very good night. make sure to turn in tomorrow when i will be speaking to robert de niro about his worst nightmare, a second trunk term, and why he has become so vocal in politics. you don't want to miss it, but for now, i'm going to say thank you from all of our colleagues across the networks at nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. see you at the end of tomorrow. tonight on all in. >> just this week in an interview he said states have the right to monitor pregnant women to enforce these bands. >> donald trump's american dystopia. >> it is really working out well for people and they are very, very happy. >> is a truly horrific, devastating day in our state. >> people are absolutely thrilled with the way that is

going on. >> for the south this is truly a horrific day. >> tonight our special report on the man who killed roe v wade. >> this truly is a healthcare crisis. and donald trump is the architect. with another gag order hearing on deck, congressman jamie raskin, a potential nightmare brewing in the supreme court. >> the january exception is an imitation to our founders worst nightmare. >> as protests over israel and gaza disrupt colleges nationwide, what is getting lost in the way it is all being covered? all in start right now. good evening, i'm chris hayes, one of the nation's most punishing and restrictive abortion bans went into effect in the third largest state in the union pick in the state of florida, it is now a felony to, quote, performer actively participate in abortion after six weeks gestation. that is just two weeks after a

missed period before many, many women even know that they are pregnant. the band does at least statutorily provide exceptions for rape and incest and human trafficking. could, what we have learned from those exceptions, providers in florida say is that they don't work, that there will be very serious. for the doctor telling nbc news court is going to cause delays and care that are going to cost women significant health hazards or risks so as of today, 17 states ban all or most abortions, including the entire south, that block there, texas to florida. three more states bed at 15 weeks, one of the three, arizona, recently upheld a civil war era law banning nearly all abortions. today, just two republicans in

the entire state senate to join all democrats in the state senate to repeal the 1864 law. it is still expected to go into effect for a limited period of time in the summer before reverting back to that 15 week ban. in all, in this country, in 2024 as we head toward's this election, one of three women of reproductive age lives in a state with an abortion ban. that is the reality in america and the man responsible who has a 50-50 chance in getting back in the white house next year, please, he did the country a great service. >> it was always the plan for the great legal experts of this country and even the world, they wanted to get abortion out of the federal government and everybody wanted that, that was uniform so much happened is now the states decide and they are going to vote in different states that it has been an amazing process basically the states decide on abortion and people are absolutely thrilled

with the way this is going on. >> [ laughter ] you can see keep saying that but it is not to be true. the majority of this country is not thrilled with what donald trump did to reproductive rights. not thrilled with women having to bleed out in parking lots before they can get into hospitals, medevacs out of hospitals in states like idaho point they are not thrilled with that. and he has not been getting anywhere near the level of blame that he deserves today, in florida, vice president kamala harris pointedly gave trump full credit for the abortion bans. >> at the stroke of midnight, another trump abortion ban went into effect here in florida. as of this morning, 4 million women in this state woke up with fewer reproductive freedoms than they had last night. this is the new reality under a

trump abortion ban. >> in a statement, president biden was even clear, saying, quote, there is one person responsible for this nightmare, donald trump. and in politics, people exaggerate all the time but on this, it's just true. there is no question about it. donald trump is the man responsible for the abortion ban he is responsible for the bands in florida and in arizona and 18 other states. he is responsible for every woman that has to suffer awaiting care they desperately need who was turned away and all the states restricting and threatening the lives of millions of americans. limiting the federal right to an abortion was donald trump's plan from the very beginning he ran for president the first time on appointing supreme court justices that would overturn roe v wade. >> in your selection as president, what criteria would you use to pick somebody? >> pro-life. they have to be pro-life and we

will see about overturning but we will point, i will appoint judges that will be pro-life. >> do you want to see the court overturned? >> if we put another two or perhaps three justices, that is really what will happen and that will happen automatically, in my opinion because i am putting pro-life justices on the court. >> again, there was lots of stuff that donald trump was real hazy about, real foggy about there's a lot of misdirection. even now, this year, there wasn't on this issue. it was clear as day, he said it over and over. in fact, he even released a list of the antiabortion anti- roe judges he would choose from. the people on that list were chosen by conservative groups, including the federalist society, heritage foundation point donald trump clearly had literally no idea who they were just that they fulfilled the requirements of the antiabortion far right. >> so with the judges they were saying what would happen if you point the wrong judges and what we did, and i just have, we

