>> sandra: top of a new hour here and former president

donald trump's criminal trial is set to resume any moment now here in manhattan. the prosecution will resume its redirect a former "national enquirer" publisher david pecker welcome to our two of america reports i am sandra smith in new york. >> john: i am don roberts in washington with court testimony resuming. the former president's legal team wrapped up with pecker earlier today he tried to poke holes in the testimony by pointing out some contradictions and inconsistencies. we have heard from trump once today before the court began, listen to this. >> we are doing very well in this ring to trial and everybody knows it. i think yesterday went very well. in the courthouse, it should be over. the case is over. you heard what was said, the case should be over. but you will have to make that determination and i think this judge will never allow the case to be held in.

>> sandra: reaction to that in a moment. they will be here all our to help digest the news coming in from the courthouse. our own lower income will be joining us. that is just moments away. >> john: nate foy outside the supreme court would we expect when they get underway in a few minutes? >> john, the manhattan d.a.'s office will continue its redirect of david pecker 1 quart resumes in about 15 minutes or so. they have about 30 minutes left of their redirect. after that trump's lawyers will have the opportunity to ask any questions that may arise from the manhattan d.a.'s office line of questioning and ask for what witness will testify next, john, there was an interesting moment right before lunch when one of trump's lawyers asked the judge to require the d.a.'s office to share who the next witness will be. at that .1 of the assistant d.a.s said susan necheles another one of trump's attorneys already knows who it is.

emile bovee questioned the testimony from yesterday where packer testified trump thanked him for suppressing a false story from a trump tower doorman. be reminded that he told the fbi in 2018 that trump never expressed any attitude to american media. pecker said today he does not recall that fbi testimony. trump's lawyers also exposed that business deals may have served as a motivation for pecker to enter a nonprosecution agreement with the southern district of new york for campaign finance violations. pecker testified many of the negative stories he published about trump's opponents already existed in the public domain. he said running negative stories particularly about former president bill clinton and former secretary of state lloyd clinton was good for his business. court started this morning with trump's attorneys clarifying that questions about hick's presence at a trump tower meeting in 2015, pecker said she was in and out of that meeting and her presence is important because it would show a level of

campaign involvement in those talks. now just before lunch pecker also spoke about his experience suppressing stories about arnold schwarzenegger and he said he learned from that experience because there was an investigation after he did that so he was much more careful while dealing with the story about karen mcdougal and dealing with president trump. we will send it back to. >> john: nate foy setting the table for us with the upcoming testimony. thank you, sandra? >> sandra: let's bring in laura ingraham now from the ingraham angle. great to have you on the program today. we expect court will resume a few moments from now. we would love to know your thoughts as we head into another day of this. >> well, in the listening to what has been happening and reading the transcripts the rough transcripts of what has come out of today, it seems like the trump haters out there on some of the other networks and their legal analysts are very

concerned because it looks like through this cross examination of the prosecution's witness mr. pecker, the trump team has successfully normalized what american media inc. had been doing for many, many years for high-profile people, which is to get rid of inconvenient stories. grabbing onto the stories and basically making them go away for a fee. that this was nothing new. and that was kind of the sensational thing that i think all a lot of the prosecution's focus was on in the preceding days. and i think they took a lot of the wind out of their sails today. i think that is not easily rehabilitated in a redirect. >> john: although, laura, there are some legal jobbers out there who say the prosecution made a couple of very significant points. one was that they got david pecker to tie the karen mcdougal paying that to the

campaign. not to the campaign itself because the campaign did not pay for it but to the idea of protecting the campaign. and then the fact that the pecker karen mcdougal's story and killing it was not in the "national enquirer"'s interest. what would've been in their interest was to be to publish the darn thing. >> none of those catch and kill stories are immediately in the publishing world's interest. they could perhaps sell more copies at any given time they make a judgment call about whether it works or whether a dozen. may be they are friendly one week with arnold schwarzenegger, may be they are anti-bill clinton another month and maybe he is friends with trump. but the question at hand here is not whether any of this is unseemly or bad bookkeeping. it is whether a crime was committed in the way this bookkeeping was done. this has to be done in furtherance of a crime. and they have been on shifting sands. exactly what they are trying to

argue here i am not the first to say this, but i think they are trying to make a dead dog bark here with this case. is there some salacious stuff? yes. that's why they are talking about the salacious stuff because the bookkeeping and administered of side of this is pretty boring and i would say in many ways for a high-profile figure who may be has gotten into some hot water quite conventional. >> sandra: laura consider your expanse with the port supreme court i wanted to ask about the immunity case which the former president said he wished he could have been at the supreme court for yesterday and what will come from that if our team could tee up this was the sound from the former president donald trump yesterday as he was emerging from the trial here in new york he said what he had heard happened at the supreme court on the immunity case the f-14. >> yesterday i heard the supreme court having to do with immunity i heard the argument and i listen to it last night and i thought it was great.

