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

yes. but absolute immunity just for a president's official acts in office. i think that's a crucial distinction that's been missed in much of the press coverage around president trump's die, 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 let's write down what will looking at things like asking the department of justice to investigate claims of election fraud considering replacing the acting attorney general of the united states, which is at the absolute heart of the president's power under article two of the us constitution, we believe that this is an indictment 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. >> as john said today, you also believed that this indictment charges private x there, said that he could be tried for private acts. >> there are some private acts in the indictment, are there there are acts that could be characterized as private in the indictment. president wouldn't

have immunity from those. is the question though is, why can't those be tried? and the ones that you say are official? so 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 at the court today private conversations genes between the president and his political team, that sort of thing looks more like private conduct. then the sorts of things we just discussed, like directives given to the department of justice, and consideration of presidential personnel. >> but the other acts that were brought up today, we're conversations he had with people like john eastman& jenna ellis and rudy giuliani honey,

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 these alternate slates of electors were really throughout american history probably most notably in 18, 70 he 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 elected 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 remal to assess. >> it's a pretty generous as

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. they were fraud you a little again in 18 76 rutherford b. >> hayes was elected president 20 in nine, there's a long history of this in 1960, there's not a long history of multiple slates of fake electors, people who are not the legitimate electors representing the will of the voters and arizona, wisconsin, pennsylvania, and michigan. >> 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 1960s election when an alternate slate of electors from hawaii was seated. 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 dc doesn't draw that distinction. >> 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 and why the argument today, i think took the tender that it didn't probably the reason why we're before the supreme court at all is because of the egregious of those decisions to not recognize any immunity in the criminal context whatsoever. well, the supreme court, the justices did see if the conservative ones at least skeptical of that. >> but i have to ask you something else because and what are the justices as today if the president ordered a military coup, if that would be considered an official act, your team, john sauer argued, quote, it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act, what what are the circumstances were ordering a military coup is an official act of the presidency will get when you're talking about official act, you don't look too intense. you don't look to

purpose, you look to their underlying character. so if that 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 are 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 a 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 does today, that our opponents have put forward whether it's the quds, whether it's seal team six assassinating political rivals. it's worth noting that the structural checks in place in our constitution not including criminal prosecution of former presidents have served to safeguard us from exactly those sorts of scenarios throughout american history. and it's actually are 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 know that 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 columns instructor 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 get pretty brazen argument that military coups could potentially be official acts that will the person wasn't executed. >> it doesn't matter just because of coup or any of these sort of parade of horribles could come constitute an

official act, doesn't mean that they're right, doesn't mean that they would be allowed under our 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 duration where presidents will essentially be blackmailed by their 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 habit because you have nothing to fear, no prospect. >> we believe immunity is inherent in the constitutional design. >> so that's the system we've been operating under for hundreds of years and it's not actually in the constitution. >> we believe that immunity naturally follows from the constitution the same way that civil immunity, which isn't written in the constitution naturally follows from our constitutional system. >> and that was recognized now as by the court and nixon v.

fitzgerald in 1982, what is it, victory here? >> is it the supreme court embracing your argument on total immunity or is it just sending it back to the lower court and therefore, delaying the january 6 trial from happening before the 2024 election. >> we think it's very important for the future of the presidency, for the court to embrace a vigorous doctrine and if presidential immunity in the criminal context. that's what victory was still considered a victory if they just send it back to the lower court and then it essentially delays the trial. we believe that what's going on here is much more important than this particular trial or this particular defendant. >> we believe that what's at stake here is the future of the presidency and without a vigorous immunity doctrine, i fear for the future of our country. >> well, sharaf great to have you, you are inside 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's legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, elliot williams, and civil rights lawyer share lin eiffel, who is the vernon jordan chair and civil rights at the howard university law school let me just start with you since

you're just joining us, can i just get your reaction to what you heard from trump's attorney of how they viewed today? >> yeah. i mean, it was an interesting argument in that there were these hypotheticals that should have been at the most extreme, but they really weren't because the person that we're dealing with, donald trump is the same person who asked his defense secretary terry, 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 exam couples that we were hearing today from some of the justices about what a president who felt he had unfettered power and would suffer no consequences could do. were ripped from the headlines. they were the kinds of things that the former president has said. and i think it was shocking to hear the former president's attorney, mr. sour suggests that those things could be official 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 attorney of the former prime president stand in the well of the united states supreme court and suggests that these things could be official acts. and the only thing more shocking than him making that argument was having a majority of supreme court justices not sound as though they were horrified and 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 coney barrett. questions which he said girls shimming the criminal intent within the actions which gets you down to very minute factual issues of like did it did did an elector,

