or a store near you. hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ♪ changing your habits is the only way that gets you to lose the weight. and golo is the plan that's going to help you do that. just take the first step, go to golo.com.

right now on ana cabrera reports, breaking news at the supreme court, justices hearing the second abortion case in under a month. this time on idaho's near total ban. what it could mean for the battle over abortion rights nationwide. plus, did donald trump violate the gag order in his hush money case? a judge's decision could come at any time and we will dig into the dramatic witness testimony so far in the court. also ahead, we are watching the white house with the president poised to sign a sweeping package including foreign aid, could it also include a post-election ban on tiktok? and later, chaos on college campuses from coast to coast with hundreds arrested in pro-palestinian protests. it is 10:00 eastern, i'm ana cabrera from new york, and we begin at the supreme court where justices are about to hear the second abortion case in under a month. this consequential case focuses

on idaho's near total abortion ban and whether it conflicts with federal law requiring emergency doctors to intervene and provide stabiliing care to pregnant women. nbc news washington correspondent yamiche alcindor is outside the supreme court for us. also with us msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. yamiche, we are seeing protesters already outside the supreme court because of this issue of abortion rights. lay out the case before the justices today and what are they considering? >> well, good morning, ana. this is really a significant abortion case, and the supreme court is considering simply in some cases whether federal law overrides state law. it is a significant abortion case because that federal law deals with emergency care, emergency medical treatment and labor act law. what it really says is if you go into an emergency room, you should be allowed -- you should get emergency stabilizing care, that anyone who comes into an

emergency room should get that. idaho's law at issue here is an abortion law that outlaws the procedure except in cases of rape, incest, and when it's necessary to prevent the death of a mother. now, the federal law here and the biden administration is arguing that this law that idaho has, that it is not -- is conflicting with the federal law and the federal law should supersede it, saying essentially that this law could put women's lives in danger. idaho, though, says abortion policy is a state's right issue and their state law should override the federal law. there are a number of emergency room doctors who say idaho's law could mean that women are going to be put in a situation where they're going to be on death's door before they're treated and that could have all sorts of impacts including impacts on fertility, impacts on their organs. really this is a case where it says that women here and states here are going to have a significant impact depending on how the supreme court rules here. a lot at issue here. i was talking to a doctor who said this really comes down to

if you go to an emergency room and you have chest pains, the doctors really aren't going to say we're going to give you treatment unless you're having a heart attack, we're going to wait until you're having a heart attack. they're saying that's not the case and you should give a woman treatment before she's at death's door. an important one to watch here and another important supreme court decision we're going to be watching. >> and we're going to talk to a doctor who left idaho because of this near total abortion ban. let's talk about this case, lisa, because one of the big questions here is just how broad a decision could be from the justices and whether they will need to define whether a fetus is a person so the issue of fetal personhood. if the court goes there, how far reaching could this be? >> if the court goes there, it could be dramatically far reaching in the sense that the argument that the government is making, that federal law

essentially preempts conflicting state law with respect to necessary stabilizing treatment, that wouldn't hold water anymore if they recognize fetal personhood because the rights of the fetus as a person theoretically would trump the rights of the mother in those circumstances. on the other hand, if the justices were to recognize that emtala requires medicare-funded hospitals to provide this necessary stabilizing treatment, that also would not be a very far reaching ruling in the sense that it would be narrow. it would say that where necessary to save the health of a person, not just the life, but the health of a person by providing necessary stabilizing treatment, hospitals do have to provide abortion as health cares, but it wouldn't do anything, for example, with respect to elective abortion or eroding the weeks' long limits in other states. >> the lawyers representing idaho in this case argue that if

the supreme court were to side with the biden administration, this would essentially be an abortion mandate. >> yeah, i don't see that at all, for the reasons we were just discussing because there's nothing about the argument that the federal government is making that would be equivalent to a nationwide mandate. all they are saying is that there are circumstances where a person needs stabilizing health care that might fall short of what's necessary to save their life or prevent their death, which is how the statute prevents it. right now in addition to that, you can imagine that physicians in idaho might be really reluctant to even provide life preserving care. what are the consequences of this law? it's not just a civil law, it imposes criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions up to five years. what is actually necessary to prevent someone's death, you can guess for idaho physicians it's got to be crystal clear for them that a woman faces death. there are many circumstances that fall short of that but

would affect the woman's health deleer tiers youly and with long ranging consequences for her organs. i don't see this as equivalent to a nationwide abortion mandate. if the court sides with the biden administration, it will be solely in the context of emergency care necessary to stabilize a woman's health when she presents in an emergency room that accepts medicare funding. not exactly the same as a nationwide abortion mandate. >> the arguments in this case are just getting underway, yamiche alcindor, keep us posted. lisa, thank you for your analysis. you're sticking around to discuss other legal matters. the supreme court case over idaho's abortion ban isn't the only one dealing with idaho law specifically. jennifer atkins is the lead plaintiff in a special state case. she was pregnant with her second child when her 12-week ultrasound revealed the fetus was unlikely to survive and her health was at risk. jennifer couldn't get an abortion in idaho because of the state's ban, and she eventually had to travel out of stated.

