methodology used and i don't think trump took him seriously. when you are talking about sums of money that, despite trump's agent for exaggerating how much is worth, $10,000.00 is not a lot of money to donald trump. $12,000 with, $13,000.00 is not a lot of money to donald trump. so long as judge juan merchan doesn't have other options under the statute, even if he says the next time you do it jail is a possibility, he is already said that. >> is a constraint by statute or by what an appellate court would say from making an amount of money that would be more meaningful, that would be $100,000.00 per violation ? >> i think he is. i looked at the criminal contempt statute in new york

and it is pretty clear those options are as i just outlined it. does that mean he couldn't find trump in violation of some other statute that has not been briefed before him? nobody has also said i'm not going to summarily find contempt. these are things you have to bring before me. he has made it very clear. these are not summary proceedings. unless he actually does it in front of me, i'm not going to do it on my own volition. >> we could keep going., we shouldn't. that will do it for us for now. now it is time for the last word with our good friend lawrence o'donnell. good evening. >> good evening, rachel. we have convened our own version of the last word supreme court. in it, including harvard law professor laurence tribe, andrew weissman is here with us. senator sheldon whitehouse has a few things to say about it too and he will be joining us. >> looking forward to it, lawrence. >> we learned today the united states supreme court has two different kinds of justices. justices who are trying to protect the constitution and the law and justices who appear to be trying to protect the president, specifically the former president named trump.

that is the fundamental dividing line that seemed to emerge on the court today with justice samuel alito, as usual, running away with wild flights of fancy about what would happen to presidents if the supreme court doesn't provide them with some form of new protection that has never existed before. justice samuel alito was placed on the supreme court, in effect, by the supreme court when the supreme court decided in the 2000 presidential election in favor of george w. bush, who came in second in the voting of the american people that came in first in a 5-4 decision of the supreme court because george w. bush, who lost the popular vote and was awarded the electoral college by the supreme court became president, he was then able to put samuel alito on the supreme court. samuel alito and his opinion overturning roe versus wade quoted judges in england long

before the united states of america existed who were prosecutors of witches, before they became judges who were then in the business of sentencing which is to death as judges. samuel alito thought they were worthy of quoting in his opinion removing the right to save health care services in this country for women. today, samuel alito imagined that without some new form of immunity, written by the united states supreme court, every future president will be prosecuted by the new justice department that takes over after the president leaves office. in making that prediction, samuel alito was able to ignore the entire history of the united states of america prior to the criminal rampaging of donald trump in the white house. justice neil gorsuch, whose seat on the supreme court was procedurally stolen by a republican senator mitch mcconnell, who stole it away from president obama's constitutional right to appoint

a justice, held the seat open long enough so that donald trump could put neil gorsuch's in that seat. neil gorsuch, who should be embarrassed every time he takes his seat on the supreme court, joined in the invented scenario of every president being prosecuted by the administration of his or her successor forever in the future. even though that has only happened to one president, which proves that the one president those republican justices care about is donald trump. they repeatedly tried to say that their entire concern was focused on the future, imaginary presidents, all of whom would appoint attorneys general who would become prosecutorial abusers of former presidents. samuel alito declared from the bench of the supreme court of the united states that the grand jury system in america does not work. it is one thing for flippant pendants on tv to use them

overdone clichid phrase about grand juries who will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors want them to. it is another thing entirely for a supreme court justice to say that same thing, to use that pornographic legally ham sandwich example in the supreme court, which is exactly what samuel alito disgracefully did from the bench of the supreme court today. he willfully insulted every member of every trump grand jury that has returned every indictment against donald trump. the team of judges trying to protect donald trump today came up against the newest member of the united states supreme court, who is trying to protect the constitution. justice ketanji brown jackson interrupted the questioning of donald trump's lawyer early in the hearing with this. >> you suggested the lack of immunity and the possibility of prosecution in the presidential context is like an innovation. and mike understood it to be the status quo.

