Breaking news on Robert Muellers russia investigation yet again. In a new court filing just tonight, the special counsels team said former Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort attempted to tamper with potential ses while ontrial relee. They are asking a judge to revise manaforts release or revoke it entirely and pick him up. According to the filing, manafort used encrypted messaging applications to try to reach certain individuals. Well have much more on this story in just a moment. But first, this roller coaster ride of a day for the president , who just after 7 30 this morning touted his 5 hundredth day in office while listing his accomplishments. A quick word on how our count differs from his. We have always included Inauguration Day as the first day of his presidency. Then about an hour later, the president stopped the morning news in its tracks when he wrote this on twitter. As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, i have the absolute right to pardon myself, but why would i do that when i have done nothing wrong . The appointment of the special counsel is totally unconstitutional. President trumps comments come after we get a look at the secret letter the president s legal team sent to the special counsel back in january. Secret no more that highlights their defense of the president. In the letter obtained by the New York Times, the president s legal team argues the president cannot obstruct justice. Quote, in a brash assertion of president ial power, the 20page letter contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into russias election meddling because the constitution empowers him to, if he wished, terminate the inquiry or even exercise his power to pardon. Earlier today, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, senator chuck grassley, republican of iowa, offered this advice for President Trump. If i were president of the United States and i had a lawyer that told me i could pardon myself, i think id hire a new lawyer. Were also learning important detailt itial whit house statement, the response to the news of that trump tower meeting in 2016 that contradict previous statements from trumps legal team and Sarah Huckabee sanders. Now, according to this letter obtained by the New York Times, trumps lawyers write, quote, you have received all of the notes, communications and testimony indicating that the president dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, donald trump jr. But last summer trump lawyer jay sekulow and Sarah Huckabee sanders said President Trump did not dictate or draft that statement. The president was not did not draft the response. The response was came from donald trump jr. , and im sure in consultation wa his lawyer. I do want to be clear the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement. It came from donald trump jr. Thats what i can tell you. He certainly didnt dictate, but like i said, he weighed in, offered suggestion like any father would do. During todays White House Press briefing, Sarah Huckabee sanders was repeatedly asked about the drafting of this statement. Whats the reason for that discrepancy . Like you said, this is from a letter from the outside counsel, and id direct you to them to answer that question. I wonder if you could tell us the basis of your comment when you made that in august and is that still an operative statement or do you retract that . That . Once again this is a reference back to a letter from the outside counsel. I understand, but its also pertaining to a letter from the president s outside counsel, and therefore i cant answer. How can we believe what you tell us from the podium if his lawyers are saying its totally inaccurate. Once again, i cant comment on a letter from the president s outside counsel and id direct you to them to answer it. Literally, you said he did not dictate. The lawyer said he did. What is it . Im not going to respond to a outside counsel. Presidts we purposely walled off, and i would refer you to them for comment. That was josh dossey of the Washington Post doubling down there. Earlier tonight on cnn, giuliani dismissed the contradictions here as a simple mistake. You think maybe somebody could have made a mistake . Its a lot of mistakes. Why is it always a lot of mistakes. Why is it always that somebody you think jay sekulow lied . Maybe he just got it wrong like i got a few things wrong at the beginning of the investigation, meaning my knowledge. This is a complex investigation. The first week or so, i got a few things wrong. And then it was clarified in a letter, and thats the final position. Sarah sanders is up there and says he had nothing to do with the writing of that. Well, how did she get that wrong . Sekulow was wrong. She was wrong. How do these people not know . I have no idea ho got it wrong, but they got it wrong. I dont think either one of them is ever going to deliberately lie. I know the president isnt. Thats how that went. Ashley parker of the washington ites, inhe trump administration, the truth comes out after vigorous denials. Quote, the admission that trump dictated his sons statement is the latest example owhere on a the latest example of where on a number of key issues, especially pegged to muellers ongoing russia probe and trumps legal difficulties, the white house and