here's what she told nbc's laura jarrett. >> i was the one that brought up the conversation of what are my -- what are my options, and they said, well, because we're in idaho, there really aren't any for you. >> did they tell you what the risks to your health would be to continue with the pregnancy? >> yeah, they did. they said they'd have to monitor me very closely for mirror syndrome. they said once you develop mirror syndrome, your life is essentially at risk, and the only way to fix that is to terminate the pregnancy. >> joining me is dr. kiley cooper. she worked in idaho but moved out of state after this abortion ban was enacted. doctor, thanks for taking the time with us. i want to get to your story in a moment, but first what we just heard there from jennifer, how many stories like hers have you heard since idaho's abortion ban

was put in place? >> so as a maternal fetal medicine physician who cares for high risk pregnancies, pregnancy complications are not uncommon, and that includes, you know, bleeding complications, infections, ruptured membranes, high blood pressure disorders, fetal abnormalities, there's so many potential complications out there, and so these circumstances certainly do come up, and these are real people facing these real circumstances. >> since this abortion law took effect, listen to this, nearly one in four ob/gyns have left idaho or retired. now, out of the doctors who special sizize in high risk pregnancies, five of nine have left the state. that includes you. why did you ultimately make that decision? how hard was it to make that choice? >> it was an incredibly

difficult choice. it's been about a year since i left, and i still struggle, you know, with my decisions. but after idaho's abortion ban went into effect our ability to practice evidence-based on stet cal care was greatly impacted. i felt this immense emotional and moral distress and was very fearful for my patients, particularly those that would experience early pregnancy emergencies and complications, and so in thinking about my own future in idaho, having cared for these patients and continuing to care for these patients this care was now deemed illegal, and being forced to wait until someone is sick enough to meet a legal definition of imminent death to render appropriate medical care is not how medicine is practiced, and it wasn't something that i felt that i could do. and so i ultimately made the decision to leave the state, and the restrictions on emergency

care weighed heavily in my decision. >> it had to be difficult to figure out where that threshold is, right, when you're looking at somebody who is in need of care. we know the idaho abortion law does have this exception, if a woman's life is threatened. can you just kind of fill in that gray area where a woman might need emergency care that would end a pregnancy but there's the uncertainty as a doctor over whether it rises to that life-threatening threshold. >> so every patient is an individual and obstetrical medicine is very nuanced and comes in shades of gray, and there's all these continuums for illnesses, so trying to determine when your patient is going to meet that definition, that's not how medicine is practiced, and it's not based in reality. >> and so what do doctors do when they're faced with the uncertainty? are they having to consult with

lawyers before providing that emergency medical treatment? >> yeah, so the abortion ban has caused, you know, practitioners to have to take a pause to call a legal team, you know, to consult with other people in terms of, you know, is this patient meeting the criteria where we can proceed with the appropriate medical care? do we need to find, you know, another place to send this patient? is this patient -- is that a safe option for this patient, and so, yeah, it certainly has added a lot of barriers to medical care. >> that sounds awful. i mean, what is that like? does that just eat you up inside? >> yeah, it's -- it's awful. you know, after the ban went into effect, i would lay awake at night, and i would think about my past patients and just, you know, relive being in the emergency room and the operating room on labor and delivery, you

know, seeing them sitting in a puddle of blood, seeing them in pain, seeing the fear in their eyes, and that's scary enough, you know, when we have all of our resources and abilities to manage things appropriately, but being in a position like that and not being able to use your expertise as you should be able to is just completely demoralizing. >> well, dr. kiley cooper, thank you for shining light on all of this for us. appreciate you joining us. >> thank you. >> we'll keep an eye on what's happening outside the court there where you can see the protests and demonstrations continue, and we'll keep an eye on what's happening inside as well as we listen in on those arguments. we'll check back in and bring you any of the highlights, and there's also another major supreme court case tomorrow about donald trump's claims of presidential immunity. we have a preview of that. plus, we could get the judge's ruling on trump's gag order in his hush money case anytime now. the salacious stories we heard

from the first witness in trump's hush money trial as well. also, foreign aid just passed congress along with a potential post-election ban on tiktok. we're breaking down the bills as they head to the president's desk. and student disunion, the deadline that just came and went on one college campus to disband an encampment of pro-palestinian protests. we're back in just 60 seconds. n protests we're back in just 60 seconds.

