former president is on trial for what he allegedly did to become president. and here in washington anderson history was being made as well. and i supreme court court case, which flows from his scheme to remain in office and his claim that he should not be held criminally accountable for that. i'm joined tonight by one of the attorneys representing donald trump in the immunity case before the supreme court will scharf, who was at today's supreme court, oral arguments. i should note, he is also running from missouri attorney general. we're not going to get into that tonight. >> it's great to have you there. you are sitting in the second seat as these arguments are playing out today, i heard something today that i had never heard from your team before, which was john sauer saying that yes, some of the allegations and jack smith's indictment are indeed private x what led to the change from your team? >> well, i think we've always conceded, first of all, that there is no presidential immunity. before he president's private acts in office. i think we've also conceded that obviously president trump engaged in many private acts during the time period in question. i thought in many respects the much more damning concession, if you could call what we did a

concession at all. was michael dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsel's office, essentially admitting that these facts were so strikingly intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. that's how i interpreted his statements, at least. >> well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasn't official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. he was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. but trump has argued, total immunity. he has not said, well, some of these are private x. this would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. >> we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. we've been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the district court proceeding through the circuit. now at the the us supreme court, that what we're talking about is absolute immunity. yes. but absolute immunity just for a president's official acts in office. i think that's a crucial distinction that's been missed in much of the press coverage around president trump's die, there are no case

if it's just for part of the acts that are in the indictment. >> well, because the indictment itself relies largely on acts we believe are clearly official. >> we're talking about let's break down what will looking at things like asking the department of justice to investigate claims of election fraud, considering replacing the acting attorney general of the united states, which is at the absolute heart of the president's power under article two of the us constitution we believe that this is an indictment the charges, official acts, and therefore, if the if the court were to recognize the sort of immunity that we've proposed, we don't see how this case could proceed, but as john said today, you also believed that this indictment charges private x. john said that he could be tried for private x. >> there are some private acts in the indictment. are there? their act it'd be characterized as private in the indictment president wouldn't have immunity from those. the question though is why can't those be tried? and the ones that you say are official trying to make jeff clark, the attorney general, put those aside and remove them why would trump not be able to be tried

for the private well, i think if if you read the indictment, what they're trying to point to as a much larger scheme that really involves largely official conduct so without the official conduct of the supreme court word are recognized presidential immunity, the way that we've suggested, i believe the indictment would have to be dismissed. what are the private acts that you believe are in the indictment? i'd have to look at the indictment more closely, but i think the sorts of things that you're talking about, price haven't conversation that were mentioned that the court today, private conversations between the president and his political team, that sort of thing looks more like private conduct then the sorts of things we just discussed, like directives given to the department of justice and consideration of presidential personnel. >> but the other acts that were brought up today, we're what conversations he had with people like john eastman and jenna ellis and rudy giuliani, three people who did not work on behalf of the federal government. those are charged in the indictment. so why could trump not go to trial for that? >> but it's worth noting and

it's really important to explain what this, these alternate slates of electors were really throughout american history, probably most notably in 18, 76, when you're challenging a presidential election after the certification deadline in certain states you present alternate slates of electors and that gives political actors the opportunity to get to the bottom of whether fraud occurred, whether outcome determinative fraud occurred. and it allows as them to pick a different slate in 18, 76 rutherford b. hayes was elected president on the back of three alternate slates of electors. those sorts of preparatory actions giving political actors the ability to act on allegations of election fraud. i think there's the intermixed private, and official conduct their and that ultimately will be a very thorny issue for the district court on remal to assess. >> it's a pretty generous view of the fake slates of electors. as amy coney barrett justice noted today, even this is fake paperwork that was just created for slates of electors that were not alternate. they just

were fake. they were from audio a little again in 18, 76 rutherford b. hayes was elected president 20 in night, there's a long history of this in 1960, there's not a long history of multiple slates of fake electors, people who are not the legitimate electors representing the will of the voters in arizona, wisconsin pennsylvania, and michigan. well, again, what we're talking about is alternate slates of electors and you can kind characterize them as fake or not. but in cases where there are serious allegations of election fraud, this is the system that's been used throughout american history, probably most recently in the 1960 election when an alternate slate of electors from hawaii was season. let me ask you this because if you believe that there are some private acts in here and some official acts in here. what? can you ask the district court two months ago to suss that out? why wait and take it to the supreme court with this claim of total immunity or position has been consistent from the district court through until today, we believe that president trump has absolute immunity for his official acts in office. the di doesn't draw that he absolutely does.

>> the dc district unfortunate newly issued a ruling that said there is absolutely no immunity in the criminal context, the dc circuit affirmed that incorrect ruling and the reason why the argument today, i think took the tender that it didn't probably the reason why we're before the supreme court at all is because of the egregious snus of those decisions to not record ignites any immunity in the criminal context whatsoever. >> well, the supreme court, the justices did see if the conservative ones, at least skeptical of that. but i have to ask you something else because when one of the justices asked today if the president ordered a military coup, if that would be considered an official act your team, john sauer argued, quote, it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act. what what are the circumstances were ordering a military coup is an official act of the presidency will get when you're talking about official acts, you don't look too intense. you don't look to purpose, you look to their underlying character. so if that were if that sort of situation for to unfold using the official powers of the president, you could see there

