Transcripts For MSNBCW The 20240703 : comparemela.com

Court, bidens Campaign Goes in the offense, making a play for nikki haley voters in swing states as thank you for joining us gets underway on this thursday night. Good evening. We are now 194 days away from the election. Today, all eyes were on the United States Supreme Court. The justices heard Oral Arguments in trump versus the United States. This is the case that is all about the former president s controversial claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution. These are the questions at hand. What is the scope of president ial immunity . What constitutes an official act . Laura jarrett has more on todays arguments. Reporter the u. S. Supreme court is weighing a monumental question that will decide whether the former president goes to trial for plotting to overturn the last election and win. I think the Supreme Court has an important argument before it, today. Reporter trump is hoping to persuade the justices to find him immune from federal charges. His lawyers are arguing the opposite, that the presidency would be hobbled without that protection. Residential immunity from prosecution. Reporter the special counsels office indicted mr. Trump on conspiracy and instruction charges last year for his efforts to cling to power. Accusing the likely nominee of pressuring State Officials to reverse the election results, actions the doj argues were for purely personal gain and cannot be shielded from prosecution. There is no immunity that is in the constitution unless this court creates it today. Trend by the conservatives expressed concern, a future president have no immunity for actions taken while in the white house bid that could open the door to recriminations between political rivals. Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy . The liberal justices, troubled by the prospect of insulating president s from accountability, raised a series of hypotheticals to underscore the consequences of adopting trumps position. If the president sells Nuclear Secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune . How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup . That sounds bad, doesnt it . Im trying to understand the disincentive for turning the oval office into the seat of Criminal Activity in this country. The justices appeared skeptical of Blanket Criminal Immunity for president s, but they could send the case back to the lower court to explore limited protections which would, of course, further delay the trial against donald trump. Lets bring in our leadoff panel, peter baker and the chief white house responded for the new york times, marketers of stern, Senior Writer covering the court and law its late, josh kirstein, Legal Affairs for political, and former u. S. Attorney, joyce nancy spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. Thank you for joining us. It was a huge legal day, so i want to start in d. C. , with scotus. We, the three of us, we were all in the courtroom for arguments, so lets start first with your main takeaways, josh. I thought it had to be a dispiriting day for special counsel, jack smith. You saw, one after another, the members of the conservative majority on the court basically signal discomfort with his position and some degree of alignment with trumps claim that there should be at least some type of immunity or protection for a former president from criminal charges. I have a vivid memory of sitting there, and having each of those justices, justice kavanaugh, chief justice john roberts, and judge gorsuch, going one by one and making clear that they were not going to come out in this case the way that jack smith wants them to come out. At that point, its a numbers game that i do not think looks good. Mark, were you as surprised as i was to hear the line of questioning that came out of some of the more conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh and judge gorsuch and samuel alito . I was. The sense that i got from those justices was that to them, to their minds, the real threat to democracy was not trumps effort on january 6th, to overturn a free and fair president ial election, the true threat to democracy is the Justice Department effort to hold him accountable for that act, and i did not expect this kind of minimization of january 6th that we saw from the justices. My sense is that the conservative bloc just did not think that the insurrection at the capital was that big of a deal. Instead of Hearing Concern about what it would mean to let the president Off Scott Free for allegedly plotting and facilitating this violent election subversion, these justices try to say, lets talk about the abstract principles, dont we need president s to act boldly and fearlessly . As though we have not seen a lesson in what happens when a president thinks hes unaccountable, and is if we are not here in this hearing, in this case, to try to decide whether or not, as a democracy, this country is going to say, even the president is not above the law. The judge pointed out on social media that the court and the parties discussed everything but the specific question at hand, even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson kind of got to the heart of that matter, during arguments, where she asked the representative for the government, why cant we just answer the question that has been presented . Everybody was dancing around it. Is there a reason why the court actually did not try to address the question presented . This was an unusual argument in a lot of ways, not only did they have trouble coming to the point of the question that they, themselves wrote for this argument, they also had a lot of trouble talking about donald trump. This was the court that was very focused on the impact that whatever decision they reached would have in the future, and on future president s, and really, not particularly interested in talking about donald trump. We have both been around a lot of criminal appellate arguments , and i dont think ive ever had an argument that did not focus, at least in part, on the defendant and his conduct and how the ruling would impact him , but here, that did not seem to be the focus. The court was supposed to take up the issue of whether the president had immunity from official acts and if so, what the scope of that immunity was, and instead, we were far afield and all over the board, everything from this issue of whether president s had to be specifically included in a criminal statute before they could be prosecuted. On the other hand, whether or not president s personal acts could be prosecuted, which was something, frankly, that trumps lawyer conceded up front , as to why that was ever on the table, it was very confusing, but Justice Alito proposed this alternative test, and the conversation really went far afield. It was a messy argument. Peer, take a listen to a jamie raskin had to say on how things went at the Supreme Court, today. There are politicians were not even subject to popular election, unlike me. They should move the Supreme Court over to the rnc headquarters, because they are acting like a bunch of partisan operatives. This is not the first time weve heard criticism that the highest court