Might be for the future president if they have that. What i am more worried about you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. I think we would have a really significant Opposite Problem if the president wasnt chilled. If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, i am trying to understand what the disincentive is wrong turning the oval office into the seat of Criminal Activity in this country. In a moment i will be joined by former Trump Council and former white House Counsel in the Nixon Administration who was central to the last case the Supreme Court in deciding on if president s are above the law. And the transcript that just came out from today. We will hear from arthur and jeffrey and jessica, investigative counsel, and senior legal analysis and jim who was in court today. A lot of billable hours right here at the table. Lets talk more about what the scene was like inside of the court room. I found it interesting the contrast between the direct and crossexamination. The direct was very methodical. They go through every single detail pulling back the curtain with uk bringing in evidence and how they discuss signal apps. Then once we got to the cross and was rapidfire. The defense was walking them through and poking holes into what the direct spent doing for days. Another thing i thought was interesting in the interviews you said that you did and the excess Hollywood Tape and all of these details that very likely these jurors have heard prior to the 2016 election, they were enthralled. We were learning that ther e were pink talking between questions being asked and peckers answers. Meanwhile the former president sort of setback particularly during peckers direct with his arms crossed at times kind of closing his eyes, listening but really not reacting much at all to what his former friend was saying on the stand just feet away from him. There was a lot of quiet drama in a sense but you can feel it. Quick takes from everyone what stood out to you. Prosecutors know you do not highfive at the end of direct exam. That is easy part. The change in pace was noted. I think the defense started to score some points and chip away at peckers testimony. For example they establish this catch and kill stuff, this capturing stories and doing favors for celebrities, donald trump did not invent that. That has been since the beginning. That is important for the jury to understand. Michael cohen i think they scored a point when they establish he is always playing an angle for himself. They got that out of the das witness. The last was i think there was a contradiction and an important part of packers testimony where he says now that when they first started discussing the plan, and at first he didnt say that, not saying he has ruined it but i think he did a good job on direct that would be happy is the prosecutor, but now sit back because he is taking on some damage. From my time as a prosecutor but agree. I would be happy if this was my witness. I think what stands out is it is quite easy if they know someone else but today, pecker pointed the finger at himself. He admitted he was part of a criminal conspiracy and he talked about election crimes and his own concern and what they did violated that. He raised concerns and said he sought Legal Counsel on that at the time. I think that is incredibly damaging. One of the competing narratives is are we talking about a personal matter and hush money and what people do to connect stories, we talking about campaign and people considering, we know they are trying to influence an election antedate david said that is exactly what was going on. From what i heard about and i believe it is correct, the crossexamination they made some points right Out Of The Box on the way you described it, that is what you want. You look and you only have one chance to make a First Impression on the jury. This is the first big crossexamination. You want the jurors to know right off the bat. You will hear all of these nights, prepared, totally rehearse, direct examination but watch what happens. Watch how we slay that. Once we dig into the details, and i had a friend in the courtroom and he said after the first hour and a half i wanted to take a shower after hearing how filthy the Tablet Industry is. I dont know the details but apparently there was a lot about Arnold Schwarzenegger and when he was going to run in with a buried. He testified that schwarzenegger had been in contact with them about essentially doing the same kind of catch and kill stories. And the analogy today they said would is the big deal about bringing that out. If a jury is there they are listening to a crime and someone is talking about how horrible double parking isnt someone says you double park and you double parked, this slides into the Jury Nullification basket. This is sop, is not like donald trump is the only one who has ever dated. Politicians pay to bury stories. I was going to pick up on that point. What is significant about establishing that ami did this for theres people he negates the idea that it was done for election purposes. If they are catching and killing stories rather celebrities. But he was running for governor. But Mark Wahlberg wasnt. There are other people that pecker said they would do this. At the end of the day he was effective and i think there are lots of answers to this. He talked about how when they got closer the election for trump, that the concern that trump express was about the effect on his campaign but nevertheless establishing this was sop and normalizes it and seems like it is less related to the campaign itself which is important. But overall i think he was an excellent witness and he showed no bias towards trump. Not only was he not deflecting responsibility for his own criminal