being an aspect of official nes to that. i would say though, that our constitutional system provides powerful structural checks against exactly those sorts of scenarios which have safeguarded our republic throughout american history. so the idea that that's the argument people make. and also we never we're at a moment where a sitting president tried to overturn a legitimate election until now, again, i would, i would fight. you're characterization of what happened in 2020 but all of this parade of hypotheticals that some of the justices today that our opponents have put forward, whether it's the quds, whether it's seal team six assassinating political rivals. it's worth noting that the structural checks in place in our constitution not including criminal prosecution of former presidents have served to safeguard us from exactly those sorts of scenarios throughout american history. and it's actually our parade of horribles. this idea of political prosecutions, crippling president's, that's what we're seeing play out out in america today. >> well, i would disagree with that characterization. i know that that you refer to them as

the biden investigations obviously present biden's not involved in these, but you just said that they're hypotheticals you know, they're actually not alyssa farah griffin, who is a comms director in the white house, tweeted this and said that there was a moment where she personally witnessed donald trump suggesting that whoever leaked that, he went to the bunker during the george floyd protests at the white house should be executed. so it's actually not really that but they obviously weren't executed. >> but the person has to be executed for it to be brought to bear. i think hyperbole has a place in almost any office, but i'd come back to it gets just hyperbole. >> i get pretty brazen argument that military coups could potentially be official acts that will the person wasn't executed, so it doesn't matter just because of military coup or any of these sort of parade of horribles could constitute an official act, doesn't mean that they're right, doesn't mean that they would be allowed under a constant to tunnel system and doesn't mean that we're in any way, shape, or form justifying that what we're talking about here though is the scope of immunity that

presidents need to be able to rely on to discharge their core article two responsibilities as president without immunity. i think you'll end up in a situation where presidents will essentially be blackmailed by their political rob bowls with the threat of political prosecution the day they leave office. and to me that's a very scary scenario. >> or do you disagree with justice ketanji brown jackson who said, what you're arguing could allow the seat of the presidency to become where you can act with impunity that any criminal act couldn't happen because you have nothing to fear, no prospect. >> we believe immunity is inherent in the constitutional design. so that's the system we've been operating under for hundreds of years and it's not actually in the constitution. we believe that immunity naturally follows from the constitution the same way that civil immunity, which isn't written in the constitution naturally follows from our constitutional system. and that was recognized by the court and nixon v. fitzgerald in 1982. >> what victory? here is it? the supreme court embracing your argument on total immunity, or is it just sending it back to the lower court and therefore, delaying the january

6 trial from happening before the 2024 election. >> we think it's very important for the future of the presidency, for the court to embrace a vigorous doctrine of presidential immunity in the criminal context. so that's what victory oh considered a victory if they just send it back to the lower court and then it essentially delays the trial. we believe that what's going on here is much more important than this particular trial or this particular defendant. >> we believe that what's at stake here as the future of the presidency and without a vigorous immunity doctrine, i fear for the future of our country. well, sharaf great to have you, you are inside this frame court today. >> thank you for joining us. thanks for having me also here tonight. my panels back with me. donald trump's former attorney, jim trusty, cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, elliot williams, and civil rights lawyer share lin eiffel, who is the vernon jordan chair and civil rights at the howard university law school. let me just start with you since you're just joining us, can i just get your reaction to what you heard? from trump's attorney of how they viewed today yeah. >> i mean, it was an interesting argument in that there were these hypotheticals

that should have been at the most extreme, but they really weren't because the person that we're dealing with, donald trump is the same person who asked his defense secretary, couldn't we just shoot shoot protesters in the legs? he is the same president who said he wishes that he had generals like hitler had generals in germany. we just heard the tweet that you mentioned about someone being executed for leaking that he was in the bunker during the george floyd protests. the examples that we were hearing today from some of the justices about what a president who felt he had unfettered power and would suffer no consequences could do were ripped from the headlines they were the kinds of things that the former president has said. and i think it was shocking to hear the former president's attorney, mr. sour suggests that those things could be official x selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary. we have a president who stole classified documents, which is the subject of another piece of litigation.

so these are not things that were pulled from the sky. these are real serious possibilities and to have the attorney of the former president's stand in the well of the united states supreme court and suggests that these things could be official acts. and the only thing more shocking than him making that argument was having a majority of supreme court justices not sound as though they were horrified and aghast at hearing that that was the position the former president was taking. >> jim trusty. what was your reaction? because john sauer didn't make a big concession today and saying that some of that in the indictment is private x i've never heard them say that before. >> he's conceding the flavoring of the private acts provided by coney barrett. questions which he says shimming the criminal intent within the actions which gets you down to very minute factual issues of like did it did did an elector, a replacement. i liked her feel like they were defrauding or were they actually thinking this is the backup plan if we went in court which has a lot of things that have been said by that other side. look, the reality and

what we're kind of struggling with. i think collectively is the court is likely to try to create a line, but that line is going to be a difficult fine to define precisely so when you talk about an official act, is it this particular minute action or comment or conversation, or is it within the broader category of defending the country or safeguarding elections? and we're not going to really know where they come out on that until they do, but that's going to that's going to be the battleground, going ford for litigating whether something falls within or without immunity. >> yeah, and both john sauer and we'll moment ago, both exceptionally good attorneys. all i think all but conceded that the next step ought to be number one, either sending it back for more findings or just let it go to trial and have a jury sort out this question of what's an official act and what isn't but it was a huge concession for which neither of them i think had very compelling answer to be perfectly candid. >> i thank it's not just mere hypotheticals.

