as well. and i supreme 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 that today's supreme court oral arguments. i should note. he is also running from missouri attorney general. we're not gonna get into that tonight. it's great to have you or you were 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 good 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 for 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? oh was michael dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsel's office essentially

admitting that these facts were so inextricably 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. please 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 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. and it's been missed in much of the press coverage around president trump's die, is there 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

that we believe are clearly official. >> we're talking about breakdown, what we'll looking at things like asking the department of justice to investigate claims of election fraud considering placing 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 that 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, 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 or their their acts that could 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 then once the you say or 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 you 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 private conversations that were mentioned that the court today, private conversations actions 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 where we're conversations he had with people like john eastman and jenna ellis and rudy giuliani one, 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? >> it's worth noting and it's really important to explain what this alternate slates of electors were really throughout

american history, probably most notably in 1870s six, 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 them to pick a different slate in 18, 76 rutherford b. hayes was alive did president on the back of three alternate slates of electors. so those sorts of preparatory actions giving political actors the ability to act on allegations of election fraud. i think there's probably intermixed private and official conduct their and that ultimately will be a very thorny issue for the district court on remand to assess that's a pretty general perez view of the fake slates of electors as amy coney barrett, the justice noted today, even fake paperwork that was just created for slates of electors that we're not alternate. >> they just were fake their fraud. >> you a little again, in 18, 76 rutherford b. hayes was

elected president 20 in night, there's a long history this is a 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 chicken. >> well, again, what we're talking about is alternate slates of electors and you can 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 seen he said, let me ask you this because if you believe that there are some private acts in here and some official acts in here, why didn't 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, unfortunately, 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 agreed justness of those decisions to not recognize any immunity in the criminal context whatsoever. >> well, the supreme court, the justices did see 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 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 were 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 had a moment where i'm sitting president tried to overturn a legitimate election until now. again, i would, i would fight your 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 change x in place and 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 in america today. >> well, i would disagree with that characterization. i noted that, you refer to them as the biden investigations, obviously present biden is not involved in these, but you just said that they're hypotheticals

they're actually not alyssa farah griffin, who is a common structure 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 think it's just hyperbole. i make it pretty brazen argument that military coups could potentially be official acts that will the person wasn't executed. >> it doesn't matter just because a 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 loud under a constitutional 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 hi, there political rivals with the threat of political prosecution the day they leave office. and to me that's a very scary scenario. >> so 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 prosecutor, 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 be fitzgerald in 1982, what is it victory here? >> is it the supreme court embracing your argument on total immunity or is it just sending get 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 was still considered. and 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 were inside the supreme 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 recited 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 since attorney mr. sour suggests that those things could be official acts, 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 tourney 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.& a guest at hearing that that was the position the former president was taking. >> jim trusty what was your reaction? because john sauer did 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. >> well, you know, he's conceding the flavoring of the private acts provided by hey barrett's questions, which he's saying shimming the criminal intent within the actions which gets you down to very minute factual issues of like a did an elector a replacement elector, 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. so 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 line 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? for 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 forward for litigating whether something falls within or without immunity. >> 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 hypothetical. >> 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 harmed supreme court justices for the purpose of a pointing, their success there's clearly an official acts 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. >> the thing that stood out to me also was i remember when trump was impeached after january 6, mitch mcconnell stood in the well of the senate and 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. john sauer did still trying to make was that you must president first must be impeached and then convicted to 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 beitin twitch, 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 it's elector scheme to various people is private attorney that is not an official act. a call to raffensperger to rapids work with the secretary of state and saying, find me 11,000 more 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 or deadly for this president. and 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 did a 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 so you know what this president and he, at the end, there were 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 in the trump legal team size if this just does go back down to the lower court, which would for people at home being like, what what does that entail for the case? it would basically have so many complications delay and there's no way it would happen come before november. >> yeah. i mean, look, the whole notion that there was a 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 are 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 it 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 time mind that jack created. >> 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 going to be returning all of these cases were immunity is in play to fact-finding. >> lower courts which will then have& your litigation like you have 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 one is not the last appeal to go all the way up? a 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 we're also going to new insight gleaning it from the full 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 chin's case injurious ladders, gutter mac yeah. >> no wonder you hate cleaning your gutters. >> good think there's leaf filter are patented filter technology keeps leaves and debris out of your gutters forever. guaranteed. call a33 lee filter to get started and get the permanent gutter solution that ends clogs for good. >> they took the time to answer all of our questions. they really put us at ease and clot gatera for good hello, a33 leaf filter, revisit lee filter.com today, if you have graves disease, your eye symptoms could mean something more that gritty feeling can be brushed away even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious, maybe behind those itchy eyes up to 50% of

