he was very charismatic and he was like john edwards. he did all the boxes except it wasn't single that's a that's a box. >> it's a big one >> clearly, john's marital status was no barrier to pursuing real and the feeling was mutual. ironically, at the same time, the contrary seemed in with john edwards picture perfect marriage, and his wife, elizabeth edwards, a former attorney herself health care reform crusader, who was said to be edouard secret weapon on the campaign trail. >> my value is that people trust me. they trust me to say what's on my mind and to be direct the election was still two years away, but elizabeth and john seemed like they were everywhere pushing john as the next great democratic hope it was the beginnings of a 21st century presidential campaign which created a unique opportunity for real and john's relationship. >> at >> what point does he start talking about figuring out a way for you to come on board the campaign. >> i pitched him the idea i'm doing a webisodes aires because my entire thing about him was who he

we have this dream of who we want people to be, but john edwards couldn't be that. as who he was for rielle hunter, who he was for elizabeth edwards, and then it was who he was for the american public. and that's the paradox inherent to politics by design. individual human beings have to be the vessels for all our lofty ideals, and yet to this day, we keep on investing and believing in these candidates for higher office, hoping, praying that they do not break our hearts, because maybe, just maybe, this one is different. i do think a lot of his campaign staffers were diehard believe-in-the-cause fans, and a lot of them do work in the white house right now. that's his legacy, and i think that puts a nice bow on a story that is a big ol' mess.

i mean, i'm john edwards, i took two years my reporting team to prove that story. when the doorman's story came down the pike i talked to dylan howard, who was my editor and said, listen, we need some time. i said, i sense that michael cohen is going to find out about this and donald trump is going to eventually find out about this. but for the sake of the inquire, for the sake of our legacy in terms of breaking these types of stories let us at least work the story and we did investigate it for a very short period of time, dispatch reporters got photos of the woman and her doctor know that you were doing that for donald trump? i mean, did you know that, you know, i had no real idea anderson that there had been an actual arrangement. i didn't learn that until wires. and what issue. so what was the process? i mean, obviously the heart broke, the john edwards story got there was a nomination per pillar for that but they also, i mean, as has been testified to, pecker said they put out this story about ted cruz, his father, which he said was completely made eight up. wh

. >> yeah, delta john edwards kara scannell is in new york. she's been following every detail from outside the courthouse. qarrah significant day in court as the judge's now dismissing the jury, those poor jurors get to go poem and have some time to themselves, get us up to speed on where the defense team left matters in its cross-examination of this first witness, david pecker so the defense has only been going out. david pecker for less than an hour, but they're beginning to focus on two main themes here trying to get at these hush deals. and that magazines and politicians often work together asking david pecker if that was standard operating procedure and he said that it was. he also said that he'd been warning trump for 17 years about any negative stories stories, and that this did not just begin in 2015. so one main focus of the cross-examination is to try to tell the jury that some of this was normal. it's not necessarily illegal he goal and that is one of the themes that we knew the defense was going to be pushing on. another also tryin

john edwards: but not a matter of if, but when. bigad: physicist john edwards invited us inside the lawrence livermore national laboratory, where earlier this month, government scientists managed to create a nuclear fusion reaction, their fifth over the past year, where the power produced measured more than what went in to jumpstart the ignition. john: if you think about, you've got a pile of wood and you know you can get energy out of the wood if only you can light the fire. and so, what we managed to do is show that we could actually light the fire in fusion fuel. bigad: that ignition was sparked by 192 lasers. john: see here, these are the laser beams. bigad: their aim: to replicate the sun's scorching heat. bigad: the lasers are inside these massive aluminum tubes, and together their beams are able to create temperatures topping 180 million degrees. that's six times hotter than the center of the sun. bigad: is there anything as hot as that in our solar system? john: only when we do another one. bigad: here in the lab? john: her

this is a totally different case from back in the past it's not trump, it's john edwards and what johnight now could be crucial for trump's university of maryland global campus is a school for real life, one that values as successes you've already achieved, earn up to 90 undergraduate credits for right? 11 experience, and get the support you need from your first day to graduation day and beyond. what will your next success before abigail chewable for allergic edge, giving dogs pills was a battle of wits. >> oh, maria, i'm wanted here. foolish game he's gone totally gone it's relief, just got easier. apa quell the trusted number one treatment for allergic it is now available in a tasty chewable that works in a day. do not use in dogs with serious infections may cause worsening of existing parasitic skin infestations are pre-existing cancers and serious infections. new neoplasia as have been observed, do not use in dogs less than 12 months old, ask your vet for epoch called chewable to it? >> one aleve works all day. so i can keep working just want to leave 12 hours of uninterrupted pain

