defendant's silence and hold it against him. any defense attorney will tell you the loudest noise is a defendant's silence. you can tell the jury that the prosecution has the burden and the defendant doesn't need to testify, but the reality is, every juror wants to hear from that guy at the defense table. >> thank you so very much. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. see you tomorrow night. reach me @jdbalart. there's a promo for "nbc nightly news." andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," fast-moving developments at the trump hush money trial. david pecker reveals more on the stand and the former president continues to lash out. >> it should be over. the case is over. you heard what they said.

the case should be over. you will have to make that determination. i think we have a judge that will never allow this case to be over. secretary of state tony blinken meets with china's president in beijing and is asked by a reporter about the anti-israel protests on college campuses across the u.s. >> it's a hallmark of our democracy that our citizens make known their views, their concerns, their anger at any given time. i think that reflects the strength of the country, the strength of democracy. jake sullivan will be here to talk whether china is interfering in our election, the wars in ukraine and gaza and whether a new hamas offer could break that logjam on freeing the hostages. ♪♪ good day, everyone.

i'm andrea mitchell in washington. cross-examination of the first prosecution witness in donald trump's hush money trial is heating up in new york. former "national enquirer" publisher david pecker being cross-examined. they are trying to establish he had a longstanding relationship promoting trump's interests and burying embarrassing stories about him before he was a candidate for president. we begin with vaughn hillyard outside the courthouse. what's the latest from the courtroom? >> reporter: andrea, under cross-examination, david pecker's testimony is continuing. they are trying to put cracks in the testimony. particularly as it pertained to his own comments around a january 2017 meeting at trump tower just two weeks before donald trump was sworn in as president. at that meeting, according to

pecker, he says donald trump had thanked him for not only purchasing the rights to mcdougal's story but the doorman's story. donald trump's attorney under cross-examination is asking pecker why he told federal investigators in a 2018 meeting that he did not recall donald trump ever thanking him and pecker responded that he can remember what he testified to this week and he doesn't know why he testified or why the fbi wrote down what they did in 2018, nearly six years ago. he remembers and he says he knows that trump thanked him and that he stands by the testimony he provided this week. there are questions coming from trump's defense team about that non-prosecution agreement that american media and through david pecker signed with federal prosecutors back in 2018. at the time, the defense team for donald trump is now asking him about their intention to sell the "national enquirer" and two other american media tabloids to another company.

if they were to be indicted, that could potentially hurt the sale of the "national enquirer," which pecker is agreeing to. they are now trying to open up a line of inquiry of pecker as to what went into the decision to sign that non-prosecution agreement and whether they had actually admitted to campaign finance violations which hit at the core of the misdemeanor that could lead to the felony being presented to this jury as part of this new york state charges. this line of inquiry from the defense team for donald trump we expect to continue nearly up to the lunch break. at that point in time, the prosecution could cross-examine or re-examine the current witness, david pecker, this afternoon. >> vaughn hillyard, thanks so much. we will check back with you soon on all the latest developments from the court. in beijing, secretary of state blinken meeting with chinese president xi jinping trying to ease tensions between

the two countries. also warning china against continuing to prop up russia in its war against ukraine. >> russia would struggle to sustain its assault on ukraine without china's support. fuelling russia's industrial base not only threatens ukrainian security, it threatens european security. >> joining me now is jake sullivan. thank you very much for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> it's great to have you here. i want to ask you about china, some other questions about china. president xi made a commitment in february to president biden when they met in san francisco that there would be not chinese interference in our election. blinken confirmed they are looking into it. the fbi director told lester holt that there has been interference by china and attempts to interfere in our

election. what can we do if a commitment is being ignored? >> first, as you know, we have been transparent with the american people about this concern. in fact, we put out an authorized report a few months ago that laid out in detail our concerns about interference by the prc in american democracy and politics. as secretary blinken and director wray said, we have concerned about that. i have to be careful, because much of this is based onion going intelligence assessments that have not been declassified. it's something we are engaged with at the highest levels. if we determine we need to take action, we will take action. >> are they denying it? >> i will let them characterize for their side. i don't want to get into details of private diplomatic discussions. this is something that president biden has made clear going back years that he is going to stand up on behalf of american democracy and he is going to stand up to any country, whether