people with graves it's could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor see an expert, find a ted is specialist at is-it ted.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. update even your voice 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, irregular 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 two immunotherapies starts here ask, your doctor about up devo plus your voy a chance to live longer when to leave works all day. >> so i can keep working taking just one 12 hours of uninterrupted pain-related i'll leave videotaped four and for fast topical been child iv, when, we say it will be on time they expect it to be on time, it turns shipping to your advantage if those expectations with reliable ground shipping thanks, brandon

business. it's not a nine-to-five proposition. it's all day and into the night. it's all the things that keep this world turning. the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business. see why comcast business powers more small businesses than anyone else. get started for $49.99 a month plus ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. don't wait- call today. saada luxury mattresses made

affordable solomon in new york 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 judge chagrin, author of the people's courts, pursuing judicial independence in america. >> professor, thanks for being with us. i saw, 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? 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 follow those rules. so we've been concerned about the misuse of

prosecutorial power donald trump is telling us exactly what he's going to 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're following the rule of anything prosecutors are abusing their power yes. i think this case is an abuse of y. so there 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 or applications. the first is that there has never been a state prosecution. i 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 man da. so this is the da trying trump for a federal violation. shoehorn into state statutes a state prosecutors never tried this before. 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 miss recording, to upgrade trade 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 limit 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. >> a 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 courts what's

unusual here is the false business records were used to cover up a campaign fight, viral relation. 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 a novel crime. >> so one problem is you could always go to a level of generality with any case of selective prosecution i 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 misfold. in fact, the clinton camp, 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 also campaign to become meant

that da, on the platform of holding trump accountable american american prosecutors in states, they run for office. that 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. america prosecutors don't run for office as a vote 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. that's not what's supposed to happen. and all the ways i did not know that that's not what he said running my code first i share some of the professors reservations that are stated in the article i've said a lot of this on air. i 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 right there. 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, when you criticize someone for prosecutorial ethics, what specific prosecutorial ethics violations do you think there is here? >> there is an aspect of this about ethics, which is that the part of to, to comply with sixth amendment 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 for the entire year the indictment of 34 charges. were only specified. the business filings, and there was silence about what the other charged ones it was shocking to me as 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 di trump's lawyers asked for a bill of particulars. this is the way that new york says it's 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 maybe there's 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 novel conduct and it's a capacious statute in new york, this 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 isn't very broad 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 fact 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 17150 to 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 administration didn't charge it. but the fact that the biden administration that the biden doj 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& that the federal government may have been able i just want to say to your point, i've never heard as when i was a prosecutor& as his 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 what 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, i've never seen a judge say, no, you don't have to turn over a bill a particulars. i'd say, judge, i don't even know what how am i supposed to defend them if i don't know what i'm defending him against, it makes no sense, judge chutkan and 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 me for gram politically will be back life is better with the credit god's on your side rewards once available to the view, are now accessible to the credit one bank get cashback rewards and lins large i was born with wings, but psoriasis swooped into clip them. >> it crushed my confidence but no longer was psoriasis get a piece of me. >> i can love my skin again with benzoic only booms alex targets and blocks is 17 plus f to calm inflammation, i can

control my plaques and start getting myself back in xilinx helps adults with moderate to severe psoriasis control plaques to deliver clearer skin fast for results that last i will give myself back the freedom of shorts data where black again, from head to toe. most people got 100% clear skin saw him after the first dose serious side effects including suicidal thoughts and behavior infections, and lowered ability to fight them liver problems and inflammatory bowel disease have occurred. >> tell your doctor if these happen or worsen or if you've had a vaccine or plan to start to get yourself back with them zealous. >> asked your dermatologist student x today so which like are we operating? >> asking the right question can greatly impact your future. >> share your an orthopedist, especially when it comes to your finances? >> yes. certified financial planner. i'm a cfp professional cop professionals are committed to acting in your best interest. that's why it's got to be cfb florida life

after student debt is within reach refi as certified.com, you could save thousands and get to your goals faster. so far get your mind funny right here. you can expect to find crystal clear audio expensive, display space and more confident but for everyone but we still left room for all the unexpected things. you'll find out here. >> the new 2024 grand cherokee lineup, jie there's only one during the jeep celebration event kit, the 2024 jeep grand cherokee, starting at 38,000 to

doctors preferred better science, better results. >> more than liebermann at the

pentagon. >> and this cnn new poll numbers and tonight's shedding light on what the many legal problems that we have been talking about could mean for donald trump politically 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 at the table by republican strategist doug hi back with us. elliot williams, also here, cnn political 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

