redefining insurance >> i've been touring the world with my music now, i want to focus on what's happening 12 carbon, a cnn films sunday, april 21 at nine >> this is cnn breaking news >> hello, and thank you for joining cnn. vessel coverage. i'm laura coates and washington, dc and literally at any moment, a hearing gets underway and georgia election interference case against donald trump for president will not be in the fulton county courtroom, but his attorney

hearing has also going to focus on one of trump's fake electors party chairman will ask to have the case smith as well. and you know, it's worth noting, this is actually the first hearings since the presiding judge rejected the defense efforts to disqualify the woman you see on the screen right now, the district attorney of fulton county, fani willis, i've got a panel of experts here at the table to help analyze all of this. elie honig is also joining us from new york, but first let's go to cnn senior crime and justice reporter katelyn polantz, who is live outside the courthouse in atlanta. caitlin, tell us more about what we are expected to hear in court this morning. >> well today in court is the first time that fani willis is office will be back before all of those hearings over her ethics debacle, something that

the judge has warned her not to step into any issues, any more talking about the case outside of court. nathan wade, the lead prosecutor, resign all back today, and this will be a refocus on the law and on the allegations the charges, there will be arguments from donald trump's legal team. now, donald trump isn't expected to be here in person, neither is fani willis herself but there will be arguments from donald trump's lawyers today about the first amendment they say that this racketeering conspiracy allegation that he faces includes quite a lot of political speech, tweets. he was sent it sending even things that are protected under the constitution, at least in the view of his attorneys. and so this case should be dismissed. previous attempts by other defendants in this case to have it dismissed. those have been unsuccessful, but this is part of the stress chest that is happening in the court system to talk about what is alleged here, what is alleged against

donald trump and also other defendants, other lawyers for the defendant, david shafer, a prominent gop official in the state of georgia, who was among the fake electors and leading some of their efforts for trump after the election. there's gonna be arguments from him as well on dismissing the case then of course two, we will see if there's any discussion at all about when this case would go to trial. a big question hanging over everything here in fulton county. >> that's a big question because of course, she has recently said that the train is coming and none of this is going to do real her efforts to pursue a trial. she's actually pushing the understand for an august trial date. what are the chances of that happening? >> well, it's hard to say until we hear the judge actually take this up. there have been many hearings here in fulton county at the court before judge mcafee, where we know the prosecutors want to talk about a trial date and it just hasn't been discussed. so we'll see if it does. come up today, but remember what the calendar looks like for donald

trump at least on the side of the courts in these criminal cases, where he's facing he's going to trial in new york in that hush money criminal case in the middle of april, that will keep him in court as a defendant in front of a jury. likely for six weeks for so into june. and then after that, there is an open calendar, though it's right in the middle of the presidential campaign with the convention making him formerly the nominee set for july. and the election in november. so there's a lot of questions. is it going to be this case? >> that go to trial or slot into the calendar sometime in that window or is there the possibility one of these other cases that you federal cases against donald trump, would those fit in each of these cases? it doesn't take just two days to try this case. in particular, in fulton county against donald trump, is massive he and 14 other defendants are slated to go to trial and the allegations here

are voluminous. it will take quite a lot of time for the prosecutors to present those in court if and when it gets to that point. >> caitlin paul lands and atlanta. thank you so much. my panel is here to talk about all of this and unpack really, what is a very significant case and begin with you here, paula reid, because pretrial motions are common as a defense wanting to articulate why you think you should not be here. this was particularly nuanced it is. >> i was just rereading the brief and look, i'll give them an a for effort. they're insisting he was talking about politics. two politicians. it's political speech, it's afforded the highest protection under the first amendment. again, a for effort, but this is not likely to carry the day because the first amendment has limitations. you cannot use your speech to encourage someone to solicit a crime. you cannot so i violence, you can certainly deny the results of the election. you can claim it was rigged with our limitations on the protections you are afforded. it is his right though, to file this, as you said listen into the corporate second here because the judge has just taken the bench as

we're getting ready to hear more about who a for effort, what's isn't secretary of state or the telephone call, that is an issue. i think those things are clear throughout the record in this case, but i'm not sure that they're necessary for the court to make an as applied challenge. and as such i think we can be limited to the well pleaded facts, both in the rico count count one, as well as the other counts in the indictment well, let's just start there. mr. wake, for any reactions kinda some of those things i brought up and mr. say downs response, a little noir. >> the court, if >> i actually could you could stand wherever you'd like. >> i, >> think we got to start with hall, your honore, and i'm glad you pointed to that language because that was going to be the first thing i wanted to address today. hall descends from a case called national dairy, which it the language and hall says in cases like this were confined, we look at the charge conduct that's what we look to hall, of course, was they looked outside of the charging instrument to these other facts. >> yeah. so it seems like that's not going to be at

issue here because the state's not saying here's our entire theory of the case. so what, what stops us from doing an as applied for some of the challenge just based on the indictment itself. that's limited one. and you kind of have a leg-up since you get to put whatever you want the indictment generally. >> well and that's kinda the thing is that when you look get the posterior sharing brief from the defendant, you actually look at footnote to he's not going to actually ask the court to look at the well-being. alagha in this case. what we want the court to do is read out certain language from the indictment, actually not consider it. just >> looking let's say we don't get to that further step and we are just just getting over that threshold >> even if there wasn't a >> footnote to any position at this point on, can we make an as applied first amendment analysis of this? so it's true in federal courts. it's kind of all over the place, some courts explicitly stay away from it, and other courts go into it. we know that in this in this defendant's case in dc, actually, judge chutkan and explicitly went forward and made an analysis based on the allegations in the indictment. there but not every court does.

and some federal courts stay away from it for a very specific reason, which is that there are still factual allegations which cash to be settled by a factfinder for a jury and the reason is looking at all the case that you've found ones that didn't do it in a generally they're going to say, we don't have the record on the facts, but were there any that explicitly said, even though i could just look solely at the indictment, i'm still not gonna do an as applied challenge. >> well, i think that's how we get to a case here in georgia and it's the case, your honor, sided back in october when you explicitly ruled i am we're not going to get into this field. >> the 11th circuit case though when you're talking about i'm talking about the major case. i'm just the georgia case. the major case is where they say, okay, this is a pretrial as applied first amendment challenge, but essentially what this boils down to is an argument about intent that's where the defendants really talking about. and when you look at what the defendant wants to argue about here today, it's just well, i was talking i was just a gasoline and things. i was just

advocating. i was just thinking in my mind. and so all of this is protected and therefore, the entire thing has to go away. then that is a question that's >> your strong argument. strongest argument on if we're in the analysis of the aza challenge, i'm still just trying to get over and really understand the procedural element of it. >> well >> that's what >> major says, is that because that intent question has yet to be answered, and the jury is the person is the entity that answers that question. it's premature to consider this it's, you can't say that the first amendment has been applied or that the as applied challenge can succeed at this stage because there's still questions that have to be answered. >> but major, i think it was like an overbreadth on terroristic threats. write, it begins with >> overbreadth, but then it moves into an as applied challenge that's the last part of the did they actually say a premature to they just say denied >> they say hey that they cannot say that. it's unconstitutional under the first amendment as applied to the defendant in that scenario because there are still intend questions. that's >> does that actually maybe suggest then that they did do

an as applied challenge? it's just very hard for a defendant to win that because all you have is the indictment that, is a way that you could interpret it. it would suggest that an as applied challenge cannot succeed under the first amendment because criminal speech integral to criminal conduct is not protected, well-played. an indictment is going to demonstrate that speech that is planned as part of a criminal charge is integral to criminal conduct. and so there is no there's nothing to decide if you're looking in your cabin by the indictment. we had two routes here. neither of them result in the grant of this of this motion. one says the court says this is premature. there's questions that have to be answered. any first amendment challenge has to happen after there's a actual record to look to the other says i can get to this today. it's not that i can't i can but there's nowhere to go because all of these pled as integral to criminal conduct. and therefore, it's not protected by the first, you could, you could envision an n-type. >> i don't know if i don't remember if alvarez was a post-trial are pretrial thing, but you could envision an indictment where perhaps they drafted it to solely targets

speech because of its falsity or something like that. so maybe there's a use for an as applied challenge and that kind of a situation that's a fair point, your honor. it's just not the situation here and it's not gonna be the situation almost any case that was a special case where of course you have a very unique statute that was punishing that was but that was really a facial challenge to it because it was saying like this is just punished and falsity for falsely its own sake. none of the charges in this case are about that, they are about falsity employed as part of or statements employed as part of a pattern of criminal conduct in numerous ways. so there's nowhere to go and so i think i think it requires dismissal or denial at this stage because you either can't reach it because there's more fact, there's facts that have to be established or the indictment establishes that none of the speech is protected by the first amendment. and the inquiry immediately ends. >> all right >> all right. so back to you, mr. say tau let's move forward with the idea that we're making an as applied challenge solely confined to the indictment this

isn't a facial challenge, not saying any of these statutes are on this face, correct? unconstitutional >> and your argument is that this is, this is core political speech, correct so >> some crimes can be achieved solely through speech though terroristic threats. for solicitation >> why is that? now what's happening here as alleged >> well i think it requires kind of a detailed analysis. so if i may sure all right. so the first thing we have to decide is whether or not and we're talking about president trump we're not talking about the actions of others we have to look and see whether or not that which has been alleged, his facts is in. fact, who are political speech political discourse protect his speech at it seemed i don't think there's any question that statements comment speech,