all presidents have to have immunity or we don't have a president. certainly not a president in the market. >> sandra: he heard it was brilliant and he heard it went well really great. what did you think? of the oral arguments? >> i loved every moment of this oral argument. it was supposed to go one hour it went two hours and almost 40 minutes. i was mad too that i wasn't there because i really wanted to be in the courtroom. but it's clear a majority of the justice is at least five but may be more like six see they are opening up her real can. they give the government the special prosecutor's office what they want, which is no immunity, period. there is no immunity for the present here for any criminal matters. remember the distinction has to be made when you really think about what is going to have been in the future between private acts and official acts. and it seems to me that the court was leaning towards the

idea of remanding this case to the district court with guidance. general guidance of what could constitute official versus purely private which was again running out in the street and shooting someone willy-nilly for your own personal gain. trump argues and i think has some ligament points here that he was doing this in furtherance of what he believed was best for the country as the current president of the united states. i think it's going to be very tough for them to get any trial if this even goes forward it done before the election which in and of itself i think it's at least a partial win for president trump. >> john: i thought was very interesting about yesterday's proceedings, there's probably more on the conservative side of everything but the judges were not looking at this as a donald trump case they were looking at the bigger picture. i think it was brett kavanaugh who said to the prosecutor who was arguing this case look, this is not about donald trump. this is a decision for the ages. so we have to base this on the future. or maybe it was alito who said

this we have to base on the future not right now. >> look. they take their job seriously. okay? does not matter if you are a republican appointee or a democrat appointee. the court as an institution has a very important decision to make here. it is not just about trump. this will affect every president going forward. and remember, cavanaugh was the top top staffer for george w. bush. in the white house during the bush years. remember, every other 5 minutes the bush administration was being accused of being a war criminal, and legal interrogations, and so cavanaugh had his own experience with that as staff secretary in the white house in the presence of all of that happening at that time. so, could george w. bush have been brought up on criminal charges after he left office? obama for drone strikes?

you know, it goes on and on and on in history. so i think the justices were very, very keen to find some type of middle ground here in the distinction is going to be immunity for truly official acts versus purely private acts, which i would think most of them would say there is no immunity for. but that will be the rubdown at the remand. if it goes the way i expect it will go. >> sandra: laura gray tabby on thank you for joining us. >> and we all have blue look, john has a blue tie, you have the blue top, and i heard so i wore light blue i think it coordinates perfectly. great to be with you guys. >> john: i hope you continue to cordate at 7:00 tonight. donald trump coming back at the courtroom now we do not expect he is going to talk on his way back in, but we do expect he will have a lot to say when he comes out at 4:30.

there is boris epstein, one of his aides, who is actually under indictment in the state of arizona. to the control room has trump running to the courtroom yet? we just missed him apparently. okay, we will keep on watching that. now president biden weighing in on whether he is willing to face for president trump on a debate stage. here he is with howard stern, listen here. >> i don't know if you are going to debate your opponent. >> i am somewhere i don't know when. i am happy to debate him. >> john: a president trump responding on true social saying "work at joe biden is saying he's willing to debate. everyone knows he doesn't really mean it but in case he does i say anywhere, anytime, anyplace." an old expression used by fighters. i suggest monday evening, tuesday evening, or wednesday evening at my rally in michigan. estate he is of the process of destroying with his electric vehicle mandates and the alternative he is in new york city today although probably does not know it and

saw my stuck in one of the many court cases that he instigated his election interference against a political opponent. a continuing witch hunt. it's the only way he thinks he can win. in fact, let's do the debate at the courthouse tonight on national television, i will wait around." plenty of cameras outside the courtroom. we could arrange it. >> sandra: let's do it. at jonathan turley is coming up, andy mccarthy, we have andrew czajkowski, our all-stars brett tolman and more as the former president has returned to the courtroom, this trial is expected to be underway again shortly. quick break we will be right back

i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford,

a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

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.