just took a judges and i feel like what i would do is put this forward and this would be the list that i would need to choose from where people very close in terms of the spirit and the meaning of what they represent and i came up with a list of the federalist society was very much involved in the various people were involved. >> had very good reviews. immediately. >> very good reviews. so if you want, i will do it now. i hope you people aren't going to fall asleep as i read it. >> he read the list of names. this was, again, this was a huge issue when people thought trump maybe wasn't a stalwart conservative he had skepticism from evangelicals. the idea was, just black and white, you are getting the judges and the justices that will overturn roe. he continued to add to the list and eventually come again, maybe the only promise the man

has kept in his life, i honestly mean that, he did what he said. he chose three names from the list, they were all on the list. now at the confirmation hearings, all three appointees who are on the list where he said would overturn roe were coy when asked about how they would rule on abortion rights, describing roe as settled law. >> roe versus wade, decided 1973, is a president of the united states supreme court it has been reaffirmed, i understand the importance of the president set forth in roe v wade. >> i don't have any agenda. i have no agenda to try to overrule casing. i have an agenda to stick to the rule of law, decide cases as they come. >> [ laughter ] amy coney barrett got up there on her own and said i have no agenda to overturn roe. sure. right here of course. of course, donald trump's aims his integers and nominating the three judges were always clear. >> under my administration, we

will always defend the very first right in the declaration of independence, and that is the right to life. >> the tremendous record, including two great supreme court justices, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. they will be making tremendous and important decisions on abortion. >> the president also is opposed to roe v wade. that is on the ballot, as well, in the court. and so that is also at stake right now. and so the election is all. >> why isn't it on the ballot? >> because -- it is not on the ballot. >> i don't think so. there is nothing happening there. clear there is nothing happening there. donald trump, 2020, nothing happened there. the guy who told us all along. you're getting roe v wade overturned, we are getting antiabortion justices. when he get it, all there,

nothing happened. and then in june of 2022, donald trump's six year long plot succeeded. is three justices who he had bedded were on the list, we guaranteed would overturn roe v wade overturned roe v wade. he brags about it now. >> i want to thank the supreme court justices for having the courage, clarence thomas, samuel alito, john ramos, brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch, amy coney barrett, for the wisdom and the courage to do this. >> but donald trump deserves all the credit. he is the ultimate cause, the man responsible for millions of american women living under dangerous, draconian abortion bans. if he is elected again it will only get worse. i'm joined now by michelle, opinion columnist for the new york time in florida democratic state representative, on esca money who previously served as senior director for planned parenthood of southwest and central florida. let me start with you because you are in florida.

just what, this really is sort of the biggest change in the landscape i think we have had so far because of how large florida is and how restrictive this bill is pick what does it mean for folks in your state? please thanks so much for having me, chris. it is absolutely devastating and not just for floridians but all the women in our surrounding southern states who come for us for care. i was at one of my local planned parenthood health centers yesterday and we were rushing to see as many patients as possible knowing that today they would be rejections, that patients would have to travel as far as north carolina and virginia to access abortion care. >> michelle, you were just in arizona, if i'm not mistaken here today they did overturn that ban, although clearly leadership proper leadership gave the green light to do it but they got the smallest amount of votes necessary pick what to do here in arizona about the politics of this issue in that state?

>> obviously is incredibly unpopular. you're right that it is only a couple of republicans repealed away. is still remarkable arizona is the first date with a republican-controlled legislature that has backed off the zirconium abortion bans and it is obvious why they did it. it's a swing state, it has both kind of a crucial role to play in the presidential election. this very tight senate election and you have seen the candidate, a senate candidate carrie lake, who in the past, had lauded this 1864 abortion ban. >> this bill, this law. >> then kind of turned on a dime and said that she was no longer in favor of it. she was lobbying republicans to repeal it. you know, i went to a carrie lake event and i was speaking to somebody from students for life, the event was at arizona state university and she was kind of aghast that the republican who led the push to repeal this in the house had recently spoken to her group, you know. but i think that they,

