cnn's five things has what you need to get going with your day. it's the five essential stories of the morning in five minutes or less >> cnn's five things with kate bolduan, streaming weekdays exclusively on macs >> cnn breaking news good morning. you were >> alive in the cnn newsroom. i'm jim acosta in washington. we are following two major legal stories today impacting former president donald trump in new york. jury selection has resumed in the criminal hush money trial against trump. he spoke before heading into court as he fights 34 felony charges of falsifying business records and in moments, the supreme court will hear arguments on whether the federal government improperly used an obstruction law when charging trump and more than 350 january 6, rioters we will bring those arguments to you live and just a short while from now. but first let's head to l4, lower manhattan and

selection continues, this warding laura tell us what you think is gonna happen? it indeed well-being and good morning to you. this is another historic moment de, to of an historic trial where you've got a criminal trial for former president of the united states of america, a very important day, drawing a section is underway and will continue again today. we're joined now this morning by cnn reporter kara scannell on national correspondent, kristen holmes. i'm glad that both of you are here. let's talk about what's going to happen today. we know it got to a late start yesterday. qarrah, with all the pretrial motions happening in court, whether it was about recusal or a sanctions for violating the gag order allegedly. now we're in the thick of jury selection. what are we going to see today, right? we finally got down to business around two 30 yesterday afternoon and they seeded about nine jurors in the box so far, meaning that they went through the questioning of that 42 questionnaire and he didn't have jurors there. >> now they're just started that again today. the goal here

is to ultimately seat a jury of 12 jurors and six alternates. and how we expect this will play out today is that they will continue to pose questions to the jurors until they have a massive 18 to fill the jury box. and then at that point, the way that the judge described how this would play out yesterday, he said that the lawyers within have 30 minutes to ask questions of these jurors. and then at that point, they could see if anyone is going to be struck for cause, meaning that they're not fair and impartial or the judge feels that there's a reason why they couldn't it didn't serve. >> and then there's then the prosecutor and the defense. >> trump's team could then strike good. juror, and then they will continue this process. because if someone is stricken, they bring someone else new into the box, start the questioning again until they ultimately have the final 18 law. there are there are nine people now. it does mean just have three left to choose. they'd got a total of 18 total, but these people who are in the box right now may not ultimately be the ones to sit there. ultimately, you got the peremptory strikes to come right in the pre-class. tell me

about what it's been like inside this courtroom, having donald trump there, he now wants to be able to at least sidebar at the table in front of the judge are very limited mrsa generous the amount of space and think about right now, if we were in front of a judge to have the president's secret service, potentially the lawyers there. what does that going to be like? >> so after the lunch break, the judge said he changed his mind. he said he was not going to have the sidebar. he said because the roving room, which is where this would take place, could only fit 12 people. and he said with secret service so the lawyers, their staff, but clerks, there's just not enough room. so he said what he would do instead is that he would excuse all the jurors, have them all leave the courtroom, except for the one that has to be questioned one-on-one, and he's sets the lawyers look, i don't want you to encourage jurors to ask to be questioned privately, this should only be something if it's particularly sensitive and that they don't want to say in front of this room, it's not a room of about 100 people, 90 or so jurors were a pool of reporters and all the lawyers. so he's going to excuse the jurors and then have

the dura answer the questions. there with a microphone, so it won't be that intimate setting one-on-one. this potentially this close to donald trump as you're from being asked to answer a question, it will be in the courtroom. it will just not have the rest of the jury there. >> this is the court of law that were in front of her. the court of public opinion, kristen, will be utilized by this defendant as it has when either on the courthouse steps. so our course, other means of communicating. how is all this going over for trump in the campaign? >> right now, i think there during a really stressful position first of all, you look at that most recent new york times sienna bowl. it showed biden making gains on donald trump's still within the margin of error, but that's something that donald trump doesn't want to see, especially at a time and which he cannot leave new york for four days a week? not that necessarily. he has been having an extensive campaign. we really haven't seen him on the trail more than two days a week as it is. >> but for example, this week, they're trying to figure out ways to get the public's attention around donald trump play around this court appearance without having the ability or the flexibility to

leave whenever they want to. >> so what does that look like for the next couple of weeks? so it looks like him trying to hold rallies, protect potentially in the suburbs of new york or and other boroughs that actually voted for donald trump. they're doing to say one thing about jury selection, general, because this is the one thing that i really want to double down on what his lawyers are looking for. >> they are not very optimistic that they are going to win this case when you hear donald trump talking about the fact that he doesn't think he can get a fair jury even his lawyers have said privately that they are concerned about the fact that the political makeup of new york city is not favorable to donald trump. >> but what they are looking for is it potential hungary what they're looking for is someone who could be at least somewhat sympathetic to donald trump. now whether or not they can get there with a questionnaire with the questioning unclear, but that's what they're real so hope is here, is that not necessarily they're going to win the case. but the next best outcome here hungry, really important point too, because when people talk about whether you can get a fair jury, a fair jury does not mean that you will always get an acquittal. >> it could mean it's a fair

jury and they end up following the evidence that shows a conviction. but i think in trump's world, he believes possible so we have a fairness will only equal acquittal. but this jury pool could be impartial and still the prosecution must prove their burden, but it's still not going to be a cake walk, is it? i mean, a lot of the information they're going to be hearing, many of these jurors, the jury questionnaire, which is quite lengthy, are going to be familiar with at least some parts or characters in this, whether it's warned me daniel's or michael cohen reported it's donald trump himself. but these questions are being asked and jury selection, but not the run of the mill, are they know i mean, there there are your basic ones of what are your hobbies? are you married? what do you do for a living? but then they're very specific ones to this case and it's not do you donate or which side are you democratic, republican. the judge has steered away from that, but these are specific questions. have you listened to michael cohen's podcasts? have you read his book or any of donald trump's books? have you attended any rallies and supportive donald trump or any against donald trump? have you ever volunteered for a