expressive conduct that deals with campaigning or elections has always been found to be at the zenith. of protected speech what do we have here we have election speech >> so one must determine immediately whether that constitutes core political speech. and i suggest that it does now, does that make a difference? ultimately, yes. because the more core speech, the more it is protected the less the government should be involved in restricting it i don't think there's any real doubt about that. >> so then the question >> becomes, is the mere fact that the state here represents that it is false or fraudulent under the statute. is that enough? now, when i just heard i think the states position would be yes. all we have to do is say it's false it's

integral to criminal conduct. >> it's fraud. and >> therefore, it can't be unconstitutional as applied. i don't believe that that's what the law sets. i think what the law really looks at is as to each individual application of a statue whether or not the falsity in and of itself alone is sufficient. and i think the case law indicates that that's not so particularly. and i don't need to go back through in detail everything that alvarez said, but i think alvarez is important because even when you talk in terms of and i'll start with we're looking at the majority. >> what i would actually i >> guess it would be the plurality opinion that by judge kennedy, but for purposes of interest to us, the chief

justice and justice soto, my hair agree. so now we're talking about two people still on the court and i'm looking, specifically at page 720 in which the court goes on to say where the court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech absent any evidence at the speech would be used to gain a material advantage. it would give government abroad censorial power unprecedented in this court's cases, or in our constitutional tradition so there that's the beginning part of plurality saying, the way to attack false speech or false political speech, or core speech, is with truth which is precisely what was going on. >> we're >> talking about this time period without getting outside the indictment. you're talking

about at the same time, the allegations are being made, factual allegations in the indictment, you have others that are fighting that off. >> government's position would be with the states position with truth, moving beyond alvarez, that part of it you have justice kagan with justice breyer and here i think gets to the crux of where we are in. this is the concurring opinion he goes through a litany of false statement cases in which the government's position in alvarez is being false in and of itself is enough that is, once you've determined as false or done that's not what the concurrent says. and that's not what the dissent says. the concurrent says

basically, that these judicial statements cannot be read to me. no protection at all. false factual statements can serve useful human objectives for example, in social contexts, where they may prevent embarrassment. that in public context where they may stop or panic in the face of danger and even in technical philosophical, and scientific context, where as socrates method suggests examination or a false statement, even if may deliberately to mislead, can promote a form of thought that ultimately helps realize the truth and then it goes on and says, even a false statement may be deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate tend to brings about the clear perception and a livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with air. so this is the proposition that it's not the falsity alone that controls it's the context in

which the speech is made. and if it is deemed false and for purposes of the indictment we have to assume that it is false because that's what the facts have been alleged. that doesn't mean it's the end of the analysis. >> why do we not also have to assume since it's an allegation that i think you say in your brief that it's unlawful, willful, and knowingly false. so because at least our position, president trump's position is those are words, are not words of fact. those are words of legal connotation. >> and that while they have >> meaning, that would allow, for example, let's go to alvarez and stolen valor act just because they alleged that it was unlawful, didn't mean it wins. that is it doesn't mean that the government win, but that's because they decided that wasn't a crime at all. i mean, that was a facial challenge where they said this statute, even if you violated it, violates the first amendment. you've said that the rico statute, you can violate it, not it's not a

right >> so >> we make bupa legal conclusions and indictments all the time. i think that's gonna be part of mr. shapers argument in just a minute you said a moment ago, just because the state police you don't think that's enough in an as applied challenge and i'm trying to figure out as to the statements such as legal conclusions are unlawful and so forth. >> now, >> if there had been i guess if the allegations had been broader maybe we wouldn't be at that crossroads. but those aren't facts. the facts, as i've outlined or we've outlined in our brief, you take the overt actually look at those overt acts and then those the same time and then look at the substantive offenses are conspiracy offenses in the rest of the body of the indictment words like unlawful, don't change that at least that's our position so now we are talking in terms going back to alvarez and the concurring

opinion, you talking in terms of falsity alone is not enough. there's stuff there are situations, contexts which override just the falsity alone and that's again the political discourse. the political speech the more significant it is. certain issues clearly being president united states at the time dealing with elections and campaigning calling into question whether what it occurred at least in the election of 2024. precedent that's the height of political speech. and then you go even to the dissent, which i think is as important because now you have alito and thomas yeah, remembers of the current court and i go to that what i believe

starts a page 751 and it says >> even where there is wide >> scholarly and this is 752. even there. i'm skews me even where there is a wide scholarly consensus concerning a particular matter, the truth is served by allowing that consensus to be challenged without fear of reprisal today's accepted wisdom sometimes turns out to be mistaken in these contexts. even a false statement maybe, maybe deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate since it brings about the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error citing us supreme court. that's the essence of what we have right here. that's the facts that

have been alleged. essentially, the states position is because as alleged, what president trump said, speech wise, or expressed either through his speech or conduct, which is still freedom of expression. because that's false in the eyes of the state. it's lost >> all >> protections of the first amendment. >> and the >> concurring opinion, it's saying opinion and alvarez suggest just the opposite, if anything, under the circumstances, it needs more protection, not less protection. so keeping that in mind let's let's move to not rico put regal aside for a minute let's move instead to the conspiracy counts which are account 911131517 basically,

what the states position is on that because it took this position previously in its filing on september 27, 2023, in response to that which was filed by hasbro and i'm aware of course of the court's order that that would chesebro and it didn't deal with the as applied. so i'm dealing it and more so in that one as i go back and look at it there was a much more kind of concerted effort to bring in facts outside of the indictment, right. and they started talking about well, there was a transcript at the meeting. there was this. >> so it didn't really seem to be true as applied challenge, right? >> but as the court noted in its order, that point didn't determine that it was ripe for a pretrial challenge. so i'm taking what chesebro what the state said as it applies. now because it says in that brief that was both as two facial and as applied challenges essentially, what it says is as

two those counts, 911 19 s2, 911.17. the mere fact that it alleges a fraud is enough that is that's what's on page five. and paid six since each of those statutes prohibit conduct involving fraud we don't. go any further and i'm suggesting that's wrong that you must go further. you must look at the speech itself, the expressive conduct itself in connection with those specific statute that's what the as applied. it's the fact that it's a fraudulent statue now you want to look and see why under the circumstances here, the language speech of the president falls within that and if you look at it in that sense the mere fact that is false is all that they have >> they don't >> there's not

>> a finding that the speech itself, beyond the speech itself is fraudulent. what the state wants to do was say, we have a goal, we have an objective here that we have put forward steele, the election in an unlawful fashion. i say change that for a second to what ge intimate concern about the validity of the election, if that was the way you've focused on it, which is a way to do it as applied even with the facts would what president trump said on those counts be protected speech? and the answer is it has to be because the only thing that makes it fraudulent at the state saying it's false, take every one of those and say, okay it's not false. is protected. the only reason it becomes unprotected in the state's opinion, is because they call it false in that's what alvarez doesn't allow in and of itself, it

cannot be simply the content-based it has to be in textual, in the contextual here is a political core value being addressed, elections and campaigning that holds true for the all of those that deal with the conspiracy. and then you deal with counts 29.39, which is the false statements, charges >> now it is clear that the supreme court would find that a statement made under 1,001 18 usc 1,001, would constitute the appropriate let's say, abridgement or non-protected conduct or speech but georgia statutes a little different here because we don't have it a materiality it's the mere fact of falsity, which violates

according to georgia law. accounts 29.39 you don't have to do anything else, but make a false statement even if it is political discourse, even if it is in the heightened contexts that i've suggested. if it's false, it's a violation of the law. and i'm saying as applied to political speech that can't be constitutional as applied >> remember >> no materiality, simply the fact that he said it. so essentially, what the states position on that would be, it didn't have to be sent to any one of consequence in the state agency. it just had to be said indeed, if you look at the most probably best example is count 39. that's a letter written after the election in september of 2021 from president trump

two secretary of state, in which it has, according to that, one statement and that's constitutes what if the state falsity, but it's clearly political speech and it's clearly being related to the activities and the matters that of election and campaign even after the fact, it's still related just to that so looking at 29.39, i think you have situation in which the falsity alone is all they have as applied here to political speech is unconstitutional as applied under the first amendment. and then finally, you have count 27. >> quick question on that >> you >> hadn't located one, had you found a anyone ever attempted to facial challenge on 161020 >> in fact, i don't remember the name of the case, but it has been upheld even though there was references to the fact that maybe materiality

should be part of it. >> that's going to be the case, that's right. that's right >> yes. facially, yes. but haley, of course, didn't go to the extent of trying to determine as applied in a particular context. and it's again, i don't repeat what i just said, but here we're talking about the heightened value of core political speech. and then with 27 we're talking about the filing of a false document. again, the only thing there that involves president trump is an attestation on the complaint. now, all it refers to on the indictment is complaint. but again, we're talking about the act the falsity of the filing of false document is the falsity in the document itself. and i'm suggesting under the circumstances that in that alone would violate that statute as applied. so regardless of the facial challenges, the question becomes here is the mere fact that the state says fraud or

false statement enough to get buying aza challenge and our suggestion is it is not. now let's go to rico and i think rico is more difficult to be honest with you because we're talking about a much broader statue at the same time, when you look at the allegations against president trump all of the allegations. all of the allegations involved expressive conduct or speech we have false statements alleged in overt acts and again, all of which are political core value political discourse. you have false statements in overt acts. one 817 57 purely. the only

allegations here are falsity. there's no allegation beyond the fact that those statements are made, and i'm suggesting that heightened political speech has to be looked at differently. when it comes to tweets, which is at least the way the state set to fourth is also political speech. and here certainly by the then president of the united states, you have tweets and 20 26, 27, 32, 75, 75100101106114 39. so the, majority of the overt acts involve false statement or tweets, which are clearly political speech how best to deal with that under the circumstances, to prosecute those under a broad rico charge? supposedly with