>> we are talking about specific conduct that a president can engage in. what's make up another one right here. if a president kidnapped or kidnapped and and harm supreme court justices for the purpose of a pointing, their successors, clearly an official act of the presidency. also clearly a crime. and you cannot keep a straight face and make an argument that that's not a prosecutor will act thing that stood out to me also was i remember when trump was impeached after january 6, and mitch connell stood in the well, the senate& said, well, the justice system will take care of him. >> this is not the place to take care of this. the justice system. >> the argument that kinda went over like a lead balloon today, the john sauer did still tried to make was that you must president first must be impeached and then convicted two, then be prosecuted for some yeah, this is the bait-and-switch, even trump's attorneys said that after trump was impeached, mitch mcconnell said it and his attorneys also said that the proper avenue is criminal prosecution, not this process. >> so that's kind of a bait-and-switch, but i want to get back to something else. i

don't think that these private acts that were conceded today, which i think frankly, i want to be nice to mr. sour, but i don't think that he did a terrific job. those concessions were deadly calling the speaker of the house of the arizona legislature and asking him to call back the legislature so that they could put in fake electors doesn't have anything to do with the president's official power, doesn't have to do with the justice department, has to do with the president placing a call to rusty bowers and arizona to ask him to do something that was illegal. the president telling rudy giuliani to spread the idea of this false elector scheme to various people is private attorney that is not an official act. >> a call to raffensperger this to raffensperger, the secretary of state and saying, find me 11,000 four votes. this there's nothing about this that is entangled with the official powers of the presidency. >> and any one of those counts of the indictment are deadly for this president i think that's why sour didn't come back after for rebuttal because

i think having made the concessions he made and having had the court frankly, not not react in the way that one might have expected. i think he thought it was better that he not come back up to the podium and further unravel his case. the problem is not whether sour, sour, terrific job or whether these private acts and official acts are co-mingled. it's the proclivity of a majority of this supreme court to give the benefit of the doubt to a former president who's demonstrated that he is not deserving of the benefit of the doubt that the prime directive should be protecting our country, our democracy, not this president. >> and he, the end, was saying, we do want a full victory here. we want them to fully embrace our argument, but do you believe it would be a victory and the trump legal team size if this just does go back down to the lower courts which would for people at home being like, what what does that entail for the case? it would basically have so many complications and delays that there's no way would happen come before november. >> i mean, look, the whole notion that there speedy trial need to try the j6 case by

date, certain was absurd. this was jack smith with a very receptive court trying to push for something that makes no sense. speedy trial, right. is entirely or 99% designed to protect a defendant, particularly incarcerated defendant, from sitting and rotting in prison. and then eventually being acquitted. so this idea that they had to have done was pretty shamelessly political. and i think that's why the supreme court bristled when jack smith said less expedited, i don't think they care about i have this whole conversation months ago. well, they don't care about the political timeline that jack created. and so on. and so what i'm saying is the realistic ending of this case, if the majority holds with how oral argument went is that they're gonna be returning all of these cases where immunity is in play to fact-finding lower courts, which will then have litigation like he had with police shootings about whether it's in the course of employment. and then they're probably going to march right back up to the supreme court and say, how about this is not the last appeal to go all the way up without question. >> well, if it's after the

election and the election goes, mr. trump's way they will never see the light of day because we know he'll get rid of the investigations up next. we'll return to the former president's criminal trial. new exhibits just came out and were also getting new insight, gleaning it from the full tree transcript that we also just received moments ago. everything that happened in that courtroom today also, a law professor and his doubts about the prosecution's case when you're the leaders disaster clean up and restoration, how do you make like it never even happened, happened serve ever even happened. >> okay, yeah, we got horner's coming starting a business is never easy. the star name, eight months pregnant, that's a different story i couldn't slow down. we were starting a business from the ground up. people were showing up, lift they were right. and so did our business needs the chase car made it easy. when you go for something big like this, your kids need it and they believe they can do the same.

>> earn limit 1.5% cash back on every purchase. but the chase ink business unlimited good card from chase for business, make more of what's yours well humpty dumpty, does it with a great fall wonderful pistachios get cracking oh, yeah. ticket from your inner child. >> what you really need to live is some torque was dodge corner good that totally torqued out crossover 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 tick 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. so tick two was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill don't take if you're allergic to so take too serious reactions can occur. so ticked, you can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb, serious infections, cancers, including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides or had a vaccine or plan to tick two is a tick to inhibitor tick two as part of the jackpot only, it's not known as a tiktok has the same risks as jak inhibitors fine. what plaque psoriasis has been hiding? there's only one, so tick two. so ask for it by name. so clearly you so tick to you, it's really your way choose three flavors for just $20, like newest street corn shrimp, fin are famous garlic shrimp scampi, it's time to grab some cheddar bays and good flavor full hurrian to try shrimp your way only at red lobster, how do i get my raised beds looking so good? i do have a secret, a very special secret. it's organic soil from

miracle grow, your great to ryan, not as g my name is oluseyi and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport.