campaign? and the judge has been very clear here are you saying, because want to trump's lawyers had said at one point he ultimately he wants to know deal like donald trump or not. and the judge said that's not what we're doing here. you can have an opinion, but can you be fair and impartial? can you set it aside? can you follow my instructions and look at the evidence, decide if you believe the evidence and come up with the decision, whichever way it goes, i'm curious if you've heard this separate this from trump's team, but i'm not sure. i think the prosecutors feel this way too. >> there is some concern that because donald trump is such a polarizing figure, that there'll be people who lie on the questionnaire because they want to form an opinion and they want to go forward. >> i thought it was interesting to hear that that might be a concern on both sides, that someone might be trying to slip into the jury, whether hey pro-donald trump and saying that they're neutral or the opposite. and i think it's very telling that we live in such a polarizing time. and this is such a polarizing figure, but this is a concern possibly on both sides, beware of this delta juror, as they say on both sides of the issue, gym or to take it back to you?

>> all right. laura coates. thank you very much. and right now, the supreme court is hearing arguments in a case that could undermine the charges against hundreds of january 6 rioters. and even donald trump, the nine justices will consider whether a federal law that makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding can be used to prosecute those who stormed the capitol, including this defendant, former pennsylvania police officer, joseph fissure. you can see him right there on screen. trump is not involved in this particular case, but he has been charged with the same criminal offense for plotting to subvert the 2020 election. let's discuss this with cnn chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid and defense attorney and former federal prosecutor shan wu and paula, i mean, before we talk about the arguments of the eye the control and just told me a few moments ago, apparently, justice clarence thomas is at the supreme court today. so for folks who are wondering because he wasn't there, was it yesterday? >> yeah. >> what's going on here, but let's talk about this case. in particular about justice. >> or if you want sure diver and this is the biggest

question today, right? and if i'm waking up at the biden campaign or the trump campaign today. my first question is, is justice thomas is going to be at court today? is he okay. before yesterday, he was absent and the court the lease transparent branch of government, did not give any explanation when usually they do explain there's also the option to go remote. he is the most senior associate justice. he missed some arguments back in 2022 because of an infection on jim, we will cover 2016. we know what an influence the supreme court and even the specter of a possible vacancy could have on a presidential elections, the number one question today was going to be, is just as thomas there? yes. okay. how does he look how does he sound in addition to of course, this incredibly consequential argument? >> yeah, the composition of the court on everybody's mind. i mean, this campaign cycle, there's just no question about it and paula, let's talk about this case because the arguments surrounding this case are fascinating. and what we are going to hear, i suppose shannon and you can chime in as well in a few minutes. the

supreme court is going to be talking about some of the particulars of what took place on january 6 and whether this particular law should be used in charging some of these riders? >> yeah, this is a case that could have enormous implications for the hundreds of people who are charged related to january 6 and possibly have an impact on the prosecution of former president trump. the federal law we're talking about it criminalizes any efforts to corruptly obstruct or influence or impede an official proceeding you give me a sentence strip are 20 years at this is significant. this law was passed in 2002. part of sarbanes oxley in the wake of enron. and defendants like mr. your fish and others have argued that this law wasn't meant to apply to people who had police officers at the capitol. and this was meant to apply to people who potentially tamper with evidence. now the district court, when this challenge was made agreed. but the appellate court actually sided with the government and they're broad interpretation of the law. so now all eyes on the supreme court and shan a lot of these

defendants have been charged with other things, beating up police officers, breaking and entering into the capital and so on. so it doesn't blow up. >> all of these cases, but it is an important aspect of it. it is. i also certainly don't think it would blow up the charges against trump in particular, because this aspect of it is also covered for him by the actual type of false documents with the fake electors scheme and such. i don't think ultimately even if the supreme court were to reverse on this aspect of it, it's going to affect him that much. i mean, frankly, i don't think i should have taken the case. i think this is if you're going to just plainly did the statute, it says what it says. it does affect this kinda preceding if you wanna go way back in the time machine, i actually was on defense sayyed in the enron investigation. i think this is an example of why you don't legislate based on scandals. >> interesting and paula, i mean, the other thing that is going to emerge, i think in these arguments, some of the arguments and details surrounding january 6.

>> again, we're what, three almost four years from the attack on the capitol. a lot of these cases just have not been fully adjudicated. and every so often, surprise a new detail emerges, a new wrinkle and what took place emerges. >> i think even a reader details sheriff's case. it's a reminder even as someone who has covered this for years and these prosecutions of what happened that day, the gravity of the situation here are the challenges. how do you charge it? >> all right, guys, we're going to jump in. >> let's listen to the arguments at the supreme court on this january 6 case. >> let's see if it's the impairment of the integrity or availability of information and evidence to be used in a proceeding in 2002, congress hedged a little bit and added section s2 to cover other forms of impairment. >> the known unknowns, so to speak, it was after all the dawn of the information age until the january 6 prosecutions section 15, 12,

