new tonight, take a look at this. massive plumes of lava in iceland as a volcano eruption begins. experts have warned that the activity could threaten nearby homes, as well as local power plants. the area has been evacuated for a month in preparation for this moment and no flights have been disrupted, yet, but iceland's government says that right now there is no threat to life. laura coates, it is pretty amazing but i'm glad that you and i are both here and not there it witness it. >> are you kidding me? i could not be far enough away from that. i could not be far enough away from that, abby. the whole volcano thing, no thank you. i hope you're all safe out

there. remember the saying, take him seriously but not literally? if past is prologue, maybe it should be both. tonight on laura coates live. ♪ ♪ ♪ well, it is language you never want to hear. the kind of stuff that gets compared to the worst figures in recorded history. by now, you may have already heard exactly what i'm talking about. but i want to play what the former president of the united states, donald trump, had to say at a rally over the past weekend in front of thousands of his supporters in new hampshire. >> they're poisoning the blood of our country, that's what they've done. they've poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world. not just in south america, not just in three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world there coming into our country from africa, from asia, all over the world.

the pouring in our country. >> quote, poisoning the blood. that was his actual quote. now, experts say that that mirrors hitler's calls for racial purity in his manifesto or he talked about a german blood being poisoned by jewish people. look, it's not the first time that trump's invoked words that have brought up comparisons to germany. it's not the first time that were left asking, does a really mean it? should the alarm bells be blaring, or is it just overblown campaign blaster? for all of you watching, the voters, a disk where what he is saying with whether to believe it and what he will do after he says it. but one hand might be the fact that this was discussed, it was planned, it was decided. how do you know? because this was read off of a teleprompter, meaning it was written in advance. here is the thing, we have been here before, you know. trump has time and time again

loaded his discussions, his campaign with things like charged language that has been called out as racist and xenophobic and ethnocentric. you name the phrase and word. also found in those speeches, this is the important part, found in those speeches are points which don't get nearly as much coverage, but they should because it lets you see what may potentially be coming. take, for instance, what trump said in nevada just yesterday. >> when i'm reelected we will begin, we have no choice, the largest deportation operation in american history. i will shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement, including parts of the dea, atf, fbi, and dhs. i will immediately restore and expand the trump travel ban on entry from tara play country and implement strong

ideological screening for all immigrants. >> now, this was just over the weekend. should you believe that he will attempt all of that? well, if past is prologue, well, yeah. because here is a handful of things that trump said before the 2016 election that he actually tried to make a reality during his presidency. >> when i'm elected i will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the united states. we will immediately terminate president obama's to illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law and the constitution to give them unity to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants. 5 million. i would build a great wall, and nobody build walls better than me, believe me. i will build it very

inexpensive louis. >> look, trump had mixed results with all of the things that he described in that montage, right? the travel ban that was reversed by president biden. the supreme court blocked his effort to end the daca program. and the border wall that he said he built so much better than anyone else? it didn't even come close to what he promised. but he did attempt it all. his plans, they weren't bluster to be dismissed. the question now is what happens if this system of checks and balances that kept him from fulfilling those particular plans, what happens if they're not there in the future? will they yield to his plans? because there is a lot of reporting about his plans to dismantle those checks and balances, about giving people and, this is not made up, ideology tests to work in all levels of the government. to make sure that they are loyal to him and that they won't stand in the way of his policies. then there is that game of

footsie that trump is playing, tooling around with tones of authoritarianism, repeating the claim that he wants to be quite, well, quote, a dictator for a day. invoking the names of strongmen around the world to make is very points. >> viktor orban, the highly respected prime minister of hungary said trump is the man who can save the western world. even vladimir putin, has anybody ever heard of vladimir putin? of russia, he says that biden, and this is a quote, a politically motivated persecution of his political rival is a very good for russia because it shows the rottenest of the american political system. >> we have heard of vladimir putin. here he is quoting him in relation to the united states system of government. based on the polls, it appears that trump is what many voters want. so while republicans are trying

