0:00

Rev up your thrills this summer

0:02

at Cedar Point on the all

0:04

new top! Thrilled to drive this

0:06

guy on the world's tallest and

0:08

fastest Tribble Launch Vertical Speedway and

0:10

it's your last chance to get

0:12

more fun for less with our

0:14

limited time bundle for just Forty

0:17

nine Ninety nine get admission, parking

0:19

and all day drinks for one

0:21

Low price but you better hurry

0:23

because this limited time bundle ends

0:25

June Thirtieth saved Now at Cedar

0:27

Point. Dot Com. The

0:31

ex-president of the United States. Two

0:33

American courtrooms facing criminal trial in one.

0:36

I'm going to go in now and

0:38

sit in front of a case. And

0:40

making a desperate case to avoid justice in the

0:42

other. We will hear argument this morning

0:44

in case 23-9-39, Trump vs. United States. Tonight,

0:49

new testimony of the alleged criminal

0:51

conspiracy to help elect Donald Trump.

0:54

Trump turned to the business at hand

0:57

and asked David Pecker, how's our

0:59

girl? As his argument for

1:01

absolute immunity finally goes before

1:03

the Supreme Court. This court

1:05

has never recognized absolute criminal

1:08

immunity for any public official. Petitioner turned

1:10

to a private attorney, was willing to

1:12

spread knowingly false claims of election fraud

1:15

to spearhead his challenges to the election

1:17

results. Private? What was up

1:19

with the pardon for President Nixon? If

1:21

everybody thought that presidents couldn't be prosecuted,

1:23

then what was that about? If it

1:25

fails completely, it's because we've destroyed our

1:28

democracy on our own, isn't it? Tonight,

1:31

Rachel Maddow, Nicole Wallace, Joy

1:33

Reid, Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnell,

1:35

Alex Wagner, Ari Melber, Katie

1:38

Fang, and Lisa Rubin. All

1:41

here as MSNBC's special

1:43

coverage of Trump on

1:45

Trial begins now. Who

1:52

has the time? Who

1:54

has the time? You're telling me

1:56

that simultaneously we've got nearly three

1:58

hours of oral argument. at the

2:00

United States Supreme Court about the former

2:02

president claiming he's totally immune from prosecution

2:05

for any crime he did while he

2:07

was president. And at the

2:09

exact same time, he's

2:12

being criminally prosecuted in a New York

2:14

courtroom where the first star witness against

2:16

him just had his first full day

2:18

of testimony. Who has the

2:21

time? Literally, there isn't time to pay

2:23

attention to all of this, let

2:26

alone everything else that's happening too. Because

2:29

of that, we're here to help.

2:31

I'm Rachel Maddow. I'm here at MSNBC headquarters

2:33

here with my colleagues, Nicole Wallace and Chris

2:35

Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell and Ari Melber and

2:38

Katie Fang. Katie

2:40

was at the arguments today at the United

2:42

States Supreme Court. Thank you for hustling back here to be

2:44

with us and talk about it. We

2:47

know you at home are a real person with a real life and that

2:49

you may not have been able to follow today's proceedings in real time this

2:52

morning and this afternoon. Heck, it's our jobs to

2:55

cover these things and it was hard

2:57

for all of us to cover all of this all

2:59

at once. We did know what was coming though. We

3:01

prepped for it. We delegated. We

3:04

listened to things at one and a half speed. We

3:06

skipped lunch and dinner, but we've got it for you and

3:08

for us. This

3:11

is our prime time recap of today's events. Now,

3:14

there's a lot to get to. So we're gonna jump right in and

3:16

we're gonna start tonight with the Supreme Court. Former

3:20

President Donald Trump claiming that he is immune from

3:23

prosecution from all

3:26

and any crimes he committed while

3:28

serving as president. It is a

3:30

claim so audacious. It

3:32

was widely perceived to be a

3:35

shocking Hail Mary when his defense

3:37

first proposed it. The

3:39

federal court that first heard

3:41

this claim just overhand smashed

3:44

it, ruling against

3:46

him comprehensively in words that

3:48

were designed to be set to music

3:50

basically. Quote, this court cannot conclude

3:53

that our constitution cloaks former presidents

3:55

with absolute immunity for any federal

3:57

crimes they committed while in office.

3:59

Nothing. Nothing in the Constitution's text

4:01

or allocation of government powers

4:03

requires exempting former presidents

4:06

from our nation's historic commitment to

4:08

the rule of law, and neither

4:10

the people who adopted the Constitution

4:13

nor those who have safeguarded it

4:15

across generations have ever understood

4:17

it to do so. Defendants'

4:20

four-year service as commander-in-chief did not

4:22

bestow on him the divine right

4:24

of kings to evade the criminal

4:26

accountability that governs his fellow citizens.

4:28

No man in this country, not

4:30

even the former president, is so

4:32

high that he is above the law.

4:36

That was the ruling by the first

4:39

federal judge, Judge Tanya Chetkin, who considered

4:41

this audacious claim that as

4:43

a president he was immune from any

4:45

crimes he committed while he was serving

4:47

in the presidency. When Trump

4:49

appealed that ruling, the

4:52

appeals proceedings also went very poorly for

4:54

him. The appeals court proceedings made headlines

4:56

across the country after one of the

4:59

three appellate judges who heard the appeal

5:01

asked Trump's lawyer in court

5:03

a shocking hypothetical about whether

5:06

he could order the assassination

5:08

of a political rival and

5:10

really not be charged for

5:12

it. Trump's

5:14

counsel said, indeed, that was

5:16

their position. So

5:20

all the federal judges who reviewed Trump's

5:22

audacious immunity claim, all of them, have

5:24

seemed not just disinclined to go along

5:26

with it, they have seemed shocked by

5:29

it. And their

5:31

clarion decisions, again at the trial court

5:33

level and at the appellate level, their

5:35

clarion decisions against them on this immunity

5:37

question really seemed like they would be

5:39

the last word. But

5:42

with this, Supreme Court never

5:44

say never. The United States

5:46

Supreme Court sat on this issue for

5:48

weeks and then finally

5:51

announced that they wanted to take this

5:53

case themselves. They announced they would

5:55

take it today, what is probably the

5:57

latest possible day on which they could

5:59

have scheduled. these arguments to

6:01

the extent that Trump's best defense

6:04

tactic is delay, the

6:06

Supreme Court has already been an

6:08

excellent accomplice in that defense. Even

6:13

with that backdrop, the arguments today

6:15

were legitimately, I think,

6:19

stunning. Trump's counsel

6:21

was grilled for about an hour. The

6:23

counsel for prosecutor Jack Smith and the

6:25

Justice Department was grilled for nearly twice

6:27

that amount of time, but

6:31

almost immediately at the start of

6:33

proceedings, under questioning from Justice Sonia

6:35

Sotomayor, we got

6:37

confirmation that the appeals court,

6:39

that crazy hypothetical about Trump being

6:42

able to assassinate his political enemies

6:44

and never be charged for it, we

6:47

got confirmation right at the start

6:49

that that was not a fluke.

6:51

President Trump in fact maintains and

6:53

his lawyers maintain that he really

6:55

is immune from prosecution specifically for

6:58

killing his political rivals. I'm

7:02

going to give you a chance to say if you stay

7:04

by it, if the

7:06

president decides that

7:08

his rival is a

7:12

corrupt person and

7:14

he orders the military or

7:17

orders someone to assassinate him,

7:20

is that within his official acts that for

7:22

which he can get immunity? It

7:24

would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see

7:26

that could well be an official. He could and

7:29

why. That could

7:31

be an official act, really. He might

7:33

officially, as part of his presidential

7:35

duties, want to kill his domestic

7:38

political rival. And if

7:40

it's an official act, Trump's lawyers say, well

7:42

he's immune from prosecution for that. So

7:45

in other words, yes, we think he should be able to do

7:47

that. Anything else you want to clarify

7:49

that he should be able to do?

7:51

It turns out quite a bit actually.

7:53

It's not just assassinating his individual domestic

7:55

political opponents. It's worse than that. Over

7:58

to you, Justice Kagan. Again, here

8:01

questioning Trump's counsel, John Sauer. If

8:05

a president sells nuclear secrets to

8:07

a foreign adversary, is that immune?

8:11

That sounds like, similar to the bribery example,

8:13

likely not immune. Now if it's structured as

8:15

an official act, you'd have to be impeached

8:17

and convicted first before. What does that mean

8:19

if it's structured as an official act? Well,

8:21

I don't know in the hypothetical whether or

8:23

not that would be an official act. You'd

8:25

probably have to have more details to apply

8:27

the blazing game analysis or even the Fitzgerald

8:29

analysis that we've been talking about. How

8:32

about if a president orders

8:34

the military to stage a coup? I

8:39

think that, as the Chief Justice pointed

8:41

out earlier, where there is a whole series of

8:46

guidelines against that, so to speak, like the UCMJ

8:48

prohibits the military from following a blatantly unlawful act.

8:50

Now if one adopts, for example, the Fitzgerald test

8:53

that we advance, that may well be an official

8:55

act and you would have to be, as I'll

8:57

say in response to that, a military with all

8:59

these kinds of hypotheticals, has to

9:01

be impeached and convicted before it can be criminally

9:03

prosecuted. But I emphasize to the court that... Well,

9:05

he's gone. Let's say this president

9:08

who ordered the military to stage a

9:10

coup, he's no longer president,

9:12

he wasn't impeached, he couldn't be impeached,

9:16

but he ordered the military to stage a coup,

9:18

and you're saying that's an official act? I

9:21

think it would depend on... That's immune. I think it

9:23

would depend on the circumstances when there was an official act.

9:25

If it were an official act, again, he would have to

9:27

be impeached. And what does that mean, it depends

9:29

on the circumstances. He was the president, he is

9:33

the commander in chief, he

9:36

talks to his generals all the time and he

9:38

told the generals, I don't feel like leaving office,

9:40

I want to stage a coup. Is

9:42

that immune? If it's an official

9:45

act, there needs to be impeachment and

9:47

conviction beforehand because the framers viewed the...

9:50

That kind of... If it's an official act, is it an

9:52

official act? If it's an official act,

9:54

it's impeached. Is it an official act? On

9:56

the way you described that hypothetical, it

9:58

could well be... I don't know yet again

10:01

if they fax specific contacts or specific

10:03

germinations. That answer sounds to me as though it's

10:05

like, yeah, under my test, it's an official act,

10:07

but that sure sounds bad, doesn't it? Well,

10:10

it certainly sounds very bad, and that's why

10:12

the framers have a whole series of

10:15

structural checks that have successfully for the last

10:17

234 years prevented that

10:21

very kind of extreme hypothetical. Has

10:24

that extreme hypothetical always been

10:26

prevented? But

10:29

yes, Your Honor, that certainly quote sounds

10:31

very bad. You can see where he's going

10:33

at the end of this though, right, when he calls

10:35

that an extreme hypothetical? This is an

10:37

important part, I believe, of how today's proceedings

10:39

went. Trump's lawyer and

10:42

most of the conservative justice today carried on

10:44

with these proceedings at the Supreme Court as

10:47

if it is just a wild

10:49

hypothetical, just a crazy pipe dream,

10:51

like a Martian scenario, that

10:54

a president might try a coup, might

10:56

try to use force to stay in power after

10:58

he was voted out. Yeah, who could ever imagine

11:01

something like that? Trump's lawyer

11:03

today called that unlikely. He

11:05

specifically called it, and I quote,

11:07

very, very unlikely as a scenario

11:10

today. That

11:12

is the wisdom of the framers. What they viewed

11:15

as the risk that needed to be guarded against

11:17

was not the notion that the president might escape

11:20

a criminal prosecution for something very,

11:22

very unlikely in these unlikely scenarios. They

11:25

viewed much more likely and much more

11:27

destructive to the republic, the risk of

11:29

factional strike discussed by George Washington. The

11:31

framers did not put an immunity clause

11:33

into the Constitution. They knew how to,

11:35

there were immunity clauses in some state

11:37

constitutions. They knew how to

11:39

give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity

11:41

to the president. And, you

11:43

know, not so surprising, they were reacting against

11:46

a monarch who claims to be above the

11:48

law. Wasn't the whole point that

11:51

the president was not a monarch? The

11:55

whole point of, you know, America.

11:58

Why we're a country? Elena

12:00

Kagan there with Trump counsel John

12:02

Sauer. Basically what

12:04

he's saying there is the idea of anyone

12:07

actually trying a coup to say

12:09

in power, president trying that, that's

12:11

crazy. That's crazy, that's so

12:13

extreme we don't have to worry about

12:16

a hypothetical like that. It's really partisan

12:18

strife, it's really conflict between political parties,

12:20

that's the biggest risk to the country,

12:23

not this crazy idea of a potential

12:25

coup. Justice Kagan there

12:27

responding by basically saying, yeah, okay,

12:29

also but maybe tyranny, maybe a

12:31

tyrant, unbound by law, running the

12:33

country with impunity, maybe that would be bad

12:35

for us too, maybe that's why we were actually

12:37

formed as

12:39

a constitutional republic. As

12:43

a general matter, it is folly

12:46

to extrapolate from oral arguments and

12:48

say that you know how the ruling will come down based

12:50

on the comments from the justices when

12:52

the case was heard. With that

12:54

caveat though, it seemed

12:56

clear today that the most

12:59

conservative justices were inclined

13:02

to side with Trump, not just

13:04

on a technicality, but possibly on

13:07

the substance. Justice

13:09

Clarence Thomas suggesting today that presidents

13:11

are always committing crimes.

