nity 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.

>> only represents mesothelioma victims and their families. if you or a loved one who has been diagnosed with ms ophelie oma kalisa. now to courts to set of facts, two cases that will reverberate across america. >> for generations. but especially this november welcome to a special edition of whose sides? i'm not be philip and i'm laura coates in washington, dc. and today, the supreme court, winx winks that it might give legal kevlar to presidents of the united states, or at least make sure he doesn't have to dodge the federal case against him. matrix style until of course, after the 2024 election, more on that in a few moments. but first, learned a lot today, abby i'm inside of a manhattan courtroom and the lips of one david pecker who is supposed to be the eyes and ears for the mouth is speaking and the tabloid kingpin, who did donald trump's bidding, pecker will

go back on the stand tomorrow, but today's testimony put an awful lot of meat on the bone about how prosecutors say trump architected in agreement to catch and kill the stormy daniel story in the deciding stretch of the 2016 campaign. now, the level of detail that pecker provided from the stand was kind of unexpected and the jury learn some new things about a story that most of us thought we already knew there were thank you. dinners. the white house was involved. there were fights over money and trump trying to stiff his tabloid protector. >> but maybe most critically actually was the prosecution. >> they got pecker to make the link between the payments to women who allegedly had sexual & trump and the reason why trump wanted to keep all of this from ever seeing sunlight and it wasn't his family. pecker told the jury it was the election. >> so here with us to discuss today's developments, we've got a great group, former trump white house lawyer jim schulte's former federal prosecutor, generosity editor of the protect democracy

project. amanda carpenter, and former trump attorney tim parlatore, also with them that's a former assistant us attorney, kim wally. she is also the author of the book, pardon power, how the pardon system works, and why that may be important in these cases as well. but let's start first with cnn's jessica schneider. as we're just getting these transcripts from this testimony today, jessica, what is jumping out to you in them? >> yeah abby, i'm laura. we have all 233 pages. the verbatim of the hours of what happened inside the courtroom today. i mean, this is crucial because while we have those reporters in the court who are giving us the real-time information. this is actually it in black and white. and the first thing i want to highlight from these pages really goes to the core of this case, the issue of not just the falsification of business records, but possible campaign finance violations. so the first part of this transcript here is from the prosecutor saying, were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election made in

coordination with or at the request if a candidate or a campaign or unlawful david pecker answers, yes continuing, the prosecutor said, did either you or ami ever report to the federal election commission in 2016 that ami had made a $150,000 payment to karen mcdougal pecker says, no, we did not. steinglass continues why did ama make this purchase of karen mcdougal story pecker says, we purchased the story so it wouldn't be published by any other organization and why did you not want it to be published by any other organization the prosecutor asked pecker says, i didn't want we didn't want the story to embarrass mr. trump or embarrassed or hurt the campaign again, this goes to the heart of the case here, guys, the possible campaign finance violation mixed in with a false business records. i will note that ami after david pecker left the board of ami, actually did settled with the federal elections commission. they paid $180,000 fine for

this exact contribution. guess really important, jessica, let's turn now to the panel because we're hearing so much information abbey tonight about what happened, the catch and kill scheme, but also this tied to the actual election and jim, let me start with you on this because when you look at this, the prosecutors, they've got to prove it's not just to benefit or hide it from his family the key here is for the purpose of the election, did they have any clear moments in your mind where they slam dunk that? >> so i don't think so because first off, they're going to cross-examination is going to bear out some other facts, right? they're going to attack the credibility of david pecker. the idea that he was that he was trying to avoid liability himself here by coming in and testifying. they're going to use all of those things. but really, when you go back to new york statue that they're relying on and they, they telegraph that nowhere in that statute doesn't reference campaign finance, right? >> and they're using, they're trying to bolster this argument that the federal election law

prohibits it, and that states new york state law, how somehow applies to that. >> so you're going through two levels. >> and now that that is going to be what makes that a felony, that's a long way to go to get to get to that felony charge. and there's a whole lot more that needs to be shown in order to make the show that proof. because one foreign presence was never charged, the campaign never paid a fine. and while ami paid and agreed to that and michael cohen was charged and pled guilty. they're not allowed to tie michael cohen's guilty plea to trump for the drugs is the judge's original order. so they have some real work to do to get there. >> i mean, he's he's taken issue with the premise of this even been brought as a case. we've heard this complaint before. but they actually have to prove as according to it that they had falsified business records, the intent to commit another crime as part of it. the other crime we're talking about is the campaign finance violations this may shock you, but i actually agree with you no, i'm a pro

prosecution commentator what is gonna be the where the rubber meets the road in his case is jury instruction. >> that is vital in a goes to your point if the jury instructions says that they had a conspiracy to influence an election and not a conspiracy to violate the fec rules and regulations, then your argument may not have as much strength. but if the jury instruction says fec has to be part of the conspiracy, the scheme then donald trump may have an acquittal. most likely a hung jury. >> why would the jury instructions even say that? because that's not part of the prosecution has presented this case the jury instructions are not written until the end of the case. >> but would it specify the federal election part of this when theoretically it could be either the state or the federal statute, because in the charging document, in a

