you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide.

wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. 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 right now there is no threat to life. laura coates, pretty amazing, but i'm glad we are both here

and not there to witness it. >> are you kidding me? i could not be far enough away from that, abby, no, thank you, but hope you're all safe out there. remember the saying take him seriously but not literally? well, if past is prologue, maybe it should be both. tonight on "laura coates live." well, it's 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 their 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 the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they're coming into our country from africa, from asia, all over the world. they're pouring into our country. >> "poisoning the blood," that was an actual quote. experts say that mirrors hitler's calls for racial purity in his manifesto where he talked about 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 nazi germany. it's not the first time we're left asking does he really mean it? should the alarm bells be blaring or is it just overblown campaign bluster? it's for all of you watching, the voters, to square what he's saying with whether you believe it and what he will do after he says it, but one hint might be the fact that this was

discussed. it was planned. it was decided and how do you know? because this was read off of a teleprompter, meaning it was written in advance. here's the thing. we have been here before, you know. trump has time and time again loaded his discussions, his campaigns with charged language that has been called out as racist and xenophobic and 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 and 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 terror plagued countries and i will implement strong ideological screening for all immigrants. >> now this was just over the weekend. can 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 two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law and the

constitution to give amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants, 5 million. i would build a great wall -- and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and i'll build them very inexpensively. >> look, trump had mixed results with all the things he described in that montage, right? the travel ban, it was reversed by president biden. the supreme court blocked his effort to end the daca program and the border wall that he said he'd build so much better than anyone else didn't even come close to what he promised, but he did attempt it all. his plans, they weren't bluster to be dismissed and the question now is what happens if the system of checks and balances that kept him from fulfilling those particular plans, what happens if they aren't there in the future or they yield to his plans because there's a lot of reporting about his plan 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're loyal to him and they won't stand in the way of his policies. then there's that game of footy that trump's playing, tooling around with tones of authoritarianism, repeating the claim that he wants to be quite, well, "dictator for a day," invoking the names of strong men around the world to make his very points. >> to 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 russias that biden -- and this is a quote -- politically motivated persecution of his political rival is very good for russia because it shows the rottenness of the american political system.

>> we've heard of vladimir putin and 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 off trump's words as mere language -- apparently that's a thing you can ignore. >> we're talking about language, i could care less what language people use as long as we get it right. >> funny thing about language, though, it's how we communicate things. not sure i can easily dismiss it. maybe it's the language we should all be paying attention to, don't you think? stop taking him figuratively or literally, but not assuming the people who are listening are not hearing him and believing that that is what they want. now i want to bring in former

defense secretary under president trump, mark esper. thank you so much for being with us this evening. i'm sure you've seen a lot of the news coverage coming in and i really am intrigued how you are seeing all of it, but let me begin here, secretary. we've seen the former president giving americans quite a dark preview of the 2024 campaign. he's made comments about migrants poisoning blood, the blood of america. there's mass deportations discussed. he was quoting vladimir putin. i'm wondering what your reaction has been to hear all this kind of language. >> yeah. first of all, laura, it's great to be with you and your audience this evening. look, trump has said in one word what his campaign would be about and that's retribution. with regard to his comments you just referenced, it's disgusting. it's not american. we are a nation of immigrants. if i'm a grandson of immigrants

and they are very important to the electricity of our country. so i think we all reel from those words. the challenge is, though, many americans, particularly in my part of the republican party, see the border crisis going on and it just kind of fuels that in many ways because they see the numbers are record breaking 6.2 million illegal people have crossed in the past three years. the number of them who have criminal convictions in this year alone numbers 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 and, of course, people are with the dog with a bone with a comment like this because it is so inflammatory, because it is so anti-thetical, but graham said he just cares

about getting the policy right. is it a luxury to ignore the language and hope the policy ends as you want it to be or is that how the sausage is just made? >> no. language does matter and is important. the language you use indicates what's in your heart, what you intend. i'd like to see my party use more the language of the benefits of immigration, the history of immigration to our country and what it means to continue our continued economic growth and entrepreneurial spirit that drives a good deal of our innovation. all those thing are positive, but i think the challenges right now, people see what's happening on the border, republicans and democrats alike. it seems like it is a crisis because it is and we're worried about who is coming in and do they have criminal backgrounds and so again, that said, i'd like to see people, our republican party, the former president, speak more positively about immigration, but that's not who he is.