c2. the otherwise provision had never been used to prosecute anything other than evidence tampering and that was for good reason, this court has said that otherwise, when used in a criminal statute, means to do similar conduct in a different way. the government would have you ignore all that or disregard all that. and instead, convert c2 from a catch-all provision into a dragnet one of the things that that dragnet would cover is section c1 are construction of the statute, at least leaves c1 and c2 to do some independent work the january 6 prosecutions demonstrate that there are a host of felony and misdemeanor crimes that cover the alleged conduct he sarbanes-oxley based enron driven evidence tampering

statute is not one of them welcome. the court's questions mr. green, how do we determine what these two provisions have in common? >> do we look after the otherwise or before ny we look at before justice thomas and you look at the kinds of manner in which documents and records are to be impaired and then you look after to see what the effect is. >> but i would submit that the effect is the same. right. in order to cause the impairment of the integrity of the evidence that's to be used in a proceeding or to prevent its availability. so we look back and we look forward wouldn't it be just as easy to look at c at the c2 and then ask what it has in common with c1 and use that c2s provisions as the basis for

that similarity no, because it's in c2 speaks to the effect of the actions that the otherwise clause covers. so in other words, we look at c1 and we see that congress has concerned about documents and records and other objects and things that are done to those two impair the integrity of those and the effect of that is to obstruct. and so c2 omits that object and verb section, but you could just as easily say that congress has really concerned about things that obstruct influence or impede official proceedings and that's c2. >> so why isn't that the basis for the similarity? >> well, because of the presence of the otherwise provision. so otherwise, as i mentioned in otherwise, this court has said means to do similar conduct in a different way. so what we've got here is

is the pyramid of evidence being done in a different way? i'm sorry. i thought was doing it in a different way. so let me give you an example there is a sign on the theater. you will be kicked out of the theater if you photograph or record the actors or otherwise disrupt the performance if you start yelling i think no one would question that you can be expected to be kicked out under this policy even though yelling has nothing to do with photograph, we're recording the object that the verb is looking at. the verbs are looking at is the obstruction it's not the manner in which you obstruct. it's the fact that you've obstructed isn't that the structure of this provision it is. >> you're honore. it's it's in part the structure of the provision, but what what you're

hypothetical omits is that there is a specific reticulated, i guess it's called of all of the different sorts of things that might be done to evidence to begin with. what's fascinating about one, which is not about too, is that one doesn't require you to have actually impeded the proceeding one requires you to have that intent but you don't actually have to accomplish the intent to require you to accomplish the intent and so that's a very different articulation of what the object of two is. the object of two is the actual disruption of the proceeding. >> well i respectfully disagree because why with the language alters destroyed mutilate, so conceals a record. >> i do that in mind hey, home and i do it. anticipating that

it might be needed all i have to do is have they intend to impair by that very language. i don't have to have an actual proceeding that i've impaired on to. you need an actual proceeding to impair i guess i'm i guess i'm a little confused. justice sotomayor, because as i read this i would think that the government would say that any attempt at one is also covered by the statute. and i'm not sure that i would disagree. so i'm not i don't think that but there has to be an actual impairment no i do think under one, you don't need an actual impairment under two, you do well, he worried it says hires you to actually obstruct the proceeding into nowhere in one, do you actually have to obstruct well, in two, you only have two attempt to do the things that are in an otherwise

obstructs or impedes, or attempts to yes. >> yes. >> council, can i ask you whether let's let's imagine that we agree with you on remand. do you agree that the government could take a shot at proving that your clients actually did try to interfere with or under c1 or actually a no, no, sorry, undersea to obstruct evidence because he was trying to obstruct the arrival of the certificates, arriving to the vice president's desk for counting so there would be an evidence impairment theory. >> i'm quite sure that my friend would take a shot. your honor, but i would i would i would say no. and the reason why is that this statute prohibits operation on on specific evidence in some way, shape, or form attempting to stop a vote count or something like that is a very different act then actually changing a document or altering a document

or creating a fake news is obstructing evidence in my hypothetical. i mean, he's not actually altering the the vote certificates, which is why i corrected myself and said under c2, i mean, would that be different than someone say and a trial or criminal proceeding trying to prevent evidence that was going to be introduced in the proceeding from making it there. so i'm imagining him acting on the certificates not the act of counting them. >> well, again, i think they could try it, but i don't think that we're talking about trying to impair just anything other than the evidence itself. we're trying to obstruct a proceeding and there's questions about what proceeding means. here is, your honor, doubtless knows, but what the government would essentially be doing is you've noted is converting what they've charged in c2 to c1 type of crime in an unknown c2. >> i mean, as i understood, maybe i'm misunderstanding your argument, but i thought your argument was that c2 picks up other things, but they just

have to be evidenced related so in the hypothetical, i'm giving you, it's evidence related because it's focused on their certificates, but it's obstruct obstruct or impedes, say, the certificates arriving to the vice president's desk insofar as the goal was to shut down the proceeding and therefore interfere with the evidence reaching the vice president. >> all right. i still that's closer. it's definitely closer. but if you zoom out and look at all of 15, 12 in order to understand what kinds of impairment we're talking about. we are talking about or congress is prohibiting the kinds of impairments that actually change documents that actually affect their integrity. if it's just impeding or delaying, we'd submit actually that that is not part of 15, 12. see? delays are mentioned in five other parts of 15, 12, but not seek to green if if if justice barrett is wrong, then what work is c2 doing? i mean, it seems like you've just now