to wave of trump's words as mere language, apparently that is the thing you can ignore. >> we're talking about language, i could care less what language people use as long as we get it right. >> the funny thing about language is how we communicate things. i'm not sure you can easily dismiss it. maybe it's the language that you should all be paying attention to, don't you think? stop taking him figuratively and start taking him not only literally, but assuming that the people are listening are not hearing him and believing that that is what they want. now i want to bring in former defense secretary to president trump, mark esper. secretary, thank you so much for being with us this evening. i am sure that you have seen a lot of the news coverage that is coming in and i really am intrigued about how you are seeing all of it. but let me just began here,

secretary. we have seen the former president give americans a quite a preview, and it's dark, preview of the 2024 campaign. he has made comments about migrants poisoning blood, the blood of america. there is mass deportations discussed. he was quoting vladimir putin. i'm wondering what your reaction has been to hear all of this kind of language? >> first of all, laura, it's great to be with you and your audience this evening. look, trump has said in one word which his campaign would be about and it's retribution. with regards to his comments that you just reference, it is disgusting. it's not american. we are ime shunt of immigrants. i'm the grandson of immigrants and they are very important to the dynamism and electricity of our country. so, look, i think we all real from those words. the quick challenge is, though, many americans, particularly in my party, the republican party,

see the border crisis going on and it kind of a fuels that in many ways because they see that the numbers are record-breaking. 6.2 million people illegally have crossed in the last three years. the number of them who have criminal convictions in this year alone, the number is over 20,000. so people are really concerned about the border, not just republicans, but many democrats, as well. >> senator lindsey graham was asked about trump's poison comments. of course, who are a dog with a bone with a kind of comment like this because it is so inflammatory, because it is so antithetical to so many people's vision of america as a nation of immigrants and the way that he phrased it. but here, lindsey graham said that he doesn't care about language. just getting the policy right. i wonder about that disconnect because, is it a luxury to ignore the language and hope that the policy ends up as you want it to be, or is that how the sausage is just made? >> now, language does matter.

language is important. the language we use indicates what's in your heart, what you intend, and that is why i go back to, i would like to see my party use more of the language of the benefits of immigration, the history of immigration to our country, and what it means to promote our dynamism and continued economic growth and the entrepreneurial spirit that drives a good deal of our innovation. all those things are positives, but, again, i think the challenges is that right now people see what's happening on the border. republicans and democrats alike, it just seems like it is a crisis because it is. we are worried about who is coming in and do they have criminal backgrounds? so, again, that said, i would like to see people, a republican party, the former president speak more positively about immigration, but that is not who he is. >> you have been the defense secretary, secretary esper. i'm wondering, from your perspective, when you hear conversations like this happening does it make our nation safer to discuss it in

these terms? how do our allies view this sort of thing? because that, really, at its core, is a concern for people. he is a former president, a front runner for the rnc nomination, so while a lot of people focus on a second term it really is impactful right now, the words of a former president and somebody who has such a wide swath of support. how do you think people internationally are viewing these discussions? >> yeah, i think that type of language that is being used it indicates a real turn inwards, an isolationism that we haven't seen in a while in our country. it concerns our allies and partners. i traveled abroad both to asia and europe, i speak to them. the number one thing that our friends and partners ask about abroad is who's going to be president. if it's donald trump, what will that mean for them? what will that mean for our partnerships? i just think that, the way he talks about immigration, it is another signal to them that there will be this inward turn.

