Live in new york where todays session is expected to wrap shortly. The former president is expected to emerge from the courtroom and make remarks when he does we martha are there. The former National Enquirer publisher david pecker on the stand and now being questioned by the trump legal team. Earlier he detailed a phone call he had with the former president about payments made to karen mcdougal. He claimed trump was upset that Stormy Daniels broke in agreement not to use his name. And welcome everyone and sandra smith and for neil cavuto, this is your world. Its a busy day in the trump legal world weve got you covered with fox team coverage. Nate foy on the new york trial of whats going on inside the courtroom right now. Are legal Eagles Jonathan and andy mccarthy, Katie Czajkowski are here. We begin with nate in new york. Hague nate. Reporter hey sandra. You mention the crossexamination of former American Media ceo and Resident David packer underway trumps lawyers asking him about his dealings with the former president but the timeline dates back to long before he was running for office or was present of the united states. s lawyers notably brought up an interaction the 2 had from 1988 when becker notified trump about a negative story coming from an actress at the time. Trumps lawyers establishing they had this Business Relationship that was mutually beneficial for years and packer has testified today that it was good for his business to run positive stories about the former President Donald Trump. Right now he is also discussing his dealings with other celebrities including Arnold Shorts and egg are and paying to suppress stories, specifically from women alleging Improper Conduct with him and also purchasing stories from tiger woods or about tiger woods as well. This comes after the direct examination wrapped up of david packer and he was asked 1 was last time he spoke to the former President Donald Trump and he replied that winter of 2019 and the das Office Prosecutor asked him if he had any negative feelings about former President Truck and he said it was actually the opposite. He said trump was his mentor who helped him a lot throughout his career. He also referenced a nonprosecution agreement that ami entered with the Southern District of new york about Campaign Finance violations and in the agreement he talked about the meeting at trump tower in 2015 when he entered an agreement with trump and cohen to suppress negative stories about trump and publish negative stories about trumps political opponents which at the time included bill and Hillary Clinton as well as republican candidates in the primary race. He also discussed a Conciliation Agreement with the federal Election Commission and it was his agreement that ami received a fine and agreed not to contest that it committed campaign violations. So thats the latest right now from david packers testimony as i can right now trumps lawyers are having their opportunity to ask him about the relationship after the das office concluded their opportunity. Back to you sandra. We expected here from former President Donald Trump shortly, joining us former u. S. Attorney and Fox News Contributor andy mccarthy, George WashingtonUniversity Professor and Fox News ContributorJonathan Turley and former prosecutor katie trish caskey. Andy lets start with you. As we await the remarks from former President Donald Trump what do you believe is the strategy now other crossexamination happening and that courtroom . Evidently what they returned to underscore based on the Reporting Rear Hearing is that these agreements, these Nondisclosure Agreements are legal, they are a staple civil settlements in the u. S. And they go on all the time and they are not criminal and it will build from that to the ultimate argument that not only are they not criminal, trump actually is in charge with them in the indictment. Interesting pair jonathan when the former president emerges from that courtroom i can only imagine what he will have to say. But at this point based on what we a commode of the courtroom do you believe you will look at this as of the day or a bad day . I think he should look at it as a good day. If this is what they thought was their strongest start pack this is particularly good. Becker described how he asked trump about the reimbursement of cohen and trump said i dont know anything about that. More importantly you now have the defence pointing out he did the same thing for other celebrities. The point is that trump was and is a celebrity. He had a hit show on television and that was really good for the magazine. Packer himself said i had a couple different motivations here because this is what my readers wanted as well. Nonevent makes a particularly good case for anything criminal but what is still missing is the fact he just described in the same thing for celebrities because theres nothing illegal in it. Thank illegal having an nda. You can object to and not like the underlying story cart but its not a campaign contribution. The federal government itself made that clear. Martha katie . I definitely agree that the first witness should definitely be the strongest witness. Packers testimony did nothing to prove the case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. In fact even said he assumed trump wanted the stories killed for the purposes of his campaign but he didnt have any direct evidence of it. An assumption is a far cry Beyond A Reasonable Doubt proof that was the sole motivation behind these lawful agreements. Certainly i dont know what kind of ground they gained with him aside from the fact establishing there were many conversations with Michael Cohen that seemed to be coordinating this on behalf of term. Again we dont know if he was aware of what cohen was relaying and claiming trump new. Thats certainly something up for debate. Alright i want to take our viewers and listeners through something that just came to us from the courtroom and get your response to it. As the packer testimony is ongoing at this hour. This is the common crossexamination its happening, when it comes to this august when he 15 meeting attorney 23 packer testified the wrong date of the meeting and prosecutors had to correct and. Just reading this as its coming out of the courtroom to us. The Trump Attorney conduct and the crossexamination right now is pushing packer to make him question his memory and different series of events. That trump lawyer is asking when the most recent Meeting Packer had with prosecutors, packer said to her 3 weeks ago and he said he had probably 5 meetings total with prosecutors. He seemed flustered and cant remember specifics saying i dont have my calendar in front of me. The Trump Attorney then said its hard to remember the dates of these things even when they happened just a few months ago. Whats your take away from that exchange and equally. Its a pretty Standard Line of crossexamination sandra where once the witness is given a version of events its helpful to the government or at least the state believes it is helpful that you poke holes in it and its Defence Council by showing that loiss the witness is not as sure as they seem to perhaps on crossexamination, may be the credibility is not as high as you might have expected. The thing i would hesitate about here is i actually think packer on balance is a good witness for trump khaki is clearly not a hostile witness. And you need to make some points about his memory, maybe that helps in something you want to say at the end of the case. Summation to the jury thats fine. I would not cross the line and