a replacement? i liked her feel like they were defrauding or were they actually thinking this is the backup plan if we went in court, which has a lot of things that have been said by that other side. 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 for 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 category of defending the country or safeguarding elections? 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 hypotheticals. we are talking about specific conduct that a president could engage in. what's make up another one? right here. if a president kidnapped or kidnapped in and harmed supreme court justices for the purpose of a pointing their successors clearly an official act of the presidency also clearly a crime. and you cannot keep a straight face and make an argument that that's not a prosecutor will act. >> thing that stood out to me also as i remember when trump was impeached after january 6 and mitch mcconnell's 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, the john sauer did still tried to make was that you must president first must be impeached and then convicted two, then prosecuted for some, yeah, this is the bait-and-switch, even trump's attorneys said that after trump was impeached, mitch mcconnell, senate and his attorneys also

said that the proper avenue is criminal prosecution, not this process. so that's kind of a bait-and-switch, but i want to get back to something else. i don't think that these private acts that were conceded today, which i think frankly, i want to be nice to mr. sour, but i don't think that he did a terrific job. those concessions were deadly calling the speaker of the house of the arizona legislature and asking him to call back the legislature. so but 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 fault elector scheme to various people is private attorney that is not an official act. a call to raffensperger to raffensperger, 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 are deadly for this president. i think that's why sour didn't come back after for rebuttal because i think having made the concessions, he made and having had the court frankly, not not react in the way that one might have expected. i think he thought it was better that he not come back up to the podium and further unravel his case. the problem is not whether sour sour did a terrific job ob or whether these private acts and official acts are co-mingled. >> it's the proclivity of a majority of this supreme court to give the benefit of the doubt to a former president who's demonstrated that he is not deserving of the benefit of the doubt that the prime directive should be protecting our country, our democracy, not this president and jim, at the end, there was say we do on 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 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 and delays and there's no way it would happen come before november yeah. >> i mean, look, the whole note shouldn't 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 done was pretty shamelessly political. and i think that's why the supreme court bristled when jack smith said less expedited, i don't think they care about i have this whole conversation months ago. well, they don't care about the political timeline that jack created. and so 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 and you're

like you have with police shootings about whether it's in the course of employment, then they're probably going to march right back up to the supreme part and say, how about this is not the last appeal to go all the way up without question. >> well, if it's after the election and the election goes, mr. trump's way. they will never see the light of day because we know he'll get rid of the investigations up next. we'll return to the former president's criminal trial. new exhibits just came out and were also getting new insight, gleaning it from the full transcript that we also just saved moments ago, everything that happened in that courtroom today also, a law professor and his doubts about the prosecution's case how far would, you go? does that the ambiance of your space, try the air wigwe with air wake essential missed, infused with naturalists into oil to fill your moment with immersive fragrance for up to 45 days. now that's a breath of fresh air wick pain means pause on the things you love brene means go the pain with bio free and keep on going.

>> bio freeze. >> green means go tired of sciatic nerve pain radiating down your leg and lower back. >> get relief finally, with magna left leg and back pain relief combination of four active ingredients, they get to work fast so get living available at your local retailer if you're about to replace your roof, stop, there's a solution about 80% less expensive, maruf max guaranteed to extend the life of your roof up to 15 years at a fraction of the cost of a new rule proof roof backs is scientifically proven. >> bio oil restores flexibility and water protection. nine out of ten roofs can be saved by ruth max, don't spend tens of thousands replacing your roof, restore it with ruth max for 80% less call or go online now for our free roof inspection if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's disease, put it in check with rent folk, a once-daily pill. >> when symptoms tried to take control, i got rapid relief and reduced fatigue with brin voc

