jack smith calls donald trump's bluff, next stop the supreme court. tonight on laura coates live. ♪ ♪ ♪ so this is a very big deal. you've got nine justice of, three of them appointed by then president donald trump, and they're being asked to decide what comes down to one very

simple question. it is a president of the united states above the law? it should be simple, you've heard that phrase how many times? of course we say nobody is above the law, it is why the lady justice wears a blindfold. but it's not what trump's legal team things, they've been arguing for a long time, along the lines of what you'd call maybe the nixon doctrine. if the president does it, it is not illegal. you know how that worked out for richard nixon, don't we? but how will it work out for donald trump? well, jack smith does not want to disappear out and wait to find out. he is going straight to the supreme court to decide whether trump is, in fact, protected by the presidential immunity in the election subversion case in washington, d.c.. tonight, a preliminary win of sorts, will explain why. they are saying they will fast-track at least as a pondering of whether to actually take on the request for information in a ruling. let's read the tea leaves a little bit tonight because the supreme court is about to make a very big decision about what

a president can and cannot do, what is president behavior, what is covered, and all of these things. and, of, course or does it mean for trump's other cases? i want to bring in now cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elliott williams. also here is ian medullae's are, a former senior correspondent at fox focusing on the supreme court and the author of many book as well. i want to begin with you for a second because united talked a lot about the supreme court over the years and what is taking place there. this is significant to go from the district court's ruling that says you do not have a presidential immunity, trump. everything you did was not a presidential, so just because. just saying now the supreme court will look at how the case normally goes through to get to the supreme court. this is significant, ian. >> it is. i think jack smith is being very smart here in trying to make is move as fast as possible. you know, you don't want a situation where, like, on october 20th supreme court

throws out conviction because of some procedural that no one would anticipate. ordinarily i advocate for this supreme court to do as little as possible. that is not just because i do not like the supreme court, that is good judging. you don't want judges to overreach. but, in this case, i think that we want the court to give this as much gotten as as possible as to how this trial is going to be brought. it is an unprecedented case, it is a case where the stakes are enormous, the voters need to know if this man is a convicted felon when it comes time for the election, and so i am hoping that the supreme court is going to tell the trial judge what she needs to know so that she can conduct the trial, she can then follow the rules that are given to her, and then we'll see if he's convicted. >> reporter: that trial is in march, that's part of the issue here. use market because that is an ambitious a trial date, three months away at this point of thinking about it. it is in march, tell me.

saying that it does go through. assuming the supreme court says i want to decide this before that march trial date, it's before the supreme court terms and. tell me about the merits of this. >> even if it's not all resolved by march, it certainly is resolve the whole appeal on a timeline far faster than it would have been. to ian's point, if you were and you have that graph up -- >> reporter: let's put it back up. >> if you were to run through the entire process of appealing to the district court, perhaps the whole d.c. circuit court of appeals, that could be months if not years tied up in litigation. so what by fast-tracking at the moving things along very quickly. on the substance of the arguments, the former presidents two arguments, one that he's immune from prosecution by virtue of being a former president -- >> reporter: flush that out for us. because he saying whatever i did, what i'm being accused of, was when i was the president --

of >> the outer limits. that is the extension of the argument raised in the nixon case. part of my duties as president, or at least an extension of them. and based on the issue of double jeopardy, i can't be tried for the same thing because i was impeached and acquitted, you can't drive. these are both largely nonsense arguments. we are talking about, this in an eye in the green room a little bit. they're not good arguments and it gets to the point of is the supreme court actually going to take the, mom figure out a way, or figure out a way to resolve this and make it go away in some way? but they are really not, and this is not a criticism of the former president, they're just not strong legal points. it is hard to see how you win on either of those arguments. >> reporter: first of all don't ever discuss anything that we talk about here in the green room. but this is an actual risk, and we're talking about the arguments as, on one hand, novel, but on the other hand that the supreme court may or

may not find in jack smith's favor and think to themselves, you know, what trump has got to be accountable for whatever he did. as long as it's on the outer skirts of his presidency. what do you think about the risk that jack smith is taking, particularly with the second argument? because that one, i think, as a lot of people leaning in. we know that legal jeopardy attaches for a criminal prosecution, but this was a legislative impeachment. why should it? >> double jeopardy shouldn't be an issue here at all. the reason why is because, in order to have double jeopardy attached, in order for double jeopardy to come into play, there has to have been criminal consequences in the first proceeding. being fired from your job, you know, is not a criminal consequence. being disqualified from having a job in the future, even if the job is president, is not a criminal consequence. so jeopardy doesn't attach to his impeachment because it was not a criminal proceeding. the immunity claim is slightly