13:14

Shout out to Operation Mungus

13:16

from Justice Clarence Thomas today. Justice

13:19

Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Samuel Alito

13:21

today describing prosecutors and judges and

13:24

even grand juries of citizens in

13:26

terms that would be right at home in

13:28

a Trump social media feed about how there isn't

13:30

really a rule of law in this country and

13:32

that what looks like our supposed legal system

13:34

is really just corrupt people who are out

13:36

to get Donald Trump. The

13:40

conservative justices today were absolutely

13:42

and consistently unwilling to discuss

13:44

Trump's alleged crimes as laid out in

13:46

the indictment that led to this case to

13:49

the point that it became almost a comedic,

13:52

gymnastic effort at

13:54

avoidance between Justice Alito

13:57

And the Lawyer for Special Counsel Jackson.

14:02

If the court has concerns about

14:04

the robustness of it, I would

14:06

suggest looking at the charges in

14:08

this case, their employ. I'm to

14:11

talk about this and in the

14:13

abstract: conspiracy to defraud the United

14:15

States with respect to one of

14:17

the most important functions namely the

14:20

certification of the next President fly

14:22

out on a dispute. That particular

14:24

application of of that says three

14:26

Seventy One Conspiracy to defraud the

14:28

United States are difficult to think

14:31

of. A more critical functions as

14:33

a certification and who won the election

14:35

your a much as I said, I'm

14:37

not discussing that particular facts of this

14:39

case. Stuff so pussy facts

14:41

stop the I. Do

14:44

Not tell me about the

14:46

things that whoever your client

14:48

is this. Are. The

14:50

things in the indictment of whoever your client

14:52

is that led to this case. Whatever it's

14:54

about. I want to be

14:56

purely in the abstract, as if the particular

14:59

facts of this case, the particular facts of

15:01

what Donald Trump Gates are actually just an

15:03

unimaginable extreme hypotheticals that I don't need to

15:05

engage with. The

15:09

not consensus but I think widely held.

15:11

View of today's proceedings at the

15:14

United States Supreme Court is that

15:16

the Conservatives on the court will

15:18

likely succeed in using this case

15:21

to further and fatally delay criminal

15:23

court proceedings against Donald Trump before

15:25

the election in November. Rather than

15:28

rejects his claims of immunity from

15:30

prosecution like all the Federal judges

15:32

who have considered this matter before

15:35

them have done, they instead will

15:37

carve out some newly specified class

15:39

of actions that are immune from

15:41

prosecution. If you're president and they

15:44

will invent a test for deciding what

15:46

counts as that kind of actions by

15:48

a president. And then they will

15:50

send Trump's. Indictment: Trump's federal January

15:52

Six case back through a whole

15:54

new cycle in the lower Federal

15:56

courts to run his attempted overthrow

15:58

For done, that's through the courts

16:00

newly invented legal tasks that they

16:02

are going to make for him.

16:04

In this case, Which.

16:07

Yes will take. Forever.

16:09

Because in the meantime, of course you will get a chance to

16:11

get back into the White House. In order to shut the whole

16:14

thing. And

16:16

in the meantime the American people be asked

16:18

to go and vote on whether he should

16:20

take that seat again in the White House

16:22

without knowing what Federal prosecutors have found and

16:24

believe is criminal about his conduct when he

16:26

tried to overthrow the government to stay in

16:29

office the last time. We

16:33

have more ahead on on that.

16:35

Thing. That I just described.on of why it

16:37

seems like the justices are gonna send this

16:39

case back to the lower lower courts. How it

16:41

is This sort of showed their cards on

16:43

that today. But

16:46

before before we go too much further, let's just. Let's

16:48

talk about this with talk about how went prepare

16:50

for me. I saw I got a lot

16:52

I don't think we got. we got a

16:54

special and without analyst thousand started the top.

16:57

Well I mean, I found it. I just

16:59

sort of viscerally. I found it one of

17:01

those maybe a handful moments or last two

17:03

years of felt like genuine vertigo which almost

17:05

a physical sensation of white. And What?

17:08

Am I losing my mind here? Like what?

17:10

whoa whoa, what's going on? I was. So

17:12

there's something wrong. About this and I

17:14

was why did this sort of give this

17:16

sense of distress And I think the reason

17:18

is this Donald Trump's framing of this prosecution

17:20

is that what is his extraordinary about it

17:22

is the fact the prosecution. Where's

17:25

the lower courts and the rest of

17:27

us? I believe that's what's extraordinary or

17:29

the actions he took to warrant the

17:31

prosecution. What is unprecedented here are the

17:33

actions that issue, which is the first

17:35

attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer power

17:37

since the can inspire to Fort Sumter.

17:39

Not that an indictment was wrong, but

17:42

from the very first moments to conserve

17:44

and the court and in the framing

17:46

of the question adopted the notion that

17:48

what is new here and extraordinary nice

17:50

be justification. is the prosecution

17:52

itself and you doing what they

17:55

did was as you know said

17:57

quite well adopted the most cynical

18:00

sort of authoritarian

18:03

and relativistic view of

18:05

all this that Trump himself adopts. Which

18:08

is, well, any prosecutor can prosecute anyone for

18:10

anything. Anyone—and we

18:12

saw this in the Colorado case as

18:14

well. This assumption

18:16

that everyone below this court,

18:18

these austere gentlemen, with their

18:20

impeccable vision, everyone below them are political hacks. Well,

18:22

the Colorado Supreme Court, they just don't want Trump

18:25

on the ballot. And what if a red state

18:27

court gets him off the ballot? Then any prosecutor

18:29

can prosecute anyone. And what happens next? A Democrat

18:31

gets prosecuted by a Republican. And all these political

18:33

hacks everywhere, we are the only ones who see

18:36

clearly. We don't trust all this

18:38

other process happening beneath us, the district court, and

18:40

the appellate court, and the grand jury, and the

18:43

prosecutor, and the Department of Justice, and the attorney

18:45

general, and the duly elected president, who appointed him

18:47

in the Colorado Supreme Court. No, all of that,

18:49

no. We get to say, never

18:52

considering that they're the political hacks,

18:55

but the people who are actually engaging

18:57

in regular order here are all these

18:59

lower bodies that have produced this to

19:01

this situation. And in so doing, what

19:03

it felt like was almost a philosophical

19:05

endorsement of the worst aspects

19:07

of Trumpism, which is that this is

19:10

all just power politics by another name.

19:12

That none of this actually adheres to any

19:15

set of regularity or rules of law.

19:17

That the reason that this

19:19

hasn't happened before is because there's never

19:21

been as partisan a prosecutor as Jack

19:24

Smith, that that's what's unprecedented here, but

19:26

it's not because of what he did.

19:28

And so to walk into the third

19:30

branch of government and these people with

19:33

all this power, the creative minds who

19:35

brought you 12-year-old giving birth to her

19:37

rapist child, to listen to these folks

19:40

and find them in

19:43

the highest halls of power adopting the

19:45

most authoritarian and cynical vision of this

19:47

was a genuinely shocking experience. Lawrence O'Donnell,

19:49

I want to go to you next

19:51

and I will foreshadow what's about to

19:53

happen here. Katie

19:56

was in the courtroom and heard the arguments.

19:58

Ari is a lawyer. like Katie, we're going

20:00

to make you guys go last in back clean

20:03

up. But I'm feeling like I'm I have

20:05

as much anxiety about this as you do, Chris.

20:07

I want to go to you, Lawrence, because you

20:09

are the man who usually tells us about the

20:11

reaction. I would like you to throw cold water

20:13

on my feelings. No, I mean,

20:15

you know, so there's

20:17

no cause for alarm in any of

20:19

this. God bless you, my child, as

20:21

long as Joe Biden

20:24

is reelected. Because

20:26

if that was a given fact, if

20:28

he was running with, say, the 18

20:31

point lead in the polls that Bill

20:33

Clinton had at a certain point in

20:35

his reelection campaign, there would

20:37

be a lot less nervousness about this

20:39

because we would know eventually this process

20:42

will work. And if they send it

20:44

back to Judge Chuck and Judge Cutkin

20:46

can actually have an evidentiary hearing and

20:48

actually bring witnesses in in a way that

20:51

she can't now. And so there would then

20:53

be some actual under oath testimony

20:55

about all this stuff before the

20:57

election if they do that. And

21:00

then eventually you'd get through all this prosecution.

21:03

I actually think Joe Biden is going to be

21:05

reelected. So I'm not terribly concerned about what they're

21:07

going to do in terms of slowing

21:10

this thing down. But what you saw,

21:12

the fundamentals of what you saw and what

21:14

we discovered clearly today is

21:16

that there is a group

21:18

on the Supreme Court who

21:21

believe that their

21:23

duty is to protect the Constitution

21:25

and the law. And there's

21:27

a possibly larger group who

21:29

believe their duty is to protect

21:32

the president, not

21:34

all presidents, the president named

21:37

Trump. And that

21:40

that intensity launches

21:42

those fever dreams that we heard

21:45

from Alito and Gorsuch about every

21:48

president now will

21:50

make sure that their

21:52

predecessor is prosecuted. They were

21:55

adopting the Trump notion, by the

21:57

way, that this is a Biden

21:59

prosecution. And that then

22:01

the next administration will obviously

22:04

prosecute the previous president. To do

22:06

that, they had to completely ignore

22:08

the 230 years of history that

22:10

preceded the Donald

22:13

Trump presidency. That all had

22:15

to be ignored, and they did willfully ignore it.

22:18

And these are guys who pretend that they're

22:20

amateur, at least, historians who pay attention to

22:22

all of these things. And

22:26

so it was that tortured process.

22:29

But what also emerged really clearly

22:31

was not a single justice

22:33

there, but the Trump

22:35

argument. The Trump argument is not

22:37

for selective immunity. It

22:39

is for absolute immunity. And every

22:41

one of them basically found

22:44

a way of saying, that's ridiculous. And

22:46

the Alito way included that thing that

22:48

you showed where he kept saying, I'm

22:51

not talking about these facts. Now another

22:53

good side of that coin is, these

22:55

facts are so bad, I can't talk

22:57

about them. That's the good side of that

22:59

coin. I think Thomas may be the exception. I think

23:02

Thomas may think all presidents are criminals, and

23:04

so all presidents need absolutals. So that's the great

23:06

mystery. Everybody's like me. That's the great mystery. He

23:09

didn't recuse himself, or maybe his definition

23:11

of recusal is, I will talk the

23:13

least. Clarence Thomas spoke

23:15

only three times. He did not

23:17

ask, he didn't ask a paragraph

23:19

worth of questions. The only

23:21

thing he raised that was outside

23:24

of what anyone else mentioned was an

23:26

issue that wasn't even before the court,

23:28

which was the legitimacy of the appointment

23:30

of Jack Smith. That's not even

23:32

before the court. And Thomas asked about that.

23:34

So he actually remains the most mysterious on the

23:36

court today. We don't know what he thought. I

23:38

think as Jenny was showing, I

23:41

think that we overthink them. I think when you

23:43

work for a president or you work for a

23:45

party, you know that they're just guys and girls.

23:48

And these particular guys consume all

23:50

of this. And I think what

23:52

was clear today is they

23:54

will direct quote segments from

23:56

all of these programs. Alito

23:59

gives speeches. in front of conservatives,

24:01

and I'm sure that conservatives in the audience who

24:03

don't watch any of our programs are like, what's

24:05

he talking about? Chunks, paragraphs from

24:07

all of your scripts I have heard

24:09

in Alito's rants. They

24:11

are bound

24:13

to Trump in their feelings of

24:16

being persecuted to a person. And

24:19

so in Trump's immunity claim, which

24:21

has myriad legal implications and layers

24:23

to it, they found common

24:26

cause with the feeling of persecution.

24:28

And that is what they spoke to

24:30

today. That is where he found a

24:32

receptive audience. What's amazing to me as

24:34

a non-lawyer is that federal judge Carter

24:37

out in California was like,

24:39

the farther we get, the more

24:41

murky it gets. But in the

24:43

immediate aftermath, Trump clearly committed the

24:45

crimes. And federal judges said

24:47

more likely than not, he committed felonies. He

24:49

and that Eastman guy. And the

24:51

further we get, the more the people at

24:53

the highest levels of this branch that everyone

24:55

said, oh, the court's held, the court's held.

24:58

I think after today, we have to get

25:00

rid of that notion that the courts held. And

25:02

I think after today, we have to get rid

25:04

of the notion that there's some complicated legal theory.

25:06

They just, they feel him. They feel persecuted just

25:08

like he does. Yeah. I

25:10

thought it was a very dark day for the

25:12

Supreme Court. I don't think the

25:16

conservative justices comported themselves well. And to the extent

25:18

that these arguments have a back and forth, I'm

25:21

not sure the other side for rule of law

25:24

moved it back enough. I think

25:26

this will matter in history because you're going to study

25:28

some of these precedents. The last time

25:30

we were all gathered here on a Supreme Court day, it was

25:33

the Colorado case. And the

25:35

reason legally, not politics legally,

25:37

that experts would say that was unlikely to

25:39

go against Trump was that there wasn't any

25:41

precedent for booting him off the ballot. Now

25:44

we're gathered today, there's zero

25:47

precedent for this

25:49

kind of blanket immunity. And there's anti-precedent.

25:51

Nixon and others taking partisan and Robert

25:53

Ray, who replaced Ken Starr, striking a

25:56

deal with Bill Clinton on the understanding

25:58

that otherwise he could. be prosecuted.