contesting election by i guess, illegitimate speech or expressive conduct or is the way that we are set up as a country is that the first amendment blaze through this by others? by those that are complaining that is false, proving it's false, bringing forth the truth. that's the essence of what alvarez has said. that's the essence of what a case called brown versus hart lynch, which is cited in alvarez 456 us 45.60, 1.19, 82 decision. all of those speak in terms of when you're dealing with that speech, that political speech, your best to deal with it through the pushing force a counter view of truth, not not prosecuting the speech maker or the person that is articulating his political views. >> here we've >> done just the opposite. we have decided that because of those views were unpopular. and

in states opinion false. we must prosecute them to stop them from happening again. which is again, the essence of why it's unconstitutional as applied, because that's not what the law says. finally the rest of the overt acts, either telephone calls or meetings, or requests, no false statements they're just at expressive ex and they're in there as well. those are political ax. and for the courts benefit because i know there's a lot of overt acts. those are 914, 1928 30, 31, 3140424344 4243449095 what was in the old indictment as 123 or number two is now i think there's 125 5131301140 156 >> there is nothing alleged

factually against president trump that is not political speech so. what this court has to decide is is the state's position that fraud or false statements under these circumstances, which i suggest really is alone, is that enough to get it by an aza applied challenge? our position is it's not is there another way to look at this? they're going to argue at the same time that is integral to criminal conduct, but it's the speech that's being punished that is the criminal conduct. if it's not the criminal conduct, there would never be an indictment for the rico against president trump or any of these other coulombs hey, out the political speech, no criminal charges, political speech disagreed with basis for all charges >> i think that >> it's the best way for me to sum up or our positions >> thank you, mr. sadow honest record or mr. floyd, if there

are any points that you wanted to address or respond to eyeball start. i'll maybe i'll start you off with this and it certainly seems that the primary case driving, mr. sato's argument would be alvarez and, you know, because that's a fractured kind of plurality opinion. i'm wondering if if you have any thoughts on just how much that can drive this. and another state back in december was also citing alvarez is primary case. i wonder if that's even the best one. well, for your arguments, i think >> to address the first, i think elephant in this courtroom, is that a judge chutkan in dc has evaluated all of these arguments under supreme court press up already so i would refer, your honor, to the courts analysis because i'm hardly going to improve upon the findings of the federal judge. however speaking with specifically to alvarez, that it is a plurality opinion with a several different concurring several different

opinions written by other justices what they all agree on though, is that alvarez doesn't change the law that speech integral to criminal conduct is not protected under the first amendment. that that's not what alvarez was about. it was about punishing falsity for its own sake. so the question is, is that what the state is doing here and by fundamentally rewriting the indictment the defendant is suggesting today that that is somehow what the state is doing when actually what the state is saying is that these statements made by the defendant were all employed as part of criminal activity various conspiracies, frauds intentions with deceit and violations of the law. it's not just that they were false it's not that the defendant has been hauled into a courtroom because the prosecution doesn't like what he said. he is free to say to say to make statements. and to file a lawsuits and to make other legitimate protests. what

he is not allowed to do is employ his speech and his expression and his statements as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate georgia's rico statute to impersonate public officers to file false documents and to make false statements to the government. that's what he is alleged to do. it's never he's not charged under 161020 because he told some lies although it is very interesting to hear counsel for mr. trump tell us about the usefulness of lies he's not being prosecuted for lying, he's been prosecuted for lying to the government. a stay an act which is illegal because it does harm it to the government that's the reason that it's illegal. that's why it's different from the statute evaluated and alvarez same thing with filing a false document. it's not just that you made a false statement. let's that you swore to it in a court document and submitted it to the court. that does harm to the judicial system. that's obviously different from just falsity being punished for for its own sake. and that is what

each and every charge in the indictment demonstrates. is that these statements are part of criminal conduct that is larger than just the false statement on its own especially with the rico charge, where what we see is that this is a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various criminal activities including but not limited to false statements and writings and personally public officer forgery filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass and on and on and on. what the defendant is suggesting. two, your honor, is it's trying to get around the fact that because it's almost saying that because these statements are false that these charges should be dismissed it's like, well, you can't punish falsity on its own and yet each time you look at the charge, the government saying the state is saying that he lied. so that must be the end of the inquiry. but that's not the end of the inquiry at all. that's not what the indictment says. it's not just that he lied over and over and over again as counsel for

the defendant points out by listing all of the instances in the indictment, is that each of those was employed as part of criminal activity with criminal intentions. and we finally get to a place where it's where i knew we would end up, with just saying, i believe, your honor, was requested to think about it as not as lice, but as legitimate concern about election issues well, that sounds like a trial argument to me, but this is why i began by talking about intent with your honor, because i knew we were going to end up in this exact place. it's very said. >> sure. you can look at them as lies because they weren't true or you could think this is just well-intentioned concerns from an american citizens speaking his mind and that of course, would probably be a pretty good argument to put before a jury and i expect we will see it, but it's not a basis for dismissing the indictment. the whole question of intent is no doubt going to be brought up. it can only be determined by a jury.

>> but >> what we have heard here today is an attempt to rewrite the indictment to take out the parts that are inconvenient and only say, well, it's all speech. it's all talking. and he was just a guy asking questions and not someone when who was part of an overarching criminal conspiracy trying to overturn election results for an election he did not win by violating the rico statute by making false statements to the government, by filing false documents by impersonating officers, and doing a whole host of other activity which is harmful in addition to the falsity of the statements employed to make them happen so i think there's been a suggestion that, your honor, can reframe what you're looking at. but alvarez does nothing to shift the basis that the court should stand upon when evaluating the indictment. and that is to say is this is the speech being punished solely because it's false, solely because of its viewpoint poor is it's fishes being

demonstrated as integral to a pattern of criminal activity and finally, the fact that it speaks to political concerns or core political speech. and this is something that the court in dc thoroughly addressed, does not change the fact that it can be employed as part of criminal conduct the mere fact that you're talking about issues of public concern or core core political speech, which may be completely fine and protected in certain, in most contexts, does not mean that you cannot be indicted if you use that kind of speech to pursue illegal activities that's the whole nature of the question. so it's very circular and i would direct, your honor, to page six to seven of the posterior and brief, filed by defendant trump, which says this feature integral of criminal conduct exception of the first amendment does not apply here because all the charge conduct constitutes first amendment protected speech that is a very neat circle the first amendment protects us because all this speech is protected by the first amendment and the in the

end, no matter how much we hear about the obviously the noble protections afforded by the first amendment. all of this is an effort to get your honor, not to look at the basic fact that this speech, this expression, all this activity is employed as part of a pattern of criminal conduct and a host of ways and because your honor, is bound by the indictment and has to look at the indictment and can't look beyond it. if we're going to get into this at this stage then there's nowhere to go. as i said at the beginning, because this is all alleged as part of a pattern of criminal conduct and not protected by the first amendment. any argument to the other. otherwise, it's just to try to pretend like that's not true. >> all right. thank you, mr. wade, feel thank you, your honor >> mad >> one point briefly >> sure. >> wait a second. would mean doubled up on here. >> this is not a trial. i think you can handle that, mr. sadow

>> and it is i'm just going to be on one specific point not duplicate the argument made before i believe defendant trump fundamentally misunderstands the role of an overt act in a conspiracy case. as we've discussed many times previously, this is a rico conspiracy case. and we heard mr. sadow discuss various overt acts and say, well, but this is just a tweet. this is just a phone call. this is just acts. the unspoken underlying an incorrect premise then is that every overdamped must be a crack. as we've discussed, a number of times. and as the status at fourth extensively in multiple briefs? that's not true. the purpose of an overt act is to show that the conspiracy is an operation it is not a separate crime. it doesn't have to satisfy the elements. it doesn't have to be pled with that level of details, your honor. acknowledged. and in order i think that's all of two weeks old so to say we can't mention this particular act or this

particular conduct because it's not a crime or it's protected by the first amendment. the answer to that is actually, so what because it could be for it could be illegal conduct, it could be first amendment protected conduct that also shows there's a conspiracy in operation and that's as long as it serves that purpose, it's fine and so overt acts should not be examined by a standard that has no application to them. they are not separate freestanding offenses and there is federal case law that you need be. we can cite it too, is said and overt act can involve first amendment activity. its purpose is not to be something that is separately charged here, separately subject to a separate sentence. it's purpose is to show that there is a conspiracy and it's an operation georgia requires federico because one over docked by anyone defendant. >> so of >> course, the rico would stand if anything, any the 161 over

it acts alleged constituted an overt act. it would only take one it doesn't take any by mr. trump but the point is, we have an abundance of them by mr. trump and for purposes of the rico statute in the manner in which it functions, it doesn't matter whether that's first amendment conduct are not. i mean, we've my colleague is fully explained why much of this conduct is not shielded under any circumstance by the first amendment. and i don't mean to contradict that in any respect but it's important not to lose sight of the function, the overt act plays the role it plays in a conspiracy case. here, because it is not the role of being suggested by defendant trump >> all right. thank you, mr. floyd. armistead. i'll give you a couple of minutes. final word. >> thank you, sir >> if i heard mr. floyd just said that if everything president trump said was

assumed true included in the rico indictment therefore, now we're talking about true political speech, not alleged false. >> he could still be >> prosecuted for the violation of rico after the overt acts as alleged. let's say even the overt acts ran afoul of the first amendment, saying that wouldn't be fatal to count one. >> because at that point, if if they if there could be some other thing, they prove this not alleged as an overnight act okay that may as i understand it as i understood it as well >> but what >> i'm suggesting is if all of the overt acts or nothing more than court speech or expressive conduct. and nothing else is alleged, which is not pretty detected by the first amendment. then you have an insufficient basis for which he has been indicted because he's

