here in new york the former presidents trial continue with more testimony from his one-time friend and publisher david pecker. he described his role as suppressing the storieies and te affairs would donald trump. this photo shows pecker and the former president walking past the white house rose garden. the president asking him at that moment according to him, how is karen doing and he said he replied she is doing well, she is quiet, everything is going well. in another conversation he said he referred to dougal as our girl. he also suggested trump was angry about the interviews i did with her and stormy daniels. we will bring you excerpts from our coverage tonight. >> the supreme court oral arguments and the conservatives appeared to embrace some form of criminal immunity. the liberal minority by contrast focused on the temptation that

might be for the future president if they have that. >> what i am more worried about you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn't chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, i am trying to understand what the disincentive is wrong turning the oval office into the seat of criminal activity in this country. >> in a moment i will be joined by former trump council and former white house counsel in the nixon administration who was central to the last case the supreme court in deciding on if presidents are above the law. and the transcript that just

came out from today. >> we will hear from arthur and jeffrey and jessica, investigative counsel, and senior legal analysis and jim who was in court today. a lot of billable hours right here at the table. let's talk more about what the scene was like inside of the court room. >> i found it interesting the contrast between the direct and cross-examination. the direct was very methodical. they go through every single detail pulling back the curtain with uk bringing in evidence and how they discuss signal apps. then once we got to the cross and was rapidfire. the defense was walking them through and poking holes into what the direct spent doing for days. another thing i thought was interesting in the interviews you said that you did and the

excess hollywood tape and all of these details that very likely these jurors have heard prior to the 2016 election, they were enthralled. we were learning that ther e were pink talking between questions being asked and pecker's answers. meanwhile the former president sort of setback particularly during pecker's direct with his arms crossed at times kind of closing his eyes, listening but really not reacting much at all to what his former friend was saying on the stand just feet away from him. there was a lot of quiet drama in a sense but you can feel it. >> quick takes from everyone what stood out to you. >> prosecutors know you do not high-five at the end of direct exam. that is easy part. the change in pace was noted. i think the defense started to score some points and chip away at pecker's testimony. for example they establish this catch and kill stuff, this

capturing stories and doing favors for celebrities, donald trump did not invent that. that has been since the beginning. that is important for the jury to understand. michael cohen i think they scored a point when they establish he is always playing an angle for himself. they got that out of the das witness. the last was i think there was a contradiction and an important part of packer's testimony where he says now that when they first started discussing the plan, and at first he didn't say that, not saying he has ruined it but i think he did a good job on direct that would be happy is the prosecutor, but now sit back because he is taking on some damage. >> from my time as a prosecutor but agree. i would be happy if this was my witness. i think what stands out is it is quite easy if they know someone else but today, pecker pointed the finger at himself. he admitted he was part of a criminal conspiracy and he

talked about election crimes and his own concern and what they did violated that. >> he raised concerns and said he sought legal counsel on that at the time. >> i think that is incredibly damaging. one of the competing narratives is are we talking about a personal matter and hush money and what people do to connect stories, we talking about campaign and people considering, we know they are trying to influence an election antedate david said that is exactly what was going on. >> from what i heard about and i believe it is correct, the cross-examination they made some points right out of the box on the way you described it, that is what you want. you look and you only have one chance to make a first impression on the jury. this is the first big cross-examination. you want the jurors to know right off the bat. you will hear all of these

nights, prepared, totally rehearse, direct examination but watch what happens. watch how we slay that. once we dig into the details, and i had a friend in the courtroom and he said after the first hour and a half i wanted to take a shower after hearing how filthy the tablet industry is. i don't know the details but apparently there was a lot about arnold schwarzenegger and when he was going to run in with a buried. >> he testified that schwarzenegger had been in contact with them about essentially doing the same kind of catch and kill stories. >> and the analogy today they said would is the big deal about bringing that out. if a jury is there they are listening to a crime and someone is talking about how horrible double parking isn't someone says you double park and you double parked, this slides into the jury nullification basket. this is sop, is not like donald trump is the only one who has