basically, they know where, carrie lake said at one point if we don't repeal this, there's people who consider themselves pro-life who will vote for this abortion referendum. there is an abortion rights referendum on the arizona ballot . i believe there's going to be in florida and so they have sort of, she has not kind of figured out her language. she has taken a number of different positions. she is kind of all over the place because this is so unpopular and yet you have so many of the republicans were still so committed to this long- term project of abortion bans. >> you also, representative, have a ballot initiative in your state, if i'm not mistaken, the threshold will be 60%, is that right? ballot initiatives in florida? >> correct, yeah, the florida republican legislator has continuously made it more difficult to pass initiatives but we were successful in less than six months and collecting more than 1 million verified signatures for this initiative

with 30% being signed by florida republicans pick so we are very hopeful to hit the 60% threshold but it will definitely be an intense campaign ahead of us. please let me ask you, it's a hard question to answer but i will ask you, who do people think are responsible? ron desantis signed the legislation, the republican-led it is leaders of both houses are the ones that passed it donald trump appointed the three justices on the supreme court that gave the majority to overturn roe, six justices signed on five, fully overturning roe. who are people directing their anger at? >> well, it is doubly going to be former president trump. i want to keep him former. also his running mate, ron desantis. gov. ron desantis signed this ban into law 11:00 at night in a private meeting. it is not a popular piece of legislation and in fact, more and more everyday people, typically who are not engaged in politics are coming out to say they're going to vote this november because abortion is on the ballot. now i think what is

important, folks to understand how high the stakes are. most people, for my experience, working at planned parenthood, they don't know the state of abortion until they need one. so there is going to be a very intentional education campaign just so folks realize that we do have a six week ban and as more of these horror stories get shared will also elevate the consciousness for more people to be ready to vote. >> quickly, in arizona, where do you see people directing that anger? >> well, i think on both sides they understand that trump is responsible for this. >> that is interesting. >> the republicans, it is interesting the republicans they sometimes don't believe that he is actually against the 1864 law, right? they will say again and again, no, he is the most pro-life president we have ever had. >> that is interesting so you are violating secret trump cannons if you're trying to repeal that is fascinating. michelle goldberg, florida state representative anna eskamani, thank you both. coming up, the ridiculous

idea that there's never a right to it, ever, to criminally charge a president. jamie raskin joined me on the absurd trump claim of immunity and the danger. rodontax, the gum experts.

right now, we are waiting for the spring court of the united states to rule the question whether not an ex- president has effectively total immunity or some immunity from terminal prosecution. it is a last-ditch effort from donald trump and his lawyers to avoid all account ability for his crimes on, and related to january 6th the profound irony

here is that this idea that an ex-president cannot be criminally charged for their conduct in office is the exact opposite of what trump's own wares argued during a second impeachment trial was set the scene for a moment point it is every night, 2021, just over a month since january 6th for donald trump has been impeached for the second time since republican seasons trump had already left office, it is time to move on. >> do you believe donald trump committed and impeachable offense? we to begin, think is a moot point because i think right now donald trump is no longer the president. he is a former president. >> donald trump has been out of office for almost a month and it would be exceedingly strange that the senate is having a trial and potentially convicting and removing from office when there are so many other pressing needs. >> democratic congressman jamie raskin of maryland, the lead manager pointed out that such an argument left a really

significant loophole in the constitution. >> the argument is that if you commit and impeachable offense in your last few weeks in office, you do it with constitutional impunity. you get away with it. in other words, conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president, and your second year as president, and your third year as president, and for the vast majority of your fourth year as president, you can suddenly do in your last few weeks in office without facing any constitutional accountability at all. this would create a brand-new january exception to the constitution of the united states of america. a january exception. >> kind of like that movie, the purge, were all crime is legal for one night. president can commit all the crimes they want as long as

they do so late enough in their term that congress can't get the wheels turning fast enough before they leave office. now donald trump's own lawyers had to rebut that argument in this context and they were paired with at the time seemed like a good defense. trump's argument via his attorneys was that impeachment was not necessary to hold him accountable because he could be criminally charged after leaving office. >> this idea of a january amnesty is nonsense. with my colleagues on the side of the chamber actually think the president trump committed a criminal offense, let's understand, a high crime is a felony and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. the words have been changed that much over the time. after he is out of office, you go and arrest him. we have a judicial process in this country. we have executive and investigative process in this country to which no former office holder is immune. that