now, of course, it also sends a message out that people around the world that are doors or closing. i think one thing that's remarkable about the united states is that, wherever you go, i've had the privilege of traveling broadly, people lined up around the world to get into this country. we remain that shining sea on the hill. it's the place everyone wants to come to. it doesn't mean that everyone gets in, which is why we need to be more discriminating about how we manage our borders and secure them and who comes into the country, but nonetheless we do aspire to a lot of people and it sends a message that we are turning inward and we don't want them anymore. >> what do you think when you hear the former president praising north korea's kim jong-un or hungry viktor orban and quoting putin to make a point, it seems, about america's democracy? >> well, we all know that he has this bent towards the strongman, whether it is kim jong-un in north korea, viktor orban in hungary, jumping in beijing, or vladimir putin in russia. he just tends to give them in

credence, tends to lean closer to them. in some way i think he wishes that he had the powers they have. i can't explain it. you would like to see more of a relationship with our allies and partners than with the bad guys on the world stage. >> secretary, one more question. do you think that our nation, based on your experience, would be more or less safe with a trump second term? >> well, i worry about our democracy, first and foremost. would donald trump come in and, i think the lesson that he learned from the first administration is that the most important thing is who you put into office, who a point, you nominate for keep his issuance. i think he has learned that lesson. the first quality that he'll be seeking is loyalty above all else. with a new team in place it looks more like the last couple of months of his first administration, then i think that you would see him chipping away at the institutions of our democracy and certainly the norms and behaviors and

practices. he's already talked about that with regards to weaponizing the doj and going after people in justice and media and you name it. i'm most concerned, first and foremost, for our democracy and what it would mean for our institutions. this great republic that we have come to know and really stands on the world stage as a beacon for freedom and rights around the world. >> if that is the beginning, well, we'll see what happens next. secretary mark esper, thank you so much for your time this evening. >> thank you, laura. joining our discussion now is mike lyon, host of the, can we please talk? a podcast. and senior analyst laura lopez. i'm so glad that you're both here. listen, you heard the secretary. i have been really focused on this. it is not as if it is all perspective. i mean, he is a former president, is currently running, he's a front runner. his base hears him, they like it, so who has got the disconnect? it's at the way it's covered or

what he's actually saying? >> i'll tell you, i spoke with florida primary voters this past weekend and a lot of it is that they think the media coverage of it. it is kind of to nikki haley's point. they think the media is making too much of it. i tend to take a step back and say that these are his words. this is what he is actually saying, it's not a quick soundbite. he is saying these things. the biggest thing i heard from that interview is, and we know how mark esper has felt about it, he has said that trump is dangerous, some of the things he wants to do with missile strikes during the border when he was in office. we are seeing more officials who work in the administration is saying this about him. this is not a man on the street saying about it, this is a man who worked for mitt. why is this not impacting people? it should be. if people work for somebody else and then all the sudden they didn't like this person and told them all these things, wouldn't take that to heart little bit more? >> i think it's going to impact the general electorate, but the republican base and the primary electorate for the gop, presidential, is going to be very different. i think the reason that it is

not resonating or impacting within is it because you haven't seen some massive rift in the gop party, you haven't seen a massive piece of the establishment saying, no, we're never going to vote for this person again. you have seen the liz cheney,'s adam kinzinger's of the world's, mitt romney's who say, loud and clear, that he thinks that there are a majority of people in his party who don't subscribe to the constitution anymore. who maybe want to go along with authoritarianism. so, when the base doesn't see a wide reckoning across the party or across the vast majority of republicans that of course they are going to believe the people who are constantly saying this to them and repeating the lies to them. >> i tend to think, when we talk about identity politics, trump has given a lot of people and identity. the identity of being defiant, as in, i am just against. i'm against, i'm in favor of a lot, but i'm against al lot and

i'm unapologetic about it. maybe this is a continued badge of honor to say, i hear him, era telling me that i am a silly and not understanding him, but i'm telling you that i hear him and i like it. so you are actually maybe feeling, if you're one of his supporters, that everyone is against you and he is validating that. >> ease running on that. look, i grew up in new york, there is a reason why the former president lost new york by so much, and not just because of how many more democrats there are the religions. it's because people work in business there with the former president, they've heard this for years. he's getting exactly what he wants. if you look at anyone who's covered trump during the new york post days back in new york, this is what he wants. to be the attention seeker and get her. he is getting it. we're covering him because he's the former president and current front runner for the party. we have to cover him. he is under indictment for different locales. we have to cover that. but, we are always going to be in this push and have pulled battle because the goalposts keep moving. the voters that are entrenched with him will always say, it is the media doing this, it's the

