progressives about what to with the supreme court? i think there are a number of progressives who think that the court has become too powerful and that the way to rein the court in is actually to aggressively limit its powers, whether by or by a constitutional amendment. i think there are some progressives who would just as well get rid of the supreme court. through legal means and otherwise. and i'm i'm one of those who actually thinks we need a supreme court entirely of the problem that the goebbels quote raises. right. entirely to push back against terrorism. the problem for us is that you to also have blocks and protections against, tyrannies of unelected judges. and, you know, there is a balance to be struck between tyrannies of the majority, tyrannies of unelected judges, and a court that sends justices out into the public say that there's no means by which congress hold it accountable is not striking that balance correctly. and part of that responsibility, agree with steve rests with us the part of that responsibility rests with

the supreme court is about to hear oral arguments on presidential immunity. ht by former president donald trump. there are no cameras in court but we will listen in as history unfolds. welcome to a brand new hour of "america's newsroom," i'm dana perino. happy to be here with you, gillian. >> gillian: thank you, an honor to be with you. i'm gillian turner. the high supreme court is facing a first ever its kind decision that could have profound effects on the race for the white house. jack smith is charging the formal president with a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. trump's lawyers say he has immunity and a ruling against him could open the floodgates against former presidents. >> dana: we have our power panel with us. we also have karl rove. great to have. david spunt, can i start with you the lay of the land? what does it look like at the courthouse side? a lot of protest for the abortion debate. the last case the supreme court will hear this session. >> good to be with you. we're a little surprised. a lot more media here than members of th

the supreme court. so what do i mean by that? right i mean, so look at sort of some of the big things that have happened with the supreme in the last couple of years. you might have noticed there have been some ethical questions about behavior. some of the justices, many of the most sincere issues that have arisen related behavior that was in some cases, 15 or 20 years ago. why are we only learning about it now? because there's an entire press corps that covers the supreme court that never thought this was part of their job. right. to actually look at the justices personal behavior and that it took propublica and its reporting. when we look at sort of the supreme decisions. i suspect you guys have been following some of them lately. this is a it's relatively new for the court to be in the headlines every. right. and yet is. how did that happen? well, that actually happened because quietly. but gradually over the 20th century, congress gave and the court took more and more power over stuff no one cares ab

supreme court picking up this case after a d.c. urt, panel of three judges, ruled against donald trump, his immunity claims. donald trump appealing that to the supreme court. here we are today. rick is in florida. democrat. good morning. caller: isn't it actually -- absolutely surreal that our supreme court is even considering an immunity claim for donald trump? why is it that in over 200 years in this country this is never come up before with any other president? i notice the people c-span has been interviewing, live at the capitol, and it scares the heck out of me. especially the woman earlier who said that she was there to get educated, and then she went on to talk about how great trump is. what i want to know is where are people like me going to run and hide once trump becomes president? where is jimmy kimmel live to go, rachel maddow going to go? it is over, jimmy. the people calling in get their news from fox and c-span, -- fox has been shown to be lawyers and everyone knows that and these people still listen. why are they sti

>> the hearing today at supreme court, they discussed that. a state court that said that he should not have presidential immunity and they appealed it and it went to the supreme court. first off, supreme court justice thomas should behind anything near anything like this. we all know his wife backed the insurrection and it is just disgraceful. but that court, the lower court said that he is not -- that he cannot get presidential immunity. >> there is not absolute immunity. >> absolutely not. and there shouldn't be absolute immunity when they were discussing how it is personal or presidential. nothing he is doing is presidential. there is -- i keep hearing the word unprecedented. everything is unprecedented. i'm really tired of hearing that word. to me, that is an excuse, and there is no excuse for anything this man has done. he has treated the united states like it's his own personal bank account. i am so tired of hearing from anything from him and i told my husband, my worst nightmare is when he does not get elected this time because he still

justice samuel alito was placed on the supreme court, in effect, by the supreme court when the supreme court decided in the 2000 presidential election in favor of george w. bush, who came in second in the voting of the american people that came in first in a 5-4 decision of the supreme court because george w. bush, who lost the popular vote and was awarded the electoral college by the supreme court became president, he was then able to put samuel alito on the supreme court. samuel alito and his opinion overturning roe versus wade quoted judges in england long before the united states of america existed who were prosecutors of witches, before they became judges who were then in the business of sentencing which is to death as judges. samuel alito thought they were worthy of quoting in his opinion removing the right to save health care services in this country for women. today, samuel alito imagined that without some new form of immunity, written by the united states supreme court, every future president will be prosecuted by the new justice department that takes over after the president