26:00

That's bipartisan examples there, different

26:03

party presidents. And

26:05

against all of that, the test

26:07

is okay. Trump might not

26:09

benefit as much, but do the rules hold? Based

26:12

on the questioning, and I agree with your caveat, the

26:14

rules did not hold for most of

26:16

the conservative justices. Justice Roberts has

26:19

a slow-grade scandal

26:21

going. He's got the money and the

26:23

corruption on one side, but he's also

26:25

the Chief Justice overseeing an increasingly partisan

26:27

MAGA court. And he can't just stand

26:30

idly by. This is on him as well. One

26:32

more point I did want to share that we didn't get to on official

26:34

acts. There can be

26:37

potential official acts that would

26:39

be harder to prosecute. None

26:42

of these are those. So the fact that

26:44

that could happen when you're dealing with war

26:46

or when you order a drone strike and

26:49

it kills someone abroad. Or the unreviewable pardon

26:51

authority. Or you make an

26:54

order and it does take an American life and

26:56

you say, actually, we're not going to deal with

26:58

it that this is not that I am reminded

27:00

of the classic Aaron Sorkin line, a co-writer of

27:02

Lawrence from social network. If

27:05

you invented Facebook, you

27:07

would have invented Facebook. Right. And if these

27:09

were official acts, they would be official acts.

27:11

And the reason, as you pointed out in

27:13

the excellent opening, that none of the

27:15

conservative justices wanted to go anywhere near their job,

27:18

which is to review the law and find facts.

27:20

They didn't want to go near the fact that

27:22

it's not an official act to get people to

27:24

storm the Capitol and try to assassinate the vice

27:26

president of the United States who works for you

27:28

and the Speaker of the House is in the

27:31

line of succession. It's not an official act when

27:33

you're down by three states and it's all been

27:35

certified to put in. Elector fraud,

27:37

which was indicted again, more people yesterday.

27:39

These are anywhere near official acts. And

27:41

I would defend any president, including the

27:44

former president's right, to

27:46

not have wartime attacks

27:48

reviewed in domestic court.

27:51

That's not happening. And I don't think they need

27:53

to spin their wheels pretending that might happen someday.

27:55

The facts in front of them, they willfully ignored

27:57

in a way that I'll close by saying. Because

28:00

I did wait, my turn raised. What

28:03

depressed me the most is not about the upcoming

28:05

election or anything political. It was seeing multiple

28:08

justices out themselves as

28:10

insurrection and seditioned minimizers

28:13

today. And it was a sad

28:15

day. Yeah. Yeah. Just

28:17

quickly, because I was there. So

28:20

many of us don't get the privilege, and I still want

28:22

to use that word, the privilege of being able to go

28:24

inside the United States Supreme Court. It is a public place.

28:26

We can go, Ari's been in as well. When

28:29

you are there, you are struck by

28:31

how regal and stately, how formal and

28:33

beautiful the building is in and of

28:35

itself, but more underlying the institutions and

28:37

the norms that are supposed to be

28:39

protected over time. And what

28:42

we saw today that bothered me the most, in

28:44

addition to everything that you guys have noted, is

28:47

the debasing of the lawyers. Because

28:49

I always go back to the lawyers, because

28:51

I've always believed that somebody like Trump can't

28:53

do what he does but for the inamely

28:56

of the lawyers. And I think we've seen

28:58

a series of them that have either been

29:00

indicted or have gotten into trouble in various

29:02

ways, because they've assisted, they've been co-conspirators in

29:05

the literal of senses. But to see somebody

29:07

like John Sauer get up and say what

29:09

he did today, and the fact that when

29:11

you look at this multi-page transcript that I

29:14

can pull and tell you what pages the

29:16

words assassinate, assassination, and coup come out on,

29:19

and that those were hypotheticals that

29:21

were embraced by a lawyer today

29:23

is beyond

29:25

sobering. It's depressing. It

29:28

is the idea that you have the

29:30

erosion of the courts' hell, the erosion

29:32

of precedent. But then you also

29:34

have the erosion of the rule of law

29:36

in the sense that we are supposed to

29:38

be able to look at people that also

29:40

have respect for their jobs and what their

29:42

roles are and their ethics and their professional responsibilities.

29:45

And I feel like we go so far,

29:47

far of that, because if Trump doesn't have

29:49

dictators and autocrats don't have people that enable

29:51

them, they won't be able to get to

29:53

the Supreme Court. They won't be able

29:55

to get on the steps of the halit halls of this place. And

29:58

you know, the Constitution and the preamble. says

30:00

what we the people of the United States

30:02

in order to form a more perfect union

30:04

do establish his constitution. But perfection

30:07

should not be the enemy of good.

30:09

But there was no good faith today

30:12

in some of these justices. And they're

30:14

trying to create the perfect place or

30:16

the perfect environment for somebody like Donald

30:18

Trump. Yeah, the perfect size hole to put

30:21

right through what we all understand to be the plain

30:23

law heading into this. Yes. All right. We've got

30:25

much more of our recap of what happened

30:27

today in two courtrooms, the United States Supreme

30:29

Court, the New York courtroom where Donald Trump

30:32

is on criminal trial, much more of our

30:34

recap ahead. The

30:44

UN Refugee Agency or UNHCR responds

30:46

to emergencies and provides long term

30:49

solutions for refugees. They provide aid

30:51

in over 130 countries,

30:53

including Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan,

30:56

where people are forced to flee

30:58

from war and persecution at their

31:00

greatest moment of need. UNHCR helps

31:03

and protects refugees by providing food,

31:05

shelter, medical care and other life

31:07

saving essentials. The agency jumpstarts relief

31:10

in three key ways. They transport

31:12

core relief items stored in even

31:14

the most remote areas of the

31:17

world. They deploy expert emergency staff

31:19

trained to help in crisis situations,

31:21

and they transfer funds directly to

31:23

support the emergency. Because of generous

31:25

supporters and donors, UNHCR can scale

31:27

up its response within 72 hours

31:30

of a large scale

31:32

emergency. Your support helps

31:34

provide life saving aid

31:36

for refugees whenever and

31:38

wherever emergencies occur. Donate

31:40

to USA for UNHCR

31:42

by visiting unrefugees.org/donation. that

32:00

there was some sort of immunity for official acts,

32:03

that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment for

32:05

the trial to go, for the case to

32:07

go back in the trial that began immediately. And I wanna

32:09

know if you agree or disagree about the characterization

32:11

of these acts as private. Petitioner

32:14

turned to a private attorney, was willing to

32:16

spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to

32:18

spearhead his challenges to the election results.

32:21

Private? As alleged, I mean, we

32:23

dispute the allegation, but that sounds private to me. Sounds

32:25

private. Petitioner conspired with another private attorney

32:27

who caused the filing in court of

32:29

a verification signed by a petitioner that

32:31

contained false allegations to support a challenge.

32:34

That also sounds private. Three

32:36

private actors, two attorneys, including those

32:38

mentioned above, and a political consultant

32:40

helped implement a plan to submit

32:42

fraudulent plates of presidential electors to

32:44

obstruct the certification proceeding, and petitioner

32:47

and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort.

32:50

You read it quickly, I believe that's private, I

32:53

don't wanna. So those acts you would not dispute.

32:55

Those were private, and you wouldn't raise a claim

32:57

that they were official. As characterized. As

33:00

characterized, those were private acts, not official

33:02

acts. That's conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett

33:04

today at the Supreme Court. Interesting

33:06

line of questioning. She's getting Donald Trump's

33:09

lawyer, Trump's lawyer, to

33:11

agree that a whole bunch of things

33:13

that Trump was indicted for in the

33:15

January 6th federal case, a whole bunch

33:17

of those things are things that could

33:19

not possibly be construed to be the

33:21

official actions of a president. Now,

33:25

Justice Barrett emerged from

33:27

the arguments today as potentially the

33:30

swing vote on

33:32

this overall issue. Maybe, which is crazy

33:34

given how right-wing she is, but

33:36

of all the conservative justices, she seemed

33:38

like the one who was maybe trying

33:40

to work out some kind of workable

33:42

answer, like she might be persuadable by

33:45

either camp. I think Chief Justice Roberts

33:47

was somewhat hard to read today. Justice

33:49

Barrett gave more indication than any other

33:51

conservative justice that she might be really

33:53

thinking about where she's gonna come down.

33:56

Justice Barrett later suggested to the

33:58

other side's lawyer, to the lawyer. for special counsel

34:00

Jack Smith, that maybe if

34:03

there's a whole bunch of stuff that Trump

34:06

did that everybody admits was just his private

34:08

acts when he was committing these alleged crimes,

34:10

maybe all Trump's purportedly official actions could be

34:12

kicked out of the indictment and you could

34:14

just try him on the private stuff. You

34:17

could just try him for the asserted

34:20

conduct that even his

34:22

side admits was just private action taken

34:24

for his own private gain. In other

34:27

words, could you guys just cut

34:29

the January 6th indictment in half? The

34:33

special counsel has expressed some concern for

34:35

speed and wanting to move forward. So

34:38

the normal process, what Mr. Sauer asked,

34:40

would be for us to remand if

34:42

we decided that there were some official

34:45

acts of immunity and to let that

34:47

be sorted out below. It

34:50

is another option for the special counsel to

34:52

just proceed based on the private conduct and

34:54

drop the official conduct.

34:57

Is it an option to proceed just on

35:00

some of the stuff Trump did, not all of the stuff he

35:02

did? Now, the lawyer

35:04

for special counsel Jack Smith said

35:07

in response to Justice Barrett that really

35:09

they'd rather try him on everything. Thank

35:11

you very much. But he

35:13

did also sort of concede that if they

35:15

had to follow this approach that she was

35:17

suggesting, there might be ways to try Trump

35:19

on just the purportedly private acts and not

35:21

the other stuff, maybe. Trump's

35:24

lawyer, of course, the lawyer for the other side

35:26

said, oh, no, no, no, no, no. The whole

35:28

case would have to be thrown out. We couldn't

35:31

possibly proceed like that. There would have to be

35:33

a long, long, long, long, long, long, very long,

35:36

very long deliberate sequence of

35:38

litigation and hearings and tests

35:40

and proceedings before anything like

35:43

that could get anywhere near

35:45

trial, many further proceedings. How

35:47

about we schedule that for the 45th

35:50

of December, 150 years from now? For

35:54

justices like Samuel Alito and maybe

35:56

Brett Kavanaugh and definitely Justice Neil Gorsuch,

35:58

it seemed pretty be clear that they're on

36:01

board with the desire for that kind of maximalist

36:04

delay, what we might call the

36:06

wait, wait, don't ever tell me approach.

36:10

Listen here as Justice Kataji Brown Jackson,

36:13

she sort of gets Trump's lawyer a little bit on

36:15

the ropes here. He's finding it difficult to answer her

36:17

questions about the seemingly extreme consequences

36:19

of this extreme new immunity regime

36:21

that he is proposing. She's really

36:23

got him on the ropes. But

36:26

then listen at the end here.

36:28

As conservative Justice Neil Gorton Gorsuch

36:30

swoops in to

36:32

save Trump's lawyer, to

36:35

give him a better idea, to suggest that

36:37

maybe a delay would be a good idea

36:39

to get everybody out of this and on

36:41

to step two. When

36:44

you were giving your opening statements,

36:46

you were talking about, you

36:49

know, you suggested that the

36:51

lack of immunity and the possibility

36:53

of prosecution in the presidential context

36:56

is like an innovation. And I

36:59

understood it to be the status quo. I mean,

37:01

I understood that every president from

37:03

the beginning of time essentially has

37:06

understood that there was a threat

37:08

of prosecution and they have continued

37:10

to function and do their jobs

37:12

and do all the things that

37:14

presidents do. So it seems to me

37:16

that you are asking now for a change

37:18

in what the law is related to immunity.

37:22

I would quote from what Benjamin

37:24

Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention,

37:26

history provides one example only of

37:29

a chief maderson who was subject

37:31

to public justice, criminal prosecution, and

37:33

everybody cried out against that. No,

37:36

I understand. But since Benjamin Franklin, everybody

37:38

has thought, including the presidents who held

37:40

the office, that they were taking this

37:42

office subject to potential criminal prosecution. No,

37:45

I don't. I see the opposite. I

37:47

see all the evidence going the other

37:49

way. Mississippi against Madison,

37:51

Mississippi against Johnson discussed this broad immunity principle

37:53

that naturally. So what was up with the pardon?

37:55

What was up with the pardon for President Nixon?

37:57

I think it is. thought

38:00

that presidents couldn't be prosecuted, then what

38:02

was that about? Well, he was under

38:04

investigation for both private and public conduct

38:07

at the time, official acts and private

38:09

conduct. Counsel, on that score, there

38:12

does seem to be some common ground

38:14

between you and your colleague on the

38:16

other side that no man's above the

38:18

law and that the president can

38:20

be prosecuted after he leaves

38:22

office for his private conduct. Is that

38:25

right? We agree with that. Then

38:28

the question becomes, as we've been exploring

38:30

here today, a little bit about how

38:32

to segregate private from official conduct that

38:34

may or may not enjoy

38:37

some immunity. I'm sure we're going

38:39

to spend a lot of time exploring

38:41

that. I would really like

38:44

to spend as much time as possible

38:46

exploring that. We could start a several

38:48

years long process, many years

38:50

long. Justice

38:52

Neil Gorsuch just swoops in there now. Hey

38:54

now, let's finish up all this talk about

38:57

presidents and former presidents knowing they can go to

38:59

prison. Why the rush? Let's slow things down

39:01

here. Let's talk about having more hearings. Let's

39:03

talk about new tests for what types

39:05

of presidential behavior count as presidential behavior.

39:08

New tests maybe will invent, and that'll be a big, long

39:10

discussion. We'll have to spend a lot of time on that.