. >> it's not trump, it's john edwards and what john edwards case says right now could be crucial for trump's smile. you found it the feeling of findings, psoriasis can't filter out the real you. >> so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only so tick to a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and the chance that clear or almost clear skin, it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up are finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. >> once daily. so tiktok was proven better we're getting more people clear skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to so take two serious reactions can occur. so ticked, you can lower your ability to fight infections including tb, serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and change it is in certain labs have occurred, tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides or had a vaccine or plan to tick to as a tick to inhibitor, tick two as part of the jackpot only, it's not known as though tiktok has same risks as ja

i think about john edwards.now this comparison has been made previously but john edwards, who was a presidential candidate who was found out that he had a baby with his, with someone who worked on his campaign and his donors were pending for that woman's lifestyle, her home, everything. went to court. a jury of his peers, it was a mistrial on the counter that he was in an illegal cover-up, election corruption, they said no. everything else, the jury couldn't come to a conclusion. are you concerned that that could potentially happen here ? >> the facts and circumstances surrounding the john edwards case versus people versus donald trump are very, very different. very different facts and circumstances. there is an element to it, which is similar, but it is not the same, it is not the same case at all. >> you are not concerned the jury, you think it is overwhelming evidence ? >> i'm not concerned because i am not the prosecutors. i am a subpoenaed nonparty witness. the comic tomorrow and say we would rather you don

others, but they decided not to proceed. >> in 2011, then failed democratic presidential candidate john edwards faced as six count indictment for allegedly we accepting and using campaign contributions to cover up an extramarital affair and hide his mistress and their child from the public while edwards ran for president, while i do not believe i did anything illegal or ever thought i was doing anything illegal. i did an awful awful lot that was wrong. >> the jury acquitted edwards on one charge and split on the other five the. justice department to ultimately dropped the case well, the election interference and it's got to stop. >> it's a third world country. >> trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to hide an alleged affair with an adult film star and influence the 2016 election. trump denies the affair and has pleaded not guilty, but trump's former attorney, michael cohen, swore under oath that he made the payments in order to affect the outcome of the election cohen though, was convicted of perjury in a separate case. the edwards case had it

john edwards obviously was prosecuted for the same thing. and justice department failed acquitted on one a miss trial and the others, but they decided not to proceed in 2011, then failed democratic presidential candidate john edwards faced as six count indictment four hi julie accepting and using campaign contributions to cover up an extramarital affair and hide his mistress and their child from the public while edwards ran for president, while i do not believe i did anything illegal or ever thought i was doing anything illegal. >> i did an awful, awful lot that was wrong. >> the jury acquitted edwards on one charge and split on the other five in. the justice department to ultimately dropped the case. >> well, the election interference and it's got to stop. it's a third world country. >> trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to hide an alleged affair with an adult film star and influence the 26th seen election, trump denies the affair and has pleaded not guilty, but trump's former attorney, m

candidate john edwards was inspirational. as if they would go to the ends of the earth for him. and in some cases, he made them. because in reality, john edwards the person-- well, he was no savior. ♪

i would add to that, they were around today talking about john edward's case, he would say the least t is today by alvin bragg. >> that's exactly right. the history of the edwards case is kind of tortured because the fec commits very similar to trump's case and what they were saying is hush money was campaign expenditures. the fec said it was not. the justice department went ahead and tried to prosecute him anyway, the judge that the case thrown the jury but i think reluctantly the jury would not convict edwards in the justice department finally dropped the case which goes to show this is a very abstruse area of the law and the whole reason that the congress created the federal election commission was to ensure uniform enforcement across the country which of course you cannot have if local prosecutors will make up their own federal campaign laws. david: what makes the trump case worse than edwards case in terms of prosecution perspective, they are not prosecuting for conspiracy to steal the election but the prosecution is coming out with information, salacious details about the mba an