when flares kept trying to hello me down, i got lasting steroid free remission with red book check when my doctor saw damage, grin vote helped visibly reduce damage of the intestinal lining, check both uc and crohn's rapid symptom relief lasting steroid free remission, and visibly reduced damage check check and check we're invoking lower your ability to fight infections including tb serious infections, and blood clots, some fatal cancers including lymphoma and skin heart attack, stroke, and gi tears it's occurred. >> people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death serious allergic reactions can occur tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant what uc and crohn's and check and keep them there with red book. ask your gastroenterologist about rin voc and learn how avy can help you save we are in a limestone cave letting extreme residue bill got to put finished jet dry to the test dishwashers are designed to who's jet dry to defend against top residues. >> for are practically

spotlight, shine how do i love thee? let me count the ways love can get a little messy good thing. there's resolved norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... that's like $20 a month per unlimited line... i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

make every weekend join me at john.com. >> i'm zachary cohen in washington and this is 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 and about both boston university law professor ginger shugerman, author of the people's courts, pursuing judicial independence in america. >> professor, thanks for being with us. i saw, i read this up and you wrote in the new york times, it was titled, i thought the bragg case against trump was illegal embarrassment. now, i think it's a historic mistake why a historic mistake? >> one big picture problem with as a historic mistake is that those of us who have been dreading the return of donald

trump to office and misusing power. we've been talking about the rule of law for years and what the rule of law means is there are rules and some of those rules include precedence because those you have to follow those rules if you expect the other side to follow those rules so we've been concerned about the misuse of prosecutorial power. donald trump is telling us exactly what he's gonna do with civil service and the doj now is the time to make sure prosecutors are not abusing their power and to make sure that we're following the rule of do you prosecutors are abusing their power? yes. i think this case is an abuse of process. why? so there are 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've searched for all the state cases that referred to the federal election campaign payne 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 is trying trump for a federal

violation shoehorn into state statutes. 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 the problem is also a kind of jurisdictional problem. trump's lawyers argued that this particular statute, using a state violation, state business recording, mr. according to upgrade it for the concealing of another crime, it has to be within new york jurisdiction. and a lot of good reasons why that might be. >> the manhattan da's response they couldn't cite a single precedent of a judge validating that use means that that's an untested use. >> and the third problem is that there has never been an application of intent to defraud, which is a key element of this case. it's never been used. this broadly. it's never been used as an intent to defraud the general public, never use as election interference whatever that means legally. so if it's unprecedented, it means that it is being used for trump and

trump only accept it could be used by the other side. now, that's the problem, but jed 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 violation that doesn't happen very often. i 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 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 his campaign finance filings that are missed filed. 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 a remarkable coincidence that this manhattan da as stretched each of these three things for the first time when he also campaign to become met nat da on the platform of holding trump accountable american, american prosecutors in states, they run for office. >> that's true for every, so there's nothing unusual about bragg? >> no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. geoff for, 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 for a second. >> i share some of the professors reservations that are stated in the article i've said a lot of this, honore, 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 the difference between i question 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 violation do you think there is here? >> well, there is an aspect of this about ethics, which is that the part? part of to comply with the 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 charge was. 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. 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 de trump's lawyers asked for a bill of particulars. this is the way that new york says and claims seems to comply with the sixth amendment in this case, the manhattan de 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 proximate just 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 but 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 statue that he's relying on is a 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 facts barrett out so the problem with one person's capacious is what the legal system also called ambiguous. now that use of that statute is 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 two 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 basic it's 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 and that the federal government may have been able hi 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 bill of 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. >> jed shugerman are appreciate being with us. thanks. i'm not sure i understood it all, but i feel smarter of revenue. listen to this conversation. i appreciate it coming up new cnn polls on what the former president's legal troubles may mean for him politically so we decided to put in an in-ground pool. >> i literally went on angie and typed in pool and then got choices getting to talk to different contractors, see different bids in kind of look at their reviews, look at what other people think of them. and it's nice to know that you're meeting with people who already are at a certain we wanted something beautiful, we wanted something that our children will feel happy. >> so minion and we love it and still luck connect with skilled professionals to get all your home projects done well, get started today at andy.com victims of mesothelioma and

their families may be entitled to receive a cash award from the estimated 30 billion and asbestos trust funds with over 50 billion awarded. >> we have over 30 years of experience and have successfully recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for thousands of clients, even if a family member has passed due to mesothelioma or lung cancer, you may still be entitled to a cash award if you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, call juanita hundred 208 1721. now, we are in a limestone cave letting extreme residue buildup to put finished jet dry to the test dishwashers are designed to object, right? to defend against top residues for are practically spotless shy how do i love thee let me count the ways love can get a little messy good thing. there's resolved love the love, resolve the mess how far would you go?

