The story. Live legal battles for former President Trump happening right now. We have live coverage this Afternoon Laura Ingram joins us and Andy Mccarthy, Jonathan Turley and trump attorney wil scharf will weigh in on healthy how he thinks today is going. The big decision could have implications for all president s to come is at the Supreme Court today. The former president s attorneys are giving that he should be immune from prosecution with regard to the indictments that will get the 2020 election and everything surrounding that. It has implications for the Georgia Case January 6th and all of that thats on the president s plate but did the justices by the trump attorneys arguments in there today . Fascinating to listen to the justices ask questions about all of this as they weighed the huge decision at the nations highest court. He is said he really wanted to be there at the Supreme Court to listen to this very important process they are undergoing said trump. The judge in this trial, youre familiar with this scene right . The barricades and the doors are where he comes and goes for the course of the past week. We saw him indicted in this same courthouse when this all started. This judge said nope my court is important to. You will be here today. Thats exactly where the former president is and now he has just returned shortly for the afternoon session, going to be done and a little over 1 hour when he will make some comments. We are hearing more testimony and a big day for david pecker former publisher of the National Enquirer that everyone grew up looking at on the Grocery Store stands. Lots of wild hellacious stories often on the cover of the paper. So when former President Donald Trump was asked about david pecker he was kind of careful not to criticize his old friend who is now testifying against him. Live outside the court in new york hi nate. In the past minute or so former America Media ceo and president david pecker testified about unknown Seclusion Agreement Ami entered with the Southern District of new york about campaign violations. He continues to testify about his involvement with the former playboy model Karen Mcdougal and his efforts to suppress his her story about an alleged affair with former President Donald Trump. He testified trump at manette him after Karen Mcdougal spoke with the news network about hit her alleged affair with trump. He thought khaki says, there is an agreement preventing him from doing that. He said he admitted it but picker also explained in meeting where he discussed some articles she was preparing with ghostwriters and career opportunities. He said he did that because he didnt want her speaking to other press. Becker visited the white house in july 2017 and he is explaining to the jury for a thank you dinner and at that dinner trump asked how karen was an pecker responded shes doing well, she is quiet she is good. Becker also testified he believed the motivation behind suppressing stories from 1 women alleging affairs with the former president was to protect Trumps Campaign rather than his family. He said trump never mention his family in conversations about those stories and packer also said when he spoke to trump about Him ReimbursingMichael Cohen for paying Stormy Daniels trump told him he had no idea what pecker was talking about but trump is accused of breaking new york law section 17 cart 152 , on top of the allegation all falsifying business records. Allow reeds and a 2 or more persons who conspired to promote or prevent the election to a person of Public Office by all lawful means and which conspiracies acted upon by 1 or more of the parties thereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. The operative word there martha is unlawful and there is still a lot of ambiguity about what exactly the former President Trump is accused of doing that was unlawful that led to him winning the 2016 president ial election. That something the jury well have to consider. Back to you martha. Speaker03 thank you. Martha fascinating nate thank you. Lets bring in jonathan, great to sea you. Great to listen to you all day on this but i think nate foy has nailed this. In terms of what we are really talking about here, everybody is listening to all of this, you know, talk about the boss and he was angry and the payments that went backandforth. But to promote or prevent the election of any person by unlawful means. The unlawful means as i understand it is basically a Campaign Donation that exceeds 2300 per person are tell me if im wrong here but if that were the case, you know, it would really matter who was paid for what if you exceeded the allowable amount and if thats what was proven i guess it would be an unlawful payment right . Right. There is a whole series of disconnects here. There is nothing unlawful thats been argued here. The money is uncontested so the prosecution is really playing up the fact we are establishing these issues. There is no crime here. So the reference to pecker having an Immunity Agreement on campaign via social finance violations is troubling for the defence. It suggests to the jury there is a violation here and there is not. The federal government declined to bring a charge against trump. There are many Election Law Experts who said this is not a violation. They tried it with john edwards and a collapsed, so we are left