as we saw today at the supreme court, there is more receptiveness to the immunity claims that trump was making than perhaps many court watchers had anticipated, but basically it boils down to the idea that presidents can't operate if they are looking over their shoulder thinking about prosecutors coming down the road and charging them with criminal conspiracies after they leave office for continue controversial actions is essentially what it boils down to. a separation of powers and that the president is a unique office that should be cloak dmd this type of immunity so the president can make the the tough decisions that the president needs to make. >> how is the government responding? what are they saying? >> the special council's office led by jack smith, his counselor and deputy made the argument in the supreme court today, this morning, that they are essentially asking the supreme court to -- that the president is above the law, to make up the idea this is there is this blanket immunity for the president over any actions they take in office. bribery, murder, treason, all manner of ho

your vote for who chooses supreme court justices is nothing less than an exercise in incredible intergenerational power that will live long after you. leading off our discussion tonight is democratter senator sheldon whitehouse. chairs the subcommittee on federal courts. he is also the author of "captured." senator, i really wanted to be able to talk to you about this tonight. because when i say and i will hold up this little chart that you created that shows the republican multidecade plan to take over the united states supreme court. when i say, people didn't realize how big the stakes were in the presidential election of 1988. or the presidential election of 2000. i didn't know about this chart. i didn't know that this plan was underway to take over the supreme court in the way that they have taken it over as we have seen in arizona and other places sending us back to 1864. >> i would add one detail to your well told story. that is when george w. bush became president and he had the vacancy to fill, his first choice was harriet meyers who might well have not written the dobbs decision. and geo

i think most most of the members of the supreme court are concerned about the integrity and reputation of the court. and one of the reasons i'm as obnoxious in their view, as i have been about that institution is to create a sense of peril for them that if they keep this, they're going to keep getting called out. it's going to be bad for the institution. so i think the more that people challenge the institution, the better. in my book, i quote a letter from who resigns their membership in the supreme court in a very emotional letter to the chief justice saying, i just what you guys have done, you're not a court longer. i can't the only thing i can do is to turn in my ticket to practice in the supreme court. and so here's here's i'm doing i also think that many of us are involved with groups that care a lot about issues, whether it's civil rights groups or environmental groups, good government groups and many of those groups have overlooked the common threat to the things they want to accomplish from the pact supreme court. so if you're a member of an organization, the league of conserv

it will live in the supreme court. your vote will live on in the hands of federal judges, in their 40s, appointed by joe biden, who will serve for another 40 years. your vote will decide what century we live in. will we live in an age of legal and constitutional enlightenment? or will we live in 1864? your vote is not just about the next four years. the importance of your vote has never been more clear. not just as a vote to preserve democracy in this country, we already knew about that. your vote for who chooses supreme court justices is nothing less than an exercise in incredible intergenerational power that will live long after you. leading off our discussion tonight is democratic senator of the senate judiciary committee, and chairs the subcommittee on federal courts, also the author of captured, the corporate infiltration of american democracy. senator, i really wanted to be able to talk to you about this tonight, because when i say, i'm going to hold up this chart that you've created that shows the republican mul

it's going to go down as one of the worst days in the supreme court. i cannot believe -- well, i can believe that it unfolded how it did. you and i spoke heading into it. but, i wish we were wrong those of us cynical about the court. but, you know, i want to -- i want to talk about the american people very briefly. politico we polled people's opinions on this question. headed into the argument. 70% of americans said that they reject the position that u.s. presidents should be criminally immuned for conduct while in office. that's beyonce levels of approval in the politico. >> you knew your audience. >> exactly. >> well, i am a fan. anyway, we also asked people whether or not they trusted this court to issue fair and impartial ruling. less than a quarter of people agreed with it and unfortunately the people are correct. >> i mean, on that note, something that domed trump has always done and think it surprised a lot of us is his ability to delay and delay and delay a and more importantly he seemed helped by other people and cements hike the supreme comfor

chi would say the bottom line here is that donald chung has an incredible day at the supreme court. way better than most commentators and myself included thought he was going to have. you could easily see the court and they were sympathetic to have much more than it looked like the beginning of this morning. >> martha: at some point the justices looked to the past. cavanaugh brought up some past presidents including obama and the drone strikes. but other justices said sandra: it's about now and about the future of the presidency. so do you believe that the former president donald trump as he has his day here at the new -- new york supreme court will look at what came out of the court today in washington and think this was a good day for him? >> this is the best he could have had and actually i would tell him don't come to the supreme court, he had 1 already against colorado. you wasn't there either. i thank the best thing for him to do is to stay away from the supreme court and not make it about him. unless it's about him tomorrow justices think about the office of the presidency and