39:13

Let's talk about further

39:16

proceedings. Further proceedings that

39:18

we'd like to see. And

39:22

that left open, in that case,

39:24

the possibility of further proceedings and

39:26

trial. Exactly right. And that

39:29

would be a very natural course for this

39:31

court to take in this place. The court

39:33

can and should reverse the categorical holding of

39:35

the DC Circuit that there's no such thing

39:37

as official acts, especially when it comes to

39:39

... But you'd agree further proceedings would be

39:41

required. That is correct. There would

39:43

have to be ... Oh, definitely, definitely

39:46

many, many further proceedings for as long

39:48

a time as possible, my colleague

39:50

Joy Reed has just joined us. Joy, I mean,

39:52

I'm not a lawyer, neither are you. But watching

39:54

these proceedings today, I felt like that was a

39:56

tell when Justice Gorsuch came in there and said,

39:58

you know what? going well, don't talk

40:01

about presidents knowing they can be prosecuted. Let's

40:03

instead just talk about how we can do

40:05

new stuff. We can do new legal proceedings

40:07

here. Yeah, and also they noted

40:09

they always jumped in and interrupted

40:12

whenever any of the women, female

40:14

justices, tried to start talking about the actual case. No, no,

40:16

no, no, no, no, no. We don't need to do, you

40:18

know, let's not dwell on the actual thing in front of

40:20

us. Let's ask whether or not a

40:22

president, let's say, could pardon himself. Let's go on

40:24

that tangent. And they had all of these other

40:26

things to do. I have to say that listening

40:28

to this today was strangely liberating for me, honestly,

40:31

because, you know, I am deeply

40:33

cynical about this court majority and have never

40:35

believed them to be anything other than politicians. They're

40:38

just politicians that don't admit they're

40:40

politicians and they are here to

40:42

serve Donald Trump's interests. And they've always been that

40:44

and to drive us into the 19th century and

40:46

put us back to an era they thought was

40:48

better than the horrid Warren court 20th century that

40:50

ruined America. That's what I always thought of them

40:52

anyway. It's liberating to no longer have to pretend

40:54

that there's something else. You know, I've been asking

40:57

our wonderful legal analysts, what do you think? What

40:59

do you think it's going to be? What do

41:01

you think they're going to do? And almost to

41:03

a person, those who practice before courts like this,

41:05

people who go into the judiciary and do this

41:07

and our lawyers said, no, no, no, no,

41:09

there's no chance that this court is going to

41:11

find absolute immunity. And I was like, really? You

41:14

don't think so? They didn't. I always did. And

41:16

so it's liberating. I asked Jamie were asking tonight

41:18

on my show and he agreed. He said, at

41:20

this point, this Leonard

41:23

Leo six should simply move their

41:25

offices into the Republican national committee,

41:28

because now there is no longer a

41:30

question. They didn't even fake it like they

41:32

did with Dobbs to pretend there was some

41:35

constitutional principle at issue. They didn't even try

41:37

to cite some constitutional principle. They're

41:39

no longer faking it. They're being

41:41

very obvious. Now we are here

41:43

to protect not the president, not

41:46

the presidency, but this former president,

41:48

Donald Trump, we are here to

41:50

work for him. And we're

41:52

going to come up with some legally

41:54

sounding, you know, Gorsuch trying to deepen

41:56

his voice and sound like an intellectual.

42:00

We're going to try to sort of intellectualize it. But

42:02

really what we're doing here, if we're being honest, we're

42:04

going to protect this president because we want

42:07

to retire under a Republican and be replaced

42:09

by 30-year-old versions of ourselves. And we're going

42:11

to do that. And who's going to check me,

42:13

boo? You can't stop us, so we're

42:15

just going to do it. And so to me,

42:17

it's liberating to no longer have to pretend they are

42:19

other than what they are. This is what they've always

42:21

been. It's what I expected. And they proved me right.

42:23

Can I respond to that just briefly? What

42:26

you're saying makes so much sense because it's

42:28

like the Zoolander scene. I feel like I'm

42:30

taking crazy pills. And yes, what

42:32

you just said, if someone watching at home is saying,

42:35

so this is what it is, yes, that's what it

42:37

was today. All I'll say is it's

42:39

getting worse. You're right. And

42:41

that's what was depressing today. Well, it's the

42:44

worst Trump cases are getting to that. And

42:46

the case is a reason. I will say,

42:48

not in their defense, but the reason why

42:50

it's getting worse is the Trump folks also

42:52

and similar lawyers also were asking them to

42:54

make up voter fraud and other off-the-wall arguments

42:57

that they had to make after then-president-elect Biden was

43:01

declared the winner. They didn't do that. They

43:03

never laundered those cases. They never

43:05

granted cert. And so on the one hand, there's that

43:07

recent history, including some Trump appointees. And yet on the

43:09

other hand, what you just said, it's

43:11

getting worse. It is this bananas. And

43:14

what you think you're seeing is what you see. And by the

43:16

way, this all comes as the amazing split screen that

43:19

we saw today, is that in the state of

43:21

Arizona, Trump

43:25

is subject to the criminal justice. Everyone

43:27

who, like Michael Cohen in the New

43:29

York case, did the crimes, not

43:31

for themselves. None of them were going to serve

43:33

in office or be president or have immunity. They

43:36

acquired nothing but shame and high

43:38

legal bills. And they're all

43:40

from Rudy Giuliani to the White House Chief of

43:42

Staff, the White House Chief of Staff. You

43:45

name it, all of them, including the

43:47

11 fake electors in Arizona are subject to

43:49

the criminal justice. And everyone who did crimes

43:51

for Trump must face the criminal justice

43:53

system. Everyone, apparently, according

43:55

to the Supreme Court, but Trump. But those

43:57

are official acts for president. Yeah, they're monarchists.

44:00

This is monarchism. The idea

44:02

that the founders of this country

44:04

decided to exit a monarchy and

44:06

then create a different monarchy here

44:09

is insane. We've got much more

44:11

of our recap of today's action in the United

44:13

States Supreme Court and Trump's New York

44:15

courtroom as well ahead. Officer

44:17

Vigeti, stay with us. Ready

44:26

for a new and exciting career

44:28

challenge? At DHL Supply Chain, you're

44:30

part of a team committed to

44:32

creating innovative solutions for some of

44:34

the biggest brands in the world.

44:36

We're recognized as a best place

44:39

to work, where people are valued,

44:41

supported, and respected. DHL Supply Chain

44:43

is hiring for a wide range

44:45

of salaried operational and functional roles.

44:47

Previous experience in logistics is welcome,

44:49

but not required. All opportunities, no

44:52

boundaries. DHL Supply Chain. Apply today

44:54

at joindhl.com. We're putting

44:56

our foot down to keep our

44:58

feet up, like way up, with

45:00

Lazy Boy. Our phones will

45:02

be set to Do Not Disturb, our podcasts

45:04

to full volume, and our sofas to recline.

45:07

After a full day of doing a lot

45:09

of adulting, the only thing we'll be doing

45:11

is a lot of nothing. It's

45:13

all right to take time for our

45:15

well-deserved Lazy Time. We, the Lazy, are

45:18

taking back Lazy, all from

45:20

the comfort of our Lazy Boy furniture. Lazy

45:23

Boy, long live the Lazy. His

45:29

novel theory would immunize former

45:32

presidents for criminal liability, for

45:34

bribery, treason, sedition, murder,

45:37

and here conspiring to use fraud

45:40

to overturn the results of an

45:42

election and perpetuate himself

45:44

in power. Such

45:46

presidential immunity has no foundation in

45:49

the Constitution. The framers

45:51

knew too well the dangers of a king

45:53

who could do no wrong. Welcome

45:56

back to our primetime recap of today's proceedings

45:58

at the United States Supreme Court. Court and

46:00

a New York criminal court downtown where

46:03

Donald Trump is facing criminal charges related

46:05

to a hush money payment

46:07

that was designed to influence the 2016 election. Nicole

46:10

Wallace, that was the start of

46:12

Michael Drieben's opening remarks

46:15

to the justices today, Michael Drieben representing

46:17

special counsel Jack Smith. That

46:19

list, putting that right out

46:22

there, bribery, treason, sedition, murder,

46:26

and here conspiring to

46:28

use fraud to overturn the results of an election

46:30

and perpetuate himself in power. Drieben is

46:32

saying, this is the entire ballgame. This

46:34

is not something that you can slice

46:36

in half and come up with a tidier way of

46:38

handling it that keeps you out of the politics of this.

46:40

Well, and if you're someone who's studied

46:43

the 2025 project, the platform for a

46:45

second Trump term, there is no separation

46:47

at a policy level between Trump, the

46:49

private person who would act, and Trump,

46:51

the one to be president again in

46:53

his official acts. They're totally braided together

46:56

officially and publicly this time. So when

46:58

he ran the first time, it felt

47:00

a lot of investigative journalists, frankly, to

47:02

unearth what he really wanted to do

47:04

at the border. It was

47:06

a scoop and a leak that led to

47:09

the story that we all knew about and

47:11

covered about pardons being promised for people to

47:13

do knowingly illegal things at the border. It's

47:15

now all in a document that you can

47:17

keyword search, and the official acts and the

47:19

private acts are the second term agenda. So

47:22

what they do doesn't just matter in terms

47:25

of the first ever violent transfer of

47:27

power in America having a criminal consequence

47:29

for the person who masterminded it. It

47:32

matters should he prevail next November. It

47:34

matters to everybody in the country. And

47:36

I think the idea that there will

47:38

be no trial was clear to me,

47:41

not because of any sort of distrust

47:43

that I had for the members of the

47:45

court, but because of Judge Lutig and Liz

47:47

Cheney. I mean, they said this court stinks

47:49

on this issue. You

47:51

have conservatives, you don't get farther to the right

47:54

than Lutig and Cheney. And they

47:56

said this now. the

48:00

one person on this table who's worked for a

48:02

president, can you just please walk us through what

48:04

it would do to

48:06

a president's mentality in office

48:09

if they had supreme power to do anything? It's

48:12

not about that because it's never been that

48:14

you need the laws to reign in a president

48:16

from committing crimes. They know, they can go to

48:18

jail. We would've lied on norms too much and that's

48:21

on us. But now we know, right? Now we know.

48:23

Katie, you were in the courtroom today. Let me

48:25

ask you, and this is a creepy question, I'm sorry.

48:28

Does it make it worse to have

48:30

all of these hypotheticals on the record?

48:32

To have the hypotheticals out there, you

48:34

could just, yes. A president can attack

48:36

an idea, can you tell the military

48:38

to launch a coup, can sell nuclear

48:40

secrets for personal gain, for money. I

48:42

mean, his legal team has been asked all these hypotheticals

48:45

and it's essentially answered that you have to get out

48:47

of these things. Does it actually make it worse

48:49

to have these hypotheticals spelled out during the

48:51

course of this litigation? Well, you would never think

48:53

you'd have to get to the point to have such extreme

48:55

hypotheticals, but I don't think it makes it worse. I

48:58

think it just grounds us in the

49:00

reality that Nicole speaks of, that we're

49:02

not living in a world that we

49:04

thought existed anymore. It's gone, that's been

49:06

destroyed. And so we're now beyond Earth

49:08

too, right? We're in this rule of

49:10

law that doesn't exist on the planet

49:12

that we're on, which is why we

49:15

were speaking during the break. And

49:17

I wanna emphasize this, Katondu Brown Jackson

49:20

had the best analysis with Dreeben

49:22

at the end of all of this, which

49:24

was, why can't we just answer the damn

49:26

question the way it's been posed? Because

49:29

if we just say no, that you don't get that

49:31

immunity, then we don't have to

49:33

do the, I'm gonna put your

49:35

official act in this bucket, I'm gonna

49:37

put your private act in this bucket

49:40

and never the twain show me this

49:42

bizarre one-legged stool, Justice Roberts analysis, blah,

49:44

blah, blah, that rubric doesn't work. It

49:47

is fatally flawed and it only leads

49:49

to delay and bad precedent and bad

49:51

law, which is why if you just answer the question,

49:54

no, you don't get immunity for that. You

49:57

don't need new tests, you know, we can move on. And you

49:59

don't have to worry. about new trials and

50:01

district court rulings and then more appeals

50:03

and more delay. And then you get

50:06

to Amy Coney Barrett's points. You

50:08

can get it back to where it needs to be.

50:10

And you don't have to excise out the official part

50:12

of it. You don't have to excise out. You

50:15

can present it to the jury with a limiting instruction.

50:17

That's what happens every single day in a court of

50:19

law. Right. Yeah. Then the liberal justices,

50:21

particularly Justice Jackson, were trying to say,

50:24

there is a way to do

50:26

this. Here's the way we can do this. Very

50:28

straightforward. Because she tried cases, because she was a

50:30

public defender. She knows how to do this. She's

50:32

trying to stop this scheme of delaying everything. Exactly.

50:35

Definitely. All right. We've been on the air for nearly an

50:37

hour. I'm not one quarter of the

50:40

way through all the things I want to talk

50:42

about. Even just with the Supreme Court. It's been

50:44

a big day. We'll be back with more of

50:46

our recap. Coming up next, stay with us. As

50:51

you've indicated, this case has huge implications

50:53

for the presidency, for the future of

50:55

the country, in my view. These

51:07

are not the kinds of activities that I think any

51:09

of us would think a president needs

51:11

to engage in, in order to fulfill

51:14

his Article II duties. Particularly

51:16

in a case like this

51:18

one, as applied to this case,

51:20

the president has no functions

51:22

with respect to the certification

51:24

of the winner of the

51:26

presidential election. The states conduct

51:29

the elections. They send electors

51:32

to certify who won

51:34

those elections and to provide votes. Then

51:37

Congress, in a extraordinary joint session,

51:40

certifies the vote. The president doesn't

51:42

have an official role in that

51:45

proceeding. It's difficult for

51:47

me to understand how there could

51:49

be a serious constitutional question about

51:51

saying, you can't use fraud to

51:54

defeat that function. You can't obstruct

51:56

it through deception. You can't

51:58

deprive millions of voters. voters of

52:01

their right to have their vote counted for

52:03

the candidate who they chose. Thank you, counsel.