ever dated. politicians pay to bury stories. >> i was going to pick up on that point. what is significant about establishing that ami did this for there's people he negates the idea that it was done for election purposes. if they are catching and killing stories rather celebrities. >> but he was running for governor. >> but mark wahlberg wasn't. there are other people that pecker said they would do this. at the end of the day he was effective and i think there are lots of answers to this. he talked about how when they got closer the election for trump, that the concern that trump express was about the effect on his campaign but nevertheless establishing this was sop and normalizes it and seems like it is less related to the campaign itself which is important. but overall i think he was an excellent witness and he showed no bias towards trump. not only was he not deflecting responsibility for his own

criminal conduct but he said he still considered the former president of friend. >> he didn't come off as he was holding thing back. >> if i were donald trump i would be so happy about what happened in washington today i would even care what happened in the courtroom today. i think the supreme court really signaled we are not going to see any of the trials this year. we will get to that later tonight, i know. >> the value to the prosecution of packer's he laid out the frame of the story. now the jury understands that there were these three witnesses, that is all going to be filled out maybe they will believe him, maybe they won't. your idea that this is soo terrible and this is just business as usual, who was their partner and all this. donald trump. you don't think the jury will be offended this guy was running for president of the united states is involved with all beasley's balls. >> that he buried in sex story

which you heard from their witness so did this liberty, so that that's a liberty comes with this liberty, that it happens all of the time. it's not that unique. this isn't watergate. that is my point. watergate was a unique time. the first time something likee that has happened. but what came out in cross-examination is it happenss all of the time. >> this time they consulted the lawyers and then they started to back off because they realize they were gearing into territory that made them nervous. >> with the money. and that is what matters here, the money. >> to jump off of what you were saying. on the stand pecker is very composed during direct. is very compose if he doesn't know and answer he doesn't say no, he doesn't hesitate he was very believable when he was testifying. they didn't get to the crux of what this case is which is

stormy daniels. because pecker didn't pay stormy daniels, he sends out a bank. the question is now he is credible but most of the story is not going to come from him. so are they going to find someone who has an ax to grind against donald trump. to your point, he said he was his mentor. he was very believable, and aa real story coming from someone. >> this is a classic dilemma. prosecutors are almost always going to build their case on people who are involved, cooperating witnesses, people have been given immunity. the forts -- defense lawyers say how can you convict based on the word of this convicted liar, and prosecutors we have our standard thing where you say guess who chose this guide. the defendant chose him when he chose to go into business with them, that is how we going to prove this case and the task for prosecutors as jessica was pointing out, explain why this

transaction is different from mark wahlberg or schwarzenegger and takes over the line of criminality. >> all the people in the courtroom would be people -- it's not like they were random strangers. they are the people trump shows revenues like. >> when we talk about this dirt, if i am his lawyers i'm worried about the dirt being on donald trump. this is the former president. i think that is what will be important. i think the standard is this is not watergate, that's not the standard, when the jury get the jury charge, that is not the charge they will give him. >> i don't know what charge he will give them. >> but i do know it won't be it has to be the crime of the century. >> i think it's fascinating when you see the black and white photo of donald trump walking past the rose garden with david pecker. we have seen heads of state walking down there. we have seen people walking down that and to know who david

pecker is now and what donald trump is saying right there which is essentially, how is karen doing, is she going to shut up. >> later in the trial we will see checks that donald trump signed, according to the prosecution, to pay michael cole went back for the money he gave -- >> level photo in black and white and you feel it is historic and people talking about a hush money deal. >> and these checks were signed in the oval office while he was president. >> more of what we are learning from the courtroom. transcripts. and the definition of the oral argument and immunity, in a case they said we are writing a rule for the ages.