we're 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 may very conscious decision. they don't want it to be donald trump. and i was at nikki haley's when one of her last two or three rallies in raleigh, north carolina and the atmosphere in that room was real. and 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, if donald 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 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 were 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 that raises 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 to someone to do some outreach to or are they just annoyed and frustrated with this? aaron 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 biden 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 their people who just really are not politically engaged and if they decide to 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 is, they just don't want trump, then talk to them and figure out how to get them in your the shannon term, looking for a home. but you said is very important because after a primary, republicans and democrats used the same language, you're voters going to come home. most of those voters are going to come home for donald trump's. 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 about also third or fourth party candidates. >> it's been fascinating as we've seen, even people who have been heavily critical of

donald trump, people like bill barr, the former attorney general, say they're still going to supportive 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 himself has been weigh 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 courtroom. 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 cell comments as you walked into the courtroom, we talked about the gdp, gas prices isis israel protest or the roiling college universities right now but today, he's, there's a question of whether he violated his gag order. the judge 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 spectacular 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 so what we've been doing, 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 is in the courtroom four days. >> they're not in the courtroom next wednesday. they weren't supposed to be. and so they scheduled two campaign events that day. and then initially, it looked like his gag order hearing was going to maybe throw 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 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 is four. >> what about this? what we're seeing, these numbers on 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? here's 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 he can't sit down with his campaign staff and talk about strategies on different states or communications or fundraising. donor maintenance is, you know, very well, he can't do any of those things. he's a weekend warrior in that sense, sometimes late night warrior. and that's it. >> well, wait to see what those implications look like just ahead, new details from the trial itself or learning about what was said today. it's a

fascinating back-and-forth in the transcript the white house correspondents dinner live saturday at seven eastern khan, cnn missing out on the things you love because of asthma get back to better breathing with the sandra, an add-on treatment for eosinophilic asthma that is taken once every eight weeks to sandra is an offer sudden breathing problems or other eosinophilic conditions, allergic reactions may occur. don't stop your asthma treatments without talking with your doctor, tell your doctor if your asthma worse headache, and sore throat may occur. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, step back out there with his nra. ask your doctor if it's right for you? >> somebody would ask. or something and she would just walk right past he didn't know they were talking to her. >> i just could not here. >> i was hesitant to get the hearing aids because of my short hair, but nobody even sees them are nearly invisible. >> hearing aids are just one reason we've been the brand leader for over 75 years.

>> when i finally get here for the first time, i could hear everything called miracle ear at one 347090, and schedule your free hearing evaluation today. >> ai is redefining work artificial intelligence is super charging our own human intelligence and that's what we'll move business forward. >> machine learning robotics and generative ai are increasing productivity. it's celebrating decision-making and the acting our lives at work and beyond as real value is and how companies use it to empower their workforce and earn trust with customers to maximize your ai and hi investment turned to assure their last month massive solar flare added a 24 hour to the day. businesses are wondering what should we do with bacon and eggs 25 get down right so response, 20% with the hours with the extra hour, i'm thinking a py power let's put

it through a book this is going to wreak havoc on overtime approvals. >> anything can change the world of working from hr to pay roll adp designs forward thinking solutions to take on the next, anything, nothing dems my light like a migraine with nortech ott. i've found relief. >> the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent all-in-one to those with migraine. >> i see you for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults doing you take if allergic to nortech odi team, allergic reactions can occur even days after using most common side effects are nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we talk to oh, care provider about nortech ott from pfizer. >> i saw who would psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. i was on a journey for a really lolon time to find some relief placenta ics works for me consent ticks helps real people get real relief from the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis series allergic reactions, severe skin reactions that look like eczema and an increase was given

infections, some fatal have occurred. >> tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms at a vaccine or plan to four if ibd symptoms develop or worsen, i move so much better because of course santos ask your rheumatologist about cassette decks it's a new de one. >> we're our shared values propel us towards a more secure future through yes a partnership built upon cutting-edge american, australian, and british technologies will develop state-of-the-art next generations that were readings in build something stronger together. security, decades of peace and prosperity for america and our allies. we are going forward together not flossing well, then add the wo of listerine to your routine. >> new science shows listerine is five times more effective than plus et reducing plaque above the gum line for a cleaner, healthier mouth this three, feel the world. >> everyone sees meanwhile, at

a vrbo, when other vacation rentals are just for likes, dry one, you'll actually like continued to get new details 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 for in-depth understanding of david pecker's testimony, if you're 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 one exchange where josh steinglass, the prosecutor, says, were you aware of the expenditures by corporations made for the purpose? purpose of influencing an election 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 ami had made a $150,000

payment to karen mcdougal. pecker said as 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 where pecker in direct 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 at a campaign contribution because it's money spent for the benefit of the campaign. oh, come on. you

