read his word for the first time. >> ask joanne if she remembers me. >> i just appreciate alvin. he has really gone out of his way. people connect in different levels. and, i feel as connected to alvin as i do my family. >> reporter: thankful their family history was not lost. alvin, a marine corp. veteran understands. >> i wrote letters home to my parents in iraq. >> he was a hugger. >> reporter: his letters are still doing that now as they consider alvin part of the family. >> he made mom cry. >> a simple act of kindness takes us off the air tonight. and i want to apologize. i should not have made a stormy daniels joke earlier. certainly not about a woman. and certainly not about a woman who had a tough day on the stand. and on that note, i wish you a very good night. ari melber is up next. for all of our colleagues

across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. i'll see you at the end of tomorrow. welcome to the beat. i'm ari melber. today's the day. actress stormy daniels taking the stand against defendant trump for the first time. his defense argues she is lying. so prosecutors had an important goal here today. showing the jury that she is believable. that she is telling the truth. that the facts are on her side. and while defendant trump is not on trial for lying about the underlying encounter, that would not be a crime. they want to use the da, this testimony, to show that this was part of the first of many lies by trump. some of which prosecutors argue are crimes. this is daniel's first time ever under oath. and her chance to be heard in a

legal process that spanned years and involved many claims about her at the center of this scandal. >> donald trump's personal attorney paid a porn star named stormy daniels to keep quiet about her alleged relationship with republican candidate for president. >> the former president accused of paying $130,000 in hush money to stormy daniels. >> stormy daniels became a household name for shaking the corridors. >> everyone wants to hear. >> rivetting, bomb shell. sometimes icky testimony from the woman at the heart of a criminal trial of an american ex-president. >> as our colleague nicole put it there, rivetting, bomb shell, and icky all at once. >> one question for the jury

today is simply who is telling the truth about the encounter? daniels speaking out as trump looked on today. we have those sketches and many reporters inside the room who view him as having a sour expression. today's testimony got heated with the judge getting angry and stormy daniels raising her voice to the degree that was described as yelling. daniels testified she didn't care about the money per se but wanted to get the payment deal done. if that is familiar, it is a view she shared years back when the story broke in 2018. >> was it hush money to stay silent? >> yes. the story was coming out again. i was concerned for my family and their safety. >> i think some people watching this are going to doubt that you entered into this negotiation because you feared for your safety. they will think you saw an

opportunity. >> i think the fact that i didn't even negotiate. i just quickly said yes to this very strict contract and what most people will agree with me, extremely low number is all the proof i need. >> that is how daniels put it then. and there is this balance in the money side that was on display today because on the one hand, she popped back up with her lawyer and took the money. on the other hand, took the money for silence. on the other hand there is the view or feeling there was a lot of other dirty work going on. the after period could matter a lot. she understood his lawyer, michael cohen to be acting on his behalf. now, her view does not settle

the matter. other witnesses could be called and insist trump was out of the loop. but the your is hearing her view as the key participant and they are hearing a lot more people and a lot more evidence suggesting that trump was involved in this and it was all cooked up without him. daniels recounts the last time she saw trump was in 2007 and he seemed blase then about keeping their history secret. this exchange matters again because it builds on the story that the da's team has been telling that it was only the election year that made trump suddenly change his approach. he didn't seem concerned then. daniels says under oath today. she was very explicit on the stand. and that included at times clearly offering more than what was asked. remember, this is not just some random conversation or dinner party chatter. this is a narrow proceeding. they have had people from c-

span come in because they couldn't get to an agreement about what to be stipulated and they are supposed to respond to questions, not just give speeches. so one point for example, daniels was detailing the feeling she had. her hands shaking. she just wanted to leave. and while that may be her honest view, i'm not saying it's not true. i'm saying that the judge at times thought she was going further than what was right for the evidence testimony they agreed upon. now, as a matter of fairness, the case is about business fraud in the campaign. it is not about adjudicating the encounter itself. now, trump's lawyers have been chided on other days for what their client has said or done. today, we saw something a little different. the judge angry with prosecutors.