52:06

Thank you, counsel. Welcome back to

52:09

our primetime recap of today's Supreme Court proceedings

52:11

on whether President Trump is immune from

52:13

criminal prosecution for actions he took as

52:16

president. It is also

52:18

our primetime recap of the first

52:20

full day of testimony from the blockbuster

52:22

lead witness in the criminal trial of

52:24

that same former president, which is

52:26

ongoing right now in New York. We

52:29

still have New York to get to. But

52:32

on that point from the Supreme

52:34

Court arguments today, that discussion at the top

52:36

there from Michael Drieben, lawyer for the special

52:38

counsel's office that has brought the federal prosecution

52:40

against Trump for trying to stay in office

52:42

after he lost the election. Drieben

52:44

is engaging there with the question

52:46

of what counts as an official

52:48

act by a president versus what's

52:50

an unofficial act by

52:53

a president. The reason he

52:55

was engaging with that is because the conservative

52:57

justices today, as Katie Fang, who was there,

52:59

just was telling us, the conservative justice today

53:01

kept putting that forward as

53:03

the most important thing to be

53:05

derived from today's argument. The next

53:07

thing they wanted to do, the next

53:09

step they wanted to take in

53:11

this case, not incidentally a time

53:13

consuming, started all over kind of

53:16

step that would have the practical

53:18

effect of making absolutely sure that

53:20

there's no chance Donald Trump stands

53:22

trial before the election. That

53:25

is what the Trump side wants. That seems to

53:27

be what the hardline conservatives on the Supreme Court

53:29

want as well. But

53:31

while those conservative justices today

53:34

were demanding that lawyers

53:37

for both sides dance on the head of

53:39

this particularly stupid pin, the

53:41

more liberal justices did use today's proceedings

53:43

to try to spell out what is

53:46

just bluntly wrong with that. What

53:49

seems crazy to normal people

53:52

about the broadest strokes of

53:54

what Trump is trying to do here? of

54:00

criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from

54:02

just doing whatever he wants? All the

54:04

structural checks that are identified in Fitzgerald and a

54:06

whole series of this court's cases that

54:08

go back to Martin against Mott, for

54:10

example, impeachment, oversight by Congress, public

54:13

oversight is a long series of Fitzgerald directly

54:15

judges this in the civil context. And

54:18

we've been... I'm not

54:20

sure that that's much of a

54:22

backstop and what I'm, I guess, more worried

54:24

about. You seem to be worried about the

54:26

president being chilled. I think

54:29

that we would have a really

54:31

significant opposite problem if the president

54:33

wasn't chilled. If someone with those

54:35

kinds of powers, the most powerful

54:37

person in the world with

54:40

the greatest amount of authority could

54:43

go into office knowing that

54:45

there would be no potential

54:47

penalty for committing crimes,

54:50

I'm trying to understand what the disincentive

54:52

is from turning the Oval

54:55

Office into the

54:57

seat of criminal activity in this

54:59

country. I don't know if there's

55:01

any allegation of that in this case. And what George

55:03

Washington said is, what Benjamin Franklin

55:05

said is, we view the prosecution of

55:08

a chief executive as something that everybody

55:10

cried out against us unconstitutional. And what

55:12

George Washington said is we're worried about

55:14

factional strife, which will... No. Also,

55:17

let me put this worry on the table. If

55:19

the potential for criminal liability is taken off

55:21

the table, wouldn't there

55:23

be a significant risk that

55:25

future presidents would be emboldened

55:27

to commit crimes with abandon

55:29

while they're in office? It's

55:32

right now the fact that we're

55:34

having this debate because OLC

55:36

has said that presidents might be prosecuted.

55:40

Presidents from the beginning of time have understood

55:42

that that's a possibility. That

55:44

might be what has kept this office from

55:46

turning into the kind of crime

55:49

center that I'm envisioning. But once we

55:51

say no criminal liability,

55:53

Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,

55:55

I'm worried that we

55:57

would have a worse problem than the... of

56:00

the president feeling constrained to follow the

56:02

law while he's in office. Right.

56:10

Let me put this worry on the table.

56:12

She says Justice Katanji Jackson today

56:14

speaking plainly, taking a

56:16

step back to see the larger picture today.

56:18

You keep saying how terrible it would be

56:20

if the president was put on trial for

56:22

his crimes. Can we also talk about how

56:25

terrible his crimes would be and how

56:27

terrible it would be for the presidency

56:29

and for the country going forward if

56:32

all future presidents knew they can commit

56:34

any crime they want

56:36

and there's nothing anyone can

56:38

do about it. Chris Hayes, I was worried your head

56:40

was going to. Well, I had the same experience listening

56:42

to our arguments. I

56:45

was like, yes, yes, yes, exactly. And partly it's

56:47

because the sour

56:50

Trump's lawyer and Trump himself and some of the

56:52

conservative justices all seem to be agreeing on what

56:54

we call like the dirty Harry model of the

56:57

American presidency, which is like you

56:59

got to be tough and maybe you got to

57:01

break some legs. Maybe you got to shoot some

57:03

bad guys and like, what are you gonna do?

57:05

Bring your lawyers against me? Like that was a

57:08

consistent theme today. They kept saying, Sauer kept saying

57:10

with bold and decisive action. And

57:12

one of the things Katanji Brown Jackson brought up,

57:14

which was another highlight of hers, which sort of

57:16

pairs with that point, she's like, bro, there's lots

57:18

of people with tough jobs out there. There's governors,

57:20

there's the people that run the Pentagon. They

57:23

all might face criminal prosecution. Somehow they managed to do

57:25

their jobs. And actually, isn't it probably good that like

57:27

they're going to do something and they go to their

57:29

lawyer, they'll be like, well, I get thrown in jail

57:31

for this. That seems like a good check. And I

57:33

had to say, like, I was listening to that as

57:35

someone who came to his reporter in Illinois, where like

57:38

four of 11 governors went to prison.

57:41

It was good. Yeah, yeah. That

57:44

you might go end up in jail

57:46

if, for instance, you sold commercial driver's

57:48

licenses for bribes, as a former

57:50

governor did when he was Secretary of State. Like those

57:52

were official acts. But yeah, that

57:54

sort of Damocles hanging over your head,

57:57

probably a useful restraint when wielding great

57:59

power. Alex Wagner. Can I just

58:01

talk about, I mean, the first clip that

58:03

you played, the idea that as what did

58:05

Sauer say, the official stuff has to be

58:07

expunged. We need to have a separation here

58:10

between the private acts and the official acts.

58:12

A, I think it's quite clearly a delay tactic, but

58:14

B, it does have me worried if this is the

58:17

most likely outcome here, that this remanded back to the

58:19

district court and this whole new series of tests arises

58:22

about what part of this is official, what part

58:24

of it is private. I do worry about the

58:26

integrity of the case that the prosecution's put forward

58:28

here. And they sort

58:30

of articulated that in court today too.

58:32

Drieben from the prosecution basically says, this

58:35

is an integrated conspiracy here,

58:37

right? It has different components

58:40

and it's Donald

58:42

Trump working with private lawyers to achieve the

58:44

goals of the fraud. Once

58:46

you start to unwind that arbitrarily,

58:48

I guess, if the district court

58:50

must, into separating private and official

58:52

conduct, assuming any of it is

58:55

official, I do worry about what

58:57

that means for the case writ large. Oh yeah,

58:59

and it slows it down for sure and

59:01

it may kill it altogether. Well, and

59:03

like if Lawrence is right and there's

59:05

a very likely possibility that Joe Biden

59:07

wins and this ends

59:09

up going to trial, you do have to think

59:12

about, okay, what actually is the meaningful impact of

59:14

this if it does the court. And also don't

59:16

we have to at some point answer the question

59:18

that was asked? And that's what Katanji Brown Jackson

59:20

and Justice Jackson kept saying. Shouldn't

59:22

we actually answer the question, does

59:25

a president have blanket immunity? They

59:27

were going all around trying not to answer

59:29

it, but we actually need the answer

59:32

to it because of your point, Matt and

59:34

Rachel, now that we've given the theoretical of

59:36

a coup, killing your opponent, bribery, treason, murder,

59:38

now that we've put it on the table

59:40

where Trump can hear it, where he can

59:43

see it and find it, don't we need

59:45

to know just in case he becomes president,

59:47

whether he can kill people because he now

59:49

knows that in theory he's got four, five

59:52

people on the court who think, maybe

59:54

he can. And the argument about

59:56

that today was, well, we'll carve out an

59:58

area of private act. only. And those

1:00:01

ones, they can be prosecuted for eventually some

1:00:03

day, but it's going to be an elaborate

1:00:05

test. And we're going to have to go

1:00:07

back to the beginning of it. And don't

1:00:10

forget, you have to do impeachment and conviction

1:00:12

before you can get to criminal prosecution. Which

1:00:14

has never happened in the history of the

1:00:16

United States. And the reason why they're creating

1:00:18

even more of a higher, more impossible bar

1:00:20

is not just put it there. That's a

1:00:22

non-starter. You mentioned you're not a lawyer. But

1:00:25

you sound like a good lawyer because

1:00:27

that's what happens at the Supreme Court.

1:00:29

There's a question presented. And it says,

1:00:32

to what extent does a former president have

1:00:35

presidential immunity from criminal prosecution

1:00:37

for conduct alleged to

1:00:39

involve official acts? Now, that

1:00:42

word alleged is doing a lot of work. This

1:00:45

question was already written. It was the first clue.

1:00:47

Andrew Weissman and others mentioned this. And we saw

1:00:49

it. It was the first clue they were leaning

1:00:51

towards Trump. If you can allege your way, meaning

1:00:54

it's not really an official act, you just allege

1:00:56

it. Well, anyone can allege anything. If you watch

1:00:58

the news or follow the law, I'm sure you

1:01:00

heard about that. What we're doing

1:01:02

here is testing the evidence. There's been overwhelming evidence,

1:01:05

which is why Jack Smith got this far. It's

1:01:07

why he won this case at the district level.

1:01:09

It's why he won it at the DC

1:01:11

Circuit unanimously in a bipartisan set

1:01:13

of appointees. The evidence has already been

1:01:15

established to some degree. It doesn't mean Trump's guilty, but it

1:01:17

means we're past that point. If anyone

1:01:20

can allege their way around, then

1:01:22

this question and the test that

1:01:24

the conservatives are pushing won't protect

1:01:26

the benefits. How do you separate it? Giving

1:01:28

out pardons is an official act the president is

1:01:30

allowed to do. It's an article power, but if

1:01:33

he sells the pardon and takes a bribe for

1:01:35

the pardon, is it an official act? The

1:01:37

bribe part is private, but the

1:01:39

party, the pardon is not. I mean, that's

1:01:41

the thing is it makes, you can't, you can't,

1:01:43

you have to take a holistic view of

1:01:46

the integrated forms of integrating

1:01:48

the baby. This is splitting the baby. It's

1:01:50

splitting the knife. Joining us

1:01:52

now is California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. She served

1:01:54

on the January 6th investigation in Congress. Congresswoman

1:01:57

Lofgren, it's a real honor to have you

1:01:59

with us. Right now it's been a. Long. Day Thank

1:02:01

you. I'm

1:02:03

glad to be on. I'm so I think you've

1:02:06

You've heard some of the discussion among us today

1:02:08

in terms of what we thought. from the oral

1:02:10

arguments. you can't always extrapolate moral arguments to know

1:02:12

how the court will rule, but what was your

1:02:14

reaction to what you heard today? The Supreme Court.

1:02:18

Well. I'm very concerned. I mean

1:02:20

the job of the justices is

1:02:23

to decide the case as be

1:02:25

for them. And as

1:02:27

they went off on tangents

1:02:29

and what ifs and hypotheticals.

1:02:32

That's the case. Does have the keys

1:02:34

before them. I mean this has been

1:02:37

wrong from the get go. They should never have

1:02:39

taken the. Case. The circuit decision

1:02:41

was tight and right. I'm.

1:02:44

Okay, they took it on

1:02:46

date. They delayed it. And.

1:02:49

Then they went off on tangents. It looks

1:02:51

like they're trying to delay this. By

1:02:53

not actually deciding the case, that

1:02:56

is be them. So I'm

1:02:58

really concerned. You know all of us who

1:03:00

are lawyers in this country are also Officers

1:03:02

of the. Court oh we're told.

1:03:05

And school that's the judiciary

1:03:07

is to be respected and

1:03:09

impartial. And frankly, up until January

1:03:12

Six, the judicial branch held the

1:03:14

mean even the Trump judges babes

1:03:16

ruling space on the facts and

1:03:18

the law, And I think a

1:03:20

lot of us had confidence. Or

1:03:23

in the judicial branch. But boy

1:03:25

that stays. Was really shaken today.

1:03:28

So and and terms of the way,

1:03:31

thanks for scene and quarter The I

1:03:33

think a lot of Americans who aren't

1:03:35

lawyers are going to read. Headlines tomorrow.

1:03:37

or maybe tonight they're going to

1:03:39

see analysis and analysis. I think

1:03:41

from broad audience nothing. Case like

1:03:43

this often focuses on the most

1:03:45

easy to understand part of it

1:03:47

and the most easy to understand

1:03:49

part of it is the hypotheticals.