rick: he was acquitted by a jury, with the finding that this was mostly about john edwards' personalposed to being primarily campaign related. these can be tricky questions. william: another complication in this case is that the prosecution's key witness -- the one who will testify about the origin of those payments, how they were accounted for, and who knew what -- is michael cohen. jessica: michael cohen is a very problematic witness for the prosecution in this case. william: jessica roth teaches law at cardozo law school in new york city, with expertise in white-collar crime. jessica: first, he's pled guilty to crimes that involve deception and deceit, including tax fraud, bank fraud, and lying to congress. and those crimes go to his truthfulness, as a witness. secondly, he's been inconsistent in terms of what he has said about trump's involvement in this scheme. he previously, before he decided to turn against the former president, said that trump was uninvolved in the payments to stormy daniels. and then finally, he is a biased witness in the sense that it's quite clear - and he

others, but they decided not to proceed. >> in 2011, then failed democratic presidential candidate john edwards faced as six count indictment for allegedly accepting and using campaign contributions to cover up an extramarital affair and hide his mistress and their child from the public while edwards ran for president while i do not believe i did anything illegal or ever thought i was doing anything illegal i did an awful, awful lot that was wrong. >> the jury acquitted edwards on one charge and split on the other five leaving the justice department to ultimately dropped the case. >> well, the election interference and it's got to stop. it's a third world country. >> trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to hide an alleged affair with an adult film star and influence the 2016 election. trump denies the affair and has pleaded not guilty, but trump's former attorney, michael cohen, swore under oath that he made the payments in order to affect the outcome of the election cohen, though, was convicted of perjury in a separate case. the edwards case h

christian: with me is john edward jones iii, former president of dickinson college in pennsylvania.ng statements are something like an overture. they set out a roadmap for what is coming in the trial. what did you make of the two sides, the way they laid out their arguments? john: exactly as i thought it would be, a roadmap. from the prosecution's standpoint, what we know is the linchpin of their case is probably michael cohen. and they admit he is not the best witness in the world but it seems they have other witnesses who will corroborate his testimony. from the defense's perspective, what they did was trivialize the case, basically say this is a case that should not have been brought. what we don't know about some of the other witnesses testimony, some folks who work for the former president, what they might say, and the prosecution is playing it close to the vest in terms of testimony. christian: the prosecution has to prove several layers of his intent. can you help us with the law as it pertains to the 2016 campaign? was it illegal in and of itself to pay stormy daniels? john:

as you said, through the prosecution witnesses and the closest example we have to this is the john edwards trial back in 2012, he made a similar defense, ultimately successfully where he said his team argued the reason for the payments was to protect against personal humiliation john edwards never took the stand. they managed to do that through the prosecution's own witnesses, by the way, the witnesses, michael cohen doesn't have to say donald trump wanted to protect his family. he won't say that. but as long as they establish that donald trump had a wife and children and any normal human being would be embarrassed by this disclosure that's enough for the defendant to make that argument they've got they've got to make sure that they are dotting all those eyes, are putting all those pieces together so that in the final closing argument, his lawyer can stand up and draw on that. >> i'm saying that in the absence of any of that kind of testimony, i think it puts pressure on donald trump. quick response from you on that le you're right though, defense lawyers are allowed to argue inferences, s

john edwards who ran for president in 2008 had a similar trial where he had paid off his mistress, had a similar trial that was all thrown out and nothing happened, that there was no crime in this and it was a different situation. neil: that wouldn't change your mind. the conviction would be unfair. >> a conviction for what? neil: we follow closely. the aforementioned charlie gasparino, what do you think? a lot of money guys are rallying around that. >> and exactly what i heard from someone else who attended the john paulson dinner in palm beach two weekends ago said the same thing. it is hard to argue these charges are trumped up and unprecedented. than i asked about the jack smith case, trump took that, did he take the codes? if you look at these cases, they seem so picky. neil: that is how it scored. it does stop him and doing other things. charles: the second part of the argument, it's a binary choice. look at president biden, look how bad he is and what he's doing with the economy. talking to people on wall street, what is the game plan for president biden if the fed doesn't cut r