is the process that should be running its course but that is the process that is the appropriate one for investigation, prosecution, and punishment. >> that was from their opening statements. trump's defense from the start was once he left office, he steps outside the regime of impeachment and into the regime of prosecution from law enforcement that there was no moment of criminal immunity and we heard this over and over again. republican senator john cornyn from texas, even teed up trump's lawyer to repeat that point a few days later just to really hit it home. >> there is no such thing as a january exception to impeachment. there is only the text of the constitution, which makes very clear that a former president is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits. >> there's only the text of the constitution which makes very clear that a former president is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency.

i can't say this enough, this argument wasn't coming from the democrats. this was the argument coming from donald trump and his lawyers and his republican enablers, like senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell. >> there is an ordinary circumstance, once the statute of limitations has run, everything he did while he's in office. didn't get away with anything yet. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country we have civil litigation and faux perez are not immune being accountable by either one. >> not immune so now cut to three years later, and trump's enablers are arguing the literal exact precise opposite point, that he cannot be criminally charged because he wasn't impeached first. they made that laughable argument before the supreme court just last week. >> so you have argued that the

impeachment clause suggests or requires impeachment to be a gateway to terminal prosecution, right? yes, i think that is the plain meaning of that second phrase of the closet the criminal prosecution of the president hired to impeachment contradicts , we argue the plain language of the constitution. >> it doesn't but it's the heads i win, tails you lose criminal defense. when trump is, chart she says actually the time to act was back when i was impeached. in the highest court in the land might just let him get away with the whole thing. i will discuss all this with congressman jamie raskin who led that second impeachment against donald trump, next with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement.

with absorbine pro, voltaren, pain won't hold you back from your passions. it's the only solution with two max-strength anesthetics to deliver the strongest numbing pain relief available. so, do your thing like a pro, pain-free. absorbine pro.

the january exception is an invitation to our founders worst nightmare. and if we buy this radical argument that president trump's lawyers advance, we risk allowing january 6th to become our future. >> congressman jamie raskin warned everyone three years ago when he was the lead house manager in trump's second impeachment about the situation we are in right now with donald trump and his immunity claim and congress raskin joins me now. no, i've been wanting to talk to you because when the immunity arguments happened i remembered one of trump's lawyers making this case during the trial, saying, look, he can always be prosecuted afterward, we all agree with that.

and i heard his lawyers go before the supreme court across the street and say no, no, total opposite and then i went back and i read the transcript and i remembered it was your talk of the january exception that put this entire line of argumentation into motion. i wanted to come back to you, what do you think of what has transpired given what you argued during the trial, what they argued in response, and now what they are arguing before the court? >> right, well, remember, all that comes up because they made the claim originally in a motion to dismiss, which 45 republicans voted for but 55 senators rejected, a motion to dismiss based on the idea that the senate lacked jurisdiction to try a former president. that cut against more than two centuries of impeachment officials who had left office or quickly resigned thinking that could save them from impeachment.

didn't go anywhere and so that really should have been done with. the trump lawyers, showing and caster, picked up the argument very early, saying look, you don't need to impeach. if he really committed crimes, if he really incited insurrection, if he was really involved in a conspiracy you can get him later and you can prosecute him like a real defendant and then that was a mantra picked up by trump's biggest supporters in the senate and in fact, when we got to the boat, you will recall that senator mcconnell astonished me by not voting to convict because all of his body language and facial expressions and things he was saying to me during the breaks indicated that he was very sympathetic to the house manager's argument but he got up and he basically said we made our argument that trump was actually and factually and morally responsible for everything that happened but he went back to the motion to dismiss argument that there was no jurisdiction and he said unfortunately we can't be having a trial of a

