that flew by john grade to be with you. set your dvr your dvr never ms. miss america reports we will have the former president's remarks at 4:30 pm i'm sandra smith's chemically employed to them as the trail continues. i'm john roberts who was you tomorrow, the story with martha maccallum picks up now. martha. >> martha: what a day thank you both of you. i am martha maccallum this is

the story. live legal battles for former president trump happening right now. we have live coverage this afternoon laura ingram joins us and andy mccarthy, jonathan turley and trump attorney wil scharf will weigh in on healthy -- how he thinks today is going. the big decision could have implications for all presidents to come is at the supreme court today. the former presidents attorneys are giving that he should be immune from prosecution with regard to the indictments that will get the 2020 election and everything surrounding that. it has implications for the georgia case january 6th and all of that that's on the presidents plate but did the justices by the trump attorney's arguments in there today? fascinating to listen to the justices ask questions about all of this as they weighed the huge decision at the nation's highest

court. he is said he really wanted to be there at the supreme court to listen to this very important process they are undergoing said trump. the judge in this trial, you're familiar with this scene right? the barricades and the doors are where he comes and goes for the course of the past week. we saw him indicted in this same courthouse when this all started. this judge said nope my court is important to. you will be here today. that's exactly where the former president is and now he has just returned shortly for the afternoon session, going to be done and a little over 1 hour when he will make some comments. we are hearing more testimony and a big day for david pecker former publisher of the national enquirer that everyone grew up looking at on the grocery store stands. lots of wild hellacious stories often on the cover of the paper. so when former president donald trump was asked about david pecker he was kind of careful

not to criticize his old friend who is now testifying against him. live outside the court in new york hi nate. >> in the past minute or so former america media ceo and president david pecker testified about unknown seclusion agreement ami entered with the southern district of new york about campaign violations. he continues to testify about his involvement with the former playboy model karen mcdougal and his efforts to suppress his -- her story about an alleged affair with former president donald trump. he testified trump at manette him after karen mcdougal spoke with the news network about hit her alleged affair with trump. he thought khaki says, there is

an agreement preventing him from doing that. he said he admitted it but picker also explained in meeting where he discussed some articles she was preparing with ghostwriters and career opportunities. he said he did that because he didn't want her speaking to other press. becker visited the white house in july 2017 and he is explaining to the jury for a thank you dinner and at that dinner trump asked how karen was an pecker responded she's doing well, she is quiet she is good. becker also testified he believed the motivation behind suppressing stories from 1 -- women alleging affairs with the former president was to protect trump's campaign rather than his family. he said trump never mention his family in conversations about those stories and packer also said when he spoke to trump about him reimbursing michael cohen for paying stormy daniels trump told him he had no idea what pecker was talking about but trump is accused of breaking

new york law section 17 cart 152 , on top of the allegation all falsifying business records. allow reeds and a 2 or more persons who conspired to promote or prevent the election to a person of public office by all lawful means and which conspiracies acted upon by 1 or more of the parties thereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. the operative word there martha is unlawful and there is still a lot of ambiguity about what exactly the former president trump is accused of doing that was unlawful that led to him winning the 2016 presidential election. that something the jury we'll have to consider. back to you martha. >> speaker-03: thank you. >> martha: fascinating nate thank you. let's bring in jonathan, great to sea you. great to listen to you all day on this but i think nate foy has nailed this. in terms of what we are really talking about here, everybody is listening to all of this, you

know, talk about the boss and he was angry and the payments that went back-and-forth. but to promote or prevent the election of any person by unlawful means. the unlawful means as i understand it is basically a campaign donation that exceeds $2300 per person are tell me if i'm wrong here but if that were the case, you know, it would really matter who was paid for what if you exceeded the allowable amount and if that's what was proven i guess it would be an unlawful payment right? >> right. there is a whole series of disconnects here. there is nothing unlawful that's been argued here. the money is uncontested so the prosecution is really playing up the fact we are establishing these issues. there is no crime here. so the reference to pecker having an immunity agreement on campaign via social finance violations is troubling for the