the president s lawyers have offered contradicting stories and whipsaw aboutfaces often revealing the truth only weeks later when confronted with their inconsistencies. So much to talk about with our leadoff panel on a monday night. Matt apuzzo, pulitzer prizewinning repoer for e New York Times. Ashley parker, pulitzer prizewinning reporter for the Washington Post. Robert costa, National Political reporter for the Washington Post, moderator of Washington Week on pbs. And Daniel Goldman is back with us here in new york, former assistant u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york. Well, matt, this is your beat. I think reuters came out with this story first tonight. You have since written and reported about it. Tell us what youve learned, what we should know about this court filing tonight about Paul Manafort and what he is alleged to have been up to on the witness tampering front. Just when you think you can, you know, put the news down for a minute, right . What happened was bob muellers team filed a motion tonight and asked the judge for basically an emergency hearing to either revoke Paul Manaforts bond or basically rewrite and tighten the restrictions on him. They said that he has been, over the last several months, trying to get in contact with a pair of Public Relations officials who could, in turn, get in touch with some former european lawmakers who were doing lobbying work for Paul Manafort. Its a little bit complicated, but in a nutshell what the government is saying, what muellers team is saying is Paul Manafort was trying to line up the witnesses stories and trying to say, there was no domestic lobbying being done here. When we talked about lobbying, we were talking about foreign lobbying. And what they found was they found whatsapp messages and phone calls between manafort and these Public Relations people and an intermediary in these Public Relations people that spell it out. And the government has outlined a chart of all these contacts, and if it goes if this goes sideways for Paul Manafort, he could find himself in jail waiting for trial. Counselor, i have so many questions for you. I started asking them before we were on the air. So forgive me if this feels like rapid fire. First of all, isnt it on the finite list of things not to do, if youre at home with an ankle bracelet, if youre at home pending trial, to not t in touch with potential witnesses in your case . Its rule number one. Nt get in touch with potential witnesses. You dont talk to them because you could be either your bail could be revoked for witness tampering. You could be charged with witness tampering, and the evidence of your witness tamperincan be admitted into trial on the other charges. So if a judge wakes up in a certain mood tomorrow, goes to work at the Barrett Prettyman courthouse in washington, theres a chance the fbi swoops in and picks up Paul Manafort at his residence tomorrow and hes going to be taken to the federal holiday inn . I think thats unlikely. I think what will like hapn is the judge will call for a hearing, and manaforts lawyers will have an opportunity to respond to these assertions by the government. And they will go in before the judge and argue. The risk that the government takes is that they got this information likely from those Public Relations officials who are also witnesses in this case. Thats what i was going to ask you. Is there any evidence of surveillance, does this strike you . No. Think theyre cooperating almost certainly theyre cooperating with the special counsels investigation as witnesses in the upcoming trials against Paul Manafort and likely in some of the prep work that theyre doing, they disclosed the government that, hey, i got these texts about him trying to tell me to change my story. Fe like was trying to ask me to suborn perry. You should know this. They then would investigate that a little bit more, and when they felt comfortable going before the judge to ask for bail revocation, thats when they would file this motion. But it will likely end up in court. The risk they run is that those witnesses may be asked to teifif the judge doesnt just accept the governments representation, and then the defense lawyers get t crack at crossexamination before the trial. Isnt this also a version of tightening the screws using a power drill now . It just got even tougher for manafort. Yes, and it continues to get tougher for Paul Manafort. A lot of people wonder why he is not cooperating, and i think one thing to consider is that somebody who is willing to tamper with witnesses is not rationally thinking enough to understand that cooperating is perhaps his best end game here. Wow, well put. Robert costa, were coming to you next, and that is this was almost two days in the life of the trump administration. Number one, the first half of the day was taken up with this legal question. Can the president selfpardon, and wouldnt that, by extension, truly put him above the reach of any of the laws in our nation where no one is supposed to be above the law . Number two, this manafort example tonight, what are you hearing from those, as we say, around the president . All the stories are interconnected. Working with my colleagues today at the post, we reported on the president asserting all of this executive power, talked to mayor giuliani. He