♪♪ with fastsigns, signage that gets you noticed turns hot lots into homes. ♪♪ fastsigns. make your statement. this morning we are watching for a potential decision that could come at any time from the judge in donald trump's new york hush money trial, a decision about whether the former president repeatedly violated the gag order in this case. court is dark today, but yesterday we saw a dramatic and sometimes combative session. trump's decades long friend and former publisher of the "national enquirer" david pecker on the witness stand dishing details about how his publication boosted trump's

candidacy in 2016 while viciously attacking his campaign opponents. our lisa rubin is back with us, and joining us is kristy greenberg, former federal prosecutor, and kelly highman a trial attorney. kelly, you have been there inside the courthouse from the beginning. what stands out most to you about these proceedings so far? >> well, let me tell you a couple of things. one thing that stands out to me is todd blanche had a really rough day yesterday arguing against violations of the gag order and, in particular, there was a moment where he was forced to concede that one of trump's posts was, in fact, a lie. it was when trump said, look what was just found, and he was referring to stormy daniels' statement in january of 2018. the court said to mr. blanche, is it true that this was just found? no, your honor, everybody knows that this wasn't just found. that's of course not true. if you're in a position six into the trial where you have to undermine the voracity of your client's statements in order to

rescue them from criminal contempt, that's not a good place to be. the other thing that really stood out to me is david pecker because he has the sort of demeanor that he is believable, he's credible, he's affable, he even compliments donald trump are frequently, and yet you have to remove yourself from the proceedings a little bit to see, oh, my gosh, a lot of what he confessed to is totally bonkers. you got a crash course in tabloid or checkbook journalism yesterday through him, also an understanding of why did pecker even put himself in this position. it's sort of a variant of that '80s song, i've got the brains, you've got the looks, let's make a lot of money. through the celebrity apprentice and the apprentice, trump helped the "enquirer" sell many issues. and at a time where sort of digital tabloid journalism was eroding the "enquirer"'s market share, that was all the more

important. pecker was eager to please trump to do things for him so when trump and cohen brought him to trump tower and said what can you do for us? that's why he was he was eager please. there was a transactional relationship between them that had benefitted both men for decades before they got to that meeting. >> so kristy, if you are the prosecution here, are you happy with david pecker's testimony so far? >> yes. he's done a number of things very well. one, like lisa said, his misdemeanor in court, he's very happy to be there. he has a big smile on his face. he's pretty jovial, but he's making some really key points. first on this point of benefit, he's very clear, yes, donald trump benefitted him previously. however, when it came to these hush money payments, when it came to dino the doorman, when it came to karen mcdougal, these were unusual, they were much larger payments. the limit previously for celebrity stories were 10,000,

now you're talking 100,000. far more than usual and pecker testified this didn't benefit the "national enquirer." it would have benefitted us to publish the story. to catch and kill them, he testified it benefitted the trump campaign and trump as well, but all you need from the prosecution's standpoint is that there was a benefit to the campaign to meet that element of the offense. so that was critical testimony from david pecker so far. >> and so pecker said essentially he had agreed to serve as the eyes and ears for trump, again, publishing stories that would boost trump while hurt his opponents in the 2016 election. we have a few of the headlines here, ted cruz caught cheating with five secret mistresses. hillary clinton's satanic inner circle. those headlines are obviously salacious, and they're clearly

not true. given that david pecker was behind the scenes doing all that, pumping out these lies, what does that do for his credibility with the jury? >> right, that's a really good point. so you think the idea that here he's writing all these stories that are mott true and he knows it. now is he going to be truthful on the stand? we have to remember that he is there by subpoena. so he is forced to be there. also, he has immunity, and what that means is what he says he cannot be charged with a crime, so he has a safety net to be honest and truthful and forthright and can say, yes, i wrote these stories. these are not true and i know that, but i'm telling you the truth. and that's key. >> there is an interesting contrast, lisa, from what we heard from david pecker to what we heard from todd blanche in his opening statement in terms of trump's role in all things, and blanche on monday said this, quote, president trump had

nothing to do -- had nothing to do with the invoice, with the check being generated or with the entry in the ledger. talking about the business records that are allegedly falsified. meantime, david pecker yesterday said, quote, i would describe mr. trump as are very knowledgeable. i would describe him as very detail-oriented. i would describe him almost as a micro manager of what i saw. he looked at every, all of the aspects. >> one of the things that david pecker testified to that i thought was really damaging to donald trump was talking about a meeting he had attended with trump at one point in trump tower and walking into trump's office and sitting there with him as rhona graff, his then assistant brought him a series of checks attached to invoices. as trump is signing them, pecker testifies he's simultaneously holding a conversation with pecker but also looking closely at the checks and signing them. so pecker definitely undermined