>> john: to the new york state supreme court where court is back in session after a lunch

break. what we are expecting is going to happen to prevent the next 3n will conduct a redirect of david packer and then there will be a recross. then pecker will be done with and we bring on the next witness, todd blanche who is the president's attorney who was asking the judge to be informed to the next witness who it is. apparently the prosecution was saying with nationalists he is one of the trump defense team but no one on the trump team knows who the next witness will be. eric shawn says there are rumors it could be karen mcdougal herself. meantime there is a legal panel constitutional law professor andy mccarthy former assistant u.s. attorney both are fox news contributor's. and you have had time to digest them a morning session as we head into the afternoon. we have some legal analysts saying the prosecution did not lay a glove on trump with their direct examination of david

pecker. others say some significant points were brought up and that he was tying the mcdougall case to protecting the trump campaign and paying pecker was not in the "national enquirer"'s interest so what do you say? >> i said yesterday i thought pecker had been a very good witness for trump especially as the state's opening witness so i thought they should do next to nothing with him on cross. and again, we are relying on reports coming into the courtroom so that is not the same as being in the courtroom watching the testimony. but what i have to say, i am confused about what the trump team is doing. for one thing, they seem to be trying to distance trump from the karen mcdougal nondisclosure arrangement. i think it factually that be difficult to do because the evidence will probably lend itself to a conclusion he was involved in it. but more to the point, if you believe it was not illegal, there is no point signaling to

the jury it is problematic for him if he is involved in it. your position should be it wasn't illegal. the other thing i would be very concerned about, and this goes to something that came up last week, it's an analogous issue. last week doug marchant correctly kept out of the case michael cohen's guilty plea to campaign finance violations in federal court because his guilty plea is not admissible evidence against him. it does not prove that trump committed a campaign finance violation. today there is a lot of testimony about pecker entering a nonprosecution agreement with respect to campaign finance violations with the federal government. again, that doesn't prove anything relevant against strong. pecker's state of mind is concerned that he and the american media incorporated may have been violated in the

campaign file the mic finance laws is inadmissible to show trump's state of mind. and i don't think that point is being made to the jury. i think bragg is going to rely on pecker's nonprosecution agreement and has concerns about the campaign finance laws to suggest that trump had the same concerns and knew he was covering up a crime. that's what the state's theory is. >> sandra: jonathan i want your response to this as we know they are all back in the courtroom. we know this redirect is going to continue they are expecting a half-hour more of that. there is a new truth social post from the former president's account it is lengthy but in it it says "we request that judge merchant immediately lift the gag order so that president trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies." it appears this, jonathan, was sent out over his truth social

account when they were on their lunch break as they reenter the courtroom a moment to go. >> right. the judge is not going to be particularly interested in postings on truth social or social media. and he is not going to lift this gag order. even though i think he is being a bit stubborn, i think he made a mistake on the gag order. i think it was poorly written. i also think the scope was too broadened to include michael cohen, that's where the ghost. it's not like michael cohen is a witness to a drive-by shooting who doesn't want his name out in public. he has been making money as a critic of trump's campaigning against him and talking about this case. so none of the reasons you protect witnesses have particularly compelling place with regard to michael cohen. i have to say i raised earlier as well the point that andy correctly raised or has raised on this issue of campaign financing.

i am very disturbed little with the judge is allowing to happen in that courtroom. all of these references to pecker agreeing that he violated campaign finance laws leaves a very strong impression to the jury that there was a federal crime here. there was not a crime. now, pecker may have reached that agreement so he could avoid trial and avoid cost, or me he maybe had bad lawyers, but there are plenty of law experts who have said this is not a campaign contribution. it's a theory that failed with john edwards. and this goes to the whole problem with the case. at some point the judge is going to have to give an instruction to this jury. is he honestly going to say this is a federal campaign violation when the federal government looked at this, did not charge, did not even find him even though they had pecker's testimony. this is getting in my view in a

really red zone as far as prejudicial statements being made in front of this jury. >> john: yes, and that is something we should pursue as the hour progresses. jonathan turley, andy mccarthy's standby with us. because we want to come back on the other side and to chat more about this. particularly this idea of how the judge will eventually instruct the jury as to what happened here? we will take a quick break and we will be right back as court resumes in new york lately? get ready for a shock. the rate on credit cards is now over 22%. if you want to save hundreds of dollars every month, pay off the balances on your high rate cards with a lower rate va home loan from newday usa. and get the financial peace of mind every veteran deserves. no one takes care of veterans like newday usa. 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. ♪

hi, i'm janice, and i lost 172 pounds on golo. when i was a teenager i had some severe trauma in my life and i turned to food for comfort. a friend told me that i was the only one holding me back from being as beautiful on the outside as i am the inside. once i saw golo was working, i felt this rush, i just had to keep going. a lot of people think no pain no gain, but with golo it is so easy. when i look in the mirror, i don't even recognize myself. golo really works.