years, because in the twentieth year i was already appointed to the position of deputy chairman supreme courtjudicial collegium for economic disputes, but these 2 years from the eighteenth to the twentieth were the years of the creation of the courts of appeal and cassation, and of course, when this the work is not only the management of the court, when you start from the fact that you have neither a table nor a chair, that is, it is when you organize a court from scratch, gather a team, also, when you are alone and there is no one else, you had to gather a court team, then it was necessary to provide conditions for... a lot of things can be confused, but you can’t go wrong with the choice of thermal insulation, pinople slabs. on friday, april 26 , we are giving 30% cashback on fuel in our in-app refueling service. order a free alpha card and receive a superkick. not easy profitable. alpha is profitable. this is not necessary. so clear, i understand, like this, choose , buy with convenient delivery by click on the megamarket, on easter russian lotto unites people, when we are together, our he

the supreme court, the at the worst, at the best, i think that the case is not going to go to trial until january i mean, till a lot september 17, because i think the court is going to end up having to take the rest of the term through the end of june and then if you add 81 days, which is what people are saying, how long and it would be before a trial, the judge chutkan has already indicated she would give you could end up with a trial in the middle of a campaign from september in september and october, you just wouldn't get a verdict by election day. now, people are talking about this possibility of a remand for proceedings for further proceedings before a trial. while the problem for that for trump with that for trump is that well, if i'm judge chutkan and i gotta i got to conduct some fact-finding or a hearing. i'm going to say fine. let's do this in july and you could end up being you could end up having a hearing that ends up being a mini-trial, airing all the evidence or a lot of the evidence that would mean he would see it a trial. and i think that would that would that would serve

are going to be out in force in front of the supreme court. what can you tell us? what can you share with us right now jim, luck, that crowd has been very quickly growing. >> i apologize. it's hard to hear you out here. i'm in this sea of abortion rights activists right now. now they we're gathered here, many of them over the past 30, 45 minutes, right outside the supreme court on the other side of all those barricades is going to be anti-abortion russian activists are going to have a program running at the same time as this one right around 10:00 a.m. and look, the program hasn't even gotten underway, and we have already seen some really tense clashes at one point a couple of anti-abortion activist came over to this side. they were chanting, they were yelling, and they were surrounded by abortion rights activists. some of the organizers from these reproductive rights groups trying to drown them out, trying to keep cameras from getting a look at them. there was a lot of tension there, a lot of shouting back and forth. finally, those two activi

in the supreme court , podnosova began as deputy chairman to work in 2020, before that she headed theeral jurisdiction, and even earlier the leningrad regional court. according to the law, the chairman of the supreme court is appointed by the federation council upon recommendation for 6 years. however, before this, the candidate for the position must receive a recommendation from the highest qualification board of judges, which conducts the competitive selection. the precedent is required to have a higher legal education, at least ten years of experience in the field of jurisprudence, no criminal record and no citizenship of another state, he cannot be younger than 35 years of age. by all these parameters, irina podnosova, of course, fits, as was noted at podnosova’s meeting, she has proven herself to be a competent lawyer, she enjoys well-deserved respect among others. judges and can firmly defend her position, she knows the problems of the judicial community from the inside, her candidacy was supported by the supreme court, the council of judges and unanimously supported by the high

in 2017 , the competition in the supreme court is ongoing. the highest court of the country. for the post of judge in bohdan lviv claims this newly reformed institution. this was a big and loud reform of 2017. then the public integrity council , having analyzed the activities of lviv and its property status, came to the conclusion: the judge does not meet the criteria of integrity. however, lviv still got to the reformed court. how was the selection? is a person admitted to state secrets without restrictions. in the written questionnaire, then still a candidate. when dad asked a fundamental question whether he has the citizenship of another country, lviv said: no, but we know what yes, he had the citizenship of the russian federation both at the stage of the competition and has not lost it until now. bohdan lviv received his russian passport at the end of the 90s. at that time, he was already administering justice in ukraine, as a judge of the military court of the central region. here is an extract from the official register of rospassport, which schemes they received. there