over daniels' testimony. and directing prosecutors to avoid what was clearly quote unnecessary detail because we know the judge's view was some of that would have no legal point and could be prejudicial. the judge siding with trump's lawyers on that point. sustaining multiple objections by the trump's defense. they were hammers prosecutors arguing they said the only reason the government is asking some of these very personal questions, aside from pure embarrassment, is to quote enflame this jury. the judge clearly understood that concern and tried to narrow prosecutors or sustain the objections which again means that you don't just keep going down that road of questioning. the judge also rejected a bigger reach by the trump lawyers when they asked that they basically stop the whole case with a mistrial motion. and there were things that would have been better left unsaid, the judge agreed. in part with the logic there. and said daniels was a little difficult to control. but that didn't get to the point where a mistrial would be

warranted. now prosecutors did try to talk to daniels about keeping her answers focused or short. there was also a tense cross exam from the trump attorney who asked am i correct, you hate trump. to which she said yes. she said yes. and you want him to go to jail? she replied i want him to be held accountable. the idea there is to do something we will see with other witnesses to paint them as somehow so vindictive, so angry, that they are less than truthful. we talk free speech and your right to your views and opinions. these witnesses can have views of trump. just like they could vote for or against him. but in the court of law, they are not supposed to let those views distort their testimony about facts. so the trump lawyers may have been onto something here. about whether that could affect

the jury at all. how credible they seem. a very key witness like stormy daniels and they asked about a goal of quote extorting trump. that's a way to push that defense. and daniels resisted that. you are looking to extort money are the president trump, right? stormy daniels, false. trump lawyer continues, well, that's what you did. right? false. daniels says. this is one of the most explosive and emotional days we have in this trial yet. it is clearly on the line. when i say on the line, i don't mean in some sort of made up observation. i mean under the rules of the court and the reason the judge had to limit the testimony is because it was at, on, or over the line of how much of this was just stuff that sounds bad about trump and it might be true and sound bad. but not enough to convict and necessary to shortia have a

truthful witness who cud this. we are back together in 90 seconds. type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2,

or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. you released a statement saying i'm not denying this affair was a i was paid in push money. i'm denies it because it never

happened. that's a lie. >> yes. >> if it is untruthful, why did you sign it? >> because they made it sound like i had no choice. >> was it hush money to stay silent? >> yes. >> a little history coming back. the first time she testified against donald trump on a story that has been brewing so many years. we are joined by molly and renato. this was striking testimony. for the jury who was we remind people might no be as up to date on everything. it is certainly like wow, testimony. do you think it did what the prosecutors needed to do, given that again, observing the trial as objectively as we can, they certainly ran into more turbulence with the judge than any other day i can remember? >> yeah. i mean, they definitely had a judgment call that they made here. and the judgment call they made is that they decided that they

wanted to show the jury why this testimony from her would be embarrassing to trump. why the story would be embarrassing. why trump had a motive to keep it all silent. why he was willing to put himself out there. why he was willing to take time from his busy schedule as a president to deal with this. they thought that this vivid testimony would accomplish that. they may be right. i will say, though, that upsetting the judge in the middle of the trial is not a good idea. he did tell them on the front end do not get into details and they got into everything from the sexual position to if there was a condom and so forth. but i think the other issue is how was the jury going to react to this? and i will say i thought that stormy daniels came across in a way that is going to be very relatable for jurors. but i wonder if some members of the your might dislike the level of detail that was solicited here. i think there may be some jurors that may react negatively to that.

>> yeah. let me add to that point with some reporting for you. and then, molly will join. but just on that legal point, the new york times reporting here says the judge's visible disapproval. means the way as we reported this went back and forth. might be bad news for the prosecution because when a judge seems impatient with a witness, jurors can receive that as permission to feel the same way. and renato, i would put it slightly differently but it's a valid point. i think that what people forget is day in and day out, when you are in this kind of trial, the judge is the key authority. once the novelty wears out, the jury sees lawyers are always fighting. the witnesses have paraded in and out. the judge is this authority and a good judge and i have been in this courtroom and i found the judge to be quite measured. comes off as kind of the

referee. right? and so, when they go further and act like whoa, it can shape the jury sometimes in ways lawyers wish it wouldn't. your thoughts and then molly. >> i think that is right, ari. people sometimes forget what it is like to be in a courtroom for hours, here we are seeing the sound bytes and clips of here is an interesting tidbit. they have to go through a slog of many hours of repetitive questioning by boring lawyers. they sometimes can't wait for lunch. can't wait to be able to go home to their kids. so sure, they are easily distracted. they often are just looking to the judge for cues. and i think look, the judge is so important on multiple levels. we are in the middle of the nba playoffs. both sides are trying to work the refs. some of them are yelling. some of them are pleading with the refs. here, you have the ref kind of frowning at your side. almost hoping that there is an

