Questions you may have call now and well come to you 808 to one 4,000 welcome to a Special Edition of newsnight, the Trump Hush Money Trial. Im abby phillip in new york alongside laura coates here five hours and eight minutes. That is how along the trials most important witness spent on the stand today Michael Cohen directly implicating donald trump, telling the jury dramatic and potentially critical facts when it comes to the prosecutions case against trump the jury watched intently, their heads were sibling back and forth between the prosecutor and the witness as the government lead cohen through screw a deliberate testimony to and actually trace is evolution. If you remember from trumps periphery to trumps, go refer to trumps. Do everything fixer. And that included the alleged Hush Money Deal designed to silence Stormy Daniels idea that cohen testified trump ordered him to make the jury learned how cohen called trump. Well, mr. Trump or more simply the boss, his demeanor was measure
The constitution does not converse its right or undermine them in any way. i know you don t buy it. respectfully, it s not that i don t buy it but it s intellectually dishonest. you talk about a right to privacy. marriage is not in the constitution. homosexuality is not in constitution. what we know is this court will take the next step. anybody who says they won t just not paying attention. this court is coming after same-sex marriage. this court is coming after brown v board. i mean, with all due respect, i think that s a nonstarter. the idea first of all clarence thomas wants to rule his own marriage is unconstitutional strikes me as unplausible. second, loving is about more of a protection case which ruth bader ginsburg wanted roe in which was at a cost. if this decision ends up being a real decision, big if, it does
Decided by roe and casey involved the moral question posed by abortion. the constitution does not converse its right or undermine them in any way. i know you don t buy it. respectfully, it s not that i don t buy it but it s intellectually dishonest. you talk about a right to privacy. marriage is not in the constitution. homosexuality is not in constitution. what we know is this court will take the next step. anybody who says they won t just not paying attention. this court is coming after same-sex marriage. this court is coming after brown v board. i mean, with all due respect, i think that s a nonstarter. the idea first of all clarence thomas wants to rule his own marriage is unconstitutional strikes me as implausible. second, loving is about more of a protection case which ruth bader ginsburg wanted roe in which was at a cost. if this decision ends up being a real decision, big if, it does philosophically threaten some