in the land has been hyper politicized, considering the substance of the argument today, does this particular case kind of raise even more questions about the credibility of scotus . It will certainly create a lot of concern and conversation about and will create criticism like the kind you saw from congressman raskin. Going back, when the Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether Richard Nixon could withhold tapes in the Watergate Special prosecution, the chief justice, it was important enough that the court had a single voice, he forged an 80 unanimous verdict because he did not want there to be a procession, with differences depending on partisan backgrounds and who might have appointed you, and that kind of thing. Similarly, when the court was presented the question during bill clintons presidency, whether a president should be immune from a civil lawsuit, in his case, Sexual Harassment filed by paula jones, the court again spoke with a single voice , 910, that the president does not have immunity in a civil lawsuit. We are looking at a potential for a similar verdict, 54, 63 , kind of verdict in which conservatives are on one side and liberals are on the other, which will encourage the notion that this is partisan, political, not really, a detached view of the law, and therefore, will not have the same power that those previous critics had, and i think thats the danger. Justice roberts, who has historically expressed concern about the credibility of the court faces another challenge, as we watch to see what kind of rule they come back with. I wanted to ask something i picked up on and i wanted to know if you heard it. There was a conversation, albeit minor, but section 1512 and this idea of the definition of, when someone, in a Defendant State does something corruptly. Weve heard this applied to the january 6th rioters, and the prosecutions of them, and we know that dovetails with the prosecution of donald trump. Did you pick up on that and the fact that it sounded, maybe a little ominous about the future of this prosecution including that of donald trump . Right, as you know, we have a related issue involving this prosecutions that is already pending in front of the court, was already argued in todays argument, for the final arguments of the term, and it sounded to me, based on the comments of judge gorsuch, that the court has kind of made up its mind that there is a problem with using this Obstruction Charge in connection with the events of january 6th, which might extend to using it in a couple counts against former President Trump, and they zeroed in on that word in the statuettes as no one really knows what it means. Goodness, when someone on the Supreme Court is saying that some terminate criminal charge thats been used in a lot of cases, no one really knows what it means, it does not bode well for jack smith being able to use that charge against former President Trump sometime in the coming months. You are right, and it was judge gorsuch who made that statement which stood out because i was worried about what it meant. Lets talk about this proposed rubric that was discussed, kicking the case back to the trial court and allowing for this parsing out of what is an official acts versus a private act and then if you were to follow the logic of the conservative justices, you would prosecute only the personal or private acts, because those would be violating the law, but the official acts that trump and others or president s would be able to get immunity. Talk about how fatally flawed this will be. Delay aside, in terms of legal analysis, talk about the problems generated by trying to do that type of different approach to this particular indictment. First, i dont want to be unduly optimistic, but i will pump the brakes on speculation. Sometimes the final opinion that the court issues has very little resemblance to what goes on in oral argument. Its always dangerous to read the tea leaves too heavily. Sometimes the justices are talking with each other in Oral Arguments as much as they are with the litigants, trying on arguments for size. Its possible we wont see this possibility youre talking about pan out. I felt the same way about judge gorsuchs comments about 1512. I took it to think maybe he had come out on the losing end of that battle on that obstruction of an official proceeding case and maybe he was expressing sour grapes. We will see, but the argument that you are talking about is one where the justices would issue some sort of a rule, that established some way of evaluating what conduct by a president was official and what was private. I think about this in terms of trump acting as President Trump on the one hand and as Candidate Trump on the other. That would then go back down to the lower court, presumably to make a ruling, i suppose, they could also decide to send it back to the Court Of Appeals and trumps lawyer suggested it should go back to the district judge. You know, the Silver Lining is for her to make that decision. She could decide she needs to hold an evidentiary hearing and put on a miniature trial in essence before she made that determination. It would be cumbersome, it would be subject to additional layers of appeal, most likely. It would, as you mentioned, engender a lot of delay. But there is a slightly rosy prospect of actually having a hearing even though there would not be a jury verdict, hearing where the government evidence would become public. I wanted to ask about something that tonja Brown Jackson said to the end of the hearing today, putting aside that she was asked during, why cant we just answer the question as presented, she also said that article two, which is what the lawyer for donald trump cited at the beginning, which is what basically imbues their argument or gives trump the ability to make the argument that he has president ial immunity. Justice jackson says doesnt article to allow for the type of analysis you are asking for, meaning cant you just look at article two and say these are the ask a president can do, veto power, pardon power, foreign designation power, cant you just look at article two and these are the Carveouts Giving A president immunity so you dont have to worry about the rest . Yeah, i agree. I think Justice Jackson had a clear and smart approach to the case that did not get a lot of purchase with conservative justices, because the conservatives especially Brett Kavanaugh were pitching this idea that there are other article two powers that are not specifically mentioned, that are somewhere in the penumbra of the constitution, the president gets to wield without any oversight or accountability , and that this case is really about sussing those powers out and shielding them for prosecution. I think its ironic , in overturning roe v wade, the Supreme Court began by saying the word abortion doesnt appear in the constitution. President ial immunity doesnt, either, and yet the conservative justices, much to the tonja Brown Jacksons dismay, are pressing this notion that it does exist somewhere and that it should at a minimum prevent the jury from considering some of trumps actions leading up to january 6th, that were somehow related to these mysterious article two