objection. and at times intervening on his own behalf. not the right move for the prosecution. not where you want to be as a prosecutor. >> i think it would be really weird to have this story that you are telling as a trial. and not have the woman at the center of it. and she is not a bad witness. and i think they were pretty careful with her. and this story tracks to other stories about trump. though the jury won't have that information. they will be able to sort of see her and hear her story. i also thought that was true that she talked a lot. but then, his lawyer went really hard on her. like really hard. some of the stuff she said to stormy really i think, from the reporting i read, that it might have affected the jury. that they felt it pretty bad

for her. this is not a fair fight. these two people are not occupying the same position in american life. she is very much at a disadvantage. i think she is a good witness and more importantly, she is sort of after someone like pecker who didn't have that animus. to have someone involved and was the reason they are there in the first place is important. >> and when you look at that, in regard to what i mentioned in the setup, the trump defense is michael cohen is lying. he set this up. everyone else is lying. trump didn't know what was going on. oh, stormy daniels was lying. there wasn't any encounter. some of the other people can only punch back without trump there. in the room of the story. reasonable doubt might be well, that's your view.

and we have all seen situations and i have seen cases where people have genuine misunderstands about something that happened. this lie is two people are in the room and either they had this encounter or not. and on that core point, do you think that the jury was able to see that she was paid. i don't have to pretend they are all equally reasonable theories. that she made it up and they paid her anyway? that's their defense. >> yeah. and there were little details like what she saw in his kit. in the bathroom. the gold toenail clippers. that kind of thing which has been consistent throughout. that's the other thing. she has been telling this story

since 2017 or whenever it came out and it has been consistent this whole time but i also think the journeys to see there is a human consequence to this. this is a woman who while she has made some money off of it, because she had to. it wasn't like she could go into investment banking after that. she was sort of set. right? she was made famous by this. and i think there's a real human cost. like, this is not how a lot of people would necessarily want to get famous. >> respect. yeah. i know what you mean. molly and renato, on one of the biggest days of testimony. my thanks to you. we have a special show going through all of this including why trump's critics say this testimony was about a whole lot more than a single criminal case. minal case. and nobody should be untouchable. doesn't matter what your job description is. whether you are the president. >> here we are and we as part of our special coverage have one of the very first

journalists to speak with stormy daniels. this was back been trump won any elections. and what she testified today. that's next. fied today. that's next. >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? safelite makes it easy. you can schedule in just a few clicks. and we'll come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> vo: schedule free mobile service now at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid

and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. if you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan that's smart now... i'm 65. and really smart later i'm 70-ish. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. with this type of plan, you'll know upfront about how much your care costs. which makes planning your financial future easier. so call unitedhealthcare today to learn more about the only plans of their kind with the aarp name. and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare.

a slow network is no network for business. with an aarp medicare supplement plan that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today!

a day many thought might never come. we are covering the trump trial with the stormy daniels testimony. her first time on the stand. we are joined by former civil attorney maya miley and journalist jacob weisburg. he was one of the first journalists to speak with stormy daniels back in 2016. he was the editor in chief of slate at the time. it wasn't signed. that was one of the items that was part of the evidence then. it has become, well, a big part of the criminal evidence now. thanks to both of you for being here. i wanted to give the context. you had the conversations then and they came up in court

today. daniels testifying she spoke to slate magazine. that is one of the things where she means you. she spoke to slate about her quote sexual encounter with trump and the magazine wasn't going to pay her for the story. you did not publish at the time. because you couldn't get her on the record. after the story went public, you wrote she went silent right before election day. a week before the election. she stopped responding to calls and texts so starting with you, jacob, it was foreseeable some of your early reporting would come up. all of this matters legally as they try to disentangle who bought her silence. who covered it up. and whether that is ultimately part of a campaign scheme. but first i will give you the floor since you were in vogue today. your thoughts? >> well i wasn't in the

courtroom. >> i'll jump in. i think we have enough audio issues. >> her testimony was consistent. >> jacob, can you hear me? i think we have a delay. but try restarting. we lost you for a second but i think we have you now. >> okay, i hear you fine. her testimony today was remarkably consistent with what she told me in 2016. it was consistent on the facts. i think her feelings about what happened have changed. though her description of being in the room with him, about his thoughts. what he was wearing. all of that totally consistent. but i think she now feels there was more of an element and she told me about it in 2016.