former president. we can't convict him, which really made this acquittal the greatest case of jury nullification in american history because they went back to a legal argument that was rejected at the beginning of the trial and then used it to nullify the facts. it is like a murder trial where a gun is suppressed or there is an argument that a gun should be suppressed on fourth amendment grounds with the court rejects that and the jury goes back and says oh, well, even though the guy committed the crime they shouldn't have admitted the gun. >> yeah, and i just, the people forget how this all laid out and it is wild to me to watch the same man's lawyers argue one thing before the senate and then argue another thing before the supreme court with those two are in direct contradiction. i want to ask you about something else that took place in the hill today. >> catches up about that, chris? just on that point, trump thinks just because he changes

lawyers the way other people change ties that he doesn't have to have consistency between the arguments. but those all of his lawyers. >> and the court should know that. the people that are mulling this over and the justices that are involved. there was a really interesting hearing that happened on the hill today there has been the sort of joint investigations across both houses on the oil, the house oversight committee looked into what they knew when about climate change and how shockingly far back that knowledge goes. you testified today before that trial for that hearing, what did you have to say? >> well basically big oil and big gas new in 1959, the year of the first derby doll, that their whole business model destabilized the climate. by the time you get into the 1960s, it was very well understood among all the oil companies, the basic dynamics of climate change. and yet, they made the decision that rather than be paul revere and

sound the warning for america, they would sweep everything under the rug and fight the climate scientists who began to concur with their original findings and in senator whitehouse's committee, the budget committee, we showed evidence based on 2 million different documents that when they could no longer engage in climate denial, they switched over to doing things like saying oh, we are going to get through this without -- with algae. they spent ridiculous amounts of money promoting their algae research knowing that it wasn't going anywhere and ultimately pulling up the stakes on it and they used the american petroleum institute and the chamber of commerce to go and fight against the climate action reforms that people have been pushing in america while

the companies pretended that they were vaguely ford. >> the 1959 counterfactual is such a remarkable thing to measure what would've happened if the trajectory had started then to think about if there were past files. thank you very much for talking >> but, chris, thank you. love trump took the day off from his multiple legal woes to hit the campaign trail and to learn about vegans. >> we are honored to be joined today by shauna gray, who owns a vegan restaurant, supposed to be really good. i am not into the vegan stuff, i must say but i'm going to have to try this. >> go try that being good food, i don't know if i'm going to like it. up next, the vegan food will have to wait. what trump faces back in new york tomorrow morning with his election interference trial. ahead. >> time for a bite! if your mouth could talk it would ask for... poligrip.

club in the spring of 1969, a group of students at morehouse college, historically black college of atlanta, were frustrated by what is it with the school's slow progress on civil rights and they protested, they have been rebuffed, so they locked the college trustees in their office for two days and essentially held them hostage. now one of the trustees was martin luther king sr., father of the recently slain civil rights leader he began having chest pains and one of the students later said we let him out of there so he wouldn't be accused of murder. that student and his classmates eventually gave up under a promise of amnesty from the

college the college reneged, and he was expelled it would be years before he was rehabilitated, decades before he became known the world over as actor samuel l. jackson. i tell the story for two reasons .1, to remind us that college activism has long been a part of college education the other reason, though, is to give a sense of proportion, which seems lacking today. as we watched the disturbing imagery emerged from campuses at columbia, ucla, university of texas, university of south florida, so many others where cops or in some cases, mobs took down pro-palestinian student encampments and protests as well as professors and journalists and just random bystanders. the cumulative effect of all this coverage, along with some unverified assertions from police and politicians, has been to drive home the idea that a student protest are basically a terrorist level threat. that they had to be neutralized

by battalions of cops armed like soldiers with m raps and sonic cannons. the reason this seems to me, a reaction that's out of proportion to the protest themselves, seems especially true when you look at some other campuses like brown university, where administrators negotiate with student protesters who took down their encampment. at wesleyan university whose president said the protest that was non-violent and nondisruptive, adding as long as it continues in this way, the university will not attempt to clear the incumbent. these universities crucially have reiterated their important existing rules against anti- semitic invective and harassment, certainly, while also protecting assembly which seems sensible. also out of step with what you are seeing elsewhere. because ever since october 7th, when hamas committed atrocities in israel, there has been this obsessive media focus on college campuses. and that is true, partly because there are genuine issues worth debating,