it's china or russia or iran to others who try to interfere. >> i want to ask you about ukraine. with finally getting the weapons package done and getting the aid approved but months, months were delayed while it all sat in the house. president zelenskyy said that they lost so much ground. he said that in february when i was in munich covering the munich conference. he said it last week on "meet the press." they lost so much ground that they could lose the war. will this aid get there? will these weapons get to the front lines soon enough? they were being outgunned ten to one in some instances by the artillery. now long-range missiles are getting there. they can try to reach the russian batteries. will it get there in time to stop and push back the russian advances? >> andrea, the minute after -- literally, the minute after the president signed the

supplemental, he pulled out another document and it was a billion dollar drawdown package with artillery, with ammunition, air defense. he signed those. those are moving into ukraine. they were moving within hours of the signing of the bill. yes, we will get capabilities to the front lines to help those brave ukrainian defenders be able to hold the line against the continued russian onslaught. i've said this that ukraine ended up in a deep hole because of the delay in the aid over six months that congress worked this but didn't pass it. it's going to take time to dig out of that hole. in the days ahead, ukraine will continue to be under pressure. as time goes on, we believe ukraine's strategic position is strong. we believe the support for ukraine in the united states and europe is strong. we believe ultimately ukraine can win this war. >> they say they need air

defenses desperately. they want patriots. the prime minister was sitting there last week telling me that. i checked with our officials in the military. they say, there's a shortage of patriots. germany sent more patriots to ukraine than the u.s. has. can we get them more? >> first of all, if you think about the role the u.s. plays, it's not just what we send. it's what we work with other countries to send. secretary austin runs a monthly meeting of the defense ministers of 50 countries, almost like a quarterback calling the plays to get air defense intercepters into ukraine. we are doing a lot of the supplying of the actual missiles that go into that battery that gets fired. the u.s. patriot systems are deployed around the world, including in the middle east, to protect u.s. troops. if we can unlock further american patriot batteries, we would send them. in the meantime, what we're

going to do is work with european partners to get them to provide air defense capability to ukraine. we will do everything we can to protect its skies from the missiles that are raining down on the cities of ukraine, whether they be russian missiles or north korean missiles. >> north korea and iran rearming russia. china supporting russia with money, with all kinds of material, not crossing the red line supposedly. can ukrainen win this war? >> i just said it and i will say it again, they can. they can. there are three reasons for why. first, because of the bravery and capacity of the ukrainians themselves. they have been underestimated and they have overperformed. second, because of the support of the united states and allies and partners, a mobilization of effort to get the advanced weapons and advanced capabilities to ukraine so that they have the tools to fight,

and then third, because our defense industrial base is ramping up. we have doubled artillery production in the united states. we will double it again by the end of the year. vladimir putin thinks time is on his side. he can wait us out. this proves him wrong. the advanced in our capacity prove him wrong. ukraine has the will to win this war and we have the will to support them. >> let me ask you about israel. hamas has made another offer conveyed by egypt to get the hostages out. not offering as many as the 40 that were originally on the table. there have been reports 33 were being offered. they said they don't have 40. they are demanding a palestinian state. is there a way to break the deadlock and get relief to the families? the president saw the 4-year-old girl. it's a heartbreaking situation. >> it's heartbreaking. i have met on a very regular

basis with the families of the hostages. i try to see them every time they are in town. i try to be straight with them. when i think things are difficult, i tell them that. when i think there's new possibilities opening, i tell them that. >> what are you telling them now? >> a week ago, i would have said i felt we were in a deadlock. not that it's hopeless, but we were at an impasse. today, i believe there's a renewed effort involving qatar and egypt as well as israel to find a way. can i guarantee that will happen? i cannot. do i think there's new momentum, new life in the hostage talks? i believe there is. it's our job to try to take that new life, push it forward and get to an end game where every one of the hostages, including the american hostages, is home safe with their family. >> we, of course, saw our interview with rachel and her husband after the video was

released. missing part of his arm and hand. heartbreaking, terrifying. you have had -- the u.s. has had that video for a number of days. what have you learned from it? what can we surmise about anything about his condition and about other hostages from analysis? >> i would start by saying that i have dealt with a lot of hostage families in my time as national security advisor. hostages being held in many countries. i have never seen two people like these parents, what they put into this, their heart, soul, brains, their entire being. i can't imagine what they're going through seeing that video. it's true that we received a copy of the video at the beginning of this week. we immediately turned it over to the fbi hostage recovery fusion cell. those are the experts who can examine the videos to learn about his health, to see if there's any indication of his whereabouts. any other information we can glean. they are in the middle of doing that.