being indicted for first amendment speech and not four unprotected speech and therefore, statement that was made about if it were true, we could still use it as an overt act suggests that they can pass a true speech, which is what we're trying to get to here. it's the nature of the speech that political speech, the heightened value of such, which gets this situation different than others. and the fact that it comes from then president of the united states going back to what was said in addition by the state what the st. claims is criminal here is lying to the government that for the set that's the exact reason why in several of the supreme court cases, it's been found to be protected speech because it deals with the government and falsity in incense of communication with our two the government is best dealt with

through truth, speech, not through prosecutions in because prosecutions chill speech. and when it comes to political course speech, what you don't want is chilled i use fortunately, i have a co-counsel that is able to pull things up and helped me inform the court told the computer shuts down in looking at what haley says just to give you an idea of how the georgia court, the supreme court might look at this. there's a quote from haley and it says while there is no constitutional value and false statements of fact to turaani, a statement are nevertheless inevitable in free debate and punishment of the error runs the risk of inducing a cautious and restrictive exercise of the constitutionall y guaranteed freedom of speech and press. accordingly, the first amendment requires that we protect some false hood in order to protect speech that

matters. and i think that's what we're talking about here. to end this. and again, we're focusing on president trump's conduct that at the time that he in fact is the head of the executive branch there is references to this in brown v. heartland. did i cited that earlier? >> a well-publicized, >> yet bogus complaint on election iv raises the concerns that is raises the concerns that you may have some impact that would affect an election >> but >> the preferred first amendment remedy of more speech, not enforced silence, has special force underlying our dependence upon more speech is the presupposition. the right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a

multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. too many visitors and always will be folly. but we have staked upon it all that and for speech concerning public affairs is more than self oppression, expression. it is the essence of self-government and that comes from garrison, be louisiana, which decided also an alvarez bottom line here it is. >> but four >> protected first amendment speech president trump would not be charged in rico or the other counts. take out the protected speech and you don't have an underlying basis for which to charge him and since that violates the constitution, as applied to the charges here, and his speech here and his position here this is ripe for a constitutional challenge. one step further. if it's not ripe, mao and we get into intent. when does the court determined that do you determine that after we have a trial going to

be the directed verdict stage wouldn't you can see of evidence all inferences in favor. that's a whole question. i mean, do we go through the whole trial? god forbid, there should be a conviction and then we go back to trying to determine as applied i'm suggesting the reason it's ripe now in the reason why we don't even get to a trial is because it's unconstitutional. the force and accused b. at the president of united state former president or anyone else to stand trial on protected speech. and i think that's what alvarez and the progeny previous to that. and after say all right. >> thank you, ms santa all right. >> mr. galen, janina, minute before we dive into can we get started okay so >> just ten this one up i know there's a good bit >> your we have been listening to oral arguments before the

judge in this hearing today. that's trying to lay out reasons that he that the trump team and another defendant believed that this should be dismissed on first amendment grounds. i want to go to our panel here. who is champing at the bit to weigh in. there's a lot to unpack here and what we have seen, the primary point of course being if they leave at the first amendment, the trump counsel believes the first amendment and protected speech should not, should not be overturned or not be undermined by the indictments go to elie honig first, le tell me what you are seeing here and hearing through these arguments today. >> so laura, the core argument he meant that we just heard from donald trump's lawyers. is that everything he's being prosecuted for here is protected first amendment political speech. and you heard the lawyer argued that even if the speech is false, even if it's unpopular, it's still protected. now the response from the prosecutors, from the da's here is that no, he crossed the line to where his speech became part of the charged criminal acts. now, there's a sort of separate

dispute here about whether the court has to accept the indictments as the allegations as they are in the indictment. donald trump's team says, why did we just have to take it as a given that this was illegal because that's what it says in the indictment. don't we get to contest that and laura, that lead to the sort of the last point that we heard there, which is the question of when does this first amendment issue get decided? and you heard the judge sort of say, well, why isn't the way we decide this as we put it in front of the jury and we let the jury decided trial. donald trump's lawyer objected to that. he said, no, we'd like you to throw it out now, why go through with the whole exercise of a trial? if this indictment ultimately is going to know good, really important. one other thing to note, laura this same argument was made by donald trump in his federal case in washington, dc relating to election subversion and the federal judge there and you heard reference to this judge chutkan. she rejected that first amendment argument. she said, no, i find this is not protected speech crossed the line into criminality and we'll leave it for the jury so

trump's team is fighting an uphill battle here, legally, but the judge is willing to hear them out. >> they are fighting. i want to go to our table as well. wasn't just the judge chutkan said she rejected that. she was saying, look, if it turns out that you cannot prove it was a false statement or knowing false statement, then he hasn't been convicted it doesn't mean the indictment itself is problematic. sorry, let me go to you here. you've been covering this story relates since the beginning of it. all. >> you're hearing arguments being made that suggests that all of this was just political speech. it's what's done, sarah and everyone else is naive if you think this has not how the game is played. >> yeah, i mean, i think you here, steve sadow, trump's attorney. there's saying, look, these are tweets, these are phone calls and even if he is providing false statements, even if he's making false statements, that the way to handle this is to rebut them with truthful statements, not to prosecute the former president for the way he made these false statements. and i do think it was telling that we saw donald wake for one of the prosecutors on the da's team come up and say, this is not just about donald trump showing up going in front of america and lying. that's not what

this is. this is about making sworn statements that you knew were false in documents and submitting those. so the government, this is about using those lies in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, in furtherance of a scheme that violates georgia's rico law again, we sound another one of the prosecutors stand up and point out that not every one of these things that he did has to be a crime in and of itself. that's the way georgia's law works. the phone call itself doesn't have to be a crime. the tweet itself doesn't have to be a crime. it's about how this all builds together to the broader racketeering conspiracy here so again, i do think that is an uphill battle will see them. >> well, we'll see, i mean, certainly it's uphill when you have them only talking in legal terms i made that quarter words are fine. >> why the $10 deaf lawyers take note anyways, kristen, when you're looking at this politically, he's saying and that's been his party line the entire time this is just me talking looking in my campaigning. what am i to do? i'm campaigning person. i believe the laws had been violated by not saying that i

won. so all i'm doing, >> that, he continues to do that today. i mean, this wasn't just in 2020. this is his entire line of argument all the time, but i will say this you i'm talking to donald trump's team. this isn't an argument that they're banking on. they are not expecting this 100% to work. this is as they continue to remind me that they are paying lawyers in all of these cases, a lot of money and they should be exhausting every single avenue and spending as much time as they possibly can to draw this out. and if they aren't, then they aren't doing their job. and remember the main tactic here as we have said, over and over over and over again, is to delay this beyond the november election and that is the point of why they continue to file separate motions. all of these pretrial hearings, you're not going to see it stop because what they're trying to do is push. we heard fani willis saying she still wants that august court date. they are trying to push b. on november paul, i woke up with what do you think in terms of the main takeaways here you've been covering this from all angles and their whole tactic is delay. in this case, dismiss and there's a long game here, right? because the

delay game could run out at some point. so i'm told they are playing the long game even if this won't win, of course, they're going to file every actionable item on behalf of their client as they should. they also have to file some of these things so they don't waive them on appeal and their strategy for appeal as they hope that over the course of if there is a trial, the trial in this entire case, lucky enough mistakes that add up that they can perhaps get this tossed sort of death by 1,000 cuts. so they're playing the long game really quick, paula, at tell me this. who is schaefer remind the audience because this is attorney getting rate. it's okay we're about to actually go to the hearing. quick answer about who he is. >> he's one of the alleged fake electors >> this here is bathroom was filed. it talks about how other other case lie in georgia when it talks about, first of all, 161023 doesn't define public officer should we started from that that so we've got that out there. doesn't not defining the public officer now, but

there's still pleading does say that the issue of what who is and is not a public officer is addressed in other in other contexts in georgia law, usually in a quote marital proceedings where somebody's trying to find out the legitimacy of somebody having are holding a particular office. and that context there are cases citing and in the still pleading that address this very matter. they cite brown v. scott and as a case in which the brown v. scott case whether or not an individual has designation or title given to him. my law, we're exercises functions concerning the public assigned to him by the law. they cite brown that doesn't the inquiry doesn't really end. there the george supreme court has termed noted the term public officer

involves the idea of tenure duration fees. a monuments, and powers, as well as that of duty and so that's duffy v percussing and that has to do really with grand jurors. so when someone says oil is a grand juror, a public officer, and the court breaks down analysis talking about that, saying not really, because grand jury grow grand jurors may only need for a few days they're not they're not essentially they're not there for some sort of duration or tenure. they don't take the same oath of office is prescribed for public officer and they well, lack the element of tenure and duration which must exist to qualify as a public officer >> well, so how would that apply? again, to like a purely fictional task force?