turn him into a hostile witness or get his backup because i think he is more inclined to help trump that harm him. Martha dew you agree with that . I think he is right on. This guy has a gun to his head. In agreement that he is signed and he doesnt want to be there. You dont want to give him a motivation here. But a think their scorned points and right now which also goes to whats going to happen in 18 minutes. There is a danger to sort of caging him in that courtroom, not able to speak. I thank the other side is hoping that he will come out and vent. But what we are seeing in packer is how weak this case is. Its almost in copperhead civil. The president needs not to rehabilitate their case or give them anything with statements made outside the courtroom. s case is collapsing on its own wait. It also means the president himself should not take the stand in this case. Its such a weak case that he would be given the prosecutors a possible opportunity that they would not otherwise have. Martha katie perhaps the tory and things, do you agree with jonathan that at this point with the big decision before him, the former president should not take the stand in his own defence . I do agree that it would be vary risky for him with the rulings allowing an all these other bindings and other civil cases. It would simply attack his credibility and a way thats not necessary and open him up in a way thats really not needed for the defence at this point. The case is very weak, its obvious why originally in this case was not seen as the first to go but practical matters it was the only 1 that could proceed. Its a real risk for them and not shaping up to be an example of any criminal conduct its more confusing by the day. We will continue to lean on any updates from that courtroom, likely we will have court rubbing for the day shortly and the former president his team said earlier he is expected to emerge from the courtroom and speak to the cameras. We will have that for our viewers with a thank you to all 3 of you for joining us. Thank you. A quick look as promised at the court at wall and brought. If you can stomach it it was a pretty big loss for the dow 375 points down on the day. Stocks selling off during the first 3 month of the year. Professors also considered over persistent inflation pushing a possible rate cuts from the fed. We will be watching. You are looking live now that the Supreme Court, a big day as well where former President Donald Trump said he would prefer to be there today as his Immunity Cases wait. But would he have liked what he heard . And were waiting as i mentioned donald trump for his remarks want this once this Court Session wraps. Stay with us progressive makes it easy to save with a quick commercial auto quote online. So you can get back to your monster todo list. Really . Get a quote at progresivecommercial. Com. 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. E former President Donald Trump is expected to speak in a moment now as the Court Session wraps. Earlier today he said he wouldve been love to be inside the Supreme Court today as the justices weighed his Immunity Case but would he have liked what he heard from them today are not . Are chief Legal Correspondent and host of Fox News SundayShannon Broome hello shannon. Hello sandra good to sea. Right former President Donald Trump was not in the courtroom but jack smith was. The entire council team as well. You look like it is related to january 6th and today the argument was the allegations they make about the actions he took surrounding generally sixth are they subject to some kind of broad grant of president ial immunity against potential criminal liability . The justices had all kinds of quarries looking far beyond the case and thinking about how it would impact generations to come. At 1 point saying we are writing a rule for the ages, they get the Historical Impact on the job they will have to do with this particular case. Worrying in a contentious election cycle the person who loses would immediately have to worry about their opponent tried to put them in jail if theyre an incumbent who lost a reelection bid. But just as jackson was on the other side saying im worried about the Court Getting a sweeping grant of Criminal Immunity to any sitting president so that when he leaves he knows there is not going to be a liability. This is what she responsible and than seeking the office in our land. Once we say no criminal liability mr president you can do whatever you want, i am worried that we would have a worse problem then the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he is in office. s are your present trumps argument saying if i dont have immunity and the president doesnt have the protection they can do their job and make difficult decisions. The justices said thats how weve been doing a couple centuries now, they question that. Also the question came up about pardoning the president s and why wouldnt they in the waning days of their administration if they are worried about it simply part of themselves against any future potential criminal charges, its not a question the Supreme Court has answered either. Now we will wait to see how long it takes them to get to a decision on this case sandra. And said now i appreciated shannon. Lets get to read from the former clerk for Justice Clarence thomas and Constitutional Law Professor don i thought there was so many fascinating exchanges inside the Supreme Court today listening to the arguments really opens up to the country to hear how they take this all in and make their decisions. What was your take away . What struck you as you listened to the justices and their questioning . Centre i couldnt agree more Hope Americans ascend to the argument because they will learn the justices are considering not how this affects donald trump in particular about how this will affect the office of the presidency and all future president s. I heard only 3 justices, 3 liberal justices reject the idea of any immunity at all. The 6 other conservative justices from what i heard were trying to struggle with the idea of how we would construct the immunity, what it would look like and what kind of acts would be subject to it and what kinds wouldnt. Chi would say the bottom line here is that donald chung has an incredible day at the Supreme Court. Way better than most commentators and myself included thought he was going to have. You could easily see the court and they were sympathetic to have much more than it looked like the beginning of this morning. Martha at some point the justices looked to the past. Cavanaugh brought up some past president s including obama and the drone strikes. But other justices said sandra its about now and about the future of the presidency. So do you believe that the former President Donald Trump as he has his day here at the new new york Supreme Court will look at what came out of the court today in washington and think this was a good day for him . This is the best he could have had and actually i would tell him dont come to the Supreme Court, he had 1 already against colorado. You wasnt there either. I thank the best thing for him to do is to stay away from the Supreme Court and not make it about him. Unless its about him tomorrow justices think about the office of the presidency and the better he is going to do. 1 of the things that came apparent and oral arguments and all the examples you just mentioned you listen to sandra this is the ground trump wants to fight on. He wanted to be fought on Policy Considerations and how it will affect the presidency. Its harder to