stronger, but i want to be clear, just slightly. there are cases showing that, in some cases a president can be immune from some civil lawsuits. the main reason for that is because anyone can bring a civil lawsuit against anyone. i could see you tomorrow, elliott could see you tomorrow, you could be sued by 10,000 people tomorrow. >> reporter: let's not, thank. you >> were lawyers, we like to see each other. >> it's kind of what we do. but the idea behind the presidential immunity decisions that you don't want the president to be so bombarded by lawsuits that he can't do the job as president. that doesn't come up in the pro context, the only person who can bring a lawsuit is the department of justice. >> one point, why we impeach as americans, but the point is is not to punish someone who did something wrong. it is to ensure integrity of our systems of government. the point of an impeachment is to remove someone from office if they have transgressed in office.

the criminal process is about sending people to jail on somebody totally different. now, to push back a little bit on what this supreme court might do, it is a conservative court and so, on or not talking here about abortion or the death penalty or these sorts of -- >> controversial. >> controversial, social issues where you can predict where the members of the court are going to fall out. these are integrity points and far more straightforward and i think for more emotionally fraught. >> reporter: speaking of the integrity of government, rudy giuliani, who obviously used to be americas mayor, as they say. that guy. he is in the midst of a defamation damages portion of a trial for what he said about two election workers. the jury section is actually beginning and thinking about these things. one of them is that they were asked if he ever used the phrase let's go brandon. we all remember what that means, of course, it's used in a lot of right-wing circles to insult joe biden, the president of the

united states. what does it tell you that that's being used? >> i mean, there is a lot of strong rhetoric that obviously gets thrown around. that is not a thing that, if i'm going to analyze it as a defamation case, you can install the president of the united states and that's not defamation because you're not making any factual claim. i think that rudy giuliani has bigger problems and the big tennis of what trump has done, the attempts to overturn the election, the size of the conspiracy, one consequence of this is that i don't think this presidential immunity thing is going to have legs. i think even the supreme court is probably going to turn that way, but this case, these prosecutions could have many trips to the supreme court and i am more worried that they find is some narrow issue to rule in trump's favor in the future than i'm worried that they will have a sweeping declaration that if you're the president of the united states you can commit crimes with impunity.

>> reporter: we will see. it is not big news, it is huge. elliott and ian, thank you both so much. join me now to talk about donald trump's looming legal issues, and there are many, former trump attorney and fixer michael cohen. he's the host of the mea culpa and political beat down podcast and author of the book or revenge, how donald trump weaponized the u.s. department of justice against his critics. michael, good to see you here tonight. first of all, when it comes to trump, you called it. he did not testify today. you are adamant that he probably would not. why do you think he ultimately did not? >> because he is scared and he is rightfully scared. everyone is talking about how potentially the lawyers gave him the right advice, that he finally took the right advice. knowing donald for a decade and a half, i can assure you that it had absolutely nothing to do with advice of counsel.

he knew that this was going to sink in. he knew that he could be brought up on perjury charges, and so, instead, he decided to go with easy way out and make the claim that he, is already testified. he is already given enough and then look to see what he did. he starts to put out on his social media platforms all of the attacks because, again, donald cannot be at fault. he attacks judge engoron, he attacks attorney general tish james, he attacks me, all in one single post. >> reporter: you know, when you look at all that combined, you are right. his counsel did allude to the gag order, but one could avoid offending a gag order in testimony. he certainly knew weeks go that he already testified, so it can't be the reason. but i'm curious about this, michael, because as you well know, trump's image as a successful businessman, it was very crucial to his win back in 2016, this serves to maybe be an instance where he would not have that power, would not have

that brand anywhere near where it was even in 2016 in the public eye. how will all of this impact the 2024 campaign? >> >> you would think that it would have the same effect, right? they voted for him because he portrayed himself as this great businessman. i am really rich, i'm much richer than people even know. and they bought the brand of donald trump. it is irrefutable that that brand is completely tarnished, but that is not going to stop the loyalists. they are now loyal to the brand, even though the brand is tarnished. so, they are not stopping and, i'm talking about the matches that are so entrenched in to the cult of donald trump that they do not care. they are more about the brand of racism and sexism and massage any and xenophobic, homophobia, islamophobia, and antisemitism, then how much money donald has.