. >> he points to the similar case of democrat john edwards, solicited -- indicted for soliciting moneyy his mistress. in court, he argued the money was gifts from friends, not campaign donations, because they were meant to hide the affair from his cancer stricken wife elizabeth, not voters. >> he was acquitted with the finding that this was mostly about his personal life. these can be tricky questions. >> the prosecution's key witness , the one that will testify about the origin of those payments, how they were accounted for and who knew what is michael cohen. >> michael cohen is a very problematic witness for the prosecution. first, he has pled guilty to crimes involving deception and deceit including tax fraud, bank fraud and lying to congress. those crimes go to his truthfulness as a witness. secondly, he has been inconsistent in terms of what he has said about trump's involvement in this scheme. he previously said that trump was uninvolved in the payments to stormy daniels and then finally he has a biased witness in the sense that it's quite clear and he's been quite explicit about

john edwards campaign, not just because they knew that a lot of what was in the inquirer was right, but there were a lot of political journalists were like, this is like they are saying the six pages. we were looking at those stories going, they have something. and i can tell you that if it weren't for this arrangement, these stories, the stormy danielss stories, they would have. the things that david pecker was all over like a dog on a bone. these are election year stories. stories that often turned out to be true. the edwards example is only one. but the communications person that you know lived in fear of a call from the national inquirer because you can't wave that off. you'd be like, uh-oh. >> it maybe other arms of a campaign that looks down their nose. i think the fist time we talked, i grew up and this dates me, but standing in line with the grocery store with my mother. i knew when the covers changed. to you think that some of the underestimating the power of these facts and fact witnesses was part of this view about trump or people just didn't understand where all the power ca

once and a while they get a story like john edwards but for the most part they talk about robots stealingr luggage and things of that nature so definitely looking at a french newspaper that will be a lot of contact and pays for stories true or false to kill them or to have them to make them. so i think we are thinking about this threesome here for terkel people trying to control the gossip section of a very popular celebrity businessman who went on to become president of the united states and after he did he went in there to clean things up especially after rebounding from the access hollywood take. let me take a nonlegal view of what i remember from 2016. the access hollywood tape is a bigger story than anything stormy daniels and mcdougall could put together let alone a doorman with a story that never happened. and the president survived that and wins an election. this goes away after they hold onto this for my four years of an incident that happened in 2009 and they bring it back in the eight years saying now we will get you on it. everyone's head is spinning i am flipping around sayin

opposed to, and i imagine the defense will push this theory, that, hey, look, it is a remember john edwardsl. the reason he was paying these people off because he did not want his wife to know, he was stepping out on his wife allegedly. that was the reason and nothing to do with the campaign. he denies any of it happened period. but, the point is that it is not an easy lift for him to get this up to a felony. first he has to prove the falsified business records. and that it was in service of concealing a crime. >> does he have to -- he has to prove that secondary crime as well? >> he does not need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. thereat say good point, too. he committed himself to a kind of trial within a trial. he may not be charged with that additional crime. he needs to prove that the concealment, the business records concealment it was in service of the secondary crime. so, in a sense he has placed an additional burden on himself to elevate that to a felony. so, this is really a challenging case for the manhattan da. they have gotten passed the pretrial motions that i think are t

it's a theory that failed with john edwards. and this goes to the whole problem with the case. at some point the judge is going to have to give an instruction to this jury. is he honestly going to say this is a federal campaign violation when the federal government looked at this, did not charge, did not even find him even though they had pecker's testimony. this is getting in my view in a really red zone as far as prejudicial statements being made in front of this jury. >> john: yes, and that is something we should pursue as the hour progresses. jonathan turley, andy mccarthy's standby with us. because we want to come back on the other side and to chat more about this. particularly this idea of how the judge will eventually instruct the jury as to what happened here? we will take a quick break and we will be right back as court resumes in new york lately? get ready for a shock. the rate on credit cards is now over 22%. if you want to save hundreds of dollars every month, pay off the balances on your high rate cards with a lower rate va home loan from newday usa. and get the fi