>> sandra: fox news alert we are looking live at the new york supreme court live in new york city when the former president donald trump just reentered the court room after a brief lunch break. the redirect continues with pecker back on the stand. and some color we are getting out of the courtroom right now as we bring in prosecutor brett tolman thank you for joining us. reading this directly from our team in the court room on the stormy daniels story.

this is an update he said he paid for the doorman mcdougall's stories and was not going to pay for it saying "i wasn't a bank" he also told howard he was not going to buy the story and did not want anything to do with a porn star. what else have you heard from out of the courtroom today, brett? >> sander, don, thank you for having me. i will tell you when i was in trial is very, very good trial attorney taught me as a lawyer to one particular thing during trial which was to have a leisure which is to have on the left side and on the right side as every single witness would testify or every piece of evidence, documents that came in would note the deficiencies or the changes or the differences of what the prosecution promised. as you do that, by the end you

have an already made exhibit to illustrate where there is reasonable doubt. where there is a presumption as we are told a presumption of innocence and the government has to meet a very, very high burden. it was through that exercise that i started to analyze every single case to the lines of does the evidence come in as the prosecution predicted? if it doesn't, then those are the seeds of reasonable doubt that have to be planted in at least a few jurors. and my guess is if it gets strong enough it can be planted in all jurors. >> john: when you look at this idea of reasonable doubt you have a pecker now saying on cross-examination that it was not just the karen mcdougal story and protecting the trump campaign that we bought somebody's life story and did not publish it. we did it for arnold schwarzenegger, we did it for tiger woods, we even did it for rahm emanuel.

but at the same time pecker did acknowledge in the fcc's eyes the federal election commission's eyes that he committed an evil election saying this was all done in the furtherance of the trump campaign. i mean we have the prosecution on one side painting the salacious story saying there is an underlying crime here and at the same time you have pecker saying we do this all the time and no one else is being charged. where does that whole thing lie? >> john, remember this d.a. as much as he is trying to muster in this case does not have the authority to enforce the campaign laws. whether or not pecker or whether or not others have received a benefit or provided a benefit that should have been noted and there could be in fcc violation of that regard, that's a different animal altogether.

certainly they have to bring the jurors back around to understand break's theory of the case and there has to be something illegal attached to the purpose and the accounting books and a false business record that is created. what you hear is very loudly that for all the hyperbole the catch and kill and burying stories and all of that, this is done by every single politician in national elections as we know it. from all of your high-profile elections to your state and even some of your county commissioners will be doing things like this to try to clean up the narrative that may surround them as they run for office. nobody has really been talking about the fact that those are legal. those nondisclosures and doing things of that nature are legal

whether they are unseemly or not is another story. >> brett tolman good heavy on the program thank you for joining our coverage. >> thank you. >> john: thanks, brett. joining us now is katie pavlich fox news contributor and townhall.com editor switching gears getting one a different topic then we were talking about last hour. apparently the term side and everybody knows who the next witness is going to be. there apparently isn't any question about that. though we do not know the name. it was a witness after that that the trauma team was really concerned about perry we don't know who that person is either. there is a chance that karen mcdougal could take the stand here. so you have been watching all of this, katie, what are your thoughts? at this point. to go i am of course always looking at the political side of all of this. there was an interesting poll that came out yesterday saying even if trump were convicted in the specific case, 62% of people say it would not affect their vote. 15% of people say that it would encourage them to vote for him

if he were to be convicted. than about 20% of people that say invite and encourage them not to vote for him. so while we are all watching this the american people are paying attention to this very specific case. a lot of people have argued that president trump is going to be able on the campaign trail as he has to say i am a victim of this but i think the broader argument as he could say democrats are using the justice system to go after their political opponents by all of the analysis we have heard by our excellent legal analyst so far in this case, they don't yet have evidence trump knew about these payments and in fact they don't have any direct connection to him as to these being made. so it seems they don't have a case and trying to get the president on a number of these issues. to hopefully pull away these independent voters who are watching this but so far it really has not put a dent in the