did the same in interviews with the Washington Post, talking about how the president could pardon himself, may not have to do an interview. At the same time, brian, you have this president s legal team working on preparing for a possible subpoena battle, looking at what an interview would look like and, at the same time, being very concerned about a report about the president s conduct dealing with obstruction of justice. And that seems to be the onus of this probe at this moment. Of course theres the russia collusion aspect, and that whole part of the investigation. But when you look at mr. Manaforts actions and the focus on the president s conduct, its all about how people involved m this orbit have interacted with this investigation. Ashley parker, Paul Manafort has never been any match for your keyboard, and you of course have done it again. Let me know your thinking about the trump manafort relationship, and i ask because President Trump went there again this weekend, trying to trot out that he was with the campaign for a very short period of time. The guy had business cards inted that said he was chairman of the trump president ial effort. Yeah, its a little bit of revisionist history the way the president wants to sort of wipe Paul Manafort and his fairly longstanding relationship with him just even socially in new york, living in the same building, i believe, sort of from the Public Record now. It is true that Paul Manafort did not start the campaign at the beginning, but he was there for a crucial period of time. And sort of everything were seeing with Paul Manafort, if you talk to people close to the president , on the one hand they say what mueller is looking into, at least what we know, as very little currently publicly to dhe campaign. Its sort of bad decisions and bad behavior that well predates the campaign. The other issue, of course, however, is that it undercuts this idea that President Trump has said he always surrounds himself with, you know, the absolute best people. And there is some concern that as sort of this pressure gets increasingly applied to mr. Manafort, that, you know, this one person who so far has not really been cooperating with the probe may suddenly flip. And, ashley, i have to ask you about the trump presidency. We always try to touch on this, and i mean this absolutely seriously. It seems to be taking place in the kind of mini environments that are the cabinet departments, but where the kind of central thrust theme atically of the Trump White House is concerned, what do you sense day to day, or here we are starting a new week . Well, i think if you look at pardons, all this attention to pardons and the president saying he has the absolute ability really window into where f, the president is right now and how he feels about the presidency. He came into the job expecting sort of the oval office and the presidency to be more like a monarchy, and hes a little frustrated to find out that its not that at all. So when he feels like hes spiraling out of control, these pardons are and, again, reasonable people and legal scholars can quibble over if he does have the ability to pardon himself. But pardons are one of the few areas where he does have quite a bit of authority. He can decide he wants to pardon Rod Blagojevich or Martha Stewart and almost snap his fingers and make it happen. So its one area you are seeing him asserting the control that he has always wanted to have and has been frustrated to find that he doesnt always have. And, daniel, to ashleys point, the president arrives in office, and it turns out the one awesome power he has is these pardons. He can be forgiven for thinking the rest of the job perhaps was going to be that awesome and without any friction. Youre the lawyer here. This notion of selfpardoning, im just a layperson. Seems to me it would put the president above the law so when he jokingly uses the example of shooting somebody on fifth avenue, that would put him out of the reach of a murder charge. I dont think you need to be a lawyer to figure out that th whew. Does not add up. Theres a fundamental tenet of our democracy, which is that no person can be the judge of his own case. That is what really runs through the constitution, and that will ultimately be the sort of saving grace for our nation if someone like President Trump were to actually try to pardon himself. I think the much bigger and more realistic risk is that he does try to pardon either coconspirators or family members and that he uses his pardon power for what many would perceive to be improper personal purposes. And thats going to be a tougher question that most lth congress would have to deal with or perhaps Robert Mueller depending on his view of the law. Matt, about the times exclusive this weekend, about this once secret legal memorandum, a lot of legal experts were surprised about the reasoning in it. A lot of civilians were surprised that we have this latest version of events on just the donald trump jr. Statement from a traveling air force one coming back from a sum yeah, and the argument the argument that i think is real heart of this is and you touched on it, brian, at the top of the show is that the president cant possibly obstruct justice because the power of the Justice Department and the power of these investigators is