powers that are not laid out specifically in the constitution, like removing members of the department of justice who would not launch claims of voter fraud that were bogus. That solution, this distinction between private and public acts, walling off official or public acts from scrutiny, i think that would cut the heart out of the case, because what jack smith is arguing is that donald trump weapon iced the powers of his office, that he wielded the tools of the Chief Executive in order to further corrupt criminal conspiracy. Its not just a private citizen and a candidate broke the law, but that he took advantage of his position as president and use those tools in his disposal alone to try to keep hold on power that he did not deserve. That is a powerful argument and it seems to me the Supreme Courts conservatives want to cut it off at the knees and that would be unfortunate, it would be harder to make that case to the jury, i think it would have much less of an impact of and the public. Thats a perfect segue. I want you to take a listen to an exchange that happened this morning. A stable, Democratic Society needs the good faith of its public officials, correct . Absolutely. That good faith assumes that they will follow the law. Correct. And encouragement to believe words that have been somewhat put into suspicion, here, that no man is above the law, either his his official or private acts. I think that it is an assumption of the constitution. Peter, you know, listening to that in person, hearing it again now, my hat off to Justice Sotomayor for getting to the heart of the matter. No man is above the law. You have had so many president s, 234 years in the oval office, operating under the assumption that you are supposed to be doing this in good faith. Where did that get lost . Yeah, i think what todays hearing really shines a stark relief on, a sharp, a sharp lig the structural issue about accountability in our system, right . How did donald trump argue his way out of the second impeachment about january 6th . His lawyer said, its inappropriate to impeach him for this, he can be tried criminally later if there are in fact criminal violations. Now, a separate set of lawyers also working for trump are arguing that he cant be charged criminally, he cant be held accountable in the normal Criminal Justice system. Weve seen that impeachment basically, hes almost never going to have that as a tool for removing a president from office as long as the president s party has at least 34 votes in the senate which, by the way, is almost always, theres almost never been a time when the senate was two thirds, belonging to the opposition party. That means that the president s, theres nothing to worry about being thrown out of office in the Campaign Goes<\/a> in the offense, making a play for nikki haley voters in swing states as thank you for joining us gets underway on this thursday night. Good evening. We are now 194 days away from the election. Today, all eyes were on the United States<\/a> Supreme Court<\/a>. The justices heard Oral Arguments<\/a> in trump versus the United States<\/a>. This is the case that is all about the former president s controversial claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution. These are the questions at hand. What is the scope of president ial immunity . What constitutes an official act . Laura jarrett has more on todays arguments. Reporter the u. S. Supreme court is weighing a monumental question that will decide whether the former president goes to trial for plotting to overturn the last election and win. I think the Supreme Court<\/a> has an important argument before it, today. Reporter trump is hoping to persuade the justices to find him immune from federal charges. His lawyers are arguing the opposite, that the presidency would be hobbled without that protection. Residential immunity from prosecution. Reporter the special counsels office indicted mr. Trump on conspiracy and instruction charges last year for his efforts to cling to power. Accusing the likely nominee of pressuring State Officials<\/a> to reverse the election results, actions the doj argues were for purely personal gain and cannot be shielded from prosecution. There is no immunity that is in the constitution unless this court creates it today. Trend by the conservatives expressed concern, a future president have no immunity for actions taken while in the white house bid that could open the door to recriminations between political rivals. Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy . The liberal justices, troubled by the prospect of insulating president s from accountability, raised a series of hypotheticals to underscore the consequences of adopting trumps position. If the president sells Nuclear Secrets<\/a> to a foreign adversary, is that immune . How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup . That sounds bad, doesnt it . Im trying to understand the disincentive for turning the oval office into the seat of Criminal Activity<\/a> in this country. The justices appeared skeptical of Blanket Criminal Immunity<\/a> for president s, but they could send the case back to the lower court to explore limited protections which would, of course, further delay the trial against donald trump. Lets bring in our leadoff panel, peter baker and the chief white house responded for the new york times, marketers of stern, Senior Writer<\/a> covering the court and law its late, josh kirstein, Legal Affairs<\/a> for political, and former u. S. Attorney, joyce nancy spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. Thank you for joining us. It was a huge legal day, so i want to start in d. C. , with scotus. We, the three of us, we were all in the courtroom for arguments, so lets start first with your main takeaways, josh. I thought it had to be a dispiriting day for special counsel, jack smith. You saw, one after another, the members of the conservative majority on the court basically signal discomfort with his position and some degree of alignment with trumps claim that there should be at least some type of immunity or protection for a former president from criminal charges. I have a vivid memory of sitting there, and having each of those justices, justice kavanaugh, chief justice john roberts, and judge gorsuch, going one by one and making clear that they were not going to come out in this case the way that jack smith wants them to come out. At that point, its a numbers game that i do not think looks good. Mark, were you as surprised as i was to hear the line of questioning that came out of some of the more conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh<\/a> and judge gorsuch and samuel alito . I was. The sense that i got from those justices was that to them, to their minds, the real threat to democracy was not trumps effort on january 6th, to overturn a free and fair president ial election, the true threat to democracy is the Justice Department<\/a> effort to hold him accountable for that act, and i did not expect this kind of minimization of january 6th that we saw from the justices. My sense is that the conservative bloc just did not think that the insurrection at the capital was that big of a deal. Instead of Hearing