statement of facts they referenced the fec and also new york law if the jury instruction that is given to the jury and the prosecutors already played their card that they're focusing on the state law. >> if they're focusing on a state law and it doesn't mention the fec federal election commission. then that a nurse to trump's benefit. i'm not saying that's an argument that's going to win, but it's an argument if i were representing trump, i would pound that to the ground. let's take a step back for a second, kim, on this and i wanted to do bigger picture, although i do love a good legal nerd discussion, this is wonderful, but thinking about this each witness has a different piece to play. >> i think about an overall jigsaw puzzle, right? this one witness is not going to give you everything they want to have the catch and kill scheme pattern established. they want to suggest that donald trump was aware of a catch and kill scheme for the purpose of trying to have no transparency for the election in moving that particular needle. >> what did you see today? >> well, i think they've

established probably the narrative that he had an intent to influence the election. not necessarily to protect millennia or his reputation and also that the catch and kill scheme was created in order to cover up the payouts to these women. the question i think is what todd blanche said in his opening statement, which is will the jury be persuaded that this is a crime? well, they say to themselves, listed then this is just the rough and tumble of politics. this is just the dirty things that politicians do and should a former president really be prosecuted for what amounts to falsification of business records. that's really the crime what brings it from a misdemeanor to a felony is this intent to commit another crime? i'm or conceal& there was a motion for a bill of particulars. the judge did rule and they had four different theories of these underlying

crimes. three of them, the judge said could go forward one was the federal election commission violation. one was the new york law that loops in the federal election commission violation. and then one was essentially tax fraud that essentially police said that when michael cohen was paid back here, they grossed up the payment to cover up the fact that he was going to have to pay income taxes on that. so we haven't seen that theory. but if any of those i think there were able to establish they might be able to make that link. i just want to go a little bit more big picture because in terms of what we're seeing play out in both courtrooms four what is really important for people regardless of what the judges and juries do, we are seeing donald trump's election criminality at play both in both courtrooms are seeing that how he allegedly broke the law to win the election in 2016. and he wrote a lot to stay in power in 2020 what we are being forced to grapple with his done to the republican party. he's done to the media. we're debating his absurd legal defenses and

theories. he's in court claiming absolute immunity. and we're having to sit here and listen to these arguments. well, it's really about limited immunity and personal official. now, he is saying, i'm you can't come after me for any of this because i wasn't candidate. i was president. i want to be president again, that is what is at stake in these courtrooms and it is absurd. it is unconstitutional and it is a sad state of affairs that we are considering it it isn't important. note that there is a through line between these two cases and at the end of the day, donald trump does not think that they should be accorded all just stand by for one second because i do want to go back to jessica there so many key moments in the testimony from today. jessica, you've got another one and this one involves the white house, you know, david pecker didn't just talk about the scheme during the election up until the election itself, but he also talked about how this really continued on into when trump was elected, even when he entered the white house. in particular, there was a

conversation with white house officials march 2018, actually, right after anderson cooper interviewed karen mcdougal. and here's how the conversation went according to pecker the prosecution said, did there come a time after that after march 2018, when you spoke with mr. trump and other members of his white house staff, david pecker says yes. when in relation to the call that you had with mr. trump and then he said, there come a time after that sorry. pecker said it was right after the call i had with me mr. trump, that there was this other call with the white house steinglass said, who else was part of that call besides yourself and mr. trump? pecker answers hope hicks, and standards that sarah sanders. okay. can you tell the jury about that? call a bit? well, on that call, what i was planning to do, and i mentioned it on the previous call to mr. trump that was going to extend karen mcdougal's contract? it was for six months. the contract was up and i felt that from the last lunch that i had with her that we had fulfilled some of the obligations that she was looking for,

specifically her beauty products and media training. so i was going to send her a new contract he thought that was on our original conversation. he thought that that was also a bad idea. so when i received the second call, when i got the call back and hope hicks and huckabee sanders, huckabee that sarah sanders when she was on the call, i explained to them to the two of them why i was going to extend the agreement and both of them said they thought it was a good idea. prosecutor asked, what was the reason that you gave for why you wanted to extend karen mcdougal's contract. pecker says, i wanted to extend or contract so she would not go out, not give any further interviews, are talked to the press, or say negative comments about american media or mr. trump? now you said that when you had your individual conversation with mr. trump, he was skeptical of that pecker says, yes. prosecutor says, how about when you explain the reason that you wanted to extend her contract to mr. trump, ms hicks, and ms sanders, how to mr. trump react to the new plan or how did he

react to that plan during that second congress? for station pecker answers, saying trump said, it's your business. you do whatever you plan on doing. so guys, it really talks about how pecker was still moving on this and working with karen mcdougal even after trump took office and having these phone calls with very high level people within the white house during the presidency still dealing with the fallout of these catch and kill deals that they had made leading up to the election yeah. >> the other thing that strikes out to me, laura, about that is that after the election, trump is like whatever you want to do is just fine tim, what did you hear and all of that? >> i mean, a lot of this stuff and i know that everybody wants to say, oh, this is all criminality of the campaigns and everything. but the reality is everything that david pecker has talked about is it may be unseemly. it may be immoral but it's not a crime. okay. none of this stuff is a crime.