that takes time. whatever we learn from it, we will put to use to get him home. >> tragically, an infant died. we reported -- my colleague raf sanchez -- it's not even a birth. they saved a baby from a mother killed in an air strike, a pregnant mother. she was premature. she lived for a little while. she was named and that child died today. the medical facilities in gaza are destroyed. people are suffering needlessly. have you gotten any indication from israel that they have given you a plan to shelter the 1.4 million people in rafah? israel says they're still going in. >> first, too many innocent people have died in gaza. the president has made that clear. he feels that deeply. women, children, innocent people whose lives matter, whose lives need to be valued, including the young infant who died today. second, we have made clear that

our policy in gaza will be determined by the steps israel takes, with respect to facilitating humanitarian assistance that can save lives and with respect to civilian protection as it conducts its operations. we have made clear our absolute deep and fundamental concern about a major military operation in rafah, because we believe first, it's where the aid is coming in. if you cut that aid off, it makes it more difficult to feed and house people. second, as you said, it's where more than a million people are sheltering because they have been progressively moved there as israel has continued its campaign. it's not clear to us that there can be a credible plan for where they go to have shelter, medicine, all the things they need. we express our concerns publically and privately. i have dealt with them on this issue. we will continue to do that. i don't want to get into details of sensitive diplomatic conversations. the u.s. position remains clear.

israel understands where we are coming from. >> do you think israel is listening? >> ultimately, it will come down to decisions taken by israeli leaders what they choose to do. i can't speak to that. i can't characterize their current -- >> would they be -- if they go in without assure -- >> the president said that our policy in gaza is dictated by israel's conduct in gaza. i won't go beyond that on set today. i think israel understands what's at stake here with respect to the decisions that lie ahead. >> in the u.s., the protests across campuses, to some people it reminds folks about 1968 and everything that happened in that election year. what can you say about this? you have experience on a campus. had you an academic life before and after public service. what do people not understand

about the complexities of the issues? how can america adjust to this? what is the president prepared to do? >> i think -- i saw the clip of secretary blinken speaking in china when he was asked a question there in a country where you are not allowed to protest, what do you think about the protests in the united states? of course, his answer was it shows the strength of american democracy. young people out indicating how they feel about this. there are strong views on this issue, strong feelings and strong policy views. that's all to the good. what is not all to the good is the hateful rhetoric, the anti-semitism we have seen, that should be condemned, that has been condemned by our president and everyone in our administration. at the same time, we have to continue to protect and defend the right of people to peacefully protest and make their voices heard. president biden made clear he understands the depth of feeling on this in. he himself feels deeply on this issue. we are going to continue to make

our decisions based on what he believes is in the best interests of the american people and is most consistent with american values. that's what's guiding him today and it will guide him always through the remainder of this conflict. >> jake sullivan, thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. expert analysis. we will bring in our legal experts to break down the latest developments from the trump hush money trial. that's next when "andrea mitchell reports" is back after this quick break. eports" is bac this quick break so am i. because i'm at risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. come on. i already got a pneumonia vaccine, but i'm asking about the added protection of prevnar 20®. if you're 19 or older with certain chronic conditions like asthma, diabetes, copd, or heart disease, or are 65 or older, you are at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. prevnar 20® is approved in adults to help prevent infections from 20 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. in just one dose. don't get prevnar 20® if you've had

a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, fatigue, headache, and joint pain. i want to be able to keep my plans. i don't want to risk ending up in the hospital with pneumococcal pneumonia. that's why i chose prevnar 20®. ask your doctor or pharmacist about the pfizer vaccine for pneumococcal pneumonia. choosing a treatment for your chronic migraine - ask your doctor or pharmacist about the pfizer vaccine 15 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®. my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. you know, i spend a lot of time thinking about dirt. at three in the morning. any time of the day. what people don't know is that not all dirt is the same. you need dirt with the right 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] (woman) ugh, of course it stops loading at the best part. (tony hale) you need verizon. get their crazy powerful network out here, i'm proud of it! and get six months of disney bundle on them! (vo) stream with six months of disney bundle on us. and watch it all on the new samsung galaxy s24+, also on us. only on verizon. when i was your age, we never had anything like this. what? wifi? wifi that works all over the house,

even the basement. the basement. so i can finally throw that party... and invite shannon barnes. dream do come true. xfinity gives you reliable wifi with wall-to-wall coverage on all your devices, even when everyone is online. maybe we'll even get married one day. i wonder what i will be doing? probably still living here with mom and dad. fast reliable speeds right where you need them. that's wall-to-wall wifi with xfinity.