blanche there, but i also want to distinguish between what i'll call the precursor to the crime and the crime itself. remember, what trump has been charged with here is 34 felony counts of falsification of business records. the conspiracy to throw the election is what makes that a felony, but the crimes itself is the falsification of the business records. david pecker's knowledge primarily pertains to that antecedent, the conspiracy. he wasn't around for the second part of the scheme. we're going to have to rely on other witnesses, other evidence, and largely michael cohen and business records to get to the evidence that proves that second part of the criminal activity that is necessary here. yes, the conspiracy is necessary to make it a felony, but first yaw got to find that trump actually intended to and knew that he was participating in falsification of business records. >> i want to play something we heard from donald trump yesterday just before the trial picked back up.

>> michael cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever. he was a lawyer, and you rely on your lawyers, but michael cohen was a convicted liar. he was a lawyer for many people, not just me. and he got in trouble because of things outside of what he did for me. >> that was an interview with a local news station, seems like a potential additional violation of the gag order. we're still waiting on the judge's decision on that gag order. but he did have an interaction with trump's lawyers yesterday in the gag order hearing that gives you a sense of where his head's at, right? he told judge merchan, you are losing all credibility with the court. that moment, lisa mentioned, stood out to all of us who were following along with the proceedings. how unusual is it to have a judge say that to a lawyer in a hearing like this and what do you think he's going to do? >> this is the first time i've

ever heard it. i mean, it's key as a lawyer, you advocate for your client, but you need to be credible. you need to come across as being credible and advocate for your client at the same time, so the fact that the judge said this is very, very powerful because usually when you make arguments, you have case law. you have something to support your argument, and the judge was asking him, what case law do you have? what do you have to it substantiate your position, and he didn't have that, and the fact that the judge said it is very powerful and it could change the case. >> do you feel that the judge is going to punish trump? >> well, the judge is going to look at the judge's order and see exactly what the judge's order says and see, in fact, based on the posting if he violated the order, and then the state has not asked for him to be incarcerated just for monetary damages. so potentially the judge could fine him a thousand dollars per post. >> all right, we'll see where that ends up. meantime, kristy, what will you

be watching for us? court resumes tomorrow. >> so david pecker is back on the stand tomorrow. one of the pieces that came out in the prosecution's opening but we haven't gotten to it in his testimony yet is the fact that after these payments were made from ami to dino the doorman and to karen mcdougal, after the election, they were released from their ndas. that is critical because, again, what was the purpose of these hush money payments, just to make a hush money payment, it's not illegal, right? but to do it to influence the election and when they're above certain limits, that's what makes it an illegal campaign contribution. so the fact that these were for the purpose of the campaign is critical, and when you have these ndas being released right after the election saying, okay, go ahead, talk as much as you want now, it's very clear what the purpose of the payments were. it was for the campaign. like, you look at the john edwards' case, right, where there was an acquittal on hush

money payments. there were hush money payments there being made after the election. that's part of why he was acquitted. they couldn't show it was for the purpose of the campaign. this kind of evidence from pecker will be huge. >> thank you so much, lisa rubin, kelly hyman, appreciate you both. kristy you're going to join us again in just a moment. still ahead, we're keeping our eye on the supreme court where arguments are underway in a key abortion case. plus, later this hour, president biden is expected to sign a major foreign aid bill that the senate just sent to his desk. and college campus chaos, the heightened tensions as pro-palestinian protests lead to arrests. inian protests lead to arrests. customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you.

sotyktu. when others divide. we unite. with real solutions to help our kids. like community schools. neighborhood hubs that provide everything from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools. ...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org from chavez and huerta

to striking janitors in the 90s to today's fast-food workers. californians have led the way. now, $20/hour is here. thanks to governor newsom and leaders in sacramento, we can lift workers out of poverty. stop the race to the bottom in the fast-food industry. and build a california for all of us. thank you governor and our california lawmakers for fighting for what matters. we're back with some new development this is morning in washington. later this hour, president biden is set to sign a massive new foreign aid package that includes $95 billion for ukraine, israel, and taiwan. the senate passed this bill late last night. it also includes a potential ban

of the popular social media app tiktok. let's get right to nbc's julie tsirkin on capitol hill, and nbc news white house correspondent monica alba. so monica, this has been a long road to get this foreign aid passed. tiktok also now a part of this package. what are we expecting to hear from the president? >> reporter: yeah, a lot of important ramifications here from this signing and these remarks from the president here, ana. it's been about six months of a lot of public and private pressure to get this done on capitol hill, and we know president biden from his decades of being a lawmaker himself knows how to have these conversations behind the scenes, and there were certainly many of those. he really directed his team and his senior advisers to be in pretty near constant touch with speaker johnson, with mitch mcconnell, with leader jeffries and with everybody involved in this conversation to try to get this to this place, and remember that it was the white house that had originally requested this all in one package.