>> does that the ambiance of your space, try the air wigwe with airway essential missed, infused with natural essential oils to fill your low bit with immersive fragrance for up to 45 days. now that's a breath of fresh air way thank not flossing. >> well, then add the wo of less three to your routine. >> new science shows listerine is five times more effective than floss ev, reducing plaque above the gum line for a cleaner, healthier mouth this three feel the world pain means pause on the things you love. >> but bringing me go cool the pain with bio free and keep on going bio freeze. green means go university of maryland global campus is a school for real life, one that values as successes you've already achieved, earn the 90 undergraduate credits for relevant experience and get the support you need from your first day to graduation day and beyond. what will your next success p zyrtec allergy relief

works fast. >> it lasts a false 24 hours. so dave can be deliverer, dance okay. dave let's be more i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place?

can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity. positions mutual physicians, mutual i'm rafael romel. the georgia state capitol in atlanta. this is cnn new poll numbers, and tonight shedding light on what the many legal problems that we've been talking about could mean for donald trump politically, a huge outstanding question that nobody really lee knows the answer to at this point. but this new cnn poll out tonight finds the 24% of voters who are currently backing trump say that a conviction in any of his cases might cause 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 joined 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, dug i mean, this poll kind of shows this isn't an academic question that we're having. it could potentially have a real impact on the electorate. >> it could. and we saw this on tuesday night and pennsylvania where over 150,000 republican primary voters voted for nikki haley, who is no longer republican candidate. so they weren't making some choice based on who the republican nominee would be. they made a very conscious decision. they don't want it to be donald trump and i was at nikki haley's one of her last two or three rallies in raleigh, north carolina, and the atmosphere in that room was real. 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 still haven't seen real outreach from the trump campaign to those nikki haley's your orders let me that raises a question. you'll the biden campaign looking at these numbers, 24% would reconsider their support. i mean, obviously at this point, they could 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 bought it 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 narrative 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? i can to your column if there are 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 and talk to them and figure out how how to get them in your canvas. >> shannon term, looking for home that you said is very important because after a primary, republicans and democrats use that sort of 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 in pennsylvania or arizona, or north carolina things get really interesting, especially if we start talking about also 30 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 support them 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 weighing in on the jury claiming it's 95% democrats, which we can't verify because you don't ask their party registration. >> but what do you make of how the public is viewing what's playing out in the courtroom. i think the public views it's the courtroom as a trial court room. i think they have a stronger sense that there's fairness involved. i think they have a sense that there's a judge and control. there's going to be a jury of the peers. i mean, 44% versus 50%

vs a majority. but i think unlike the general public sentiment, you're seeing 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 he walked into the courtroom, we talked about the gdp, gas prices, 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 such as moved that to thursday. we're not totally clear on the reasoning for that, but it does show the campaign trail versus courtroom argument absolutely. >> and look, as we've learned, quite spectacularly, the court's system operates on a vastly different timeline than the political system, as we'll see what the supreme court and the federal election

interference case that will likely not happen before the election pardon me, your question the way we've been doing that good of a question. i was just saying trump is in making this argument that he can't go out on the campaign trail because he isn't the courtroom four days. they're not in the courtroom next ones 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 a rim 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 hi, all 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 impose whatever fines or fees he's going to also admonished the president in front of the jury. what would

it be in front of the dreeben? front of the public? that could go a long way to maintaining some semblance of order in the courtroom. but right now, this is an important issue that is unresolved and is giving the president a longer leash yeah. to to keep making statements which what about this? what we're seeing these numbers are 44% are confident he can get a fair trial here. i mean, it just goes back to the importance of what we saw at the supreme court today. if it means that the january 6 case, the effort to overturn the election doesn't happen before november. >> so much of what we see in politics now is what people want to see happen or what people think is going to happen is what they want to see happen 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, as you know, very well, he can't do any of those things. he's a weekend warrior in that sense. sometimes a late night warrior. and that's it well, wait to see what those implications look like just ahead. >> new details from the trial itself. what we're learning about, what was said today, it's a fascinating back-and-forth in the transcript tired of sciatic nerve pain radiating down your leg and lower back, get relief finally, with magna life leg and back pain relief, a combination you should have four active ingredients that get to work fast. >> so get living available at your local retailer hain means pause on the things you'd love. but brene means go the pain with bio free and keep on going bio freeze green means go. how do i loved the let me count the ways love can get a little