1:03:52

Food: President Trump order the assassination of

1:03:54

a rival? Could President Trump or of

1:03:57

a military to carry out a coup?

1:03:59

Could President. The south. America's

1:04:01

nuclear secrets to another country

1:04:03

for his personal profit spin

1:04:05

Those hypotheticals are understandable by

1:04:07

a broad audience. I think it's

1:04:09

I guess how do you think that

1:04:12

will land with the American people? I'm

1:04:14

worried that this is going to unsettle

1:04:16

people in and in a new money.

1:04:18

Riding my bike. Will have served

1:04:20

with people, but what ought

1:04:22

to be unsettling? His record

1:04:24

is apparently quite obviously. Trying.

1:04:26

To prevent to trial have done

1:04:29

Trump from. The. Through a

1:04:31

going off on tangents as

1:04:33

hypotheticals that are not be

1:04:35

for them or the a

1:04:37

president's from x president's More

1:04:40

Conceded that community only attaches

1:04:42

with official acts and so

1:04:44

they can take the case

1:04:46

before them and see what

1:04:48

the appellate court did. Obviously

1:04:50

overthrowing the election is not

1:04:53

an official act and it

1:04:55

doesn't need to be further

1:04:57

litigation. All of these other

1:04:59

hypotheticals that. Saw. Before the courts

1:05:01

and may be interesting to people. Or

1:05:03

maybe some day there will be a

1:05:06

case about a row president a chilling

1:05:08

arrival but of that's not the case

1:05:10

today and I I just think they

1:05:13

look. Like. Partisans.

1:05:16

Not. Like neutral justices and terms

1:05:19

of that trial your colleagues Some

1:05:21

that January Six investigation Liz Cheney

1:05:23

had an op ed and they

1:05:25

are times this past week. Or

1:05:28

she explained that for all of

1:05:30

the incredible. Revelations we got from the

1:05:32

January Six investigation. All the incredible testimony

1:05:34

that we sauce that was testimony. The committee

1:05:36

was not able to get including from. some very

1:05:39

funny people white house chief of

1:05:41

staff mark meadows there was that

1:05:43

of the white house counsel's office

1:05:45

lots of assertions of privilege the

1:05:47

vice president vice president's council lots

1:05:50

of assertions of various privileges i

1:05:52

single those out because those are

1:05:54

people who did testify to the

1:05:56

grand jury for the federal january

1:05:59

sixth indictment brought by Jack Smith, which

1:06:01

will now be delayed. She's effectively suggesting

1:06:03

that as a defendant, Trump and his

1:06:05

counsel know what that testimony is, and

1:06:07

they must find it terrifying if

1:06:10

they wanna make sure that the American people don't

1:06:12

hear it before November before they vote. Well,

1:06:16

you know, that's speculation, obviously.

1:06:19

Trump knows what happened.

1:06:22

It's true, we were stonewalled by some

1:06:24

of those individuals, Mark

1:06:26

Meadows and others. So

1:06:28

I'm sure that the prosecutor has more

1:06:30

information than we were able to get.

1:06:33

And we know enough from our investigation

1:06:35

to know that it was not a

1:06:37

pretty picture that the former

1:06:39

president was at the center

1:06:41

of a wide ranging plot

1:06:44

to overturn the election. And

1:06:47

when he failed in the various methods

1:06:49

that he tried, the last effort

1:06:53

was to use violence, to stir

1:06:55

up a mob, to try and

1:06:57

stop the certification of the

1:06:59

election that went on while the

1:07:01

riot was going on. So, you

1:07:03

know, yes, Smith probably has

1:07:06

more information, but certainly we

1:07:08

had enough information on the committee to

1:07:11

refer Mr. Trump for prosecution. Congresswoman

1:07:15

Zolofka of California, thank you so much for making

1:07:17

time to talk with us tonight. It's invaluable to have

1:07:19

you here. Thank you. All

1:07:22

right, our prime time recap continues.

1:07:24

Another key courtroom today, Donald Trump's

1:07:26

criminal trial in New

1:07:28

York had some revelations and some

1:07:30

realtors between the prosecution and

1:07:33

the defense. We've got a recap of that for you. They

1:07:35

will. The

1:07:39

same democratic society needs a

1:07:41

good faith of its public

1:07:43

officials, correct? Absolutely. And

1:07:46

that good faith assumes that

1:07:48

they will follow the law. Correct. And

1:07:50

that's all of the mechanisms that

1:07:53

could potentially fail. In

1:07:55

the end, if it fails completely,

1:07:58

it's because we've destroyed it. our democracy on

1:08:00

our own, isn't it? It

1:08:03

is, Justice Sotomayor, and I

1:08:05

also think that there are

1:08:07

additional checks in the system.

1:08:09

Of course the constitutional framers

1:08:12

designed a separated power system

1:08:14

in order to limit abuses.

1:08:16

I think one of the ways

1:08:19

in which abuses are limited is

1:08:21

accountability under the criminal law for

1:08:23

criminal violations. But the ultimate check

1:08:25

is the goodwill and faith in

1:08:28

democracy, and crimes that are alleged

1:08:30

in this case that are the

1:08:32

antithesis of democracy that subverted and

1:08:35

undermined that. An

1:08:37

encouragement to believe words that

1:08:39

can somewhat put into suspicion

1:08:41

here, that no man is

1:08:43

above the law either

1:08:45

in his official or private acts. I

1:08:48

think that is an assumption of the Constitution.

1:08:59

After several hours of questioning across

1:09:01

three days this week, prosecutors today

1:09:03

wrapped up their direct examination of

1:09:05

their first big witness against Donald Trump,

1:09:08

David Pecker, the former CEO of the

1:09:10

company that used to run the National

1:09:12

Enquirer. Prosecutors have been

1:09:14

using David Pecker's testimony this week to

1:09:16

make the case that he and then

1:09:19

candidate Donald Trump hatched what they described

1:09:21

as an illegal plan, a scheme to

1:09:23

effectively use the National Enquirer as a

1:09:25

tool of Trump's campaign for president in

1:09:28

2016. They'd do

1:09:30

three things. They'd print positive stories about

1:09:32

Trump, they'd print negative stories about his

1:09:34

campaign rivals, and they would also

1:09:36

find as-yet untold negative stories about

1:09:38

Trump that hadn't been published yet,

1:09:41

and they would pay to prevent

1:09:43

them from being published. According

1:09:46

to prosecutors, that's all

1:09:48

in line with the alleged payment that's at

1:09:50

the heart of this case, from Donald Trump

1:09:52

to porn star Stormy Daniels, to keep her

1:09:54

quiet about an affair that she says that

1:09:56

they had and that Trump denies that they

1:09:58

had. fantastic

1:10:00

moment in the opening

1:10:03

statements on Monday when the

1:10:05

Trump lawyer

1:10:09

tried to sort of vaguely kind of cast

1:10:11

his eye at the Stormy Daniels payment and

1:10:13

described it as Trump looking

1:10:15

for opportunities related to the apprentice.

1:10:18

So there definitely wasn't any walk-a-walka going

1:10:20

on, he was just looking for

1:10:22

opportunities related to his television

1:10:25

show. Anyway, prosecutors

1:10:27

say the catch-and-kill payments amounted

1:10:29

to illegal contributions to Donald

1:10:32

Trump's campaign. David Pecker told the jury

1:10:34

about how he eventually received a letter

1:10:36

from the FEC, the Federal Election Commission,

1:10:38

which was beginning to investigate. He was

1:10:40

very worried about this, he says he

1:10:43

called up Trump attorney Michael Cohen, Michael

1:10:45

Cohen told him don't worry about it. Now

1:10:48

even though it is this time of night,

1:10:50

we do not yet have the official transcript

1:10:52

from court today still, but

1:10:54

we do have a bunch of reporters who

1:10:56

are in the courtroom and who are in the overflow

1:10:58

room and who were able to take detailed notes,

1:11:00

which is what I'm about

1:11:02

to read from now. Joshua Steinglass, the

1:11:05

prosecutor, quote, did you receive a letter

1:11:07

from the Federal Election Commission? David Pecker,

1:11:09

yes. Steinglass, did you speak to Michael

1:11:11

Cohen? Pecker, when I received

1:11:13

criminal record, I called up Michael Cohen. I

1:11:15

said Michael, I just received this letter, what

1:11:17

do we do about it? And Michael Cohen said,

1:11:20

Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General and Donald Trump

1:11:22

has him in his pocket. I

1:11:25

said, I am very worried. Now

1:11:28

for the record, attorneys general aren't supposed

1:11:30

to fit in the president's pocket,

1:11:33

even if a president wears notoriously

1:11:35

wide-legged pants. Still,

1:11:38

David Pecker testified today that Trump asked

1:11:40

about one of the people whose silence

1:11:42

they had paid for, he said

1:11:45

Trump asked him in January 2017 before he

1:11:48

was inaugurated, quote, how's our

1:11:50

girl doing? Meaning how's Karen

1:11:52

McDougall? David Pecker says he

1:11:55

told Trump in response that things were going

1:11:57

fine, that she was staying quiet. Trump

1:12:00

asked about her again that summer when he invited

1:12:02

David Pecker to come to the White House. Pecker

1:12:05

says Trump asked him, quote, how

1:12:07

is Karen doing? David Pecker says

1:12:09

he told Trump, quote, she's quiet.

1:12:11

Everything's going good. Mr.

1:12:13

Pecker said today that he finally had to put

1:12:15

his foot down on any additional

1:12:17

payments for Trump because Trump was

1:12:20

not paying him back like he said he

1:12:22

would. First for a doorman from a Trump

1:12:25

property who made a sort of wild claim

1:12:27

about a supposed Trump love

1:12:29

child. Then for Karen McDougall

1:12:31

again, Pecker expected to

1:12:33

be paid back by

1:12:35

Trump for that payment, Trump did

1:12:38

not pay him back again. This is from our reporter's

1:12:40

notes from the trial today. David Pecker told his

1:12:42

editor, quote, we already paid $30,000 to the doorman.

1:12:46

We paid $150,000 to Karen McDougall. I

1:12:49

am not a bank. We are not

1:12:51

paying out any further disbursements. Pecker

1:12:55

testified that he ultimately suggested that

1:12:58

Trump himself should be the one to pay

1:13:00

for the third catch and kill payment on

1:13:02

Trump's behalf, the one to store me Daniels, and

1:13:04

that gets us, I think, to the most

1:13:06

important part of David Pecker's testimonies

1:13:08

today, which is why Trump was

1:13:10

so concerned with keeping these negative

1:13:12

stories about himself quiet. This

1:13:16

is important because paying someone hush money,

1:13:18

paying somebody to not say a distasteful

1:13:20

thing about you is

1:13:22

not a crime. Prosecutors are

1:13:24

alleging that the hush money payments in this

1:13:26

case were used

1:13:28

to influence the election. They were

1:13:30

an illegal contribution to Trump's campaign.

1:13:33

And then they say Trump covered

1:13:35

up the payments by creating false records

1:13:37

to make them look like legal fees. Again,

1:13:40

from our reporter's notes today, Steinwald

1:13:43

prosecutor, did you ever have

1:13:45

any intention of printing Karen McDougall story

1:13:47

about her affair with Mr. Trump? Pecker.

1:13:49

No, we did not. Steinwald, was your

1:13:51

principal purpose to suppress her story so

1:13:53

as not to influence the election? Pecker.

1:13:56

Yes, it was. Steinwald, were you

1:13:58

aware that expen- to influence the election

1:14:01

made at the request of a candidate are

1:14:03

unlawful? Pekker, yes. Stineglass.

1:14:07

And why did you not want Karen McDougall's

1:14:09

story to be published by any other

1:14:11

organization? Pekker, we didn't want the story

1:14:13

to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or

1:14:16

hurt the campaign. It

1:14:18

was not for the purpose of the magazine's

1:14:21

bottom line, it was for the campaign.

1:14:24

It was a contribution to the campaign.

1:14:27

Today David Pekker explicitly said these payments

1:14:29

were made to protect Trump's

1:14:31

campaign for the presidency. From

1:14:34

our reporter's notes today, again, Stineglass, did

1:14:36

Trump say anything to make you think that

1:14:38

his concern was for family? Pekker,

1:14:41

I think it was for the campaign. In

1:14:44

the conversations with Michael Cohen with respect to both

1:14:46

of these stories and the conversations I

1:14:48

had directly with Mr. Trump, his

1:14:51

family wasn't mentioned. I made

1:14:53

the assumption, the comment, the concern was the campaign.

1:14:56

He continues, Pekker, quote, prior to the

1:14:58

election, if a negative story was coming

1:15:00

out with respect to Donald Trump and

1:15:03

spoke about it, he was always concerned

1:15:05

about Melania Trump, he was concerned about

1:15:07

Ivanka, what the family might feel or say about it. But

1:15:09

once the election, and after

1:15:12

the campaign, he was concerned

1:15:14

on the doorman story with respect to if

1:15:16

the story came out and what wasn't true

1:15:18

about an illegitimate child, it was

1:15:20

basically about the impact of the campaign and

1:15:23

the election. Stineglass, did that

1:15:25

apply to Karen McDougal as well? Pekker, yes.

1:15:28

Stineglass, did he ever say he was

1:15:30

concerned about how Melania or Ivanka would

1:15:32

feel? Pekker, no.