with custom gear, get started today at customer.com, the white house correspondents dinner live saturday at seven eastern on cnn we're now in today's testimony& cross examination. the former president's hush money trial, specifically the strength or not of the prosecution's case that in the wisdom of bringing it, joining the panel, someone with doubts about both boston university law professor chagrin author of the people's courts, pursuing judicial independence in america professor, thanks for being with us i read this op-ed you wrote in the new york times, it was titled, i thought the bragg case against trump was illegal embarrassment. now, i think it's a historic mistake. why a historic mistake? >> one big picture problem with as a historic mistake is that those of us who have been dreading the return of donald trump to office and misusing power. we've been talking about the rule of law for years and what the rule of law means is there are rules and some of those rules include precedence

because those you have to follow those rules. if you expect the other side to follow those rules. so we've been concerned about the misuse of prosecutorial power donald trump is telling us exactly what he's gonna do with civil service and the doj now is the time to make sure prosecutors are not abusing their power and to make sure that we following the rule of anything prosecutors are abusing their power? yes. i think this case is an abuse of y. they're some of the follow-up that i've done on this case is to dig into how it is unprecedented. so there are three ways this case is either unprecedented or it's based on untested novel theories are applications. the first is that there has never been a state prosecution. i've searched for all the state cases that referred to the federal election campaign act, which is the core of the case. that is the underlying crime that's at the basis of the manhattan da's this is the da is trying trump for a federal violation shoehorn into state statutes, a state prosecutors never tried this before, right? because the federal election campaign act, but either by law or norm or lack of state

expertise is for federal. so that's one problem. the second problem is also a kind of jurisdictional problem. trump's lawyers argued that this particular statute using a state violation state business recording mr. according to upgrade it for the concealing of another crime, it has to be within new york jurisdiction are a lot of good reasons why that might be the manhattan da's response. they couldn't cite a single precedent of a judge validating that use means that that's an untested use. and the third problem is that there has never been an application of intent to defraud, which is a key element of this case it's never been used this broadly. it's never been used as an intent to defraud the general public, never used as election interference, whatever that means legally. so if it's unprecedented it means that it is being used for trump and trump only accept it could be used by the other side. now, that's the problem, but ced isn't the issue that the conduct is unprecedented. i

mean, isn't the fact that filing false business records is routinely prosecuted in the new york state court courts what's unusual here is the false business records were used to cover up a campaign violation that doesn't happen very often. i've never heard of it done before. isn't that the issue? not the fact that this was some novel use by the prosecutors. it was novel crime. >> so one problem is you could always go to a level of generality with any case of selective prosecution can say, well, this is the first time a, an orange colored president has ever done this. and then you've got that unique circumstance to differentiate it. there are campaign finance violations. campaign finance filings that are missed filed. in fact, the clinton campaign hillary clinton's campaign had some issues with that. obama's campaign. now i'm not saying it's the same, but this happens all the time and yet, no state prosecutors over tried it. that's an each one is a separate problem. so it's it is a remarkable coincidence

that this manhattan da, has stretched each of these three things for the first time when you also campaign to become that nat da on the platform of holding trump accountable, america, american prosecutors in states, they run for office. >> that's true for every, so there's nothing unusual about bragg no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. >> jeffrey, you know better than i do. for me because i'll get that guy. they do not say that no one runs for office and says, you vote me in it. i'm going to get that guy that's not what happened it's not what's supposed to happen. and all the bonds away is i did not know that that's not what he said running. my code for cell, i share some the professors reservations that are stated in the article i've said a lot of this, honore do think they're out on a limb somewhat in terms of the charging theory, it's a new theory also, as jeffrey correctly says, it's unprecedented conduct. >> i do want to ask you about something you write though. >> you say that this case is an

embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics. now there's a difference between i questioned the judgment in bringing this case. maybe he should maybe you shouldn't maybe the case is weak or strong. but when you, you, criticize someone for prosecutorial ethics, what specific prosecutorial ethics violation do you think there is here? >> well, there is an aspect of this about ethics, which is that the part of two to comply with six, the right to be informed of the nature of the indictment that's part of the sixth amendment something unique happened in this case, which was and for the entire year the indictment of 34 charges were only specified. the business filings, and there was silence about what the other charges it was shocking to me someone who cares about mass incarceration and prosecutors misusing their power. this was an example of what prosecutors do all the time, and it's i'm glad that there's a spotlight being shown on it and i am curious how many times, just to complete the thought, the manhattan da trump's lawyers asked for a bill of

particulars. this is the way that new york says and claims to comply with the sixth amendment in this case, the manhattan di a refused to provide a bill of particulars and the judge allowed it. now, i wonder if that how much that happens and maeve is a spotlight on process, but just gonna do, what do you think? >> yeah. so i think that i want to wait and see how the evidence comes in to really evaluate the strength of this case and the merits of bringing it. i agree with you that it's a novel prosecution, but it is nival conduct and it's a capacious statute in new york. this could conspiracy to promote an election through unlawful means that appears to be the primary theory of the underlying crime that the da says, the falsification of business records was intended to conceal an aid so that statute that he's relying on is a very fraud statute under new york law. and it seems to me it can be read plausibly to cover violations even of federal election law. and so it is true that it needs to go up through the appellate courts whether this is a valid legal theory, but i'm not as disturbed as you are by the attempt to use it if the facts barrett out so the problem with

