>> brian: what about you? >> any job that i can use my brain. i want to be a basketball player. >> brian: look at this. >> who can do a better job than brian kilmeade? maybe you should tell ask her? >> i want to foster puppies. >> brian: very well. it saves a lot of lives. >> ainsley: i have to save my money. thank you all so much and for being here. >> brian: applaud for yourselves. i'm so glad you came here. enjoy the day. see you later, everybody. >> dana: high stakes day in the halls of justice. two of the biggest trump cases are coming to a head on a day

that will be nothing short of consequential, i'm dana perino and bill is off today. good morning, gillian. >> gillian: thanks for having me i'm gillian turner and this is "america's newsroom." we'll begin out of new york. former president trump just received a hero's welcome preparing for day seven of his criminal trial. [crowd chanting we love trump, we love trump] >> dana: the former president meeting with construction workers before heading back to court earlier this morning. today former magazine executive david pecker will resume his testimony and we're also waiting to see if the judge holds trump in contempt for accusations of violating a gag order. that kicks off at 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> gillian: the supreme court will hear arguments about whether the justice department can prosecute trump for interfering in the 2020 election. the question before the court is quote, whether and if so to what

extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office? that begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we have full fox team coverage with legal experts standing by. we'll begin first with david spunt outside the supreme court this morning. hi, david. >> hi, gillian. whether they like it or not, the nine justices on the u.s. supreme court in about one hour will enter the nerve center of the 2024 presidential election. former president donald trump, who was charged by special counsel jack smith with efforts to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election claims he shouldn't face any charges and should enjoy presidential immunity because he says that the alleged acts happened while he was still in office. here is the former president earlier this morning in new york

on this supreme court case. >> we have a big case today. the supreme court on presidential immunity, a president has to have immunity. if you don't have immunity you have a ceremonial president. >> jack smith insists trump's behavior continued after he left office and should be prosecuted full stop. this case was supposed to go to trial in early march. it was delayed when the supreme court agreed to hear the case. now the justices who typically don't like to shy awith a from politics can't escape it in this case. if they say trump is not immune, the engines of the trial will go ahead and we'll get a trial underway possibly late summer or early fall. if they agree that trump is immune from prosecution, we may not see a trial here at all in washington, d.c. the justices will decide at the end of june at the latest. back to you.

>> gillian: david spunt outside the supreme court. stand by. >> dana: we go to the supreme court and shannon bream, jonathan turley, and others are standing by. shannon, you are at the court. this is the last case that the court is going to hear this year and arguably, no question, the most consequential. >> absolutely to all of these federal actions now pending against the former president. and there has been criticism of the supreme court they didn't handle this quickly enough. actually we all know in covering the court this is rocket speed for them to get a petition, take it up, have briefing and arguments and add something to the calendar this quickly. normally the most sub staetive cases come in late june and early july. because of what's at stake in this case we think it could come sooner than that. >> gillian: trump wanted to be here today at the supreme court. he is not.

he is at new york supreme court facing criminal charges in his trial there. do you think his presence here today would have made an impact, any kind of difference on the judges' mindset coming into the oral arguments? >> i don't think it would change the judges' mindset. in some ways having them in new york is the best argument he could put before the justices. alvin bragg is making the case for him. as the court considers the implications of not extending immunity to presidents, alvin bragg is showing what that means. this is a highly political in my view legally absurd case in manhattan and it is playing out as the court considers the implications of this type of prosecution. so for the court, i think it's only going to reinforce this idea we don't necessarily want to go to either extreme but perhaps there is a nuanced or middle road here where we can

afford some protection to a president for actions taken related to their office. >> dana: andy mccarthy, what do you think the court will do here? sometimes they like to move incrementally. send it back to the lower courts and way to see if it comes up again. do you think they're inclined to do this? the election is a few months away. >> here is part of the problem, though, why is time of the essence? there is no importance from a rule of law standpoint and from a law enforcement standpoint. there is no importance in this case being tried before election day. that's the agenda of the democratic prosecutors who have brought these cases. the fact that there seems like there is a crisis and criticism of the court that they didn't get to this fast enough is not over a legal imperative but a political imperative where you have democratic prosecutors, one in new york is an elected