all derived from the executive, and the president is the executive. So how could he obstruct himself . And its a remarkable argument. Its a novel argument, and frankly its one that has been building for 16 years, the two post9 11 presidencies have asserted more and more executive power and carved out Greater Authority for themselves and this sort of unitary theory of the executive branch has really become codified in the thinking of the west wing. And im not sure it matters whos in power these days. That seems to be the goto theory. I dont know where the limit of this is. Our reading of a plain text reading of the memo would suggest that the president can never, ever do anything to obstruct justice. I mean can he offer to pay the fbi director a Million Dollars to shut off an investigation . I dont know where the limitations on this are. And, bob costa, a simple question for you. Is this white house, in your view, playing offense or defense right now . Theyre playing both because publicly you see them playing offense. Theyre trying to question the credibility of the mueller investigation, but inside of this white house with emmet flood now there trying to come up with a strategy for a personal subpoena battle, how does the presidency respond . Giuliani and his associates working privately with t mueller team to talk through the parameters of a possible interview. You see them playing defense where it really matters. What happens with a subpoena, with an interview . But of course when it comes to the public war, the weapons are out. I know there are other shows on television tonight. I can say with certainty no one had a panel this good to start off their conversation like we did. Matt apuzzo, ashley parker, robert costa, dan goldman, my thanks to all of you for showing up and helping us out on a monday night. And coming up, as we approach o fak, more on muellers late court filing tonight against manafort. More on the president s claim about his own pardon power. Congressman adam schiff, the top democrat on house intel, is here with us in new york. Hell join us in the studio to weigh in on all of it. And then later, President Trump takes a break from the special counsel to once again ramp up the culture war on the sidelines at nfl games. The 11th hour just Getting Started on a monday night. Dray, when he was younger, he loved to smile; and we knew he would need braces because his teeth were coming in funny. Thats when he had the bunny rabbits. We called him the bunny rabbit. Now, those are the same two front teeth, there, that they are now. Then dray ended up having to wear braces for 5 years because he never made it to appointments, because he was busy playing basketball. If he missed practice, he dont get to play in the game. This is the picture that was on the front page of the newspaper. All you can notice is the braces then, once he got to michigan state, he broke the retainer my bottom teeth, they were really crooked, and i just wasnt getting braces again. Smile direct club fits into my lifestyle so well. The liner is so great. Its easy to just grab it and go and then i can change on the road. I did photoshoots with my aligners in and you cant see them. I wish smile direct club would have been around when i was paying for them. I wouldnt have to take him out of school. I wouldnt have had missed work. Its like a great feeling to have good teeth. A smile is a first impression, thats why i think having a great smile is so important. The president s contention that he can pardon himself set off a lot of alarm bells, and it went off like someing of an incendiary device on social media. The reaction included this from California Democratic congressman adam schiff, who reminded us weve been here before though in a different context. Quote, president nixon asked the department of justice if he could pardon himself. They said no, and no one may be the judge in their own case. He resigned three days later. In case you want to follow the nixon model, that would be thursday. Congressman adam schiff, the lead democrat on house intel, is with us here in our new york studios tonight. Welcome. Thank you for coming in. Thank you. I feel like we were going to start there, but weve had news break on your way to a Television Studio tonight. So lets back up with Paul Manafort. This is an allegation that hes witness tampering. What would that have to say about his mindset . Hes in effect out on bail pending trial. Well, it says a lot. It says, for one thing, that hes terrified of the exposure that hes facing in terms of the charges against him and willing to engage in such a reckless act as to try to compound his problems. It also says to me that he must not be certain that hes going to get a pardon after all, and maybe he hears the president diminish his role in the campaign. Well, he was there for a short time. And maybe hes taking that to mean the president is going to want to be arms length. But at the same time youve got the president sending completely different signals that he can pardon anybody he wants. He can pardon himself. Theres no limit to the mischief he can commit with the pardon. But i think its a sign of desperation on manaforts part. I am guessing with some knowledge you did better than average in law school, went on to be a federal prosecutor among your