>> well, i mean, do little, let's get to a purely fictional task force. it would. >> let's >> have it >> that kid that the case law from the supreme court how it applies to our case and how it applies to our cases the presidential electors are not people who have lengthy tenure duration, which it must exist. frankly, their job is to meet for one day >> i see your, your framework there, but if the framework is actually in this whereas the metro atlanta human, human trafficking course, it doesn't even exist. >> well, it doesn't. someone is for his handling the been you're showman is pretending to be an agent >> maybe there are part-time. >> i mean, it just it seems like well we might agree to disagree here because i think that when you're when when someone says, well, i'm here with my bad job and i'm i'm a an agent of enforcement of the law four and then names a particular entity that doesn't even exist there pretending to be a peace officer. they're

pretending to be an agent for the government, which by the very nature of that job would have tenure, would have responsibilities, would fall into the definition that the supreme court has given in brown v. scott and mcafee v. pearson as to what a public officer should be? and so in that context we have we have same thing actually popped up again on the issue of morrisey peter's. another case supreme court case dealing with whether or not someone who's a public officer that had to do with quo oren to against the chairman of the georgia democratic party. and whether or not he would fall in as a public officer bottom lining it like in that case, and which found that he

was not like the grid like grand jurors and public official, party officials presidential electors are not public officials under georgia law especially for purpose reserves are 161023 >> there >> jobs services are temporary, like the grand juries. they, they rent position really only arises once every four years is limited to a single meeting on a single day. so it lacks that element of ten and your in duration which must exist. so it's it's kind of like back to the political case, morris phi peters case, which cell with a state party political chairman nominated in accordance with the rules? their party. but just because the fact that they were nominated by the rules that are

party doesn't make them a public official so like grand jurors, presidential electors don't receive, they're not receiving their salaries for those servers. so all of that your honor, tells us that that the this particular count is flawed for the very purpose of these these electoral wars cannot be under georgia law public officers and so we although we agree with the courts initial position regarding regarding the limitation on the definition of public officer in our pleading. could all time beaver and the still pleading has come forward to rescue us on that point so if you if you look at what they did and hopefully tom will do a better job of articulating those points in their pleading. they talk about specifically

some other cases that get into other texas and i think utah as well that deal with more specifically with this. but for the purposes of argument today, i think that we've got the drift on on what i think i is happening on the impersonation of public causer that or not public officers. and clearly under the direction we believe of the supreme court, they could not be so judged now again, i'm not going to spend a whole lot of time up here where the cord but i do want to touch on a few of the other components of our of are pleading. the forgery counts. now, we indicated in those counts ten and are sufficient to dismissal writing a check and a fictitious name or manner that the writing has made or

altered proportion have been made by another person. that's the definition 1610. we have. what we have here in this indictment is we have an assertion that a riding or rather than a check in a manner that the writing has made purports to be made by authority of the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the state of georgia, who did not give such authority. now that's what they allege. let's break that down as to why and the state's response. two us and saying would they want to focus on the down the phrase under the authority and what we have here is the concept of what is what is the authority, who is, who is this >> on october the >> 14th who was the duly excuse

me, the the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the state of georgia who did not give such authority on december the 14th, 2020, about the answer to that is that as it is a matter of law simply as a matter of law and were now we're going back. your honor, to some of the arguments we've made with the court earlier on the issue of supremacy clause were worthy of at least highlighting some of those points to the court for the purpose of making our point here. and that is this that be under the law, the federal law i, as it existed in 2020 when the state of georgia failed failed to comply with federal law about having an

adjudication of any pending, controversial, or litigation and as we know in the public record in this court, house, was the pending an unresolved trump and schaefer litigation on the election now, because that lawsuit was not adjudicated pursuant to federal law, then the state of georgia lost its ability onj, after safe harbor day lost his ability to then name who the electors should be. and as we discussed earlier, and i'll shorten the argument of say, a purpose of the record. i'll just make the following points. once that happens. and it's very, very clear from from, from federal law and from the the, the language from bush vigour the state any sensing opinion in bush? before yeah, it true >> but it

>> but as it points, there, it's like it's not that they see there's not even a seated a serious issue because the clear reading of the statue would say, if you don't get it done by safe harbor day then you have lost out and once that happens, the power than shifts back to the congress so as of bylaw, we think not, not, not a factual issue. bylaw on december the 14th 2020, there were no there were no duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the set from, from the state of georgia. because of that failure >> and so understand your point, and i don't want to get too deep into it, but since we're in demurrer world here when you're allegation of whether a lawsuit was filed, whether it was pending, none of that's an indictment. doesn't that transform this into a speaking number? >> well, we we we don't think so in the reason why we do we

don't the last the last time, i think we quoted the court through the core good. take a notice of the pleadings within the court system. >> and i believe we have been listening to this or this hearing important county in the trump georgia election case, recall that there are at least two defendants now who are asking this case to be dismissed on first amendment grounds, saying that there's all protected political speech. and therefore, the allegations made in the indictments are not enough to change that calculus. we're hearing from one of the attorneys, mr. gillen, who was counsel for a man by the name of schaefer, who is one who has been alleged to be a fake elector in the overall scheme. one of now 14 remaining defendants in this actually, after several have already pleaded guilty, we're bringing sara money sara money talking to you are money when it comes sara marie and we're talking about this issue remind everyone who this david shafer is, and the fake elector scheme that's so part of this rico, right. so david shafer was the former chairman of the

republican party of georgia. and of course, we saw this effort in several battleground states for the trump team to organize their own republican allies during the idea was we're going to put forth these alternate slates of electors, fake slates of electors in states that joe biden, one and we're going to use these to contest the results of the election on january 6th that eventually be able to overturn the election that was sort of the thinking behind the scheme. now, in georgia, they put forth this fake slate of electors david shape before it was one of them. but he also played a role in helping to organize the other folks who served as fake electors. he's alleged to reserve the room or the fake electors met ended their whole ceremonial signing of this document saying that we're the republican electors for the state of georgia, again, a state that joe biden, one now his attorneys are here in court arguing a couple of things because they're taking issue with the way he's described as a fake elector in the indictment, essentially saying that the indictment shouldn't allege that it was a fake elector or that that activity was illegal. they're also saying he has an advice of

counsel defense because all of these actions that he took essentially, we're under some kind of legal representation saying these are okay steps for you to take. we've heard this argument from a number of folks who served as fake electors and state of interestingly enough, when one is making a advice of counsel claim, paula, it's important to note that there have been a number of attorneys who have been implicated if not disciplined, or even indicted in different respect to talking about the likes of john eastman, who is just recommend for disbarment? yes. today you've gotten sidney powell can chesebro, rudy giuliani, jenna ellis, just to name a few, by the way. >> and that's that's a lot of lawyers. i mean, when you consider a criminal case to have retain their bar licenses because many of them are facing disciplinary proceedings. so it has been interesting to see the role of lawyers before president trump and for the campaigns being charged so

broadly in this investigation. >> and of course, you know, that ellie here because the idea that you are a lawyer does not somehow inoculate you from criminal activity if you weren't yourself engaged in criminal activity, that goes from the privileges as well. i want to bring you in here. elie honig, because i want people to really understand as well the fake electors who is being alleged here, mr. schafer. what is the significance of him in the overarching ability to prove a case for rico. >> so he is alleged in the indictment to really be sort of the mastermind or at least the overseer of the georgia effort to submit this false slate of electors. and what his attorneys arguing here really is two things. first of all, he's arguing there's nothing criminal about this effort to put forward this slate of as the defendants called, an alternate electors as the prosecutors call them, fake electors. and that's an argument that's been made before, has been rejected before, and i think we'll probably be rejected here at a minimum. i think the judge is likely to say, well, that's for the jury. and then second

argument and ceremony was just talking about this is what we call advice of counsel. now, we will hear this throughout the trump cases where a defendant can say i did that because an attorney of mine told me it was okay. now, it's not quite that easy. first of all, the advice itself can't be ridiculous. it can't be something that the client actually knew or should have known was illegal. and the other thing is anyone who argues attorney-client privilege who says advice of counsel defense who says i did this because my attorney blessed it. when you make that argument, you give up your attorney-client privilege. so all those otherwise secret, confidential communications it's between the attorney and the client. they will all come out if mr. schafer or any one else actually makes that defense at trial really important point. i want to bring you a kristen holmes because there's so much of an elephant in the room. there is an election in 222 days this is hoping if you're fani willis to go to trial in august and yet the politics of this is inescapable >> and actually when we're talking about david's favor, he's really good example of

what's happened to the republican party across the country. i mean, he was the chairman of the georgia republican party. georgia is going to be a critical state in 2024. biden won by such a small margin as we know, donald trump obviously asking for those 11,000 votes that biden won by and that's part of what's on trial here. >> but the >> parties now across the country, particularly these swing states, particularly in these states in which donald trump's attorneys at the time, were trying to create these slates of alternate are fake electors. >> day still haven't really recovered. and that's going to be a huge uphill battle for donald trump when he's running in 2024 against joe biden. and what is expected to be a very close election because you have some of these people who are still charged, who still are facing trial, who've actually fractured the republican party, which is not what you want going into a general election. >> as kristen and i reported so many times are the strategy here is to delay. so i want to note here the case is at least moving forward even while they appeal that disqualification decision, the judges hearing motions, fani willis has said

in recent days that she's continuing to prepare. i don't think it's realistic that this case is going to start in august, but even the fact that this can take case continues to move that is significant in the wake of this delay strategy, we'll see how quickly it moved to the judge rules today or takes it under advisement at the end of these hearings today, stay with us. we've gotten much more discussed, including trump's attorneys argument to get the case thrown out on first amendment grounds are special covers continues after this short break if you work in spaceflight, this is the worst possible thing i can ever help my dad died doing what he loved space shuttle columbia, he final flight >> from your sunday, april 7 at nine on cnn only united health medicare advantage plans come with a eukaryotes one simple member card that opens doors for what matters. >> what do they need? see a dr. wafer ball. >> we got you with medicare advantage is largest national provider network only from unitedhealthcare >> the omaha steaks semiannual

sale is back right now. you'll say 50% sitewide on america's best steaks, chicken burgers. and so much more >> all back by are 100% guarantee that you'll love every byte. and for limited time, when you go to omaha steaks slash tv, you'll get 12 omaha steaks, burgers free with your order hamas stakes.com slash tv today and say big on the quality you deserve >> when i think about purpose, i don't know if st. jude donors realize the magnitude of what they're doing? their donations are funding the research. the research is allowing the treatments to happen. and those treatments provided i'd cares and the cures are allowing patients to get to grow up and live amazing lives >> all around the world hey you with the small business