democratic prosecutor, who decided that they wanted to get trump on trial and by their life hopefully convicted in the run-up to the election. if i'm the court i'm put off by that. i don't feel like a pressure to accelerate my consideration of the case. i resent the fact that i have been thrown into a political context. this is a complicated question. the problem with it is everybody knows that a president does have to have immunity for the acts that he takes within the authority of the presidency, within the constitutional responsibility. we've gone almost a quarter of a millennium without having to spell it out because it is obvious. one of the obvious things that hard to write without inviting illegal activity by the president. so unfortunately you have trump

and his opposition, which essentially, you know, between the two of them they destroy every norm that we have ever had before where we didn't have to have a court pronounce something that is so obvious. it becomes a question if you have to write what the immunity is. >> gillian: the two trials in new york and supreme court taking place more than 200 miles apart, they don't in a legal sense as far as i understand really overlap with one another. but there is no question, right, in the public sphere they have the potential to greatly impact one another, right? >> this is why i thought what donald trump did this morning was a brilliant move for the court of public opinion. decided to sent the tone himself. went to meet with union workers and the narrative he wants to set today. he doesn't want people to be distracted by the trials and instead wants people to focus on the fact he is running for

president and has a tough time doing so having to sit in court every day. i think it is interesting that arguing for the department of justice. he was on the special counsel bob mueller probe, unsuccessful once. he put himself on that team to go after trump and now on the jack smith and arguing the case for jack smith today. very interesting. >> dana: we are going to have a chance at 10:00 a.m. to hear the justices and the argument. you will be inside. so you know the justices well and pay attention to a lot of this. what are you listening for today? is there anyone in particular you are expecting to weigh in heavily? >> you know i'll be keeping an eye on the chief justice. he tries to guide the court with a narrow hand in many cases, incrementally.

if they find there is some scope of immunity for these particular actions where do they set the boundaries? i think listening to the questions about whether they are open to that issue of immunity and how far it might go. if we see who is trying to probe what the outer boundaries of that would be, these arguments are set for an hour but nothing else on the docket today. i expect we go well beyond that. this is a moment in history for the justices to decide. we don't know what the vote was to take up the case, who voted yes or no or who wants to hear this case today, dana. >> gillian: jonathan, we have been told not to expect a decision from the justices today. it may be some time. what does that mean? when could we expect a decision on this to be put forward? >> well obviously it could go all the way into june. the court has already expedited this matter. critics on the other side say they are dragging their feet. this is a rocket docket for the

supreme court. it could go faster i suppose, this is pretty fast. i think they will have a tough time withdrawing these lines. there is an off ramp. they could reach a strong majority saying we need to send this back to develop the record. that could come quickly if they decide to do an off ramp like that, it would make it difficult for jack smith to try that case in d.c. before the election. but i think what you will see today from the justices is how tough this question really is. for example, you know, jack smith will argue he was arguing for his own interests, not his office. all right. what if he wasn't on the ballot? what if he was president and still thought he there was election fraud? those are the questions that they'll present to counsel today. >> dana: andy mccarthy can i ask you a political question, maybe

not. let me ask it anyway. if you are president biden in the white house and watching this and you are president of the united states, are you the commande commander-in-chief, how do you want this to go today? >> boy, that's a great question. look, i think that quietly or as quietly as they can, the white house is very supportive of the law fare effort against trump. to my mind, i think if i'm biden, what i want the court to do is substantially endorse what the d.c. circuit did and get the case back to the judge to get on with it. there is probably two or three months worth of pre-trial work that has to be done because this case, as jonathan mentioned before, has been frozen for a long time in the district court. to get this case to trial by august or september would require the judge to roll up her sleeves and get on with it and

be very difficult for trump. he is already on trial in this other place. i guess if i'm biden i'm rooting for the case to get back to the original judge. >> dana: always good to throw the panel a curveball. gill >> biden is the worst president in history. we have bad people here but the greatest people right behind me. they all want us to run. >> gillian: that's former president trump meeting with construction workers this morning. he said union workers are paying the price for president biden's failed economic policies. trump and biden now vying for the teamsters endorsement. we have alexis mcadams now. got time with the president this morning. tell us everything you are hearing and seeing in your city this morning. >> i don't know how you started your morning. the former president started it early in mid town manhattan talking with construction and union workers outside of a site