re-articulated only the theory of c1 and you're saying that you have to make it into to c1 in order to be to have this statute applies. so can can you help me at least understand under your theory what additional thing to see to offer let's, let's look at the verbs i've c1, which are alter or destroy mutilate, and conceal. >> and let's think about their antonyms so one instead of destroy would be actually to create. so one could use some sophisticated computer program we've heard an awful lot about ai, and we've heard about the possibility of deepfake photographs so i think you would violate c2 if you created a photograph that established your alibi in some extremely sophisticated way that would get it admitted into evidence or make it or you submitted for evidence would probably be where the crime occurred. >> you're saying there are

other things other than particularly altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing, but it has to be limited need to a record not necessarily because i mean, one other example, if i might, your honor, would be not to conceal, but to disclose so if i disclosed a witness list in a large all right. you were listening to arguments there, athens supreme court on whether the federal government and properly used an obstruction law against some of the january 6 rioters you can see justice ketanji brown, jackson going over some of these arguments with jeffrey green, a lawyer for one of those defendants, and i'm back out here with paula reid and shan wu fascinating case. obviously lots of implications for all of those january 6 defendants, possibly for the former president and all of this, but now one of the things that we jumped on this as soon as we came on the air with as paul on that is clarence thomas yesterday was missing missing an action yesterday. we didn't really get a clear explanation as to what was going on. >> he is back today and a shan was noting as we're watching

this, you couldn't see us. >> we're off camera at that point. >> he was pretty active there yeah, he clearly making a point. >> right. because as we said before the argument started, the biggest question before we get to the legal arguments. whereas justice clarence thomas, because as you said yesterday, not only was he absent, they didn't provide an explanation. and as the most senior associate justice on the supreme court, that raises a lot of serious questions because we are in an election she near never good idea in dc, never going to do this and also the lack of transparency from the court is not helpful in the situation. he is back he is on the bench. yeah. and it was like he was trying to make a point. i'm hear he sounded like he was in good health and not only was he appear to be in good health he also appeared to want to make a point that he could ask tough questions of both sides because there have been calls for him to recuse himself from cases related to january 6 because of his own weiss efforts to subvert the election. obviously, he didn't recuse himself, but it appeared that justice thomas had something to prove this morning and he may just point well, in shan, what about that? i mean,

the fact that clarence thomas continue the use to be involved in these january 6 cases. >> i mean, it really just goes to show that there is no accountability for the supreme court justices. they do whatever they want. i mean, this sort of silly code that they finally came out with has no teeth to have whatsoever. i think come hell or high water. justice thomas watson would be there today to put a finger in the eye of people, say you need to be recused. he's like, no, i don't. and as paul was saying, first question out of the box is a question that we be considered pro doj prosecution, and he wants to show i can be impartial. i can do this. and he really should not be in the position to do that. >> all right, guys, great discussion. we've got more to talk about after the break. take a quick break, be right. back hello in the fight against climate change. this is blue car business, blue carbon. >> we get, we just need to protect nature with the rest corbin plus cnn filled sunday at nine i brought in a juror max protein with 30 grams of protein.

>> those who tried me felt more energy and just two weeks here, i'll take that. >> sure. not to protein 30 grams protein one prim sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals, and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic to me, harlem is oh, but home is also your body. last one, everyone i asked myself, why does it pilates exist in harlem so i started my own studio, get in a brick-and-mortar in new york is not easy. chase inke as supported us from studio one to studio three. when you start small, you need some big help and chase ink with that for me, earn up to 5% cash back home businesses sections. but the chase inke business, cash heart and chase for business make more of what's yours. >> now, adt professionally installs google nest products you're all sudden your home is safe and smarter. >> we're gonna miss. >> you can check it on your home. >> are the system they should go manager system from virtually anywhere get

intelligent alerts like what a package has arrived are the most trusted name and home security as the intelligence of google, you have a home with no worries brought to you by adt challah cancer, is it's hard, but sinjil has gotten us through it sinjil is hope for every child diagnosed with cancer because the research is being shared all over the world are you keeping as much of your investment gains as possible? my taxes can erode returns quickly. i created planning your portfolio is managed and attacks efficient manner. it's what you keep that really matter. we're spoke your free meeting today at creative planning.com generalized myasthenia gravis made my life a lot harder but the picture started changing when i started on viv cart if guard is for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis who are anti-ab chr antibody positive

in a clinical trial, vif guard significantly improved most participant's ability to do daily activities when added to their current gmt treatment most participants taking the guard also had less muscle weakness and your vif guard treatment schedule is designed just for you in a clinical study, the most common side effects included urinary and respiratory tract infections and headache fifth guard may increase the risk of infection. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections symptoms of an infection, they've guard can cause allergic reactions available as viv guard for iv infusion and also as vip garten high, true love for subcutaneous injection additional i'd effects for viv guard high, true love may include injection site reactions, talk to your neurologist about viv guard. >> you found your kayak company because you love the ocean not spreadsheets you need to hire. i need indeed. >> indeed, you do. indeed instant match, instantly delivers quality candidates, matching your job description visited deal he.com slash higher i consumer cellular, you get the same exact coverage as

the largest carriers for up to half the price that's amazing and great customer service based here in america that's amazing and no hidden fees, no contracts and free activation hello barbara sorry, i was muted. that's amazing. >> i know rights barbara we see sunglasses friend lactate grand i'm dr. sanjay gupta. and this