>> reporter: we will see how all that turns out. let me ask you, you heard this lead story. you heard about the news tonight about jack smith leapfrogging, going right to the supreme court saying i'm not going to wait for the appellate courts to weigh in on whether trump has presidential immunity for everything he did while in office. he leapfrog, it is not just trump's motion, it's not his team's filing, it is jack smith. is he outsmarting what is likely to have been trump's strongest claim here? >> it doesn't take much to out smart trump's legal team. jack smith is a beast, jack smith is a beast when it comes to this. you knows exactly what needs to be done and he's doing it incredibly well. he's not going to let trump do what we all know trump does best and that is delay, delay, delay. yes, you are right laura, he beat him to the punch. he beat that whole legal team to the punch and he is now

going to have the supreme court weigh in on it before in ultimate decision. can you imagine that a president is entitled to immunity for life on anything that they do? i mean, it goes against the very fabric of our constitution and american democracy. they are making the president into a king, which, of course, is exactly contrary >> that's the exact argument of the lower court. the district court says if your president, everything you do becomes presidential. let me ask you about mar-a-lago, we because we have exclusive reporting that a former mar-a-lago employees, now witness in the federal documents case, a lot of cases. there were contacted by trump months after the case after he quit his job, and offered legal representation to this person.

you've got a golf tournament offer, repeated comment on back to work for trump. what do you see when you hear about these interactions of these come on back moments? >> donald needs to understand, and so does his team, that mar-a-lago is a cesspool for leakers and people who do not want to get caught up in donald trump's problems. and so, there is as many people that are there, are as many people who are potential witnesses for jack smith and other investigations. and i am shocked! first of all, when he offers them free tickets to a golf tournament, you realize that those tickets cost donald trump less than if he got him a burger at mar-a-lago. it cost him absolutely nothing. generally, at his golf course, with live golf, it costs him

absolutely nothing to have the guy go there. there's thousands of people that show up to the tournaments. what's the difference if two, four, additional show up. there is no cost to get on, so he is offering the guy nothing. absolutely nothing. >> how about offering lawyers? michael? how about offering lawyers? >> i'm glad you brought that up. because that's next on my list. whenever when bob costello reach out to me, and what they would do is they would hook you up with a lawyer for the sole purpose, not to protect you, but to protect the king. to protect donald. they are passing along all the information, and let's also not forget, this happened with paul manafort, with his lawyers, when his lawyers were passing to donald's lawyers all the information that they were supposed to provide to the committee. to the congressional committee. to the the -- they are not doing anything to

benefit anyone other than donald. this man was smart, i don't know who it is, but this man was smart to walk away. he has already seen the damage that donald trump brings to peoples lives. like other people, he was smart to walk away. >> michael i have to ask you, rudy giuliani is in the damages portion of that defamation trial. when you look at the gag order in new york and what is going on with giuliani's case, it must hit pretty close to home. >> it hits very close to home in the amount of vile that get spewed on social media as a result of donald's post, as well as the comments by elena, chris skies for, it doesn't affect me only, effects my family. and the truth i would like to not be involved in the upcoming bragg case, if possible. let someone else to handle it. i've already done in my opinion, more than my share.

let someone else step up and have to deal with the repercussions. >> that says a lot. you have a subpoena, but it tells a lot about what it is like to be a witness, a testifying witness in all these cases. and that's confirmation around the gag orders, and not intimidating or threatening witnesses for those very reasons. michael cohen, thanks for stopping by. >> good to see you lawyer. >> remember that 50 dollar fast food burger that went viral a little while ago? is that how the economy seems to you? chef thanks, kevin o'leary, is here to explain what is really going g on. next!