other job titles. Talk about selfpardoning visavis our discussion in the last segment, it really would place one person above all known laws for the rest ofs. It would. I would never claim to be a constitutional scholar, but i studded under a very good one, larry tribe. And i think the reality is you dont interpret one section of the constitution in such a way that would render moot other parts of the constitution. You cant faithfully execute the laws if youre also using the pardon power to obstruct justice. If we consider that power absolute, it would mean the president could order all kinds of people to violate the law and then simply pardon them. He could commit any kind of violations of law and simply say, its my Justice Department. You cant indict me. You cant prosecute me. You cant touch me. That cannot be the case. The constitutions not a suicide pact in any respect. We dont have a monarchy, and this absolutist construction is just dead wrong. Before frost nixon was a film, it it was david journalist, richard the former i want to show yo visavis what you p social media. Well talk about it on the o side. So what in a sense youre saying is that there are certain situations where the president can decide that its in the best interests of the nation or something and do something illegal . Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. So youre saying, same mindset at work, different circumstances today from 1977. Absolutely. In that statement, president nixon is saying effectively, i am the law. Donald trump has said, this is my Justice Department, not the Justice Department of the american people. Its mine. And i have the right to my own attorney general who does my bidding, who has my back, whos looking out for my interests, not the interests of the country. That is not the system we have. It was wrong during nixons time. Its wrong now. In many respects, this president s abuse of offices disregard of our system of checks and balances goes well beyond anything nixon said, and it ought to alarm every american. Im going to close with a Customer Service question because were all your customers. We have this house Intelligence Committee. What if tomorrow, god forbid, terrorism brings the subject of Real Intelligence front and center . We have watched out how the committee has dealt with this matt i would compare it to children, but that could diminish our children. Are the democrats blameless in the mess that i think you would agree the Intelligence Committee has become . Well, the problem weve had with our committee has been our chairman, and i think its devin nunes. Think its confined to our chairman. When youve got someone who is the leader of your committee who is going off on midnight runs to undisclosed locations to get secret evidence and then you learn that that secret evidence he got from the white house, it makes a mockery of the committee. We had to deal with that as democrats. We couldnt ignore it. We couldnt look the other way. We couldnt participate in an investigation that was really a whitewash, so we were left with no choice. Now, we tried to be responsible. Were doing our best to continue the investigation within our ability to do so without the republicans, and were trying to defend our institutions as theyre being attacked in the service of the president. Thats what the country ought to expect us to do. And i know its easier frankly to believe, well, both sides are inevitably responsible for any conflict, but sometimes one side really is responsible. And here with our chairman, i think the responsibility is pretty clear. Long way from home in our studio here. Our thanks to congressman adam scff, democrat of california, and the ranking democrat on the committee. Thank you so much. Another break for us. Coming up, a bad outing on a sensitive topic for a new author trying to sell a book he coauthored. His name is bill clinton. The story when the 11th hour continues. The question of the day may be this one. Who thought it was a good idea to put bill clinton on a book tour at this moment in time . The former president has cowritten a book with the prolific Novelist James Patterson there with him today. The book is about a fictional president , and nbcs craig melvin talth both thors about the book before the interview took a turn to the overarching topic of me too and the president s own scandal and the question of an apology. I like the me too movement. Its way overdue. I think that it doesnt mean i agree with everything. I still have some questis about some of the decisions which have been made. One of the things that this me too era has done, its forced a lot of women to speak out. One of those women, monica lewinsky. Looking back on what happened then through the lens of me too now, do you think differently or feel more responsibility . No. I felt terrible then, and i came to grips with it. Did you ever apologize to her . Yes, and nobody believes that i got out of that for free. I left the white house 16 million in debt. I had a Sexual Harassment policy when i was governor in the 80s. I had two women chiefs of staff when i was governor. Women were overrepresented in the Attorney Generals Office in the 70s for their percentage in the bar. Ive had nothing but Women Leaders in my office since i left. You are giving one side and omitting