i understood that every president, from the beginning of time, essentially, has understood that there was a threat of prosecution if for no other reason than the constitution suggests they can be prosecuted after impeachment , that the office of legal counsel has said forever that presidents are immutable to a threat of prosecution, and they have continued to function and do their jobs and do all the things presidents do. so, it seems to me that you are asking now for a change in what the law is related to immunity. everybody has taught, including the presidents who have held the office that they were taking this office subject to potential criminal prosecution, no? >> i see the opposite. i see all the evidence going the way. marbury versus madison, mississippi versus johnson discussed the broad community principle. >> what was up with that pardon for president nixon? if everybody thought presidents couldn't be prosecuted, what

was that about? >> he was under investigation for private and public conduct at the times, official act and private conduct. >> same with donald trump. exactly the same. later in the hearing, justice jackson imagined what could happen if the supreme court gives presidents even more legal protection than they have now. >> if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, i am trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office and the seat of criminal activity in this country. if the potential for criminal likability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon

while they are in office? presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that is a possibility. that might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center i am envisioning. once we say no criminal liability, mr. president, you can do whatever you want, i am worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while in office. >> leading off our discussion tonight, neal katyal, who was in the supreme court chamber watching the arguments. he is a former acting u.s. solicitor general, who has argued over 50 cases before the supreme court. he is also a professor at georgetown law and msnbc legal analyst and host of the podcast "courtside with neal katyal." also with us is andrew weissman, cohost of the podcast "prosecuting donald trump." neal katyal, let me begin with what we don't know. we listened, i know every word every one of them said.

here's what i don't know. when justice jackson was saying that moment was registering in the other justices, was there anything to read on other justices? i don't know what their reactions were to some of the more absurd answers landed by donald trump's counsel. there are so many things that can be there, that the eye can take in that we don't know when we are just listening. >> which is why the american people should be able to see this and it is ridiculous they have to rely on me and a couple of other people in the room to tell them what happened. people should be able to see it for themselves. lawrence, i have seen over 400 oral arguments at the supreme court and sometimes i walked out and i think it is clear what is going to happen. this was not one of those days. that is a little surprising because trumps claims were so

bogus. they were ridiculous constitutional claims. i did that to get out earlier in the argument. part of the reason why i think you are seeing some of the predictions like the court is going to side with trump and stuff has actually, i don't think that is accurate. i think it has to do with argument style. trumps lawyer, first of all sat on the wrong side of the courtroom right when he walked in. he was bombastic, he wasn't used to, he wasn't used to the way the court does argument, whereas jack smith's lawyer, michael dreeben, was so collegial and almost a part of the supreme court. he didn't even seem like an advocate. now, that created a dynamic in the courtroom, which built his credibility over time. some of the early questions, which is a lot of the reporting, i don't think is necessarily where the court found up. to answer the question on absolute immunity, i think justice jackson was preceded by justice sonia sotomayor, who said this could be, this could allow a president to launch a coup. most importantly, justice amy

coney barrett, when michael dreeben said this would make a president above the law and you must be liable for the crimes he commits, she said i agree. so, that is four justices there that i think are going to reject claims about absolute immunity that trump is making. the question is is there a fifth vote? that would be the chief justice. he was much quieter in this hearing than many. he was sullen, the chief justice. he does have an ability to surprise us and to do the right thing. think about the affordable care act, where he was the fifth vote to uphold president obama's signature initiative right before the 2012 election. he reveres chief justice marshall, who wrote marbury versus madison, which was a decision compromising decision that gave something to everyone. i hold out hope, i know there are all these products and there right now, i hold out hope the chief will do the right thing here, uphold the rule of law, reject trumps

claims of absolute immunity and let the struggle go on to the american people can see for themselves. >> andrew, the chief seemed clear on this question of, so, the idea was floated what if we just expunge official acts, there will be no description of an official act in an indictment or in a criminal case against a president. but for the personal thing that he did will be what he's charged with. so, it was the chief who said what, if he appoints an ambassador and gets a million- dollar bribe for uploading the ambassador, how do you leave out appointing the ambassador, which he has a complete legal right to do? that is a classic example of an official act. the chief got in there and on the side of common sense on that one. >> i totally agree that this is going to come down to the chief justice. and, the shocking part of the argument is if you put it in the trifecta of three cases, you have the disqualification decision, where they went out of their way and there was six justices went out of their way