defence. it suggests to the jury there is a violation here and there is not. the federal government declined to bring a charge against trump. there are many election law experts who said this is not a violation. they tried it with john edwards and a collapsed, so we are left with this weird scene unfolding in this new york courtroom. they are talking about transactions that aren't connected to anything unlawful, and on top of that you have pecker who said when he raised it with trump he said he didn't know about the reimbursement from michael cohen and many of these interactions are really with cohen. you know, cohen was his attorney so the jury we'll sea him take the stand and say, i think you should put my former client in jail for following my former legal advice. that's how we are case is becoming. >> martha: it is weird.

and, you know, my point is just that campaign finance violations really have to do with the amount people are allowed to pay you know, who is a lot to pay, whether it goes to an individual , whether it's a payment that is made by an individual. all of this stuff we are listening to, i like to watch the coverage of the different channels throughout the day to see what they're talking about. over and over they are discussing the fact michael cohen said the boss wants this. the boss wants that. and all of this stuff about who's going to pay for it. i mean it is comical actually. cohen didn't want to pay for it than he goes to david pecker and says get the boss to pay me back. they are saying the former president didn't want to pay for any of this stuff. but none of that, the transactions that were agreed to by stormy daniels in this case because she is the case were discussing, that was an agreement between 2 parties to

not share your story, is that correct? >> right. nda's are ubiquitous that they are used all the time. stories are killed all the time. the clinton campaign was famous for that. they killed the hunter biden story, you know, you had bill clinton who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to women and some of those stories were killed by clinton people to protect him. those were not campaign contributions for the purposes of any criminal charge. so we are still left with the trial that seems to be searching for a crime. that's what is so disturbing here. it's not just that the charge is in other cases its that the judges sitting there as they are talking about some unlawful means without identifying it. it was only a couple of days ago and the second week of this trial that breakeven made clear what 1 of these dead

misdemeanours were. so the defence had to start this trial without even knowing fully what the theory was. it's like starting a race and lace -- they say we will tell you if it's print or a marathon have a few. it's hard to prepare and you don't even know what the theory is. >> so michael cohen we'll be up soon in this process. he is key to the process because when you're looking at the behaviour they claim is a crime, it goes back to these payments that were made and whether or not they were campaign finance violations which you have laid out clearly why this would be something that shouldn't be a jew could to adjudicated in court and most of it is a misdemeanour. but michael cohen has been shooting his mouth off which is basically what he's done for the past any years. for an long -- for a long time he was in favour of donald trump but now he is against it. he is given himself a gag order

here he has a podcast, he said despite not being the defendant, out of respect to the prosecutors of ocs posting anything about donald on my x. account. what do you make of that? >> it's rather belated isn't it? the irony is that 1 of the things they have objected to under the gag order was trump reposting 1 of my columns, cohen referred to those columns as well. and some of them he objected to me and said i'm at witness basically i deserve protection. it is absurd, you know, he has been campaigning against the present and recently been dealing with the evidence and attacking the former president in this case. the inclusion of him in that order was an obvious mistake by the judge. i thank the judges being stubborn here. the self-imposed gag order is a

bit too late. you can expect in the middle of a campaign involving the weaponization of the legal system for trump not to respond to the core players in that effort. >> martha: we will see what happens, they're still deciding what the punishment we'll be for violations of the gag order if they say the former president committed. jonathan thank you always good to see a. >> thank you martha. >> martha: supreme court justices, some of them, 3 were appointed by president trump and they are weighing and have finished hearing both sides. now their job is to weigh whether or not the former president should be immune from prosecution because of the office of the presidency. on the charges he plodded to overturn the 2020 election. >> so you can see private acts don't get immunity. >> a dude. >> will get into more detail with that, will sharp or counsel and former president trump on the immunity appeal next it's time.

yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪ >> are you satisfied with the results you get from expensive nutritional supplements that don't contain more than 12 minerals? you can't get much benefit from 8 to 10 minerals when your body needs at least 60 minerals to be healthy. now, try immuno 150 with its 70 minerals and 80 other nutrients. i'm elmer heinrich, celebrating my 90th birthday as i make this commercial, with no dementia, no health problems, aches, or pains of any kind and the flexibility i had when i was 60. now, i have consumed immuno 150 for many years. i can still drive a golf ball 220 yards, work out, bench press 100 pounds, run, jump, and do about anything i did 30 years ago.

now, i know it's because of the 70 minerals. now, look at the two videos on our website listed on the screen and consider placing an order online or call our toll-free number. and, by all means check the number of minerals in the product you take. i know you can be just as sharp and as healthy as i am and in as good of shape when you are 90 years old if you consume a full spectrum of minerals every day. the 70 minerals are the key, order now. ( ♪ ) my back got injured very bad. i was off work for about a year.

i heard about relief factor from my wife. i took it every day, three times a day, for three weeks. look at her and i said, "the pain is gone." and she said, i'm glad it helped. i said, "no, you don't understand. it's gone." you, too, can feel better every day with relief factor, a daily supplement that fights pain naturally. call or go online now for our 3-week quickstart, just $19.95.

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.

the supreme court now faced with a very big decision waiting cautiously around whether or not former president trump is immune and federal interference charges in 3 of the cases he faces. listen to michael dragon arguing earlier for special counsel jack smith than you will hear from the trump attorney john sauer. if the president can be charged and put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president's decision-making cicely 1 bold and fearless action is most needed. the. >> framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do newark -- no wrong. they therefore devised a system

to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. >> martha: joining the noun is will scharf and an attorney representing former president trump in this case joining us in a couple minutes but first with the chief legal correspondent and anchor of fox news sunday live today at the supreme court, hello shannon. >> hi martha. it was scheduled for about an hour at almost 3 today though because they had a lot to consider. it's been a crazy day out here at the supreme court. we will just work through that. the judges were taking this very seriously as they were wading through something that's historical, it's the first of its kind. justin kagan was 1 of those to say the framers could have provided blanket presidential immunity for all kinds of thanks but they did not put that in the constitution. they were providing protections for other officials and other places. here's what she said about why they may have done that.

>> framers did not put in immunity clause into the constitution. they didn't provide immunity to the president. not so surprisingly they were reacting against a monarch who claims to be above the law. was the whole point the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law. >> reporter: but, you had the justice raising a lot of concerns saying what about this, if we don't provide any protection then anybody who becomes a candidate or is leaving office is a poor president we'll have to worry about their opponent here here is what said to that point. >> if an incumbent who loses a close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president can go off into peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political

opponent. >> he worried about if it would trigger a loop that could create the destabilizing force on democracy. justices will have to wrestle with all of these questions again a lot of folks out here on both sides of the issue making their voices heard but for the justices they have heard their arguments and they have their first vote tomorrow behind closed doors. then we wait to sea if they resolve these questions or if they decide it will go back to the lower courts for more action stretching the case out further. >> fascinating. always fascinated to listen to the justices as they as these questions and deliberate. thank you shannon. will scharf joins me an attorney representing former president donald trump in this case running as a republican for missouri attorney general as well. thank you for being here today. you heard that back-and-forth between the justices i think it was clear based on the tone and questions that they do not appear to be in favour of

blanket immunity for any president of the united states. did you see it that likely. >> we felt this morning's arguments went really well and i say that primarily because it was clear that the justices were deeply concerned about the future of the office of the president and the future have the american presidency if they didn't provide some sort of legal safeguards against exactly the sort of political prosecutions were announcing brought against former president donald trump. we were heartened by the fact the justices were taking his core constitutional questions vary seriously and we are excited to see what they come down with, probably before the end of the -- end of term before the end of june. >> martha: interesting there was a back-and-forth with justice brown jackson and she said to the attorney are you looking for us to tell you how to divide private acts from public acts of a presidency? is that what you're hoping we will determine as a court

