>>> WELCOME TO MEET THE PRES NOW, I'M KRISTEN WELKER ON A HISTORIC DAY IN WASHINGTON A THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COUR WEIGHS THE LIMITS OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER THE FORMER PRESIDENT SITS IN A NEW YORK COURTROOM FOR DAY THREE OF TESTIMONY IN HIS HUSH MONEY TRIAL. AS HE FACES NEW LEGAL PERIL IN ARIZONA AFTER BEING NAMED AN UNINDICTED COCONSPIRATOR TIED TO THE EFFORTS TO OVERTURN TH ELECTION WE WILL GET TO NEW YORK AN ARIZONA IN A MOMENT. BUT WE BEGIN HERE IN WASHINGTON. THAT'S WHERE THE SUPREME COURT APPEARS LIKELY TO REJECT FORME PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BROA INTERPRETATION OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY BUT THE COURT MAY SEN THE QUESTION OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY BACK TO THE LOWER COURT, DELAYING HIS TRIAL ON CHARGES HE TRIED TO OVERTURN THE LAST ELECTION UNTIL AFTER TH NEXT ELECTION. AS LAWYERS FOR MR. TRUMP ARGUE HE HAD NEAR TOTAL IMMUNITY T ACT AS PRESIDENT, THEY WER PRESSED BY SOME OF THE COURT'S LIBERAL JUSTICES ABOUT THE POTENTIALLY ALARMING IMPLICATIONS OF THAT ARGUMENT. >> IF THE PRESIDENT DECIDES THAT HIS RIVAL IS A CORRUPT PERSO AND HE ORDERS THE MILITARY O ORDERS SOMEONE TO ASSASSINAT HIM, IS THAT WITHIN HIS OFFICIAL ACTS FOR WHICH HE CAN GE IMMUNITY >> IT WOULD DEPEND ON TH HYPOTHETICAL IT COULD WELL BE AN OFFICIAL ACT. >> HOW ABOUT IF THE PRESIDEN ORDERS THE MILITARY TO STAGE A COUP >> I THINK AS THE CHIEF JUSTIC POINTED OUT EARLIER WHERE THER ARE A SERIES OF GUIDELINES AGAINST THAT >> BUT HE ORDERED THE MILITARY TO STAGE A COUP. AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS A OFFICIAL ACT >> I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND O THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER IT I AN OFFICIAL ACT. IT IS A FACT SPECIFIC. >> TO ME, IT IS LIKE UNDER IT IS OFFICIAL ATTACK BUT THAT SUR SOUNDS BAD >> IT DOES >> COURTS WERE PRESSED BY TH CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES ON THEIR VIEWS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF THE ACTS AROUND A SITTIN PRESIDENT, RAISING CONCERNS THAT IT COULD OPEN UP PANDORA'S BOX IMPAIRING THE PRESIDENT TO D HIS OR HER JOB DO I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY IF HE MAKES A MISTAKE HE IS SUBJECT TO THE CRIMINAL LOSS LIKE ANYON ELSE HE IS IN A PECULIAR PRECARIOUS POSITION >> HE IS IN AN A SPECIAL POSITION FOR A NUMBER OF REASON. ONE IS HE HAS ACCESS TO LEGA ADVICE ON EVERYTHING HE DOES HE IS UNDER A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AN CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND MAKING A MISTAKE IS NOT WHAT LANDS YOU IN A CRIMINA PROSECUTION. >> SEVERAL OF THE JUSTICES TODAY SEEMED AWARE OF THE HISTORIC WEIGHT OF THE CASE THE PRECEDENT THAT THEY COUL SET FOR THE POWERS OF TH PRESIDENCY ITSELF. THERE SEEMS TO BE WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT AMONG THE JUSTICES THAT NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. AS HE ARRIVED IN COURT IN NE YORK THIS MORNING, TRUMP ADDRESSED THE CASE BEFORE TH HIGH COURT >> I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAV BEEN THERE BUT THE JUDGE -- BU THE ARGUMENT ON IMMUNITY IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE PRESIDENT HAS TO HAV IMMUNITY THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME IT HAS TO DO WITH THE PRESIDEN 100 YEARS FROM NOW IF YOU DON'T HAVE I MOUNTY, YO WILL NOT DO ANYTHING YOU WILL BE A CEREMONIAL PRESIDENT, DOING NOTHING YOU WILL NOT TAKE ANY OF THE RISKS, GOOD AND BAD. >> JOINING ME NOW FROM OUTSIDE OF THE SUPREME COURT IS KE DILANIAN AND ALSO WITH ME IS SUPREME COURT EXPERT AND COFOUNDER OF SCOTUS BLOG AMY HOWELL, FORMER ATTORNEY FO PRESIDENT TRUMP, TIM PARLATORY AND BARBARA McQUAID, FORMER U.S. TARN AND NBC NEWS LEGAL ANALYST. THANK YOU FOR STARTING US OFF ON THIS HUGELY SIGNIFICANT AN HISTORIC DAY AS WE SAID. KEN DILANIAN, YOU ARE OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE TAKE US THROUGH THE KEY TAKE AWAYS. WERE THE QUESTIONS MORE OR LES WHAT YOU EXPECTED TODAY? >> I FULLY EXPECTED A NUMBER O CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES WOULD FIND A REASON TO FIND SOME LEVEL OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FOR SOME PRESIDENTIAL ACTS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY SIGNALLED TODAY. THEY ARE NOT BUYING THE NOTION THAT TRUMP HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND THE CASE MUST GO AWI TRUMP'S OWN LAWYER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS I THE INDICTMENT WERE ACTS THA WERE PURELY PRIVATE ACTS THAT WAS AN INTERESTING MOMENT DURING THE HEARING APOLOGIES, WE HAVE A HECKLER HERE CLEARLY, THE MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE IDEA THA THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE N IMMUNITY WHATSOEVER. SO THAT IS WHERE THIS IS IF THEY DECIDE THAT THERE IS A LEVEL OF IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL ACTS BUT THE CASE CAN GO FORWARD, THEY HAVE TO THROW TH BACK DOWN TO JUDGE TONYA CHUTKAN AND HAVE HER SDOID WHICH OF TH ALLEGATIONS IN THE INDICTMEN ARE OFFICIAL AND WHICH ARE PRIVATE ACTS THE RESULTS IS THAT THE CASE I NOT DERAILED BUT SIGNIFICANTLY DELAYED. >> INCREDIBLE JOB REPORTING AN POWERING THROUGH THE HECKLER BEHIND YOU I WILL GIVE YOU A FEW SECOND AND HOPEFULLY THAT PERSON WILL SETTLE DOWN A LITTLE BIT . LET ME TURN TO YOU, AMY. WHAT WERE YOUR TAKE AWAYS TODA AND PICK UP WHERE KEN LEFT OFF THE DISPARITY THAT THE TRUMP LAWYERS MADE WAS BETWEEN OFFICIAL ACTS DONE IN TH CAPACITY OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE NAME OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND ACTIONS THAT ARE DONE IN A PERSONAL MAMATTER. HE DISPUTED THE UNDERLYING FACTS BUT CONCEDED THAT SOME OF THEM WERE PRIVATE CONDUCT SOME OF THEM HE SAID WER OFFICIAL ACTS. SOME OF THE JUSTICES SEEM READ TO DRAW THAT DISTINCTION AND KICK IT BACK TO THE LOWER COURT. OTHER JUSTICES WERE CONCERNED -- THE SUPREME COURT ONLY HEARS ABOUT 65 CASES A YEAR. IN ALMOSTARVE CASE, THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT THEY ARE NOT JUST DECIDING THAT PARTICULAR CAS BEFORE THEM BUT THEY ARE DECIDING FOR YEARS TO COME AND THAT WAS THEENT DEGREE IN THIS CASE THEY SAID THIS WAS A RULING FO THE AGES THEY MAY WANT TO SET BROADER RULES TO GOVERN FUTURE CASES INVOLVING PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. THE QUESTION IS, IF THEY ARE GOING TO REJECT THE D.C. CIRCUIT DECISION THAT SAYS PRESIDENT NEVER HAVE IMMUNITY BUT THEY WILL REJECT AT THE SAME TIME TRUMP 'S SWEEPING