with this weird scene unfolding in this new york courtroom. They are talking about transactions that arent connected to anything unlawful, and on top of that you have pecker who said when he raised it with trump he said he didnt know about the reimbursement from Michael Cohen and many of these interactions are really with cohen. You know, cohen was his attorney so the jury well sea him take the stand and say, i think you should put my former client in jail for following my former legal advice. Thats how we are case is becoming. Martha it is weird. And, you know, my point is just that Campaign Finance violations really have to do with the amount people are allowed to pay you know, who is a lot to pay, whether it goes to an individual , whether its a payment that is made by an individual. All of this stuff we are listening to, i like to watch the coverage of the different channels throughout the day to see what theyre talking about. Over and over they are discussing the fact Michael Cohen said the boss wants this. The boss wants that. And all of this stuff about whos going to pay for it. I mean it is comical actually. Cohen didnt want to pay for it than he goes to david pecker and says get the boss to pay me back. They are saying the former president didnt want to pay for any of this stuff. But none of that, the transactions that were agreed to by Stormy Daniels in this case because she is the case were discussing, that was an agreement between 2 parties to not share your story, is that correct . Right. Ndas are ubiquitous that they are used all the time. Stories are killed all the time. The Clinton Campaign was famous for that. They killed The Hunter Biden story, you know, you had bill clinton who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to women and some of those stories were killed by clinton people to protect him. Those were not Campaign Contributions for the purposes of any criminal charge. So we are still left with the trial that seems to be searching for a crime. Thats what is so disturbing here. Its not just that the charge is in other cases its that the judges sitting there as they are talking about some unlawful means without identifying it. It was only a couple of days ago and the second week of this trial that breakeven made clear what 1 of these dead misdemeanours were. So the defence had to start this trial without even knowing fully what the theory was. Its like starting a race and lace they say we will tell you if its print or a marathon have a few. Its hard to prepare and you dont even know what the theory is. So Michael Cohen well be up soon in this process. He is key to the process because when youre looking at the behaviour they claim is a crime, it goes back to these payments that were made and whether or not they were Campaign Finance violations which you have laid out clearly why this would be something that shouldnt be a jew could to adjudicated in court and most of it is a misdemeanour. But Michael Cohen has been shooting his mouth off which is basically what hes done for the past any years. For an long for a long time he was in favour of donald trump but now he is against it. He is given himself a gag order here he has a podcast, he said despite not being the defendant, out of respect to the prosecutors of ocs posting anything about donald on my x. Account. What do you make of that . Its rather belated isnt it . The irony is that 1 of the things they have objected to under the gag order was trump reposting 1 of my columns, cohen referred to those columns as well. And some of them he objected to me and said im at witness basically i deserve protection. It is absurd, you know, he has been campaigning against the present and recently been dealing with the evidence and attacking the former president in this case. The inclusion of him in that order was an obvious mistake by the judge. I thank the judges being stubborn here. The selfimposed gag order is a bit too late. You can expect in the middle of a campaign involving the weaponization of the legal system for trump not to respond to the core players in that effort. Martha we will see what happens, theyre Still Deciding what the punishment well be for violations of the gag order if they say the former president committed. Jonathan thank you always good to see a. Thank you martha. Martha Supreme Court justices, some of them, 3 were appointed by President Trump and they are weighing and have finished hearing both sides. Now their job is to weigh whether or not the former president should be immune from prosecution because of the office of the presidency. On the charges he plodded to overturn the 2020 election. So you can see private acts dont get immunity. A dude. Will get into more detail with that, will sharp or counsel and former President Trump on the immunity appeal next its time. Yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. Everyday, more dog people are deciding its time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmers dog. Made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dogs needs. Its an idea whose time has come. Are you satisfied with the results you get from expensive Nutritional Supplements that dont contain more than 12 minerals . You cant get much benefit from 8 to 10 minerals when your body needs at least 60 minerals to be healthy. Now, try immuno 150 with its 70 minerals