prosecutors will get a chance to clarify david pecker's testimony. back with us is nbc's vaughn hillyard, who is outside the court. joining us, former u.s. attorney joyce vance. and former manhattan assistant district attorney catherine christian. vaughn, said the stage. a lot of sidebars in the past hour. fill in the gaps. what line of questioning do you think the state is objecting to? >> reporter: right. over the course of the last hours, the defense team for donald trump is not explicitly saying to the jury, don't trust michael cohen, he lacks credibility. but they have brought up multiple instances with david pecker in their cross-examination that would lead the jury to question michael cohen and the extent he

make exaggerate or take statements out of context. pecker's testimony was that michael cohen asked him to send paparazzi to a meeting he was going to have with mark cuban to essentially make donald trump jealous. a second example was in 2018, when the federal election commission sent a letter to david pecker about the alleged financial scheme, an arrangement they had pertaining to karen mcdougal and other efforts to suppress stories ahead of the 2016 election. david pecker testified just a moment ago when he called michael cohen about this fec letter, that michael cohen said in response, quote, jeff sessions is the attorney general and trump has him in his pocket. in that david pecker is saying, let him to question whether michael cohen was somebody who would exaggerate statements, because he knew that donald trump didn't have jeff sessions

in his pocket. all of this is an effort here apparently by the defense team for donald trump in front of the jury here to question michael cohen's credibility and the statements who is the key witness before they get to the point that michael cohen's credibility is something they should question. >> are prosecutors trying to establish the payments had a campaign connection? isn't that essential to the -- >> if they can't, there you go. that's going to be the end of the case. i'm not in the courtroom, but i'm reading the -- what we call the google doc. the defense attorney is doing an excellent cross-examination. his job as to this cross is to create reasonable doubt. he is trying to do that. he is simultaneously, as vaughn said, trying to impeach the

credibility of michael cohen who will be following. the prosecution has this witness as the lead-off witness to corroborate michael cohen. the defense is using him to say, you know, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, members of the jury, when michael cohen comes up, even their main witness mr. pecker said you can't trust what he is saying. the prosecution will do redirect, which the purpose is to rehabilitate the witness. then the defense is given the opportunity to do re-cross-examination, if they choose. >> the redirect started, correct? if you can fill in any gaps there. >> reporter: right. the redirect is underway now. meaning that the cross-examination by donald trump's defense attorney is concluded. over the course of the last three hours plus an hour yesterday, you are totaling four hours of cross-examination of david pecker. to catherine's point, the last hour is largely spent on

focusing on the non-prosecution agreement that david pecker struck with federal investigators back in 2018. in some of what was stated in the agreement, over the extent what he had admitted to. the defense team for donald trump was using this hour to try to put into the minds of the jurors questions over what david pecker, from the federal investigation, the federal admission of facts, had actually agreed to. now this is an opportunity for the prosecution to go back to david pecker and question him on the follow-up to the cross-examination here. we are looking at the potential, with a lunch break in a half an hour, of potentially an additional witness coming up before the week's end. >> a long day coming up. joyce, jump in here. let's talk about the role of david pecker.

his credibility, once it's evaluated by the jurors -- he was the first witness and the feature witness of the trial so far -- is to take some of the burden to of michael cohen, who is obviously -- has damage connected to him being convicted and having admitted to perjury in the past and served time for that. >> right. that's baked into the calculation with michael cohen. he is a difficult witness. the government can't hug him too hard. he was donald trump's pick not prosecutor's pick. we are seeing this process that defense lawyer goes through in cross-examination. as vaughn said, they can't argue the evidence when they are cross-examining the witness. they are collecting coins that they hope will turn out to be valuable in closing argument when they can go back and argue to the jury. you can't really believe these people, they are not credible. >> the other thing, catherine, is this gag order hearing.