Concern<\/a> about what it would mean to let the president Off Scott Free<\/a> for allegedly plotting and facilitating this violent election subversion, these justices try to say, lets talk about the abstract principles, dont we need president s to act boldly and fearlessly . As though we have not seen a lesson in what happens when a president thinks hes unaccountable, and is if we are not here in this hearing, in this case, to try to decide whether or not, as a democracy, this country is going to say, even the president is not above the law. The judge pointed out on social media that the court and the parties discussed everything but the specific question at hand, even Justice Ketanji<\/a> Brown Jackson<\/a> kind of got to the heart of that matter, during arguments, where she asked the representative for the government, why cant we just answer the question that has been presented . Everybody was dancing around it. Is there a reason why the court actually did not try to address the question presented . This was an unusual argument in a lot of ways, not only did they have trouble coming to the point of the question that they, themselves wrote for this argument, they also had a lot of trouble talking about donald trump. This was the court that was very focused on the impact that whatever decision they reached would have in the future, and on future president s, and really, not particularly interested in talking about donald trump. We have both been around a lot of criminal appellate arguments , and i dont think ive ever had an argument that did not focus, at least in part, on the defendant and his conduct and how the ruling would impact him , but here, that did not seem to be the focus. The court was supposed to take up the issue of whether the president had immunity from official acts and if so, what the scope of that immunity was, and instead, we were far afield and all over the board, everything from this issue of whether president s had to be specifically included in a criminal statute before they could be prosecuted. On the other hand, whether or not president s personal acts could be prosecuted, which was something, frankly, that trumps lawyer conceded up front , as to why that was ever on the table, it was very confusing, but Justice Alito<\/a> proposed this alternative test, and the conversation really went far afield. It was a messy argument. Peer, take a listen to a jamie raskin had to say on how things went at the Supreme Court<\/a>, today. There are politicians were not even subject to popular election, unlike me. They should move the Supreme Court<\/a> over to the rnc headquarters, because they are acting like a bunch of partisan operatives. This is not the first time weve heard criticism that the highest court in the land has been hyper politicized, considering the substance of the argument today, does this particular case kind of raise even more questions about the credibility of scotus . It will certainly create a lot of concern and conversation about and will create criticism like the kind you saw from congressman raskin. Going back, when the Supreme Court<\/a> was presented with the question of whether Richard Nixon<\/a> could withhold tapes in the Watergate Special<\/a> prosecution, the chief justice, it was important enough that the court had a single voice, he forged an 80 unanimous verdict because he did not want there to be a procession, with differences depending on partisan backgrounds and who might have appointed you, and that kind of thing. Similarly, when the court was presented the question during bill clintons presidency, whether a president should be immune from a civil lawsuit, in his case, Sexual Harassment<\/a> filed by paula jones, the court again spoke with a single voice , 910, that the president does not have immunity in a civil lawsuit. We are looking at a potential for a similar verdict, 54, 63 , kind of verdict in which conservatives are on one side and liberals are on the other, which will encourage the notion that this is partisan, political, not really, a detached view of the law, and therefore, will not have the same power that those previous critics had, and i think thats the danger. Justice roberts, who has historically expressed concern about the credibility of the court faces another challenge, as we watch to see what kind of rule they come back with. I wanted to ask something i picked up on and i wanted to know if you heard it. There was a conversation, albeit minor, but section 1512 and this idea of the definition of, when someone, in a Defendant State<\/a> does something corruptly. Weve heard this applied to the january 6th rioters, and the prosecutions of them, and we know that dovetails with the prosecution of donald trump. Did you pick up on that and the fact that it sounded, maybe a little ominous about the future of this prosecution including that of donald trump . Right, as you know, we have a related issue involving this prosecutions that is already pending in front of the court, was already argued in todays argument, for the final arguments of the term, and it sounded to me, based on the comments of judge gorsuch, that the court has kind of made up its mind that there is a problem with using this Obstruction Charge<\/a> in connection with the events of january 6th, which might extend to using it in a couple counts against former President Trump<\/a>, and they zeroed in on that word in the statuettes as no one really knows what it means. Goodness, when someone on the Supreme Court<\/a> is saying that some terminate criminal charge thats been used in a lot of cases, no one really knows what it means, it does not bode well for jack smith being able to use that charge against former President Trump<\/a> sometime in the coming months. You are right, and it was judge gorsuch who made that statement which stood out because i was worried about what it meant. Lets talk about this proposed rubric that was discussed, kicking the case back to the trial court and allowing for this parsing out of what is an official acts versus a private act and then if you were to follow the logic of the conservative justices, you would prosecute only the personal or private acts, because those would be violating the law, but the official acts that trump and others or president s would be able to get immunity. Talk about how fatally flawed this will be. Delay aside, in terms of legal analysis, talk about the problems generated by trying to do that type of different approach to this particular indictment. First, i dont want to be unduly optimistic, but i will pump the brakes on speculation. Sometimes the final opinion that the court issues has very little resemblance to what goes on in oral argument. Its always dangerous to read the tea leaves too heavily. Sometimes the justices are talking with each other in Oral Arguments<\/a> as much as they are with the litigants, trying on arguments for size. Its possible we wont see this possibility youre talking about pan out. I felt the same way about judge gorsuchs comments about 1512. I took it to think maybe he had come out on the losing end of that battle on that obstruction of an official proceeding case and maybe he was expressing sour grapes. We will see, but the argument