to basically say this is dead because we are going to go beyond what the issue is and until congress passes a statute, you can't do it. that was when you had three -- >> that is the colorado ballot, keeping donald trump of the colorado ballot. >> you are ready saw this sort of tension there. then you have the fisher case, just a couple of weeks ago, which is the obstruction case where you just remember, you had chief justice roberts saving i think i'm just going to read the word otherwise demean likewise. this is mr. tactual's side and i'm just going to rewrite the statute. that is also not looking great. maybe, i agree this is his chance to do something. but, this decision, just remember, no one was arguing that private acts are either civilly or criminally immune. everyone agrees private acts, you can always be prosecuted for. that is a given. it is not like that is a win

for jack smith. that is like table stakes. he went in with that. this is about whether official act should be used. and, i was just shocked that democracy as we know it is riding on finding that fifth vote. there should not be any justices who are in any way supporting this idea. so, it was, that was what was remarkable. maybe if you are cynical and think okay, maybe samuel alito and thomas are going to be outliers. but, the fact that it looks like there's at least four, it's going to be, to me, it looks like 5-4, one way or the other on a case that i agree with neil is so off the charts tells you how inured we are to trump overtaking what this country is supposed to stand for. >> what i thought i was counting was a majority, clear

majority saying, no, there is absolutely no such thing as absolute immunity, absolutely no such thing. i don't know what neil gorsuch was getting at at certain spots there, where he was saying things like, well, you know, if you, samuel alito said if you do that, order seal team six, you don't have to worry about that because seal team six won't obey the order to assassinate hillary clinton. and then neil gorsuch was saying, made a very clear point to say, to trumps lawyer, so there's absolutely no doubt that subordinates of the president can be prosecuted for exactly the thing you are saying the president cannot be prosecuted for and trumps lawyer said that's right, i'm sending all the subordinates can be prosecuted and neil gorsuch seemed to take some comfort in that like that was somehow an inhibitor on these actions. >> it is a typical trump answer

which is everyone else is liable, except me. you are all holding the bag and i am going to go scot-free and right into the sunset. i think ultimately, there is this, you were talking to andrew about this, i think there is this possibility the chief will recognize that official acts can come in and be, it can be part of an indictment, it just can't be grounds for prosecuting someone. it is background information and your bribery example. that would allow the trial to go forward now. the question that i think that trump lawyer was trying to say is no, you have to go back to the district court, you have to expunge this out of the indictment and stuff like that. the special counsel's lawyer, michael dreeben, set an excellent point. in the united states versus nixon, the executive privilege case, you said that information can be introduced as part of an indictment, even if it bumps up against executive privilege. it just can't be the basis for the criminal act. i do think there is that possibility, that the court

could steer this in that way and the chief justice i think is acutely aware of some of that dynamic that andrew is talking about. we have lived with the supreme court under republican control our entire lifetimes. i'm 54 years old, it has been every year it has been under republican control. this supreme court is more conservative than any before and is yielding decisions like jobs and the like. i do think the chief is acutely aware of the institutional dynamics of the court. to side again with donald trump and put him above the law, i think that is a bridge too far. that is the hope. we will see what happens. >> andrew, that is kind of the best case we could get out of what i think we heard today. the other version of it is that they say there is some distinction between what we call an official act and an unofficial or personal act and the trial court has to distinguish those for the trial

begins so that the defendant will know which of those can be at issue in this trial, which is the so-called remand. we will remand this case to the trial court to do that and sort that out. what happens if they do that? >> just to be clear that if they can either of these scenarios, the court has to separate out official from unofficial. and, neil is right that that would salvage this case to a large extent because there is private actions that i think would still remain and that is certainly jack smith position and then the issue is what do you do with the official act? just remember what that means for the law. the hypotheticals that were posed by justice elena kagan about a president who orders a two but as part of his official act he orders it for the d.c. circuit with the hypothetical was ordering seal team six two kill a political adversary but