there were things to be dealt with including several potential government shutdowns. they needed to get that out of the way. then the house proceeded with these individual different bills that you see there on your screen in terms of the billions that will go to ukraine, to israel, to taiwan, and then you will ultimately all of this coming back to the senate overnight that the president says he's incredibly pleased to see because there's going to be this immediate urgency of signing an assistance package for ukraine specifically that is so low on weapons and ammunition, and that is a major priority for this administration that has really pointed to several other examples when it seemed that talks on capitol hill were completely stalled, that there was no path forward and where the white house feels that because of their strategy and their approach, they were able to get it done. so i think you can expect to hear that kind of a tone and a bit of a victory lap from president biden while addressing some of these other major national security concerns and why they think it's so important that this get done now. >> we were just looking at some

of the images from the war in ukraine and again, the need for this funding to beat back russia's incursion there. julie, this bill took a long time to get through the house. the senate voted swiftly, the vote was overwhelming 79-18. three democrats, however, voted no. why? >> the three democrats were mostly because of the israel provision in the bill, the $26 billion in aid that those democrats in particular, which include independent senator bernie sanders say means the aid is not conditioned, right? they've been calling for more stringent conditions when it comes to humanitarian aid, food assistance for israel to abide by some of those concerns that we have before we provide them with more offensive and defensive weapons. these are similar tunes that they've been singing all throughout the year when it comes to israel, especially since october 7th attack by hamas. when you look at the bigger picture of this vote, right, back in february when the senate

initially took up a supplemental package that looked very similar to this one, you had far less republicans that ended up supporting that version of the bill than you saw last night. it was a resounding bipartisan vote, and leader mcconnell who was perhaps the most fervent, the most forward ally of ukraine here in terms of aid on capitol hill, he took direct aim at the group of isolationists yesterday. watch this. >> so i'll just say to my colleagues, we can wish for a world where the responsibilities of leadership don't fall on us or we can act like we understand that they do. tonight as in so many moments in our history, i don't call for america to lower its guard ring hollow. >> reporter: so certainly not only president biden as you heard monica say there taking a victory lap here, mcconnell also taking one, and i'm told by sources to expect more of this kind of language from moderate

republicans, rank and file republicans pushing back against those who have thwarted the ability to fund ukraine. also, another key provision quickly, ana, in this bill is tiktok forcing a divestiture from the chinese parent company within a year or that popular social media app gets banned in the u.s. >> julie tsirkin and monica alba, thank you both for the reporting. we are expecting to see new demonstrations today as pro-palestinian protests continue to erupt on college campuses across the country. on the campus of columbia university, a midnight deadline came and went for students to disband a protest camp, and according to the school, protesters have now agreed to take down some of the tents, but vow their demonstrations will continue. nbc's erin mclaughlin is following all of this from columbia. what can you tell us about this deal that columbia university and the student protesters reached overnight? >> reporter: well, the talks

between the university and the protesters went through the night. this morning a spokesperson for the university saying that the students have agreed to take down some of the tents on the campus. albeit notably not all of those tens. they've also agreed that anyone who's not a student that is protesting should leave immediately, and the spokesperson also saying that these talks will continue for the next 48 hours. this morning columbia university a flash point in the nationwide unrest at college campuses across the country, reporting progress in its negotiations with pro-palestinian protesters who have been encamped on campus since last week. a columbia spokesperson telling nbc news this morning students have committed to dismantling and removing a significant number of tents and have agreed to prohibit discriminatory or harassing language. the school has been flaring with unrest, with a growing pressure on its president amidst

allegations the university is not doing enough to deescalate tensions or adequately protect the safety of jewish students. >> at the end of the day, we can't be enabling hate or incitement of violence or disruption to students. >> reporter: columbia's encampment inspiring protesters at at least 15 other universities including at cal poly humboldt where dozens occupied a campus building. >> we will mobilize against it. >> reporter: and at the university of minnesota where nine were detained for trespassing. students at nyu walking out of class tuesday. >> i am absolutely appalled, horrified and terrified by what happened last night. >> reporter: expressing their outrage over the 120 people detained on campus during heated confrontations with police during a pro-palestinian protest monday night. zack samolin, a jewish plut faculty member was arrested. >> they sent him the riot squad. >> when you saw the riot police, what went through your mind? >> i grabbed my daughter. i handed her to my wife and told