messy. >> good thing. there's resolved love the love, resolve the mess. >> what is circle surplus fuel to take flight circle is the energy that gets you to the next level circled this, which code for light tosses limit away? circle available at walmart and drinks circle.com, not flossing. well, then add the wo of listerine to your routine. new science shows listerine is five times more effective than plus at reducing plaque above the gum line for a cleaner, healthier this story field, the wo how far would you go? is that the ambiance of your space? try the air wigwe with airway essential missed, infused with natural and two oils to fill your little bit with immersive fragrance for up to 45 days now, that's a breath of fresh air whack a heart attack. >> do they have life insurance? >> no. >> but we have life insurance john, i'm trying to find

something we can afford fortunately, it only a few minutes, select boat found jon of $500,000 policy for only $29 a month and his wife and a bipolar thousand dollar policy for only $21 a month go to select quote.com now and get the insurance your family needs at a price you can afford. select quote, we shop, you'd say hi, it's christina again, i'm here to tell you about an all new special offer from my friends at jacuzzi bathroom model that you don't want to miss you already know jacuzzi has been making water-filled great for more than 65 years. and now they're bringing you this special tv offer. were waving all installation costs and postponing all payments for up to one year to cruzy bathroom model has a design you'll love at a price you can afford and best of all, they can install it. and as little as one day with no stress at no matt, are you ready to see your new shower here it is it's

fabulous. >> taking a shower had gone from being a joy to being a burden. >> i was afraid i would fall. i called and just one day i had a shower. i could feel safe. >> no matter your situation jacuzzi bathroom model has a solution for you from a safer, easy entry shower with features like grab bars and a custom seats to keep you feeling comfortable and independent at home to a stunning family bath, or how about a luxury? darius upgrade with a timeless design that will look great for years to come. plus, they're built to last with a lifetime warranty from an iconic brand. you know, you can trust it was done in the same day we did not have to wait it's absolutely perfect. >> it's exactly what i was dreaming of. >> if you haven't already experienced what jacuzzi bathroom model can do for you? your family, and your home, don't wait any longer. now is the best time to call. it's never been easier. take advantage of this specialty, be offered today call, or go

online right now for a limited time offer only weeks left to get waves installation and no interests and no payments for up to one year go to jacuzzi bathroom model or call 800 163978. >> that's 800 516397 7-8. call now we're continuing to get new details tonight about what was said during testimony. the former president's historic hush money criminal trial, john berman has been combing through today's transcript to give us more in-depth understanding of david pecker's testimony would have you found there are moments when david pecker, during his testimony pick leon direct with the prosecutor, josh steinglass talks about whether he knew what he was doing was illegal, and there's this one exchange where josh steinglass, a prosecutor, says were you aware of the expenditures by corporations made for the 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 says, no, we did not steinglass asked, why did i 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 hur's the campaign. and that's just one of the many times where pecker is indirect. basically said this was for the campaign, not for a personal reason. it's incredibly important because as we keep hearing from this gentleman, like what's the crime here? there's the crime that this is an illegal campaign contribution that is funneled through funneled

through ami american media, the national enquirer for the benefit of donald trouser, house of 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 and expressed his concerns about those allegations can evidence that is crucial evidence. because elena, 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 covers tactical decision that the defense has to make here, which is do they continue the 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 decision, but maybe mistake it just to be clear and we don't have a graphic for this one also, but there were other moments too, where david pecker chris 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's 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 the mcdougal situation. then he said, i want to he also said i want to thank you for the doorman's story, for the doorman situation in the question from the prosecutor is and what did you understand mr. trump to be thanking you for regarding? in 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 thank you be very embarrassing to him. his family, and the campaign. >> the point there to elie, 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 of butt, but this records about trump, the micromanager. he's talking 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, amanda's focus on the details and man has focused on, whereas money is going and someone who's not allowing michael cohen the authority to make decisions, bunch of money, which that narrative, which trying to put forth with a very well-prepared witness, as they said, my first question would have been a how many times you made the prosecutor 40 or 50 to prepare your testimony, it flies in the face of everything we heard of donald trump's presidency. he wasn't a detail-oriented guy he didn't want to read thick memos. he just wanted to sit with people here, like the top headlines. thanks. he didn't want the details. so now they tried to paint a picture of a totally different guy that we heard about the four yet, but it, 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, local affairs, and what's going on? >> the. 150 may be selling a