VIEW O PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, WHAT IS THE RULE GOING TO BE THAT THEY ARRIVE ON IN THE MIDDLE? THAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME COMIN OUT OF THE ARGUMENT TODAY. >> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT AN THERE DOES SEEM TO BE BROA AGREEMENT THAT THE JUSTICES WERE VERY SKEPTICAL OF FOMMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ARGUMENT THA PRESIDENTS SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO BROAD IMMUNITY HOWEVER, EVEN IF THEY COME U WITH A NARROWER INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, THAT COULD STILL B A WIN FOR TRUMP. >> SURE. I ALWAYS LOOKED AT THIS AT YOU HAVE ONE SIDE SAYING NO IMMUNITY AND THE OTHER SIDE SAYING TOTA IMMUNITY AND THE REALITY I SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE. SOME TYPE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. WHATEVER THEY RULE ON, IF THEY CUT IT UP AND SAY, THIS IS THE TEST, THEY WILL SEND THIS BACK DOWN TO THE DISTRICT COURT T HAVE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND POTENTIALLY EVIDEN SHEAR HEARING TO DECIDE WHICH PARTS CAN SA AND WHICH GET EXED OUT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT TH SPECIAL COUNSEL TELEGRAPHED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SPEED DECIDING TO CUT THE INDICTMENT HIMSELF AND AVOID THE HEARING SO HE COULD GET TO THE TRIAL. IT IS SUCH A FANTASTIC POINT BARBARA McQUAID, PICK UP ON THAT POINT IF YOU WOULD, TH SUGGESTION BY ONE OF THE JUSTICES, THAT WHY NOT MAKE THIS A NARROWER CASE SO THAT JACK SMITH CAN MOVE FORWARD MOR QUICKLY? AND IF THIS DOES GET KICKED BACK TO THE LOWER COURT, THAT IS VICTORY FOR TRUMP IN THAT THIS MAY NOT GO TO TRIAL BEFORE NOVEMBER >> YES, AND THAT IS AN OPTIO THAT JACK SMITH HAS. AS A PROSECUTOR, YOU WANT TO G TO TRIAL WITH ALL OF YOU EVIDENCE YOU DON'T WANT TO TRY A CASE WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND YOUR BACK IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, HE WILL TRY TO HAVE HIS CAKE AND EAT I TOO. IF HE SEES AN EVIDEN SHEAR HEARING AND SEES THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INDICTMENT ARE CLEARL PRIVATE ACTS AND SOME OTHERS ARE CLEARLY OFFICIAL ACTS, IF HE CAN ELIMINATE THE OFFICIAL ACTS AN HAVE A CLEAN CASE, THAT MAY BE ONE OPTION TODAY THERE WAS A QUESTION ON CONVERSATION WITH VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE, IF THAT IS A OFFICIAL ACT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHEN IT IS AN OFFICIAL OR PRIVATE ACT. THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT EVEN THOSE THINGS WHICH UNDER SOM CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE SEEN AS OFFICIAL ACTS ARE NOT ALWAYS OFFICIAL ACTS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE LINE SUGGESTED TODAY BY MICHAEL DREBEN WHO WAS ARGUING TO TH SPECIAL COUNCIL IS THAT ACTS THAT ARE DONE BY THE OFFIC HOLDER BY ACTS DONE BY THE OFFICE SPEAKER EVEN IN THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND MIK PENCE WERE ABOUT CAMPAIGN ISSUES AND NOT ABOUT GOVERNING. I THINK THAT IS AN OPTION THAT JACK SMITH HAS IN HIS BACK POCKET BUT HE DOESN'T WANT T PLAY THAT UNTIL IT IS SLOULT NECESSARY. >> I WANT TO PLAY AN EXCHANG BETWEEN CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT AND THE SPECIAL COUNCIL ATTORNEY AND THEN KEN, I WILL GET YOU REACTION ON THE OTHER SIDE LET'S LISTEN >> THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NO GET INTO A FOCUSED CONSIDERATION OF WHAT ACTS WE ARE TALKIN ABOUT OR WHAT DOCUMENTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE ADOPTION OF WHAT HE TERMED AND I AGREE, A CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT. THE FACT OF PROSECUTION WA ENOUGH TO TAKE AWAY ANY OFFICIAL IMMUNITY, THE FACT O PROSECUTION. >> I THINK I WOULD TAKE ISSU WITH TAKING AWAY IMMUNITY. THERE IS NO IMMUNI IN TH CONSTITUTION UNLESS THE COUR REICATES IT TODAY. >> IT UNDERSCORES WHAT AMY WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, THI NOTION THAT HOWEVER THE JUSTICES DECIDE, THE IMPLICATIONS ARE MASSIVE. NOT JUST FOR FORMER PRESIDEN TRUMP, NOT JUST THE CASE THAT HE IS FACING BUT FOR ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS >> THAT IS TRUE AND MANY JUSTICES TALKED ABOUT THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR. THEY SAID WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS FOR POSTERITY. AND WHAT YOU HEARD FROM JUSTIC ROBERTS WAS REAL CONCERN OVE THE BROAD D.C. CIRCUIT RULIN THAT FOUND NO IMMUNITY WHATSOEVER AND EVEN THE LAWYER FOR TH PROSECUTION ACKNOWLEDGED THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT A PRESIDENT DOES THAT PROBABLY ARE NOT PROSECUTABLE UNDER ARTICLE 2 O THE CONSTITUTION FOR EXAMPLE FOREIGN POLICY ACTIONS, OVERSEAS ACTIONS, THINGS RELATED TO FOREIG GOVERNMENTS. BUT MANY OF THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES DISAGREED WITH HIM WHEN HE SAID THERE IS NO IMMUNITY THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH THAT IDE AND THOUGHT THERE SHOULD BE SOME FOR OFFICIAL ACTS AND THEY WER GRAPPLING WITH WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. I WANT TO PLAY OFF SOMETHING THAT BARBARA SAID ABOUT DECIDING WHICH EVIDENCE MIGHT COME OUT IF SOME OF IT IS OUT. THIS IS A CONSPIRACY CASE. WHAT MICHAEL DREBEN SAID IS IT IS POSSIBLE YOU COULD PUT ON THE EVIDENCE AND INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT ONLY THE PRIVATE ACTS ARE THE CRIMES BUT YOU STILL PUT O THE EVIDENCE ABOUT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHICH MANY PEOPLE THINK COULD BE AN OFFICIAL ACT BUT WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF TRYING TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION YOU COULD LET THE JURY SEE THE EVIDENCE BUT INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT OFFICIAL ACTS AREN'T CRIMES BUT PRIVATE ACTS ARE >> TIM, WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THAT AND JUST HOW COMPLICATED IT IS TO DRAW THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE ACTS >> IT IS VERY HARD WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE CASE IT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEE CANADA TRUMP AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHAT PARTS ARE IN HIS ROLE AS THE PRESIDENT. ONE OF THE THEMES THAT WE WERE TEASING OUT AT THE TIME, IF PRESIDENT WHO IS AT THE END OF THEIR SECOND TERM HAS CREDIBLE INFORMATION ABOUT FRAUD THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION, LET'S SAY PRESIDENT OBAMA IN 2016, WOULD WE WANT HIM TO CALL THE DO SAYING I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE THIS WOULD WE WANT PRESIDENT OBAMA TO BE CALLING GEORGIA AND DOING ALL THOSE THINGS WHEN YOU PAPT IT IN THAT LIGHT THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU A CLEARER DELINEATION BETWEEN WHAT IS TH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND WHAT IS TH CANDIDATE DOING WHEN YOU SEPARATE THEM INTO TWO PEOPLE. WHEN IT IS ONE PERSON, IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT. >> YEAH, JUSTICE JACKSON TALKE ABOUT THIS SHE SAID THESE ARE DIFFERENT LINE DRAWING PROBLEMS BUT SH SAID IF WE DECIDE THERE IS N IMMUNITY, WE DON'T HAVE TO MAK THESE DECISIONS. >> LET'S PLAY A LITTLE BIT O THE SOUND YOU ARE REFERENCING. THIS IS JUSTICE JACKSON WEIGHING IN ON THE POINT, DISCUSSING HO CHALLENGING IT IS TO DRAW THAT LINE >> YOU SEEM TO BE WORRIED ABOU THE PRESIDENT BEING CHILLED. I THINK WE WOULD HAVE A REALLY SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH THE PRESIDENT WASN'T CHILLED IF SOMEONE WITH THOSE KINDS OF POWERS, THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD WITH THEGREATES AMOUNT OF AUTHORITY COULD GO INTO OFFICE KNOWING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO POTENTIAL PENALT FOR COMMITTING CRIMES, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DISINCENTIVE IS FOR TURNING TH OVAL OFFICE INTO THE SEAT OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE COUNTRY. >> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING >> SHE WAS TRYING TO PUSH BACK AGAINST ONE OF THE FORME PRESIDENT'S MAIN ARGUMENTS WHICH IS IF YOU DO NOT HAVE BLANKE IMMUNITY FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT EVERYTHING A PRESIDENT DOES WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE IDEA THAT H OR SHE COULD BE PROSECUTED AFTER THEY LEAVE OFFICE AND IN PARTICULAR, IT COULD BE TH CYCLE IN WHICH THERE COULD B POLITICAL RETALIATION BY THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHE SAID DOESN'T IT WORK THE OTHER WAY AROUND WHAT ABOUT THAT ARGUMENT AS YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT THI CASEHOW MUCH SHOULD YO GRAPPLE WITH THIS BEING TRUE I SOMEONE BROUGHT IMMUNITY, BU THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT ARE POTENTIALLY A SLIPPERY SLOPE >> YOU WANT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF IMMUNITY YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY I SDRE WITH THE STRIKES YOU ORDERED OVERSEAS AND I WILL PROSECUT YOU. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE HA TO BE A LEVEL OF DETERRENCE. IT WAS INTERESTING, TH HYPOTHETICALS THAT THEY WERE PLACING TO THE ADVOCATES, IT WAS INTERESTING HAD THEY GONE TO MR. SAWER AND GIVEN HI HYPOTHETICALS THAT RELATE TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAS MADE AGAINST JO BIDEN AND HUNTER BIDEN AND SEE AND WATCH THEM TRY TO DEFEND AND IT WOULD BE FINE FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN TO TAKE MONE FROM HUNTER AND DO ALL OF THIS STUFF OVERSEAS BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THAT'S WHA THE JUSTICES ARE TRYING TO DO. IT IS NOT JUST FIGURING OUT WHAT SHOULD BE THE RULE FOR DONAL TRUMP BUT WHAT SHOULD BE THE RULE FOR ALL PRESIDENTS. >> BARBARA, PICK UP ON THIS. I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE INTO TH FUTURE BUT IF YOU HAD TO ENTER FROM WHAT WE HEARD FROM TH JUSTICES TODAY, IT SEEMS LIK THEY MAY BE POISED TO SIGN A VERY NARROWER INTERPRETATION O IMMUNITY BUT ALSO THAT IT COUL GET KICKED BACK TO THE LOWER COURTS WHAT WOULD THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT BE? AND DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT COULD HAPPEN >> I DON'T KNOW. THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO DECID ONLY THE CASES BEFORE THEM SO WHEN JUSTICE KAVANAUGH SAYS I'M THINKING ABOUT OTHER CASES THAT WE ARE WRITING FOR THE AGES AND HISTORY, AND THEY WANT T DRAW THE LINE IN THE RIGHT PLACE BUT THEY DON'T NEED TO DECID CASES THAT ARE NOT BEFORE THEM IF THEY LOOK JUST AT THIS CASE AND THE CHARGES IN THIS CASE ABOUT TRUMP ACTING AS CANDIDATE, I DON'T THINK IT IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION AT ALL. BUT I AGREE IF THEY NEED TO DRAW THE LINE ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ACT AND WHICH OF THE DELEGATIONS FALL ON WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE, I'M CONFIDENT THA JUDGE CHUTKAN CAN DOTHAT QUICKLY AND GET THE CASE BACK ON TRACK THE CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS IF TRUMP DECIDES TO APPEAL TH DECISION AND THE COURT ALLOW THAT, THAT'S WHAT WOULD DERAIL THE CASE UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION >> KEN, LET ME GO BACK TO YOU. WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE OTHER CASES THAT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS FACING, INCLUDING THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE BROUGHT BY JACK SMITH. >> IT DOES HAVE IMPLICATIONS BUT IT IS LIMITED BECAUSE A LOT OF THE CONDUCT IN THE CASE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE HAPPENED AFTER TRUMP LEFT OFFICE. I THINK IT WOULD REALLY HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GEORGIA CASE WHICH ALLEGES A LOT OF TH SAME CONDUCT THAT IS ALLEGED I THE JACK SMITH CASE. SO MANY OF THOSE THINGS WILL B CONTRUED BY DONALD TRUMP AND HIS LAWYERS AS OFFICIAL ACTS DEPENEDING ON HOW THE SUPREM COURT RULES AND THAT COULD HINGE ON THOSE CHARGES THE BIGGEST IMPACT IS TO DELAY THE SEMIINAL ELECTION CASE THA JACK SMITH HAS BROUGHT, IT SEEMS VERY REMOTE THAT IT WILL GET T TRIAL BEFORE THE ELECTION. >> QUICKLY TO BOTH OF YOU, AMY AND TIM, WHAT WILL YOU B WATCHING FOR AS WE WAIT FOR TH DECISION ON THIS >> I WILL BE LOOKING AT EXACTL WHAT THE COURT SAYS AND WHEN THEY ISSUE IT. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN AN INDICATION TO MOVE QUICKLY O THIS ONE COMPARED TO THE ELECTION CASE THAT THEY HEAR FULL ARGUMENT IN FEBRUARY AN THEN ISSUED A DECISION A MONTH LATER. >> HOW ABOUT YOU DO YOU THINK THEY WILL MOV QUICKLY IN THE CASE? >> I THINK BECAUSE OF TH GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION, THEY WILL PROBABLY TAKE THEIR TIME. I DON'T THINK THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS MOVED BY JACK SMITH'S SCHEDULE THEY WILL DO IT IN THEIR SCHEDULE I THINK IT IS GOING TO END U WITH MORE HEARINGS AND A BARBARA SAID, PROBABLY AN APPEAL BUT HERE'S ANOTHER THING IF THEY SEPARATE A GOOD PIECE OF THIS OUT AND SAY THAT' IMMUNITY, DO THEY FILE A FOLLO UP MOTION SAYING IT IMPACTS TH GRAND JURY PROCEEDING BECAUS YOU PRESENTED A BUNCH OF IMMUN CONDUCT TO THE GRAND JURY. IT OPENS UP A LOT OF THING WHERE EVEN IF HE LOSES THE ARGUMENT OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, HE IS GOING TO WIN THE CLOCK >> ALL RIGHT THANK YOU FOR A FANTASTIC OPEN SEGMENT ON A VERY BIG AN COMPLICATED DAY. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AMY, AND KEN, THANK YOU BOTH TIM, BARBARA STICK AROUND WE HAVE MORE HISTORIC LEGA DEVELOPMENTS TO GET TO >>> COMING UP, NEW TESTIMONY AND REVELATIONS AS NEW ALLEGATIONS IN FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP' CRIMINAL HUSH MONEY TRIAL AS H ESCALATES THE ATTACKS ON THE COURT. >>> AND AN ARIZONA GRAND JUR HAS CRIMINALLY CHARGED MORN DOZEN TRUMP ALLIES FOR ATTEMPTING TO OVERTURN THE 202 ELECTION AND ALSO NAMING THE FORMER PRESIDENT AS AN UNINDICTED COCONSPIRATOR STAY WITH US YOU'RE WATCHING MEET THE PRESS NOW. >>> WELCOME BACK AS SOME OF THE FORME PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS WERE ARGUING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, TRUMP AND OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS LEGAL TEAM WERE BACK IN THE COURTROOM IN NEW YORK CITY AS DAVID PECK ER, THE FORMER PUBLISHER OF THE NATIONA ENQUIRER REVIEWED HIS TESTIMON FOR A THIRD DAY. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUMP WA INTENDED TO HELP HIS CANDIDACY IN 2016 SAYING THEY DIDN'T WAN THE STORY TO EMBARRASS HIM O THE CAMPAIGN TRUMP'S TEAM BEGAN THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PECK ER JOINING MOW NOW IS RAHEMA ELLI OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM WHAT WERE SOME OF THE OTHER BI TAKE AWAYS FROM PECK ER' TESTIMONY TODAY? >> Reporter: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DAVID PECK ER WAS ASKED WAS ABOUT PAYING McDOUGAL, KAREN McDOUGAL FOR HER STORY FOR THE CATCH AND KILL KIND OF SCHEM THAT SEEMED TO BE SO REGULAR AND ORDINARY HE WAS ASKED IF WHETHER OR NOT THE EXPENDITURES INCLUDED FO THE ELECTION WERE ILLEGAL AND HE SAID YES THAT SEEMS TO CUT TO THE HEART OF WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT EVEN THOUGH KAREN McDOUGAL IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE INDICTMENT, STORMY DANIELS IS, BUT WHA DAVID PECK ER DID WAS ESTABLIS THAT TRUMP WAS VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN HOW HIS MONEY WA SPENT. AND MICHAEL COHEN WAS AN INTERMEDIARY IN ALL OF THIS. WHEN HE AND MICHAEL COHEN WENT TO LUNCH, COHEN COULDN'T PAY FOR LUNCH BECAUSE IT WASN' AUTHORIZED BY DONALD TRUMP AND THEY BOTH KNEW IT. DONALD TRUMP KNEW IT AND DAVID PECK ER KNEW IT. EARLIER IN THE TESTIMONY, HE MENTIONED THAT DONALD TRUMP WA SOMETHING OF A MICROMANAGER AN VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN TH FINANCES SO THIS MAY CUT TO THE HEART O WHAT THE PROSECUTION WAS TRYIN TO PRESENT ABOUT THE TAKE ABOU DONALD TRUMP, FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS TO COVER UP A ADULT FILM STAR PAYOFF IF YO WILL, THAT'S WHERE THEY AR ALLEGING THAT THERE IS A CRIME NOT THE PAYOFF BUT FALSIFYING OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS >> THE FIRST OF A NUMBER O CRITICAL WITNESSES THAT WE ANTICIPATE WE WILL HEAR FROM LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DEFENSE A LITTLE BIT RAHEMA, WHAT HAS THE DEFENSE BEEN FOCUSING ON IN THEI CROSS-EXAMINATION SO FAR >> Reporter: ONE OF THE THINGS WE NOTICED FROM THE DOCUMENT THAT THE REPORTERS ARE SHARING WITH US IS THE WORD THAT SEEMS TO BE RAPID FIRE, QUESTIONS OF YES AND NO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DAVID PECKER WAS ESTABLISHING WAS THAT THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING UNUSUAL FOR SOMETHING FOR THEM TO TAKE A STORY THAT WAS UNFLATTERIN ABOUT A CELEBRITY AND THEN NOT RUN IT THEY DID IT WITH ARNOL SCHWARTZENEGGER AND WITH TIGER WOODS. SO BASICALLY, I GUESS TH DEFENSE IS TRYING TO SAY THA THIS WAS STANDARD OPERATIN PROCEDURES WITH DAVID PECKER AND IT IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. >> >> WE ARE MATING FOR JUDGE MERCHAN TO DECIDE IF TRUMP VIOLATED HIS GAG ORDER AND PROSECUTORS LAID OUT MOR POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS TODAY WHAT DID THEY SAY AND WHEN ARE WE EXPECTING THE JUDGE TO RULE ON THE GAG ORDER >> WELL, THEY STARTED TALKIN ABOUT THIS THIS MORNING. AND THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF TH JURORS BEING PRESENT IN TH COURTROOM. AND HE BROUGHT UP FOUR MOR INSTANCES OF ALLEGING THAT DONALD TRUMP VIOLATED THE GA ORDER. THE GAG ORDER SAYS THAT HE CAN'T HARASS WITNESSES THEY BROUGHT UP AN INTERVIEW DONALD TRUMP HAD WITH A TV STATION AND CALLED MICHAEL COHEN A CONVICTED LIAR THAT IS SORT OF SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT A POTENTIAL WITNESS, CORG TO THE PROSECUTION. THEY ARE SAYING THAT DONAL TRUMP SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS THEY ARE ASKING FOR $1,000 VIOLATIONS THEY ARE NOT ASKING FO INCARCERATION BUT $1,000 FOR EACH VIOLATION THE JUDGE HAS TAKEN IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND NOT SAYING WHEN HE WILL RULE >> RAHEMA ELLIS, THANK YOU FOR COVERING ALL OF THE ANGLES FOR US IN A VERY BUSY DAY IN A MANHATTAN COURTROOM. I APPRECIATE IT. I WANT TO BRING BACK OUR LEGAL EXPERT, TIM AND BARBARA. LET'S START WITH YOU, BARBARA. WHAT WERE YOUR BIG TAKE AWAY FROM THE TESTIMONY TODAY >> I THOUGHT HE HELD HIMSELF U PRETTY WELL. I THINK SOME OF THE ISSUES WIL BE WHAT IS BUSINESS AS NORMAL. THE IDEA OF THE CHECK BOOK JOURNALISM AND CATCH AND KILL, AND PAYMENT OF HUSH MONEY SOUNDS LIKE A PRETTY HORRID IDEA. MOST OF US ARE NOT DEALING WIT THOSE ISSUES ON A DAILY BASIS. THE IDEA OF NORMALIZING THAT BEHAVIOR SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO MOST OF US. I THINK ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THESE THINGS HAPPEN WITH OTHER PEOPL AS WELL AS DONALD TRUMP, PECKE IS COMING ACROSS AS A CREDIBLE WITNESS. AND IN AUGUST OF 2015, THE HATCHED THE PLOT OF PUSHIN FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT DONAL TRUMP'S ENEMIES BUT PREVENTING THE CLAIMS FROM GOING FORWAR ABOUT DONALD TRUMP BUT IMPORTANTLY THE IDEA THAT THER WOULD BE ILLEGAL CAMPAIG EXPENDITURES IN ALL OF THIS AN THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT UNLAWFU AND DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM CASES LIKE TIGER WOODS AND ARNOL SCHWARTZENEGGER AND OTHERS >> ONE OF THE QUESTION THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL IS TH QUALITY OF THE WITNESSES TRUMP HAS ALREADY PAINTED COHE FOR A LONG TIME AS AN A LIAR SOMEONE WHO IS NOT SOMEONE YOU CAN TRUST. HOW DOES DAVID PECKER COME ACROSS AS A WITNESS? SOME OF WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT IS TOTALLY UNRELATABLE >> RIGHT >> BUT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE IS CREDIBLE, HOW DO YOU THINK HE COMES ACROSS? >> OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT IN THE ROOM SO I DON'T SEE HIS DEMEANOR. FORT WORTH EVERYTHING I HAVE HEARD, HE SOUNDS CREDIBLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE IF I WERE CROSS-EXAMINING HIM, I WOULD NOT BE TRYING TO ATTACK HI CREDIBILITY. WHAT I WOULD BE DOING IS DOING WHAT THEY ARE STARTING TO DO, TO PLACE IT ALL INTO CONTEXT. I WOULD GO THROUGH, YOU AR FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THESE THINGS, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PAYMENTS TO STORMY DANIELS OR HOW THAT WAS PUT IN THE LEDGER NO, SO YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT CONDUCT AND THEN YOU DO IT IN NORMALIZATION OF HOW MANY OTHE PEOPLE HAVE THEY DONE THIS FOR YOU GO ON ABOUT THE FALS STORIES PUT ON AGAINST POLITICAL RIVALS, WAS THAT NORMAL. AND THEN TOG ABOUT THE STEEL DOSSIER AND THINGS LIKE THAT FAKE STORIES ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. YOU BRING ALL THAT IN AND DON'T THINK IT AIFICATES THE CREDIBILITY. >> LET ME PUSH THE PAUSE BUTTO FOR A MINUTE BECAUSE TRUMP I GOING TO ADDRESS >> THIS MORNING WAS BREATH TAKING, WHAT WENT ON IN THIS ROOM, IT WAS BREATH TAKING AMAZING TESTIMONY. THIS IS A TRIAL THAT SHOUL NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, A CASE THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED IT WAS REALLY INCREDIBLE INCREDIBLE THING, OPEN YOUR EYES AS THIS TOIPS TO HAPPEN TO OUR COUNTRY. BUT IN ANOTHER MATTER, THE ECONOMY IS REPORTED TO BE DOIN VERY BADLY, THE STOCK MARKET I WAY DOWN AND SOME HORRIBLE NUMBERS CAME OUT INCLUDING VER HIGH NUMBERS ON INFLATION AND IN PARTICULAR GASOLINE AT $7.50 I CALIFORNIA, IT WILL HAPPEN HER TOO. VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE IF YOU LOOK AT THE VARIOUS COLLEGES AN BEYOND COLLEGES BECAUSE IT I HAPPENING IN OTHER AREAS TOO YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING ON TH FRONT HAVING TO DO WIT PALESTINE AND ISRAEL AND PROTESTS AND HATE, ANGER BIDEN IS SENDING A HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE MESSAGE HE HAS NO IDEA HOW TO MESSAGE. HE CAN'T SPEAK HE CAN'T PUT TWO SENTENCES TOGETHER HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO THIS IS NOT OUR PRESIDENT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE DOING WHAT HE IS DOIN BECAUSE HE CAN'T DO IT WELL. WE ARE HAVING PROTESTS ALL OVER. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT CHARLOTTESVILLE. CHARLOTTESVILLE WAS A LITTLE, IT WAS NOTHING. AND THE HATE WASN'T THE KIND O HATE THAT YOU HAVE HERE. THIS IS TREMENDOUS HATE AND WE HAVE A MAN WHO CAN'T TALK ABOU IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IT HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I GOING ON WITH OUR COUNTRY. HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OVER THE WORLD, WE ARE BEING LAUGHED AT AS A COUNTRY BECAUS OF HIM AND HIS ADMINISTRATION. AND TODAY WE HAD, I HEAR BECAUSE I WAS IN COURT AND I'M GLAD WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A INTERESTING DAY BUT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD A MONUMENTAL HEARING ON IMMUNITY AND TH IMMUNITY HAVING TO DO WITH PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY AND THINK VERY CLEAR I HOPE IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT HAS TO HAVE IMMUNITY YOU DON'T HAVE A PRESIDENT WHERE THE MOST YOU CAN SAY IS CEREMONIAL PRESIDENT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDER HAD IN MIND. THEY WANT A PRESIDENT THAT CAN GET THINGS DONE AND BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER SO I HEARD THE MEETING WAS QUITE AMAZING, QUITE AMAZING AND THE JUSTICES WERE ON THEIR GAME SO WE WILL SEE HOW THAT TURN OUT BUT AGAIN, I SAY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, VER POWERFUL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IT IS IMPERATIVE OR YOU WILL NOT HAVE A COUNTRY ANYMORE >> THANK YOU >> THAT WAS DONALD TRUMP AFTER ANOTHER DAY OF COURT IN THE HUSH MONEY TRIAL AND AGAIN, WE AR LOOKING AT THE -- OR JURORS WILL LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID PECKER TODAY DONALD TRUMP SAYING THAT THE CASE NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED HE THEN PIVOTED TO ATTACKING BIDEN OVER WHAT WE ARE SEEIN WITH THE UNREST ON COLLEGE CAMPUS AND ATTACKED THE ECONOMY, NEW ECONOMIC NUMBERS, THE GROS DOMESTIC PRODUCT U.S. GROWTH DID SLOW IN TH FIRST QUARTER BUT INFLATION DI REMAIN A CONCERN WE SHOULD SAY IN TERMS O WHETHER THIS CASE SHOULD EVE BEEN BROUGHT, WE SHOULD REMIND OUR VIEWERS THAT IT WAS BROUGH BY A GRAND JURY. TRUMP IS BEING JUDGED BY A JUR OF HIS PEERS LET ME TURN TO DASHA BURNS DASHA, WHAT WAS YOUR TAKE AWAY HE ALSO WEIGHED IN ON TH ARGUMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, SAYING THIS IS CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT HAS TO HAVE IMMUNITY HOEFS BASICALLY SAYING THAT' WHAT HIS LAWYERS WERE ARGUING. HE SAID THE JUSTICES WERE ON THEIR GAME BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW WHA THEY ARE GOING TO DECIDE BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THEY DO NOT SEEM POISED TO GIVE HIM TH BROAD IMMUNITY >> NO, IT WAS A PRETTY ROBUS QUESTION AND ANSWER EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE JUSTICES AND LAWYERS. BOTH FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMEN AND FOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT CLEAR AT ALL I THIS IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO LAND THERE WAS A LOT OF SKEPTICISM OF THE ARGUMENTS ON THE PART OF TRUMP'S LAWYERS. AND AGAIN, A ROBUST DISCUSSION LIKE MANY OF THESE HEARINGS ARE. I WANT TO FACT CHECK ONE OTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION HE SAID THERE. HE SAID THAT GAS IS $7.50 IN CALIFORNIA I JUST DID A QUICK SEARCH AND IT IS $5.04 AND I DID NOT SEE IT AT $7 IN ANY OTHER COUNTIES, STIL A HIGH PRICE FOR THE GAS BUT NOT AS HIGH AS WHAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT WAS TALKING ABOUT. HE CALLED THE SUPREME COUR ARGUMENTS AMAZING AND SAYING THE JUSTICES ARE ON HIS GAME BUT OTHERWISE HE IS STICKING TO TH MESSAGE HE HEAR OVER AND OVE AGAIN SAYING THAT THIS I UNFAIR, THAT THIS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT. ONE THING WE DIDN'T HEAR FRO HIM WAS ANY ATTACK ON TH WITNESSES THEMSELVES WHICH AS WE KNOW HAS BEEN A SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY AND IS A SUBJECT O AND ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION TO HOLD TRUMP IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING GAG ORDERS WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR FRO JUDGE MERCHAN ON THOSE MOTIONS >> THANK YOU FOR RACING TO THE CAMERA AND THE GREAT FACT CHEC AND ANALYSIS BARBARA, LET ME GO BACK TO YOU ON WHAT WE HEARD I THOUGHT IT WAS NOTABLE I ADDITION TO ALL OF THE RHETORI WE ARE USED TO HEARING FRO FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE SAI IT WAS MADE QUITE CLEAR TODA THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS TO HAVE IMMUNITY WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS IF THA WAS CLEAR TO THE JUSTICES. WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT HIS ATTORNEYS ARE MAKING THA ARGUMENT WHAT WAS YOUR TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT DONALD TRUMP SAID >> THIS IS A RHETORICAL TRIC THAT HE USES TO SUGGES SOMETHING IS TRUE WHEN IT IS NOT. HE SUGGESTS THAT WHAT TH SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH WANTS TO DO IS TAKE AWAY PRESIDENTIA IMMUNITY, TO CHANGE THE STATUS QUO. THIS IS A LINE OF QUESTIONS BY A NUMBER OF JUSTICES, ESPECIALLY JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSO WHO SAID WHAT WAS THE FORD NIXON PARDON ALL ABOUT IF THERE WAS NO ABILITY TO HOLD A PRESIDEN CRIMINALLY ACCOUNTABLE AFTER H LEFT OFFICE? WOULDN'T IT BE A TERRIBLE PLAC IF A PRESIDENT DIDN'T HAVE T WORRY ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND THOUGHT HE COULD USE ALL OF HI POWERS WITH IMPUNITY WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT CRIMINA RESPONSIBILITY AND THEIOID WHERE HE SAYS WE CAN'T CHANGE A PRESIDENT'S POWER OR TAKE AWAY HIS IMMUNITY, OTHERWISE HE WOULD BE CEREMONIAL PRESIDENT IS NOT TH WAY THAT EVER PRESIDENT HA THOUGHT ABOUT THEIR JOB UNTI NOW. SO IT IS A TRICK THAT SUGGESTS THIS IS AN EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THE POWER OF THE PRES DENSE AS OPPOSED TO HOLDING THI PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE. >> TIM, WHAT IS YOUR TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT WE HEARD AND BARBARA UNDERSCORES TH WEIGHT OF THE ENORMITY OF THIS DECISION, THE FACT THAT WHAT THE HIGH COURT DECIDES WILL HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRESIDENTS TO COME >> I THINK IT IS THAT IMPORTANT. I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT WHEN HE SAYS THAT WAS MADE CLEAR, IT WAS PROBABLY MAD CLEAR BY HIS TARN ATTORNEY BUT IT WILL END UP BEING SOMETHING WHERE THEY GIVE MORE GUIDANCE TO FUTURE PRESIDENTS ON WHAT TH LEFT AND RIGHT ARGUMENTS ARE IDISAGREE THAT HE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY AN IMMUNITY THAT ALREADY EXISTED. IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED. IT HAS NEVER BEEN SOMETHING THAT HE HAD TO DEAL WITH. SO NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE WILL DO SOMETHING THAT PROBABL WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER IF THEY HAD DONE IN SEVERAL STATES OR IN THEIR CONSTITUTION WIT CODIFYING IT NOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE GOO GUIDANCE FOR EVERY PRESIDENT GOING FORWARD. SOME OF THE OTHER RULINGS IN THE CASE, THE PRETRIAL RULINGS ARE GOING TO COME UP LATER ON AS T WHAT ARE THE RULINGS O EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. SOME OF THOSE RULINGS TAKE THA AWAY TO TELL THE FUTUR PRESIDENTS, HEY, YOUR SUCCESSO CAN BRING IN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DECIDED BY A HIGHER COURT AT SOME POINT I TIME AS WELL >> THANK YOU FOR HELPING U UNDERSTAND THE BREAKIN DEVELOPMENTS WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. TIM AND BARBARA, GREAT ANALYSIS. WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE YOU BAC BECAUSE THESE LEGAL BATTLES AR ONGOING. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>> WE WANT TO TURN TO ANOTHER OF FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP' LEGAL ISSUES LAST NIGHT THE ARIZONA ATTORNE GENERAL ANNOUNCED AN INDICTMEN FOR SEVERAL OF TRUMP HFS ALLIE INCLUDING MARK MEADOWS AND RUD GIULIANI FOR THE SO-CALLED FAK ELECTORS SCHEME IN 2020. TRUMP IS NAMED AS AN UND INDICTED COINSPIRATOR. IT INCLUDES CHARGES OF FRAUD CONSPIRACY, FORGERY WHO AIDED IN THE CERTIFICATION SENT T WASHINGTON CLAIMING TRUMP WO ARIZONA. PRESIDENT BIDEN CARRIED TH STATE BY ABOUT 11,000 VOTES. JOINING ME NOW IS VAUGHN HILLYARD WHO IS COVERING THI STORY FOR US VAUGHN, BREAK THIS DOWN, WHA ANOTHER LEGAL ANGLE THAT WE AR FOLLOWING ON THIS EXTRAORDINAR DAY, THE CHARGES FROM TH ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL WHAT ARE THEY AND WHO DO THE IMPACT AND COULD THEY ULTIMATELY ENSNARE THE PRESIDENT? >> Reporter: THAS HAS TO DO WITH THE ALTERNATE ELECTOR SLAT SCHEME CHRISTY MAZE DID NOT COME INTO OFFICE UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. SHE SERVED IN TWO YEARS AFTE THE 2020 ELECTION. BUT WHAT THE INVESTIGATION LED TO WAS A SPRAWLING INDICTMEN AGAINST THE 11ELECTORS THA INCLUDEDED THE LIKES OF KELL WARTEN BUT THE CURRENT RNC COMMITTEE MAN TYLER BOILER WHO IS THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CHARLIE KIRK GROUP CALLED TURNING POINT USA. THE LIKE OF BORIS EPSTEIN, WHO CONTINUES TO HAVE A ROLE IN TH 2024 CAMPAIGN. HE IS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN THE LEGAL ADVISOR TO DONALD TRUMP. WE ALSO HAVE CHRISTINA BOG NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT. SHE WAS LEGAL COUNSEL FO ELECTION INTEGRITY FOR RNC THESE ARE VERY MUCH A PART O TRUMP'S CURRENT OPERATION. FOR THE EFFORTS DATING BACK TO 2020, OVER THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION, MAYES MADE TH COMMITMENT THAT SHE WANTED T BRING CHARGES AS A SIGNAL THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LA GOING INTO THE FUTURE. >> YOU TAKE ME TO MY NEXT AN WHAT IS ONE OF THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS HERE, HOW DOES THI IMPACT DONALD TRUMP? ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE BEE INDICTED HE IS UNINDICTED COCONSPIRATOR BUT WHAT DO THESE CHARGES MEAN FOR HIM? COULD HE BE INDICTED AS WELL >> IT IS A GOOD QUESTION IT DEPENDS ON THE EXTENT T WHICH THEY COULD GET COOPERATING AGREEMENT FROM SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS. YOU HAVE KENNETH CHEESE BRO WH WE BELIEVE WAS GRANTED IMMUNIT HERE HE IS NOT ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS. FOR TRUMP, THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE ARIZONA INVESTIGATION HERE BUT ALSO, THE DETAILS OUTLINED IN THE INDICTMENT ARE QUITE SIGNIFICANT INCLUDING ON THAT JOHN EASTMAN HAD PLACED A PHONE CALL TO RUSTY BOWERS WHO WAS THE REPUBLICAN SPEAKER O THE HOUSE THAT ALL OF THIS WAS GOING DOWN AND THE INDICTMEN ALLEGES THAT JOHN EASTMAN URGE HIM TO WORK WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO DECERTIFY ARIZONA'S ELECTION RESULTS, SEND THE TRUMP SLATE OF ELECTORS TO WASHINGTON AND LET THE COURT SETTLE HE DID NOT MOVE TO DO THAT NOR DID OTHER REPUBLICANS AT THE SCORN OF DONALD TRUMP. BUT THIS WAS ULTIMATELY AN INDICTMENT THAT EXTENDED BEYON THE 11 ARIZONAENS BUT ONE THAT HITS AT THE CORE OF THE PAST TRUMP OPERATION AND THOSE WH HAVE SIGNIFICANT ROLES IN HI CURRENT TEAM >> AND BIG PICTURE, THERE HAVE BEEN INDICTMENTS FOR THE SO-CALLED FAKE ELECTORS IN ORT STATES, GEORGIA, MICHIGAN, NEVADA HOW ARE THOSE PROGRESSING? WHAT ARE THE UPDATES THERE >> THOSE CASES ARE PROGRESSING IN GEORGIA AS WELL AS IN MICHIGAN I THINK THE GEORGIA CASE LAI THE FOUNDATION TO BRING TH CHARGES. FANI WILLIS INCLUDED THE REFERENCES TO THE LIKES OF JOH EASTMAN AND KENNETH CHESEBRO ALLEGED ARCHITECTS OF TH SCHEME, AND DIRECTLY CITED I THE CONSPIRACY LAWSUIT THE ACTIONS THEY TOOK IN ARIZONA AND I THINK IF ANYONE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LARGENESS OF THIS, YOU ARE DEALING ALSO WIT THE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS NOT ONLY NOT DENIED SO MANY OF THE ACTIONS THAT TOOK PLACE BU A LOT OF THIS HAPPENED IN TH PUBLIC EYE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ARIZON VIDEOED THEMSELVES SIGNING THE CERTIFICATE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SEND TO WASHINGTON. THEY DIDN'T HIDE A LOT OF WHAT WAS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT. THEY EMBRACED THIS AS PART O THE EFFORTS TO PROMOTE TRUMP T EVEN BE NAMED THE PRESIDENT ON JANUARY 6th. >> WELL, WE WILL CONTINUE TO WATCH CLOSELY AS IT ALL PLAY OUT. VAUGHN, AS ALWAYS, FANTASTIC REPORTING, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, I APPRECIATE IT. >>> WE WILL HAVE EVEN MORE ABOUT ALL OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT' LEGAL ISSUES WITH THE PANEL. >>> PLUS, SENATOR MITC McCONNELL MEETS THE PRESS WITH THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY THINKS OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S CLAI OF TOTAL IMMUNITY. THAT IS MY SIT DOWN INTERVIE AFTER THE BREAK. YOU'RE WATCHING MEET THE PRE NOW. >>> WELCOME BACK ON THIS INCREDIBLY HISTORIC DAY. WE HAVE A GREAT PANEL TO BREAK IT DOWN. JOINING ME NOW IS SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" NIACAND BRENDAN BUCK, FORMER AID TO JOHN BOEHNER, ALSO AN NBC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE WHERE DO BEGIN MOLLY, LET ME START WITH YOU MY GOODNESS. WE JUST HEARD FROM FORME PRESIDENT TRUMP, NOT A SURPRISE, TYPICAL CAMPAIGN RALLY WE HEAR FROM HIM OUTSIDE OF TH COURTROOM. HE WAS BASICALLY MAKING THE CASE THAT HE THOUGHT HIS ATTORNEY MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT TH PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE IMMUNITY BUT THIS IS SUCH A SIGNIFICANT MOMENT NOT JUST FOR HIM BUT FO ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS THAT W WILL COVER IN THE FUTURE WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE HIGH COURT TODAY? >> IT WAS REALLY A FASCINATING ARGUMENT IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE HO BROAD IT WAS I THINK THE JUSTICES HAD A OPPORTUNITY IF THEY WANTED T KEEP THIS A NARROW CASE AND ONLY APPLY WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TO THIS PARTICULAR INDICTMENT BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A UNCHARTERED AREA BECAUSE COURT HAVE NOT BEEN CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THIS, NOT EVEN NIXO TESTED THE SYSTEM TO THI EXTENT, YOU REALLY SEE THE JUSTICES SAYING WE NEED INGUAR RAILS FOR WHERE THE LIMITS ARE IN THE LAW ALL OF THEM ASKING HYPOTHETICALS CLEARLY AIMED AT NOT JUS DECIDING WHETHER THIS INDICTMENT CAN GO FORWARD BUT WHERE THE LINE WILL BE DRAWN IN TH FUTURE >> AND PICK UP ON THAT POINT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE JUSTICES AR POISED TO, IF GO ON THIS CASE, A MUCH NARROWER RULING BUT THE COULD ALSO TAKE IT TO THE LOWE COURT. EITHER COULD BE A WIN FOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT THIS CASE IS NOT GOING TO GO TO COURT LIKELY >> YEAH, IT WAS DISHEARTENING TO HEAR ONE OF THE MANY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO THINK THAT NO ON IS ABOVE THE LAW AND WE SHOULD HOLD EVERYONE TO THE SAM STANDARDS AND THERE SHOULD BE LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THE ARGUMENT WAS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE COURTS WILL HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE THIS IS A CLEAR SIGNAL THAT TH COURTS WILL NOT HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE. HE WILL EVADE ANY SENSE OF ACCOUNTABILITY IT SEEMS. >> BRENDAN, WHAT DO YOU MAKE O THIS THERE IS THAT PIECE OF IT WHIC MEANS VOTERS MAY NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE COURT CASES. THERE IS ANOTHER PIECE OF THIS WHICH IS THAT TRUMP HAS BEEN I COURT FOUR DAYS A WEEK HE IS NOT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. HE IS HOLDING EVENTS ON TH WEEKEND BUT LAST WEEKEND HIS CAMPAIGN GOT RAINED OUT WHIC WAS A REMINDER, THIS IS REALTIME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT >> WE WILL LEAVE IT TO THE LAWYERS TO TALK ABOUT LEGA PRECEDENTS AND THERE ARE REA CONSEQUENCES THE SUPREME COURT TAKES THIS REALLY SERIOUSLY BUT THE POLITICAL MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THIS GOES T COURT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DONALD TRUMP BEING STUCK I COURT IS NOT GOOD. HE CAN'T DO RALLIES. THAT BEING THE CONTEXT IN WHIC WE SAW DONALD TRUMP FOR MONTHS ON END IS NOT GOOD FOR HIM ANY CONTEXT DONALD TRUMP IS TH STORY AGAINST JOE BIDEN, IT IS NOT GOOD FOR HIM OR IF IT IS ALL ABOUT JOE BIDEN, IT IS PROBABLY NOT GOOD FOR HIM. BUT IF TRUMP IS ABLE TO AVOI THAT AND GET THROUGH THE NEW YORK CASE, WHATEVER THE OUTCOM MAY BE, AND GET BACK TO WHAT H WAS DOING BEFORE, HAMMER JOE BIDEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN, H WILL BE IN A BETTER PLACE. THAT TO ME COULD WIN THE ELECTION, WHETHER OR NOT THI COURT CASE GOES FORWARD. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAV SEEN TRUMP COME OUT OF COURT AND TALK ABOUT ISSUES. NORMALLY HE JUST RAILS ON TH COURT BUT THIS TIME HE TALKE ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND GAS PRICES SOMEONE HAS GOTTEN TO HIM AN SAID VOTERS DON'T LIKE TO HEAR YOU WHINING ALL THE TIME BUT YOU ARE WINNING ON A LOT OF THES ISSUES AND HE IS WHEN HE CAN BRING HIMSELF TO TALK ABOU THOSE AND NOT HIS PERSONAL GRIEVANCES >> IT'S A GREAT POINT. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH LEADER MITCH McCONNELL EARLIER TODAY. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IF YOU RECALL, DURING TRUMP' SECOND IMPEACHMENT, McCONNEL VOTED TO ACQUIT HIM AND HE SAI IT WILL BE UP TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO TRUMP. I WANT TO PLAY THIS AND GE REACTION ON THE OTHER SIDE >> LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT I GOING ON WITH THE SUPREME COUR THIS WEEK. IN 2021, YOU VOTED TO ACQUIT TRUMP, SAYING THAT WE HAVE A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THI COUNTRY, CIVIL LITIGATION AN FORMER PRESIDENTS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY EITHER ONE TRUMP ATTORNEYS ARE ARGUIN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THA PRESIDENTS ARE IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ACTIONS THEY TAKE WHILE THEY ARE I OFFICE DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ARGUMENT? >> WE WILL FIND OUT, AREN'T WE THE SUPREME COURT WILL DEAL WITH THAT DIRECT ISSUE THAT I WAS REFERRING TO ON FEBRUARY 13th OF 2021 AND I THINK WE WILL FIND OUT SOMETIME SOON. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK DO YOU THINK PRESIDENTS SHOULD BE IMMUNE FROM CRIMINA PROSECUTIONS FOR ACTIONS WHILE THEY ARE IN OFFICE >> OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T THINK THAT BUT IT IS NOT UP TO ME TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY NEEDS SOME KIND OF IMMUNITY OR HE WOULD B IN COURT ALL THE TIME. SO WE WILL SEE HOW THE SUPREME COURT DEALS WITH IT. >> YOU SAID FORMER PRESIDENT ARE NOT I MOWN TO BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE? >> YES, THAT'S MY VIEW BUT I DON'T MAKE THAT DECISION THE COURTS DO. >> BUT YOU STAND BY IT >> YES, THAT'S MY VIEW BUT THE COURT WILL DECIDE. >> BUT JUST TO BE CLORE, YOU STAND BY THE COMMENTS, FORME PRESIDENTS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE >> I DO BUT HOW MANY TIMES DO HAVE TO SAY I'M NOT ON THE SUPREME COURT, I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THAT. >> HE SAID HE STANDS BY TH COMMENTS THAT PRESIDENTS DO NO HAVE IMMUNITY ALTHOUGH HE DI SAY THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF IMMUNITY SO IT SEEMS LIKE HE WA SUPPORTIVE A NARROWER FINDING. HE WAS CLEAR THAT THIS IS FO THE COURTS TO DEAL WITH. >> POOR MITCH McCONNELL, RIGHT YOU KEEP SAYING THINGS THA DON'T CONTROVERSIAL AT THE TIM AND THEN THEY BECOME THAT WAY. YOU DID A GOOD JOB PINNING HIM DOWN ON THAT IT HAS BEEN VERY INTERESTING T SEE McCONNELL BECOME LIBERATED AFTER HE ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT HE FEELS HE HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY WHAT HE REALLY THINKS, EVE IF HE IS HEDGING IT QUITE A BIT, HAVING ALSO ENDORSED DONAL TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT. WE WILL SEE IF THE SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH McCONNELL OR NOT HE STANDS BY WHAT HE SAID AFTE JANUARY 6th AND HE HAD SOME VERY HARSH WORDS FOR DONALD TRUMP AFTER JANUARY 6th. >> YEAH, I THOUGHT IT WAS SIGNIFICANT MOMENT BRENDAN, WHAT DID YOU MAKE O THIS YOU HAVE WORKED WITH McCONNELL >> YES, IT WAS SOMEONE WHO WAS SICK AND TIRED OF DEFENDIN TRUMP RGS THIS IS NOT MY PROBLEM ANYMORE. >> RIGHT >> HE HAS AN EXTENSIVE VIEW OF THE POWERS THAT THE EXECUTIV SHOULD HAVE AND SHOULD NOT B CHALLENGED BUT HE ALSO IS THE ULTIMAT POLITICAL END. HE KNOWS THAT IF TRUMP HAS A BAD DAY, HIS GOAL OF TAKING BACK THE SENATE IS IN JEOPARDY AND HE WILL NOT THROW DONALD TRUM UNDER THE BUS AS MUCH AS H WOULD LIKE TO. WE KNOW HE DOESN'T LIKE TRUMP. >> WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF WHAT YOU HEARD FROM McCONNELL >> IT WAS AT LEAST HEARTENING. THAT WAS HIS STATEMENT DURIN THE IMPEACHMENT AND HE AT LEAS STOOD BY IT AND DIDN'T SWITCH. IT GIVES A REMINDER OF THE RIF IN THE PARTY WE SAW IT EARLIER THIS WEEK WITH UKRAINE. THERE IS A REAL DIVIDE GOING O IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. FOR THE MOST PART, McCONNELL I WINNING. >> YOU ARE FANTASTIC YOU TAKE ME TO MY NEXT POINT PERFECTLY WHICH IS ABOUT THE RIFF IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY I ASKED LEADER McCONNELL ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU CRANE AI AFTER SIX MONTHS WAS PASSED. OF COURSE McCONNELL IS ONE O THE PEOPLE WHO LED THE CHARG ARGUING TO HIS PARTY THAT IT NEEDS TO BE PASSED NOT JUST FO UKRAINE BUT FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF EUROPE AND OF TH UNITED STATES AS WELL. SO IT IS VIEWED AS A BIG VICTORY FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN AND FO LEADER McCONNELL AND SPEAKER JOHNSON. HE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY ON UKRAINE TODAY AND I ASKED HIM ABOUT TH CONVERSATION >> I SEE YOU HAVE YOUR TIE O WITH THE UKRAINE COLORS. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WERE ABL TO SPEAK WITH PRESIDEN ZELENSKYY TODAY. WHAT WAS HIS MESSAGE TO YOU? >> HE WAS GRATEFUL BECAUSE H KNEW THAT IT IS A BIG CHALLENG FOR MY PARTY AND WE HAD A BIGGER VOTE THAN WE DID A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO I THINK THERE IS A GROWING FEELING IN THE REPUBLICA CHRONFERENCE AND IN THE SENATE THAT THE ISOLATIONIST PATH I NOT A GOOD IDEA. >> MOLLY, ULTIMATELY, WE HAD A ROBUST EXCHANGE ON THE ISOLATIONIST PATH AND WHETHER IT IS DWINDLING OR IT IS JUST BECOMING STRONGER WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THERE IS A REAL DIVIDE IN TH REPUBLICAN PARTY >> IT IS A GENERATIONAL DIVIDE AND WE ARE SEEING IT PLAY OUT IN THE SENATE WHEN I SPOKE TO McCONNELL AFTE THE FIRST VOTE WHEN LES THAN HALF OF THE REPUBLICAN SUPPORTED THE PACKAGE, HE SAID THE SAME THING HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS WAS ON THE MARCH IN THIS PARTY. INTERESTINGLY TO TIE IT TO THE OTHER CONVERSATION, THIS HAS BEEN A HUGE LEGACY ISSUE FOR HIM. BUT WHEN YOU ASK HIM WHAT TH LEGACY IS, HE SAYS THE SUPREME COURT. AND THIS IS VERY MUCH MITC McCONNELL'S SUPREME COURT THAT IS DECIDING TRUMP'S FATE >> THAT IS A FANTASTIC POINT DO YOU FEEL THAT ISOLATIONISM IS RETREATING IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? >> I DON'T I THINK HE IS LOSING THE ARGUMENT OF WHAT THE PARTY WIL BE BUT THIS IS ONE LAST THIN THAT HE IS CLEARLY PROUD, TH ONE THING HE WAS ABLE TO D BEFORE HE IS OUT >> IT IS A VICTORY LAP FOR HIM AND I THINK IT WILL BE HIS LAS ONE IN THE PARTY >> THANK YOU ALL FOR A GREAT PANEL. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. GREAT CONVERSATIONS. WE WILL BE BACK TOMORROW WIT MORE MEET THE PRESS NOW. AND WE WILL HAVE MORE OF M INTERVIEW WITH MITCH McCONNELL