is cnn welcome back, everyone. i'm laura coates outside the courthouse is jury selection continues this morning in a historic trial when we're caught the trump hush money trial right here and manhattan with me, a cnn kara kara scannell and cnn legal analyst, norm eisen form you just watching the proceedings from inside. >> walk us into the room. what are you seeing? are the jurors who are waiting to be questioned still there. what's the atmosphere like gave it all to me? >> well, it was slow going this morning because human life intrudes on court proceedings. so three of the jurors from yesterday hadn't shown up, including two we're in the box for questioning. another one had flu-like symptoms, was sequestered out in the hallway. so there was a delay. we were supposed to start at 9:30 sharp. we didn't start at 9:30

sharp then the late ones started trickling in and we begin with the jury questioning. and sure enough, the first juror that we really got into it with turned out to be a case of potential bias how so? well, it started off promising lee for team trump and i could see them perching at the edge of their chairs because it's not that easy to get strong trope pro trump bias in a lean, let's say in manhattan jury pool, this gentleman worked in finance. >> he was from texas he said that most of his associates, including back home, were from texas. and the team, trump was excited until the judge has put together a very detailed, very the most i've seen in over 30 years of practicing well very incisive until we got to the question about might you be

biased? and he said, judge, i might have an unconscious bias, jaws sophisticated. and you could sort of see deem trump's say, oh, i see where this is going. and sure enough, juror excuse, they lost their potential. i mean, you the might have this unconscious bias in favor of trumpet sounds like must have been very deflating for the trump team. >> but this is how the bias is working. both ways, right? both are going to have the option to cut somebody and not having a been a part of the jury. and if it's a for cause scenario where the judge is saying, look, you can't even at this juncture telling me you're going to they. able to, follow the evidence and instructions of the court. that's a problem, but we're still hearing motions, aren't ways this morning. this is not all done yet. they're so paperwork being filed in the courtroom yeah. >> so they've just yesterday they came in and they said that they believed donald trump and a gag order based on for posts that he made on social media over the past week or so. and so today they filed the official paperwork this actual motion to show cause and their support for it. and again,

they're saying they want $1,000 fine for every post. they want trump to be ordered to thank down the post. and they want it to be warned that if he violates it again, he could face not just fines, but also up to 30 days incarceration. so 30 days in jail, they want the judge to make that. now, trump's team has said they don't think he violated a gag order that he was just he wasn't looking to criticize michael cohen and stormy daniels, two key witnesses, and that's why they are protected in this case because they are expected to testify, but saying that they were making comments about trump. trump was responding to that. so the judge has scheduled a hearing for tuesday. we'll he will take this issue up and we'll see what he ends up saying finds trump violated it, and how he went but resolve that if he thinks he did, is that enough norm to say, look, i was only responding. yeah, i've got a gag order, but you're messing with me. i'm giving it right back to you. >> well, part of the reason that i think the judge is taking a week to allow this to be set up is because it does implicate complex first amendment issue i thought it

was very interesting to that same point that these gag orders are not that simple to implement. trump has also tweeted continued to tweet about the judge's daughter to rt. what other people are saying? that didn't even make the cut to get into the da's motion because trump does have very broad first amendment latitude. we know he's willing to go up to the first department, the appellate court that oversees he went three times last week. so the judges being very careful, i think trump has good faith argument that is not a frivolous the that hey, if people are going to talk about me, i need to be able to defend myself. we're in the middle of a residential campaign. for crying out loud i do think the judge is going to warn him don't do it again do not talk about witnesses in this case and once he gets that additional warning, then that sets up subsequently sanctions.

it'll have to go on for a while before they're serious prospect of stepping trump back and putting him in because i'm going to say it wouldn't it's a stork moment to have a criminal trial would be the historic to have him step back, which is fancy for it, taken to jail during the interim. at his trial. as a candidate as if our president nine states a lot to get too. thank you sicker around both of you. we've got a lot more coverage after a quick break anderson cooper 360 tonight at eight on cnn hcm is a serious heart condition affecting as many as one in 200 people like me and me. >> it can impact how do you feel and what you can do i still felt tired on my beta-blocker. so i talked to my cardiologist about treatment advances in hcm that gave me new options it was a breakthrough for me. >> that conversation with big for me, talk to your cardiologists today and visit hcm real taught.com for more information the day you get

your clear choice, dental implants, changes your struggle with missing teeth forever. >> it changes how you eat how you feel and how you enjoy life it changes your smile. and now others smile at you clear choice network doctors have changed over 100,000 lives with dental implants and they can change yours too. because a clear choice de, changes every day schedule a free consultation i still can't believe he's gone. >> is past few days has been a whirlwind. >> there's so much to arrange. i just wasn't prepared no. but your mother was yeah. >> good thing. you and mom got those policies i had no idea how expensive all this would be. >> i know i didn't want to talk about it, but i'm glad she made us do it the payment is on the way already. >> he really was as fast as they said. >> your mother always made sure we were prepared i can't

believe you both were able to qualify with your health the shoes that's why we showed united of omaha life insurance company. >> there were no health questions or no medical exams, and acceptance is guaranteed help your family prepare for the financial burden when you'reime comes, if you are between 45 and 85 automatically qualified for up to $25,000 in life insurance coverage with united have omaha policy started just $6.38 a month and your acceptance is guaranteed. >> you cannot be turned down for any health reason there are no medical exams and no health questions, plus benefits can be paid within 24 hours. and unlike some policies, are payable from day one i didn't think you would be able to get a life insurance policy on your fixed its income with united of omaha policies thought it is 6,000, $0.30 a month and what the rate law guarantee marine is locked in a life, a funeral could cost more than $9,000 and prices rise each year. >> have you helped prepare your

family to pay for these expenses when you're gone? with one call and as little as five minutes, you can qualify for up to $25,000 in life insurance coverage, just like your mom taking care of us even after she's gone helped take care of your loved ones after you're gone with a guaranteed acceptance life insurance policy from united of omaha today, call 806159611. >> that's 806, 806159611. >> call today? >> life diabetes there's no slowing down. each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do that's why you choose glissando to help manage blood sugar response, unique we my name is oluseyi and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game.

giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport. carbon plus cnn fill sunday at nine up on capitol hill. >> the effort to oust house speaker mike johnson is growing gop congressman thomas massie is now supporting congresswoman

marjorie taylor greene's effort to remove johnson as speaker. >> let's go straight to cnn's lauren fox lauren. when the speakership is hanging by a thread these days one or two votes might make the difference. i suppose this is, this is kind of important yeah, i mean, this is a very significant development and that is because after april 19, when gallagher of republican steps aside, gives up his seat, that means johnson can only lose a single republican member if there are two members wishing to oust him, that would be enough to do the job in less democrats step in to save him and we should note that two democrats reaffirm this morning, jared moscowitz and tom suozzi, that they would be willing to vote yes. >> on a motion to table that essentially is a procedural step. they could take two essentially neutralize an effort to oust johnson from the speakership. now, johnson is defiant this morning saying that he will not step down

here. he was just moments ago i am not resigning and it is it is in my view and absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion when we are simply here trying to do our jobs it is not helpful to the cause. >> it is not helpful to the country. it has not helped the house republicans advance our agenda, which is in the best interest of the american people here, a secure border. sound governance and it's not helpful to the unity that we have in the body. look, we have, we have a eerie important mission here. our mission is very clear. the reason most of us, i can speak for the house the reason to every house republican ran for congress is it because they wanted to come here and help to save this beleaguered republic of ours. we want to save the country and of course, johnson referring there to the series of votes he expects house to take later this week to aid israel, to aid taiwan, to aid ukraine. >> and that last piece is

really controversial among republicans. that is what has people like marjorie taylor greene, people like thomas massie threatening to oust him from the speakership. the mere existence of putting it on the floor may be enough for him to be threatened in his job, but he is defiant this morning saying that he is not going to resign. he is still moving forward with that plan to vote on separate packages. and again, you have a number of democrats already pretty publicly saying that they would try and neutralize that effort to oust him to create some stability within the house of representatives and jeffries behind closed doors, the democratic leader, this morning was urging members of his caucus not to get stuck in the procedural questions to really look at what this larger ukraine and israel supplemental package is going to look like before committing to anything. but already two of his members saying that they would be willing to help johnson. that is significant this morning? >> yeah. lauren or manu raju caught up with congressman massey and he said straight up,

i asked speaker johnson, resigned. if you can refresh us on how this would work. i mean, marjorie taylor greene could make the motion to vacate and then the procedures would i sort of stole ball from there? how would that work? >> yeah. exactly. i mean, remember how sudden it was when matt gaetz went to the floor and brought forward that motion to vacate against kevin mccarthy. there wasn't really that much time for democrats to have a conversation about what they were going to do. and in this case, what you are hearing from marjorie taylor greene right now, she has not committed to win or even if she is ultimately going to try to oust johnson. but obviously massie saying that he would be supportive of her effort, does strengthen her hand in that she now has someone who would help her, someone who would vote with her that obviously doesn't just isolate her within the republican can conference. so that is a significant development this morning, even though you already have some democrats

saying that they would be willing to step in. i mean, when votes are this narrow when you're republican majority is this narrow every single vote counts, and that is something to keep a very close eye on, jim. >> yeah, a lot of pressure on the speaker did not put that age ukraine bill on the floor if it goes in as a standalone bill, all right. lauren fox. thanks very much. we'll be right back the white house correspondents dinner by saturday, april 27th, at seven eastern on cnn okay, everyone. our mission is to provide him fleet balanced nutrition for strength and energy ensure with 27 vitamins and minerals nutrients for immune health, and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein meet barclay he's part pitbull and part masterpiece meet the puzzle revolution hydro steam. >> it's part stubborn stain remover and part of peacemaker this'll a new breed of clean

transfer your ira or your old 401 k to robin hood by april 30th, and will give you a 3% boost. with the biggest match of any ira on the market. robin hood gold gets you the most for retirement domains we know one thing and one thing only backs strained backs from weekend chores took pulled backs doing your favorite we even know quarterbacks don't the experts and back pain relief for more than 100 years available in store near you, stay tuned to learn more about this limited time offer from renewal by anderson. >> have you been looking at replacing your home's windows or doors? if so, i'm sure price is a huge factor. >> et renewal by anderson we're really proud of our fair pricing policy. >> were typical middle-class family. we have a budget, we need to be aware of where money is going and the great thing about renewal well, by anderson was they actually had several financing options that we're going to make sense for our situation so let's talk

windows are five rx window material is like the gold standard in the industry to composite material that last longer performs better and is actually two times stronger than vinyl. okay, so you're carrying this out to your back deck, but you've got to stop and try to shove open that patio door i can be real frustrating. >> the dual ball bearing adjusters on our patio doors help the doors to glide easily. >> and we know by anderson, we've been doing this a long time and we know that you don't want some hard sell sales pitch will visit your home, see exactly what you have, and then give you an exact price book and will honor that price for a whole year so that there's no pressure. >> let us give you a price on the windows and doors that you will love. >> we have the intention of looking at different companies, doing some due diligence, and we started with renewal by anderson and it was such a compelling conversation and process that we ended up not even looking any further before april 30th by one window, patio

