelt good-bye from chef jose andres. his tribute to the workers killed in gaza when the 11th hour continues. hour continues. 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 ink card made it easy. when you go for something big like this, your kids see that. and they believe they can do the same. earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase with the chase ink business unlimited card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. does your bladder leak when you laugh or cough? mine did until a bladder specialist had me try bulkamid. it's a safe and effective, non-drug treatment that can provide years of relief. take the next step at findrealrelief.com. get your bladder back!

voices of people with cidp: cidp disrupts. cidp derails. let's be honest... all: cidp sucks! voices of people with cidp: but living with cidp doesn't have to. when you sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com, you'll find inspiration in real patient stories, helpful tips, reliable information, and more. cidp can be tough. but finding hope just got a little easier. sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com. all: be heard. be hopeful. be you.

hi, i'm janice, sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com. and i lost 172 pounds on golo. when i was a teenager i had some severe trauma in my life and i turned to food for comfort. a friend told me that i was the only one holding me back from being as beautiful on the outside as i am the inside. once i saw golo was working, i felt this rush, i just had to keep going. a lot of people think no pain no gain, but with golo it is so easy. when i look in the mirror, i don't even recognize myself. golo really works.

the last thing before we go tonight, remembering the best

of humanity. today, the seven world central kitchen aid workers killed by an israeli strike as they delivered food in gaza were laid to rest. chef jose andres who founded the charity 15 years ago delivered an emotional eulogy in their honor. and shared his hope for peace. watch this. >> they risk everything to feed people they did not know. in the worst moments, the best of humanity shows up. we want to change the world. it is something we all believe deep down inside our hearts. all nationalities, all religions. all people. food is a universal human

right. feeding each other, cooking and eating together, is what makes us human. the dishes we cook and deliver are not just ingredients or calories. a plate of food is a plate of hope. a message that someone somewhere cares for you. >> our hearts are with the families of the victims. a message of hope and resilience to take us off the air tonight. and remember, you can catch the katie phang show saturdays at 12:00 eastern on msnbc. for all of our colleagues across the networks of msnbc, thank you for staying up late. see you this weekend. the ex-president of the united states. two american courtrooms. facing criminal trial in one. >> i'm going to go in now and sit in front of a case. >> reporter: and making a desperate case to avoid justice in