her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. >> after nearly three hours of oral arguments the justices did not seem willing to embrace trump's anything goes interpretation of immunity but should instead much of the hearing focus on where to draw

the distinction between official acts of the president and private conduct. here is more from john. >> you can see that private acts don't get immunity. do you agree about the acts as being private producers or to a private attorney to spread election fraud to spearhead election results, private. >> we dispute the allegation. >> sounds private. >> the tourney because the verification by petitioner that cause false allegations to support a challenge. >> three private actors to attorneys including those mentioned above and a political consultant help to implement a plan to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and co-conspirator attorney directed that effort. >> you read it quickly i believe that is private. >> some of today's arguments also focus on richard nixon and

his entanglements and how that reflects on today and what that means. i'm joined tonight by counsel and former federal prosecutor, law professor, and former federal prosecutor. also someone very familiar with the legal legacy left behind by nixon's one-time white house counsel john dean. let me start with you given how watergate, and think we knew was going to come up but this is how trump's attorney responded when justice raise this question about nixon. >> what was up with the parting for president nixon. if everybody thought that presidents couldn't be prosecuted then what was that about. >> he was under investigation for private and public conduct at the time. >> john, given that i wonder what you may that after ten minutes after that trump's attorney acknowledged that

allegation and indictment includes private and official acts. >> my reaction was there's a very thin read for them to draw upon. ford clearly thought nixon could be prosecuted. indeed he thought he was getting a confession from nixon when he issued the pardon. he carried around in his pocket book or his wallet a side of the case that said incessant's acceptance of the pardon was an admission of guilt. the whole assumption back then was presidents had no immunity. they could not commit crimes without having exposure unless there was a passing by the department of justice taking action, indeed they had jeopardy. the situation has dramatically changed and nixon's one-time

prediction if the president does it seems legal seems to come today the court. >> i was remembering how we reported at their terms in office he forbade people from bringing up nixon comparisons to them often with a lot of expletives because he was tired of hearing the comparisons. but on the argument trump's attorney did concede today that some of those accusations are private acts that trump did. would that shift? gentle i thought it was a surprise admission since they stonewalled on everything. they couldn't get around arguing that some of those acts were not official acts even though trump pretended everything he did while he was still president was an official act. we will see how far that goes. the issues he conceded to he must think he has a factual argument he can make that diminishes the impact of what is going on.

but i was just surprised that the courts focus and determination by the republican members to write and immunity of some kind for presidents. is just not the right case to do that and it is really going to be a threat to democracy to hampden foolishly write something just for the sake of this case. >> it was remarkable to listen to it. victoria, when you hear that you are shaking your head yes, to what john was just saying there. >> i've been a law professor for about 30 years and i have studied the separation of powers and the constitution and i was very sad today. i'd never heard anything like this. they said women don't have a right for abortion because it is not in the text, but they are going to make up some text for donald trump.. they had an opportunity to put country above party, and they did not. they refused to talk about the

facts. this official immunity document is only applied in civil cases that criminal cases. i have to say it was a disparity moment for me because i teach my students at georgetown to follow the rule of law. i sam a moderate because i have no friends. i'm too the left of the right. it was really a disparaging day for me. >> and you work on trump's defense team obviously you're nodding longer, but what did you make of how the arguments went today. >> i'm not crying in my beard that this was a breakdown. >> it's not actually beard. >> not yet. honestly, i give a lot moree credit to the conservative side of the bench. i was a couple of things, number one i like to judge on advocacy of the parties whatever my interest is. i've known my treatment for a long time,. >> he was arguing on behalf of. >> i think it was intellectually interesting and i didn't agree with everything that every side

said but i think the way they presented themselves, is something that is pretty impressive. if i'm talking to my students i woul d say wherever you come out on this watch the advocacy and how they respond in the history of the supreme court and learn something. there's something to learn from both sides. they are looking at context and texan trying to figure out the history whether it supports executive immunity but they are also not blind to their current context. the current context is craziness of ambitious prosecutors around the country throwing together unique and creative ways. >> the conservative justices didn't really seem to address the trump factor at all. they talked about what it meant for future presidents not dealing with the allegations about this former and potentially future president. >> here is the real sad part of the story which is they can come up with this line, this mark in