door or entry door, and get the next one, 40% off. that's 40% in all with a minimum of four units plus saban, extra $30 on every window and door you buy with no money down, no monthly payments, and no interest, for one year. this offer ends april 30th for a free appointment with renewal by anderson call one 800 that's 1805011400 raw sparks engineered for the spontaneous, a dual action formula with the active ingredients of viagra and sialic faster acting and i'm last day grabbed the moment get started at row dot slash sparks. ego been number one rated brandon cordless outdoor power brings you the ego power plus string trimmer with power load technology be the line, push the button, and get back to work ego exclusively at lowe's, ace and ego authorized

dealers from pep in their step to shine in their coats. and people switch their dogs foods, the farmers dog, the effects can seem like magic but there's no magic involved it's just smarter, healthier pet food. >> it's amazing what real food can do now, adt professionally installs google nest products you're all set on ththis system. >> we should go with the most trusted name and home security as the intelligence of google, you have a home with no worries brought to you by adt close captioning brought to you by mesobook.com if you or a loved one have neizha helium will send you a free book to answer questions you may have call now and we'll come to you 808 to one 4,000 all right. returning now to supreme court arguments in a crucial case that could overturn hundreds of obstruction charges against the january 6 insurrection, as it could also have a major impact on the charges that special counsel jack smith has brought

against donald trump, the federal government has started their argument. the solicitor general, elizabeth prelogar is talking, let's listen to other protests in the past and has this been the government's position throughout the lifespan of the statute? >> it has certainly been the government's position chen since the enactment of 15, 12 c2, that it covers the myriad forms of obstructing an official proceeding and that it's not limited to some kind of evidence impairment gloss. have you have you have you enforced it in that manner? we have been forced it in a variety of prosecutions that don't focus on evidence tampering. yeah, i can't give you one example of enforcing it in a situation where people have violently stormed the building in order to prevent an official proceeding, a specified one from occurring with all of the elements like intent to obstruct knowledge of the proceeding of having the corruptly mens rea, but that's just because i'm not aware of that circumstance ever happening prior to january 6, but just to give you a flavor of some of the other circumstances where we have prosecutor due to under this

provision for example, there are situations where we've brought c2 charges because someone tipped off the subject of an investigation to the grand jury's hearings there was another case where someone tipped off about the identity of an undercover law enforcement officer and in those situations, there's no specific evidence, no concrete testimony or physical evidence that the conduct is interfering with. instead, it's more general obstruction of the preceding justice alito mentioned the right case as well, and that's another one where it was a forged court order ritter that prompted the litigant to dismiss the mandamus petition, but that didn't have anything to do with the evidence that was going to be considered in that proceeding. >> so what role does c1 play in your analysis? this so we understand 15, 12 c to split up the world of obstructive conduct of an official proceeding into the c1 offense and into c2. >> c1 covers everything at enumerates. it's the acts of altering, concealing, destroying records, documents, or other objects and then c2 would only pick up conduct that obstruct an official proceeding in a different way. so there's no duplication or superfluids

on our reading. instead, congress was taking this universe and dividing it up into the two separate offenses. i think that's actually a virtue of our reading as compared to petitioners because i have not heard him articulate anything that would fall within c1 that wouldn't also come within c2. so on his reading, c2 really does just swallow c1 whole. >> i mean, in a way you're reading it c1, c2 almost exist in isolation, certainly not affected by c1 we don't deny it all that there is a relationship between the two provisions. justice thomas, does that relationship? the relationship is the one congress specified in the text. it's what follows the word. otherwise that is the relevant degree of similarity. what both c1 and c2 have in common is that they, they are aimed at conduct that obstructs an official proceeding. c1 does so when one way tampering with records and documents, s2 does so with respect to all other conduct that in a different manner, does that i think that this has to be the road the

court goes down to look at what congress actually prescribed with respect to similarity, because in contrast, if you take up petitioners invitation to come up with some a textual gloss from c1 to port over into c2. i don't understand what the court can look at to guide its determination of exactly what the relevant similarity would be your general i'm sure you've had a chance to meet our opinion, released friday in the voice in that case the anatomist was very short but it explained how to apply the doctrine of houston generous it, what it said is specific terms, a more general catch-all, if you will, term at the end and it said that the general phrase is controlled and defined by reference to the terms that proceeded. >> the otherwise phrase is more general and the terms that preceded our altars destroys mutilated or seals or record and document, and applying the doctrine as was set forth in that opinion, the specific

terms alters, destroy, and mutilate carry forward into two. and the terms record, document, or other object carried carry forward into two as well. and it seems to me that they as i said, sort of control and defined the more general term so mr. chief justice, i think that this i'm sorry, just to interrupt. >> so i could put out exactly and the otherwise means in other ways it alters destroys, and mutilated record document or other objects that impede the investigation and otherwise, in other ways accomplishes the same result. >> that so i think the problem with that approach with respect to 15, 12, is that it doesn't look like the typical kind of statutory phrase that consists of a parallel list of nouns or parallels to subvert list of verbs we're the court has applied to use them generous or the notes khader cannon these are separate prohibitions that have their own complex non-parallel internal structure. and i think actually the best evidence that it's