needed to-ing that. that media is this big bogeyman voters i talked to. i tried to dispel it a little bit more by saying, look, which would you rather cover? the old woman across the street or the former president who's being arrested. this is unprecedented type stuff. i don't understand why it's moving the needle. you asked this earlier, laura, why isn't it moving the lewis voters? specifically. chiefs of staff, the people who have worked under the administration that are all coming out. this is all been revealed. mike pompeo, has poor, discussing a danger. for some reason i don't understand why it's resonating. i don't understand. it'll be interesting how this kind of plays out. >> it seems like it is resonating, but in the direction of doubling down. we'll talk more about -- if you think about how this all looks and why, laura, to mike's point, trump is a very effective communicator at ensuring that everyone that is not him is viewed with skepticism, as somebody who can be met with a derision and is

less than. if he has created the hierarchy where, what he says is more important, then it stands to reason, one would look at those comments in the greater believe then the others? >> yeah, they believe him over the former chiefs of staff, over former into ministration officials, over the press. it is interesting because there is some of this ambiguous, we don't trust the process. there is a reason that they're low trust in the press among republican base, because their leader, because the leader of the republican party has, for years now, since he first started running for the presidency back in 2015, has demonized the press. as the enemy of the people. he repeatedly talks about anyone that hold him accountable or any political opponent has less than. he dehumanizes political opponents, more recently has starting calling them vermin. dehumanizes people who don't support him and that is a classic authoritarian playbook

here, laura, which authorities -- historians have laid out over an over again. authoritarians do that because then they can prepare their supporters for their eventual expansive power and their decision to try to totally overhaul what we know as a democracy. >> you know, just in terms of what is happening, not just with trump, but there are others who are taking action at the state and local levels. the governor in texas, greg abbott, as we know tonight has signed a new bill into law and it is one that makes it crossing illegally into texas to mexico a state crime, which empowers local police to then arrest migrants. this is a really important point when we think about it because the rhetoric that donald trump is speaking now has a hook in terms of a state prosecutorial crime. that tells you more than just a base support. so now it is at a state level. it is being validated. what do you think about it? >> well, i was talking about this earlier with someone else because the republican message around it is, democrats are not

doing anything about it. here is a governor in a red state doing something about it. desantis, the same thing in my state of florida, doing something about it. now, we can all get into whether or not sending migrants on different flights and whether or not they can have their asylum trials in those areas, that was one thing. this is all coming home to roost for the democrats. i was talking to representative -- about this, about democrats messaging around those. the true message is a pathway to citizenship. it is keeping doctors here and the u.s. and legalizing that. but, it is also understanding that there is an issue at the border. let's not pretend like there isn't. cbp ed said in recent articles that there are overwhelmed. so, if democrats start to message around that, that we want to help law enforcement agencies and get everyone on the right pathway to being a citizen, it is going to, potentially, siphon of what some of these more moderate republicans have wanted to hear, because they want to hear the democrats are treating the border like a serious issue. and this is one member of congress that was saying such things and asking people who

are foreign voters, when you listen to that, they're like, yeah i agree with that. so informal polling for you, laura. >> when you think about how this administration began, room of the conversations around the failure of vice president harris to cold a border crisis. that's how this all began. but, i do wonder, is the admission of there being a problem viewed somehow by democrats as a kind of weakness and an admission of failure? i don't know that that is the case. but, the voters are asking for something to be done. the question is what now, that is why they're the ones in office. mike, laura, thank you both so much for joining. up next there is a major legal blow for mark meadows in the georgia election case. we'll tell you all about, after this.