scandals political legacy >> we have this dream of who we want people to be >> but john >> edwards couldn't be that he was who he was for real hunter, who he was for elizabeth edwards and then it was who we was for the american public >> and that's the paradox inherent to politics by design individual human beings have to be the vessels for all our lofty ideals and yet to this day, we keep on investing and believing in these candidates for higher office, hoping that they do not break our hearts because maybe just maybe this one is different i do think a lot of his campaign staffers were die-hard, believe in the call spans and a lot of them do work in the white house right now that's his legacy. i think that puts a nice bow on a story that is a big old >> every day in every state across the country our political system is bankrolled by an army of fundraisers pulling in millions of dollars a race. sometimes it looks like you might imagine knocking on doors, calling every name in the phone book >> eddie males so many emails. >> but for >> all those little fish throwing 100 to their local race,

and andrew's point a moment ago is a perfect illustration, trump will try and run the so-called john edwardsas trying to protect my family. the evidence blows that out of the water, and the jury is going to hear that evidence. and so i think trump's best strategy here is the spaghetti at the wall strategy, throw anything to cause one juror to have reasonable doubt, because if one juror says trump didn't do it, then it's a hung jury, and you can't send him to jail. >> any indication, adam, when we will get the judge's ruling on violations of the gattaca gag order mark >> he said he reserved his decision, i think that speaks to the deliberate way in which the judges handling this. this goes to the tenor of the arguments with todd blanche where he was the judge. he was very much dissecting the timeline of every tweet. when did michael cohen post something? when did trump post something? and so it shows that if trump is angling for something the judge is going to steer it on its own time. >> well, tomorrow would be good for us, since there is no trial scheduled for tomorrow. turn 24, andrew weis

the john edwards case, you recall that, and it's not the rock solid campaign violation itself, and thencrime he needs to prove is sort of interesting. >> it could be minutes before we got that magic 18 number, vaughn, and what is the latest? >> reporter: that was more like seconds. we hit the 18 jurors that have passed through the questionnaire and not been dismissed. now this moves us to the voir dire process. i have not been through the process myself either legally or as a juror, so i will leave it to the experts to tell you what this process will look like. i will tell you from the courtroom 18 jurors are facing questions now from the district attorney's office, and the d.a. is able to in a rapid fire sense ask the 18 individuals questions here that gets to the heart of their qualifications. this is not a moment for the lawyers, this is not an opportunity for them to convince them of potential evidence or sway them on the case. the judge can curtail questions or efforts to potentially taint what could be actual jurors that are included in the actual jury pool here. this is a process

they tried it with john edwards and a collapsed, so we are left with this weird scene unfolding in this new york courtroom. they are talking about transactions that aren't connected to anything unlawful, and on top of that you have pecker who said when he raised it with trump he said he didn't know about the reimbursement from michael cohen and many of these interactions are really with cohen. you know, cohen was his attorney so the jury we'll sea him take the stand and say, i think you should put my former client in jail for following my former legal advice. that's how we are case is becoming. >> martha: it is weird. and, you know, my point is just that campaign finance violations really have to do with the amount people are allowed to pay you know, who is a lot to pay, whether it goes to an individual , whether it's a payment that is made by an individual. all of this stuff we are listening to, i like to watch the coverage of the different channels throughout the day to see what they're talking about. over and over they are discussing the fact michael cohen said the boss wants this. t

actually think that the case in new york city is pretty weak if not flat-out bogus do you remember john edwards do you remember gary hearts if you remember some of the things that clinton has gone through now were going to talk about a hush money case that took plays while he was running for election in 2016 but he was in office until 2020 and now hear you are in 2024 months before another election that he's the presumptive gop nominee and this is what you're trying to do this is a disgrace it's weak it's pathetic and someone needs to say at the democrats need to come up with a better strategy because this is not working. >> sean: let me ask you this we look at poles who are always broken down demographically and you see this major erosion in the democratic base for biden, african-americans, hispanic americans, young people, suburban women for example i mean numbers that we have never seen before in terms of a democrat if he doesn't get his base back which i would argue he has been trying to do starting with the state of the union and is jacked up address he has no shot eddie of donald trump ca