the continuum between the personal and presidential and say this is the line where immunity begins or ends, they will probably do that. they're not in the position to make the factual call in these cases. what wilill happen, if they established there is a limited form of immunity not the absolute, but if there is a limited form it will go back to the trial court to see how do i figure out if the facts of this case give rise or don't give rise to immunity. we might be seeing trial courts dealing with dishes, circuits, supreme court change, you guys gave us this test are back. >> craziness of trump's absolute immunity kind. elliot, would you make of it. >> i think you are absolutely right. the court in recognizing -- i think trump conceding some things may be official acts and some things are not, really open the door for the supreme court to say we can't decide what is official and what is it we will

just send it back down to lower courts to figure out. to be cleared the supreme court could have resolved this issue back in december we are not talking about that hearing at which judge florence talked about the drone strike, long before that, the supreme court had this issue because the team to get to the supreme court and said we would like you to expedite this ruling can you please rule on this issue and they chose not to. for this reason they want to keep their hands out of it. >> can we talk about what justice raise today if you do allow former presidents to be prosecuted then they will be worried about being prosecuted so they will do unlawful things to stay in the office. >> i'm not sure he understood the effect of that point. they indicated it would become the seat of criminality if you

allowed that type of absolute immunity. the wholole notion i think is jt nonsense because they basically want to have a bunch of many trials and every scenario to determine if it is official. we already have a system it is called a criminal trial and we should let it go forward because the way they are fashioning this is unworkable and has never been needed and probably won't be needed for another 250 years. >> were you surprised that they agreed with that? >> i think that is what will happen. the problem is the whole framing around official immunity. they took the framing of this question and they are running with it and that will cause confusion. they mentioned mistake cases. if i'm a lawyer i will bring that up.

the problem is they had an option and they did not choose it. >> we will see what this ruling looks like when we get it. and what we are learning from the transcript. and what we are learning from the testimony.

>> we received the on the hush money testimony. we have a number of reporters writing real-time text of what is happening. the transcripts gave a full picture of what occurred. i know you have been going through them. what stands out. >> we literally got the last bit right here. one thing that jumps out to me is how many times david pecker testified to having conversation specifically with donald trump. it was mostly about mcdougall

but there is one point where he talked to trump about stormy daniels. i initially missed that during the day. this is part of the direct examination. the prosecutor said did mr. trump contact you in connection with ms. daniels appearance on anderson cooper. pecker said yes he did. can you describe for the jury how that conversation went. pecker said when mr. trump called me he said, he asked me if i saw the stormy daniels interview with anderson cooper and i said yes, i did. he said we have an agreement with stormy daniels that she cannot mention my name or do anything like this. and each time she reaches the agreement it is a one million-dollar penalty and based on the interview with anderson cooper, donald trump talk about himself she owes him $24 million. john says, that is what donald trump told you, pecker said, that is what he told me. >> you recently interviewed

stormy daniels. there is some money -- >> that was a desperate problem for stormy daniels. but when she was represented by michael, he slew donald trump on her behalf for defamation. that case was not only thrown out of court but the judge in california awarded attorney fees to donald trump because the judge said the case was frivolous. those were assessed against the client, stormy daniels, not against the lawyer. that debt which has been multiplying is currently about $670,000. sold stormy daniels olds donald trump at this moment about $670,000 and has no chance of discharging that debt because it has been appealed and a pet. this is something i suspect trumps lawyers are going to use when she testifies to talk about her bias and anger.

she has lots of things in our favor. she's actually a very good witness. she testified against michael and his criminal trial in manhattan and the jury clearly believes her. she is a believable person but she does have an ax to grind against donald trump and that will be brought out. >> it's interesting because trump also -- pecker said he got an angry call from trump about google into an 18. he said when he called me he said did you see the interview and he said yes and we had an agreement with karen mcdougall she couldn't give any interviews or be in any television shows and i said yes come we have an agreement but i amended it for her to speak to the press, mr. trump got upset when i amended it, she was flooded with requests from the press so i amended her agreement at that time and trump said and you

pater, and i said yes and he was upset he couldn't understand why i did it. i just want to play what karen mcdougall said during the interview. or not, we don't have it. >> why would he have amended -- i don't understand why david would have amended the agreement with karen? >> is not clear to me either. he had an independent business with mcdougall she was a columnist for one of his outdoor fitness magazines. i don't know why he wanted to do that. obviously, trump didn't know why either common he was thiss spirit. >> what i think is significant is it shows direct contact between pecker and donald trump.