>> coates: so here is a blast, for maybe the not so different passed, mark meadows, trump's former chief of staff, it's right there. he wanted to move the georgia election interference case out of fallen county and into federal court, remember that? the question is why. because, he was hoping that that he could show that the criminal conduct that he was shown to have committed that was not criminal at all. he wanted the court to believe that that conduct was part of his official duties in the white house. if the court agreed with him, then he could say that he was immune from prosecution in his official duties. next up on that legal train, would be dismissal of the case. well a three judge panel, on the 11th court of appeals did not agree. they did not buy his argument. in attempting to allegedly our alter valid election results, or maybe engage in a conspiracy,

interfering with the duties of a chief of staff. that means no ability to invoke federal immunity and escape prosecution, and now moving his case to federal court. why does all of this, blast from the past matter? because it is very much in the president. we are all waiting to hear whether the supreme court will always similar arguments from donald trump. is the conduct he is accused of beat having committed part of his official presidential duties, and if so, can he say he is immune. and then, poof there go the charges. a lot of parallel behavior from the accused meadows, to warn donald trump. the supreme court, as you can imagine, does not have to follow the ruling of an inferior court, and it is not my choice to call it inferior, that legal snobbery is just how they see it. supreme court, is the supreme court, and every other court is

inferior. it could give insight to how the court to define how a presidential, or official act is. if it's not enough for meadows to get immunity, is it enough for trump. stay tuned, and i guess we will. what will clarence thomas speaking in the supreme court, warned about that could lead to one or more supreme court justices resigning? as tina turner might pair or fries, what's money got to do, got to do with it? that is next.

loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery?

maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today. >> coates: private jets, luxury vacations, a free rv according to propublica that is how supreme court justice supreme -- clarence thomas likes his life. back in 2000, about a decade into his tenure on the supreme he complained about his salary. i mean openly, to a member of congress. if lawmakers did not act, one or more justices will leave

soon, unquote. his salary at the time was $173, 600, fast forward 2019 and thomas seems to have changed his tune. >> right now, what is the compensation of the justice of a supreme court. >> oh goodness, i think it is plenty. my wife and i are doing fine. we do not live extravagantly, but we are fine. >> a >> coates: a few weeks after that speech he hopped on the private jet of a billionaire friend, and headed off to indonesia where he -- vacationed on that front 162 foot yacht. sounds fined to me. what happened in those 20 years from nearly resigning on the salary, to now being seemingly more than just fine? joining me now is a reporter at

propublica, and one of the authors of a delicate matter. clarence thomas private complaints about money spoke fears that he would resign. i am glad you are here, thank you for joining us. you are reporting that justice thomas told a lawmaker that supreme court justices should get a raise, or that he feared one or more will leave soon, that is his quote. what happened after he raised concerns about his salary? >> well it raised alarms, a congressman who is now retired, that i talked to he left that conversation worried that justice thomas was the justice that would resign in short order, if congress did not raise salaries. that congressman push to get the salaries raised, another top official in judiciary wrote a memo to the chief justice of the supreme court and said, this seems like a crisis, what should we do about it?

interestingly, congress never actually got its act together to give the justices a raise. but, as you mentioned, this was the same period when justice thomas was really beginning to develop relationships with a number of very, very wealthy businessmen. who started paying for various things in his life. >> coates: he paints himself, and i know of course at the time he said that, now it's about $300,000. he changed his tune significantly. he paints himself now as a kind of every man, listen to this. >> i prefer they r&b parks, the walmart parking lots to the beaches, things like that. there is something normal to me about it, i come from normal stop, and i prefer that. i prefer being around that.

>> coates: so, you hear him talking about that, we are showing the audience some of the gifts that he reportedly purse received from his wealthy benefactors. some would look at the big contrast, from the supposed every day man. i'm not doubting, that he likes to do what he said he, doesn't like to be in those places, but there is a disconnect for some. hearing the reporting, and what he is saying there, can you help us understand that context? >> sure, yeah, as you pointed out as a supreme court justice he makes about $300,000 a year, which is far more than the average american but does not make you superrich. we, and others, have found that there is a small set of wealthy, and in some cases billionaire businessman, many republican political donors, who are stepped into justice thomas's