judge merchan set it for next thursday. that's another week before dealing with the gag order. why do you think he is taking so long? was he trying to collect more evidence? >> it's inexplicable. one could say he is being passive aggressive. the reason why i say it's inexplicable, you are then allowing -- we're going into a weekend. donald trump to intimidate witnesses, intimidate jurors. he has -- the gag order is supposed to stop him. if the judge had sanctioned him in some way or even admonished him, maybe that would stop him. i can't explain why judge merchan has not made a decision yet. >> joyce, we were talking yesterday -- i wanted to ask you to explain the potential impact on judge merchan's decisions on what kind of evidence

prejudicial evidence, negative evidence from the prosecution to permit in. he may let other things in the past, to bring into this trial after some would say -- non-lawyers like myself would say, it was shocking reversal of the harvey weinstein conviction by the new york state supreme court. it's the same courthouse, same supreme court. was he cautioned by the excessive prejudicial evidence the supreme court said was permitted in in the weinstein case? >> it's an interesting convergence of legal events. in the weinstein case, the court of appeals said what you can't do is bring in, in that case, testimony from other women who were victims, alleged victims. but against whom weinstein was not charged.

it was an abuse to let that in. it's a good flag for judge merchan not to run too far afield. trial judges are permitted to use their discretion to admit evidence. if they go too far, they do risk this reversal. it's a warning to all of the parties in this case to tread lightly. >> one of the questions on redirect, catherine, that's just been asking is, is it true, mr. pecker, that your purpose in lob -- locking up the karen mcdougal story is to influence the election? that's trying to bring it back to the connection to the elections since during cross-examination he was certainly acknowledging he had a longstanding relationship with the tabloid and that there were years and years before the campaign when they were both promoting trump's interests and

covering up embarrassing stories. >> the prosecution has to do everything that he can to bring it back to -- it makes this case a felony, that donald trump conspired to promote his election by unlawful means. if they allow the defense to create reasonable doubt in that one juror, this was business as usual, this is what donald trump did with pecker, even before the election, this is what they do, where is the illegalness in this? the prosecution -- this is the first witness. we have a long way to go. in their summation, the prosecutors have to connect all the dots and explain to this jury why they have proven that donald trump concealed a crime

when he falsified the business records. if they don't prove that, it's an acquittal. two might say he is not guilty. then it's a hung jury. >> this is all happening in the context of a presidential campaign. joining us now, ashley parker, senior national political correspondent at "the washington post" and peter baker, chief white house"the new york time." how are people responding to the trial, or republican base voters? >> these cases against him, any legal action against him has always proven a fund-raising boon and a political boon. the way former president trump has framed this is, in addition to saying it's a witch hunt,

there's nothing there, he framed this is that he is the martyr and taking the slings and arrows on behalf of his flock, on behalf of his base. if they can do this to me, a former sitting president, they can do this to you. i am doing this for you to protect you. this while maybe not an effective campaign strategy necessarily for a broader swath of the americans, is effective in fund-raising appeals and it's effective for that diehard base. to win the election, he will have to hold that base and also go beyond that base. >> peter, president biden just made news sitting down, of all things, for an interview with howard stern. he said he will debate donald trump. he had not made that commitment before. he didn't make that news on nbc news or "the new york times." there's the political report

that he has a strategy of not doing an interview with "the new york times," which obviously is a premiere newspaper along with the "washington post" covering the white house. what is the strategy here of going on howard stern? >> he hasn't done an interview with "the wall street journal" or "new york times" or any other newspapers that traditionally presidents have spoken to. this president traditionally used to speak to newspapers back when he was a vice president and senator, but that's not the choice right now. that's their decision. we think it's important to give interviews to traditional journalists. they have chosen to emphasize opportunities like this with howard stern or celebrity interviewers or others they believe in their view will present biden in a fairer and more positive way. that's their choice. they use them to make news like this today where he says he is going to debate donald trump. that's an important development,

because he hasn't committed to that before. there's a lot of people who wonder what that debate will be like. in some ways, the 2020 debate, the first was critical. donald trump turns off a lot of voters by being hyperaggressive, not allowing then former vice president biden on stage to talk. then, of course, we learned that he may have had covid at the time of the debate. a debate can be a pivotal thing. if they are on stage together this fall, that could be an important moment. >> ashley, why do you think they're trying to protect him so much from doing interviews with the mainstream newspapers and big network news organizations? >> again, as peter said, that's their prerogative to choose where he gives his time and where he gives interviews. it's worth noting a president -- it's not unique to president biden -- sitting down with a publication with a major tv