behind me. he is working hard to try to turn the deep blue state of new york as bright red as he can. new poll came out shows, former president trump is trailing president joe biden. i asked him about that poll. watch. >> there is a new poll out that shows you are ten points behind president biden in new york. do you think it's doable to win new york? >> we're close in new york and leading in the country by a lot. polls just came out a while ago as you saw yesterday that we are up in every swing state and up by a lot in every swing state. so i think we'll do very well and make a play for new york. >> make a play for new york before he goes to court every day, right? now he is over there in downtown. trump greeted and spoke with local union members, construction workers and supporters here before he went there. his campaign telling us the visit was meant to highlight how working men and women have suffered under so-called

bidenomics. this visit comes one day after president joe biden secured another union backing from the head of north america building trade union. the president has been working hard to court union workers telling them president trump is a bully to working class americans and the labor movement. >> president biden: let me tell you something, proud to be the most pro-union president in american history and it is because of you. >> no surprise in new york that most of these union and construction workers are life long democrats but some of those people tell me that's going to change. watch. >> union-wise, more unions going to back the democrats or will they flip? >> they will probably continue to back the democrats. just because the heads of the internation also are backing the members doesn't mean the members are voting that way. >> donald trump has to be inside the courtroom in new york city. they'll bring the campaign trail

to the big apple. more visits from harlem to mid town manhattan. >> gillian: getting some answers from the former president and we appreciate it. >> dana: two dueling courtrooms weighing former president trump's legal future, his new york city trial resumes in minutes with a third day of witness testimony. we may hear from the former president speak before he heads inside. that's usually the case. we're on it. >> american people can see what's going on this with guy. four cases in jure jurisdictions, democratic during the election. we're not stupid. get back to better breathing with fasenra, an add-on treatment for eosinophilic asthma that is taken once every 8 weeks. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems or other eosinophilic conditions. allergic reactions may occur. don't stop your asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens.

headache and sore throat may occur. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. step back out there with fasenra. ask your doctor if it's right for you. okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪)

- "best thing i've ever done." that's what freddie told me. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage, but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home, and they all wanted to stay in that home. and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you?

- [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen. why choose a sleep number smart bed? can i make my side softer? i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. save 40% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed or 0% interest for 36 months. shop now at sleepnumber.com try killing bugs the worry-free way. not the other way. zevo traps use light

to attract and trap flying insects with no odor and no mess. they work continuously, so you don't have to. zevo. people-friendly. bug-deadly.

>> dana: former president donald trump is back in court for day

seven of his criminal trial. testimony resumes this morning coming as the judge is set to weigh in on a request to hold the former president in contempt for accusations of violations of a gag order. eric sean is outside the courthouse. we could hear from the president any moment. set us up what to expect today. >> we could. he has arrived seeing if he talks in the hallways. we could hear today if the former president will be held in contempt of court for violating judge merchan's gag order. if he is, he was asked this morning if he will pay. >> i have no idea. they've taken the constitutional right away with a gag order. that's all it is. election interference. the whole thing is election interference. >> the trial is expected to resume ten minutes from now. david pecker. >> dana: president trump. >> thank you very much.

as you probably have heard, some things have happened. the biggest seems to be the gdp is 1.6% and heading south. it will get worse. gas prices in california were just also announced at $7.60 gasoline is going way up. energy costs are going way up and the stock market is in a sense crashing. the numbers are very bad. this is bidenomics. it is catching up with him. it is lucky it is catching up before he leaves office as opposed to after he leaves office. but this is bidenomics, it is destroying our country at the border, destroying our country. they no longer respect the united states, the other countries. the delay is in tremendous trouble in terms of currency. this will be the standard and the standard with me. with biden you will lose the

dollar as a standard. like losing the biggest war we've ever lost and it is a shame. all the way down to 1.6. i tell you, nobody thought it would be possible and looks like it is heading down from there. very bad news. this morning i met with great people, construction workers, some teamsters and other unions and some non-unions and we had a fantastic morning. you were there, some of the persons there. great show of support. as you know, some tremendous polls came out over the last 24 hours where we are up in all of the swing states and up nationally. but one came out we're down very little in new york. new york isn't won by republicans anymore. 50 years ago it was, not anymore. i think we have a good chance of winning here and big it a big chance. we'll go to the south bronx and

doing a rally at madison square garden. we'll have a big rally honoring the police and honoring the firemen and everybody. i think a lot of people, including teachers, by the way, we're honoring teachers. they have been very badly maligned with some very poor leadership. but we'll be honoring the people that make new york work and we'll be doing a number of large rallies. it will be very exciting. we think we have a good chance of winning new york and again these swing states we're leading in every one of them and by a lot. not just a little. the big news today is 1.6%. when you look at 1.6gdp, that's a number that nobody thought was possible. that's a real bad number. it looks like the projections are heading in the wrong direction. that's why the stock market is down so big today. so in the meantime i am at this trial. my constitutional rights have been taken away from me.