and up to the united states supreme court. but darrow nevertheless, is going to put up a little bit of questioning of these jurors, who largely come from the countryside around dayton. almost all of them are men who are fundamentalists. and he's going to use up his peremptory challenges and then turn to ralston occasionally to try to dismiss some juries for cause. because of their really pronounced fundamentalist views. and ralston will reject those challenges under the theory as put forward by the attorney general in trying to argue against darrow. he says, look, if a man is subject to challenge by the defendant because he believes the bible conflicts with the theory of evolution, then for the converse reason, the state would have grounds to challenge for cause. anyone who believe the theory of evolution and the result would be that everyone on earth who could be brought here would be challenged. and darrow was like, yeah, i don't we haven't had too many of these jurors who are believe in the theory of evolution. and he says,

but for the first time, they are encountering a supreme court that could side with donald trump on more than one issue here, more than one subpart of what is being decided. you see starting at page eight, a new argument that even if the court holds, and i'm reading from the brief here, that a former president is entitled to some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, that principle does not preclude trial on this indictment. and then they make a number of sub arguments. they are saying the specific thing that he has been charged with here, efforts to subvert an election and a violation in the term of office clause of article two of the constitutional process for electing president has recently so serious that even if the court decides in some form of immunity is necessary and justifiable, or former president, it is not on these facts with these allegations of these crimes. but the second thing that they say is look, if he is saying that he is entitled to immunity for official action you somewhat agree with him, know that most of what we are alleging here is in fact privat

headlines i see all the headlines today are all this looks like it's going to go back to the supreme court's going to send it back to the lower court and it won't be settled before the election. well, why the heck does that matter? well, if i'm just concerned about answering this fundamental question on what is the power, what immunity exists for the president, how that's defined? why does it matter? why does it have to happen before the election? i think that proves the point. the real conspiracy here is jack smith, alvin bragg, and frankly fani willis, all working too. inspire to impact the 2024 election. that is the real concern well, i hear the points you're making, although you are conflating di just separate sovereigns? >> obviously, jack smith, alvin bragg, fani willis, are separate entities entirely and the actual crimes charged against trump in the men, they're all democrats, laura, they're all democrats i hear i hear about the politics and what you're making. but the real issue here i want to refocus on the conversation about the concerns about immunity more broadly. and one of the

>> so it depends on what the supreme court says. >> like the broadest opinion, the supreme court could hand down is in the 1960s, there was a case california made it a crime to essentially be physically present in the state of california. for while you are addicted to a narcotic. and the supreme court said, no, that's not allowed. you can make it a crime to use a narcotic. you can make it a crime to possess a narcotic, but you can't say the mere status of having an addiction is something that could be criminalized. you cannot be. it cannot be a crime to be who you are. you actually have to do something. the city in this case is asking the supreme court essentially to overrule that decision. and that would be an earthquake. i mean, that would open the door to thought crimes. that would mean that a city could potentially say that you can't enter the city unless you are rich enough, or if there's something about you that you don't like, that could be that. that could be a crime. i don't think that's likely to happen. but there are big stakes here, and they go far beyond people who don't h

was he cautioned by the excessive prejudicial evidence the supreme court said was permitted in in the >> it's an interesting convergence of legal events. in the weinstein case, the court of appeals said what you can't do is bring in, in that case, testimony from other women who were victims, alleged victims. but against whom weinstein was not charged. it was an abuse to let that in. it's a good flag for judge merchan not to run too far afield. trial judges are permitted to use their discretion to admit evidence. if they go too far, they do risk this reversal. it's a warning to all of the parties in this case to tread lightly. >> one of the questions on redirect, catherine, that's just been asking is, is it true, mr. pecker, that your purpose in lob -- locking up the karen mcdougal story is to influence the election? that's trying to bring it back to the connection to the elections since during cross-examination he was certainly acknowledging he had a longstanding relationship with the tabloid and that there were years and years before the campaign when they were both promoting trump's

ken dilanian live outside the supreme court. a, dave aronberg is with us. >> what are you expecting to hear at the court today? >> reporter: good morning. it's important to point out that the court has already made a decision that's affected the presidential election. by not agreeing to take it up when jack smith first asked them to do so on an emergency basis and by not taking it on an expedited basis, they've already created a significant delay here that means that this election case, however they rule, can't go to trial probably before the fall. now the question of whether a president has absolute immunity and then there's a second question that whether anything donald trump is accused of would constitute a presidential act. >> just making sure you're okay. is everything okay. we hear someone yelling. >> reporter: it's fine. we have a heckler here. >> i've got to say they obviously have been following the david pecker testimony. they're yelling "fake news." they obviously want people to know donald trump lied about jfk's assas