network with a correspondent or reporter who has covered this white house, covered previous white houses, maybe has a policy expertise, can do a very rigorous interview, really pressing the president on policy, on contradictions, on tough and controversial issues he may not want to talk about. if you want to make sure that things are safe, it's a much safer decision to go to an outlet or a venue or medium you think will be more friendly to your guy. i would note it does create a big vacuum. there are a lot of people who get their news from these mainstream organizations. the white house believes there are a number of people who are turning to podcasts and tiktok influencers. there's more effective ways to get the message out. >> is the white house frustrated that there's so much focus on

donald trump's trial, whether it's positive or negative? that's crowding out coverage that would be paid to his campaigning, president biden's campaigning and some of the policy initiatives he is announcing. >> certainly, they would like more attention to the achievements they believe the president has not got enough credit for, including the infrastructure package. his efforts to combat climate change and reduce the price of insulin. it's hard to argue that the coverage of the trial is a good thing for donald trump. obviously, it may not hurt him with his base, as ashley was talking about. at the same time, who wants the kind of coverage you are getting on the other side where we are talking about a sexual affair outside of marriage and an effort to cheat an election and whether you will go to prison, that's not the coverage most

campaigns seek. it's a reality of this year. because of this president's 91, i think, felony indictment count, his legal issues are, in fact, a dominant part of the conversation and will continue to be. trump sucking the oxygen out of the air is on display. >> thanks for pointing that out. ashley, thank you. peter and to joyce and catherine, thanks to you. the constitutional concerns that were raised at the supreme court. next, a professor joining the conversation as an historic week plays out for former president trump. you are watching "andrea mitchell reports." this is msnbc. reports." this is msnbc.

what if you could go from this to this. with just one step tresemmé silk serum. time for the ultimate humidity test. weightlessly smooth hair your turn. new tresemmé keratin smooth collection. bladder leak underwear has one job. i just want to feel protected! especially for those sudden gush moments. always discreet protects like no other. with a rapid dry core that locks in your heaviest gush quickly for up to zero leaks. always discreet- the protection we deserve! your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's disease... put it in check with rinvoq... a once—daily pill. when symptoms tried to take control, i got rapid relief... and reduced fatigue with rinvoq. check.

when flares kept trying to slow me down... i got lasting steroid—free remission... with rinvoq. check. and when my doctor saw damage,... rinvoq helped visibly reduce damage of the intestinal lining. check. for both uc and crohn's: rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid—free remission... and visibly reduced damage. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin; heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death. serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc and crohn's in check... and keep them there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save.

ethan! how's my favorite client? great! i started using schwab investing themes, so now i can easily invest in trends... like wearable tech. trends? all that research. sounds exhausting!

nope. schwab's technology does the work. so if i spot an opportunity, in robotics or pets, i can buy those stocks ina few clicks. can't be that easy. it is with schwab! schwaaab! schwab investing themes. 40 customizable themes. up to 25 stocks in justa few clicks.

we are following developments from the new york courtroom where david pecker is still on the stand for redirect by the prosecution in trump's hush money trial. vaughn hillyard outside the courthouse. what is the latest from the courtroom? >> reporter: during the four hours of cross-examination by donald trump's attorney, they were coming back to, over the last hour, the non-prosecution agreement that was signed by david pecker and ami with

federal investigators several years ago as well as an fec conciliation agreement. the emphasis on both of those were questions around what david pecker was actually admitting to. as part of david pecker's testimony under cross-examination, the defense team for donald trump was making the case that the karen mcdougal agreement was signed and the payment was made to her for that $150,000 so that she would be able to elevate her career and appear in other american media publications. the most concern was not trying to suppress her relationship with donald trump. they pointed out the fact that david pecker had had conversations with legal counsel about this. on redirect, the prosecution is now having the opportunity to ask david pecker about those conversations again. the attorney for the district attorney's office is emphasizing two key points here.