conduct but he said he still considered the former president of friend. He didnt come off as he was holding thing back. If i were donald trump i would be so happy about what happened in washington today i would even care what happened in the courtroom today. I think the Supreme Court really signaled we are not going to see any of the trials this year. We will get to that later tonight, i know. The value to the prosecution of packers he laid out the frame of the story. Now the jury understands that there were these three witnesses, that is all going to be filled out maybe they will believe him, maybe they wont. Your idea that this is soo terrible and this is just business as usual, who was their partner and all this. Donald trump. You dont think the jury will be offended this guy was running for president of the United States is involved with all beasleys balls. That he buried in sex story which you heard from their witness so did this liberty, so that thats a liberty comes with this liberty, that it happens all of the time. Its not that unique. This isnt watergate. That is my point. Watergate was a unique time. The first time something likee that has happened. But what came out in crossexamination is it happenss all of the time. This time they consulted the lawyers and then they started to back off because they realize they were gearing into territory that made them nervous. With the money. And that is what matters here, the money. To jump off of what you were saying. On the stand pecker is very composed during direct. Is very compose if he doesnt know and answer he doesnt say no, he doesnt hesitate he was very believable when he was testifying. They didnt get to the crux of what this case is which is Stormy Daniels. Because pecker didnt pay Stormy Daniels, he sends out a bank. The question is now he is credible but most of the story is not going to come from him. So are they going to find someone who has an ax to grind against donald trump. To your point, he said he was his mentor. He was very believable, And Aa Real Story coming from someone. This is a classic dilemma. Prosecutors are almost always going to build their case on people who are involved, cooperating witnesses, people have been given immunity. The forts Defense Lawyers say how can you convict based on the word of this convicted liar, and prosecutors we have our standard thing where you say guess who chose this guide. The defendant chose him when he chose to go into business with them, that is how we going to prove this case and the task for prosecutors as jessica was pointing out, explain why this transaction is different from Mark Wahlberg or schwarzenegger and takes over the line of criminality. All the people in the courtroom would be people its not like they were random strangers. They are the people trump shows revenues like. When we talk about this dirt, if i am his lawyers im worried about the dirt being on donald trump. This is the former president. I think that is what will be important. I think the standard is this is not watergate, thats not the standard, when the jury get the jury charge, that is not the charge they will give him. I dont know what charge he will give them. But i do know it wont be it has to be the crime of the century. I think its fascinating when you see the Black And White photo of donald trump walking past the rose garden with david pecker. We have seen Heads Of State walking down there. We have seen people walking down that and to know who david pecker is now and what donald trump is saying right there which is essentially, how is karen doing, is she going to shut up. Later in the trial we will see checks that donald trump signed, according to the prosecution, to pay michael cole went back for the money he gave level photo in Black And White and you feel it is historic and people talking about a hush money deal. And these checks were signed in the oval office while he was president. More of what we are learning from the courtroom. Transcripts. And the definition of the Oral Argument and immunity, in a case they said we are writing a rule for the ages. Her uncles unhappy. Im sensing an underlying issue. Its tmobile. It started when we tried to get him under a new plan. But they they unexpectedly unraveled their price lock guarantee. Which has made him, a bit. Unruly. You called yourself the uncarrier. You sing about price lock on those commercials. the price lock, the price lock. so, if you could change the price, change the name its not a lock, i know a lock. So how can we undo the damage . We could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. Their connection is unreal. And we could all unexperience this whole session. Okay, thats uncalled for. After nearly three hours of Oral Arguments the justices did not seem willing to embrace trumps anything goes interpretation of immunity but should instead much of the Hearing Focus on where to draw the distinction between official acts of the president and private conduct. Here is more from john. You can see that private acts dont get immunity. Do you agree about the acts as being private producers or to a private attorney to spread Election Fraud to spearhead election results, private. We dispute the allegation. Sounds private. The tourney because the verification by petitioner that cause false allegations to support a challenge. Three private actors to attorneys including those mentioned above and a political consultant help to implement a plan to obstruct the Certification Proceeding and petitioner and coconspirator attorney directed that effort. You read it quickly i believe that is private. Some of todays arguments also focus on Richard Nixon and his entanglements and how that reflects on today and what that means. Im joined tonight by counsel and former