>> you've got all kinds of bright ideas that your customers need to know about constant contact makes it easy with everything from managing your social posts and events to email and sms marketing >> constant >> contact delivers all the tools you need to help your >> rewards, once available to the view, are now accessible to the many credit one bank get cash awards. and liz large from pub in their step to shine in their coats. and people switch their dogs food, the farmers dog, the effects can seem like magic but there's no magic involved >> it's just smarter, healthier pet food. >> it's amazing what >> real food, can do >> my late father-in-law lit up

a room, but his vision dimmed with age. he had amd. i didn't know it then, but it can progress to ga in advanced form of the disease. his struggle with vision loss from amd made me want to help you see warning signs of ga like hese are blurred vision. so it's hard to see fine details, colors that. appeared dull or washed out or trouble with low light, that makes driving at night or real challenge >> if you think you have ga don't wait, treatments are available. asco retina specialist about fda approved treatment for ga and go to ga won't wait.com >> consumer >> cellular. this is sam palmy, healthier >> this is a button. >> well, somebody's but just thought i'd let you know that would consumer cellular, you can get this same exact coverage as the leading carriers. but for up to half the price >> okay. ready to washington

>> one second. i gotta finish my laundry >> yes. it's gross night. one second. i use rinse. >> was rinse to the company that will pick up wash hold and olivia laundry, dry cleaning at the touch of a i do not trust other people with my laundry rinse guarantees or satisfaction. >> i've been using it for months now with no issues okay let's watch this weight. >> i'm going to do my laundry, better hurry done. i'll schedule sign up for rinsing rinse.com to get $20 off your first order. >> the future is not just going to happen, you have to make it. and if you want a successful business, all it takes is an idea and now becomes a future where you, a dream into a reality the all new godaddy arrow put your business online in minutes with the power of ai. >> it's better outside with ninja, kick out some better with master grills the char barbecue smoke in the air for weekends are better with life cpu coolers that keep ice with dates average temperature drawers for dry foods, because everything is better without saudi sandwiches. it's better outside with ninja. >> i saw already of the white

house. >> and this is cnn >> we're back and following along with this hearing taking place in fulton county over a request to have the case dismissed smith with respect to at least two defendants over first amendment grounds. let's bring in and cnn's katelyn paul land detained and legal analysts michael moore what do you guys hearing up from what your take is some all that's being done laura, what we're hearing today is a major moment in this case. it's the type of moment that happens in every criminal case where your judges have to look at the defendants arguments to dismiss the case. donald trump's argument here is that what he was saying was speech >> and it should not have been anything that should be criminalized in georgia. now, the judge is going to have to determine are false statements that donald trump was making about the election to his supporters in tweets. is that something that can form this case? the spirit see charges, the racketeering charges

against him, even false statement charges that he's facing. >> but on top of that, >> we're starting to see what's taking shape appear, which is going to be the question for the jury about intent. there is an argument being made that the jurors are going to have to determine that these false statements may need to be something that they look at. >> what's >> donald trump's intent was he just saying things that were false? is that criminal? and there has been that president patient to the judge. if donald trump's team doesn't win at this stage, that is something that the jury is going to have to be >> that's right. i mean, i think you've heard some arguments, some places you back from the state that this is really not about lying, these not being charged with just telling lies. he's being charged with telling lies. it's in furtherance of some criminal activity so that takes you to the intent question. was this why he was doing it? is this was this the purpose behind it? is this part of the effort that conspiracy to either cover up or to expand rico enterprise. and so those

are things. typically they come out at trial the first amendment arguments are unique. i did take a little interest to hear the prosecutor say, well sub judge, someone real has already ruled only as well, we haven't had dual sovereigns in this country, and that is that there's a state court at federal court, and the judge does not have to be bound come by that federal judge that he has to be bound by the supreme court, obviously, but not but not here. so it'll bit interesting instance tape, see how it goes. >> yeah, and you're also seeing how this case is a little bit different from the case in federal court in dc about january 6, where they've been very keen in the cases that the federal special counsel has charged trump to try and paint that picture of what he knew and that he knew that there was a there was something that was false and the intention to mislead people and to have this lead people in the wrong direction. his supporters in this case, what his attorneys, steve sadow said in court today was there's nothing alleged here except the false statements. there's nothing

there's no other evidence to be presented. so we're going to have to watch to see how the prosecutor is actually present the case in court. because the facts are very similar, but what ends up going to trial may be a different thing entirely as far as what they're putting forward to jury mishra this is so important and katelyn polantz, michael moore, we're gonna get you to follow along. our coverage is going to continue right after a very short break >> this is the big game >> that do realtor dot com's real view maps show you precise wildfire, flood, and noise ratings on every homeless. they don't all have to do that. >> not really. trust the number one app real estate professionals trust, download the realtor.com app today

>> zyrtec allergy relief works fast and last a full 24 hours, so they can bva deliverer, dance? >> okay. dave, let's be more than our allergies >> seize the >> day with zyrtec >> whether you do it so get yourself for hiring the pro today. let's paint maybe pair exclusively at the home depot >> we're building a better postal service all parts working in sync to move your business forward. with the streamlines shipping network, and new high-speed processing and delivery centers for more value more of a liability and more on-time deliveries. the united states postal service is built for how you business and how you business is with simple, affordable, and reliable shipping. usps ground advantage.

>> did you know there's no t in skechers? >> what he's talking about he has always been scheduled these sketches slippery get to slip in are who isn't usually romo. things always in sketches. >> if you lived or worked at camp plus you north carolina for released 30 days from august 1953 through december 1987, and have been diagnosed with cancer, neural behavioral effects, fertility issues, or more you may qualify for financial compensation. a new law passed by congress now allows veterans and survivors to seek damages for a harm from exposure to contaminated water at campbell zhun coal settle rock legal group to discuss your case now call 1808149977 not flossing. well, then add the wo of listerine to your routine. new science shows. listerine is five times more effective than plus ev reducing plaque above the gum line for a cleaner, healthier mouth this story field, the wo you always

got your mind on the green >> next, you you, your business bank account with quickbooks money now, weren't 5% apy that's how you, business differently >> intuit quickbooks >> why always the couch? >> does he >> need to get a puppy school get his little puppet diploma how much ever been spending other stuff. and i when your questions about life turn into questions about money, there's erica, the virtual financial assistant to help you spend save, and plan smarter. only from bank of america what would you like the power to do with fast sides signage that gets you noticed in terms hot lots into homes morikawa on 18. he is really boxed in here. -not a good spot.

off the comcast business van. into the vending area. oh, not the fries! where's the ball? -anybody see it? oh wait, there it is! -back into play and... aw no, it's in the water. wait a minute... are you kidding me? you got to be kidding me. rolling towards the cup, and it's in the hole! what an impossible shot brought to you by comcast business. here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. or visit coventry direct.com

carbon, a cnn fill april 21 at nine >> we are back and following along with this, tearing out of fulton county where trump at another defendant are arguing for this entire case to be dismissed on first amendment grounds. they are saying that it's all public police, political i knew i had to talk today. political protected speech. and what's going on now is you're hearing from one of the councils for mr. schafer, who is accused of being a false elector this whole thing revolves on whether the court is going to allow the case to be dismissed or to go forward finally, wells, of course, wants it to actually happen in august it's unlikely, but that's her request. >> let's go to >> elie honig for a moment here because you've heard a lot be made about the sort of dual sovereignty, a fancy way of saying, look, who has to stay in their lane? fulton county and follow their own court cases or what's happening in other cases. and there are many i want to turn your attention for a second elleithee, what judge chutkan has had to say about a similar argument being made around the first amendment, specifically, she

said that this has to go essentially to trial. let's bring up that shot of what she had to say while defendant and challenges at allegation in his motion and may do so at trial. his claim that his belief was reasonable does not implicate the first amendment. if the government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that of course defendant knowingly made false statements. he will not be convicted. that would not mean the indictment violated the first amendment so it tracks in different case, elie, the similar argument about whether they should go before a jury or not. what do you think you're laura? so i think we may see a very similar ruling from from this judge here who's in state court in georgia. and yes, the federal courts in the state courts are separate and know this judges not bound by what judge chutkan found but i do think he's likely to adopt a similar analysis. and laura, what we've been seeing here today is really important because i think it's going to be a preview of what we see when this case and the other cases go to trial. they're going to be arguing to the jury this first amendment issue.

we're going to see donald trump and perhaps other defendants argue that what we were saying was political the gold speech, even if it was unpopular, even if it was ultimately untrue. when we claim that the election was stolen, it's protected under the first amendment. what we will hear in response from prosecutors here and in the federal case is know your speech crossed the line, not all speech is protected. speech can be a crime in itself, and speech can be he used to further a crime. and the allegation here is your speech. yes, it was false, but that's not why we're prosecuting you were prosecuting you because your speech was part of an overarching scheme, a conspiracy to try to steal the election. so what we've been seeing here today i think is a microcosm in a preview of what we'll see at trial it's important point my panel was back with me as well. paula, i mean, for many people who are trying to unpack all the different cases, they may be thing i've heard this before, but which case was that? which case is they're seven? and then this happening. right. and so this is all connect. you can't look at this in a vacuum. >> certainly not. and i think the big question is, okay.