poll numbers on issues that americans care about which will be the big question in a couple months from now. people go to the polls whether this trial specifically or other legal issues will be a factor that goes over in terms of the decision of voting on inflation, crime, other issues they may care about versus these legal issues democrats continue to throw at the president that do not seem to be just a game. >> looks like more coming out of the courtroom and the politics of the matter and polls we can lean on to get a sense of where people are in this trial and other legal woes the former president has been going through, katie, when voters are asked about how they see this behavior on part of the former president, 46% say they see this as a legal. some see it as unethical but not illegal and one in five believe he did nothing wrong at all. when asked how likely you are to vote for trump if convicted in this case, 62%, katie, said it

makes no difference to them. okay? as far as how closely people are watching in this trial it's split three ways. out there it's a very closely, there is a somewhat closely, and just under a third say not all souls are closely. not too closely. so the country is watching but with how it would impact their vote it doesn't really seem to matter or change any minds. >> exactly. like i said we are a long way from election day. there are big issues happening in the country. whether people decide this will trump, no pun intended, the other issues they want in the ballot box and either vote for joe biden or donald trump is an issue. also i am sure you will say president trump if he were to debate joe biden saying he would do so this morning that it's not that joe biden's family does not

have legal issues as well. and that joe biden is not under investigation from house republicans that there hasn't been inquiries into his son and his connection there. his son is also facing federal charges and big questions about joe biden's role in the family business and being the big guy. so both sides of this issue and pulled political sides have these legal issues. trump would argue the biden family has been able to not get as much attention as he has in these cases. >> sandra: katie pavlich joining us again thank you, katie. >> john: thanks, katie. >> nice to see you. >> john: the defense because another turn at bat now recross has begun at so we are getting some notes from the court on that. will have the latest action from inside the u.s. state supreme court right after this. ! now that i have inspire, i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. no mask!

no hose! just sleep. give me this thing. where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. (♪) is this normal? yeah. i mean, he does look happy. when you've got questions, chewy's got answers. too happy? ask the chewy vet team. how much is too much catnip? chat with our vet team for free. [thud] [purring]

i'm your overly competitive brother. and i'm ready for a rematch. game on. i've been practicing. what the cello? you want me to lower the hoop? foul! what? you going to tell on me again? foul yah? foul bro!

here take a free shot go ahead knock yourself out. your about to get served. seriously? get allstate, save money, and be better protected from mayhem, like me. love you mom! wait till your father gets home. >> sandra: fox news alert here we go back looking alive at the u.s. supreme court in new york city former president donald trump came back from lunch break about half an hour ago. they are back in the room, gerry is back in the room. pecker back on the stand. so this continues an hour guest joins us now. you just sat down and i said what do you think? i mean, what is your thought at

this point in the trial? >> i think the prosecutors are failing to establish a crime up to this point. the idea of putting pecker up first i think is the prosecutor's effort to tell the beginning of the story. this is where some of these plans to catch and kill these cases began. unlike what the public media is saying, that's not illegal. no folks have been saying that all day on the network it's not illegal to have a catch and kill plan. it's essentially an extortion plot the idea that donald trump is saying these are false stories, he is pretending his own image. he is protecting his family relations. that's not a crime. the prosecution has to do more to establish what they are talking about when they are talking about actual criminal conduct. >> john: enter its john roberts in washington. the prosecution's flame stomach framing it this way and a lot of people who lean in the prosecution's direction say david pecker acknowledged that he did this catch and kill with karen mcdougal for the benefit

of the trump campaign. that he knew the federal election commission was looking at this as a campaign finance violation. isn't all of that bad? you can begin to plant that idea and the jury's mind, but at some point as jonathan turley points out the judge will have to instruct the jury on the law. and what does the judge tell the jury about the underlying crime that alvin bragg is bootstrapping up to a felony? >> we have to look at what the actual allegation is. it's fraud in writing the checks and entering the payments into his check register saying that putting them in as legal fees or legal retainers was fraudulent in order to further another crime. last week or earlier this week prosecution detailed that is a violation of a new york law which makes it illegal essentially to conceal efforts to commit another offense.

that does not seem to be an election campaign finance issue. it seems to be a reference back to the original crime. what they are actually getting at has to be some sort of additional crime. that's why we are saying the idea of what pecker is talking about in this catch and kill scheme is not a crime of itself. that is not what makes this escalator. it may be what folks see as unseemly but it's democracy in action. the way elections roll. we have to take stories as they come in. we discredit them if they are public, if they are not public that is exactly what pecker was testifying with so many other celebrities who do the same thing. >> sandra: that's what we hear from legal expert after legal expert as this continues thank you for joining us. >> of course. >> john: it's interesting everyone on our air says there is no underlying crime, but plenty of people on the other

side of the political fence who are making the case the prosecution has got them. that does not seem to be the case. more on the trail coming up right after this. ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪)

i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program.