federal prosecutor, Law Professor, and former federal prosecutor. Also someone very familiar with the legal legacy left behind by nixons onetime white House Counsel john dean. Let me start with you given how watergate, and think we knew was going to come up but this is how trumps attorney responded when justice raise this question about nixon. What was up with the parting for president nixon. If everybody thought that president s couldnt be prosecuted then what was that about. He was under investigation for private and public conduct at the time. John, given that i wonder what you may that after ten minutes after that trumps attorney acknowledged that allegation and indictment includes private and official acts. My reaction was theres a very thin read for them to draw upon. Ford clearly thought nixon could be prosecuted. Indeed he thought he was getting a confession from nixon when he issued the pardon. He carried around in his pocket book or his wallet a side of the case that said incessants acceptance of the pardon was an admission of guilt. The whole assumption back then was president s had no immunity. They could not commit crimes without having exposure unless there was a passing by the Department Of Justice taking action, indeed they had jeopardy. The situation has dramatically changed and nixons onetime prediction if the president does it seems legal seems to come today the court. I was remembering how we reported at their terms in office he forbade people from bringing up nixon comparisons to them often with a lot of expletives because he was tired of hearing the comparisons. But on the argument trumps attorney did concede today that some of those accusations are private acts that trump did. Would that shift . Gentle i thought it was a Surprise Admission since they stonewalled on everything. They couldnt get around arguing that some of those acts were not official acts even though trump pretended everything he did while he was still president was an official act. We will see how far that goes. The issues he conceded to he must think he has a factual argument he can make that diminishes the impact of what is going on. But i was just surprised that the courts focus and determination by the republican members to write and immunity of some kind for president s. Is just not the right case to do that and it is really going to be a threat to democracy to hampden foolishly write something just for the sake of this case. It was remarkable to listen to it. Victoria, when you hear that you are shaking your head yes, to what john was just saying there. Ive been a Law Professor for about 30 years and i have studied the separation of powers and the constitution and i was very sad today. Id never heard anything like this. They said women dont have a right for abortion because it is not in the text, but they are going to make up some text for donald trump. They had an opportunity to put country above party, and they did not. They refused to talk about the facts. This official Immunity Document is only applied in civil cases that criminal cases. I have to say it was a disparity moment for me because i teach my students at georgetown to follow the rule of law. I sam a moderate because i have no friends. Im too the left of the right. It was really a disparaging day for me. And you work on trumps defense Team Obviously youre nodding longer, but what did you make of how the arguments went today. Im not crying in my beard that this was a breakdown. Its not actually beard. Not yet. Honestly, i give a lot moree credit to the conservative side of the bench. I was a couple of things, number one i like to judge on advocacy of the parties whatever my interest is. Ive known my treatment for a long time,. He was arguing on behalf of. I think it was intellectually interesting and i didnt agree with everything that every side said but i think the way they presented themselves, is something that is pretty impressive. If im talking to my students i woul d say wherever you come out on this watch the advocacy and how they respond in the history of the Supreme Court and learn something. Theres something to learn from both sides. They are looking at context and texan trying to figure out the history whether it supports Executive Immunity but they are also not blind to their current context. The current context is craziness of ambitious prosecutors around the country throwing together unique and creative ways. The conservative justices didnt really seem to address the trump factor at all. They talked about what it meant for future president s not dealing with the allegations about this former and potentially future president. Here is the real sad part of the story which is they can come up with this line, this mark in the continuum between the personal and president ial and say this is the line where immunity begins or ends, they will probably do that. Theyre not in the position to make the factual call in these cases. What wilill happen, if they established there is a limited form of immunity not the absolute, but if there is a limited form it will go back to the trial court to see how do i figure out if the facts of this case give rise or dont give rise to immunity. We might be seeing trial courts dealing with dishes, circuits, Supreme Court change, you guys gave us this test are back. Craziness of trumps absolute immunity kind. Elliot, would you make of it. I think you are absolutely right. The court in recognizing i think trump conceding some things may be official acts and some things are not, really open the door for the Supreme Court to say we cant decide what is official and what is it we will just send it back down to lower courts to figure out. To be cleared the Supreme Court could have resolved this issue back in december we are not talki