because it's very clear that they believe there is a separation, that profit acts can be punished. before you answer that i just want to play this interesting justice barrett response. listen to this. >> so you can see the private acts don't get immunity. >> we due. >> 3 private actors, attorneys and couldn't those mentioned above help implement a plan to submit fraudulent electors to object the proceeding and petitioner direct the effort -- directed the effort. >> i believe that's private i don't want to -- >> so those would not dispute, those were private and you wouldn't raise a claim they were official. >> martha: that is pretty descriptive and seems quite similar to what happened after the 2020 election. what did you make of what justice barrett was getting at their? i would interpret that she believed that she sees it all as

of private act not an official act. >> so to be clear we've never made the argument that president should have any sort of immunity for his private acts after he leaves office. our argument has always focused on a president's official act. that's a really important distinction under the law. what we really aircrew for here is protection for a precedent for the -- they are official acts in office after they leave office. obviously no president has been prosecuted before in the history of the united states for their own official acts in office and notably the district court and dc circuit in this case said absolutely no 1 immunity applies even to a presidents core of official act, core presidential responsibilities. that's the radical legal room -- ruling on appeal before the court. it seemed the justices were deeply sceptical of that point at least that a president should have no immunity at all even for the exercise of their core

presidential functions. so we feel allows though our arguments were largely vindicated by what transpired in front of the supreme court today. >> martha: sub based on what you heard today what do you expect will happen? >> i don't like making predictions like that but it certainly seems that the supreme court wants to ensure that the system we end up with is a system that preserves the ability for the president to respond decisively to the situations that arise during the course of a presidency. we think ultimately it will favour our side of the coin versus the special counsel office. >> martha: so do you think that they will push that to either a lower court or congress to decide what those are? and how to make the distinction between official duties and private actions? >> if any scope of immunity is recognized at thank the most natural course would be going back to the lower courts for

further fact-finding and decision-making to implement that scope of immunity. we think it was a natural result of an opinion recognizing natural immune to peer. >> martha: take you so much will great to have you. >> great to be with you thank you. >> martha: joined me on set with jerry baker, editor at large and the story fox contributor. it happy with this. >> the q. martha. >> martha: ethic we all learned so much listening to this argument solicited to the questions the very wise members of the court are asking here. here is 1 exchange about whether or not a president could assassinate arrival. listen to this. >> if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders military or someone to assassinate him, is

that within his official acts for which he can have immunity? spec it would depend on the hypothetical, it could well be. >> it could, ny? he he is doing it for personal reasons. >> martha: 1 of the many interesting exchanges, what did you make of it? >> it's interesting, as you said it's unprecedented there's never been a criminal prosecution for president. as we look at the where the court should come out on what presidents there might be, there is precedent on, not criminal immunity but civil immunity. the case in 1982 the court decided the president had attacked president nixon was pursued over civil cases, but he had brought immunity in what they called the outer perimeter. it comes down to what of the immunities and then if the civil immunity applies should criminal

and beauty of likely they are from a could vary we'll be on 1 had no, criminal immunity shouldn't apply for the kind of thanks you just stated. the scope of of the president to do really bad things against the public and offend against the state would be much big rater. against that those who defend the president would say actually a fee is possibly facing criminal prosecution that will place even greater restriction on his freighter of action. here's the question, is there any criminal immunity? at thank that something the court will have to look at. if there is hack weight as it live. so i think the likelihood is from listening to the arguments today hack as he said amy said she was a little sceptical, but a fundamental principle i think is whether or not there are certain acts that can be subjected to criminal in unity. if that happens than the likelihood the court will than send it back to the lower court