number one, the acknowledgement that in that non-prosecution agreement that david pecker made with federal investigators that he admitted that ami admitted that making the agreement with mcdougal was to influence the 2016 election. is that true mr. pecker that your purpose in locking up the mcdougal story to influence the election was the 2016 election? david pecker responses. yes. was that the reason you gave to your general counsel? david pecker responded, no. the other issue is the fec agreement. when you look at this, it was acknowledged by david pecker that in this conciliation agreement it was acknowledged by american media incorporated that an election violation was made. this is where the prosecution is in front of the jury heavily emphasizing that, yes, there could be all of these questions

around the 2018 back and forth between david pecker, american media and federal prosecutors. ultimately, through that agreement with federal investigators and in this fec agreement, that both the foremost reason that the karen mcdougal agreement was made over the election and that an fec affiliation agreement, there's an acknowledge an illegal in-kind contribution was made. this is a chance for the prosecution to drive this home before the jury and try to make david pecker that ultimate crucial witness that they need him to be. >> do it before the lunch break so it stays with them for a while. vaughn hillyard, thank you. joining me now, i'm glad we have a new guest, professor lawrence tribe who taught constitutional law at harvard for five decades. >> good to be with you. >> especially with this trial

going on and with the supreme court argument. let's look at the big picture. how significant do you think the case is right now before i ask you now about the supreme court? >> it's really a pair of cases. the case that's going on now is very significant, because it's not just about hush money. it's about a plot to become president of the united states by influencing people to hide information and committing crimes in order to hide information that donald trump thought might prevent him from winning the election. now we have bookends. the supreme court argument is about steps that donald trump took while president after losing the election to joe biden to remain in power. the two cases go together. the case that the supreme court

is considering is one in which it's extremely important that there be a trial with a verdict one way or the other before the american people decide whether donald trump should become president again. what we heard in the supreme court yesterday makes it almost certain that there won't be such a trial. the court has gone along with the trump strategy of delay, delay, delay. that's shameful. the court is not performing its function of protecting democracy and the american people. >> do you believe that the court should have been more open to the prosecution's original argument that there is no sweeping immunity? because they certainly came down on a number -- a number of justices came down on the side of -- including some of the liberals, that there should be limited immuity for official

versus a personal act, and in likely remanding that to the lower court, to the district court, this could take months to decide what's official, what's personal, more hearings, more appeals. >> it's the wrong question. that's really the irony. the special counsel in pages 46 to 47 of its brief listed a number of obviously private acts, acts that involve the president -- the former president's dealings with rudy giuliani and others to get fake electors and so on. they round out the picture. justice barrett in particular made clear her questioning of john sauer, counsel for donald trump, that there's nothing in the constitution that prevents prosecuting the president for those private acts, but when it comes to the pressure he put on the vice president and his

communications to congress, there seems to be a view on the part of four justices -- we don't know if it's five -- but there seems to be a view on the part of four justices that that information either can only be used as evidence to round out the picture or can't be used at all, and as mr. dreeben who represented the special counsel made clear, that turns the constitution upside down. what made donald trump's actions at the end of his presidency so dangerous that and indeed the most serious of possible crimes against the constitution is that he was using the powers of the presidency, his power to lean on congress and other powers in order to violate the constitution's provisions for ending the term when you lose the election. it's the hallmark of emperor's

and dictators and kings and monarchs that they don't have to listen to the people when the people have told them to go. and the core of the crimes that were charged in the case that the supreme court is slow walking, the core was that donald trump was using the powers of the presidency to defraud the american people of their right to vote him out and to defraud the united states and to obstruct the core process by which power passes from one president to the next. and to see the united states supreme court with nothing in the constitution and no precedent to support it, searching for a way not to hold the former president accountable

for that in the criminal process is itself quite a crime. remember when mcconnell at the very end of the second impeachment effort against donald trump, remember when he said, well, we didn't succeed here in convicting him, and mcconnell himself voted to acquit him because by the time that trial in the senate occurred, he was no longer president, but they then said he will have to answer for all these crimes in the ordinary system of justice, and now the u.s. supreme court looks like it may have a majority who say that the ordinary system of justice will never hold him accountable, and that he is indeed above the law. that's tragic and it endangers the very fabric of our country. >> and does it hurt the