>> and just to be clear, i mean, this karen mcdougal story, in particular is actually not the allegation that is supposed to be a crime. it's living it's not, it's not charged. it's not it's not ever been charged. it's not even been an fec violation against the campaign and so all of this stuff, we're talking about. so-called prior bad acts, but none of these are prior criminal acts. the only thing that he's charged with is the annotations made in the books of the trump organization related to the payments to michael cohen? that's the only classification business records though. >> that is what that's what the statute is. but here's the thing. >> it's not just the annotation, it's a lie in tax documents that are now being evaluated in court. but they're not tax documents. okay. these these are the books of the corporation. were they're annotating. they get an invoice from michael cohen. they pay the invoice, they write in the books payments. michael cohen, legal fees. that's exactly what michael cohen said to them. it doesn't make a difference for tax purposes because the confidential sediment, remember this is pretty 2018. so the

confidential settlement is just as deductible as legal fees are. so it doesn't have any tax benefit whatsoever. these are not public records. these are not books that are going to be but. in to, any fec filings. so it's not covering up any election law issues one of the frame to jump in there for one second, please. in court, because he's accused of something. >> yes, sir. just to jump in here, the point of the karen mcdougal store for you is not to say any of its criminal, but it's actually to establish the purpose of the whole scheme in general that trump cared more before the election, then he did after the election that david pecker knew that doing this at that particular time would be considered a campaign finance violations. so there are some elements of this the whole mo there's some elements of this that they are trying to establish for the purpose of the jury. >> i said this on your show in august of 20 they allegedly he

is presumed innocent. there was a scheme. it had four legs to that stool one leg was catch and kill, one leg was slimy, ted cruz, hillary dr.. carson the other leg was a pro trump articles and net fourth leg is taxes. and i want to say this, i want to compliment professor or kambia the jury, and i've done a bunch of tax cases and i've had acquittals and every acquittal i had is the jury in my view, conceded that there were hanky panky with the taxes. okay. which is happening here those tax deductions are bogus. and a man, it's it's ridiculous to say there were legal fees. but the jury to get some professor kim's point is at the end of the day when they go in at deliberation room and i've had cases like this with acquittals. they get in there. we've met the elements and then they say to quote the immortal words of larry david

they say, okay, but is this something i want to find a former president convicted of? and if on the defense attorney for donald trump i would subtly, if not explicitly, try to poke that they're in a jury's mind that there may be on paper a crime i think there is. but when again, into deliberation room, is this something you want to elevate to a felony against the former president united switch could take his liberty, right? i mean included in theory entails it's a humbling and i want to make it clear. i think the prosecution has varsity prosecutor which they're brilliant. and i think they have the ability to connect the dots. so that the final mosaic that they present to the jury is going to be clear as a bell. but the defense attorney for president trump attorneys especially the attorney who did a outstanding cross in my view today, they have an open tuning

it may not be an acquittal, but they have an opening to get one or two jurors to say larry david larry david says print particular arguments everybody standby for as we go get more coming up next. the blockbuster case that could end up deciding donald trump's future and the future of the presidency. the institution of the presidency are presidents above the law, how his lawyers decided to argue this before the supreme court today. they basically claimed that presidents could assassinate political rivals and stage cuz this is cnn's special live coverage welcome to the world of spy craft garage glued to the action. let's get down, let's get funky what are you concealing you a communist sympathizer

supervisor streaming exclusively on macs it cabinets to go installation is free for limited time, but are quality custom stock and custom build cabinets and on our gracious home custom closet. so hurry in the free installation, sale ends may 7th only a cabinets to go wow, for less a widely filter. >> it's well-designed, efficient. i appreciate that leaf filters technology keeps debris out of your gutters for good guaranteed. what more could you ask for? >> kalisa, three, three lee filter today, more visibly filtered.com? >> if, advanced lung cancer has you searching for possibilities, discover a different first treatment immunotherapies work with your immune system to attack cancer, but up devo plus your voice is the first combination of two immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread tests positive for pd-l1 and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene up devo plus your voice is not chemotherapy.