but every single expert, every legal scholar, every respected scholar has said this is no case. there is no case here. this is just a political witch hunt. thank you very much. >> i think the supreme court has an important argument today. i would have like to be there but the judge here wouldn't allow that. he puts himself above the supreme court, which is unfortunate, isn't it? but the argument of immunity is very important. a president has to have immunity. this has nothing to do with me. this has to do with a president in the future for 100 years from now. if you don't have immunity, you are not going to do anything. you'll become a ceremonial president. you will be doing nothing. you won't take any of the risks both good and bad. we either make some great

decisions and save the country or make some decisions which are unfortunate. that's the way it is. but you are not going to do anything if you don't have immunity. otherwise you will be prosecuted after you leave office. we're doing something like going into an area and a country doing lots of things you wouldn't be doing. we don't want a ceremonial president. we have to have a real president. assuming you have the right person, that can make a big difference. you saw it for four years when i was president. we were respected all over the world. the best economy we've ever had. everything was good. no wars, defeated isis, no wars, we had no nothing. but we were respected all over the world. and now it is a disgrace. we also by the way had the single best border ever in recorded history of our country. we had the best border ever. we built 571 miles of wall. we were going to build 200 more miles. far more than i said we were going to build.

but we had a country that was respected and now we have a country that is a joke, being laughed at all over the world and riots at all the university. the only place locked down is this courthouse. they don't want any supporters here. they don't want maga or anybody. this thing is locked down like a buttoned up vest and it shouldn't be. if they did the same lockdown at columbia, nyu and colleges and universities you would have no problem whatsoever. there you can put tents up and stay as long as you want. but this courthouse is locked down. there is not a person within five blocks. they have more police here. i call them new york's finest. that's what they are. they don't want to be doing this, either. they would like to be straightening out conditions and they would like to be in the colleges and making sure that they don't have what's happening. what's happening in the colleges is a disgrace. all over the world people are laughing at us. this is the worst-run country

now probably anywhere just about. you don't get much worse. we have a president who is a disaster. we have a president who is the worst president in the history of our country. all you have to do is look at the millions of people coming in from prisons, from mental institutions and they are coming in at levels we have never seen before. so i will go in now and sit in front of a case, election interference. this is the way they think they'll get elected. i guess based on what i'm looking at, it is driving up my poll numbers. [inaudible question] >> dana: president trump giving some more expansive comments he has been able to do before going into court. today is the trial resumes. david pecker is the first witness going to be on the stand. he stopped by and saw construction workers and told alexis mcadams they'll make a

play for new york. this is a bit of news even though rumors about it. the president said they're trying to book madison square garden for a rally and they would honor police, firefighters and teachers. everything from the economic number that just came in. gdp growth at 1.6%. lower than most people thought it would be. what does that mean? he talked about the border, talked about crime. and he talked about this case in particular. on the supreme court, he said that this judge, merchan, here in new york thinks of himself as above the supreme court and this is it's unfortunate. that's a summary for you, gillian, as we move along with our show now. >> gillian: thank you. let's bring in criminal defense attorney jonna spilbor to talk more about this very important case in new york supreme court. the jury will decide whether

trump is guilty or innocent. he is well aware of the fact that he is on trial before the nation and that's why we saw him do some campaigning outside the court today and why we saw him do more campaigning now inside the court. he opened by talking about the ways in which he thinks president biden has fallen short. >> it really is genius the way he is using a felony criminal trial to continue to campaign despite in particular this judge trying to shut him up and keep him off the campaign trail with all of the decisions that he has made so far that he has to be sitting at defense table, he can't go to the supreme court, etc. the gag order, the invalid, unconstitutional gag order which is the first order of business today. i don't mean to be flippant, this is one area where i think donald trump should say how much do you want me to pay. set a cap.