>> tonight there are some new concerns for president biden in the race for 2024, because fresh cnn polling shows the president is losing ground to donald trump in two key

battleground states. i'm talking about georgia, and also michigan. which by the way where two of the five that biden turned from red to blue in 2020, if you can remember. the new numbers show that president biden may have the achilles heel. and according to cnn polls, the majority of voters in michigan the say that biden's policies have contributed to a personal, economic view for them. joining me now shark tech junk, and chairman of o'leary ventures, kevin o'leary, so great to have you here with me today. i love how you're also the expert on this. i want to talk about feelings, what about everyone's feelings. i know you know them well. the feeling that people have when it comes to the economy, despite the fact that there are positive signs, people do not feel like it is going well. why is that? >> well, let's think about

something that has occurred over the last nine months, ten months actually. if you think about the economy, we have never taken rights from basically zero, up this fast before. five and a half percent right. so there's people in america, almost a third of the population that have never lived through inflation, never seen rate height looks like this, never dealt with the consequences of them like this with housing, food costs, with everything else. and now their feelings are hurt because they do not know what this is, never lived through it. they are the younger cohort but they vote, and they're not feeling so good right now and that poll, you're talking about the wall street journal poll i think. which by the way, went all around the world in the last 48 hours. and has some real consequences in terms of what is going to happen next. >> next to maine, for maybe the

november 2024 election, what the feds may do. what are you thinking? >> no, no, it is a rather interesting thing occurring, if you think about this, if you are the norwegian sovereign wealth fund of abu dhabi, which makes $500 million every 12 to 14 hours, where do they put it? they put it with the united states, that's primarily where they put it to work and they're looking at these poll numbers trying to decide what sectors do i really want to put it into and so, they cannot votes, they don't care about voting, they are trying to figure out are we going to get biden's policies or potentially trump's policies? they will know more on january 15th when he comes the candidate. but the point is, if it's going to be less regulation and more pro-energy, and basically an environment which is very pro business for small companies in

america, which is better than the economy. you want to put your money to work with american companies that are smaller. and remarkably, this is what i find so interesting, over the last two months, the funds flowing into companies in the rest of 2000 are extremely high. the money is betting before the voters do on the political outcome. not because they vote, but they are looking at policy. policy drives money, it drives capital. it has no allegiance, it doesn't care for wednesday. looks for the path of least resistance, with the highest returns. and right now that money is loving american small businesses because they think there's a 50% chance that trump is going to win. >> and a 50% chance that he might lose. how do you project something of the economic picture with the odds of 50/50? what do you think the economic picture looks like in 2024, and november specifically, because

as you can imagine, yeah there are the primaries, there are the votes beforehand but until the next president is installed, not a lot of the policy can be fully implemented. >> you are right, but think about this, if you're trying to allocate capital, i do this every day. i have to take chances, i have to make bets and right now i looked at those poll numbers and i get, by the way those results i've never seen so many phone calls from countries outside. i'm an investor so solver and wealth advisor et cetera, and that thing went out there, and people went wow. what do we do about this? why don't we put some bets on, not all of it, let's say allocate 40% for the u.s.. maybe i'll put 15 or 20% to work. that's what's happening. nobody knows with certainty, alexis i crazy. let me give you an example. if you go back to the numbers in that poll, there are differences around the economy,

around crime, security, inflation issues, the war, all of that stuff. again, you don't care about the politics, you care about the policy and so you look out and say to yourself well, i think right now there are more or less 50% chance so i'm going to allocate something, the economy is doing quite well, actually, it looks like we're having a soft landing but if you're betting money, you are starting to realize that wow, this outcome that is at least 50/50 and you're gonna put 20 or 30% to work now, before january 15th. and i know that these are crazy times, and everything else but if you have to go to work every day, you are betting on the american economy like you did it two months ago. >> i guess you can't bet on what's going on on x. i want to ask you about this because elon musk, being very vocal about what's going on. he's now reinstated the account of the conspiracy theorist,

alex jones. they're already having a hard time with playing advertisers, we know this is the case. does allowing this person back on that platform make sense to you financially? >> that's a tough question. you brought up a very good issue. the only platform in america in social media that growing right now is x, formerly twitter. i spent about 2 million a month on social and digital buys with my 40 plus companies, they're all private. but nine weeks ago we stopped investing in twitter and only because it wasn't giving as good customer acquisition costs numbers, and return on advertising spent. those numbers were worse on all the platforms. maybe it's because of this. probably it is? but we review this every tuesday morning at 10:00 and i would put money to work if i

could fix this mess. i mean, i don't know what to say, it is not working and i don't know what elon is doing but it is not helping advertisers. these are very controversial issues. but i am agnostic, i put money to work where it returns customers. twitter is, i try to be kind when i say this, vlad successful. it's successful right now, and he can fix it. because i'm a huge fan of his, look at what he has achieved with space, and evs, and everything else but this is a walking nightmare. >> you heard it here, kevin o'leary being nice. cesspool. thank you so much. i told you we were going to talk about feelings everyone! thank you for joining us tonight. don't miss cnn's two republican presidential town halls happening in iowa this week. the governor is making his case tomorrow with jake tapper

reporting. and vivek ramaswamy joins abby philips on wednesday, nine pm, that's only on cnn. texas supreme court ruling against a girl trying to get an emergency abortion. she is now going out of the states to get the procedure. her attorney joins me next!