it works differently it helps your immune system fight cancer in two different ways. up devo in years well, it can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment, these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough, chest pain, shortness of breath are regularly their heartbeat, diarrhea, constipation, severe stomach pains, severe nausea or vomiting, dizziness, fainting, eye problems, extreme tiredness, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine rash, itching, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, joint pain, flushing or fever these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often went up. diva was used with your voice. tell your doctor about all medical conditions, including immune and nervous system problems. if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant or receive chest radiation your search for to immunotherapies starts here ask your doctor about up devo plus your voy a chance to live longer if you have graves

disease, your eye symptoms could mean something more than gritty feeling, can be brushed away even a little blurry vision can distort things and something serious, may be behind those itchy eyes up to 50% of people with graves could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease which should be treated by a different doctor. >> see an expert, find a ted i norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds

up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... that's like $20 a month per unlimited line... i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc? when others divide. we unite. with real solutions to help our kids. like community schools. neighborhood hubs that provide everything from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools. ...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org force vector rush to walmart, release your potential with four standard, how it really happened sunday at nine on cnn

today was another historic day at the united states supreme court. >> the nine justices heard arguments from former president trump's team who argued that he had sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution which if true, could convey on the presidency and extraordinary amount of power and protection in trump's case, such immunity would bring an end to that federal election subversion case being brought by the special counsel, jack smith and joining us now is justice correspondent and columnist for the nation magazine, ali miss doll so ellie the incredible thing about today's hearings is that we were talking about assassinations. we were talking about military coups. we were talking about selling nuclear secrets. all hypotheticals. but the idea here is where is the line if there is such immunity, can really the president do anything and actually the trump's lawyers answer was yes when the justices were questioning him about it, were you surprised than questioning

the government about this, this part of it? were you surprised them that there was actually some sympathy to the idea that there could be immunity here. >> no, because this is what republican justices on the supreme court have always been about. and what they always done. >> do you remember back in the day i'm going to take readers, i'm going to show my age here. >> remember back in the day, richard nixon gets on tv says, when the president does it, it's not illegal everybody laughed at him and nixon needs a pardon and he lets the live in disgrace for the rest of his miserable life. remember that when that happened? well according to at least five republican justices on the supreme court, richard nixon was right. and in my opinion, we should dig them up and give him an apology for daring to question him because according to the republican justices, a president has immunity from crimes not things that could be crimes from actual crimes. so long as the president claims that he was acting in his official capacity as president

when he commits those crimes. so if trump wants to go out and know, shoot david pecker because he doesn't like the testimony is hearing if come can say, oh, that's my official job as president to protect my administration according to people like sam alito, that's gonna be okay. and it wasn't just sam alito. it wasn't just clarence thomas. it wasn't just the extremist republicans that we've come to know and understand do this stuff all the time. this was coming from john roberts who fundamentally said that there might be some official acts that are criminal, that trump should be immune from. anyway. and so get into the legal nerd part of it. i know laura laura were talking about how you like legal nerd conversations. the legal nerd part of this is that what's the what is the court really trying to do? here because i don't think i don't think anybody reasonable things. i don't think anybody your panel is going to think that what the court ultimately wants to do is grant absolute blanket immunity to any president for any crime for the rest of their, for, for the rest of the future of this

country. because, you know, that's a power democratic presidents get used to and republican justice this is don't want democratic presidents using that kind of power. so the game here for the supreme court is to do what trump has always wanted them to do, delay, delay, delay the trial until after the election. where trump has an opportunity to win reelection and cancel the trial on his own authority, right? and so what they're likely he going to do and i believe it's gonna be a five-four decision with their likely going to do is what's called a remand back to the dc circuit court of appeals to answer the question, are there official acts that the president can commit that are crimes that he's immune from and the dc circuit will say no, but that will take a long time. they'll have to be another hearing, another argument under the decision, and then trump will appeal that decision. and i'll come all the way back to the supreme court. but guess what, folks? supreme court goes on vacation for the summer. they don't come back until the first monday of october. if you

think they're going to hear this case before then us giving them their jack smith, any opportunity to bring trump to trial before the election. i would like to have some of what you're drinking strong. ellie two things here. one i think there were some other things we'll get into this in a second, but there were some other things that happened, including the admission from trump's lawyers that a lot of the things he's charged with are not in fact official acts, but i want to bring in tim parlatore here because tim, you and i've talked about this before and you said to me weeks ago that you believed that the justices were setting up to send this back to the lower courts, correct. was that confirmed today? we i think so. >> i mean, both sides came in with their extreme positions of absolute immunity versus no immunity. >> and the truth is going to end up somewhere in the middle is going to be some kind of qualified immunity. i think that that's what we kind of saw. there may be a split as to how far that goes between the different justices. but it's going to be that. and then once they do kind of figure out what the left and right limits are, that has to then go back to the district court for an

evidentiary hearing. to figure out what is and is not poison know isn't it possible also that they could say they could say, we need to deal with what's official, what's not. but if we can determine right now that some of these things are really not official, they could allow some or most of jack smith's case to go forward i mean, they could do that. >> and if my grandmother had, we'll she could be alive. but they're not gonna do that. i disagree with tim quite strongly here on this idea that the position that he gets no immunity is somehow extreme. no, no, no. it is not extreme to say that the president of the united states just like everybody else& can be prosecuted for crime. remember, when we are talking about official acts versus personal acts, we are talking about official crimes, not official acts. official crimes that the president is doing in his allegedly official capacity. it is not an official act to try to overthrow the election it is