hard to figure out how you would define a degree of similarity between them just based on the word otherwise, is that there are multiple competing interpretations at issue in this hey justice alito touched on them and they're reflected in the competing interpretations between judge katz's on the dc circuit and judge nicholls on the district court feeding interpretations of what it relates to exactly. but the question you asked me, which just the judge nicholls that thought that c1 should limit c02. and he looked at it and said, well, the relevant thing about c1 is it deals with records, documents, and other objects. and so that means c2 should be limited only to other acts that impair physical lebanon's. meanwhile, judge katz's looked at this content requirement in c1 to take action that impairs the availability or use of the evidence. and he divined a broader gloss to put on c2 and said, the judge meant of all other evidence. >> well, they're just applying the same doctrine to different aspects of it. and i think you do that as well. what are the common elements alters destroy, and mutilated? it's a record or a document. you have the first few what you're doing and what you're doing, it too. and

unify both of those in, as it said, in boys and net controlling and defining the term that follows so that it should involve something that's capable of alteration destruction, and mutilation and with respect to a record or a document that's that's how i and when you apply that doctrine, again, as we did on friday, it it responds to some of the concerns have been raised about how broad c2 is. you can't just tack it on and say look at it as if it's standing alone because it's not so let me respond to that in two ways. >> i do want to have a chance to address any concerns about breadth, but the more fundamental point i think is that i don't even understand petitioner to be suggested saying that you can mix and match the verbs and the nouns from c1 and c2 in this way, judge nicholas had a more limited view that c2 exclusively focuses on physical objects then apply to things like testimony because of the limitation that he gleaned from c1, judge katz's i think maybe

in line with your question, would interpret it more broadly and the basic point is a textual matter is that there is nothing in the text of s2 itself to disclose what the relevant similarity from c1 ought to be instead, we think they're relevant similarity is obstruction of an official person seating because that's the language congress chose. >> if if that's if that's the case, what work does authorize do on your theory because i think i would mind as i'm hearing you think that whoever corruptly obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so stands alone oh. and the otherwise, i'm not hearing what work it does. can you explain to me what work it does on your view? >> yes. >> so the work that otherwise does is to set up the relationship between c1 and c2 and make clear is that c2 does not cover the conduct that's encompassed by c1 now, i acknowledge that there will and beyond that yawn saying, okay, c1 does some things. and the whole rest of the universe of

obstructing, impeding or influencing is conducted by c. >> all right, there you just heard the us solicitor general now elisabeth prelogar, going back-and-forth with the justices on the supreme court about these arguments as to whether or not a law is properly used against some of the january 6 defendants we should note obviously can wu and paula reid are back with us that a lot of these defendants are facing other charges assaulting police officers, breaking into the capitol and so on. so this one charge of the supreme court says no this was improperly use. it doesn't append all of these different cases, but one of the questions i had watching this unfold this morning is why the justices are taking this before the immunity case pertaining to donald trump think that seems to me would be a much more significant case. and here we are waiting day after day after day for that matter to be resolved at the high court. can it's almost like they're slow walking in that case, almost arguably from the timeline there, are a lot of cases or brought under those

people have been convicted. >> so there's some logic to dealing with this first, the amanda cases come up a little bit later in the timeline. i was very struck by listening. to the solicitor general's reactions here and her argument that she's so skillfully used. justice thomas's question against him. he was trying to say, hey, you've never used it in this way before. and she said, no, but yes, which is no, we haven't because we haven't had a case where people who stormed the capital attempting to overturn the election. so that was really well done. i think she put her finger on the difference between her argument and the attorney any for fisher's argument, who opened up rather weakly by saying that there's a difference between as he called it, a catch-all and dragnet kinda sounds the same thing to me. it is a catch-all provision. >> yeah. i mean, paul, here we are. i mean, we're almost we were in the thick of the 2024 presidential campaign. we're still adjudicating jazeera six, still making its way through the process. >> it takes time, look, it's a historic case in terms of the number of people who have been

charged with think it's taken too much time yes. >> now, i think that a lot of those feelings come specifically about the cases related to former president trump. >> and i do think that history will continue to debate whether merrick garland should have moved faster, minister, your point. where they're not going to hear the question of whether four for president trump has immunity for his january 6 case until next thursday, we don't expect a decision there until late june, which means that early as that case can go, if they don't send it back down to the lower courts for further there proceedings. it's probably august. we're getting pretty close to the election and it's really unclear if that case is going to go. and that is in part because of the supreme court opting not to take this up months ago and jack smith asked them to instead, let me go through the the appeals court and then putting it on the docket. so the timing, the slow walking, the role that the justice department and the supreme court have had in these cases yeah, this is something that is historic. it will be studied especially we don't know how the story ends. it will be studied for decades okay, it's to come absolutely. shan i mean just like this case, the

immunity question is something that's supreme court could have said, oh no, we're not taking that up. >> oh, absolutely. i mean, there's very strong case for them wedding and stand because the dc circuit did a very thorough opinion. i mean, it seems to me it's a bit of an ego issue that they felt they really had the weigh in on it because it's historic, but legally, there was not a reason to do that. and the court historically has tried not two exercises jurisdiction when it doesn't have to and it didn't have to do that here. >> yeah. unless they want to send it back down, which is what i'm told by sources close to the case, there's a thought that maybe they want to send it back back down for further proceedings on a more narrow definition of immunity, which means more interesting constitutional questions felt some more delays. >> now also means probably know january 6 case before the election, that is all intensive purposes, sorry, paula shan. thank you so much. busy morning. thanks very much for joining us. morning. i'm jim acosta. our next our newsroom with wolf blitzer starts right now. i have a great day. everybody happening now, de to of jury selection and donald trump's criminal trial in new