>> you've been the defense secretary, secretary esper, and 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 real concern for people. obviously this is a former president. he is a frontrunner 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 indicates a real turn inward, an isolationism that we haven't seen in a while in our country and it concerns our allies and partners. i travel abroad both to asia and to europe. i speak to them. the number one thing our

friends and partners ask about abroad is who is going to be president and if it's donald trump, what will that mean for them, for our alliances and partnerships? i think the way he talks about immigration is another signal to them that there will be this inward turn. of course, it also sends a message out to people around the world that our doors are closing and i think one thing is remarkable about the united states is wherever you go -- and i've had the privilege of traveling broadly -- people line up around the world to get into this country. we remain that shining city on the hill. it's the place everybody wants to come to, doesn't mean everybody wants to get in, which is why we need to be managing our borders, but nevertheless we inspire a lot of people and it sends a message we're 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 hungary's viktor orban or quoting putin to make a point

it seems about america's democracy? >> well, we all know he has this bent towards strong men, whether it's kim jong un in north korea, viktor orban in hungary, xi jinping in beijing or vladimir putin in russia. he tends to give them more credence and lean in closer to them. i think in some ways he wishes he had the powers that they have. i can't explain it. you'd like to see more of a relationship with our allies and partners than with the bad guys on the world stage. >> do you think our nation would be more or less safe with a trump second term, based on your experience? >> well, i worry about our democracy, first and foremost, is would donald trump come in and i think the lesson he's learned from the first administration is that the most important thing is who you put into office, who you appoint, who you nominate for key positions. so i think he's learned that lesson. the first quality he'll be seeking is loyalty above all

else. with a new team in place it looks more like the last couple months of his first administration. i think you'd see him chipping away at the institutions of our democracy and certainly the norms and behaviors and practices. look, he's already talked about that with regard to weaponizing the doj and going after people, injustice in the media, you name it. i'm most concerned first and foremost for our democracy and what it would mean for our institutions and this great republic that we've come to know and really stands on the world stage as a beacon for freedom and rights around the world. >> if that's the beginning, we'll see what happens next. secretary mark esper, thank you so much for your time this evening. >> thanks, laura. joining our discussion now is mike leon, host of the "can we please talk podcast," and political analyst laura lopez. i'm so glad you're both here. listen, you heard the secretary and i have been really focused

on this. it's not as if it's all perspective. he is a former president currently running, a frontrunner. his base hears him. they like it. so who's got the disconnect? is it the way it's covered or what he's actually saying? >> i spoke with florida primary voters this past weekend and a lot of it is they think the media's coverage of it. it's kind of to nicki haley's point. they think the media's making too much of it. i tend to step back and say these are his words. this is what he's actually saying. this is not a clipped up soundbite. he is saying these things. the biggest thing i heard from that interview -- and we know how mark esper felt about him. he has said trump is dangerous, some of the things he wanted to do with missile strikes when he was in office -- you're seeing more officials that worked under the administration saying this about him. this is not us three. these are people that worked for him. why isn't that impacting people? i don't get why it's not impacting voters. it should be. if people worked for somebody

else and all of a sudden they didn't like this person and told me all these things, wouldn't i take it to heart a little more? >> i think it will impact the general electorate, but the republican base and primary electorate for the gop is very different. i think the reason it's not resonating or impacting with them is because you haven't seen some massive rift in the gop party. you haven't seen a massive piece of the establishment say no, we're never going to vote for this person again. you've seen the liz cheneys and mitt romneys who say loud and clear he thinks 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, then, of course, they're going to believe the people that are constantly saying this to them and repeating the lies to them.

>> i tend to think that when we talk about identity politics, trump has given a lot of people an identity, the identity as i'm against things and unapologetic about it. maybe this is a continued badge of honor to say yeah, i hear him. you're telling me that i'm silly and not understanding him, but i'm telling you i hear him and i like it. so you're maybe feeling if you're one of his supporters that everyone's against you and he is validating that. >> he's running on that. look, i grew up in new york. there's a reason why the former president lost new york so much, not because of how many registered democrats there are. it's because people in business there with the former president heard this for years. he's getting exactly what he wants. you look at anybody who covered trump during the "new york post" days in new york, this is what he wants to be, the attention seeker and he's

getting it. we have to cover him. he's under indictment four different locales. we have to cover that, but we're always going to be in this push and pull battle because the goal posts keep moving. the voters entrenched with him will always say it's the media doing this, doing. that the media's this big boogeyman to the voters and i try to dispel it more by saying which would you rather cover, the old woman across the street or the former president being arrested? i don't understand why it's not moving the needle. you asked this earlier, laura. why isn't it moving the needle with voters, specifically chiefs of staff, people that worked under the administration that are all coming out. this has all been revealed to them. this guy is a danger and for some reason i truly don't understand why it's not resonating. >> it is resonating in the direction of doubling down. you think about how this all