for them to decide which acts apply here and than presumably go to the courts to determine whether or not those acts are criminally viable. that suggests to me a long, long drawnout process. it may not come to the court before the election. >> it might be in the gears until after the election. it seems to me it's unlikely. it's unlikely this court wants to determine what defines an official act and what defines it private act. >> absolutely. >> martha: they want to have that happen at the court or an oppressed. >> and by the way liberal progressive members of the court or a little bit was with her open style in previous cases they said the court should decide narrowly on the issues at shouldn't attempt to give broad sweeping rulings. well if it's very narrow, the narrow issue here is whether or

not this criminal immunity applies. not to make judgements about what type of actions fall within the bounds that would be subject to criminal immunity. that would then be back to the lower court decide. thank you very much always good to sea you. the timing of the supreme court's will weigh on his immunity claim and it will determine whether the election interference case against them goes to trial as jerry and i were discussing before or after election day or at all. laura ingram, we are glad to have her with those we host of the ingram angle, she is on next

♪ imagine a future where plastic is not wasted... but instead remade over and over... into the things that keep our food fresher, our families safer, and our planet cleaner. to help us get there, america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars to create innovative products and new recycling technologies for sustainable change. because when you push for smarter solutions,

big things can happen.

(♪) [shaking] itchy pet? (♪) with chewy, save 20% on your first pharmacy order so you can put an end to the itch.

get flea and tick medication delivered right to your door. [panting] the timing of the supreme court's ruling on the former president donald trump immunity deal -- appeal i should say could have big implications for the campaign if the justices reeling against him. it's possible the trial could move quickly. with the court under pressure to rule in may or june, justice barrett acknowledging today the special counsel has expressed concern for some speed in this matter, of course if it doesn't happen this could go until after the election as we said. laura ingram joining us, host of the ingram angle. she is practice law as criminal defence attorney does criminal defence attorney. obviously steeped in all of this, great to have you laura. what was your take listening to the justices in terms of whether or not you think they are in a

rush to come to some definitive conclusion here or tickets of miles? >> i think both sides did a good job actually arguing their case martha back for someone who just loves watching oral arguments are so angry i wasn't there in person, i had to be out of town. but i listen to every moment of it. i think what we can take away from this is that there is a clear majority on the court to give the present or acknowledge the president does have some type, some scope of immunity while he is in office for certain acts. determining as he talked about earlier what is an official act or private act i think it's going to come down to that. i think it's pretty obvious but you don't like to predict, but i will, i think it's fairly obvious that there is no majority to grant a sweeping immunity, absolute immunity to the president. that's not in the constitution. my old boss justice thomas referenced that in a previous

case regarding a criminal subpoena but not a criminal prosecution or documents. there is no absolute immunity in the constitution of anything like this. so i think this is going back to the lower courts. with the lower court having to pick through all of the fact-finding in this case about certain things that were referenced in this indictment. their actions and decisions made with other actors in the room, each basis determine is this an official act? is this a private act? is this something that would require affording the present immunity in order that we not have this cycle continue in election after election. so this isn't going to be determined before the election. i think anyone who thinks that'll happen after listening today isn't listening very closely. >> martha: great points. john sauer at the trump attorney who argued before the court

today hack here he is talking about the historical framework for this. >> could present obama be charged with murder for killing u.s. citizens abroad by drone strike? could president biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? the answer to all these questions is no. prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. >> to those strike you as parallel to a president trump is accused of doing in terms of -- >> i mean i understand why the argument was made martha but again listen to what he said, he said these official acts can't be prosecuted for his official acts. the justices kept coming back to that across the spectrum. natasha jackson said she was

acutely aware of the repercussions of this. brett cavanagh was on the historic nature and the effects of this decision which are going to be what our children and grandchildren are reading about years and years from now. they all understand how boring this is. so i don't think anyone who wants either the special counsel's office to get an immediate yes, tons of those thumbs up the court of appeal has got this right there 0 immunity for the president are that the president's team will get what they want which is yes absolute immunity shut it all down. i don't think either side will get what they want there but it's going to be a long process for this to player. the court will issue it's opinion most likely at the end of june then if it's remanded to the district court martha pack i would suggest this would be a two-month process to just determine official versus private acts with some guidance