one person's capacious is what the legal system also called ambiguous. now that use of that statute is 17152 the unlawful conduct is not its own crime. so the concept that you can prosecute someone for unlawful conduct that's just that that is not the primary conduct. the way the clique case is being tried is that is the state law to shoe horn in the federal election filing violation. the case is about the only way to understand the intent to defraud and the whatever this unlawful conduct is, is that it's a federal campaign finance filing which the biden administration deserves more credit for bending over backwards, not to charge it. so the idea that this is a trump has claimed and alleged that this is biden election campaign interference to the it actually belies that claim that the biden ministration didn't charge it, but the fact that the biden administration that the biden deal jay didn't charge it is also part of why we have a central federal

government to do this so that we don't have red state republican prosecutors indicting anyone who says anyone who has a filing violation because then that is a descent into the lack of rule of law except that the statute in new york that is the basis are one of the bases for the theory here is a conspiracy charge. it doesn't require proof that the federal election violation was actually committed necessarily. and so it is in that sense, broader arguably than the charge that could have been brought in federal court. so there are differences between the theories that the state apparently is able to pursue& as a federal government may have been able to process. >> i just want to say to your point, i've never heard as when i was a prosecutor& as defense attorney in state court. i've never heard of her refusal of a bill of particulars for people want to know a bill, particularly like tell the defendant when he's charged with, tell the defendant what you're accusing him of and it's the most simple, most basic sixth amendment right. you don't, judge? i've was sort of a judge you don't have to turn

over bill a particular i'd judge, i don't even know how am i supposed to defend them if i don't know what i'm defending him against, it makes no sense, judge. >> triggering. i appreciate being with us thanks. i'm not sure i understood it all, but i feel smarter of revenue. listen to this conversation. i appreciate it coming up new cnn polls on what the former president's legal troubles may mean for him politically switch to shopify and sell smarter at every stage of your business. take full control of your brand with your own custom store scale faster with tools that let you manage every sale from every channel and sell more with the best converting checkout on the planet a lot more take your business to the next stage. >> when you switch to shopify when did i call the filter? when i saw my gutters overflowing on my porch, we feel for a permanent gutter solution. so you'd never have to worry about costly damage from clog gutters again, it's

easiest call you can make colleague three, three lethal ter today, morphism lee filter.com sometimes the lows of bipolar depression feel darkest before dawn. with cap lighter, there's a chance to let in the light kept lighter is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar, one kept lighter traits. both bipolar one and to depression and in clinical trials movement disorders and weight gain, we're not common. >> call your doctor about sudden mood changes. behaviors are suicidal thoughts antidepressants may increase these risks and young adults, elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff, or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life-threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects calculator can help you let in the light ask your doctor about kept lighter, find savings and support acat blighted.com critics are calling challengers nothing short of miraculous sexy, had deliriously enjoyable. how often does this happen? >> going after the same girl

not miss this movie, challengers go army beat us tonight hen we say it'll be on time, they expect it to be on time. >> turned shipping to your advantage, keep those expectations with reliable ground shipping thanks, brandon with usps ground advantage with priceline vip family, you can unlock deals five times faster. >> you don't even have to be an actual family. >> i'd be the dad on the day physically, it's clear that i'm the dad.

>> okay. so which data is pain? >> you're there's things that work better together, like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. jolla helps you choose the right amounts without over or under investment. so you can feel investment. so you can feel confident can your the future is here.

we've been creating it for more than 100 years, from the most advanced technology to the broadest, most reliable network of sales and service dealers. always moving forward. we lead. others follow. imprint for certain. >> i've had to go montgomery and tokyo and this is cnn new poll numbers. >> and tonight shedding light on what the many legal problems that we've been talking about could mean for donald trump politically play a huge outstanding question that nobody really knows the answer to at this point. but this new cnn poll out tonight finds that 24% of voters who are currently backing trump say that a conviction in any of his cases, mike calls them to reconsider their support most of his backers now of course, say that they would stick with him, but 24% could be enough to make a difference in a close election. i'm doing tonight to the table by republican strategist doug hi back with us. elliot williams also here seen in

commentator ashley allison, who worked on president biden's 2020 campaign, and former federal prosecutor. can we also here with us? >> doug i mean, this poll shows this isn't an academic question that we're having. it could potentially have a real impact on the electorate. >> it could, and we saw this on tuesday night and pennsylvania, where over 150,000 republican primary voters voted for nikki haley, who's no longer republican candidate. so they weren't making some choice based on who the republican nominee would be. they made a very conscious decision. they don't want it to be donald trump and i was at nikki haley's one of her last two or three rallies in raleigh, north carolina, and the atmosphere in that room was real i knew that most of those people were probably going to vote for donald trump. but if you were putting on a t-shirt that said permanently banned, that the haley campaign and created i'm just going to be harder for you to make that decision. this is what we're seeing and if you're convicted, trump is convicted. that makes it harder. the other problem is,

as this case goes on, it makes it harder for donald trump to make his case he's to those voters who don't like donald trump and don't like joe biden to talk about inflation, to talk about crime, to talk about the border, because all of this drowns out those things that republican candidates worth on the top of the ticket or down below the ticket, want to be talking about? >> yeah. we started seeing real outreach from the trump campaign to those nikki haley's your orders. >> let me this is a question with the biden campaign looking at these numbers, 24% would reconsider their support. i mean, obviously at this point, they can write somebody in, but the other person that they would logically maybe vote for president biden well, i want to know who those 20 for our especially right now because i wonder where they were in the primary. are they part of that 150,000 that doug just reference that might have voted for someone else in the primary are looking for a home, looking for some someone to do some outreach to or are they just annoyed and frustrated with this narrative? of around donald trump being chaotic and