that you are talking about is one where the justices would issue some sort of a rule, that established some way of evaluating what conduct by a president was official and what was private. I think about this in terms of trump acting as President Trump<\/a> on the one hand and as Candidate Trump<\/a> on the other. That would then go back down to the lower court, presumably to make a ruling, i suppose, they could also decide to send it back to the Court Of Appeals<\/a> and trumps lawyer suggested it should go back to the district judge. You know, the Silver Lining<\/a> is for her to make that decision. She could decide she needs to hold an evidentiary hearing and put on a miniature trial in essence before she made that determination. It would be cumbersome, it would be subject to additional layers of appeal, most likely. It would, as you mentioned, engender a lot of delay. But there is a slightly rosy prospect of actually having a hearing even though there would not be a jury verdict, hearing where the government evidence would become public. I wanted to ask about something that tonja Brown Jackson<\/a> said to the end of the hearing today, putting aside that she was asked during, why cant we just answer the question as presented, she also said that article two, which is what the lawyer for donald trump cited at the beginning, which is what basically imbues their argument or gives trump the ability to make the argument that he has president ial immunity. Justice jackson says doesnt article to allow for the type of analysis you are asking for, meaning cant you just look at article two and say these are the ask a president can do, veto power, pardon power, foreign designation power, cant you just look at article two and these are the Carveouts Giving A<\/a> president immunity so you dont have to worry about the rest . Yeah, i agree. I think Justice Jackson<\/a> had a clear and smart approach to the case that did not get a lot of purchase with conservative justices, because the conservatives especially Brett Kavanaugh<\/a> were pitching this idea that there are other article two powers that are not specifically mentioned, that are somewhere in the penumbra of the constitution, the president gets to wield without any oversight or accountability , and that this case is really about sussing those powers out and shielding them for prosecution. I think its ironic , in overturning roe v wade, the Supreme Court<\/a> began by saying the word abortion doesnt appear in the constitution. President ial immunity doesnt, either, and yet the conservative justices, much to the tonja Brown Jackson<\/a>s dismay, are pressing this notion that it does exist somewhere and that it should at a minimum prevent the jury from considering some of trumps actions leading up to january 6th, that were somehow related to these mysterious article two powers that are not laid out specifically in the constitution, like removing members of the department of justice who would not launch claims of voter fraud that were bogus. That solution, this distinction between private and public acts, walling off official or public acts from scrutiny, i think that would cut the heart out of the case, because what jack smith is arguing is that donald trump weapon iced the powers of his office, that he wielded the tools of the Chief Executive<\/a> in order to further corrupt criminal conspiracy. Its not just a private citizen and a candidate broke the law, but that he took advantage of his position as president and use those tools in his disposal alone to try to keep hold on power that he did not deserve. That is a powerful argument and it seems to me the Supreme Court<\/a>s conservatives want to cut it off at the knees and that would be unfortunate, it would be harder to make that case to the jury, i think it would have much less of an impact of and the public. Thats a perfect segue. I want you to take a listen to an exchange that happened this morning. A stable, Democratic Society<\/a> needs the good faith of its public officials, correct . Absolutely. That good faith assumes that they will follow the law. Correct. And encouragement to believe words that have been somewhat put into suspicion, here, that no man is above the law, either his his official or private acts. I think that it is an assumption of the constitution. Peter, you know, listening to that in person, hearing it again now, my hat off to Justice Sotomayor<\/a> for getting to the heart of the matter. No man is above the law. You have had so many president s, 234 years in the oval office, operating under the assumption that you are supposed to be doing this in good faith. Where did that get lost . Yeah, i think what todays hearing really shines a stark relief on, a sharp, a sharp lig the structural issue about accountability in our system, right . How did donald trump argue his way out of the second impeachment about january 6th . His lawyer said, its inappropriate to impeach him for this, he can be tried criminally later if there are in fact criminal violations. Now, a separate set of lawyers also working for trump are arguing that he cant be charged criminally, he cant be held accountable in the normal Criminal Justice<\/a> system. Weve seen that impeachment basically, hes almost never going to have that as a tool for removing a president from office as long as the president s party has at least 34 votes in the senate which, by the way, is almost always, theres almost never been a time when the senate was two thirds, belonging to the opposition party. That means that the president s, theres nothing to worry about being thrown out of office in the Impeachment Process<\/a> as long as they have their own party. They also apparently wont have to worry about criminal prosecution, so wheres the accountability . How do checks and balances work in the system . The framers basically were very clear about that, because that is what we are arguing about, 238 years later. Everyone is sticking around. When we come back, we will go from d. C. To new york, were trumps lawyers briefly got their first crack at witness david pecker. We are breaking down his third day on the Witness Stand<\/a> and later, trumps loves to blame his criminal trial for keeping him off the campaign trail, so how did he spend his day away from court . Golfing. The 11th hour is just getting underway on this thursday night. Night. Business. Its not a ninetofive proposition. Its all day and into the night. Its all the things that keep this world turning. The gotos that keep us going. The places we cheer. And check in. They all choose the advanced Network Solutions<\/a> and round the Clock Partnership<\/a> from Comcast Business<\/a>. See why Comcast Business<\/a> powers more Small Businesses<\/a> than anyone else. Get started for 49. 