facts. Mr. President , im not trying to present a side. You asked me if i agreed. The answer is, no, i dont. I asked if you ever apologized and you said you have. I have. I apologized to everybody in the world. But you didnt apologize to her . I have not talked to her. Do yofeel like you owe her an apology . No, i do i do not i never talked to her. But i did say publicly on more than one occasion that i was sorry. Thats very different. The apology was public. I dealt with it 20 years ago plus, and the american people, twothirds of them, stayed with me. And ive tried to do a good job since then with my life and with my work. Thats all i have to say to you. Letsk about what we just saw, and here to do that, two veterans who covered the Clinton White house and lived to tell the tale. In fact, theyre both still in the game. John harris, editor in chief and cofounder of politico. And nancy ben ac, white house news editor for the associated press. Nancy, i hope someone told you i came across our high school picture. How as children we were allowed to fly around on air force one, there the two of us are. You were always the most courteous seat mate, but we did some digging. That was a flight on valentines day to california and back in 1995. Wow. Anyway, nancy, its great to see you, great to have you on. Bill clinton tonight had an evening book event. He tried to clean up his language and made some made some points a little more artfully. But what about this, nancy, was a kind of a trigger for you . What about it could you see vintage bill clinton in . Well, you know, its funny. Bill clinton was always known for his spoton political instincts and his ability to talk his way out of trouble, and those gifts just failed him in this interview. He was defensive. He was combative. He was really out of step with the me too movement and was lacking in contrition, which was a problem back in 1998 when this first happened. It took him a while to come around to contrition then too. John, you and i used to talk about this president for hours on long trips as we were both thrown together covering him. You detected, i note, still some anger in bill clinton today. Bill clinton never thought the sex scandal and the impeachment that followed was on the level. He didnt think it was really about law. He even didnt think it was really about sex. He thought it was about power and republicans using their power against him. And he obviously Still Believes that. In the current me too environment, we see it is about power but a different kind of power, the power that men in positions of influence too often use abusively against women. Hes still viewing it through an old prism, i would say, but one that he deeply believes. Give him credit for sincerity. I think you saw the real bill clinton there. Hes still pretty angry, i think somewhat at himself, but even more at a political system he says is not on the level. Nancy, it is a curious decision. First of all, the fact that hes coauthored this book. Second, that in keeping with what other authors do, theyre sending him out on the road to do these interviews knowing that now the questions, if anything, are going to increase about this. It doesnt bode well for his future in the midterms, im guessing correct me if im wrong as a kind of a surrogate campaigner for the democrats. Exactly. You know, democrats already were keeping their distance to some extent just because of the issues that could come up with him. And an interview like this is just going to reinforce those instincts and cause them to keep him at even greater distance than they would have otherwise, which is a shame because when you have a popular former president , he can be a huge asset for democrats. And in this case, thats just not going to not going to work for them. John, when you look at the time line of the modern era presidency, jimmy carters good works postpresident have almost reached Critical Mass and overshadowed his presidency for good or ill. And i think in some way, that was bill clintons goal, to put his get his hands into the work, travel the world, do the clinton foundation, try to eradicate disease. But you feel today was a setback. Today was a damaging episode for him. Well, reputations go back and forth on the pendulum, and i think what you described as bill clintons goal to be seen as a statesman of the world, almost above politics, at times in his postpresidency, hes attained that. But of course life is full of surprises. K to our surprise, a of these 1990s issues have come back and seem suddenly very current and relevant again. I woulsay, b, one thing that i imagine bill clinton is thinking about this whole business about apologies is, wait, a minute. Thats a democratic thing to do, to apologize yourself and lash yourself. You see donald trump doing that . Do you see other conservative republicans apologizing for their own 1990s episodes . I think hes very ambivalent about this notion of seeming excessively contrite or taking the lash to himself. He fundamentally thinks that trump is right about one thing is you fight on, and you dont you dont accept the oppositions premises. John harris is among the president s biographers. Nancy benac at the associated press, the three of us when we were children, covered thenpresident bill clinton. Hey, guys, thank you very