her to get out of there as quickly as possible. >> reporter: disorderly, disruptive and antagoniing behavior was happening as well as reports of anti-semitic incidents, before police moved in with riot gear and zip ties. this morning universities across the country struggling with the unrest as some students fear for their safety. >> it's just hard to see that we have reached such a point where we can't talk to each other. >> reporter: now, while columbia university is reporting important progress has been made in its talks with these student protesters, it is worth noting that we have yet to hear from any of the groups protesting on the campus itself. the last we heard was from one group in a tweet at about midnight last night arguing that the university wasn't negotiating in good faith. up next, much more on the abortion case that justices are hearing right now at the high court as protests continue outside the supreme court. plus, we are now less than

24 hours away from another supreme court showdown, a case about the boundaries of presidential immunity. what it could mean for the criminal indictments against donald trump. ndictments against donald trump

this far right extremist activist supreme court is fueling the politicization of medicine at all costs. >> those were some protesters outside the supreme court this morning. protests there continue, justices are hearing arguments on idaho's near total abortion ban. this is the second case on abortion that justices have heard in under a month now. let's bring back nbc news washington correspondent yamiche alcindor. what of we heard so far this morning from the lawyers and from the justices themselves? >> well, we've really heard a number of arguments, and we've really all -- they've all centered on a woman's health being at risk versus her life being at risk. a number of the liberal justices, kagan, ketanji brown

jackson as well as justice sotomayor, they were specifically asking the lawyer for idaho what's the difference between and explain how a woman's health could be at risk but her death might not be imminent, why would idaho law supersede federal law in that case. i want to play for you some sound from elena kagan in particular on this issue. take a listen. >> idaho is saying unless the doctor can say in good faith that this person's death likely as opposed to serious illness, they can't perform the abortion. so i don't know your argument about state licensing law because this is what this law does. it tells states your licensing laws can't take out objective medical conditions that could save a person from serious injury or death.

>> now, the lawyer for idaho has been saying that doctors really need to rely on their good faith medical expertise. he also said that he can't think of any cases where a woman's organs or health might be at risk. i've been talking to doctors where women might lose their fallopian tubes. definitely an issue as argues continue. >> yamiche alcindor, thank you very much. also at the supreme court, preparations for the high stakes session tomorrow where justices will hear arguments over donald trump's presidential immunity claim, and the question at the heart of this issue is can a former president be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office. nbc's ken dilanian joins us now outside the supreme court as well, and back with us is former federal prosecutor kristy greenberg. ken, lay out the stakes for tomorrow. >> the stakes are enormous, ana. this ruling could have the most impact by the supreme court, ana, presidential election since the court decided bush v. gore

back in 2000 decided that election. there's really three possible outcomes here, and two of them arguably are favorable to donald trump. one potential outcome is that the supreme court rules that presidents do have absolute immunity including on the outer perimeter of their acts, and therefore, donald trump can't be prosecuted in this election case and the case is dismissed. most legal experts think that's a remote possibility. but a second potential outcome that might be favorable to mr. trump is that the court decides it disagrees with the appeals court. it finds there are some instances where a president could be deemed immune for certain official acts particularly around foreign policy and national security. then the court raises questions about whether anything that donald trump is accused of in this case would qualify as an official act. in that case it may throw the case back to judge tanya chutkan and say, judge, you need to decide which, if any of these acts qualify as official acts. that may be a win for prosecutors in this case, but it could also continue the delays, and it might mean that this case cannot get to trial before the

election, and of course if that happens, ana and mr. trump is elected president, this case will go away. i do think we will get a sense tomorrow during the oral arguments about which way these justices are leaning. >> kristy, trump has been trying to use this presidential immunity argument for months now, and he's had no success with any of the courts as far as we could tell, when we went back through everything, so is there think reason to believe that the supreme court would rule differently? >> yes. the way that they framed the question, whether and to what extent a president, a former president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution, the whether and to what extent part makes me think that when ken laid out that second option that, hey, there may be some official acts here that a former president would have engaged in when he was president that there could be immunity for, and okay,