including the degree in which universities are creating spaces that are hostile to israel jewish students where they feel under threat or universities to the degree to which they are suppressing pro- palestinian speech. those issues really do matter. but the way that so many prominent voices have focused so exclusively on colleges feels honestly a bit decadent to me. like we are doing a paper doll version of the conflict because the actual reality, what's happening in gaza, is so horrific, unceasing, and high- stakes, it is more enjoyable to argue about what college kids are doing than to confront human misery and destruction that is happening in the actual conflict that is, of course, the source of these protests. what seems most worth debating is in campus speech but rather the u.s. government should continue to fund and support an israeli war in gaza that has pushed more than 1 million

people to the brink of famine, a war that has damaged half of the buildings in gaza, they were that is failed to bring home most of the hostages held by hamas that has in fact, led to the death of some of those hostages as well as the deaths of an estimated 34,000 palestinians, including roughly 10,000 women and 13,000 children. is that ongoing effort morally defensible? is it strategically wise what are we as a nation doing the right or wrong thing in continuing to support it? whatever that becomes the question, it almost becomes reflexive to challenge the questioner and i can't help but think the protest that markedly lead up to the iraq war, which involved why they attended and why they attacked and many many supporters including one-time student protester christopher hutchins lasted those demonstrations and he pointed to the fact that, the people organizing the protests held genuinely odious and for interviews. for instance, the view that

north korea is a workers paradise and great place that is a horrible view. there were protest organizers with bad views, lots of them. there were people, at the protest, with terrible views. there were people that thought 9/11 is an inside job i would argue with them myself that protest. did that have anything to do at all with whether the war in iraq was improved? no, the war in iraq demolished demonstrably was neither on that, the protesters were right , which brings us back to columbia university where 56 years ago, almost to the day, student protesters took over the same building, hamilton hall that was occupied this week. they, too, were forcibly removed and arrested many were bloodied and eaten were protesting, among other things, the university's involvement in the vietnam war. they believed the war was a moral catastrophe in the u.s. should stop waging it. they were right. and the fact that there were actual genuine extremist had no bearing on whether they were

right or not about that. what i find particularly maddening about the focus of the protesters of the conflict is that it is an invasion. it avoids the difficult task of being universally empathetic to our fellow human beings and truly reckoning with the scale of devastation that is wrought by our country in our names with our support. in the aftermath of 9/11 we waged a global war on terror for two decades that killed an estimated 430,000 people. many of them children, women, elderly, innocence estimated more than 1 million, huge swaths of civilians, women, children, male noncombatants, old people like can even make sense of those numbers? i can't, no one can come it is hard to think of them, to contend with them. actual, real human beings that live the lives for people like you or i, who are loved by the people in their lives.

it is much easier to get angry at the spoiled brats at college campuses. why are they being so disruptive? what are they so upset about if you feel that way, which i can understand, honestly, i felt irritation and anger at protesters many times in my life, even ones that i was extensively on the same side of if you feel that we can just try to recapture the question. why are all these people so upset that we are helping a government wage a world war that has killed 13,000 children? the question kind of answers itself. to take seriously the scale of human suffering that is happening in gaza doesn't mean you must come down the side of the protesters, certainly. there are many people that think the war is brutal but necessary campaign for israel's defense. but it does necessitate is that you weigh all the human suffering against the actual endgame of the conflict that is currently being waged and is unarticulated as of now. a conflict the u.s. continues to support. our humanity demands we focus on those questions, first and last.

why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. save 40% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed or 0% interest for 36 months. shop now at sleepnumber.com hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ♪ changing your habits is the only way that gets you to lose the weight. and golo is the plan that's going to help you do that. just take the first step, go to golo.com.