much. Well have you both again on many times of course. Coming up for us, 24 hours from now, we will be talking about election returns from a number of important primaries being held tomorrow, california among them. Our preview just hours before the polls open across this country when we come back. Eight states are holding primaries tomorrow, but a lot of eyes will be on california where democrats hope to make inroads in their quest to take back the house. Democrats have targeted seven republican districts, red districts that were won not by trump but by Hillary Clinton in 2016. Democrats need to pick up a total, as you may know, of 23 seats during the midterm elections this november across the country to flip control of the house. California has an unusual primary system that some have nicknamed long ago the jungle primary, where the top two votegetters advance to the general election regardless of party. Our political reporter Alex Seitzwald writes today, quote, after tuesdays unusual jungle primary, the gop may not have a shot at the Governors Mansion and a u. S. Senate seat, something experts say should be a dire warning for the party nationwide. Well, with us tonight, christina bellantoni. She is assistant managing editor of politics for the los angeles times. And i know journalists love the rule of threes. It makes fter sentences, better graphics, better everything. Good headlines. We asked you to come up with three areas to discuss, and number one was a question you posed. Is tomorrow night going to make history or not . What does that depend on . So this system was implemented in 2012, and it made history in 2016 when voters chose, in the primary, the top two votegetters were democrats. So for the First Time Ever you had two democrats faced off. This is the first time a governors race will do this. Thats a big deal. Who governs california is incredibly important given our size, our importance, the huge economy that we have here, the dealings with any white house, but in particular the Trump White House. So its a major issue. And because california the term blue state is overused, but because california is overwhelmingly democratic at this time, its highly likely if it were a normal primary system, the democratic candidate would be the next governor. The election would be over on june 6th. But thats not what happens here in california. So you could have two democrats advance. Right now polls suggest that that could be gavin newsom, d antonio villarwho governor, was the eles. Could be. But youve also seen a lot of coalescing behind john cox, a republican businessman who has run for office a nd it ems to h consolidating the republican vote since he was endorsed by President Trump a few weeks ago. Things are never boring in the state of california. Well say that. You also want to talk about this question of turnout tomorrow. Yeah. Well, thats one thing that weve looked at some early returns, and we see that even though republics make up 25 of thelector rat, 34 the absentee ballots that have been returned so far are from republican voters. Now, that doesnt mean that they chose republicans in their ballot. Thats obviously secret. But it tells us a little bit about republican enthusiasm, and that could see a republican make that top two slot. But heres where that all matters for down the line. If democrats have two candidates for governor and for senate, youre likely to see a repeat there with senator Dianne Feinstein challenged by another democrat in november. That means republicans might be less motivated to come out to the polls at all at a time when the u. S. House is on the line. Those congressional seats that you showed, you know, theres a number of them where turnout is everything. D of a cliche, but its actually true. And so if republicans arent inspired to come vote for a candidate who could win a statewide office for a federal office, maybe theyre not going to vfor their congressional races either, and that could leave these republican incumbents out in the cold. I say all of that could because theres all kinds of high jinx that could mess things up for the democrats as well. 25 years from now will it still be a top two system in the state of california, or will better government types get a hold of it in. So we did a poll of this. Actually voters tend to like it. They appreciate having choices. The idea it was supposed to moderate candidates. 9 Party Establishment hates it and the Democratic Party is very afraid they might get shut out of some congressional races for similar reasons. Theres so Many Democrats running in some of these congressional races that two republicans could rise, and then they lose an opportunity to flip one of those seats. And they need a number of them to win back control of the house, so every vote is going to matter. Every race is going to matter. Thank you for always answering the phone when we call and going on the air when we ask. We appreciate it. That was a great explainer for tonight and of course 24 hours from now, well be in the thick of this. Really appreciate you coming on. Thank you. I hope everybody votes. Okay. That is absolutely important for us to keep stressing wherever there are primaries tomorrow. Coming up for us, a Christian Baker gets a Supreme Court win today, and yet so many questions remain unanswered after whatd today. Nbc news justice correspondent Pete Williams wi offer an explanation when we come back. Im alex trebek, here to tell you about the Colonial Penn program. If youre age 50 to 85, and looking to buy Life Insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. What are the three ps . The three ps of Life Insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. A price you can afford, a price that cant increase, and a price that fits your budget. Im 54. Alex, whats my price . You can get coverage for 9. 