there is some major developments headlights, in the case involving a texas woman fighting a legal battle to get an emergency abortion. tonight the supreme court ruling against kate cox. reversing a judges order that came just last week that gave her permission to get the emergency abortion. her doctor argued that not allowing her to get the procedure would jeopardize her health, and her future fertility. while learning that cox now has left texas to get an abortion. she discovered two weeks ago that the baby she was carrying has the fatal condition. joining me now is mike heron, an attorney for capox, and the center for reproductive rights. mark, thanks for joining us.

i want to ask you more about the supreme court ruling in a moment. but first, the what is the status tonight? and how is kate doing? >> kate's, again, focused on her health which has been in discerning condition, and she needs urgent care, and couldn't continue waiting for ken paxton to stop trying to exercise and practice medicine instead of her doctors, and couldn't continue waiting on the supreme court to finally issue tonight. and so she went to go seek care, it's understandable, but unfortunately although she has the ability to do so, fortunately for her. many women across texas and other states where abortions are banned are trapped in the states even when they deem it medically necessary to save their lives and preserve their health. >> does she want to state which

state you went to? are you comfortable sharing that? >> we're not gonna say that at this time. >> understandable. let's listen to what the supreme court had to say, the texas supreme court ruling. i want to read a portion against the idea of what was said. the exception requires a doctor to decide whether miss cox's difficulty pose such threats. doctor carson asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion, yet she could not or did not attest to the court that misses cox's condition pose the risks the exception requires. talking about the language in the statute that says you must have a emergency abortion, or medically emergency abortion to have it. >> so the supreme court had made clairesa a few things in this ruling. one is, apparently, in order to make the exception that

condition has to be a life-threatening condition. it goes on to say however that the exception applies to impairments of bodily functions. and we argue that preserving kate cox is ability to live in the future is a major life function. and it's an exception. but the supreme court, it only applies to life-threatening physical condition. so this whole other part of the exception, i don't know what it means anymore. the other thing i think that has been really made clear from this decision is, even if the doctor believes, strongly believes that their patient is a definite exception, politicians, district attorneys, the state of texas can come back and second guess their judgment. and even if you go to courts and get approval from a court, ken paxton is going to come back for you anyway.

he's gonna threaten the hospitals, because he only knows to practice medicine other than the doctors in the state of texas. >> this case is unbelievable, and i want to mention that the court is calling on the state medical board to provide more guidance on the emergency exception at the very heart of this case. mark, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> as you know, harvard's president under fire after a backlash of last week's comments of a congressional hearing of antisemitism. but many are defending her, including my next guest. harvard professor, randall kennededy, joins m me in just ta momoment! >

(♪♪)

(♪♪) (♪♪) get exclusive offers on select new volvo models. contact your volvo retailer to learn more. the fate of harvard's president, claudine gay is hanging in the balance on the decision on a future potentially coming as soon as tomorrow. why? all because of a testimony in congress last week that led to the resignation of university of pennsylvania president liz magill. now, to remind everyone, the testimony was widely criticized for failing to effectively denounce calls for the genocide of jewish people, as it relates to university policies against

bullying and harassment. let's listen. >> i am asking specifically calling for the genocide of jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment? >> it is a context dependent decision. it can be depending on the context. >> the targeted individual is not making public statements. >> following all of that, more than 70 members of congress called on gay to resign. the next day, she apologized. today, parts of the harvard community are coalescing around her. 800 plus signatures in support of gay from black alumni. the harvard alumni association executive committee, and more than 700 signatures from harvard faculty. and one of those who signed that letter, harvard university law professor who joins me now. professor, thank you for being here this evening. i do want to read a part of this letter for everyone to understand as well. in it, you say we, the

