all in starts right now. good evening, from new york, i m chris hayes. today, donald trump appeared in manhattan in court virtually for the first time since his arraignment on 34 criminal courts of falsifying business records. and judge judge juan merchan announces related to the hush money payments to stormy daniels will go to trial in march of next year. that means that if all of this holds, donald trump will be on trial smackdown of in the middle of the presidential primary. this afternoon, he presented himself as if he were still in the white house, sitting with his attorney in front of a customary wall of american flags. the ex presidents life yet from florida was projected on several screens throughout the courtroom, packed with reporters, and a team of no less than nine prosecutors industry attorney alvin bragg s office. the main purpose of that hearing today was for the judge to officially advise trump about the protective order in the case. the order, typically a r
i have a trump aiding judge with a trump hating wife and family. donald trump back in court as a judge sorenson to watch his mouth. tonight, the trial date for the people of the state of new york against donald j trump. then, the latest on the man with a not see vlad arrested for threatening the president. plus, really tired of the republicans acting like they own this state. the outrageous moved by ohio republicans undermining democracy to ban abortion. this poem right at the integration of joe biden is now banned from a classroom in desantis run florida. it s because being american is more than a pride we inherit. it is the past we step into, and how we repair it. all in starts right now. good evening, from new york, i m chris hayes. today, donald trump appeared in manhattan in court virtually for the first time since his arraignment on 34 criminal courts of falsifying business records. and judge judge juan merchan announces related to the hush money payments
access to information and viewpoint censorship violates our students first amendment rights. i think there are so many teachers and parents that you don t feel safe speaking up against it. i thought was time that i say something. have you had experienced firsthand in terms of your kids schools or in terms of other parents lodging complaints for books? has this energized what seems to be a relatively small group of obsessive s, who have filed complaints about books? have you seen this firsthand and escambia county, where your kids go to school? 100%. yes. primarily at school board meetings and moment we re talking about the books that these committees have like suzanne said. susan, what is the contention. lindsay just said this about her first amendment rights, what s the substance of the lawsuit. it s twofold, first amendment and 14th amendment, the first amendment aspect is that, what these districts are
of obsessive [laughter] who want to file complaints about books? but have you seen this firsthand in escambia county, where kids go to school? 100%, yes. primarily at, you know, school board meetings and moments where we re talking about the books that these committees have reviewed, like suzanne said. suzanne, what is the contentions, lindsay just said this about first amendment right, what s the substance of the lawsuit? it s twofold. first amendment and 14th amendment, the first amendment aspect is what these districts are doing, what escambia is doing is picking and choosing on ideological grounds which books are gonna be taken off shelves. that s viewpoint based discrimination. it strikes right at the heart of what the first amendment protected against and barr s government from doing. first amendmen so, that s piece. won the second pieces 14th amendment. overwhelmingly, the targeted books are books by and about authors of color, lgbtq narratives. so, it s quite clear there
guy. well a little righteous indignation can be just the thing in a debate. i think it depends to some extent how the debate goes. let s look back to the one debate in recent timings where it looked like it made all the difference in the world. i can think of two cases where this was true one was ronald reagan in 1980 against jimmy carter the line that carried the day was a very easy going and kind of tolerant there you go again he said in his soothing way. it wasn t angry. he was disagreeing with the incumbent president but it was reassuring to the public. four years later mr. reagan then president had lost the first debate to walter mondale when he got called out on the gotcha moment social security. second debate questions whether reagan was and richard s immorality words okay and he came through with the fame miss line where he said he is not going to let his opponent s age or youth and inexperience be an issue in the campaign. everybody broke up laughing, including mondale who l