options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

be one the next witness has been called at the trump trial it's rona graff who was the former president's former executive assistant. also senior vice president at the trump organization. i used to speak to her frequently in the run-up to the 2016 campaign. and then almost every day during the campaign, she has a lot of inside knowledge about most things that happened in the trump organization. with that let's bring in jonathan turley and andy mccarthy. we assume, andy, what the prosecution is doing is finding out from her just how much the

former president knew about the mcdougall deal and may be something about the stormy daniels deal as well. >> and i am sure that she would be familiar with some of their bookkeeping practices which obviously are relevant in records falsification case. probably not unexpected. >> jonathan come just getting a little bit more of an update from the courtroom, graff is testifying right now. she has taken the stand. a little bit of color i guess as she walked in the former president did look over at her. having worked for decades obviously walking into the courtroom for this trial her attorneys are there. of the trump organization is paying for her attorneys for our team in the courtroom. she entered and maintain

contacts with phones and addresses. their contacts from as early as 2004. graph what email from our graff -- they are laying out the details of what she knows how long she worked for the former resident. this is the initial phase of her appearing as a witness, jonathan. >> right to. this is where trials can become mind-numbing because witnesses will lay the foundation as far as records. once again it is proving stuff that is not seriously contested perry what is being contestant is still being debated is a crime in any of this. and the fact we have this roaring debate as to what they are actually suggesting in the second week of the trial i think how poorly handled the case has been by the judge. this gets back to andy and i

said in finance violations where they kept on saying essentially guilty of a cooperation agreement of those types of violations. he had some interaction with the ftc. whether he violated election laws does not to get attributed to trump or to his state of mind. it's not even clear what that violation was but there are lots when you are being pursued by the justice department and local district attorneys would be pleading guilty. they were nailing everyone around trump and some were financially ruined like michael flynn who took a plea because he ran out of money. so there is a good reason for him to have done that but i have not seen any effort by the judge to really make sure that the jury does not take this as proof

campaign violence violations have been committed or that they will relate to this theory. >> john: andy, what i can see that the prosecution is doing here is even though there is no direct connection between the karen mcdougal catch and kill and trump himself because pecker says he never got reimbursed for the money. he and cohen were talking about it there is no link to trump here there was a campaign violation and pecker testified to that could he just be laying the groundwork here all the prosecution to say okay, here let's go to stormy daniels. we established a pattern here -- >> no, john, i think -- i think in that courtroom the jury thinks there was a campaign finance violation which is what pecker testified to and what they will try to link up later is that the business records falsification that is a legend is to cover up the campaign crime. i would not wait until the end of the trial to get the judge to

fix that. you have to ask them to fix it now. >> john: gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us today we really appreciate it and we will see you back on this program on monday we will be back after this break.

cordless outdoor power, brings you the ego power+ string trimmer with powerload technology. feed the line, push the button and get back to work. ego, exclusively at lowe's, ace and ego authorized dealers. only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. memory foam doesn't come close. get your best sleep guaranteed right now! save up to $400. visit purple.com or a store near you.

diabetes can serve up a lot of questions. like what is your glucose and can you have more carbs? before you decide with the freestyle libre 3 system know your glucose and where it's heading no fingersticks needed. now the world's smallest and thinnest sensor sends your glucose levels directly to your smartphone. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. the #1 cgm prescribed in the u.s. try it for free at freestylelibre.us ooo, that looks complicated. that's why visionworks organizes our frames

by shape and price so it's simple to find a pair you'll love. there are the shapes, that's the price. now you get it. visionworks. see the difference. ♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪

♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪ >> that does it for us another crazy breaking news two hours it good to be with you thank of adjoining as everybody claiming for neil tonight at four, perhaps we will catch the former president again as he departs court he has been stopping and talking to the cameras perhaps he will again today. >> i am told he will be out there after court finishes expected at 4:30 he will give us his thoughts on the day and other things his only chance really to get out there and campaigned during the week i am john roberts we will see you again on monday hope you have a terrific weekend of the story with martha picks up all the action in the court right now. >> martha: indeed we do good evening i am martha mccallum this is