and they're all coming? those who are still with us, yes. grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

club donald trump was not in court today, a rare occurrence these days, although wednesdays are his day off. instead he was cramming in some campaigning, holding rallies in wisconsin and michigan. he is jetting back to new york tonight ready for a big day in court tomorrow at 9:30 sharp so the judge can hold a hearing over the latest gag order violation that was flagged by prosecutors. trump has already been fined $9000 for previous violations,

the judge threatened him with jail if he keeps violating the order program join now by rebecca, professor of law school and author titled i was an attorney at the d.a.s office, this is what the trump case is really about. i like the piece, i want to talk about in a second point first, just the gag order here is going to happen tomorrow and we were talking about this last night. there is no further violation he can do because these are from before the first finding of content, but personally the judge will apply the same analysis? we i think so, there's no reason think that he would treat it differently. >> given the fact that you did work in that d.a.s office and i ask everyone this question, did you ever see a defendant act like this? >> never saw a defendant act like this but i mostly worked in white-collar crimes certainly not in white-collar crime. i think some of the prosecutors who focus on street crime and have found something remotely similar but i really didn't. >> know didn't have like defendants like going out and slamming everyone and talking about everyone is corrupt. >> no, you know last month

there are allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that defendants make all the time. but this level with this repeated level. this refrain throughout the trial is unusual. unprecedented. yeah, so you say, i thought was interesting, we were going back and forth about how to talk about this case hush money election interference police say boring as it may sound is a case about his and his integrity. his is important on workman lesson unglamorous. it is clear it will be easy to see why the prosecution is both solid and legitimate. >> so my argument is that people have been distracted by the crime that he is alleged to be, seeking to commit or conceal by falsifying these records. if you focus on the falsification itself is clear that the elements are pretty easy to meet and this is exactly the sort of crime that is prosecuted all the time in this office so it is not novel, it is not some kind of federal

crime dressed up as a state crime. it is kind of the stuff that the d.a.s office. we why should we care, though as a society but what you call business integrity. i think that gets to a point if you say they conspired to interfere in an election and rob voters of the full information needed, i understand why i should care about that. business integrity sound like i don't know, fine. >> right, it sounds that way but it is really important in the financial capital of the world that we are very careful. it is a privilege to do business here and you can use your business for the good or you could use your businesses to cloak criminal acts that becomes really easy to do that if you can't mess with your records in an effort to such that when future regulators come to look and see what is going on they can never figure it out. so it becomes a kind of cloak, and immunity cloak that we won't allow businessmen to have. >> you say that take this case on its own terms as a business case offers a different arguably more convincing way to defend its legitimacy as a

prosecution you are saying? mr. trump is a businessman for many years in new york law, president of others should be prosecuted for this conduct if no man is above the law he should be to pick difficult and workmanlike, you can futz around with your business records in this way. people know that. we read, exactly? a lot of people are saying why this, it is not a big thing like january 6th, that's not his huge political crimes. but in a certain way, those were novel point this is exactly like everything else. and there's a way in which that makes it seem more legitimate. he is not being targeted for political acts, he is being targeted for the things he did as a businessman. >> one of the moments where this was, i thought, david p ecker from last week. it became clear that multiple lawyers were like, this is no good. this does not work. this is not on the up and up, you should not do this. >> right and that is very good evidence to show that what his intent was and all they need to prove is that his intent was to

commit a crime. so if other people, if all of these lawyers are informing p ecker, this is not lawful, this is not a close call, that makes the whole defense that everything is on the up and up, everything is fine, we are allowed to do this, problematic. >> we think we are going to get a few more witnesses this week. what are you sort of looking for in terms of where the case goes next? we are very interested in how the defense lines up are they going to put all of their eggs in the basket of this is all fine, everything he did, he did this and it was off-line or are they going to try to distance them from the things that michael cohen did >> say more about that. meaning that cohen had gone rogue here? >>: had gone rogue. this was the lawyer trying to freelance and hoping that he was going to get some great later payoff from donald trump and this is why he did it. that is one possible defense. a lot of white-collar crime people, you know, it was my assistant and oh, my secretary so he could go with that.

>> generally in those cases, the principal has an agent that is committing it if they're not doing it themselves. >> i think there are some problems with that we already had testimony his fingerprints were all over this and i think he has made a lot of public statements that, in fact, he did this and there's nothing wrong with it. so those are all admissible i think probably they are going to go where there was nothing wrong with this and that is a risky defense. >> her piece in the new york times, i think out yesterday, right? >> yep. >> thanks so much. >> thank you. >> that is all in on this wednesday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. you're telling me donald trump has a questionable defense? >> yes, he does. but stranger things have happened. >> very true, my friend, thank you as always. demonstrators before dismantling tents that were part of a protest encampment police then clashed with protesters who numbered between 2 and