from the court. that's just the issue of private versus official act and this is the way it goes. then you go to the actual trial. so this is not going to happen before the election i highly doubt it. >> i cannot imagine how they can find that separation and a clean definitive way that we'll be able to govern the future because every official act could potentially have an underlying personal desire that's attached to it. so you lay it out really well laura. looking forward to watching your show tonight and hearing everything you have to say speed or think you so much. >> martha: thank you always good to sea you. laura ingram joining us, the ingram angle tonight 7:00. we checked back in on the new york criminal trial with donald trump. and mccarthy, they are still on the stand at this hour. we'll have the latest coming up next e family bookkeeper, you're the first to know when high rate debt is stressing your budget. but your family's service has earned you a big advantage.

the va home loan benefit. with the lower rate newday 100 va cash out loan, you can pay off high rate credit cards and car loans. that's real money you can use to take care of your family and home. to abandon their pets. those pets often end up in shelters that euthanize them after just a few days. but we're better than that, my friends. i'm john o'hurley, and i invite you to support puppy food bank with a $15 and i invite you to support puppy food bank with a $15 a month donation with your support puppy food bank can ship pet food to rescue shelters, pet food that will save pet lives. so won't you join me. donate now. and puppy food bank will send you a very nice gift. everyone say, “space pod.” cheese. [door creaks open] [ominous music]

(♪) [ding] meanwhile, at a vrbo... when other vacation rentals are just for likes, try one you'll actually like. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life

insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

u so we are getting some new back-and-forth coming in from inside the new york city courtroom or former president trump is watching all of this play out today including some talk about david packer entering a nonprosecution agreement which is an interesting part of this whole story. we also expect the former president to speak the short time from now and we will bring that to you live. nate voight is live outside the courthouse right now with the latest. hello nate. >> hey martha. the cross-examination of david packer is now underway with drums lawyer asking him about his relationship with the former president that dates back long before trump decided to run for office. just a few moments ago in the courtroom he was asked about an agreement they had dating back to 1998, 1 packer gave trump a heads up about a potentially negative story that involved actress marla maples, again it

was 17 years before the 2015 meeting packer testified about earlier in the trial where he agreed to suppress negative stories about trump and ron negative stories about his political opponents including bill and hillary clinton as well as candidates in the republican primary at the time. but it comes just after his direct examination wrapped up. interesting moment at the end of that martha packer said he had not spoken to trump since the winter 2019 but when asked if he had any bad feelings her charm he said it was the opposite. he said "donald trump was my mentor, he has helped me throughout my career. he mentioned the nonprosecution agreement with the southern district of new york about campaign finance violations in america and media agree to. packer spoke about that agreement and he said the meeting at trump power in 2015

was referenced in the agreement so was his agreement with karen mcdougall to suppress her story. he talked about the thank you dinner the former president donald trump invited him to after winning the white house in july 2017 when trump according to packer's testimony asked how he was doing and packer responded shoes doing well she is quiet, she is good. so again the direct examination is over and now the former president trump's lawyers are having their turn and questioning david packer. back to you martha. >> martha: so interesting, thank you nate. let's bring in andy mccarthy former federal prosecutor kept very busy these days. and he always good to sea. 's suppressing the story illegal or in a conspiracy even between people to suppress a story, is it illegal? >> no, it's not illegal. the other thing i would add to that is on the basis of the

report about the nonprosecution agreement back on nonprosecution agreement is not a guilty plea, it's not an admission of guilt. what it basically says it is i will agree to cooperate with you don't prosecute me but it doesn't say if you prosecute me i will plead guilty because i'm guilty. it means you don't want to be prosecuted and you don't want to go through that ordeal. so it's important because bragg is going to spin the fact that packer has a nonprosecution agreement with the southern district of new york as if it were added mission of guilt. that he committed campaign violations. he everything ease -- even if he had admitted guilt to campaign finance violations as michael cohen reported to that would not be admissible evidence that trump committed campaign finance violations. >> martha: so you made a very interesting porn earlier when i