they won the pulitzer for the john edwards story. >> right. so let's say they are a media outlet., but doesn't matter. he has said what we were doing here was intentional defamation to help the defendant. that's his story. so, you know, it's going to be interesting to see, and you don't have -- he has direct conversations with the defendant about that. and you don't have any sort of pushback on that. and so it will be interesting to see, are they going to sort of take that on. but that is the leadoff witness here saying our scheme was not just catch and kill, keeping that information, but actually defaming people. >> marc short, let me ask you finally, as you listen to this, as someone who knows donald trump, and this is certainly salacious, some people would say sorted. it's not fun. we have said this many times for any defendant to have to sit in a court of law and listen to all the things that are said about him, and all the bad accusations that have been made against him. how do you imagine donald trump is handling all of this? >> i think that his emotions are pretty transpare

like, you look at the john edwards' case, right, where there was an acquittal on hush money payments.e hush money payments there being made after the election. that's part of why he was acquitted. they couldn't show it was for the purpose of the campaign. this kind of evidence from pecker will be huge. >> thank you so much, lisa rubin, kelly hyman, appreciate you both. kristy you're going to join us again in just a moment. >>> still ahead, we're keeping our eye on the supreme court where arguments are underway in a key abortion case. >>> plus, later this hour, president biden is expected to sign a major foreign aid bill that the senate just sent to his desk. >>> and college campus chaos, the heightened tensions as pro-palestinian protests lead to arrests. inian protests lead to arrests. customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jin

and work at american media, at the "national enquirer" for my job, that we would break the next john edwards, that one involved a love child. we'll also break the big celebrity scandals. and suddenly, i'm in this news organization, which is being turned into a criminal enterprise, as we now know, and we're buying and burying these stories. talk about in terms of a business perspective, we would have sold a hell a lot of copies of those magazines if we would have broken these stories and would have owned the election. donald trump is a tabloid candidate, and we could have absolutely owned the election story. instead, incredibly frustrating to me, we were burying these stories. it's a very chapter in my career, and thankfully i've come back from it. but it is something i look back on it, if we had just done the journalism and broken these stories, we could have owned the election in 2016. >> keith davidson, what have we done? >> to dylan howard on election night, what have we done. that was a telling text message. >> but it's chilling, right? you think about the time, we sit here in 2024 at th

worked for another candidate with these types of problems who was not well received at the time, john edwards. the jury didn't like him, but didn't think that it was a campaign crime. >> yeah. in that case it was a little more complicated because donors had given the money to pay his -- the woman who had been his mistress with whom he'd had a child out of wedlock and it ended up being basically impossible to stick that on him. this is a little different because michael cohen's already been convicted of paying this money, the $130,000 that was an illegal campaign contribution because it was the -- pardon the expression, hard money, because it was as you said in your intro piece way over the limit of what anyone including what donald trump himself would be allowed to contribute to his own campaign. >> yeah. that's why there are a lot of different players and i showed the lawyer who represented both mcdougal and daniels saying, well, yeah. we only really saw the money start to pour out in the campaign season that goes to the d.a.'s theory that's bad for trump if you can prove it. here's a new st

that is the john edwards defense.n't just some personal thing, this is about the campaign. the fact of what he does afterwards. apparently, david is going to say into that and 17, he meets with donald trump, who thanks him for helping him win the campaign and win the election. >> that is all in the opening statement today. >> there is no concern about this becoming public because melania trump is going to know about it. one of the, if this is proved up, is a claim that donald trump said can we just put off the payments until after the election? if i win, we don't have to pay. if i lose, we don't have to pay. i'm not thinking about melania trump, i'm thinking i may not have to pay this money at all and i'm cheap and that doesn't work. they are insisting the money get paid now. that is why the scheme had to happen on october 26th, when essential consulting is created by michael cohen. >> i want to hear you both on more legal reaction to todd blanche on two levels. one, todd blanche asserting that there was no sexual enc