life and subsidized his lifestyle. elevated it to the level of, you know, ceo of a company, or a rich businessman. what we have found, he has been taken on literally dozens of international vacations on private jets, super yachts, a dallas businessman harlem crow paid around $100,000 of private school to wish and for justice thomas is relative, who he was raising. in fact, the very high-end rv that he talked about in that clip, he paid around a half 1 million dollars for it. in today's dollars. turns out that money was loaned to him from a friend, who later for gave the loan. we have seen, as far as we know, an unprecedented pattern of wealthy businessmen subsidizing the life of a supreme court justice. even though the salary was never significantly raised by

congress, he was able to obtain this higher lifestyle thanks to these people who came into his life. >> coates: he would suggest that it is really coincidental, that no one was giving him anything for in return for judicial favor, or a favorable ruling of any kind. he would write this off as merely coincidental, and the perks of a friendship like anybody else. he argues that propublica has just been picking on him just in, and they are trying to single him out. what is your reaction to this? obviously this code of conduct now that has been issued by the supreme court, not a lot of teaspoon hind it, i admit that. what is your reaction to his statement that suggests it is merely coincidental, and nothing even hints at impropriety? >> well, i guess a couple of things, we have been talking to a lot of judges, republicans

and democrats, liberals and conservatives, we have been struck by how just across the board, ideologically, judges have told us that they would not even let a lawyer buy them launch for $30, never mind $100,000 a private school tuition, or dozens of vacations. the reason we have been writing about thomas we have not found anything close to like this, when it comes to the other justices. justice thomas did not comment for, this latest story. we talked to a yale professor who spent time with thomas, and his principal benefactor harlan crow, and vacationed with them. that professors view of the relationship was look, he did not think that harlem crow is trying to influence justice thomas's views. he is trying to keep him comfortable, he thinks his salary is not high enough. so he provides these benefits to him to provide this lifestyle.

as you pointed out at the beginning of the segment, justice thomas recent comments about his salary are very, very different than what he was saying privately 20 years ago. and the salary has not changed. >> coates: well maybe one will just wink, and say inflation, and it will explain everything. , justin elliott thank you so much. >> thank you. >> coates: one note, about a special program we will have on cnn, we will have special live coverage of the funeral of supreme court justice sandra day o'connor. i will be a part of that coverage hosted by wolf blitzer 10:45 am eastern. we will see you there to honor justice o'connor. up next a guilty verdict, and a career in jeopardy after jonathan majors dropped by marvel studios, and now eveven fafacing t time behindnd bars.s.

well, the movie star jonathan majors with found guilty today of assault and harassment for attacking his former girlfriend in a car. within hours of that verdict,

disney fired the actor from all upcoming marvel projects. his character, the conqueror, was said to be the big bad star across it's a series of films, but now major's future is up in the air. the jurors, they deliberated on this case. it was a jury trial, it took about six hours pouring over that competing narratives about what really happened on march between i. now, ultimately, they did acquit him on two counts and found him guilty on two accounts. they decided that majors recklessly, but not intentionally, assaulted his then girlfriend grace jabari. then he arrest her outside of the suv. an attorney for majors, staying in a statement tonight, quote, it is clear the jury did not believe grace jabari's story of what happened in the suv because they found that mr. majors did not intentionally cause any injuries to her. mr. majors still has faith in the process and looks forward to fully clearing his name.

i want to bring in now cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, the great joey jackson. we were just doing a bit of a role play with you and areva, one of you playing the prosecution, one plane defense in this case. those arguments all came up, but today there was a split verdict and, i want you to read the tea leaves for us about what did the jury believe when it comes to some, but not, all of these charges against majors. >> yeah, laura, good to be with you. you know, i have great respect and trust in our jury process and the realities are that they were there, they heard the evidence and six members of a jury, as we have in this system for misdemeanors found them guilty. guilty of reckless assault of third degree, we can talk about how that means, harassment in the second degree and not guilty of the other things. but i think that if you had to read the tea leaves, laura, what it essentially means is that he did not possess the intent to actually harm her,