as an official act, the issue is going to be, well, is that now the law? if you can tie it to something you are doing in office, like a bride where you are using your office to get that bribe, if that is going to be described as an official act, we have de facto created immunity. if you can only prosecute if in fact there is some private element, so it will be about the definition. on a remand, the one positive thing that could happen on a remand is it is all bad news because there's not going to be a trial anytime soon but on a remand, it would give the ability to have a hearing for judge chutkan. she does not have to wait 81 days for a factual call. she can say you know what, we are going to have a hearing, prosecution, call your first witness. it at , it is at least a week

to get facts into the record. >> which is sort of witnesses and what testimony would they elicit at that hearing question >> it depends what the line is but to try and show why this is private conduct, not official conduct. for instance, if you have evidence to show this was done as part of the campaign. this was not done as part of the presidency. you put on your witnesses and they have a lot of internal, former trump people to testify about this working on behalf of the campaign and that is one mechanism to get those facts at least into the record so people can see that proof in the same way we are seeing the proof in the manhattan case right now. >> andrew at least at this point earlier today and i thought it was a brilliant point because it would allow not a hearing over one day, this could be weeks long in which the evidence, particularly in thinking about the evidence liz cheney talked about in her op-ed this week. she said the january 6th committee wasn't able to get a whole bunch of critical things that trump did and what people

said about him. but, they used a grand jury, jack smith did to get that information. she said that is why we need a trial. a trial would be the first solution but your solution is the second best one, which would allow the evidence to get before the american people. >> mike pence, take the stand. tell us what happened. all of the, bill barr, take the stand. eric hirschman, lawyer in the white house, take the stand. it is at least a way, it is not a full trial but it is a hearing and that is a way at least to get some of the evidence before the public. >> andrew, do you agree with me that all nine justices, there wasn't a justice who said that a solution is an improper one? >> exactly. >> so, neil, there remains, though, when i listen to judge amy coney barrett, it also, there is also this other question, which is a certain amount of this is performative. you don't get the feeling that samuel alito is really looking for an answer that can change

what he was thinking when he walked in there today. i don't mean to pick on him, it can happen with anyone of the justices at any time. >> you can pick on him. >> i have the feeling, i did have the feeling that justice amy coney barrett was listening to the information and did come in with ideas. she came in really certain that a bunch of things described in this indictment were private acts and she rattled them off to the employer and trump agreed with every single one of them was a private act. those are the crimes that are charged. but, she also had what seemed like genuine questions. and, i wondered what is her opinion going out of the tour ? is her opinion when she leaves that seat settled at that point or is she wondering about this? >> as an advocate, of course, i'm going to push back on the idea that they have their minds made up because of a job is to convince them. i do think amy coney barrett is a really good example of this point. oral argument prediction is

dynamic. you can't just do it at the beginning of the argument. justice amy coney barrett is a really good example because at one hour 55 minutes and the argument, michael dreeben, more than an hour into his argument for jack smith, talked about the allegations in the indictment about what donald trump did to the justice department, trying to pressure the justice department to send fake letters about election concerns and threatening to fire those justice department officials. i can tell you it wasn't just justice barrett. you could hear a pin drop in the room at that moment. that was a pivotal moment for the argument. it is one that caught the attention of justice amy coney barrett and i suspect the chief. given all of that, i do think that it is fair to say there is a path forward that would allow even a trial to happen but certainly andrew's solution. >> quickly before we go. i can't remember, i'm sure it happens, i haven't seen it happen. trump's lawyer, the moving party, speaks first. then the government speaks and

then there is an offer of rebuttal. you are trump's lawyer, you get a chance to get up and take a part anything you just heard in the last hour and a half the other side said. to my astonishment, to my astonishment when he was offered rebuttal, trump supporters actual words were i have nothing. >> he might have had nothing. but, i think, look, i've never seen that. >> you've never seen it. okay. >> i think what was going on there was that the employer is used being a trump theatrics lawyer, which is not what the supreme court of the united states is. the job is to answer all the questions and concerns of the justices, not walk away in some sort of grandiose i got this, see you later, peace out, drop the microphone. that is not the way supreme court arguments are done. at the end of the day, i'm not sure that is going to be the