story. >> for, but 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 of 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, many times, but in essence, trump is sort of clueless. he goes, he knows they're paying, he's very much on board with paying to silence. it's karen mcdougal. they're talking about and he just keeps 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. and i'm sorry, please. >> the province at some point it starts to look like it's just not credible that i can see this much and i can see this much. and i but i won't concede this. right. i was involved in the scheme that i'm now conceding with playable 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 two it's sort of to 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 involved in this part of it was checking to make sure that the payment was made in cash that does sort of point to a level of interest in the 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 near two different ways. they tried to poke holes in the prosecution here. one was to talk about maybe david pecker's 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 of that effect. emil 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 it says, i did. meaning that there were other people for what you would provide a heads up if

there was a potentially negative story, correct? becker says, yes, beauvais and other people that you would promote the national enquirer because it was good and it was good for it's good for you and good for them, right? pecker says, yes, beauvais. and then included celebrities, right? packer? yes. and most celebrities on a positive treatment and i'll publications, 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 s standard operating procedure as you understand it, correct? david pecker says yes. and in fact that another place david becker says, the first time he heard the phrase catch and kill was from investigators when they were asking him about this, they say before this investigation started, you had not heard the phrase catch and kill david pecker says, that's correct. >> i thought that was a very skillful cross-examining and a

good read write and even even better you should have taken that law school but anyway but isn't the answer. so what ultimately you know, he he covered up for other celebrities. they weren't running for president. he didn't pay $150,000.01 hover over an array. >> arnold schwarzenegger he ran for governor at some point, but we don't know when or what he did for arnold schwarzenegger. >> this was so different from all those other search. >> i'm not saying you're wrong from what i was told by people in the courtroom today, it was very similar what he did for arnold schwarzenegger. in fact, there was a lot of examination today on, on his schwarzenegger and what he had done for him so we'll see want to thank everyone on the panel, please send your bills to my office. >> the news continues right here on cnn no application fee. if you apply by may 31st at university of maryland global campus and accredited university, that's transformed adult lives for 75 years.

you're not waiting to when you're ready to succeed again at umg c dot you how far would you go to set the ambiance of your space? >> try the air wigwe with airway essential missed, infused with naturalists and two oils to fill your low bit with immersive fragrance for up to 45 days. now, that's a breath of fresh air whack skin craving. next level hydration, new neutrogena hydro boost water cream of vital boost of nine times more hydration to boost your skin's barrier for quenched, dewy skin, that's full of life neutrogena hydro boost we're in a limestone cave letting extreme residue buildup to put finished jet dry to the test dishwashers are designed to use jet dry to defend against tough residues. for are practically spotlight shine that smell could be 8 million odor causing bacteria. good thing adding lysol laundry sanitizer kills 99.9% of

bacteria that detergents leave behind. clean is good, sanitized is better pain means pause on the things you love. but brene means go cool the pain with bio free and keep on going bio freeze. green means go why is no vihj perfect for allergies? >> people who have allergies will have lots of problems if someone's exposed to allergens, they can get rid of those of mediately by washing out the notes. device works by pulling saline in one nostril through the nose and out the other nasr sucking out allergens, mucus, dustin germs experience on the spot relief. so he could breathe easier sleep, better, feel healthier if you have seasonal allergies, diverge can help nevada now available as select sam's club's, how do i love thee? let me count the ways love can get a little messy good thing.

>> there's resolved love the love. resolve the mess victims of mesothelioma and their families may be entitled to receive a cash award from the estimated $30 billion in asbestos trust funds with over $50 billion there's awarded. >> we have over 30 years of experience and have successfully recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for thousands of clients, even if a family member has passed due to mesothelioma or lung cancer, you may still be entitled to a cash award if you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, call juanita hundred 208 1721. now not flossing well then add the wo of listerine to your routine new science shows. listerine is five times more effective than plus ev reducing plaque above the gum line for a cleaner they're my name is oluseyi and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology,

which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport. in brin for certain cnn this morning with kasie hunt. >> next closed captioning brought to you by gilt visit gilt.com today for up to 70%

off designer