well, any of these cases go before the election. that's the first question. and as of right now, i cannot say with certainty that any of the four criminal cases against former president trump will go before the election, right now. we do have a firm date on the calendar for the new york so-called hush money or 2016 election interference case that is scheduled to start on april 15, but i'll point out it was originally scheduled to start on monday it. was delayed the january 6 federal case is currently on hold until the supreme court weighs in on this question of immunity. we are still waiting for judge aileen cannon to let us know when she is going to put the classified documents case on the calendar. it was in late may. we were at a hearing several weeks ago where she heard arguments from both sides about how far to delay that. you're still waiting bidding for an answer there. and then the outlier is georgia fani willis, as you've noted, repeatedly said she wants to bring this in august, that just does not seem realistic and it's unclear if this will go before the election. and the reason the election is so key is because if trump is reelected, that's two federal cases you can make them go away and it would make it very complicated to proceed

with the state cases. it with one of the defendants was of course, in the white house smith, sarah, this is almost as was scripted by his attorneys, the very beginning to delay delay, and have the uncertainty 200 days away from the election. >> i think that's right. and i think it also tells you what a loss it is is to the district attorney's office to have lost the last few months in this sort of back-and-forth about district attorney fani willis is personal life because she had a little momentum out of the gate but she had that indictment that she was notching these guilty pleas from these former trump election attorneys, and then it was a huge break in this case to spend months wrangling over her personal life, her relationship with nathan wade, to have this judge decided she could stay on nathan wade had to step down. and so forth. and so i think that we're waiting to see i think from this hearing is its back on track. but what does that mean? is there going to be any discussion of a trial date? are we ever going to hear from this judge about what he has in mind as far as the trial date or do

these trials all sort of become kind of zombie trials as they move past the presidential election. >> there's another layer here, kristen, in the political world because congress once there, take as well so thickly jim jordan, who is saying what about us? i want documents all you to appear. there's a peanut outstanding >> yeah. >> let's not forget the fact that jim jordan as one of trump's most staunch allies on capitol hill. they are in lockstep on everything that they do. so it's not surprising that he would step in here. it should the subpoena to fani willis is office essentially asking for documents related to the use of federal funds. so that's where his jurisdiction would be that were intended to support at risk youth. now, they've had a whole back-and-forth. now, jim jordan said she wasn't responding in time. she could play in. she said she was that it was impossible to get these documents the next day. she also said, which is something that we'll talk about afterwards. she said that nothing you do is going to derail my effort of me and my staff from taking this to trial no matter what happens, we're going to take this to try obviously seeing possibly

through the subpoena that might be intended to further delay this trial. but when they do want to mention that paula brought up, is that hush money case in new york because we talk a lot about how they want to delay, delay, delay. well, there is a little bit of a complication when i'm talking to trump's legal team, when it comes particularly to that case because yes, they do not want this to start on april 15th. they want to delay it, but because they know how long the case is likely to be, there is some complication coming up against the convention, which is in july. so how do they delay the case but not delay it long enough or not delay it so that he's actually in court during the convention, something that they are thinking about that could cause a lot of problems for him down the road. so it is interesting that they're trying to still yes. completely they've not wanna go to court. they wanted to lay this, but there are other factors here now that they are concerned about this game of chicken elie, i want to bring you back i can too because, you know, in a criminal case, he's got to actually sit there in new york. you guys said for criminal cases, he may be walking towards his presidential run, right? as opposed to running for president in terms of campaigning. but he's got to

be there. what do you think are the next steps are finding willis in terms of her hope to have this case happen in a trial in august because, you know, there's been other major rico cases that she has done other big defendant cases. those are still either ongoing or took a very long time. >> yeah, laura, i don't think in august start date for a trial here in georgia is remotely realistic or plausible. it takes some, as you said, months to choose a jury in georgia state courts and realistically what this would mean if the da gets her wish here would mean you start jury selection in august and then jury selection plus the trial carry through october, september, october the election itself in november into december, and the de, has even admitted that if it starts in august could carry into 2025. that is just not plausible are feasible, especially given the very important fact that you just mentioned, which is that in a criminal case, the defendant here, donald trump, has to be physically present in the courtroom every day. this is not like the civil trials that we've seen. the e jean

carroll trial, the new york ag is trial. we're trying i'm sort of comes and goes. he's here for a day. he's out for a week. he will be there in the courtroom and therefore, off the campaign trail. and i think everyone prosecutors, judges have to be cognizant and realistic about that and by the way, when you thinking about this, sarah there's also the possibility that if he were to be reelected or >> if even if he's not, there's still an election that would take place. and the underlying facts of the case in georgia, as is the underlying facts in the case in washington dc, revolve around the actions taken to accept the results are not the result of an election >> yeah. i mean, i think that that is why there are so many people who were of course, very uncomfortable with how trump behaved after the last election. who thought it was so important for these cases to move ahead to trial, not just to hold donald trump accountable or try to hold donald trump accountable for his actions, but also to make it very clear about the conduct that we will and won't allow when it comes to presidential elections. i think if anything,

that's in a very murky position right now where you have had this process where donald trump was went through these impeachment proceedings. he is now been convicted four different times, and he's still just barreling ahead to take on joe biden. i think that does give plenty of people zaidi is we hadn't done the next selection, but hearing is actually just adjourned. the judge has left without there being a decision, so it'll be under advised. we don't know the date that he will actually ultimately decide the issue. but now this goes into sort of the court of public opinion. and the politics of it kristen, because while there's this huge fundraising endeavor tonight for president biden with two former democratic presidents you know that trump has been able to fund raise a great deal every time there has been this in the news, in the spotlight well, absolutely. >> they've used this both in campaigns and for fundraising, and it has been successful when we look at those fec filings as campaign filing reports, we do see spikes in his numbers, particularly after those indictments or after court appearances. >> this >> is something he's been able to do. he is very skilled at

being in control of the narrative and the messaging and he has painted this as though he is a victim, the victim of democrats, if victim a political persecution. and he was going to likely do that again, i will say they do feel good about the result of what happened after those two months of back-and-forth over fani willis, despite the fact that you got to stay on the case, they feel as though the ruling from the judge was so scathing to willis that that's something they can use in the court of public opinion use some of the lines from that report to essentially campaign off of it to fundraise off of it. which is interesting just given the fact that they say that the main goal was to get fani willis off the case, but yet they feel like they can still use what they got against her and against this case, the appeal is still ongoing. you've pointed that out is what he's around dual tracks now, yeah, that's exactly right. they are appealing that disqualification decision again, delay, delay, delay. and look, even though fani willis is still on the case, nathan wade did have to step aside. the case remains intact. but in that court of public opinion, which is

arguably even more important, heading into an auction her credibility took a hit here. i mean, she had a romantic relationship with the lead prosecutor. she gave them material to work with when it comes to political attacks. and if this case goes forward, unlikely for the election you can certainly expect those political attacks to be ramped up. but again, this was a forced error on the part of the prosecutor, even though she was not disqualified. and now just the court of public opinion, >> but we're talking about the jury pool here. we're talking about tainting her reputation, her judgment, or decision-making in the eyes of the jury pool. and i think that that is something that could continue to weigh over her and over this let's keep going forward, you remember the jury pool though they these this is an elected official along with this judge. and so you wonder while we're talking about the election of trump and even false electors, you still have that element as well. we will see how all of this plays out in the days to come away thinking to figured out yet another decision as we're in a kind of limbo as it relates to now this georgia case, kristin paula, sarah, and aly. thank you all so much.

>> we >> are also following developments out of that catastrophic baltimore bridge collapse. divers were able to recover the bodies of two victims, but several people, loved ones are still missing the governor, he just addressed this. save a cnn all teams retard >> fluoro, waterfront redemption showdown, like in a brand, but only one will make us flash. >> i think we nailed it >> off the lot all new monday night at nine on hgtv >> you know what's brilliant, boring. think about it. >> boring is the unsung catalyst for bowl what straps mold to a rocket and hurdles and into space, or boring makes vacations happen but early retirements possible and startups start off because it's smart, dependable in steady. >> all >> words you want from your bank for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been illegally boring. so you can be happy to fill

which is pretty and boring if you think about it >> 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 once-daily pill for moderate to severe prac psoriasis and the chance that clear or almost clear skin, it's like the feeling of finding you're so 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 clearer skin than the leading hill 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, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your dr. if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides or had a vaccine or plan to tiktok is a tick to inhibitor tick two as part of the jackpot emily, it's not known as though tiktok it's the same risks as jak inhibitors fine with plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one

of tick two, ask for it by name. so clearly you, so tick two home. >> have you been tracking her car's value with covana? >> just like seven months. she we sell it. we hold >> hold silver vans are going for more right now. should we or low mileage is >> paying off, you think we should depreciations really heating up we just did >> already sold the carbonic go to car ivana, and track your car's value today >> tourist tourists that turn into find tourists photographing thousands of miles modi for all leads that can be analyzed by ai in real time so researchers can identify wish areas all right and help life underwater

flourish cracked windshield, schedule would say flight and will come to you. you're fixing this customer was enjoying her morning walk. we texted her when we were on our way and she could track us and see exactly when we derive a few moments we came to her with service that fit her schedule. he must be nice to meet you. we got right to work with the replacement. she could trust. we come to you >> for free now, for free mobile service at safe flight.com gave me pay are safe flight be placed? >> not all caitlin clark's are the same >> caitlin clark city planner. >> just like not all internet providers are the same >> build settle he went fast, >> get you >> want reliable, give reliable. you want powerful >> yet get real deal speed, reliability, empowered with