99 a month plus ask how to get up to an 800 prepaid card. Dont wait call today. Youve got xfinity wifi at home. Take it on the go with Xfinity Mobile<\/a>. Customers now get exclusive access to wifi speed up to a gig in millions of locations. Plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free. Thats like getting two unlimited lines for Twenty Dollars<\/a> a month each for a year. So, ditch the other guys and switch today. Buy one line of unlimited, get one free for a year with Xfinity Mobile<\/a> plus, save even more and get an eligible 5g phone on us visit xfinitymobile. Com today. Now that Donald Trumps<\/a> criminal trial is going on now in new york city, today, former National Enquirer<\/a> publisher, david pecker, was on the stand as attorneys begin their Cross Examination<\/a> of this key witness but kiewits. Heres one hilliard. Reporter on his third day on the stand, the National Enquirer<\/a> publisher, david pecker, said he refused to kill the Stormy Daniels<\/a> story about her relationship with then candidate donald trump. David pecker said he told his righthand man not to pay daniels the hundred 20,000 she sought, because they already shelled out Tens Of Thousands<\/a> of dollars to keep other stories about mr. Trump quiet. If anyone should buy it, it should be donald trump and Michael Cohen<\/a>. David pecker said that Michael Cohen<\/a> was upset and responded that the boss would be furious. David pecker said today he believed trump or his company pay daniels until Michael Cohen<\/a> told him in December Of 2016<\/a> that he was the one who paid her. Prosecutors are seeking to prove that mr. Trump doctored internal Business Records<\/a> to cover up that payment. David pecker testified that trump was aghast when he saw Stormy Daniels<\/a> on 60 minutes. Was It Hush Money<\/a> . Yes. David pecker said trump called him and said, we have an agreement with Stormy Daniels<\/a>, that she cant mention my name. Trump denied knowledge of the arrangement, the Cross Examination<\/a>, trumps lawyers challenged david credibility in business practices. At a campaign event, trump addressed the testimony of his longtime friend. David is a nice guy. What do we know about the payment to Stormy Daniels<\/a> . Reporter david pecker testified about a payment his company did make to former playboy model, Karen Mcdougal<\/a>, to keep her affair with trump quiet. Packer said he coordinated with colin, because they concerned worried that paying mcdougall could violate Campaign Finance<\/a> laws so they worked out a deal, adding that he believed trump was aware of the payment. The prosecution asked david pecker, was a principal purpose to suppress your story so as not to influence the election . Transition responded yes it was. With peter baker, mike joseph stern, and joyce vance with us. Lets start with the fact that the day began before david pecker got back on the stand with the manhattan d. A. S office saying that there are four alleged violations, brandnew ones, of the expanded gag order that judge merchan is setting a hearing on for next thursday. We dont have a ruling from the first motion for contempt, so whats the delay from judge merchan . We have four new violations now. We do. We have ongoing violations and the issue that the judge faces is either this gag order has teeth and he will enforce it, or it does not in which case, donald trump can do anything he wants to do with regard to this jury, witnesses, or the court families, for that matter. This has to come to a head, the delay likely give the judge a little extra room to gather additional evidence, but this gives him very limited options. He can either impose a penalty of 1000 for each violation, or he can impose up to 30 days of custody. There is no room to maneuver between those options. He will have to make a decision. He has apparently made a decision that its best to put it off, told some of his power over Donald Trumps<\/a> head for a little longer, to see if he can get him to conform his behavior or, alternatively, to prove that the only option is for the judge to begin to impose sanctions. B mac peter, one thing that stood out to me was the testimony from david pecker , that ami paid the 150,000 to Karen Mcdougal<\/a> and then it never got reimbursed, never got paid back by donald trump, even though it was for his benefit and the benefit of the campaign. At the end, david pecker has to say, i have no hard feelings for mr. Trump, i thought he was my mentor. I felt like david pecker encapsulates maga world. He keeps drifting and completely dupes his followers, but then they said there and they still pay homage to him. Talk about whether or not you think that this trial, even so far, has been moving the needle in any way in terms of public sentiment when it comes to donald trump. Yeah, it reminds me of a story i was told by a new yorker whose parents worked for Donald Trumps<\/a> contractors. He wasnt always good about paying the contractors and i said, did he pay her parents . He said no, and this guy said i had to sue to get their money. I said okay, well, they got . 50 on the dollar back in the guy says you know what . They voted for trump. Why if they believe he cheated them on their money . He said because, if you cheat says he will cheat everybody else on behalf of america, cheat the rest of the world on behalf of america. There is an interesting dynamic. Its a view, of him as somebody who is able to manipulate the system to work the system, bypass the system, whatever it is, that seems to earn respect on the part of people who admire him and its curious in a lot of ways. This would be something, despite the examples where he has in fact tried to run around the system and sheets in various ways, that has not actually hurt the base core that he has. I dont think his base will be troubled. They know most of the facts, the been reported before. A lot of people like him and assume its more or less true. Are they illegal . Does it match the crimes as outlined by alvin bragg . Does this change anyones mind . The facts, as they are being present presented, may not change public views because a lot of people assume donald trump has done a lot of these things and they either care a lot and think its outrageous or dont care and think he is being persecuted. To peters point, does the evidence fit the crime . The burden of proof is always in the prosecution in a criminal case. Do you share that concern, that the Misdemeanor Crime<\/a> exists, its a class three felony, and im hearing the common denominator messaging from david pecker which is that everything that was done, the Catch And Kill<\/a> scheme, et cetera, was done to benefit the campaign and not donald trump, personally. That might have something to do with why we are hearing these nice comments about david pecker from the former president. If he can get jurors to have the feeling that these payments took place because of personal warmth between david pecker and trump or the fact that they were friends for a long time, that does start to undercut the case, somewhat. We will see as the Cross Examination<\/a> continues whether trumps defense tries to bring out more of that possible motivation, here, that they had been friends for a long time and that maybe david pecker might have done this sort of thing to help trump, even if he was not running for president , because it sounds like, based on the practices of ami in david pecker, that this is the kind of thing they did for various celebrities at different times. You know, david pecker is already announcing that he is pursuant to a subpoena to testify, hes not there voluntarily, and we did here something surprising. We