let me make five social media posts and comments and i'll pay $5 thousand a day. i should not lose my first amendment rights or my rights to campaign or my right to speak in defense of myself in an unprecedented criminal case. >> gillian: define the gag order he clearly feels is to his benefit politically. will it hurt him inside that courtroom? the judge is not going to determine his guilt but the judge has a lot of input into the way the trial unfolds, right? >> he has all of the input. that is a great question. i think donald trump -- he is so smart. he really needs to balance that. the jury is really only to be concerned with the evidence that is being put in front of them. and to that end, gillian, this is so bizarre. the first criminal case i've seen in my 30 years of doing this where a prosecutor is trying to prove a crime and all of the evidence in support of

that crime, all of the elements, are non-crimes. david pecker, for example is not testifying to any crime. there is no crime. how do you get to criminal liability when all of the evidence is innocent conduct? it defies gravity and makes 0 sense. >> gillian: stand by with me a second. we'll throw it back to dana for a moment and bring you back with this panel. >> dana: that's right. jonathan turley and karl rove is joining us as well. want to ask you overall because of your historical knowledge and having worked in a white house, trump's lawyers' argument is this. a former president enjoys immunity from prosecution for official facts. a decision the court will make today. how do you see it? >> it's consequential. what is an official act?

was the efforts to get vice president pence to throw out the electoral college votes of arizona, georgia, an official act or not? the former president is absolutely right. this will have consequences for the next 100 years for the presidency. we have had, since watergate and since richard nixon, a belief that a president could be held liable for criminal acts that were not connected with the official conduct of his office but it has been an impression, it hasn't been written in stone by the supreme court. we're now like it or not at a point where the supreme court is going to potentially make some really consequential decisions that will stand for a long time. >> dana: one other question, karl. the president got out early this morning before court started, before many people were awake and he was out campaigning with construction workers and made a lengthy statement commenting on the recent gdp number that just came out, immigration, talked

about having a big rally at msg, madison square garden, honoring police officers, firefighters and teachers. what about the politics how he is playing this as some of the polls show him still ahead sometimes by a lot in the battleground states? >> i think it is smart to not talk about the case as much and talk about other things more because he is a candidate for president. he is not going to be out on the campaign trail four days a week. this case will be heard monday, tuesday, thursday, friday, not heard on wednesday. limited in what he can project as a message. better for him to grab moments like this walking in and commenting on the news of the day rather than making it all about what he feels and he feels strongly about this. about his treatment in this case. we've heard that once or twice already. we don't need to hear it again. the voters are up for grabs want to hear are you concerned about the things i'm concerned about? the news of the day and the economy and so forth.

are you only concerned about yourself? very smart move he has done this several times before. whoever is advising him on this ought to be given a gold star. it is good advice. >> gillian: good catch on the madison square garden news. the former president said a moment ago talking about the supreme court case today it has nothing to do with him and all about future presidents. what did he mean by that? >> both things are true. it has to do with him in the short term because if the court is decided with the lower court that would mean the trial with donald trump and january of and election interference goes forward. he is talking about the big picture. the future of the american president's ability to govern or not govern. looking over their shoulder to think a political opponent once they leave office will go after them for that? often things that are done within office wouldn't be necessarily legal in the normal world. on the other hand there are limits. i think it is interest, last

week doj was arguing the prosecutors should have more power under the law. this week they are arguing that presidents should not have immunity from criminal prosecution. it is quite two arguments there. >> dana: the gag order issue, we're waiting to hear from the judge about it seems minuscule compared to the other big decisions that the supreme court will hear today. but the judge hasn't ruled yet. judge pirro last night argued if you look at the actual violations and try to match them up with what the gag order says it doesn't match up. what do you think will happen on that point today on the gag order, jonathan turley? >> i think the judge will find him in contempt. that's clear from the earlier hearing. the order is somewhat ambiguous on details like reposting. the biggest problem with the order is it's just too broad. michael cohen's inclusion in that order is ridiculous.

cohen has gone on the air every day attacking the president and also calling for his defeat in the election. and this court is saying that for the whole course of this case you cannot respond to michael cohen. and i think a lot of judges would look at that with a great deal of skepticism. if he is held in contempt, this will allow an appeal to go forward as to the scope of that order. i think the judge is being stubborn here. it doesn't mean that a gag order would not apply. but it is too broad. more importantly, it is related to what is happening in washington. this whole circus in manhattan is what happens when you have the weaponization of the criminal justice system. you have a d.a. that is now holding the presidential candidate in a new york court with the assistance of a new york judge, not allowing him to campaign and then holding him in

contempt when he responds to someone who is effectively campaigning against him. so at some point the courts will have to look at this and say for the love of mike, this is getting out of control and we need to do something. >> gillian: who is mike? just kidding. andy, a "new york times" op-ed this morning says the bragg case against trump is a historic mistake. the argument here amounts to that the judge and new york is stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court. so therefore pushing these untested legal boundaries. what do you make of that? >> that i guess even a blind squire el finds an acorn now and then. it's true. it was even true before "the new york times" or someone there said it. this is the most patently obviously politicized prosecution in memory.