xfinity shoots from here, that's kind of my thing >> doug. >> hello >> ghostbusters. it's duck of doggedly moon. we help people customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual >> anyway we got a bit of a situation here >> sure. i can only pay for what you need >> those plus presupposing empire in theaters. now closed. captioning brought to you by mesobook.com are firm only represents mesothelial of victims and their families. if you or a loved one who has been diagnosed with mesothelial oma collis. now welcome back. >> i'm laura coats. now, the situation in baltimore where authorities have gone from a recovery to a salvage operation

after tuesday's key bridge collapse the bodies of two construction workers have been recovered, but for others remain missing and are presumed dead. and bad weather and dangerous underwater conditions are also hampering the search efforts. and we've got new details from the ntsb about its investigation into the disaster. cnn's gabe cohen is in baltimore gabe, what do we know now about the latest me investigation? >> will lower our maryland's governor is at an event right now for the city's baseball team and he just addressed the recovery to recovery ahead. let's take a listen to what he said just a couple minutes ago and then when you look at the size and the enormity of the vessel that that hit the key bridge when you're looking at a vessel of that size and just just yesterday, we are actually out. in fact, i was out with the mayor with senator carden and we he often a coast guard cutter to get a close look. the size of that vessel is enormous

and we are talking about a vessel moving at that speed the difficulty of not just the key bridge of frankly, many bridges around the country being able to take that kind of direct impact is, was, was minimal and so there is and there was going to be true full evaluation. again, not just of that of just all of our key infrastructure that we have all around the state of maryland. this is something that happens consistently around are safe, but but what happened with the key bridge's was an important reminder of the work and the task ahead. >> and now this moves to a salvage operation, even with four of those workers still missing because it's just not safe, official safe for divers to be in that water, given how much? a steel and debris is down there. and so now the focus shifts to getting all of that out. we know that the army corps of engineers, the coast guard, all of them bringing in a lot of equipment, cranes, barges. the plan being to cut up sections of that bridge and

remove it and then official say divers are going back down because they want to find those remaining workers and offer closure to their families. and laura, it's also a very busy day for investigators, federal investigators from the ntsb are going to be speaking to the two pilots of the ship. again, trying to figure out what caused that catastrophic blackout when the ship lost power, lost the ability to steer and ultimately led to that collision with the column on the bridge. questions have been posed to the ntsb as to whether it could have been an issue of contained emanated fuel in the vessel or even an electrical problem. but the ntsb has pushed back on that saying that's what this investigation is all about. we expect some preliminary info on that within the next couple of weeks, but there's investigation could take two years my goodness. gabe cohen. thank you so much for all of your reporting >> coming up >> disgraced cryptocurrency mogul sam bankman-fried. you

may know ms spf. >> he isn't >> according to de for sentence thank what he says, quote him every day. stay with us >> space shuttle on the final slide premieres sunday, april 7 at nine on cnn. >> this looks romantic >> welcome. >> i'm your host checkup hi we believe it goes >> meanwhile, at a verbal when other vacation rentals have no privacy, try one that has no one, but you as a cardiologist, when i put my patients on a statin to reduce cholesterol, i also tell them it can deplete their coke you a ten levels. i recommend taking cute all coke you ten queue at all has three times better absorption than regular coke putin, kunal, the band i trust >> when you the leader in disaster, clean up and restoration, how do you make like it never even happened happened all right.

>> comes your way. there's a pro for that. >> served grow like it never even happened. >> all these games on directv and no satellite on the roof. think about this blue jays cardinals, orioles. what's missing? the andean condor know walnut brain pigeons pick rather de, but cim after psaki, be fair, we're not very athletic. >> men tell us when they use just for men to eliminate gray, there's a great before and after >> then. >> there's the after the after >> that boost you get when you look and feel your best and that's why more menchu, just for men these, bills are crazy she has no idea. she sitting on a goldmine. >> she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, she can sell all were part of it to

coventry for cash, even a term policy even a term policy >> find out if you're sitting on a goldmine called coventry direct today at 804618800, or visit coventry direct.com here. you can expect to find crystal clear audio expensive display space and more comfort for every one but we still left room for all the unexpected things. you'll find out here. the new 2024 grand cherokee lineup, jeep there's only one st. great style new lower starting msrp on our most popular 2024 jeep grand cherokee models visit cheap.com for details >> meet the traveling trio the thrill seeker, the soul searcher, and if the explorer each helping to protect their money with teeth last card isn't keeping this thrill seeker down, lost her card. now if the vibe the sole searchers

finding his identity and helping to protect oh, yeah. >> the explorer she's looking to dive deeper all while chase looks out for her, because these friends have chased alerts that have checked tools that help protect one bank that.

that's 18085117 been seven call now sanity needs a safe space >> you've had a show were right and left talk to each other cnn presents an encore presentation of hbo's real time with bill maher, saturday at eight on cnn >> we have breaking news and to cnn a judge has just sentenced sam bankman-fried, the man who was once heralded as the next warren buffett to 25 years in prison. he was convicted of fraud for stealing more than 8 billion from customers. and investors of ftx cryptocurrency. it's good, right to cnn's kara scannell. kara, this sentencing is actually much lighter than what

prosecutors wrote actually looking for >> yeah. prosecutor said ask the judge to sentence sam bankman-fried 240 to 50 years in prison. the judge lewis kaplan, overseeing this case that he thought that was substantially greater than necessary, but in imposing the sentence, he said that sam bankman-fried, who spoken court and address the judge. he said that despite his saying that he was sorry for mistakes that were made, the judge said that he never spoke a word of remorse for the crimes that he committed, and imposing the sentence, the judge said, there is a risk that this man will be in a position to do something very bad in the future. and it's not a trivial risks. so he imposes sentence of 25 years. bankman-fried is 32 years there's old, so he would be about 57 years if he serves the entirety of that sentence. still time for him to come out, but that was one of the concerns that prosecutors had. they said that even after bankman-fried was arrested and charged with these crimes, he continued to work on ways to try to devise a rebirth of ftx, even as the company was falling

into bankruptcy, he was working on ways to remark at it, and the judge noted that saying that he has shown that he is as he put it extremely smart, acknowledged that bankman-fried suffers from autism, but said that he's also shown that he is very good at marketing. and so he wanted to impose a sentence today that would serve as deterrence so bankman-fried when he is released, does not commit these crimes. again, the bankman-fried has been in federal detention since august before his trial because the judge found that he engaged in witness tampering in advance of the trial. so bankman-fried will not be walking out of this courtroom today. he will be remanded back into custody and begin serving this 25 sentence. laura, 25 years. they'd asked for fourier 50. he was eligible for i think up to 110 years under the guidelines here. now you have 25 years. as you mentioned, he's just 32 years old. karen, people who have not been following this case is closely, but remember spf remember ftx we're its name was on a stadium for goodness sakes

and all the celebrities followings around cryptocurrency. how do we even get here right? i mean, there was a super bowl ads involving ftx. it was just a rocket ship in the world of crypto. and he was the face of cryptocurrency, showing building this platform, living in the bahamas this eccentric guy who was created seeing this kind of myth and mystic. but prosecutors say that, that this was in essence just a garden variety fraud. he had stolen money up to 8 billion from customers of ftx from investors in the company and from lenders to the sister hedge fund alameda research and bankman-fried, then use that money two buy the real estate in the bahamas to make riskier investments. the he used it to funnel more than $100 million in illegal campaign donations into the political us system to try to influence the regulation of the crypto industry. he also spent $150 million in bribes to chinese officials scholz, when they were starting to question and crack down some of his

activities. so the judge here saying that this show bankman-fried knew what he was doing was wrong and he hasn't shown remorse for it resulting in this big sentence today, laura, a man once deemed the wizkid, now will be an inmate serving 25 years kara scannell. thank you so much and thank you all for joining me for our very special covered bridge. i'm laura coates. i'll be back tonight for a special two-hour addition of laura coates live. the getting at 10:00 p.m. stay with me, been saved with cnn because inside positive, dana bash starts after a very short there is no media personality >> businesswoman pretty sharp leichhardt any large of martha stewart now streaming on macs >> from the number one rated brandon cordless outdoor power, the ego's zero term riding mower with iste or technology

drives like a car turns on a dime and that's up to 2.5 acres on a single charge exclusive lows, ace and ego authorized dealers with fast sides create factory great visual solutions to perfect your process that's sides, make your statement. >> i consumer cellular, you get the same exact coverage as the largest carriers for up to half the price. >> that's >> amazing and great customer service based here in america >> that's amazing and no hidden fees no contracts and free activation >> that's something >> hello. >> barbara >> sorry, i was muted >> that's amazing. >> i know rights barbara

>> focus termination dry some say we're born with some say it lies within jennifer's purse carousel, three liquid iv powder delivers rapid hydration, would three times the electrolytes of the leading sports let's try to help you play defense against the world's kootenai stroke because real life is extreme enough liquid ib rio hydrogen now it's sugar >> it's a new de, one were are shared values propel us towards a more secure future through august of partnership built upon cutting-edge american australian, and british technologies will develop state of next generation submarines and build something stronger together securing decades of peace prosperity for america

and our allies we are going forward and staying forward together >> rose sparks engineered for the spontaneous, a dual action formula with the active ingredients of viagra and sialic faster acting and long-lasting grabbed the moment get started at row.com slash sparks >> the only >> godaddy arrow helps you get your business online and minutes with the power of ai, with the perfect name. a great logo and a beautiful website just start with a domain, a few clicks and you're in business make now the future at godaddy.com slash arrow >> get your backyard ready for any occasion? with the help of quality battery tools by still only to prove still dealers, to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. building for renters. download self to start today >> i'm melanie zanona on capitol hill, and this is cnn closed captioning brought to you by gilt visit gilt.com today for up to 70%