joining us now is mark joseph stern, senior writer covering the courts and the law for slate magazinemark, thank you for being here tonight. first off, what are your expectations for these oral arguments tomorrow? and do you have any sort of, i don't know, game strategy as far as what the conservative and liberal justices on the court might do in terms of question and answer? >> so, look, i don't think the liberal justices are going to go as hard affsome of us might see to see as trump's attorneys. i think their number one goal will be to get john roberts, brett kavanaugh, and aimee coney barrett onboard with a decision that is firm and sent back down to the lower courts to kick this trial back into motion. with those three conservatives they are clearly the ones to watch. i think thomas and aleto have staked out a pretty strong pro-trump position. gorsuch is somewhere in between. i think for chief justice roberts especially he probably recognizes at this point what that rolling stone article pointed out, which is that team trump has pulled off the heist. the supreme court has slow wa

joining us now is mark joseph stern. the courts and the law for slate magazine. mark, thank you for being here tonight. do you have any sort of game strategy as what the conservative and liberal justices might do in terms of question and answer? >> i don't think the liberal justices are going to go as hard as some of us might like to see at trump's attorneys. i think their number one goal will be to get john roberts, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett on board with a decision that is quick and firm and can be sent down to the lower courts to kick this in motion. those three conservatives are the ones to watch. thomas alito has staked out a strong pro trump position. gorsuch in between. but for roberts he probably recognizes at this point what the rolling stone article pointed out. team trump has pulled off the heist. the supreme court has slow walked this case as compared to the ballots removal case from earlier this term. the nixon cases in the 1970s during water gate. they ensured this trial will not happen before no

mark joseph stern, senior writer, covering courts and the law at slate, and harry will join us, former u.s. attorney and the deputy assistant general. harry, you know i'm going to you first. we have seven jurors on the second day. that is extraordinary. yesterday, i felt like we were hearing that it would take weeks and weeks. what is your take on where this trial is right now? >> yeah, you know, as laura said, it was first kind of slow and then all at once. the main reason why we would have this quickly is because at the beginning, they led 48 folks go. anyone who said i can't be fair. and other instances with fewer jurors to choose from. that would have prompted retail discussions, well, can you really? what do you think? let's just get rid of them now and get down to business with the people who are trying to say they can't be fair. and that pretty quickly, went down to a point where they had to play their part, which is the challenge or argue the challenge for cause and then boom, you're right at this pace. that we still need 18 and it will be dicey. using six out of their ten chal

also with me, mark joseph stern, senior writer for slate. glen, mark, thank you both for being here. mark, you're here at the table, so we'll start with you. you were initially skeptical of the manhattan district attorney's case, but you have come around. what's changed her mind about the importance of this trial? >> well, you know, over the past year i think manhattan district attorney alvin bragg and his team have made an extraordinarily strong case that this really was a felony offense under new york law. that it wasn't just a misdemeanor involving some kind of low level recordkeeping crime, but that it was tied in fundamentally to federal and state laws involving campaign finance and election interference. that's why had district attorney bragg has made such an effort over and over again to say this is not just about a porn star or hush money, but election interference. that's an important point. we're all watching these cases about 2020 get stuck in the lower courts, not go to trial. this is the first to go forward. there's been a tempta

mark joseph stern, great to talk to you, thanks, my friend. >> thank you. >>> coming up, as the righthim, house speaker mike johnson today found time to visit columbia university and demand someone else be fired, this time over pro-palestinian protests. coincidence ? congresswoman ilhan omar joins me to discuss right after the break. e break. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ everybody wants super straight, super white teeth. they want that hollywood white smile. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients. starting a business is never easy, but starting it eight months pregnant, that's a different story. with the chase ink card, we got up and running in no time. earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase with the chase ink business unlimited card from chase for business. (psst! psst!) ahhh! with flonase, allergies do

intelligence correspondent, ken dilanian, and slate senior writer who covers the courts and law, mark joseph stern can you explain that law? >> it's pretty technical. there's two parts to the text at issue here. one talks about destroying or altering documents then there's the word otherwise obstructs, impedes, influences an official proceeding. the question is how prosecutors have been using that second phrase with the otherwise. they're using it broadly and they've charged more than 350 capitol rioters with obstructing an official proceeding. the congressional counting of the electoral votes. two of the four charges against mr. trump are this charge. and what lawyers for police officer named joseph fisher, one of the capitol riot defendants have argued today on the supreme court that is an overly broad interpretation of this law passed after the enron scandal to plug holes in the obstruction statute with regard to documents. they're saying it shouldn't be interpreted the way prosecutors are interpreting it. a number of conservatives seem sympathetic to the argument in court today and some other

mark joseph stern, senior writer covering the courts and the law at slate. legal reporter for politico. and joyce vance, who spent 35 years as a federal prosecutor. thanks all of you for joining me this evening. it was a huge legal date, so i want to start in d.c. at scotus. the three of us were all in the courtroom today for arguments, so let's start first with your main takeaways. josh, i'm going to start with you. >> well, i thought it had to be a dispiriting day for special counsel jack smith. he saw one after another of the members of the conservative majority on the court basically signal discomfort with his position, and some degree of alignment with trump's claim that there should be at least some type of immunity or protection for a former president from criminal charges. i have a vivid memory of sitting there and having each of those justices i'm thinking of, just as matt cavanaugh, chief justice john roberts, and justice neil gorsuch, for example, go through one by one and it pretty clear that they were not going to come out in this case the way j

carol leonnig, "washington post" national investigative reporter, and msnbc contributor, and mark joseph sternior writer who was at the supreme court for the arguments today. and, mark, because you were in court and because you covered january 6th, where did you see the key confluence there? we've talked a lot about different examples that were given, one of them that we just heard, but i'm very curious given your firsthand experience in both of these historic moments, what your take away is. >> so i think that the five men on the court, the five male conservative justices view january 6th itself as less of a threat to democracy than jack smith's efforts to hold trump accountable for january 6th. i saw the five conservative justices repeatedly minimizing what occurred on january 6th right across the street from me, suggesting that the real threat here was the biden administration setting this terrible example of prosecuting a former president. brett kavanaugh, sam alito and clarence thomas think it's unconstitutional. brett kavanaugh sounded outraged at its very existence, and that left the fo