looks and why. i mean trump is a very effective communicator at insuring everyone that's not him is viewed with skepticism, as somebody who can be viewed with derision, who is less than. so if he has created a hierarchy where what he says is more important, then it stands to reason one would look at those comments with greater belief than the others. >> they believe him over the former chiefs of staff, over former administration officials, over the press and that isn't just because there's this ambiguous we don't trust the press, there's a reason there's low trust in the press among the republican base, because their leader of the republican party has for years now since he first started running for the presidency in 2015 has demonized the presses

press as the enemy of the people. he dehumanizes political opponents, more recently has started calling them vermin, dehumanizes people who don't support him. that's a classic authoritarian playbook which historians laid out over and over again. authoritarians do that to prepare their supporters for their expanse of power and their decision to try to totally overhaul when we know as democracy. >> there's also in terms of what's happening, not just with trump, but others are taking action at the state and local level. the governor in texas, greg abbott, signed a new bill into law and it's one that makes crossing illegally into texas from mexico now a state crime, which empowers local police to then arrest migrants. this is a really important point when you think about it because the rhetoric that donald trump is speaking now has a hook in terms of a state

prosecutorial crime. now it's at a state level. it's being validated. what do you think of it? >> well, i was talking about this earlier with somebody else because the republican message around it is democrats are not doing anything about it. here's a governor in a red state doing something about it. desantis, same thing in my state in florida, doing something about it. now we can all get into whether or not sending migrants on different flights and whether or not they'll have their asylum trial in those areas, that's one thing. this is all coming home to roost for the democrats. i was talking to democrat seth moulton about democrats' messaging around this. the true message is a pathway to citizenship. it's keeping dacas here in the u.s. and legalizing that, but it's understanding there is an issue at the border. let's not pretend there isn't. cbp has said they are overwhelmed in recent articles. if democrats start to message around that, that we want to help law enforcement agencies

and get everybody on the right pathway to being a citizen, it will potentially siphon off what some of these more moderate republicans that want to hear that because they want to hear the democrats are treating the border as a serious issue. this one member of congress was saying such thing and asking people who are republican voters, when they listen to that, they were like i agree with that. >> i love a good informal poll, but when you think how this administration began, remember the conversations around the failure of vice president harris to call it a border crisis. that's how this all began. i do wonder is the admission of there being a problem viewed somehow by democrats as a kind of weakness or admission of failure? i don't on know that's the case. voters are asking what's to be done? that's why they're the ones in office. thank you both for joining us. up next, a major legal blow for mark meadows in the georgia election interference case. we'll tell you all about it after this.

so here's a blast from maybe the not so distant past, a name for you, mark meadows, trump's former chief of staff right there. he wanted to move his georgia election interference case out of fulton county into federal court. remember that? the question is why? well, because he was hoping he could show that the criminal conduct he was accused of having committed wasn't criminal at all. no, he wanted the court to believe that that conduct was part of his official duties in the white house. now if the court agreed with him, then he could say he would be immune from prosecution because it was official duties and the next stop on that legal train would be dismissing the

case. well, a three-judge panel on the 11th circuit court of appeals didn't agree. they didn't buy his argument, that attempting to allegedly alter valid election results in favor of a particular candidate or maybe engage in a conspiracy had anything at all to do with the duties of a chief of staff. so that means no ability to invoke federal immunity and escape prosecution and, oh, no moving his case to federal court. why does all of this blast from the past matter? well, it's very much in the present. we're waiting to hear if the supreme court will waive some pretty similar arguments about donald trump. is the conduct he's accused of having committed part of his official presidential duties and, if so, would he be able to stay he's immune and poof, there goes maybe the charges? there are a lot of parallels what we're seeing from the behavior accused from meadows and that of one donald trump. now the supreme court, as you can imagine, doesn't have to

follow the ruling of an interior court and it's not my choice to call it inferior. the legal snobbery is how you see it in the court. supreme court and interior courts are everyone else. it could give some insight how the court will define what a presidential duty or official act is. if it wasn't enough for meadows to get immunity, will be it enough for trump? what is it rudy giuliani has to say all the time? yes. stay tuned. i guess we will. what did clarence thomas warn about that could lead to one or more supreme court justices resigning? as tina turner might paraphrase, what's money got to do with it? that's next.

private jets, luxury vacations, a free rv according to propublica, that's how supreme court justice clarence thomas apparently lives his life. it wasn't always like that. back in 2000 about a decade into his tenure on the supreme court, he complained about his salary and i mean openly to a member of congress saying if lawmakers didn't act, "one or more justices will leave soon." his salary at the time was $173,600, about $300,000 in today's money. fast forward in 2019 and thomas seems to have changed his tune.