heard that david pecker ami are getting a Nonprosecution Agreement<\/a> with the manhattan d. A. S office and the New York County<\/a> d. A. S office. Talk about what you think the impact might have been on the jury hearing, that ami got one of these kinds of get out of jail free cards, because he is getting this testimony in cooperation. We know david pecker has his Nonprosecution Agreement<\/a> with State Authorities<\/a> and we know the fec warned david pecker and ami that this kind of Catch And Kill<\/a> Scheme Practice<\/a> to benefit a Political Campaign<\/a> could constitute a contribution in violation of law. David pecker has clearly been skirting the limits of what is permitted under state and federal law, no surprise that he is under a subpoena, its a little bit of a surprise he has this history that we had not learned about until today. This ties in with one of the interesting exchanges that occurred in manhattan where the prosecutors kept talking about a conspiracy that david pecker was part of this conspiracy, that ultimately involves Michael Cohen<\/a> and donald trump and paying off Stormy Daniels<\/a> and the Defense Attorneys<\/a> objected and said, you have to stop using this word, it isnt a conspiracy. Prosecutor said, look at the Election Statutes<\/a> we are siding , and claiming trump attempted to violate. They lose the phrase conspiracy. Its legitimate to use it, and judge merchan agreed, and i think rightly so. What this testimony is doing is setting up for the jury to send of how this worked in this rather sordid world, so that when it comes time to drill down on the Stormy Daniels<\/a> payments, they have an idea of the moving pieces and when the prosecutors are laying out the stepbystep, they will see that through the lens of a similar conspiracy, that its not just a cd, tabloid scheme, but rather a criminal effort to skirts Campaign Finance<\/a> laws and State Election<\/a> laws to influence an election on behalf of the Candidate Bid<\/a> that is unlawful under new york statute and that is what alvin bragg says will essentially bootstrap these charges into the Felony Offense<\/a> that hes charging trump with. With accessory Liability Law<\/a> in new york, they can all have dirty hands. It does not make a difference, because they all are under a principal theory, with criminal exposure. Thank you all. Thank you for joining us. I appreciate it. When we come back, trump spent his day off from court, but on the golf course, while biden shoots his shot with nikki haley voters. Will it work . Our panel will join us when The 11th Hour<\/a> continues. Andn at 345 pounds. My doctor prescribed a weight loss drug, but as soon as i stopped taking the drug, i gained all the weight back and then some. Thats when i decided to give golo a try. Taking the release supplement, i noticed a change within the first week, and each month the weight just kept coming off. With golo, you can keep the weight off. An alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medicine directly at the source. Voltaren, the joy of movement. The virus that causes shingles is sleeping. In 99 of people over 50. And it could strike at any time. Think youre not at risk . Wake up. Because shingles could wake up in you. If youre over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. For weeks, donald trump has complained that his many legal obligations are keeping him off the campaign trail. Take a listen to what he said last week. I cant go to my sons graduation, i cant to go to the united date Supreme Court<\/a>s, im not in georgia or florida or north carolina, campaigning and i should be. Its perfect for the radical left democrats, thats exactly what they want. This is about election interference, thats all its about. Be mac let me fact check in real time, all that he said was not true. You think that when he finally had a day off, he would use it diligently and campaign, but no, not donald trump. He had more pressing things to do. Sources tell cnn that he went golfing. But, the Biden Campaign<\/a>, on the other hand, wasted no time trolling the former president , emailing supporters about campaign events, noting that he had none. Lets bring in don edwards, former democratic congresswoman of maryland and brandon buck, Communications Adviser<\/a> for republican speakers. Thank you for joining us. Donald trump, playing golf and doing Campaign Stops<\/a> at a bodega in new york, is there a possibility that there is a very real impact, because of this trial, on the flow of his campaign . Absolutely. Look, running for president is a hard thing. Its exhaust. I dont blame him for not being out there every single moment, doing it, but i think what happened in the Supreme Court<\/a> today could have an incredible impact on the rest of this election. It could sway the election. The current case, if thats all he has to do, he might be able to survive that. If he is stuck in a courthouse for months on end throughout this campaign and thats the context in which we are seeing donald trump, that is how people are associating him, if that is the story of his election, he could be in huge trouble. What is happening in new york right now is damaging. What could happen the rest of the year could be big. I have to ask about my home state of florida. Biden has opened his first field office, there. Everyone writes off florida, i get it, we arent purple, we are decidedly more red than purple, but biden himself is saying that florida is at play, especially considering that constitutional amendments are on the ballot when it comes to abortion access. Whats your thought about whether or not this is a kind of, you know, hopes and dreams thing in florida, or is there a real possibility that he could make some headway, there . I think that one of the things you get, especially when you raise the money that President Biden<\/a> has, and hes opening Field Offices<\/a> across the country, that it gives him a lot of flexibility to expand that map, and certainly, florida should be part of that quotient. Really, that constitutional amendment on the ballot, we know that these issues drive voters to the polls and the voters that they do drive to the polls are exactly the ones that the Biden Campaign<\/a> needs, particularly among women, expanding that gender gap, that he enjoys. I think it is a really smart move on the part of the president and his team, and, lets stretch that map across the country. Weve also heard that President Biden<\/a> is making a play for nikki haley voters, for example, going to court them in the state of pennsylvania. Thats hundred 55,000 votes, by my count. What is the possibility for biden to be able to pick up a nikki haley voter in the general . Quite significant. Look, this is going to be an incredibly close election. Any voters you can pick up could potentially change the outcome. We know for certain that donald trump is not going to try to win back nikki haley voters. He is constitutionally incapable of bringing himself to appeal to moderates, and hes perfectly fine upsetting nikki haley voters. Its an Incredible Opportunity<\/a> for the biden folks, if they are able to do it. Its not about nikki haley. Their ad seems to defend nikki haley and i dont think