causing all this drama. and they don't want that as the party that who those 24% are, are really important if those folks voted for donald trump in that 24% and 2020. and they write someone in i'm not saying you throw away votes, but i think the and in campaign might look at it as a net neutral. but if they were people who voted for joe biden in 2020 are saying we aren't satisfied with his performance and we're looking at donald trump you want as the biden campaign to find those people and get them back into your column. if there are people who just really are not politically engaged and if they decided i'd wake up in the morning, you also want to try and move them. and so it's really i don't think they're all the same either. and so you really need to figure out who they are and how you move them and what issue matters to them. and if it really isn't, just don't want trump, then talk to them and feel it figured out how to get them in your canvas shell. >> the term looking for a home that you said is very important because after the primary republicans and democrats, you sort of, sort of the same language, you're voters going

to come home. most of those voters are going to come home for donald trump. so we're not really talking about 150,000 republicans in pennsylvania. but if we're talking about five or 7,000 and pennsylvania or arizona, or north carolina, things get really interesting, especially if we start talking you about also third or fourth party candidates. >> so it's been fascinating as we've seen, even people who have been heavily critical of donald trump, people like bill barr, that former attorney general say they're still going to support him in november. she and the other number in this poll, 44% of americans are confident than trump can get a fair trial in the hush-money case that we're watching play out right now. i mean, trump i'm self has been weighing in on the jury claiming it's 95% democrats, which we can't verify because you don't ask their party registration. but what do you make of how the public is viewing what's playing out in the courtroom. >> i think the public views the courtroom as a trial court room. i think they have a stronger sense that there's fairness involved. i think they have a sense that there's a judge and control. there's

gonna be a jury of the peers. >> i mean, 44% versus 50% versus a majority. >> but i think unlike the general public sentiment, you're seeing with the supreme court i think there's still a core group of american outlook that thinks, okay, when it gets in front of a jury, that's probably going to be more of a fair outcome. >> well, i mean speaking, trump's been coming out and now trying to make campaign style comments as you walked into the courtroom, we talked about the gdp gas prices. israel protest, or their oil in college universities right now but today he's there's a question of whether he violated his gag order. the dej scheduled a hearing initially for next wednesday when i noticed trump had two events wanted walker shaw and one in michigan and freeland michigan. now the judge has moved that to thursday. we're not totally clear on the reasoning for that, but it does show the campaign trail versus courtroom argument. absolutely. and look, as we've learned, quite spectacularly, the court's system operates on a vastly different timeline than the

political system as we'll see what the supreme court and the federal election interference case that will likely not happened before the election pardon me, your question the way we've been doing it that good of a question well, i was just saying trump is in making this argument that he can't go out on the campaign trail because he isn't the courtroom four days they're not in the courtroom. next wednesday. they weren't supposed to be. and so they scheduled to campaign events that day. and then initially, it looked like his gag order hearing was going to maybe throw a ring around i'm sorry, i forgot. >> know that this is all on the judge quite frankly, for taking as long as he has on the gag order. and for a couple of points. one, in the context of the former president's civil trial, he actually started behaving better after having been fined and having the fines be raised, and he paid them and then stop acting up and quite frankly, if this judge were to just simply have the hearing on this imposed, whatever fines or

fees he's going to also admonished the president in front of the jury. what we want to be in front of a jury, but in front of the public that could go a long way to maintaining some semblance of order in the courtroom, but right now, this is an important issue that is unresolved and is giving the president a longer leash yeah. to to keep making statements which what about this? what we're seeing, these numbers? there's 44% are confident he can get a fair trial here. i mean, it just goes back to the importance of what we saw at the supreme court today. if it means that the january 6 case, the effort to overturn the election doesn't happen before november. >> so much of what we see in politics now is what people want to see happen, or what people think is going to happen is what they want to see happen. and that poisons or politics regardless of how you look at it. but this isn't just about whether or not donald trump can go on the campaign trail if he's in a courtroom all day, he's not going to be able to do the things that any candidate does in any campaign for any office, have meetings you can't sit

down with his campaign staff and talk about strategies on different states or communications or fundraising, donor maintenance, as you know, very well, he can't do any of those things. he's a weekend warrior in that sense, sometimes a late night warrior. and that's it. >> well, wait to see what those implications look like just ahead, new details from the trial itself. what we're learning running about what was said today, it's a fascinating back-and-forth in the transcript everybody wants super straight, super white teeth. >> they want that hollywood white smile, news censored in clinical white provides two sheets, whether teeth and 24/7 sensitive your production. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients weight coming, waivers biggest sale of the year is back for three days only vapour thursday get excited to get up to 80% on everything all the

way they love weight as may 4th. so mark your calendar and start filling your card we style every home you were diagnosed with thyroid? >> disease a long time ago and year after year, you weathered the storm and just lived with the damage that was left behind? but even after all this time, your thyroid disease could still change restoration is still possible learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at ted help.com this is a hot flash this is a hot flash but this is our nadh flash for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause. >> vl says the first and only

prescription treatment that directly blocks a source of hot flashes and night with 100% hormone free vios, you can have fewer hot flashes and more nadh flashes vios reduces the number and severity of hot flashes de night for some women, it can start working in its early as one week don't use vios if you have cirrhosis, severe kidney problems, kidney failure, or take sip when a two inhibitors increase liver blood test values may occur. your doctor will check them before and during treatment. most common side effects include stomach pain, diarrhea, difficulty sleeping, and back pain good. again, ask your doctor about hormone free visa and enjoy more, not lashes your skin is ever changing take care of it with gold ponds age renew formulations of seven moisturizers and three vitamins. >> for all your skin's gold bond one aleve works all day.