it was about this and as a prosecutor you want to point to these excerpts and say donald trump himself knew what was going on. >> not only indirect conversations but saying we have been agreement with stormy daniels according to pecker which gives to a state of mind he knew the agreement was in place. >> they were for his benefit. that is the thing. one of the issue is is did donald treat -- track did he do this to get elected. the quotes that you read showed that he knew that is why these agreements were in place and he was angry when he thought they were being violated. >> the fact that pecker is saying there was a catch and kill arrangement with arnold's working eger

source and egg her before he ran for governor, is that significant? >> there will be an underlying current hear about the defense of jury nullification. like so what. everything the prosecutor says, let's say it is true and they satisfy the elements of the crime which is a crazy crime, so what. big deal. everyone else is doing it. and what this case is all about it is not a crime and figuring out who did it, we got this guy here and i we have to figure out what he did to try to convict him. >> you think a case of this magnitude, with all of this attention -- >> the jury will say well, we think he is guilty but we're going to find him not guilty anyway? >> you don't think there is

someone who could be so annoyed, a guy running for the president's sitting there for eight weeks when he should be out doing fundraising work often with people matter, you don't think there are one or two people saying this was totally a crime that is a bs crime and they did this to keep him -- name one person does that. >> i n any child there could be one person but more likely people will be offended that the election should be the will of the people and they're not getting all of the information. we can talk about this but what they have effectively done is shown that donald trump, thought there was a chance that when he was attacking other candidates he thought this was so important that he should drag them down. i think yes, there is a concern

about jury implication but his defense lawyers cannot argue that you are not permitted to argue to the jury that they can't uphold the law. what the judge said is you are obligated to uphold the law. >> are you know what i tell them. he is the justice of the supreme court. do you know who determines who the justices government the 12 of you. you determined the al qaeda -- outcome of the case. >> that might compromise him in office. if he is walking in the white house and we think he is doing official business but he's doing hush money business, aren't there all sorts of questions like how else has he potentially compromised. >> you can say that about bill clinton whom i think was a great president? and china we had on his mind.

>> i don't know if every politician is but to get to that level, yeah, there is something in your background. i don't think stormy daniels is the worst thing he did. there's probably more things he need to cover up than this. this is the issue of the moment. >> we will take a short break and i want to talk about a hostage in gonzaga. his parents have not gotten any word whether he was alive or not. finally think have a proof of life video and we will talk to them next.

>> for more than six months they have the best they can in a nightmare hoping their son who was abducted by gunmen is still alive. their last images of him were

from this video retrieved from the body camera of the gunman. hirsch, his left hand and part of his arm had been blown off partially by a grenade after being forced into a truck. i was originally shown this by an israeli soldier and recorded it. they had not seen the video when i interviewed them. realizing it was their son i call them after the interview and sent them this video. it was the first time they saw their son being taking. they later decided to make it public so people could see what they did to their child.d. we have been talking to them ever since as they waited for word. yesterday they got word. a hostage video. unclear when it was made it seems recently but his wound appears to have healed and he is a lot. he was alive when this was made. on it he said he loves his parents and misses them. spoke with them earlier today. >> thank you so much for talking

to us. how did you learn about this video, did you know it was about to come out? >> we knew it was about to come out about 45 minutes before it came out. i got a call from the u.s. and israel on the line saying we have not seen it but there is a video coming out, a telegram and that is how we found out. then we saw it when the rest of the world saw it. >> what was that like. >> it's actually interesting that you are asking this because i think it was a lot like when we saw the video that you shared with us although for us now, after 201 days, we were sobbing, tears and emotional hand overwhelming feelings abounding