determinative factor. they will go back and say what are we more worried about? a president who could get indicted all the time or a president who can't get indicted for the crimes he commits. >> i just cannot thank you both enough. andrew weissman, neal katyal. harvard law professor laurence tribe will join us next. next. symptoms can sometimes take you out of the moment. now there's skyrizi, so you can show up with clearer skin... ...and show it off. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ with skyrizi, you could take each step with 90% clearer skin. and if you have psoriatic arthritis, skyrizi can help you get moving with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. thanks to skyrizi, there's nothing like clearer skin and less joint pain,

and that means everything. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ask your doctor about how skyrizi could help with your skin or joint symptoms. learn how abbvie could help you save. ♪(voya)♪ there are some things that work better together. like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. voya helps you choose the right amounts without over or under investing. so you can feel confident in your financial choices voya, well planned, well invested, well protected. can neuriva support your brain health? mary, janet, hey!!

(thinking: eddie, no frasier, frank... frank?) fred! how are you?! fred... fuel up to 7 brain health indicators, including your memory. join the neuriva brain health challenge. they need their lawn back fast and you need scotts turf builder rapid grass. it grows grass 2 times faster than just seed alone. giving you a stronger lawn. smell that freedom, eh? get scotts turf builder rapid grass today, it's guaranteed. feed your lawn. feed it. ohhh crap. now we gotta get france something. wait! we can use etsy's new gift mode! alright. done. ♪♪ plateau de fromage! oh la la! don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, new on etsy.

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

here is justice ketanji brown jackson asking if this is the right case to try to define the line between official acts and private acts of a president. >> if we invite, you know, if we see the question presented as broader than that and we do say let's engage in the core official versus not poor and try to figure out the line, is this the right vehicle to hammer out that test? i had understood that the most, if not all but most of the allegations here, there's really no plausible argument that they would fall into core

versus not, such that they are immune. >> we don't think there are any court acts that have been alleged in the indictments that would be off-limits as a matter of article 2. >> if we were going to do this kind of analysis, try to figure out what the line is, we should probably wait for a vehicle that actually presents it in a way that allows us to test a different side of the standard that we would be creating, right question >> i don't see any need in this case for the court to embark on that --. >> joining our discussion is professor laurence tribe, who has taught constitutional law at harvard law school for five decades. professor, justice jackson seemed to be getting at the point that the supreme court actually doesn't need to do anything with this case other than to simply say there is nothing presented here for which donald trump cannot be prosecuted. >> she is exactly right.

and, that was, for me, the pivotal moment. much of the argument was quite depressing in the sense that it really amounted to four justices, brett kavanaugh, samuel alito, corsets, thomas in search of a lifeline for donald trump. that was embarrassing. much of it seemed to be kind of like a congressional hearing. they didn't want to talk about this case. they just wanted the hypotheticals in the air and almost draft a new law for some kind of immunity. but, jackson got to the point. all they have to do is our job and our job is to decide the case before us and on the fact before us, there is no plausible case for immunity. if we take a step back that is something the court could and should have done back in december so we could now be

maybe in closing arguments in this trial. it is a shameful performance by the court. basically buying the time that donald trump wanted. >> i was just going to add, lawrence, i do think that neal katyal and andrew wiseman are right that it might be a silver lining, or at least a half silver lining that is if justice of barrett's repeated point that we could decide this immediately and have a hearing quickly on the question of where the line between official acts and private campaign acts is drawn and that kind of hearing would be one in which they wouldn't have to wait 88 days, as judge chutkan has said she would if the case is sent back for trial someday, they could go right away, hold that hearing, and at least the

american people before the election would see all kinds of evidence that as liz cheney pointed out, the january 6 committee wasn't able to get. so, that is a slight consolation. >> i want to listen to one thing that justice neil gorsuch suggested in his wild imaginings of this world in which every president is worried about being prosecuted and he wondered wouldn't they all just pardon themselves? let's listen to this. >> what would happen if presidents were under fear and that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office, whether it is, whether they are engaged in drone strikes, all the hypotheticals, i'm not going to go through them? it seems to me like one of the incentives that might be created is for presidents to try to pardon themselves. do you have any thoughts about that? >> that is, i didn't think of

that until your honor asked it. that is one incentive that might be created. >> there is no reason for anyone to think about it before justice neil gorsuch's imagined it. >> donald trump has imagined it, no doubt. he is probably surprised that his lawyer pretended not to have imagined it. there has been a lot of literature about it as justice jackson said at that point, come on, that is ridiculous. there is a principal hundreds of years old that nobody can be a judge in his or her own case. the court has never held that a self pardon would be illegitimate. but, that is a possibility. the very idea that neil gorsuch and samuel alito as well were kind of imagining the presidency as a bunch of crooks, typical thinking the way the mob thanks, i will just pardon myself on the way out. that just shows how pathetic it has all gotten.