>> right now what is the compensation of a justice of the supreme court? >> oh, goodness, i think it's plenty. my wife and i are doing fine. we don't live extravagantly, but we are fine. >> a few weeks after that speech he hopped on the private jet of one of his billionaire friends and headed off to indonesia, where he and his wife ginny vacationed on that friend's 162-foot yacht. sounds fine to me. what happened in those 20 years that made thomas go from nearly resigning due to his salary to now being seemingly more than just fine? joining me now is justin elliott, a reporter at propublica and one of the authors of "a delicate matter, clarence thomas' private complaints about money sparked fears he could resign." justin, thank you so much for joining us because you're reporting justice thomas told a lawmaker that supreme court

justices should get a raise or that he feared one or more will leave soon. that's his quote. what happened after he raised concerns about his salary? >> yeah. well, it raised alarms. the congressman who is now retired who i talked to said that he left that conversation worried justice thomas was the justice that was going to resign in short order if congress didn't raise salaries for justices. that congressman pushed to get the salaries raised. another top official in the 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 where 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. >> he paints himself and i note, of course, that that money he was earning at the time you said compared to now is about $300,000. he changed his tune quite significantly. he sort of paints himself now as a kind of every man. listen to this. >> i prefer the rv parks. i prefer the walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. there's something normal to me about it. i come from regular stock and i prefer that. i prefer being around that. >> you hear him talking about that and we're showing the audience some of the gifted he purportedly received from his wealthbethis a as a big

contrast. i'm not doubting he likes to do what he said he does and likes being in those places, but there's a disconnect for some hearing the propublica reporting and what he's saying there. can you help us understand that context? >> sure. as a supreme court justice, he makes around $300,000 a year, which is far more than the average american, but doesn't make you super rich. what we and others have found is that there's a small set of wealthy in some cases billionaire businessmen, many of them republican political donors, who stepped into justice thomas' life and really subsidized his lifestyle, elevated it to the level of the ceo of a company or a rich businessman. what we found, he has been taking on literally dozens of

international vacations on private jets, super yachts, the dallas businessman harlan crow that paid around $100,000 of private school tuition for justice thomas' relative who the justice was raising. in fact, the very high end rv he talked about in that clip, he paid around half a million dollars for it in today's dollars, turns out that money actually was loaned to him by a friend who later forgave the loan. we've 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 attain this higher lifestyle thanks to these people that came into his life. >> he would suggest, of course, this is merely coincidental, nobody was giving him anything in return for something, 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, i'm sure, argues propublica has just been picking on him and are trying to single him out. what's your reaction to that, given, of course, there has been recently obviously this code of conduct now that has been issued by the supreme court, not a lot of teeth behind it. i admit that, but what is your reaction to his statements that significant this is merely coincidental and nothing that even hints at impropriety? >> yeah. i guess a couple things. one is we've been talking to a lot of judges, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, and we've been struck by how just across the board ideologically judges have told us they wouldn't even let a lawyer buy them lunch for $30, let alone take

$100,000 of private tuition or free vacations. we haven't seen anything close to like this when it comes to the other justices. justice thomas didn't comment for this latest story. i spoke to a yale law professor who spent time with justice thomas and his principle benefactor harlan crow's vacation with them and that professor's view of the relationship was look, he didn't think harlan crow was trying to influence justice thomas' views. he thinks harlan crow is trying to keep him comfortable. etch thinks his salary isn't high enough and therefore, he provides these benefits to him to elevate his lifestyle. as you pointed out, justice thomas' recent public comments about his salary are very, very different than what he was saying privately 20 years ago and the salary has not changed. >> well, maybe one will wink and just say inflation to you

all of a sudden and explain everything. justin elliott, for all the noneconomists, myself included in the room. thank you so much. >> thank you. hey, one note about some special programming we'll have here on cnn. we'll have special live coverage of the funeral of supreme court justice sandra day o'connor. i'll be part of that coverage hosted by wolf blitzer starting at 10:45 a.m. eastern. we'll see you there to honor justice o'connor. up next, a guilty verdict and a career in jeopardy, actor jonathan majors dropped by marvel studios and nowow even fafacing time e behind barars.