-- we were not even listening to what he was saying just hearing his voice and seeing him moving and that he was alive, my heart started racing, we were just sobbing. >> i would say it was hopeful. we have had hope because we have to, for 201, but there is still something about seeing and hearing your loved one for the first time in so long mixed with concern. which is to say we parents know our kids best. we know what hirsch looks like. not only is his arm missing since we have known about since we got your video, but he doesn't look right. the coloring is off but you would expect that after 200 days

in a tunnel. but he looks puffy. 's face, his neck, shoulders, it could be to a number of factors but there is mixed emotions here. it lights a fire under us more than before to bring him and the other 132 hostages home ss as we can. >> from the earliest days that we have talked with each other you told me when we sat down in jerusalem at your house that doctors had reached out to you saying that the wounds that they saw in the video looked treatable and that it gave you hope. even months later you heard from veterinarians that another hostage had been treated by veterinarians they reach out and said don't worry about that because of that could even work on his hand and it would be

okay.. when i saw this i looked at the video, not so much to hear what he said but to see how he was and you could tell that wound seems to have healed. >> yes. we did hear from many surgeons explaining that it is healing well but they were explaining the next steps. he needs treatment the sooner the better in terms of permanent nerve damage and getting a prosthesis that will behave the way it is supposed to. you have to have certain stimulation rehabilitation done soon after the amputation which obviously this has been a huge delay in treatment. we are concerned about that. he is alive and there are so many families that don't have that proof that we just feel

very blessed that we got that. >> and to hear him say mom and dad, to say your daughters names, that must have been incredible. >> it's interesting because we never use hebrew with our kids. so it was kind of like kissing someone through a veil because that is not the language we use at home. but it is his voice. we appreciated that message at the end when he talks directly to us and the message was very clear i don't know who scripted it or where it was coming from.

>> anderson, to the first two minutes of the video, maybe somebody else scripted it, maybe it is his words, i don't think so, it doesn't matter, i was immediately grabbed by the last 30 seconds and touched by it obviously, and sending all of the same sentiments back to him hoping he hears and knows and sees that we love him and we miss him and we are working to get him home as fast as we can. >> the other thing that really struck me is that he said, and i'm not quoting directly, i know you have been doing everything you can. >> and he said you say strong for me over these 200 days he

keeps saying say strong and survived to hear him use that language, i'm assuming he has not heard us say, i know you are working so hard it was very meaningful and powerful for us to hear that. >> you and your family just celebrated passover and it is a celebration of freedom and hope no matte r how dark things get there is a way out how was this passover? >> passover is actually a week long but the first two days when you are outside of is really you do a dinner and when you are

there you do a dinner, and we were very nervous because it is a, ration of the jewish people leaving captivity, leaving egypt and going on to be free people. the idea that we were going to celebrate freedom when our entire being is being held captive just felt perverse spirit it was not a celebration of freedom. it was a asking of freedom for him and the other 132 hostages. >> families of hostages don't need any reminder effort of the fact that we are dealing with real people, but may beat the world needs that reminder. maybe the negotiators need that reminder. if this that you are reminded

you are dealing with human beings and families love them and want to bring them home, maybe some good will come out of the process. >> today was on milestone 17 of the 25 nations that have citizens who are being held in gaza in captivity signed a joint statement demanding for the release of their people and the truth is it shouldn't steak that but we are glad that it happened here that country's leaders are starting to galvanize and say this is absolute insanity. it has been over half a year. these people need to come home. we believe that will be a real diffusion of such tremendous tension that we have throughout the region right now. >> and the words you always say, i love you, stay strong,

survive, i keep thinking about that in my head. what more is there to say, it says it all. >> yes. we have hundreds of thousands of people who reach out to us. it is truly empowering. there are all different types of people from all different places on earth and they say, we are saying that to him. i don't know how the universe works but he might hear you so you should really try to say it too. >> i love you, stay strong, survive. thank you. >> thank you anderson. >> a lot more in the next hour, the two big legal stories. we will continue to go through the trump trial and we have a new view with one of the former president's attorneys who was at the trial.

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.