don't think that's pecker gave some really important 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 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 pecker contrasting how trump approached it, expressed his concerns about those allegations, crucial evidence that is crucial evidence because does lie 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 $50,000 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 kopan 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 clear 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, their tactical decisions but maybe it 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 writing or articles, she's quiet, she's easy. things are going fine. so he said, i want to thank you for handling them. mcdougal situation. then he said i want to he also said i want to thank you for the doorman's story,

for the doorman's situation in the question from the prosecutor is in what did you understand mr. trump to be thanking you for regarding the karen mcdougal story and 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 the 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, focused on 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 has 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, a bunch of money, which that narrative, which they're trying to put four off the 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 the top headlines. he didn't want the details. so now they tried to paint the picture of a totally different guy that we heard about before. yeah. but but the difference is, i mean, this is you know, there's a big difference between being interested in the mundane once israel, what's going on, israel it with a local affairs. what's going on? >> so one may be selling a story four, i think we're right where i would go to your question if i was the defense are i think focusing on was donald trump part of the falsification, the accounting, and there's a tape coming up in this trial, the secret tape

that michael cohen made off his client, donald trump. >> it's really going to help the defense on that. and what we've heard, we've played it here many anytime. but in essence, trump is sort of clueless. he goes, he knows they're paying, he's very much on board with pain to silence. it's karen mcdougal. they're talking about and he just keeps go i don't know. what do we get. and cohen says leave it to me and alan. i got it. no, no, no, you don't worry. i'm handling that's the crowd that that would be what i would argue 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 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 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 part involved in this part of it if he was checking to make sure that the payment was made in cash, that does point to a level of interest in sort of the nitty-gritty of the details. on 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 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 suggests 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 and 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& that included celebrities, right? pecker? yes. and most celebrities wanted positive treatment. all public occasions, right? pecker. they do. and you had a relationship like this with other politicians, correct? pecker says, yes. and you are aware that many politicians work with immediate and tried to promote their image, right? pecker says, yes, and promote their brand pecker says yes to facilitate their campaign, correct? pecker says yes standard operating procedure, as you understand it? correct? david pecker says yes. and in fact, in another place and 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 but that was a very skillful cross-examining and 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 covered up for other celebrities. they weren't running for president. he didn't pay $150,000. >> what was covered in her right? bottles, 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 search i'm not saying you're wrong from what i was told them, people in the courtroom today, it was very similar what he did for arnold schwarzenegger. >> in fact, there was a lot of examination to today on, on his shorts a day here and what he had done for him. so we'll see want to thank everyone in the panel, please send your bills to my office. >> the news continues right here on cnn you were diagnosed with thyroid disease along 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 did you know there's no t in skechers as always been scheduled these sketches get to slip bands sketches. >> romo thing is always in helpt amounts without over or under investing across all your benefits and savings options so you can feel confident in your financial choice this is a really know how to put two and two together well-planned, well invested, well-protected gutters can cause big problems fast until now call a33 lee

filter today for your free gutter inspection, i've had terrible flooding problems on my porch. >> now to understand why right now, lee filter is offering a free inspection on your schedule lee filter is a permanent gutter solution, so you never have to worry about constantly damaged from clog gutters again call us today and schedule with your free inspection schedule, a free inspection colleague, three three leaf filter today, morphism leaf filtered out luck and good guys situations are better with the credit god's on your side comment for awards once available to the few are now accessible to the many earn points for travel with credit one bank and liz large to test the toughness of the key a sorrento x grow and the key is sorrento turbo-hybrid we recreated some of them wettest spring hottest summers wendy is false and coldest winters all

on one track to prove these three row suvs was built for the unstoppable kia movement that inspires predicts, or colon challengers worth taking cinematic experience it's smart. >> subducted, and bruce luck with sexual tension. >> i'll hang out well, this later, i'll make kentucky when i deliver a supernova confirming performance, you're not a member of my fin pups groundwater nino's challengers he is nothing short of miraculous, isn't a game about winning the points that matter

when i was your age, we never had anything like this. what? wifi? wifi that works all over the house, even the basement. the basement. so i can finally throw that party... and invite shannon barnes. dream do come true. xfinity gives you reliable wifi with wall-to-wall coverage on all your devices, even when everyone is online. maybe we'll even get married one day. i wonder what i will be doing? probably still living here with mom and dad. fast reliable speeds right where you need them. that's wall-to-wall wifi with xfinity. now i can make every weekend join me at john.com. >> i'm dr. sanjay gupta. >> and this is cnn closed captioning brought to you by mesobook.com are firm only represents mesothelial of victims and their families. >> if you or a loved one who has been diagnosed with ms ophelie oma. call us now