not an official act to try to overthrow the government, yet, trump's lawyer de john sauer, literally argued that it would be an official act that trump would be required to have immunity for if he ordered a coup or he ordered a military assassination. he said, yes to both of those questions saying that sour is completely wrong and antithetical to the democratic process of self-government is not an extreme position. it is the normal standard position that has operated in this country for over 250 years. that is only being overturned now because it helps trump, because republicans win elections. >> the problem here is always kind of confusing what john sauer said with what the justices said, with what the ultimate ruling is going to be, which obviously we don't know what the ultimate ruling is going to be, but some form of qualified immunity, which is not any different than what we give to law enforcement officers. it's not any different than what we give to military that are doing things overseas. yeah. having some form of qualified immunity

whatever you call it, that says certain things, you're not going to get prosecuted for. it. one thing under a drone strike, if you're already a drunk drone strike on an american citizen overseas. that is a crime, that is murder, but doesn't mean that we want people prosecuted for that. if they're the precedent there are things that they have to do that should be exempted for many criminal investigation and prosecution ally on this, but for different reasons, there is no in this moment, there is no criminal immunity for presidents. >> so these are textualists these are originalist. it's nowhere in article two of the constitution there is immunity for legislators and under the speech and debate clause, the impeachment clause specifically says, if someone can be impeached and b, then criminally tried. that's in the plain language of the united states constitution richard nixon sen. was pardoned by gerald ford with the assumption that he could be prosecuted if that was not an

assumption, why would there be a pardon in addition, mitch mcconnell, after the impeachment trial, stood on the senate floor and said, there, where procedurally i we're not going to convict because the justice system can hold this man accountable. the problem in this moment is if you look at donald trump, he, we've never had a president like him. we've had 240 plus years of no need for immunity for criminal uniform. president's, the political system works. the other checks and balances work. donald trump mode through every other guard rail, every other mechanism to disincentivize crimes in the white house, it's not a speed limit that gets us to slow down when we're driving. it's the ticket in the mail. when we when we speed and this in my mind is crucial to ensure there's tickets in the mail for speeding for president. i mean, think about it. >> this is being manufactured by the court in response to january 6 january 6, there

should be accountability for trying to steal an election violently. >> and now the court is going to give the president more power in iran. >> exactly the point that you take me. they did these two competing interests on the one hand, what donald trump has said that there will be a chilling effect in the performance of a president if they feel as though their successor is ultimately going to be able to prosecute them. on the other hand, what does it say, abbey, if you have no criminal penalty, only a political solution and you might be increasingly in bold. and what does that look? >> other interesting thing is that alito raised the prospect that if you don't give immunity, than presidents might decide to do cuz to stay in power. >> that is quite the opposite is where my i want to comment on that. i think alito will probably rule more towards trump than the other side. but i think a leader was playing law professor on that one. no no offense. and he was just tweaking michael dreeben. i got to say michael dreeben was the advocate for the prosecutors. he's a genius, absolute

genius. had 50 arguments for us supreme court. here's my prediction. make it simple okay they are going to reject absolute immunity. >> okay number two, they're all going to agree that private acts are not under any immunity. what they're gonna do is that middle of the sandwich, they're going to have this very broad definition of official acts and. gonna kick it back to judge chunking to have a pretrial hearing to go through the indictment, get rid of any surpluses that violates the test that they are going to create. and if that is the case, you're going to have a pretrial hearing if there's a ruling against president trump mr. trump is going to go up and this trial may be held in 20 okay. >> so why itself that's

imbedded thing even asking for qualified in it, he's making a legal argument about absolute immunity. >> so if you're telling me that we're going to have to sit here and watch the supreme court eat up all this time and invent this new right for a president that he's not even asking for it to delay it past the election that is backdoor, extra legal immunity because the american people will never get the information about what really happened january 6 before this election in november that is inappropriate. one second. let me let jim all right. >> so on the side man that. appropriate and what he results out of this court that makes the conduct of the makes trump immune from the conduct that's alleged. right. so i think when you look at when you look at the questions, when they were talking about the core powers, right? so core power, the presidencies appointments, the perfect example of that is yet take a bribe in order to make the appointment, right?

>> so same thing. let's look at the attorney general issue, right. so there's an allegation that trump tried to replace the attorney general when when he didn't like his answer, when he said i want you to send a letter out saying there was widespread fraud right? >> so the idea that that was an official act sure. >> that's an official act replacing the attorney general. but when you get down to it, the crime there is the personal gain that he's getting by replacing the attorney general, kinda like the bribe. so i think you're going to see a test that really kinda envelops all of the conduct as being criminal in this case. but i think they're going to give yet they're going to give the trial court a test. i do think it's going to get the late. i think it wouldn't on remand, it goes back to the trial and what's going to happen in that in that proceeding, they're going to have a trial within the trial to determine whether there is this whether this conduct is official or private? and when that happens, you have a trial within the trial and all of the things that they came out and make a congressional hearings

old, the things that we saw around january 6 are going to be right on display. i gotta think that the trump campaign saying, oh no, what did i buy here? all right, i i'm going to i'm gonna give you the last word here. >> york conflating civil qualified immunity, which has always been a thing with this new criminal immunity, which has never been a thing. and i don't know why we're pretending like it should be cops don't have immunity from crimes. the congress people don't have immunity from crimes, and president's up and so this moment have not had immunity from crimes. trump is not arguing for civil immunity for his official acts. he is arguing that he has immunity to commit crimes so long as he says he committed the crime while president, and that is simply not something that is ever happened before, but it will happen now. thanks to the six conservative justices on the supreme court everyone, there's so much more to talk