if there are, if we decide there are, this needs to get kicked back to the district court. the district court needs to go through the indictment, each act, and determine whether or not those were an official act where there would be immunity that applies. that is my worry that that is where we could be going based on how the supreme court has framed the question for the parties. >> donald trump has been really tweeting or i should say posting on social media about this presidential immunity argument quite a bit leading up to it, and one of them he wrote, a president has to be free to determine what is right for our country without undue pressure. if there is no immunity, the presidency as we know it will no longer exist. is that a legal argument you expect to hear from trump's lawyers tomorrow? >> they will make that argument and they have made that argument and they failed each time because history tells us that all prior presidents assumed that they were not immune from criminal prosecution, right? that's why nixon, you know, received a pardon. that is why even when there was

an investigation into bill clinton, you know, he had an agreement to essentially, you know, ensure that he was not going to be criminally prosecuted. so again, former presidents have believed that that was the case, and so this history dictates and the supreme court says they care about the text, they say they care about history, history tells us there is no other former president who has enjoyed such immunity, there's nothing in the text of the constitution that says that they enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution, so again, i think we will hear these arguments. they should fail. we'll see. >> it will be a fascinating supreme court session that we will be bringing to our viewers tomorrow with special coverage. ken dilanian and kristy greenberg, thank you both very much. any minute now we expect to hear from president biden about the passage of critical foreign aid, but first, the major issue president biden is slamming his rival over in one key state as donald trump fumes about being stuck in the courtroom. donald tg stuck in the courtroom

what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

when dry eye symptoms keep... coming... back... inflammation might be to blame. over-the-counter eye drops can provide temporary relief. xiidra can provide lasting relief. it targets inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. xiidra? no-o-o! xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied, and unusual taste sensation. why wait? ask your doctor about a 90-day prescription and pay as little as $0. xiidra. (grunt) ♪ music ♪ ♪ unnecessary action hero! ♪ ♪ unnecessary. ♪ was that necessary? no. neither is missing your daughter's competition to do payroll. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you don't have to miss your daughter's big day.

time to shine. get paycom and make the unnecessary unnecessary. hey you, with the small business... ...whoa... you've got all kinds of bright ideas, that your customers need to know about. constant contact makes it easy. with everything from managing your social posts, and events, to email and sms marketing. constant contact delivers all the tools you need to help your business grow. get started today at constantcontact.com constant contact. helping the small stand tall.

donald trump will be back in the new york courtroom for his criminal hush money trial tomorrow, and he has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn't want to be there, especially when president biden is out there on the campaign trail. >> he's out campaigning and i'm here in a courtroom sitting here giving -- sitting up as strait as i can all day long because you know what? it's a very unfair situation. >> president biden spent his tuesday in florida hammering trump over that state's strict abortion ban. trump is expected to be in court most days for weeks to come. election day is just 194 days away, by the way. joining us now, democratic strategist basil smikle and susan del percio. let's dive into the impact of this trial on the 2024 race. here's what trump told a local news station just yesterday.

>> they're trying to get joe biden elected, and what they want to do is see that they can damage his opponent, but it is happening the opposite effect. because my numbers are now higher than they have been because the public understands it. >> first, fact check, there is no evidence of political influence here. it is unclear what numbers he's referring to, but, susan, do you see any evidence so far that this trial is having a positive political impact for trump? >> it is not, but when you show what your lead of this opening of the segment, it says it is very -- he says it is very unfair. if it is so unfair it helping him according to donald trump. so that just doesn't jive in his own words, but that's much of what donald trump says, it never kind of is coherent. but at the end of the day, the trial is hurting him, for two reasons. one, he's not out there campaigning. and, two -- i should say, three, two, he's not raising money, which is a problem, and, three, this narrative that is starting to develop day after day, and we

haven't even seen him get into explosive mode yet. >> do you agree with that, basil, in the sense, i think back to when the indictments first came down and he had those huge fund-raising bumps and then he, you know, saw his poll numbers start going up when we were in the primaries for all of his opponents dropped out. and, yet, you look at what the viewership or i should say voters are saying in the latest polling and they're not really engaged in this election. in fact, it says it is a 20-year low according to the nbc poll. do you think this trial changes anything? >> yeah, well, i think for all of susan's points, she makes great points about what the trial in and of itself does, it keeps him from raising money, it keeps him from being out on the campaign trail, the difference from four years ago is that biden is on the campaign trail. during covid, we couldn't do a whole heck of a lot. now he's bouncing around the country campaigning in ways that we didn't see in 2020 and that

split screen is incredibly important. i will say, just as a strategist, i do question whether or not voters will experience diminishing returns. in other words, will voter interest in the trials play out as the trials themselves play out? so, will they be engaged? our viewers, probably not. for a lot of other americans, the question is, is there a point they get tired of paying attention to the trials? that's why it is incumbent upon biden and the campaign to say, this is why he's being tried, all of these larger sort of values that are really important to the electorate. >> i think he should stay away from the trials, biden should, and the campaign. they don't have to, because the difference is so stark in what both men are doing. and you remind me of 2020 when trump was going after biden for doing the campaign in his basement. instead of the basement, donald trump is doing it in a courthouse defending himself on criminal charges. so, that's not really a good look by even donald trump's