was listening, you said the campaign finance violation if there were 1 would be that the amount because it's an individual lecture than $2500 witch at the time was the maximum any 1 could contribute to a presidential campaign. is that what we are discussing here? >> it is and i'm glad that you bring this up because it goes to how to's ingenuous the prosecution is. first of all, if this case actually were a campaign-finance indictment and if bragg had the legal authority to enforce federal law which he doesn't, the next point he would make is because trump was a candidate he was not subject to the same limitations that his supporters were. so the 2700-dollar -- >> martha: he could have as much money as he wants. >> it would not apply to him. everybody has a disclosure obligation so if you make a campaign expenditure hack its got to be disclosed whether you

have are dealt -- a dollar limit or not. which is what bragg would say. but the point is the justice department a federal election commission which are the 2 federal agencies that have exclusive jurisdiction in the united states to enforce the federal campaign loss, both investigated trump and they didn't even ask him to pay a fine or make the civil settlement because there is not a case against him. >> martha: yes, it was said earlier today, you know, the state law bragg says was violated here to promote or prevent the election of another person by most people's definition is called a political campaign. because you want to win and you want the other person to lose, that's why you have opposition research. 1 other thing that occurs to me while i watch all of this, if it were prosecutable to suppress stories, would you than expect the department of justice would

have to prosecute twitter and the white house for suppressing the hunter biden laptop story? >> if you would have a country where we have 1 system of justice that apply to everyone, sure. but, you know, the answer here be to not bring the prosecution against trump because it is invalid, not to stretch the law and to vary fraud areas of the first amendment and political speech, you know, what we ought to be doing here is retrenching and saying, you know, number 1 it's inappropriate to go after the first terminal prosecution of the former president on something this complex and fraud is ridiculous. secondly it would matter if trump was actually charged with violating the campaign-finance laws. he is charged with business records, falsification violations that didn't know curtain totally 17 under a theory greg is going by that

trump stole the 2016 election. we are supposed to believe that he committed a theft in 2016 by the stream of conduct that took place from february to december gategourmet. it does make legal or factual sense. >> martha: we are going to hear from the other side so we'll see how they layout their argument. the jury has certainly heard a lot of tabloid information which can be very persuasive in terms of how they look at it all. we will sea how the other side is with their argument and will have it all. and a thank you. always good to talk to you. before today's big collision of trump's legal battles wow between new york and washington this is this morning before it all started. he squeezed in some time to campaign in new york where he said he is increasingly thinking perhaps he could win new york. there are some very interesting

numbers around this that we will discuss with kate and kevin next >> window on vary hard in new york we have a good chance of winning new york in my opinion were going to give it a shot so i hired body doubles to help me out. splurgy tina loves a hotel near rodeo drive. oh tina! wild tina booked a farm stay to ride this horse. glenn close?! with millions of possibilities you can book whoever you want to be. that's my line! booking.com booking.yeah this is steve. steve takes voquezna. this is steve's stomach, where voquezna can kick some acid, heal acid-related damage to the esophagus called erosive esophagitis, and relieve related heartburn. voquezna is the first and only fda-approved treatment of its kind. 93% of adults were healed

by two months. of those healed, 79% stayed healed. and voquezna can provide heartburn-free days and nights. other serious stomach conditions may still exist. don't take if allergic to voquezna or while on products with rilpivirine. voquezna may cause serious side effects including kidney problems, diarrhea, bone fractures, severe skin reactions, low vitamin b-12 or magnesium levels, and stomach growths. call your doctor if you have diarrhea, stomach pain or fever that won't go away, decreased or bloody urine, seizures, dizziness, irregular heartbeat, jitteriness, muscle aches or weakness, spasms of hands, feet, or voice. voquezna can help kick some acid, and so can you. ask your doctor about voquezna. (♪) the best way to solve a problem is to keep it from happening. (♪) at evernorth, we combine medical and pharmacy data with behavioral health data to identify members in need of care. predicting and treating behavioral health issues quickly...