>> so i can keep working just want to leave 12 hours of uninterrupted pain relief or leave. who do you take it for and for fast topical pain relief child leave x. >> we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that perfect pizza. >> and with higher stroke risk from aphid not caused by a heart valve problem, we're going for better treatment than warfarin eloquent, eloquent reduces stroke risk and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eloquence patients did not experience a stroke don't stop taking eloquence without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke, aliquots can cause serious and in rare cases, fatal bleeding don't take eloquence if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal more bleeding while taking, you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop, get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising, it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. >> the number one cardiologists prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor about eloquence it's a new day one we're our

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-the-art next generations that and build something stronger together security, dickey peace and prosperity for america and our allies we are going forward instead, award together i'm zachary cohen in washington, and this is cnn are continuing to get new details tonight about what was said during testimony. >> the former president's historic hush money criminal trial, john berman has been combing through today's transcript to give us more in-depth you're standing david pecker's testimony would have you found there are moments when david pecker, during his testimony, particularly on direct with the prosecutor, josh steinglass, talks about whether he knew what he was doing was illegal, and there's this one exchange where josh steinglass, the prosecutor,

says, were you aware of the expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influence? once the intellection made in coordination with or at the request of a candidate or a campaign or unlawful david pecker says, yes. steinglass says, did either you or ami every report to the federal election commission in 2016 that am i had made a $150,000 payment to karen mcdougal. pecker says, no we did not. steinglass asked, why did in my make this purchase of karen mcdougal story pecker, we purchased the story so it wouldn't be published by any organization. >> steinglass. and why did you not want it to be published by any other organization? pecker i didn't want we didn't want the story to embarrass mr. trump or embarrassed or hurt. the campaign. and that's just one of the many times, or pecker indirect basically said this was for the campaign, not for a personal reason. it's incredibly important because as we keep hearing from this

gentleman, like what's the crime here? >> there's the crime that this is an illegal campaign contribution that is funneled through funneled through ami american media, the national enquirer for the benefit of donald charles. >> i was a campaign contribution because it's money spent for the benefit of the campaign. oh, come on. you don't think that's tucker gave some really important i'm testimony today about that where he said that when it got close to the campaign, trump express concern about stories coming out about allegations of affairs with him and how it would impact that the campaign as opposed to prior dealings when trump express concern about the impact on his family. and so to shore up this argument that it was a campaign donation, that testimony by petal good contrasting how trump approached and expressed his concerns about those allegations crucial evidence that is crucial evidence because he and i talked about it has to be substantially affecting the presidential campaign as opposed to substantially affecting his family.

>> so that hundred and 50, that hundred, 50 $1,000 was a lot more valuable. his to campaign then a couple more ads on jeopardy. i mean, that was a real that was a real benefit keeping that story under the covers tactical decision that the defense has to make here, which is do they continue to fight that point, whether there was some substantial campaign motivation because to me it's so clean here maybe it wasn't 100%, but it doesn't have to be as we talked about last night, it's so clear there was a substantial campaign motivation there. how could there possibly not have been in that testimony goes right to that point. so there's there comes a point. every good defense lawyer says, i'm picking my battles. i'm not going to fight every single step of this because you lose credibility. clearly, they're fighting it, their rights there tactical decision, but maybe mistake it just to be clear and we don't have a graphic for this one also, but there were other moments too, where david pecker says this was for the campaign. there was that moment in trump tower where he was being thanked by donald trump. this is an exchange there. pecker says he asked me how i

was doing. i said i'm okay. he asked me how karen was doing and i told he asked how's karen doing? how's our girl, how's my girl house are girl doing? he said then i said she's she's riding her articles, she's quiet, she's easy. things are going fine. so he said, i want to thank you for handling the mcdougal situation. then he said, i want to he also said i want to thank you for the doorman's story. for the doorman situation in the question from the prosecutor is and what did you understand mr. trump to be thanking you for regarding the karen mcdougal story in the doorman. i felt he was thanking me for buying them and for not publishing any of the stories in helping the way i did. and why was he so appreciative as a prosecutor? the answer he said that the stories could be very embarrassing question, what did you understand that to mean? answer. i felt that it was going to be very embarrassing to him. his family, and the campaign. >> the point there to le why he's not conceding it's because if his lawyers conceded

at conceded. now, what do they have? left? i think even david pecker started telegraphing or we're going to see in the second half, uh, but, but this records about trump, the micromanager. he's talking about trump focusing on the payment focusing invoices, not the what i call it call the cio and the clouds defense where i'm above at all. i don't know the details, but the opposite, a man is focused on the details a man is focused on, whereas money is going and someone who's not allowing michael cohen the authority to make decisions, bunch of money, which that narrative, which they're trying to put forth with a very well-prepared witness, as they said, my first question would have been, how many times you made the prosecutor 40 or 50 to prepare your testimony, it flies in the face of everything we heard of donald trump's presidency he wasn't a detail-oriented guy. he didn't want to read thick memos. he just wanted to sit with people here like the top headlines. he didn't want the details. so now they try to paint a picture of a totally different guy that we heard about for four. >> yeah. but but the difference is, i mean, this is you know,