when it comes to whether this is election law, you could turn to the case of john edwards.been something that has been tried before. where hush money paid to keep an affair silent is something that can have multiple purposes. it could be for a married man who just doesn't want his wife to know. and so that is something that has been tried and failed before by prosecutors. and when you then abandon the election piece and you instead go for the tax piece, then you have to kind of really put in the what is the bright line between donald trump and his accountant. how many of these things were annotated by the accountant and how many of them did donald trump even know about that. he's running a major corporation. he's not personally keeping the books on every line item. >> yeah. tim, this is been reallying, especially given that you represented donald trump in those jack smith cases. we want to come to all of the sources that we can as we go over the next few weeks of the trial so i hope you'll come back, sir. >> sure. >> appreciate it. that is tim parlatory. andrew weissmann is

we have this dream of who we want people to be, but john edwards couldn't be that. he was who he was for rielle hunter, who he was for elizabeth edwards, and then it was who he was for the american public. and that's the paradox inherent to politics by design. individual human beings have to be the vessels for all our lofty ideals, and yet to this day, we keep on investing and believing in these candidates for higher office, hoping, praying that they do not break our hearts, because maybe, just maybe, this one is different. i do think a lot of his campaign staffers were diehard believe-in-the-cause fans, and a lot of them do work in the white house right now. that's his legacy, and i think that puts a nice bow on a story that is a big ol' mess. >> welcome to all of you watching us here in the united states, canada, and all around the world i'm kim brewer. this is cnn newsroom damaging winds, thunderstorms, and tornado threats as severe storms make their way across the us, midwest will head to the winter center to track them demonstrators in israel call on benjamin n

i mean, think about john edwards. he his entire career was over because he got caught lying. i mean, there used be such a thing as blame and accountability because there used to be such a thing as recognizing when you were caught in a lie and it was a bad i don't think politicians feel that way anymore. and the trouble now to bring the media back and back into it now is remember why i'm talking to you. so be is that you know this question about being accused of political bias the easiest way show you're not politically biased is to let both sides talk. but what do you do when one side is lying? i said once before or in a program i forget where at the halfway point between truth and a lie. it's still a lie. i read a better version of that that i wish i had said the other day stuart stevens. he's got a book for sale here somewhere. i read him on twitter. he said, how do you tell both sides of a lie? yes. you cannot tell both sides of a lie. so what's the charge to journalism? to tell the truth, even if it leads to accusation of political bias for telling the truth? i mean, it's

>> charlie: they did successfully break the john edwards baby scandal. >> brian: every other one. >>insley: let's bring in lawrence having breakfast with our friends from battleground, pennsylvania. hey, lawrence. >> lawrence: good morning, family. obviously we are here in pennsylvania because it is a swing state. when you look at the set-up of the map right now and polling. it's a dead heat for the former president donald trump as well as the current president joe biden. we're here because we want to go to the issues, what matters to them. do they care about all of this nonsense that are happening with the court, the% ciewtion of donald trump? do they care about what's happening on the college campus, all this anti- -- >> ainsley: they are shaking their heads behind you. either yes or no. >> lawrence: do they care about what is happening with the economy? let's ask them, actually. who cares about what is happening with all these anti-semitic attacks on campus today? >> yeah. >> lawrence: who thinks the number one issue is the economy? raise your hand. what about crime? yeah. >> lawr

is an interesting case because a few years ago, there was a candidate for vice president named john edwardsw , what we call in had, you know, what we call in the united states, a baby mama, that he impregnated during the campaign. and he was paying her, payments during the campaign. and he was prosecuted for doing that, and he was found not guilty . so there that, and he was found not guilty. so there is that, and he was found not guilty . so there is precedence guilty. so there is precedence to show that if you are paying someone money, hush money, and it's for a personal reason, you're trying to preserve your marriage or something to that effect , then it is not effect, then it is not necessarily a campaign finance violation. and it was sort of incidental to the fact that he was running for vice president. so donald trump is going to avail himself of that same theory , okay, that he was doing theory, okay, that he was doing his marriage rather than very, very interesting. >> and this , of course, is being >> and this, of course, is being heard before a jury , i don't heard before a jury,