reputation of the supreme court a second time in our generations at least since, you know, 2000, stepping into the middle of a presidential election in a decisive way potentially? >> that put it is mildly, andrea. in 2000 representing al gore and the supreme court, i obviously didn't think the court did the right thing. it at least was understanding what it was doing there. it was resolving a live dispute over the electoral votes of florida, and it was deciding that the florida supreme court really had messed up in the way it was recounting the votes. in this case the supreme court injected itself unnecessarily essentially in order to go along with the efforts of donald trump not ever to be tried. because if he wins the next election, you can be absolutely sure that he'll pick an attorney

general who will do his bidding, dismiss these charges. and so this is way worse and i think will hurt the supreme court even more than bush v. gore, and that's terrible because we need a supreme court that can help hold people accountable under the law. so we really are in a terrible situation in which all that can be done is for the voters to decide en masse that we have to stop this devastation of our system of laws and justice by voting against donald trump and by voting in a democratic congress, and joe biden, even if you don't agree with his policies, at least he doesn't plan to be a dictator. >> professor laurence tribe, thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you, andrea. and joyce vance is still

with me, a professor in her own right. what do you think? >> so, you know, i think the supreme court argument that we heard yesterday morning, there was good reason to be disturbed by it, as professor tribe points out, but the reality is that the argument is not the final decision. we'll wait on that and the question is how long will we wait for it. will this court act quickly, or will it wait for the end of the term and as professor tribe says give donald trump his delay game. >> they wait until the end of the term, that's june, july, arguably the first week of july most likely. by the time they get to the district court and hearings before judge chutkan, she said she needs 81 days. she doesn't need all of that time. i know you were suggesting yesterday as was andrew weissmann that she could hold hearings that would be expository, that would put all of this evidence out in frochbt front of the public, but that's not the same as a conviction.

>> it depends on the form the supreme court takes and what they direct her to do next. if they tell her to decide what of the conduct in the indictment is official and what's private, she may well hold hearings. it could serve to get evidence in front of the american people. >> as far as this trial is progressing, we talked yesterday about how it's moving quickly, so david pecker will probably wrap up maybe even before the lunch break, and then they move on to the next witnesses. we don't know exactly who. could be hope hicks. could continue on this thread as to what was happening, you know, to set up more reliable evidence, if you will, before they have to deal with michael cohen. >> hope hicks is such an interesting witness here. we know she was in and out of this meeting that david pecker has testified to. we don't know if she's just confirm the details that it took place, or if she overheard anything or perhaps talked with donald trump afterwards. it could be very interesting and

important testimony for the prosecution. >> she was there on the scene. she could be the cassidy hutchinson of this in terms of someone who was an aide and a smart woman and listening to everything, an eye witness. >> she has always stayed close to donald trump, and one thing you learn as a prosecutor is not to expect people to change their stripes, but sometimes people do, either because they believe that they personally face some risk if they don't cooperate with prosecutors or because they've had a change of heart and have decided to do the right thing in the clutch. we don't really know what to expect from her, andrea. >> and in court right now, steinglass is still redirecting to david pecker in that meeting, did you ever specifically use the term catch and kill? and he's saying, no, i did not. it was my understanding i would be the source of any information coming out on mr. trump or his campaign related specifically to women selling those stories similar to what i experienced

with arnold. speaking of schwarzenegger, 13 years ago and those if other stories come up. i will speak to michael cohen and tell him that they will be for sale, and if you don't buy them someone else will. this was basically transaction. >> it was. and it doesn't matter what label it bears because what pecker has just done is he has described how catch and kill works. >> and this is a side of journalism that a lot of us are not very familiar with. we see the headlines and a lot of us discount it because so much of it is fake and you sort of know that going in,reach of know, headlines, i mean, they're in every store as people were buying their food. people don't read the stories so much as see the covers. >> it's an incredibly important vehicle for information, right? i remember this one great headline from when i was in law school at the counter that said one third of all american pets are space aliens, and of course you know that's made up, but as you read the headlines for

politicians, for some people that's a primary source of news. they're sort of a captive audience in the checkout line. >> joyce vance, it's great to have you here in person. thank you so much. thanks to all of our teams covering the court case. it is very complicated and of course our teams, our producers in new york and here in washington and around the world actually on all of the foreign policy we've been covering. that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." follow the show on social media @mitchellreports. go to msnbc.com/andrea. "chris jansing reports" starts right now. good day, i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. trying to catch the witness in a mistake. you'd never know it was the end of a long week at donald trump's hush money trial. the defense lawyer described as sharp, combative, try