and i think that it is so outrageous that sometimes we look at these cases as they come up in tandem and what we fail to take note of is the cumulative effect of all of this on trump's due process rights, which he has, whether the democratic prosecutors want to knowledge that or not. the clearest example, he has a right to be present at the supreme court today. completely apart from tactically whether a good idea for him to be there and whether his lawyers or court would want him there, he has a right to be there. a criminal defendant has a right to be present at all of the critical stages of his prosecution. if this argument today was happening in front of another judge it would be more obvious it is even though the stakes are higher with the argument before the supreme court. he is not being permitted to be there because of the trial in new york and the fact that the

judge in new york would not let him go to the supreme court because he has a right to be present at the trial. the point i want to make is, these prosecutors brought these cases tactically. bragg waited five years to bring this case so that it could be teed up for trial in the months before the 2024 election. all this haste to get the immunity issue decided is because they are saying it's important that this take place before the election. there is no rule of law reason for that. there is no law enforcement reason for that. it is entirely blatantly political. >> dana: i have a question, jonna, for you. in politics you have something i would call candidate management, making sure the candidate is in a good mood, has what they need in terms of being prepared, has energy, has enough time to

sleep, etc. television we have it here, talent management and the producers have an issue sometimes with some of us because we can get ridiculous. what about client management when it comes to a defendant like this who is under the gun from so many different angles? i have think from my perspective, i don't know him well, he seems to me to be holding things together. he is frustrated and irritated but not losing his cool in any way. how important is client management in a situation like this? how do you do it? >> this is such a unique situation, dana. it is really hard. you can't apply your ordinary client control measures, if you will, with a client like this. he has a multitude of lawyers. he has a multitude of cases. he is running for president of the united states and he was a former president. i have to tell you, he is probably as smart as many of his lawyers. look what he did this morning. i had to smile when he came out

and campaigned in front of that dinghy manhattan courthouse and did it so well. i would almost say you sit back and try not to let him put his foot in his mouth in terms of whether he will say something that will bite him in the case that's before you now. but otherwise, i would say you let donald trump be donald trump. >> dana: thank you. gillian. >> gillian: panel, thanks, everybody for joining us. again stand by. there will be plenty of breaking news coming up. right now the supreme court is hearing oral arguments in the trump immunity case in washington, d.c. as we have been talking about all morning long. the former president is not going to be here. he is in new york tied up in court right now with his criminal trial. we'll have more breaking details coming up on both trials next.

♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪

>> dana: a new poll shows president biden slight leafed over trump evaporates. the former president is back in the new york courtroom this morning and supreme court hearing oral arguments of his claims on presidential immunity this morning. kayleigh mcenany, it's great to have you here with me. trump is frustrated to be in new york and not in d.c. because he sees the supreme court as

superior, right? he is mad because a judge said you have to be in new york. judge merchan said this. arguing before the supreme court is a big deal and appreciate why your client would want to be there. a trial in new york supreme court is also a big deal hence trump is here. >> a trial that as we discussed before, "the new york times" finds to be unprecedented, never before has a case been brought for a federal election with this statute in new york. what is interesting. jonathan turley said the interplay between the two cases. the point he is making is very important. you have this case in new york and then you have the supreme court absolute immunity case. one of the arguments jack smith is making is that in the criminal context yes, you are immune civilly. he says you have safeguards, you have juries, grand juries, you have due process and he concludes by saying one of his arguments collectively these layered safeguards provide assurance that prosecutions will

be screened under rigorous standards. no president need be chilled in fulfilling his responsibilities. really? we have a hush money case in new york. we have the alvin bragg case in new york. one that left leaning scholars admitted is baseless. you are protecting the criminal context but you are not. >> dana: a boston legal scholar said it is historical mistake. that's coming from "the new york times" legal scholar they had in the nyt op-ed. you are also a lawyer, huge benefit to doing a job like this. you've looked at both arguments in the supreme court and you've read them. what stood out to you in both? >> interestingly when you look at president trump's brief, one of the things he cites is none other than judge kavanaugh back when justice kavanaugh was a judge. he cites to a law review article that says this, a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is inevitably going to do a worse