those voters really care about nikki haley. He needs to provide a safe place for someone to go, and theres a sense that there are a lot of republicans that are willing to do this. Chris christ the world, if they can pick off that many votes it could be enough to turn the outcome. Back to new york and the trial that is going on. We do not have cameras in the courtroom. We dont even have audio that gets broadcast publicly. Because there is no cameras, a lot of people dont get to see donald trump, looking at sometimes like he is sleeping in court, looking tired and disinterested in judicial proceedings that have his liberty at stake. Do think that is to his benefit that we dont have the American Public<\/a> looking in and seeing what hes like in that courtroom . I have to tell you, i want to see whats going on in the courtroom but i also know that a camera in that courtroom would be exactly what donald trump would want and need so that he can play to it. Im not really sure that we are disadvantaged, or that the trial is disadvantaged in terms of not having cameras there, but he will say that i do think the reporting that is coming out of the courtroom, the snippets the American Public<\/a> are getting, there is a way that people are beginning to experience whats happening. Look, you can see from his demeanor, when he comes out of the courtroom, that its really taking its toll on him, and i think the American People<\/a> will process that. Im going to tell you right now, the pictures you just saw of him, thats not what he looks like when hes in court to. Thank you for joining us. When we come back, Campus Protests<\/a> over the Israel Hamas War<\/a> are intensifying across the country. They are impacting graduation ceremonies. We will get into it, when The 11th Hour<\/a> continues. Ontinues hi, im chris and i lost 57 pounds on golo. Golo isnt complicated. I dont have to follow a restrictive diet, and i dont have to spend a lot of time making meals. Using golo was truly transformative. It was easy, and inexpensive. What is cirkul . Cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. Cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. Cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. Cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul. Com. One of the biggest universities in the country has canceled its main graduation ceremony, scheduled for next month because Officials Say<\/a> new Security Measures<\/a> make it impossible to hold the event. Its the latest consequence of the Protest Movement<\/a> taking over College Campuses<\/a>, students protest israels offensive in gaza. Reporter in an unprecedented move, the university of Southern California<\/a> , tonight, canceling this years main commencement ceremony, attended by roughly 65,000 people, citing new Safety Measures<\/a> put in place amid protest on campus. The stunning decision comes one day after nearly 100 protesters were arrested for trespassing after a contentious rally, where propalestinian demonstrators clashed with police. Even they have to cancel every commencement, thats up to them. Reporter the administration already canceled the Graduation Speech<\/a> for the propalestinian valedictorian, citing safety concerns. Coasttocoast, growing protests on College Campuses<\/a> over the israelhamas war, from George Washington<\/a> university to northeastern , to emory in atlanta. Riot gear clad Police Clashed<\/a> with demonstrators. Law enforcement appeared to use zip ties to restrain protesters, even teasing one person. At columbia, the epicenter of the protest, those camping out were given a deadline to disperse by 4 00. If not, the University Said<\/a> they would have to consider alternative options for clearing the area. These are spreading to california. Here, at ucla, students have been gathering, pitching tents on the heart of campus and many are calling on the university to divest from israel. Tonight, rising tensions are igniting a debate about free speech versus hate speech on College Campuses<\/a>. The usc professor criticized the university for escalating what she says have been peaceful protest. You believe the students First Amendment<\/a> rights are being violated . Absolutely. They are criticizing the nationstates for their actions in war, not criticizing faith. A faith that is close to me. Reporter some jewish students say they feel the demonstrations crossed the line. The mac i dont believe that advocating for the right to the Palestinian People<\/a> is inherently antisomatic, but some of the chance and the ways in which they attribute and target jewish students, that is anti somatic. When we come back, a Heartfelt Goodbye<\/a> and a Call To Action<\/a> from a chef, his emotional tribute for the world central Kitchen Workers<\/a> killed in gaza, when The 11th Hour<\/a> continues. Continues. We planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. You think those two have any idea . That they can sell their Life Insurance<\/a> policy for cash . So theyre basically sitting on a goldmine . I dont think they have a clue. Thats crazy well, not everyone knows coventrys helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. Even term policies. I cant believe theyre just sitting up there sitting on all this cash. If you own a Life Insurance<\/a> policy of 100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. Even a term policy. For cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. Someone needs to tell them, that theyre sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea hey, guys youre sitting on a goldmine come on, guys do you hear that . I dont hear anything anymore. Find out if youre sitting on a goldmine. Call Coventry Direct<\/a> today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect. Com. The last thing before we go, remembering the best of humanity. Today, the seven world central Kitchen Aid Workers<\/a> who were killed by an israeli strike as they delivered food in gaza were laid to rest. The chef who founded the charity 15 years ago delivered an emotional eulogy in their honor and shared his hope for peace. Watch this. They risked everything to feed people they did not know. They will never meet them. In the worst moments, the best of humanity shows up. We take risks because we want to change the world, with something that we all believe, deep down, inside our hearts. All nationalities, all religions , all people. Food is a universal human right. Feeding each other, cooking and eating together is what makes us human. The dishes we cook and deliver are not just ingredients or calories. A plate of food is a plate of hope, a message that someone, somewhere, cares for you. Our hearts are with the families of the victims. A message of hope and resilience, to take us off the air, tonight. You can catch from all of our colleagues across the networks, thank you for staying up late. Up late","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800304.us.archive.org\/2\/items\/MSNBCW_20240426_060000_The_11th_Hour_With_Stephanie_Ruhle\/MSNBCW_20240426_060000_The_11th_Hour_With_Stephanie_Ruhle.thumbs\/MSNBCW_20240426_060000_The_11th_Hour_With_Stephanie_Ruhle_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240703T12:35:10+00:00"}