about this issue and we do are even know when the holding back now. i mean, just let it flow design was inching to hear all your all your insight on these issues so how are republican lawmakers defending downtimes, argued to the supreme court will that maybe kill their rivals or a stage, a coup. >> i'm going to ask one live next sometimes the lows of bipolar oppression field 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 i'm like some medicines that only treat bipolar one gets lighter treats both bipolar one and two depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders in weight gain, we're not common cold well, your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts antidepressants be increased these risks and young adults, elderly dementia patients have

increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff, or uncontrollable muscle movements which maybe life-threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects capsulated can help you let in the light ask your doctor about capital, either find savings and support and kept blight a.com dude, what are you doing i'm protecting my car that's too much work. whether tech is so much easier laser measured floor liners up here, seat protector, and carto liner back there hi, out here side window deflectors. and mud flaps. and the bump step keep the bumper debt-free, cool. it's the best protection for your vehicle. knew more pre-owned great. but where do i order whether tech.com whatever your business needs, this different can print it. yeah, this sprint, like rachel need to fund packaging. so this upper design and print a new stickers tape and thank you cards orlean, ducky. he didn't get their brand out there, so they print a new t-shirts, bottles, and caps, and tasha well, she needed a

total refresh, so mr. brown made her a new logo and that that that all that because with vista print the principalities are endless and it all with 25% off for new customers at this sprint.com when anyone in this housewares white, it doesn't stick white fur law white to our class. that's risky, or it has no rules, mom white with coffee, but dangerous endeavor light to soccer. i'm not going to slide tackle. >> he's going to side tackle. >> but now with tai doxy white, we can clean our white clothes without using bleach even works on colors i slide tackled. >> i see that keep your whites white even without bleach, with tied oxy white. >> we got this it's better

outside with a ninja woodfire, exhale ghrelin smoker multitask with an inch or pro connect app monitor, control, cook from your phone could do proteins to different levels of do

>> that's not a typo. find the plan that's right for you at trust and whale.com, the white house correspondents dinner lives saturday at seven eastern khan, cnn more now on a very consequential moment for the american presidency, the supreme court giving a bit of a glimpse of a future in which president's at least have some kind of immunity from criminal prosecution during me. >> now, republican congressman from ohio, jim jordan, who of course chairs the house judiciary committee congressman, good to see you again. how are you this evening i'm fine, laura. >> good to be with you.

>> it struck me listening to the arguments today. the signature question, and i wonder what your answer is do you think there should be any limits on presidential immunity? >> well, i think the standards are real clear. it was was he president at the time the answer to that is clearly yes. was he engaged in official duties? official conduct? i think the answer to that question is yes. so i think there should be immunity for that. i think i think all sides agreed. i thought i thought john sauer did a great job in making that case at the supreme court so i think that was that was clear that the court has been clear in the past that they want to make sure a president, i think the words they used and the nixon case was fearlessly and in be able to conduct the duties of his office. and you can't have this idea that you're going to get charged with some, some decision you make in your official capacity as president and so i think that is clear. president trump was president. he was engaged in his official conduct. his official duties, i think it's real clear what congressman on that point, and i think that was raised there

is this dynamic at play on the one hand, we can be free to do what you'd like to do as the president without thing you're gonna get prosecuted by your successor. and the flip side of that coin though, is feeling so embolden that you don't think if there is any criminal liability ahead of you. so you might go beyond what your otherwise able to do. do you have that concern as a member of another and coequal branch of government that a president could conceivably view the absence of prosecution as licensed to just do it, take all the power well, i think that's a real concern that we have separate equal branches of government for a reason, it's the best system ever designed, but i don't think president trump was engaged in that mean what does jack smith charged and with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding really, he said peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. >> i mean, i don't see how the president can be charged with that. what's so ever, but that's what's, here's the interesting thing about today alvin bragg is charging president trump with conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 election. and jack smith is

charging president trump with conspiracy to interfere with the 2020 election seems to me that what you got going here is alvin bragg and jack smith conspiring to interfere with the 2024 election. and based on based on all the headlines i see all the headlines today are all this looks like it's going to go back to the supreme court's going to send it back to the lower court and it won't be settled before the election. well, why the heck does that matter? well, if i'm just concerned about answering this fundamental question on what is the power, what immunity exists for the president, how that's defined? why does it matter? why does it have to happen before the election? i think that proves the point. the real conspiracy here is jack smith, alvin bragg, and frankly fani willis, all working too. inspire to impact the 2024 election. that is the real concern well, i hear the points you're making, although you are conflating di just separate sovereigns? >> obviously, jack smith, alvin bragg, fani willis, are separate entities entirely and the actual crimes charged against trump in the men, they're all democrats, laura, they're all democrats i hear i