however he did so meaning the harm, the suspension pain and reckless way. what does that mean in english? it means that whenever you lay hands on someone, certainly you consciously disregard the risk that they could sustain substantial pain as a result of that. i think that what the jurors concluded is that, while he may not have had a motivation, while it may not have been his intent, it's objective, his purpose to hurt her, based upon the fact that there was that interaction he did so recklessly in consciously disregarding the risks that she could have been hurt and that was the essence of their conclusion in voting unanimously that he would be guilty of those two charges, both of which, of course, one, the criminal one that is the assault charge was reckless, and the other is just a non criminal or violation of the law. that is the harassment. whenever it is that you strike someone without their consent. >> for some, they may look at this and say, hold on a second, if he didn't have the intent, and he didn't commit to the other charges, is there a right

for appeal? a moment here deciduous that it wasn't inconsistent by dismissing or equating onto and remaining on the other two? likely he will appeal this decision if he is able to do so, which i understand he likely will. but, remember, jabari took the stand and testified against him. you and i have both been in these courtrooms before where you've got these emotional moments as you told the jury about him hitting her in the head, twisting her arm during the incident, and an attorney for jabari telling us that they are gratified by the guilty verdict. i wonder, how important her testimony was in getting these convictions. of, course did he testify? i wonder how they balance that? >> so, laura, he did not testify as many defendants do not. of course, the jurors is instructed that you can't read anything into a defendant not testifying, because it is the right not to do so. in terms of her testimony, she testified over four days, got very emotional, and you had to believe that that would be very compelling. in terms of the actual jury

verdict itself, i don't think that it was inconsistent in as much as, again, a jury can conclude that you did not do something intentionally. as you know very well, laura, being the superstar prosecutor that you were, jurors assess, right, a status of a mind. we call it mens rhea, the guilty mind. and they determined that he didn't mean to do it in terms of intentionally doing it, but by virtue of him laying hands on her erectly did it. so i don't see that as inconsistent. last point, gloria, that's this. on the issue of an appeal, i think that they'll go after two other things. i think the first thing they'll go after that is the defense attorneys for jonathan majors will go after whether or not the prior bad acts, that is other instances in the relationship, whether there is too much of an admission of that into evidence. such that the jurors could have concluded, to pay, if you did that, thanks to her before, could you then have and were you doing bad things now? sometimes think people conflate, you may have done something last week, the week before that,

it doesn't mean they did anything now. the second and final thing, i think, they will attack, villa toscana things, i shouldn't say final, but it is really the issues relating it to really how it is that he went after her. here is what i mean. when you look at and you are trying to do an appeal, you are putting together everything that you possibly can. in putting together everything that you possibly can, i think that they're going to look for propensity evidence. are they going to argue that it was their propensity. remember this. he filed a cross complaint against her and they want it to, the defense, cross-examine and to delineate all of the probable cause as to why she should have been arrested. the judge excluded that, didn't allow, it so what extent did that play in an appeal and whether or not it was a fair trial? so that is what the attack. whether they can overcome it, that remains to be seen. >> a really important cog. talking about the paternity of evidence. just because you've done something in the past, and they didn't even have to introduce evidence about violence, but physical violence. it was discussions about the

way he spoke to her and beyond. how that will all play in will be really important going forward. that is the court of law. court of public opinion, joey jackson, could be a totally different ball game. thank you so much for your analysis as always, my friend. we'll be right back.

tonight alec baldwin was escorted by the nypd after an incident with pro palestinian protesters. according to a source close to the actor he was not protesting.

the actor was on his way to teach an acting class. a lot enforcement source said that baldwin was asked by one protester, quote, do you condemn israel at all or are you just deep in the pocket? to which baldwin replied, quote, that is a stupid question. ask me a smart question. no arrests were made as a result of the incident this evening, but alec, maybe a cab next time. thank you for watching, our coveragege continueses. ♪ ♪ ♪

(singing )i'll be home for christmas you can plan on me. please have snow and mistletoe. and presents on the tree. kids at shriner's hospitals for children are able to go home and be with their families for the holidays. and that's only possible because of the monthly donations from people like you. thanks to a generous donor every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. with your gift of just $19 a month,