he prays tech tyco. eli mosque will lashed out at both and i was arch enemy supreme court judge, and to show them what i most cause the courage to defend freedom of expression. let's have a round of applause for him. don't spam, i presently still have the support of many voters here, but his political future hangs in the balance investigations and to bring so novels . a ledger grew in parting a crime under way and expected to rob that's by july. analysts hear say, is imprisonment is likely, my dear must ask them before the people are most and that is using these rallies to show is political might on the streets, hoping it will protect him during all the legal battles shall be facing in the upcoming weeks. and he's also leading the opposition against the will also now to may have been banned from running for office, but his supporters say he can still help elect his allies in october as municipal elections. monica, you're not give all just 0. we have to narrow ramesh sort of us and as a professor at u. c. l, a is department of information studies. he joins us live from ventura in cali

this ruling could have the most impact by the supreme court, ana, presidential election since the court in 2000 decided that election. there's really three possible outcomes here, and two of them arguably are favorable to donald trump. one potential outcome is that the supreme court rules that presidents do have absolute immunity including on the outer perimeter of their acts, and therefore, donald trump can't be prosecuted in this election case and the case is dismissed. most legal experts think that's a remote possibility. but a second potential outcome that might be favorable to mr. trump is that the court decides it disagrees with the appeals court. it finds there are some instances where a president could be deemed immune for certain official acts particularly around foreign policy and national security. then the court raises questions about whether anything that donald trump is accused of in this case would qualify as an official act. in that case it may throw the case back to judge tanya chutkan and say, judge, you need to decide which, if any of these acts qualify as official ac

trump wasn't at today's oral arguments at the supreme court. he was in a courtroom in lower manhattan, where he has mandated to appear for his trial for falsifying business records to hide an alleged affair. in addition, trump is facing criminal trials in georgia and florida, and in just the last 24 hours, trump was named as an unindicted coconspirator in arizona and michigan over fake electric schemes. we have team coverage of tod today's -- and jan crawford will start us off from the supreme court. >> reporter: in nearly three hours of historic arguments, the judges emphasized their decision will go beyond former president donald trump. >> whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents. >> reporter: no president has ever faced criminal prosecution, and some justices, while emphasizing a president is not above the law, focused on what precedent the case will set. >> the history tells us it is not going to stop. it's going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president, or the next president after t

there's a legal doctrine called abstention, meaning the federal courts, including the us supreme court, are very reluctant to step in and pause things at a trial level, at a state court. >> and i have to say this. >> when you're a >> lawyer, your credibility is everything and you get to a point where you start to lose it with the judge. it's like a boy who cried wolf phenomenon, right? if you come in every day, two, three times a day and say, oh, my gosh, we have this emergency. oh, my gosh this is such an urgent situation. you have to pause it. judge, is going to start tuning you out and i think trump's team needs to consider that the former president's shared the social media posts in defense of himself from stormy daniels, former attorney michael >> avinatan is in prison right now. and trump added his own commentary calling daniels and former trump fixer michael cohen, quote, sleaze bags there both likely witnesses at the trial, would that violate the gag order? >> 100%? yes. and up till now, trump had been sort of crafty what he was doing was taking other people, saying things that

trump's been out and baggett to his apartment through several times. >> c, it has alayna treene and supreme court analyst joan biskupic are standing by with much more at all as far as joan let's start with you. >> this is the from court matter. of course, at hand. >> what can we expect today? >> sure. good morning, kate and john. it's really a historic day with an untested question. can a former president be completely shielded from criminal prosecution for actions he took while in office now, this does come from the jack charges brought on behalf of the department of justice, the united states here alleging fraud, obstruction, denial of the right to vote things, culminating with the january 6, 2021 attack on the capitol lower federal court judges objected donald trump's claim of immunity here, saying whatever protection he had from criminal prosecution. while in office dissolved once he was out of office. but this isn't untested question. the supreme court has in the past ruled that a former president can be immune from a civil proceeding, civil damage images, but never addressed the way to your

>> well, i mean, never have we seen a supreme court since bush gore, so involved in the outcome of a presidential election. and they're taking their time. bush gore was decided after the arguments within a few days this is a court that has delayed and as i'm chris was saying, they could have accepted the appeals court ruling, which was well-reasoned and thought out and they decided not to and so now they have a problem on their hands because whatever they do is going to be viewed through a political lens. and they could send it back to that court and say, you know, you guys work it out about what's an official act and what isn't an official act? and that could delay this case even more. so, you would have no chance of seeing any resolution before the election. >> interesting, you are steve year, the supreme court expert, knowing the court could take until june to rule on this issue of presidential immunity. do you think trump's federal election interference case could be tried before? for the november election know what i think every day that passes makes it a little bit harder and i