well, the movie star jonathan majors was found guilty today of assault and harassment for attacking his former girl friend in a car. within hours of that verdict disney fired the actor from all upcoming marvel project. his character was said to be the big bad star across its series of films, but now majors' future is up in the air. the jurors deliberated on the case, took them about six hours pouring over the competing narratives about what really happened on march 25th. ultimately they did acquit him on two counts. they found him guilty on two other counts. they decided majors recklessly but not intentionally assaulted his then girl friend grace jabbari, then harassed her outside of the suv. an attorney for majors saying in a statement tonight, "it is clear the jury did not believe

grace jabbari'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 cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney the great joey jackson. we were doing a little role play with you and arriba, of with you playing the prosecution and one of you playing the defense. those arguments came up. it was a split verdict. i want you to read the tea leaves 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. i have great respect and trust in our jury process. the realities are they were there, heard the evidence and six members of a jury in the system for misdemeanors found him guilty, guilty of reckless

assault in the third degree, harassment in the second degree and not guilty of the other things. if you had to read the tea leaves, what it essentially means is he did not possess the intent to actually harm her. however, he did so, meaning the harm, substantial pain in a reckless way. what does that mean in english? it means whenever you lay hands on someone, certainly you consciously disregard the risk they could sustain substantial pain as a result of that. i think what the jurors concluded is while he may not have had a motivation, it may not have been his intent, objective, purpose to hurt her, based upon the fact there was that interaction, he did so recklessly and consciously disregarding the risk she could have been hurt and that was the essence of their conclusion in voting unanimously that he be guilty of those two charges, both of which, of course, one, the criminal one, the assault charge which is reckless and then the other is just a

noncriminal violation of the law, the harassment, whenever it is you strike someone without their consent. >> for some they may say hold on. if he didn't have the intent and he did not get committed on the other charges, is there a right for appeal, a moment to suggest it was inconsistent by acquitting two and remaining on the other two? likely he will appeal this decision if he's able to do so, which i understand he likely will. remember, jabbari took the stand and testified against him. we both have been in these courtrooms where you've got these emotional moments as she told the jury about him hitting her in the head, twisting her arm in the incident and saying they are gratified by the verdict. i wonder how important her testimony was in getting these convictions. did he testify? i wonder how did they balance that? >> he did not testify, as many defendants do not.

the jurors are instructed you can't read anything into a defendant not testifying because it's their right not to do so. in terms of her testimony, she testified over four days, got very emotional and you had to believe that would be very compelling. in terms of the actual jury verdict itself, i don't think it was inconsistent in as much as again a jury can conclude that you did not do something intentionally and as you know very well, laura, being the superstar prosecutor you were, jurors assess of a mind, the guilty mind. look, he didn't mean to intentionally do it, but by virtue of him laying hands on her, he recklessly did that. on the issue of appeal, i think they'll go after two other things. i think the first thing the defense attorneys for jonathan majors will go after whether or not the prior bad acts, that is, other instants in their relationship, whether there was too much of an admission of

that into evidence such that the jurors could have concluded if you did bad things to her before, could you and did you do bad things to her now? sometimes people conflate you may have done something bad last week, the week before that, doesn't mean you did anything now. the final thing they'll attack -- i shouldn't say final, there's many things they'll attack, but really the issues relating to how it is he went after her and here's what i mean. when you look at and trying to do an appeal, you're putting together everything you possibly can. in putting together everything they possibly can, i think they'll look for propensity evidence. will they argue it was their propensity? he filed a cross-claim against her and the defense wanted to cross-examine and delineate all of the probable cause as to why she should have been arrested. the judge excluded that, so what extent did that play in an appeal and whether or not it

was a fair trial? that's what they'll attack. whether they can overcome it remains to be seen. >> really important point, propensity evidence. just because you've done something in the past and they didn't have to introduce evidence about violence, physical violence. it was discussions about the way you spoke to her and beyond, how that will play in will be really important going forward. that's a court of law. court of public opinion, joey jackson, a totally different ballgame. 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 law enforcement source said baldwin was asked by one protester, "do you condemn israel at all or are you just deep in the pocket?" to which baldwin replied," that's a stupid question and ask me a smart question." no arrests were made. alec, maybe a cab next time. thank you for watching! our coverage continues.