the so-called liberal justices were taking their job seriously, so is justice amy coney barrett. but, the guys on the court, with the exception of the chief justice, for whom i always hold out some hope, he was a student of mine and i sort of predicted he would be the final vote to uphold the affordable care act, i am a little less sanguine here because he made a couple of comments during the arguments suggesting that he thought the court of appeals had not done a great job, even though it was a unanimous, bipartisan decision, quite brilliant opinion. he said it was a little circular. he clearly wants to do something more on remand. the main point is they could have decided it all back in december. if they felt a need to weigh in, the didn't need to wait for the court of appeals at all. in case after case, the court has simply picked a case and

decided it after the district court. they did that in the nixon tapes case, they did that in the pentagon papers case. it has become a more common practice. instead of doing that, they stretched it out, they rephrased the question to make it very broad, abstract, academic, almost. and then they set the argument for the last possible day this term. it is really shameful. even though none of the nine justices court with a straight face and none of them indicated they would say that they agreed with the extreme trump position that he is absolutely immune from any prosecution for what he does, however criminal, while in office, nonetheless, even though that it is going to be the bottom line down the road, for all practical purposes, if he's reelected and picks an attorney general who does his bidding, you won't even have to do this crazy self

pardon business. he will simply get rid of the case by having an attorney general who fires any special prosecutor who would keep the case going. and then, for all practical purposes, the president has absolute immunity for everything that he might do and, as justice jackson points out, we have a new crime center in the oval office. anybody who wants to basically launder all of his or her crimes becomes president probably by hiding embarrassing information or the kind of thing that is going on in the trial in manhattan, becomes president, and then the sickly has a get out of jail free card forever.

>> harvard law professor laurence tribe, thank you very much for joining our important discussion tonight. we really appreciate it. coming up, senator sheldon whitehouse joins us, next. we will be right back. back. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. paula's choice. known for its iconic 2% bha liquid exfoliant, has done it again. introducing new mandelic and lactic acid exfoliant. it's helped turned my skin from this to this, and my skin feels so much smoother. my skin looks and feels so soft. 100% saw smoother, softer, brighter skin. for all skin types & tones— from the trusted experts in skincare ingredients. available at paulaschoice.com and sephora. definitely check out this exfoliant. it has completely transformed my skin. love you.

have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning. we just wait till we get to the school. so, yeah. right now here in america, millions of kids like victoria and andre live with hunger, and the need to help them has never been greater. when you join your friends, neighbors and me to support no kid hungry, you'll help hungry kids get the food they need. if we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them. your gift of just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month at helpnokidhungry.org right now will help provide healthy meals and hope. we want our children to grow and thrive and to just not have to worry and face themselves with the struggles that we endure. nobody wants that for their children. like if these programs didn't exist

me and aj, we wouldn't probably get lunch at all. please call or go online right now with your gift of just $19 a month. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives. if you're coming in hungry, there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure they get the healthy meals they need to thrive. because when you help feed kids, you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever. so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today.

here is that answer i michael dreeben in the supreme court that neal katyal referred to as dramatically capturing the attention of the justices and everyone in the courtroom. >> there is an allegation in the indictment that has to do with the removal of a justice department official. is that court protected

conduct, >> we don't think that is court protected conduct. i don't think i would characterize that episode quite that way. we do agree that the department of justice allegations were a use of the president's official power. in many ways, we think that aggravates the nature of this offense. seeking as a candidate to oust the lawful winner of the election and have once self certified with private actors is a private scheme to achieve a private end and many of the co-conspirators alleged in the indictment are private. for an incumbent president to then use his presidential powers to try to enhance the likelihood that it succeeds makes the claim, in our view, worse. >> on february 29th, on this program, senator sheldon whitehouse outlined the reasons why clarence thomas should not have been hearing this case today. >> jack smith's case could very well introduce evidence about the insurrection, introduce evidence about justice thomas's