while lowering costs for plan sponsors and members. that's wonder made possible. evernorth health services

so now they are into the cross-examination of the former tabloid publisher david pecker from the national enquirer that is underway in the courthouse and in a little while we expect jan to will come out and speak earlier today he visited a construction site in midtown and former president donald trump cut an enthusiastic response take a look at this. [ chanting ] >> martha: so the former president saying he thinks he has a chance in new york to flip the state. biden won the state by 23 points

in 2020 but in the latest polls he is ahead by only 10, a 13-point drop by biden in new york. listen to the former president here. >> 10 points behind president biden in new york, you think it's doable to win new york we. >> we are very close to new york i think we will do well at womb make a play for new york. we will run hearty new york. we have a good chance at winning new york. >> martha: kevin and kate joining me, the former mp and surrogate biden. kevin let me start with you, let's put the numbers up on the screen this is the latest polling from siena college showing as i said he won new york by post 23 now up only plus 10. that's a pretty big drop, to thank there is an opportunity for the former president trump in new york we. >> absolutely. i thank the former president should focus on your. resources from battleground states like florida and pennsylvania and michigan all

the empire state where he can take on joe biden who won that statement more than 2 million votes the last go round. absolutely will trump, please focus on new york. >> martha: katie, you know, obviously kevin is a bit sarcastic there but i think it's probably quite literal, you would love trump to spend his time in your. but really there is a demographic shift going on in a lot of places its interesting. >> yes. you could argue leaves elton didn't win the governorship in new york against kathy hogle because of all the republicans of new york already fleeing to florida as a result of the democratic policies in that state. talk to a number of public and operatives working in new york city and they might not need trump to pull any resources and because they are motivated and sang a lot of local issues they are saying whether it's crime are illegal migrant prices that get worse every single day -- crisis, the city having to cut resources and the state not knowing what to do about it. peoples kids getting cut kicked out of their soccer fields and

schools to make way for these people add public safety budges to get cut as a result, they see a huge opportunity here for voter turnout on these issues with demographics that typically vote for democrats but are fed up with the lack of results on these key issues they're paying for. >> martha: you know, new york voted for reagan way back when and the southeast to be solidly democrat so you see these shifts that happen every 20 or 25 years as democrats push demographics change. this is a moment that's getting not great attention for president biden that happen on wednesday reading a prompter. let's take a look at this. >> folks, imagine what we can do next. 4 more years [ chanting ] >> kevin. >> it was a great speech. i know or making a lot at that pause comment. but the room was packed full.

i watched it live heaved our carpenters, got the operating engineers, people rebuilding the country fired up about the president's infrastructure bill and the chips built. he is campaigning on that at this moment in new york. if that's the take away that's fine but listen the speech fired up those workers, those blue-collar workers standing shoulder to shoulder with the president going to reelect him in less than 7 months. >> martha: we can see the battle for the blue-collar worker playing out with the union representatives today then you see in the biden speech they are locked in, 46@h. so it's a tight brace for a lot of pulling. katie anything before we go? >> i think the worst thing besides saying pause is the white house transcript saying it was an audible. they knew it was a gaff and they try to get rid of the mistake. it just shows the american

people the president cannot just deliver remarks without making these big gaps and maybe he is not the 1 fully in charge of what he's doing every day. >> while it says pause all the time in there are you think toshi think he would've noticed it all up at, you know, as you say kevin here at a differently from the room and it's a very tight race so we will sea where it goes. my punker says it is goodbye. goodbye. thank you guys. great to sea you all. [ laughter ] >> martha: that's the story for thursday. thank you for joining us today. we been another busy day tomorrow. stay tuned, your world starts tomorrow. not a great day for the dow. that's where we will sea former president donald trump come out and speak in a few moments. stay tuned for that at the new york state supreme court, dueling courts today. more to come tomorrow. we will sea you then. 's v. >> more on that in a moment not that. day