95 a month. Im 65 and take dications. Whats my price . Also 9. 95 a month. I just turned 80. Whats my price . 9. 95 a month for you too. If youre 50 to 85, call now about the 1 most popular whole Life Insurance plan, available through the Colonial Penn program. It has an affordable rate starting at 9. 95 a month. No medical exam, no health questions. Your acceptance is guaranteed. And this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. So call now for free information. And youll also get this free beneficiary planner. And its yours just for calling. So call now. The u. S. Supreme court returned with a decision today in one of the most closely watched cases of this court term. As the justices sided with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in colorado. But so many of the questions in the case remain unanswered. This was not one of the decisions wherthe court speaks once. Pete williams has more from washington. Its a clear win for Jack Phillips of denver, who said baking a cake for a samesex couple would violate his christian beliefs. All of my life is tied to my religious belief system. When he turned down this couple, they sued. We hope people know our case isnt an isolated incident. This happens to people every day. Today, by a 72 vote, the Supreme Court said phillips wins because colorado didnt take his religious claim seriously enough. The court said that religious freedom is an important value that needs to be weighed. It doesnt tip the scale one way or the other, but it puts its weight back on the scale. They were absolutely looking for a ruling that said that businesses like this bakery have a right to discriminate. And they didnt get that from this court. Not even close. Justice ken said that these disputes must not subject gay persons to indigniindignitie the big question about whether cakes are free speech, and whether photographers are protected in samesex weddings was completely unanswered today for both sides. Pete williams, reporting from washington. Another break for us. And coming up, another norm being undone by this white house. Well explain, when the 11th hour continues. S supposed to. S supposed to. Trulicity is not insulin. It comes in a onceweekly, truly easytouse pen. And it works 24 7. Trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. Dont use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. Dont take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, youre allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. Serious side effects may include pancreatitis. Taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. Common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. These can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. To help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. Ask your doctor about onceweekly trulicity. The first survivor of ais o tre. S disease and the Alzheimers Association is going to make it happen. But we wont get there without you. Visit alz. Org to join the fight. Real quickly, we wanted to let you know the first lady was seen at the white house for the first time in going on 25 days. Melania trump attended an event with her husband. No press coverage, but it was her first public sighting in 25 days time. And the last thing before we go tonight, another timehonored tradition going by the boards in the white house. Painful for those who loved a team from the north, the Philadelphia Eagles, their hardwon and hardfought super bowl championship. But politics and the National Anthem controversy, and after a report that fewer than 10 of the Philadelphia Eagles planned to attend tomorrows white house ceremony, the president cancelled on them. The president made it about the anthem protest. And said the 1,000 fans that are planning to attend the event deserve better. The eagles can watch on television around 3 00 p. M. Tomorrow, when donald trump hosts what he calls a different type of ceremony. One that will honor our great country, pay tribute to the heroes who fight to protect it, and loudly and proudly play the National Anthem. Some critical details from espn, theyre reporting most if not all of the black players on the team were threatening to stay home. They add the team received zero notice, no headsup, learned the big day was cancelled when the president announced it tonight. With that, that is our broadcast on a monday evening. Thank you so very much for being here with us. Good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. New overnight. Paul manafort accused of witness tampering. Now theyre trying to send him to jail. Republicans are weighing in on that very claim. And a religious win. Justices have ruled that a colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same sex wedding but its far from a landmark decision