there's a big difference between being interested in the monday once israel, what's going on, israel and with local affairs what's going on in the $150, maybe he's telling a story and i didn't mean for it. >> i think we're right where i would go to your question if i was the defense or i think focusing on was donald trump part of the falsification, the accounting, there's a tape coming up in this trial, the secret tape that michael cohen made of his client, donald trump. that's really going to help the defense on that. and what we've heard, we've played it here many, many times. but in essence, trump is sort of click who lives he goes, he knows they're paying. he's very much on board with paying to silence. it's karen mcdougal. they're talking about. and he just keeps going. i don't know what are we getting. cohen says, leave it to me and alan. i got it. no, no, no, you don't worry i'm handling that's the crop that that would be what i would argue and i'm sorry, please. >> the province at some point it starts to look like it's just not credible that i can see this much and i can see this much, but i won't concede this, right. i was involved in the scheme that i'm now conceding with credible arguably, but at some point the

notion. so i was involved in the scheme to make an illegal campaign donation and i was involved in this scheme to sort of pay off michael cohen, but i wasn't involved in the part about how it was booked in my company's records. now, arguably that is the defense that is their best defense. but at some point, if he's involved in all the other parts of this scheme, i think it's reasonable to say, well, maybe he was in involved in this part of it was checking to make sure that the payment was made in cash. >> that does point to a level of of interests in the sort nitty-gritty of the details. >> i'm john, how to the defense poke holes are trying to poke holes in pecker's recollection of one of the ways the recollection well, they've near two different ways. they try to poke holes in the prosecution here. one was to talk about maybe david pecker is memory the other. and you talked about this earlier. was this yes, this is all standard operating procedure. >> this whole scheme of buying stuff is just what the enquirer did and there's an exchange to that effect, a meal beauvais, the defense attorney says this

relationship that you had with president trump, this mutually beneficial relationship, you had similar relationships with other people, right? >> david pecker says, i did meaning that there were other people for what you would provide a heads up if there was a potentially negative story correct? becker says, yes, beauvais and other people that you would promote the national enquirer because it was good and it was good for it's good for you and good for them, right? pecker says, yes, beauvais. and that included celebrities, right? pecker? yes. and most celebrities wanted positive treatment and i'll public occasions, right? bakker, they do. and you had a relationship like this with other politicians correct? becker says, yes. and you are aware that many politicians work with immediate inner try to promote their image, right? pecker says, yes, and promote their brand pecker says yes to facilitate their campaign, correct? pecker says yes standard brink procedure, as you understand it, correct? david pecker says yes. and in fact that another place david becker says, the first time he heard the phrase catch and kill was from investigators when

they were asking him about this, they say before this investigation started, you had not heard the phrase catch and kill david becker says, that's correct. i thought that was a very pretty skillful cross-examining and a good read, write, and even, even better you should have taken that law school. >> but anyway but isn't the answer. >> so what ultimately you know, he he hadn't covered up for other celebrities, they weren't running for president. >> he didn't pay $150,000. what was covered right arnold schwarzenegger he ran for governor at some point, but we don't know when or what he did for arnold schwarzenegger. >> this was so different from all those other searches. >> i'm not saying you're wrong from what i was told them, people in the courtroom today, it was very pretty similar what he did for arnold schwarzenegger. in fact, there was a lot of examination today on our and schwartz a day urine and what he had done for him. so we'll see. thank you. ever everyone are special primetime coverage of these two big trump

trials continues next switch to shopify. >> so you can build it better scale is faster and sell more much more take your business to the next stage when you switch to shopify. >> to me, harlem is home, is also your body last one, everyone i asked myself, why does it pilates exist in harlem? so i started my own studio, get in a brick-and-mortar in new york is not easy. chase inke as supported us from studio one to studio three. when you start small you need some big help and cej think with that for me, earn up to 5% cash back home business essentials. but the chase ink business cash part and chase for business make more of what's yours? >> you're calling. >> some people find there's at an early age. others later in life no matter when you find it. consider yourself lucky because as it becomes your

everything are calling was to build trucks. and that's why trucks are what we do we put our everything in every truck so that when you find your calling nothing can stop me from answering when the jinx came out, i thought, oh, my god on bob has a friend eats blind loyalty. turns out, when you have a whole lot of money people are willing to do things for you what do you do when your best friend kills your other best friend robby surprises and surprises that jinx partner two streaming exclusively on macs work play link relief, work, play, blanking, really the only three

and one extended release formula for dry eyes, like don for new this is about the news. >> slim tv has the same news programming you love starting at $40 a month. it's the same news programming you love starting at $40 a month. that's what i just said, right? >> it's this sunday, mr. less, starting at $40 a month her pharmacy has been in business for nearly 100 years a wife and i have run it from the last 30 american technology is making it's more efficient and customer-friendly. we he's online tools to fill a prescriptions, process insurance claims, and make deliveries but some in washington want to undermine the technology tools we rely on. their misguided agenda will empower are foreign adversaries and hurt small businesses like ours are leaders, deep, i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier.

get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity. this in-store and online. news night with abdullah. next on cnn close captioning brought to you by mesobook her firm.