hear about the politics and what you're making. but the real issue here i want to refocus on the conversation about the concerns about immunity more broadly. and one of the reasons to answer your question, people do want the answer beforehand. i think as they want the transparency to decide who they would like to vote for it based on either an absence of or an actual criminal well record, but let's get back to the supreme court congress thinks i know this is a very important issue for you, but laura, but good transparency that they paid after president trump now for eight years, i mean that we know more about president trump than probably any person in history for goodness sake, this is as transparent as it comes. they want him in court all four of these places before the election because they know it will help democrats in this upcoming presidential race. plain and simple. and i think frankly anymore, because he that hasn't had why they wait eight years to brick i don't want to cut you off, but i do have common sense and common sense does say he has actually

benefited ever since he was initially charged in the alvin bragg manhattan da's office, he was able to campaign raised contributions are member he infamously was talking about his mug shot being able to market that as well. >> so he has not really been completely harmed in terms of his campaign because as you have said in the past he believes that it is beneficials for him to acknowledge in his mind that it's him against the system. but back to immunity congress, i want to refocus the conversation, please don't you have concerns at all from the hypotheticals that were raised and i want to give you a chance to respond to this because there were so many hypotheticals, some of them were this about what a commander in chief could do. one was you believe presidents should be able to bribe others, should they be able to assassinate rivals, order a military coup? >> i wonder what you made of those hypotheticals. >> do all of those do you think deserve presidential immunity? >> well, president trump did engage in any of those. and of course there's not immunity for actual criminal that kind of stuff, assassinating

somebody you got to be kidding me. so of course, by president trump did engage in any of that. that's the point. you can bring up those hypotheticals. the court can make. but that's not what happened here the charge from jackson fifth is the obstruction of an official proceeding conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. that's just not just didn't happen if they're going to go up to president trump for that, then frankly, every democrat who objected to anytime a republicans won the presidency this century, they objected on january 6, 2001, they objected on january 6 2005, and they objected on january 6, 2017. is was that some kind of conspiracy to obstruct an official? me come on so that to me is just ridiculous. president trump didn't engage in any of those activities. and he was president and he was conducting his official duties. that's where the immunity should apply. >> do you think that's appropriate to have a lower court not the supreme court provides word of an itemized, detailed list of what constitutes official action and

what constitutes private action. i asked the question because obviously it raises concerns about the supreme court. in a position to dictate whatever the president is able to do so, again, as the head of the coequal branch of government is a issue for the trial court congressman, or an issue for the supreme court to clearly state what's official and what's not. >> well i think i think what's going to happen on one of your guests said this earlier. i think where i do think the court will establish some kind of test. it's likely that it'll get sent back to the lower court, judge chutkan, and they will have to that court will have to go through the facts, put it all together, and apply it to apply the facts to the test that the supreme court comes up with. i think that's likely to happen. but again, as i pointed it out, all the headlines i see from the mainstream press are, oh, we don't want that to happen because then that'll take time and we won't have the real trial of president trump before the election, like all the left once i mean, i think we should get the right decision if that's what the supreme court thinks is the right decision that takes time. so be it. i'm

i'm more concerned about getting this right i think, that's exactly what the court is. why i think that's probably what the court will do. >> let me ask you on that point. no, we have to go don't you want if you believe that these are completely ridiculous litigation and prosecutions, if that's what you believe, then wouldn't you want it resolved sooner than later? why why would you want this to be dragged beyond? i mean, you say it's been eight years or four years or periods of time, well, why not just have the trials, have them conducted, leave it to juries and let them decide once and for all as our system dictates, i would love for this. i would love for the supreme court to decide this and say this is ridiculous, which i think it is. i think frankly most americans think that's the case. i'm not arguing for dragging this out. just saying that's what appears to me likely to happen and uncommenting on the response from the left, which are up in arms at oh, we can't let this dry out because we actually want the trial because they think it'll help them politically in the upcoming election. that's all i'm pointing out. i'm wondering court to decide this. >> i mean, i do wonder in the end what they will decide and

of course where a jury now in panel didn't manhattan and any other case that comes along because i know you and i agree with the idea of a speedy trial for the benefit of the defendant, how she shared committee chairman jim jordan. thank you so much for joining me tonight. >> you've had laura. thank you amanda, i'm wondering what you make of this. >> i can see you in my periphery nodding and shaking your head. i'm curious what your thoughts are well, there's the idea that we shouldn't be debating hypotheticals i reject that, but we'll take jim jordan at his word. let's talk about what really happened and what may come up in this right now in america, there are a number of republicans being charged with crimes per serving as fake electors that was the scene. allegedly or frustrated by the president and his official capacity, how can it be that he can be at the center of that conspiracy? all these other people can be charged. they can go to court, but somehow donald trump has this immunity bubble around him that that cannot be in even the members of congress