well, i can really john john edwards exactly it worked out great for the man pain. >> let's look at his hair before and after but i guess all depends on and how much the jury buys any of this right. >> and to the extent that they're a look, they were picked because of the fact that they have no largely no predetermined views about any of these witnesses or anything like that. right. so i guess the question, the extent that's possible today, but yes. how much did they just put all of the common sense of sayyed? and actually just look at the facts and law because a lot of this just seems icky and weird and grows to normal people who aren't washington dc communications it's entertainment now, for the record, it's still weird. >> porn stars and tablets case. >> the professor and journalist going to feel weird that's what i keep coming back to you. >> it's like it does feel like this was kind of an editable after the 20th hand. that's been dealt, that he's doing the best hearing fairness, donald trump put himself and he absolutely denied. >> but the overreach of all of these cases, one after

but it's not been all wrong in 2070 enquirer did break the true story about john edwards, then democratic presidential hopeful of having an affair and fathering a child with a former campaign staffer. a point trump made when he defended the papers credibility years later, this was a magazine that frankly, in many respects should be very respected. they got o j, they got edwards and it should be noted that senator marco rubio was another one of those who was seen as a trump rival. >> he was another one of those targeted by the enquirer back in 2016, he was actually asked about that today. he basically blew it off saying that isn't that the same publication that said elvis was alive right

from more of the john edwards style defensive this is something that he was trying to kill, not just for the campaign, but also for his personal personal life. >> and karen, when they say when the prosecutor, the assistant district attorney suggests that david, the publisher or the national enquirer, and other tabloids is a quote coconspirator. >> what does that mean it means he's going to testify that this was a criminal scheme that they masterminded together, that they were committing a crime together, don't forget, david has been given immunity federally, which then gives him immunity in state court to be from being processed it's acute id, so that's how they're going to present him and he's going to have to testify about that. and what the defense points is going to be really this guy gets a free pass and they're trying to lock up donald trump. house that fair. that'll be a defense argument. but what's the crime? >> the crime under? >> he was immunized under federal law for campaign finance violations. >> okay. but i'm just saying like, is there something inherently illegal? the

go on tv and say, well, the national enquirer has gotten other things right you know, pointed john edwards and he'd say, well, they haven't denied it, you know, even though there were these strenuous denials from marco rubio ted cruz, and it's just remarkable also given marco rubio tay was asked about this & mocked the national enquirer, even though he's someone who is on trump's vp shortlist right now. >> and you see the impact that david pecker saying, yeah, when marco rubio is surging in the polls, we were putting out negative stories about him. >> i was thinking about what you said about the political oh, poll and 9% of people say they'd be more likely to vote for trump if he got convicted. i'm trying to think. all right. what would that be? i think that would only be an i think the prosecutor said in the courtroom today about these violations of the gag order. we're not asking for jail we don't want gel and i think they said because that's what he wants. he wants us to put him in jail because i think i think people would say what even on an e felony and a violation of the gag order, y

. >> and john edwards is argument was i did i paid this to protect my wife, my relationship with her essentially not template the election. >> but when you argue that it's democracy, i don't think anyone for teaching about democracy or help the elections work in the united states would say, yeah, this is just part of that well influencing an election as opposed to interfering an election. >> i mean, anytime a politician gets up and gives a speech anytime that there's a, an endorsement, anytime that you run a campaign ad that is meant to influence an election. so i mean, when you say it that way, influencing an election, it's democracy yeah, that's why we have debates. that's why we have tv. that's why we have all these different things. >> so i think there's a difference between influence and interfere and what do you believe this did did it influence or was it interference in the election honestly, i don't think it really had that much of an effect and don't forget at the time donald trump was saying that he could shoot people in the middle of fifth avenue and it wouldn't change thi

but it's not been all wrong in 2070 enquirer did break the true story about john edwards, then democratic presidential hopeful of having an affair and fathering a child with a former campaign staffer. a point trump made when he defended the papers credibility years later, this was a magazine that frankly, in many respects should be very respected. they got o j, they got edwards and it should be noted that senator marco rubio was another one of those who was seen as a trump rival. >> he was another one of those targeted by the enquirer back in 2016, he was actually asked about that today. he basically blew it off saying that isn't that the same publication that said elvis was alive right tells you what some of them stand in this day and age. >> all right. jason carroll. thank you very much and thanks so much to all of you. anderson starts now good evening. >> welcome to cnn special primetime coverage. the trump hush money trial. the first ever criminal trial. bill, former president, and there's a lot to bring you from a truncated but busy day six. that's all the judge wanted defense attorn