job as president. it gives us an indicator where justice kavanaugh is. you flip to the jack smith briefing. he cites an unlikely source. justice clarence thomas in a dissent that thomas wrote. this court is recognized absolute immunity for the president from damages, liability predicated on official acts rejected absolute immunity from damages, actions for a president's non-official conduct. it is really interesting they are both trying to lean into justices trying to read the tea leaves to include previous statements in each brief. fascinating to watch the questions from those two. >> dana: good communications tool. use your adversary's words to your benefit and seems like what they are trying to do there. we're nine minutes away from being able to hear this live at the supreme court. our coverage continues, oral arguments at the supreme court will begin in just a few minutes. stay with us.

we'll be right back.

they get it. they know how it works. more importantly, it works for them. i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. i don't have to worry about a mortgage payment every month. it allowed me to live in my home and not have to make payments. linda, dinah, joanne, very different people... but they do have a couple things in common. they love their home, and they know their stuff. they all talked about the counseling they got, so they knew how a reverse mortgage worked... and how it could be a real financial solution for their retirement. if you're 62 or older and own your home, find out how you could access your home's equity to give you cash now, and when you need it in the future. a reverse mortgage could put more money in your pocket by eliminating your monthly mortgage payments, paying off higher-interest credit cards and covering medical costs. a person like me needed to get a reverse mortgage

it changed my life, it was the best thing i've ever done. really? yes, without a doubt just like these folks, aag can show you how a reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you tax-free cash. they also know they can pay it back whenever it works for them. it's a good thing! call right now to receive your free, no-obligation info kit. the kit will show you how you could get the cash you need using your home's equity as a reverse mortgage from aag. i've been with aag for quite a while now, i think they're the real deal. so look, why don't you get the facts like these folks did and see if a reverse mortgage could work for you. call aag, the country's number one reverse mortgage lender. call this number.

>> dana: fox news alert. it does not get much bigger than this. the supreme court is about to hear oral arguments on presidential immunity. it is a case brought by former president donald trump. there are no cameras in court but we will listen in as history unfolds. welcome to a brand new hour of "america's newsroom," i'm dana perino. happy to be here with you, gillian. >> gillian: thank you, an honor to be with you. i'm gillian turner. the high supreme court is facing a first ever its kind decision that could have profound effects on the race for the white house. jack smith is charging the formal president with a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. trump's lawyers say he has immunity and a ruling against him could open the floodgates against former presidents. >> dana: we have our power panel

with us. we also have karl rove. great to have. david spunt, can i start with you the lay of the land? what does it look like at the courthouse side? a lot of protest for the abortion debate. the last case the supreme court will hear this session. >> good to be with you. we're a little surprised. a lot more media here than members of the public. we expected to see a lot of protestors here today given what we saw earlier this week with the supreme court cases on homelessness and also abortion yesterday. but fairly tame today. maybe a handful out here outside the supreme court now. these arguments begin in just a few minutes and things will continue to possibly increase later today. the arguments expected to go about two hours, possibly 2 1/2 hours. fairly quiet here now. >> dana: gillian. >> gillian: kerri, let me start with you. if we look forward now,

difficult to do. trying to understand the options available to the justices, they could decide that the former president has what they call complete immunity, they could decide he has only partial immunity or they could, i think, decide that he has no immunity at all. what direction do you think they are likely to go in? >> i would imagine they would be hesitant to say a president has 0 immunity from potentially criminal prosecution for official acts conducted in office. the devil will be in the details in that how will they look into and define official acts? i think that's where this case gets especially interesting our acts. are everything a president does when he is in office is what donald trump would say? the department of justice say trump was acting as an election seeker not an election holder. president's enjoy civil immunity

within the four corner res. the outer most limits of their office and i would think the supreme court would go in that direction wanting to give the most deference possible to presidents. but certainly how they decide this will be especially important for donald trump in the short term because it will determine what happens next for him with the jack smith case. does it go away, go forward, or a combination of the two which starts things from square one again and makes things a bit more complicated and delays it until after the election? >> dana: earlier today i asked and he mccarthy a political question. this is about presidents and presidential immunity but election year. if you are the biden white house and biden campaign how do you think they look at this and how do they want the justices to rule? >> i think they would want the justices to rule that the former president was acting not in his official capacity but as an office seeker. but two things.