and 80 other nutrients. Im elmer heinrich, celebrating my 90th birthday as i make this commercial, with no dementia, no health problems, aches, or pains of any kind and the flexibility i had when i was 60. Now, i have consumed immuno 150 for many years. I can still drive a golf ball 220 yards, work out, bench press 100 pounds, run, jump, and do about anything i did 30 years ago. Now, i know its because of the 70 minerals. Now, look at the two videos on our website listed on the screen and consider placing an order online or call our tollfree number. And, by all means check the number of minerals in the product you take. I know you can be just as sharp and as healthy as i am and in as good of shape when you are 90 years old if you consume a full spectrum of minerals every day. The 70 minerals are the key, order now. my back got injured very bad. I was off work for about a year. I heard about Relief Factor from my wife. I took it every day, three times a day, for three weeks. Look at her and i said, the pain is gone. And she said, im glad it helped. I said, no, you dont understand. Its gone. You, too, can feel better every day with Relief Factor, a daily supplement that fights pain naturally. Call or go online now for our 3week quickstart, just 19. 95. My name is oluseyi and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. Now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. Giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport. The Supreme Court now faced with a very big Decision Waiting cautiously around whether or not former President Trump is immune and federal interference charges in 3 of the cases he faces. Listen to Michael Dragon arguing earlier for Special Counsel jack smith than you will hear from the trump attorney john sauer. If the president can be charged and put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president s decisionmaking cicely 1 bold and fearless action is most needed. The. Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do newark no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. Martha Joining The Noun Is Will Scharf and an attorney representing former President Trump in this case joining us in a couple minutes but first with the chief Legal Correspondent and anchor of Fox News Sunday live today at the Supreme Court, hello shannon. Hi martha. It was scheduled for about an hour at almost 3 today though because they had a lot to consider. Its been a crazy day out here at the Supreme Court. We will just work through that. The judges were taking this very seriously as they were wading through something thats historical, its the first of its kind. Justin kagan was 1 of those to say the framers could have provided blanket president ial immunity for all kinds of thanks but they did not put that in the constitution. They were providing protections for other officials and other places. Heres what she said about why they may have done that. Framers did not put in immunity clause into the constitution. They didnt provide immunity to the president. Not so surprisingly they were reacting against a monarch who claims to be above the law. Was the whole point the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law. Reporter but, you had the justice raising a lot of concerns saying what about this, if we dont provide any protection then anybody who becomes a candidate or is leaving office is a poor president well have to worry about their opponent here here is what said to that point. If an incumbent who loses a close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president can go off into peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent. He worried about if it would trigger a loop that could create the destabilizing force on democracy. Justices will have to wrestle with all of these questions again a lot of folks out here on both sides of the issue making their voices heard but for the justices they have heard their arguments and they have their first vote tomorrow behind closed doors. Then we wait to sea if they resolve these questions or if they decide it will go back to the lower courts for more action stretching the case out further. Fascinating. Always fascinated to listen to the justices as they as these questions and deliberate. Thank you shannon. Will scharf joins me an attorney representing former President Donald Trump in this case running as a republican for Missouri Attorney general as well. Thank you for being here today. You heard that backandforth between the justices i think it was clear based on the tone and questions that they do not appear to be in favour of Blanket Immunity for any president of the United States. Did you see it that likely. We felt this mornings arguments went really well and i say that primarily because it was clear that the justices were deeply concerned about the future of the office of the president and the future have the american presidency if they didnt provide some sort of legal safeguards against exactly the sort of political prosecutions were announcing brought against former President Donald Trump. We were heartened by the fact the justices were taking his core constitutional questions vary seriously and we are excited to see what they come down with, probably before the end of the end of term before the end of june. Martha interesting there was a backandforth with Justice Brown