1:15:37

MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin was in the

1:15:40

courtroom today. Lisa, we don't have a proper

1:15:42

transcript yet, and so we're piecing this together

1:15:44

from everybody's furious fingers. The

1:15:47

way that we cut that and paste it together, was

1:15:50

that sort of true to what it felt like in

1:15:52

the flow of the courtroom proceedings today? It

1:15:54

was true to what it felt like, but

1:15:56

there were also a number of other explosive

1:15:58

novels, and to my mind, The

1:16:00

biggest thing was Pekka's admission that

1:16:03

he understood that the payment to

1:16:05

Karen McDougall was

1:16:07

an unlawful campaign contribution, and he understood

1:16:09

that in real time, not after the

1:16:11

fact. How did he come to understand that?

1:16:14

Because of his own entanglement with Arnold Schwarzenegger,

1:16:16

who was then going to be running for

1:16:18

governor in California, and he had a catch

1:16:20

and kill scheme of his own with Arnold

1:16:22

Schwarzenegger. Arnold Schwarzenegger had been on the cover

1:16:24

of two magazines that Pekka was in the

1:16:26

process of acquiring 70 or 80 times. And

1:16:30

the owner of those magazines said, before we close this deal, I

1:16:32

really want to sell to you, but you got to go talk

1:16:35

to Arnold. Arnold said to him, I

1:16:37

have a big deal with these magazines. I'd

1:16:39

like to serve as an editor at large

1:16:41

for you. And I'd like to continue my

1:16:43

association with the magazines, which have been lucrative

1:16:45

for the magazines. But in exchange, you will

1:16:47

come to me with new information about me

1:16:49

and you will help me suppress stories because

1:16:51

I am running for governor of California. And

1:16:54

not only did David Pekka agree to do

1:16:56

that. He did it 30 or

1:16:58

40 times with respect to allegations

1:17:00

of affairs, to sexual harassment. He

1:17:03

even helped put up one of

1:17:05

the women who accused Schwarzenegger of

1:17:07

fathering an illegitimate child with him

1:17:10

in Hawaii so that he was away

1:17:12

from California during the campaign. When

1:17:15

Schwarzenegger was found out by the LA Times and

1:17:17

he was asked, did this actually happen? He

1:17:20

said, ask David Pekka. Why? Because

1:17:22

he had engaged in one of those life

1:17:25

rights assignment agreements with this woman. And

1:17:27

that's how David Pekka said he came

1:17:29

to understand it was unlawful because authorities

1:17:31

came knocking and they investigated and they

1:17:33

got in trouble for this. They got

1:17:36

in trouble for that. Not with the

1:17:38

IPC because as you know, a gubernatorial

1:17:40

candidate is not subject to federal campaign

1:17:42

finance law. But that's how David Pekka

1:17:44

accumulated the body of knowledge that caused

1:17:47

him to say when he

1:17:50

was concerned about this, this

1:17:52

might be a problem. I was sensitive to it. And

1:17:55

then when Michael Cohen and he were arranging

1:17:57

for his repayments for the McDougal settlement. A

1:18:00

lawyer at American Media was consulted

1:18:02

and without revealing the substance of

1:18:04

the conversation, David Packer essentially conveyed,

1:18:06

I checked with a lawyer and

1:18:08

the lawyer said, this is not

1:18:10

kosher. So for even though he

1:18:12

wasn't a bank, even though he

1:18:14

was worried, for example, with Stormy Daniels about

1:18:17

the effect on Walmart, his biggest distributor of

1:18:19

the magazine, when it all was said and

1:18:21

done, his biggest concern was, I

1:18:23

don't wanna be in legal trouble. I

1:18:25

wanna protect my company, I wanna protect myself. And then

1:18:27

third of all, I wanna protect Donald Trump. Let

1:18:30

me ask you, so he did say explicitly

1:18:32

in court today that he consulted with a

1:18:34

campaign finance lawyer or an election related,

1:18:36

elections lawyer, who was saying around this

1:18:38

time, letting him know that this stuff

1:18:40

was, so it wasn't just that he

1:18:42

was realizing it himself based on the fact

1:18:45

that there was a state investigation in California

1:18:47

and he was turning up in the press.

1:18:49

He consulted a lawyer about the illegality of

1:18:51

what he was doing. He consulted two lawyers.

1:18:53

He consulted an outside election law specialist and

1:18:55

he consulted the general counsel of the company

1:18:58

who would have had to pass judgment on

1:19:00

it. And that was the person who said,

1:19:03

this is not happening. And when he

1:19:05

says, he basically tells Michael Cohen, don't give

1:19:07

me a check, don't give me

1:19:10

a Trump organization check. I don't want it

1:19:12

on the AMI books. I want nothing to

1:19:14

do with this reimbursement because he knows having

1:19:16

it on the books opens him up to

1:19:18

vulnerability legally speaking. I have to say, I

1:19:21

felt this revelation felt enormous to me for

1:19:23

this reason. These

1:19:26

people are so, they're operating

1:19:28

in such a weird world. Like,

1:19:30

you know, my wife worked at the Obama White

1:19:32

House, which is the opposite of this. Like everything

1:19:35

was like so lawyered and everyone's checking

1:19:37

with the lawyers about everything. These people were operating in

1:19:39

a very different world. And there's some part of me

1:19:41

that felt like these are like fly by the seat

1:19:43

of the pants kind of operators. It's

1:19:45

possible they didn't realize they were committing a crime.

1:19:47

It doesn't mean they weren't committing a crime, but

1:19:49

it seems possible they didn't know. This

1:19:52

was pretty shocking to me that like, I

1:19:55

think this is lawyered in life. Hey, definitely a crime. Don't

1:19:58

do this. That seemed... like

1:20:00

a really big deal. Yeah. And

1:20:02

I thought the DA got one more win out of this that isn't

1:20:04

even all those details. They established

1:20:06

that David Pecker still likes Donald

1:20:08

Trump. Sure. And that's

1:20:11

a good thing because you have Michael Cohen

1:20:13

and other people who very clearly have to

1:20:15

be viewed with at least some questions about

1:20:17

the personal animus that will come

1:20:19

up on cross. Here, the jury

1:20:21

was treated to a very simple fact. This

1:20:23

guy, this was transactional. He says nothing personal

1:20:25

against him. Just business. I

1:20:28

feel like him. He's a stronger witness

1:20:30

against Trump. Yes. After

1:20:34

the direct examination of David Pecker concluded

1:20:36

today, the cross examination started.

1:20:38

So the Trump lawyers got

1:20:40

to start asking David Pecker hostile

1:20:42

questions effectively. And that had some really interesting

1:20:44

stuff. We'll be looking at that right after

1:20:46

this. Welcome

1:20:53

back to our prime time recap of what was

1:20:56

a very intense day in two different

1:20:58

courtrooms. One at the United States Supreme

1:21:00

Court in Washington and another at criminal

1:21:02

court in Manhattan. This afternoon, the defense

1:21:04

for Donald Trump got their first chance

1:21:07

to cross examine a prosecution witness. It

1:21:09

was David Pecker, the former head of

1:21:11

American media, which published the National Inquirer.

1:21:14

Now broad strokes in some ways,

1:21:16

the job of the defense is

1:21:19

easier than the prosecution. All the defense has

1:21:21

to do is convince one juror that there

1:21:23

isn't a case against Trump. Told

1:21:25

out in the mind of one juror is a

1:21:27

victory for Trump. The

1:21:30

prosecution spent this week thus far trying

1:21:32

to establish the narrative that David Pecker

1:21:34

used his role at AMI to

1:21:36

conspire to unlawfully affect the outcome

1:21:38

of the 2016 presidential election

1:21:41

to favor Donald Trump. That's

1:21:43

the underlying illegal conduct, which

1:21:45

turns these counts of falsifying

1:21:47

business records into a felony

1:21:50

instead of a misdemeanor. Defense

1:21:52

Attorney Emil Bovey Today used his time

1:21:54

in court attempting to undercut that narrative

1:21:56

from the prosecution, trying to put reasonable

1:21:59

doubts end of the mind of at

1:22:01

least one juror for zip it on

1:22:03

cross examinations. They he got David Packer

1:22:05

to say that Trump was not the

1:22:07

only figure for whom the National Enquirer

1:22:09

was shelling out money to buy negative.

1:22:11

Stories by and very

1:22:13

negative stories. Upset

1:22:15

you again. the court still hasn't

1:22:17

released transcript of today's afternoon session.

1:22:19

We are reporters in the courtroom

1:22:21

know and and here are knows

1:22:24

the A Save Us. Moby.

1:22:26

Quote: Under your watch: You only published

1:22:29

about half the stories that you purchased.

1:22:31

Is that right Hackers? That's about right.

1:22:33

Bovey You purchased rights to a story.

1:22:36

And the agreement is the source doesn't disclose

1:22:38

the to other of a sick and the

1:22:40

egg. Pecker right. Over

1:22:42

there were also instances where am I

1:22:44

purchased the story in order to use

1:22:46

it as leverage against a celebrity. Is

1:22:48

that correct Packard that corrupt voting? There

1:22:50

were also instances where am I would

1:22:52

purchase a story to get a celebrity

1:22:55

to participate in an interview or use

1:22:57

that likeness Hacker? Yes. Bovey.

1:22:59

Standard. Operating Procedure And am I between

1:23:01

Nineteen Ninety Nine and Twenty Twenty Light? Packer.

1:23:04

Yes, Posey. Am I

1:23:07

as use hundreds of thousands of source.

1:23:09

Agreements for these purposes? Correct. Packer.

1:23:11

Yes, And then

1:23:13

Bovey went on to get David Zucker

1:23:16

to talk about specific instances of. Suppressing

1:23:18

stories about specific public figures,

1:23:20

they talked about golfer Tiger

1:23:23

Woods and actor Mark Wahlberg

1:23:25

as also. Then Durban a

1:23:27

Tory candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger and then

1:23:29

Chicago Mayoral candidate Rama Manuals both

1:23:32

as whose political campaigns for active

1:23:34

at the time. Posey.

1:23:36

Also elicited from David Pepper that

1:23:38

he'd been squelching. Stories for Trump

1:23:40

himself long before the Trump presidential.

1:23:42

Campaign. And that was because Trump

1:23:44

drove magazine sales and made money

1:23:46

for Amash. Again, This is

1:23:49

from Nbc. Reporters Court Room Notes:

1:23:52

Movie. Close Nineteen Ninety Eight was the

1:23:54

first time you gave President Trump. A

1:23:56

heads up about a negative stories relating

1:23:58

to Marla Maples you try. That

1:24:00

the story from. Running Packer Yes, Have

1:24:02

H S almost seventeen years prior

1:24:04

to the August Twenty Fifteen Meetings?

1:24:07

Packer? Yes, Over seventeen years. Of

1:24:09

giving President Trump a heads up to stories.

1:24:11

Long before twenty sustained because that

1:24:13

was good for business. Packer Yes,

1:24:15

Bovey President Trump was giving you

1:24:17

content to run in the National

1:24:20

Enquirer. Correct hacker? Yes, And

1:24:22

will be also. Tried to put a little

1:24:24

distance between Trump lawyer and six or

1:24:27

Michael Cohen. Are and the

1:24:29

Trump Campaign. Against whether or not this

1:24:31

is all done to benefit the campaign

1:24:33

is. At least one of the crux.

1:24:35

Of the matter here. Again, this

1:24:38

is from Nbc. Reporters Court Room

1:24:40

notes to this Bovey. How

1:24:42

was Mister Trump's personal? Lawyer. And that

1:24:44

was his only job. Pepper Correct

1:24:46

Posey. between Twenty Fifteen and Twenty

1:24:48

sixteen thousand was always clear he

1:24:50

wasn't working for the campaign. He

1:24:52

was to personalise harming. Hacker.

1:24:55

Yes, That's in addition

1:24:57

to Trump's defense attorney trying to make

1:24:59

it seem to the jury that Pecker

1:25:01

has a faulty memory, them implying that

1:25:03

he is said to him by prosecutors

1:25:05

and just thinks that he might have

1:25:07

lied under oath at one point two

1:25:09

F B I and prosecutors when he

1:25:11

didn't mention multiple times. That's Hope Hicks

1:25:13

Trump staffer. Hope Hicks was present at

1:25:15

least one key meeting. This

1:25:19

again is the defense on cross examination.

1:25:21

The defense will get to resume their

1:25:23

cross examination of David Pepper tomorrow morning

1:25:25

when. Court reconvenes at nine

1:25:27

thirty am. Episodes of

1:25:30

Revelations from Salt From from

1:25:32

David Pecker on Direct Examination

1:25:34

feel so. Understandable

1:25:37

and straightforward. Incidents Right to the

1:25:39

point In terms of other. Cases I understand

1:25:41

that defenses trying to cut a muddy

1:25:43

yes this case, but I can't quite

1:25:45

tell that they're making any. Focused.

1:25:48

Point: That's going to be an important counter

1:25:51

narrative. Yeah, I'm Lisa. You are there today

1:25:53

And the court room with that fares. i

1:25:56

think litter sense made some headway in time

1:25:58

to settles to the One, this

1:26:01

is not Pecker's first rodeo. And

1:26:04

two, Pecker was always serving Pecker. In

1:26:06

other words, the primary purpose of this

1:26:08

payment had nothing to do with benefiting

1:26:10

Donald Trump's campaign. Trump for

1:26:12

Pecker was good business as he had

1:26:14

always been. But that doesn't, to your

1:26:16

point, undermine the fact that

1:26:18

it's still a federal election law violation.

1:26:20

And more importantly, as David Pecker acknowledged

1:26:22

in his direct, that he knew it

1:26:24

at the time. But let me interject,

1:26:26

though, because isn't there a

1:26:28

big difference between what David Pecker

1:26:30

used to do for Donald Trump

1:26:33

for 17 years in terms of varying

1:26:35

stories and trying to keep him happy and trying

1:26:37

to get him to contribute and all that stuff.