wife jenny thomas role in that insurrection, including correspondence directly with the defendants, trump's chief of staff, justice thomas should refuse, could refuse to disclose what he knew and when he went about his wife's construction activities and that has painted a number of supreme court cases already. it is a double trouble problem. an immediate conflict in this case and a signal of this larger problem of the court. >> joining us now is democratic senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. he is a member of the senate judiciary committee and author of "the scheme, how the right wing used dark money to capture the supreme court." today, senator whitehouse announced he is running for reelection this year to the united states senate in rhode island. senator, thank you very much for joining us tonight. i guess clarence thomas idea of recusal is to just be the one who says the least, which is

what he did today. very few words. three questions, i noticed. it didn't take up more than a minute of the courts time each time. >> it is not so much what he has failed to say in the courtroom. it is what he has failed to say to any investigator, to his colleagues on the court, or to the public about what the facts are related to his recusal. and, there is no place in the country where the rule of law, where due process never actually gets at the facts. except as to the supreme court and its own indiscretions and its own ethics problems. and so that remains a real problem. this is now the third case that justice thomas has that one where he has completely failed to make any positive case for himself as to why he should not be recused and the court itself as an institution has

completely failed to inquire into those facts and there is no other party working for the court like an inspector general or staff attorneys or anybody else who have made any effort to interview him and find out what the facts are and that is really inexcusable in a country of laws. thank you, by the way, for mentioning my announcement today. if anybody wants to join the fun, come to whitehouseforsenate.com. >> senator, what else did you here in the supreme court hearing today that we either have or have not yet covered that you think actually should be the way the court looks at this? >> well, the part that aggravated me, to come at it from the other direction, once justice neil gorsuch's, very pompously saying that we are writing a rule for the ages

here, as if he's some high priest of policy who will be making a long determinations. no, there is a constitution. it says that the court is confined to deciding individual cases or controversy. the case or controversy here is is this indictment violate any kind of community protection. this indictment. instead, as you pointed out on the show, lawrence, they went out on this long expedition through hypotheticals and through a lot of nonsense with the result and perhaps horribly to say the intent of delay. and, we will see how quickly they respond. remember bush beat gore? they decided that case the day after oral argument, when it was putting a republican president in power, they didn't waste a minute. now that they are protecting a republican president by delay,

we will see how quickly they respond to this. but, there is a lot at stake here. just the arrogance of that. they say that they are originalists but they talk about policy as if they are legislators. they say they are minimalists but they don't follow the language for narrow the case or controversy. this argument has exploded so many of the pet theories of these justices that it is almost comical. >> and, they are willing to completely ignore 234 years of american history. >> that was the great point justice jackson made. for as long as there has been an america, there have been presidents who did not enjoy immunity and did not break the law. the justices who won't admit that the novelty here is for the first time in history a president who is likely a criminal, that is what is new

here. not some new idea. the idea that they have to look at every other presidency and future presidencies as potential problems when we have one presidency that was a problem. the presidency of donald trump because of crimes he likely committed in office. >> senator sheldon whitehouse, thank you very much for joining us on this important night and i hope you can find the time on the campaign trail in rhode island this summer to continue to join us. >> will do. >> thank you, senator. today was day seven of the case of the people of the state of new york versus donald j trump. that is next. at is next. farm, they often say that it feels like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog. it's amazing what real food can do. a lot of new dry eye patients in my office tell me about their frequent dry eyes,

which may point to dry eye disease. millions of americans were estimated to have it. they've tried artificial tears again and again, but the relief is temporary. xiidra can provide lasting relief. xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. doctor: why wait? ask your eye doctor about a 90-day prescription for xiidra today. choosing a treatment for your chronic migraine - a15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours

or more - can be overwhelming. so, ask your doctor about botox®. botox® prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they even start. it's the #1 prescribed branded chronic migraine treatment. so far, more than 5 million botox® treatments have been given to over eight hundred and fifty thousand chronic migraine patients. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. in a survey, 92% of current users said they wish they'd talked to their doctor and started botox® sooner. so, ask your doctor if botox® is right for you. learn how abbvie could help you save on botox®. how do i get my raised beds looking so good? i do have a secret,

a very special secret. it's organic soil from miracle-gro. you're great too, ryan. not as great as the soil, though. okay... you said it. [ryan laughs] [♪♪] okadid you know, it. there's a way to cut your dishwashing time by 50%? try dawn powerwash dish spray. it removes 99% of grease and grime in half the time. dawn powerwash has 3 cleaning boosters not found in traditional dish soaps that remove food and grease 5 times faster. and, because it cleans so well you can replace multiple cleaning products for counters, stoves, and even laundry stains. try dawn powerwash dish spray. brand power, helping you buy better.

sometimes, the lows of bipolar depression feel darkest before dawn. with caplyta, there's a chance to let in the lyte™. caplyta is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and ii depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. caplyta can help you let in the lyte™. ask your doctor about caplyta. find savings and support at caplyta.com

day seven of the people of the state of new york versus donald trump began with more alleged gag order violations. prosecutors accused of donald trump of more violations of the gag order including one this morning on the way to court when he made a comment about witness david pecker. nbc news reports judge merchan has scheduled another for tuesday. david pecker announced that his work in the national enquirer was to help donald trump's campaign. david pecker said we didn't want the story to embarrass mr. trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign. today judge juan merchan ruled in donald trump's favor to exclude some evidence from the jury including text messages between dylan howard, the editor-in-chief of the national enquirer at the time, and a close relative stating at least if trump wins, i will be pardoned for electoral fraud.

joining now is adam klotz feld, in the courtroom today and in that courtroom every day for us at the trump trial. he is a fellow at justice security. i paid next to no attention to this trial today with the supreme court and the transcript. what did i miss? >> well, what you missed was david pecker steadily chipping away at trump's defenses. i will give you one example. there was a moment where pecker was asked point blank did he think that trump was concerned about the campaign or his family? and pecker said the campaign. and as to elaborate on that, because as to his personal opinion why did he think that, trump never spoke about ivanka, ever spoke about melania. he spoke about the campaign over and over again. and we heard an earful about the campaign, mostly through

michael cohen constantly worrying about what the bosses thinking. when the transcript came, there are more than a dozen mentions of the boss. typically the boss will be very angry if you let karen mcdougal speak. the boss will be very angry if you release her from the nondisclosure deal. or this will please the boss. as to the general tenor of the things. and if trump's defense is that essentially he didn't know what was going on, he had more important things to worry about, having the jury hear the boss again and again and again, a dozen times, doesn't help his case. there was a fascinating moment when the jury saw after trump was elected, trump in the white house with david pecker , at trump's invitation. his dinner, trump put it. and this was the conversation that they had. >> this photograph was entered into evidence today. >> yes. the jury was looking at this photograph when david pecker was narrating, and i have the transept in front of me. did the subject of karen

mcdougal, but all? at the time of the dinner, mr. trump asked me to join him, just moving on to the transcript, that how is karen doing, that is what trump said. >> this is after karen has been paid off, he is still wondering about it in the white house. thank you very much for joining us. we will be right back. this painful blistering rash could also disrupt your work and time with family. shingles could also lead to long—term, debilitating nerve pain that can last for months or even years. if you're over 50, the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. (♪♪) and as you age, your risk of developing shingles increases. (♪♪) don't wait. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles today. 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. they need their lawn back fast and you need scotts turf builder rapid grass. it grows grass 2 times faster than just seed alone. giving you a stronger lawn. smell that freedom, eh? get scotts turf builder rapid grass today,

it's guaranteed. feed your lawn. feed it. everybody wants super straight, super white teeth. they want that hollywood white smile. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients.

that is tonight's last word. the 11th hour starts right now. tonight, donald trump's high-stakes legal battles collide. the supreme court weighs his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution for plotting to overturn the presidential election. as a key witness testifies in his first criminal trial about the alleged catch and kill schemes to help his 2016 campaign. and with trump tied up