undersigned faculty, urge you are the strongest possible terms to defend the independents of the university and to resist political pressures that are at odds with harvard's commitment to academic freedom, including calls for the removal of president claudine gay. it is clear that you call for academic freedom. i am wondering, do you agree with the criticism that she received for what she had to say? >> no, i don't agree. i think that president gay is being targeted. she's the obvious target of a smear. the politicians who called her and the other presidents to the house of representatives have made it clear that they had already determined that there was an antisemitism problem at these universities. they were not exploring this. they had already determined in their own minds that there was a problem and that they were gonna rake these presidents over the calls and try to

embarrass and intimidate them. any, they had been all too successful thus far. there was nothing that president gay said that was objectionable. she said, over and over and over again, that the sentiments that the congresswoman expressed in terms of attacks on israel and antisemitism, the precedents that over and over again that she finds those sentiments abhorrent. she also said however, harvard university is committed to the broadest type of freedom of expression, and that unless that expression would evolved into direct attacks on individuals, or devolve into violence, it was permissible. and i think that she took just the right tack in saying that. >> there are those who do not agree at all with that particular assessment.

but let me ask you, we've all heard these phrase of your rights and when might begin. you've also heard about a college campus being a marketplace of ideas, and having young people shape to have opinions across the spectrum. there is a tension, though, professor between the university response of billary, responsibility to have people make safe, and the expression of terms or expressions of thoughts that might undermine those feelings of safety. are you seeing that play out in realtime not in any intellectual sense, but in terms of how university is supposed to contend with both? >> i think obviously where we, there are very various tensions. i would ask people to think long and hard about the function of the university. imagine a student coming to harvard with a button saying i believe in communism. the history of communism of the

20th century is a terrible history, many millions of deaths. if a student came to harvard university with a button saying, i love communism, should that student be expelled? i don't think so. just like there are students, and for that matter, faculty members who are all sorts of abhorrent ideas. a few years ago, there was a student at the harvard university who put a confederate flag in her window. there were some people who said, oh, this student should be disciplined. the harvard university authority said no, we object to the, you know, the ideas being expressed. but this student is within the policy of harvard university. >> when you talk about that, it describes -- >> their are -- what about, what about

professors who have written books that are sensibly viewed as racist books. are we going to expel those people, or are we going to have the university community that is committed to open expression and debate, even when that involves the contesting horrible ideas. >> what you described sounds a great deal like what they appear to be intimidating when they talk about context, the idea of responding with the word context consistently on these issues. but there is perhaps a distinction for many between thinking about a confederate flag, communism, and the term genocide, which people will associate with an immediate straight line, through line to death. now, i understand obviously the confederacy and what it led to. the idea of communism, and

obviously when you talk about, and what it has led to as well. but is that more immediate through line that caused this distinction and caused this response that has been so visceral to try and remove her? >> frankly, no. the people who had the president gay and the other presidents appear before congress knew what they wanted to do. they wanted to embarrass them. they wanted to intimidate them. they wanted to say to them, yes, no, answer yes or no. they wanted to make it seem as though a nuanced, careful answer was somehow a weakness, was somehow being tone-deaf. it wasn't don't death. these presidents were acting responsibly and we're acting intelligibly and we're taking seriously, maybe too seriously what the congresswoman was saying. this was a hit job and it

should be understood as a hit job. >> quickly, do you know, have you spoken to the president's, gay, is she intending to step down? are there calls for her to do so to leave? >> no, i have not spoken with president gay, and do not know what the authorities are thinking about her saying. >> well, we should soon find out. thank you for joining us and offering your insight. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. well, we are gonna be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪

at the top of the show, we talked about former president donald trump's many, many legal troubles. well, now, there is another elected official, i should say, a former elected official with his own troubles with the law. yes, he is back. the lying ex congressman george santos whose last words on being kicked out of the job, he lied his way into in the first place, why would i want to stay here? to hell win this place. well, he's now in talks with federal prosecutors in the hopes of striking a plea deal according to a court document released just today. he's pleaded not guilty to a long list of charges, including wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public fund, and making false statements to the u.s. house. no word from the one -- on his most illustrious, not really, number. thank you all for watching. our coverage continues.

♪ ♪ ♪

[upbeat music] ♪♪ ♪♪ new pork carnitas. only at el pollo loco.

(♪♪) (♪♪) the new festive family meal. starting at $24. now celebrating at el pollo loco.