1:26:39

And then once Trump's campaign started in

1:26:41

2015 and 2016, that's when Pecker started paying

1:26:45

to shut people up for the first time. I

1:26:48

mean, prosecution said in

1:26:50

their opening statement on Monday that it

1:26:53

was only once Trump had

1:26:55

his presidential campaign going, that was the

1:26:57

first time they ever paid anyone, paid

1:26:59

anyone for information about Trump. It's a

1:27:01

qualitatively different process at that point. I

1:27:03

agree with that. And the

1:27:05

payments were abnormal even by inquiry standards.

1:27:08

Pecker testified on direct a couple of days ago

1:27:10

that it was their standard practice to empower their

1:27:12

reporters and editors to pay people up to $10,000.

1:27:16

But anything in excess of $10,000 really had

1:27:18

to be done with Pecker's approval and or

1:27:20

with the approval of Dylan Howard, who was

1:27:22

the chief content officer. So to that

1:27:24

point, not only were they doing it for Trump for

1:27:26

the first time, first payment was $30,000 to the

1:27:29

doorman, second payment, $150,000. And

1:27:32

most importantly, the thing that the cross

1:27:34

did not succeed in deflating. Trump was

1:27:36

involved the whole time. What was the

1:27:39

best thing that David Pecker did for

1:27:41

them? He testified about multiple conversations with

1:27:43

Trump himself, whether in person or by

1:27:46

phone. Trump was involved in the Karen

1:27:48

McDougal story from start to

1:27:50

finish, even holding a dinner at the White

1:27:52

House in August or July of 2017. Where's

1:27:55

Mr. Pecker? This is your dinner. Invite as many business

1:27:58

associates as you want. And there's like a picture. of

1:28:00

Dylan Howard hamming it up in the Oval

1:28:02

Office, as well as a picture of

1:28:04

them walking the perimeter of the Rose Garden,

1:28:06

meaning Pecker and Trump. That's a conversation

1:28:08

during which Pecker says Trump said to him

1:28:11

yet again, how's Karen? And

1:28:13

is it the implication of how's our girl

1:28:15

and how's Karen? How's she

1:28:17

doing? Or is it, is she holding to her

1:28:19

agreement to not tell her story? Is she holding

1:28:21

to her agreement? And is she happy with what

1:28:23

you've offered her? Because Pecker also

1:28:26

talked on direct about the fact that

1:28:28

Karen McDougal, she thought this was a

1:28:30

serious arrangement, right? She was trying to

1:28:32

forward her career. She wanted to do

1:28:34

red carpet interviews for Radar Online. She

1:28:36

wanted to write columns in some of

1:28:39

the fitness magazines. So at one point,

1:28:41

Pecker has to come to New York

1:28:43

and they have a meeting where he

1:28:45

hears her out about her various complaints

1:28:47

about her contractual arrangement with American Media.

1:28:49

Why? Because he wants to, in

1:28:51

his words, keep her in the family. Hold

1:28:54

her close. Yeah, it's just, I mean,

1:28:56

it's that sad and sordid. I

1:29:00

did think, as I was reading our notes again on

1:29:02

the internal flak again, because we don't have the transcript

1:29:04

of just what was being said in the

1:29:06

cross, that the

1:29:08

John Edwards case is like the closest kind

1:29:10

of parallel analog we have here, and particularly

1:29:13

because that ended up in an acquittal, and

1:29:16

because that turned on

1:29:18

this question of whether he was

1:29:20

suppressing an explosive and embarrassing personal

1:29:22

affair for campaign purposes or for

1:29:25

personal purposes. The

1:29:27

strongest ground, it seems to me, they have

1:29:29

to defend is on that point. The

1:29:32

idea that everyone's lying and making it up seems

1:29:34

like nonsense. The idea of the arrangement didn't happen

1:29:36

seems like nonsense. The idea that Donald Trump was

1:29:38

not involved seems like nonsense. The

1:29:41

place, it seems to me, they have the

1:29:43

strongest argument to make is that this was

1:29:45

about personal embarrassment or something else. The

1:29:48

other piece I think that is strong is that all

1:29:50

of the other celebrity catch

1:29:52

and kill schemes. It

1:29:54

seems to be the only one, and correct me if

1:29:57

I'm wrong, just also reading just through the notes, where

1:29:59

they... Covered up the way

1:30:01

that it was reported internally where they

1:30:03

went to incredible elaborate length to make

1:30:05

it look like it's something It's not

1:30:07

and to hide it from their own

1:30:09

Accountant to make it look like it's

1:30:11

a president It's under the sort of the

1:30:13

president title rather than where they would normally put

1:30:15

these sort of deals So it's unique

1:30:17

and I almost feel like highlighting

1:30:20

Arnold Schwarzenegger and these other deals

1:30:23

Because they weren't structured this way and

1:30:25

they weren't concealed this way in a

1:30:27

way actually also makes the prosecution Even

1:30:30

if they were concealed in that way and

1:30:32

they weren't prosecuted by other people that wouldn't

1:30:35

undermine the fact that this is still A

1:30:37

crime that the Manhattan VA Correct

1:30:39

right and the pecker admitted to right and

1:30:41

I don't think we know by the way joy if American

1:30:44

media didn't disguise those other payments. It's just simply

1:30:46

not relevant and probably not in the discovery of

1:30:49

that Yeah, I was just gonna say to your

1:30:51

point Chris, you know I think it's so damning

1:30:53

the excerpts that you read again from our reporters

1:30:55

that Donald Trump didn't mention Melania or Ivanka's

1:30:58

name Once it totally under it rips

1:31:00

apart the idea that this is for

1:31:02

personal Yes, you know protection and the

1:31:04

fact that who's been in court with

1:31:06

Donald Trump in solidarity which family members

1:31:09

Unfamily members none of them if this really

1:31:11

is part of the defense It is paper

1:31:13

thin when you don't have anybody sitting next

1:31:15

to him today in criminal court in New

1:31:18

York things actually Started with

1:31:20

a hearing on the so-called gag

1:31:22

order what Trump is allowed to

1:31:24

say about Witnesses about jurors and

1:31:26

what the court is going to do about it

1:31:29

if and when he continues to continue Keep

1:31:31

breaking those rules that hearing

1:31:33

happened this morning. It did not necessarily end

1:31:35

the way you might expect We're going to take a

1:31:38

quick break our recap of today's crazy

1:31:40

day in legal proceedings proceeds

1:31:42

that after this Welcome

1:31:56

back to our primetime recap of

1:31:58

today's legal proceedings in

1:32:00

Washington DC at the United States Supreme

1:32:02

Court and in New York Criminal Court,

1:32:04

running alongside the Trump criminal trial, running

1:32:07

alongside it like a subplot, has

1:32:09

been the question of whether the judge in

1:32:11

this case will find former President Trump in

1:32:14

contempt of court for violating a

1:32:16

gag order from the court, a court

1:32:18

order, a binding court order that

1:32:21

supposedly forbids him from attacking potential

1:32:23

witnesses, jurors, and most officers of the

1:32:25

court. This question is

1:32:27

taking a surprisingly long time to answer.

1:32:31

Before today, prosecutors had already put in front of the

1:32:33

judge 10 different posts or

1:32:35

comments made by Trump or his campaign, which

1:32:37

they said violated the terms of the gag order.

1:32:40

Then today, prosecutors brought in

1:32:42

four more comments that Trump made that they

1:32:44

say violate the gag order, including one which

1:32:46

happened while Trump was on his way to

1:32:48

court today. Interestingly,

1:32:51

though, there was no ruling on the

1:32:53

alleged violations that have already been presented

1:32:55

to the judge before today. The

1:32:58

judge looked at the new ones that

1:33:00

were presented to him just today and said he'll hold

1:33:02

a hearing on those late next

1:33:04

week. NBC News

1:33:06

says that hearing will happen on Thursday and

1:33:10

there will be a hearing, but it does seem like

1:33:12

it's kind of far away. The question is, why is

1:33:14

this taking such a long time to resolve?

1:33:17

Ari? I think the judge wants

1:33:19

to be very careful and knows that

1:33:21

everything is subject to appeal and he's making good

1:33:23

progress. There's a practical side of this. They won't

1:33:25

tell you this in law school, but if your

1:33:27

case is going forward and there aren't shenanigans, yes,

1:33:29

this has been a distraction. Yes, this defendant's probably

1:33:31

gotten away with more than others would, but I

1:33:33

think the judge may take his time because the

1:33:36

case is going well. The other point I wanted

1:33:38

to share, I didn't get to be with you

1:33:40

Monday and this question is sometimes posed, why is

1:33:42

this night different than all other nights? I return

1:33:44

to that tonight to say we

1:33:46

heard a lot of hypotheticals to the Supreme Court about what

1:33:48

would happen if you put a former president on trial. And

1:33:51

the good news today,

1:33:53

why is this night different? Here's what would happen.

1:33:55

You'd have an orderly court proceeding and

1:33:58

the jury will be fair. You

1:34:00

shouldn't. His defense will deal with it and

1:34:02

America has not fallen apart In New York

1:34:04

is. This is the first week of actual

1:34:06

arguments that witnesses so it can be.even when

1:34:09

he calls for his supporters to come out

1:34:11

in great numbers he called us all. hell

1:34:13

breaks loose and there's then like at Add

1:34:15

that not a knock out a minion. Anyone

1:34:19

there's a very my and a volatile as

1:34:21

a smithers. Been the one I banged pm

1:34:23

today. he was very loud and in the

1:34:25

was the bell guy that they are alone

1:34:27

bring something that I've mentioned. Yeah unsettling a.

1:34:31

Single Trump is. Lisa

1:34:34

it feels to those. Of us

1:34:36

who aren't lawyers are watching the sunny outside that the

1:34:38

gag order thing has been. Litigated L A

1:34:41

and all of his cases, but in this been

1:34:43

on a time frame that seems like it's. Ineffective.

1:34:45

In terms of stopping him from doing the things

1:34:48

the gag order. Supposed to stop him from doing. Castle.

1:34:50

An Airplane Devil's Advocate with your voice

1:34:52

actor i think we're sounds power right

1:34:54

now is set to gag order. Violation.

1:34:57

Order is not out and because he

1:34:59

saw two options under the statute, he

1:35:02

can either find him up to one

1:35:04

thousand dollars per violations or can from

1:35:06

jail for up to thirty days. So

1:35:08

long as his choice between the two

1:35:10

is outstanding On result that is jumping

1:35:12

from thin line, it is this stick

1:35:14

that he has. It's sort of a

1:35:16

trick that Loop Kaplan used in the

1:35:18

Eating Carol trial. He knew full well

1:35:20

that Trump wanted him to throw him

1:35:22

in jail and she didn't do that,

1:35:24

but he held it out as a

1:35:27

possibility. Is And while Trump was not particularly

1:35:29

well behaved that moments during that trials, I

1:35:31

have no doubt that Kaplan holding out possibility

1:35:33

the jet engine from the court took from

1:35:35

further along than he otherwise would have. But

1:35:38

why would? That's why would that system of

1:35:40

incentives change if he ruled and said okay

1:35:42

if I want to thousand. Dollars for each

1:35:44

of these allergy for each of these

1:35:46

violations. And or any additional violations they're either

1:35:48

going to be increased financial penalties are they might

1:35:51

be jail depending on how bad they are and

1:35:53

how I'm feeling. So see eg. Arthur and go

1:35:55

on. Who is the judge who oversaw the Civil

1:35:57

Fall Trials? That was the mess at all. that

1:36:00

he used and I don't think Trump ever

1:36:02

took him seriously because when you're talking about

1:36:04

sums of money that despite Trump's pensions

1:36:07

are exaggerating how much he's worth,

1:36:09

you know $10,000 is not a lot of money to Donald

1:36:11

Trump. $12,000, $13,000

1:36:14

isn't a lot of money to Donald Trump

1:36:16

and so long as Rashawn doesn't really have

1:36:18

other options under the statute, even

1:36:20

if he says the next time you do

1:36:23

it, jail is a possibility, he's already said

1:36:25

that. Is he constrained either by statute or

1:36:27

by what an appellate court would say from making

1:36:29

it an amount of money that would be more

1:36:31

meaningful, that would be $100,000 for violations? I

1:36:35

think he is. I mean I looked at the

1:36:37

criminal contempt statute in New York and it's pretty

1:36:39

clear that those two options are as I just

1:36:41

outlined it. Does that mean that he

1:36:43

couldn't find Trump in violation of some other statute

1:36:45

that's not been briefed before him? No,

1:36:48

but he's also said I'm not going

1:36:50

to summarily find contempt, right? These

1:36:53

are things you have to bring before me

1:36:55

and he's made it very clear, these are

1:36:57

not summary proceedings. Unless he actually does

1:36:59

it in front of me, I'm not going to do

1:37:01

it just on my own volition. We

1:37:03

could keep going, but we shouldn't.

1:37:05

It's going to do it for us for now. The

1:37:12

South Dakota Stories, Volume 7. My

1:37:15

trip to South Dakota was the

1:37:17

best summer ever. Now I don't

1:37:19

need to go to Mars because

1:37:21

I've been to the Badlands and

1:37:24

I caught a bigger walleye than Dad when

1:37:26

we went to the Missouri River. Then I

1:37:28

rode my bike through these huge rocks called

1:37:31

needles. Ooh, I also saw my

1:37:33

first herd of bison, even a fuzzy furry

1:37:35

baby one. I can't wait to go back

1:37:37

and see more. There's so much

1:37:40

South Dakota, so little tongue.