were involved in this new, there are some nothing wrong with it because as revealed by the january 6 committee, they asked the present four pardons from it. so how can that be and then what also came up in the court today was the idea that there's complete unfettered pattern power that cannot be touched that should be rejected outright. the pardon clause of the constitution is 20 words. those 20 words they're not a free pass to run roughshod over the rest of the constitution to create licenses for political violence. and the way that donald trump dangles then for january 6, rioters, you can't use the pardon power to override first amendment rights. and so the idea that was toyed with the supreme court de, also that this is a green light to commit all kinds of other crimes and wrap the present. another immunity bubble is just absurd and ridiculous. >> i got to read kimberly's new book about part of the park. right now. >> next there's more revelations by the way, from trump's hush money trial, including the other celebrities who are involved in catch and kill stories like ours now it's where nagar and tiger

woods, who i bet none of them want their name in any of this right now we mentioned with this, let's romantics welcome i'm your host checkup i wish weather getting up here fine, but i think we're just going to go to bed and we believe it goes my that is buried in vr meanwhile at a vrbo when other vacation rentals have no privacy, try one that has no one, but you i love your dress bates. >> i splurged a little because liberty mutual customize my car insurance and i saved hundreds it's great. i know. right. i've been telling everyone did you hear that type to set her first word? >> can you say mama never? can you say on how many people did

you tell only pay for what you need like, hey, they're brenda. it's carroll sadly. >> so which like are we operating on? >> you mean arm it's all connected asking the right question can greatly impact your future. you sure you're an orthopedist. >> actually, i'm a sagittarius specially when it comes to your finances, give a question. >> are you a certified financial planner? yes. i'm a cfp professional, cop professionals are commitd to acting in your best interest. >> that's why it's good gotta be a cfp. bind your cfp professional, and let's make a plan doubt or what is circle surplus appeal to take flight circle is an entity that gets you to the next level circled is which hope for life tosses limits away so available at walmart and drinks circle.com. >> meet barclay, he's part pitbull and part masterpiece meet the bissell revolution

hydro steam it's part stubborn stain remover and part of peacemaker this'll a new breed of clean i'm elizabeth wagmeister in los angeles in this is cnn more transcripts justin from donald trump's hush money criminal trial including some new revelations about that catch and kill idea. >> those schemes let's go straight to cnn's jessica schneider, jessica, what did we learn today about what else? david pecker, an ami we're up to yeah. >> that'd be the latest revelations coming from the cross-examination done by trump's legal team. this about how pecker also worked to work with other celebrities and maybe berry or published some of their stories. this one about tiger woods, pecker saying we purchased a story about tiger woods from a source, but all the investigating photograph that's all the investigative works was done internally, then the prosecutor saying and the photographs that we're talking about are photographs of a

woman meeting with tiger woods at a parking lot in florida, right? that's correct. >> and this is one of those instances where you bought the rights to a story in order to leverage it against a celebrity, correct? >> pecker saying yes to use the access that you had to this information and the exclusive rights that you had to get tiger woods to do something that you wanted pecker again saying yes. and in this instance, and this is around 2007, correct? yes. >> and in that instance, what you wanted was for mr. woods to appear on the cover of men's health, right answer. it was men's fitness and guys, this really goes to what the defense then later picked up on about how this wasn't just about donald trump pecker, use these catch-and-kill schemes and paying off celebrities in many different realms. and the defense will like if we hear them pick up tomorrow morning using that again to downplay what was done on donald trump's behalf. >> yeah, i'm trying to make it sound mundane and normal by the way, none of this is normal. this is something am i was doing it. this is not i would

not qualify this necessarily as journalism, jessica. thanks for all of that standby for us. our coverage continues right after this how far would you go to set the ambiance of your space try the air wigwe with air wake essential myth infused with natural essential oils, defile your low bit with immersive fragrance grins for 2405 days. >> now, that's a breath of fresh air whacked me. >> nice going though. nothing like a little confidence boost to help ease you back into the dating scene that includes having a smile. you feel good about fortunately, aspen dental specializes in dentures and implants made just for you and with flexible financing, you don't need to sacrifice quality work for price that fits your budget at $0 down plus 0% interest. if paid in full and 18 months, helping our patients. but their best mile for it it's one more way has been dental is in your corner you've got better things to do than clean out clog gutters,

calling filter today and never clean out clog gutters again, we filters technology keeps debris out of your gutters for good guaranteed. >> colleague three, three lee filter today put simply filter.com smile. >> you found it the feeling of findings, psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only so take to a one we've daily till for moderate to severe plaques, 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 check 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, cancer there's including lymphoma, muscle problems and chambers in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides or had a vaccine or plan to tick to as a tick to inhibitor two as part of the jackpot only, it's not known as a tiktok has the same risks as jak

inhibitors find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one septic, two. ask for it by name. so clearly you so get to watch stone do served a better way of responding igniting get outdoor cooking revolution, creating better backyard celebrations. >> you make every breakfast, lunch, and dinner that anything anytime anywhere go to your nearest blackstone retailer of blackstone products, now and make everything better. a blackstone. >> they slept on me for 15 years, things like collected pollen, dust, dander, all that time. they could have protected me. >> mallory's mattress protectors, what, 99.9% of dirt, dust, ood pressure, and

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