standards. but it will be interesting to see does this rally more republicans behind him? that's what we saw with the indictments. we didn't see america getting behind donald trump. we saw republicans digging in, and at a time where they thought, you know, 16 other people ran against donald trump, they thought he was vulnerable because of '22, because of the indictments and it turned out the indictments just turned the switch and helped him. but only with hard core republicans. >> you know, it is interesting what we're hearing in the trial, and along the lines of how does this, you know, resonate with voters? do they have, you know, fatigue as the trial drags on, or do they have a visceral reaction to remembering what happened in 2016 and the chaos, especially when we're learning of all the details related to the national enquirer manufactured stories, the stories that included the false claims that senator marco

rubio had a love child and used cocaine, ben carson allegedly leading a sponge in a patient's brain, a doctored photo suggesting senator ted cruz's father was involved in the kennedy assassination, all of those people who were targeted and ended up going with trump ultimately. but, still, 2016, it takes you back to a different place in time and what kind of impact could that have on the voter? >> that's why i said, you know, susan is right, you don't want to be talking about the day to day. joe biden shouldn't do that. but it should -- there should be a larger conversation about values and where we are in this country, that we did go through a period in 2016 when we had all these conspiracy theories and they did impact people physically. we had january 6th. we're also at a time where donald trump took credit for ending roe v. wade, but we see what is happening when the courts now push to this to the states. this larger arc, this larger

narrative, who we are as a country and values which is something that republicans have always campaigned on, democrats can take back a little bit, becomes really critical. >> but the chaos is such a good point because i remember, joe biden campaigned in 2020 saying, like, i'll be no drama. you won't hear -- you won't hear from me every day screaming crazy stuff. and i think that's what the trial does, it reminds the public, especially those independent and suburban women, about the chaos that comes along with donald trump. it's eight years later, and we're still hearing about what happened in 2016. >> all right, thank you, both, as always, i appreciate the interesting conversation here. basil smikle, susan del percio, thank you. that does it for us today. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage right after this. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage right after this. he rit kind of nutrients. look at this new organic soil from miracle-gro. everybody should have it. it worked great for us. this is as good as gold in any garden.

if people only knew that it really is about the dirt. you're a dirt nerd. huge dirt nerd. i'm proud of it! [ryan laughs] when you purchase a pair of bombas socks, tees, or underwear, you also donate one to someone facing homelessness. one purchased equals one donated. 100 million donations and counting. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order. - ugh. - cabin crew cross check. that yellow's not gonna fly.

- buckle up! - whoa! ♪ reality checkup ♪ there's toothpaste white, and there's crest 3dwhitestrips white. whitens like a $400 professional treatment. [pilot] prepare for non-stop smiles. crest. (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, good morning. right to the white house, president biden about to speak. >> good morning. >> good day for americans, good day for americans. good day for world peace, freedom. this is consequential. i just signed into law the national security package that was passed by house representatives this weekend and by the senate yesterday. it is going to make america safer. it is going to make the world safer. and it continus america's

leadership in the world, and everyone knows it. gives vital support to america's partners, and so they can defend themselves against stress to their sovereignty. and to the lives and freedom of their citizens. and it is an investment in our own security. because when our allies are stronger, i want to make this important, again and again, when our allies are stronger, we are stronger. i'm grateful for all those in congress, democrats, republicans, independents, who voted for this bill. it is a path to my desk, it was a difficult path. it should have been easier, should have gotten there sooner. but in the end, we did what america always does, we rose to the moment. we came together. we got it done. now we need to move fast and we are. over two years russia had been responsible for a brutal campaign against ukraine. they killed tens of thousands of ukrainians. bombed hospitals, picked them out, bombed hospitals,

kindergartens, grandchildren, tried to plunge ukraine into a cold and dark winter by striking the power grid. ukrainians have fought back, defending their country and families and with extraordinary courage. many of you have been there with me many times. it is amazing what they do. it is amazing. against such a large military. ukraine has regained over half the territory that russia took from them in this invasion. and they won important victories against russia's navy. but make no mistake about it, they're a fighting force with the will and the skill to win. and the will and the skill to win. for months, while maga republicans are blocking aid, ukraine has been running out of artillery shells and ammunition. meanwhile, putin's friends keep giving -- keeping him well supplied, iran sent him drones, north korea sent him ballistic missiles and artillery shells, china provided components and knowow