her view was very blase. i had sex with donald trump, no big deal. it didn't affect me. now, she seems increasingly unhappy about what happened. she didn't say he forced her or bar her from leaving the room. but, she didn't like what happened. and that's the only element that i think there is really significantly different from what i heard from her eight years ago. >> hm. maya, your thoughts on all of that and it is always a challenge if an incident is old enough. there are many incentives in the law to try to deal with things recently. and even if they get old enough. you are not allowed to deal with them. and yet it is fine from the court's view for her to have more feelings. she has been attacked and maligned and people have human reactions to that as long as her underlying account doesn't become perjury. >> yeah. the jury's job is to decide the

facts and decide whether they believe the witnesses, which witnesses they believe or don't believe. so the most important thing is whether the facts are core sis tent. because the job of the defense here is to suggest that stormy daniels is interested in money and willing to lie or has and has changed her story over time. jacob point was an important one. the consistency, that is something that helps juries figure out who they want to believe. but i would say the most important testimony from a legal standpoint when she was asked on direct examination by prosecutors, when the question was you trying to sell your story and not get a bite until that access hollywood tape. right? that was the line of questioning and she said yeah. it was after the access hollywood tape we started

getting a lot of calls. so when you get to the root of the case, there is testimony after having established her, the prosecutor's job. the credibility in terms of the detail of her memory and the case and why she should be believed. believe her when she says traffic picked up to buy her story was after the access hollywood tape. >> right. and you mentioned the money which was an issue. she told prosecutors that the money didn't matter to me. i didn't pick a number. and n cross, they pushed back but you were looking to extort president trump right? she says false twice. and jacob, money came up during your interviews as well. you wrote i told daniels slate did not pay sources but encouraged her to come forward without compensation. the jury may care about this given that this is a hush money

case. does also echo something she said before about her motivation. >> trying to keep the story from coming out. so that it would not hurt my husband and my daughter and i would lose my life. and, that there would be a paper trail and money trail linkerring linking me to donald trump he could not have me killed. all i had to do was sign a paper and collect $130,000. >> so, jacob, i think again, being as fair as we can try to be, you can break it into two pieces. one, is she telling the truth today. and two, was money ever a factor? the trump folks are trying to muddy that. but give us your thoughts on that.

>> she definitely cared about money. i don't think she cared whether the money came from the press paying for the story or the money came from michael cohen to suppress the story. i think she thought this thing happened. this story has an economic value. and that was at the root of my argument as it were with her. i wanted her to come forward and reveal the story without payment. and she said no, this story is worth money and if you won't pay me for it i want to see if somebody else will. and i think she was simultaneously trying to negotiate with other media organizations. and, with michael cohen. and i think she was probably indifferent to what she got paid for. that is whether to reveal it or her silence. but she thought the story had value. >> yeah. and maya, here is where we can be as transparent as possible. people want things that we do

not give them sometimes. we have review lawyers. we don't make deals and say oh, if i can get you for the story or the interview, we won't bring up x, y, z. they don't operate by those rules. >> or the national enquirer. >> or the enquirer, clearly. and i don't even mean that with shade. let's talk about what they do and don't do. i'm curious what you think again for the jury. we are not having some high minded journalism class here. we could do that on another day. trump lawyers are trying to say if you wanted money, then maybe you will say anything for money. and she is arguing and i think by extension, the prosecutors are arguing the opposite.

the thing she had, it may have had value in the marketplace. and so, that thing was not a made up storiment it was a provable or largely true story. at least according to the da's side of the case. untangle that for us. >> there is a big difference between extorting money which makes you someone who is not either likable or believable versus profiting from a story. right? and, thinking the jury has to decide is whether they believe her or what the defense attorneys are trying to do and why it is a great cross- examination tactic. we use the word extortion. when it is didn't you want to make some money. there is a difference between getting a story you can sell that is a true story.

versus we would suggest you want to make money by any means necessary. so it is a way of trying to cast dispersion on her character. doesn't matter why she wanted to make the money. it matters whether the story was true and what parts of the story are true. their job as we know as lawyers, if you are the prosecutors is to establish the real point here was the unlawful interference in an election out come. right? that's what they are trying to establish. because there is nothing illegal in the hush money case. there is no case in hush money. the case comes from falsifying business records. and then, why you falsified them and whether you are covering and concealing another crime. so that is why defense tactic is the distraction of extortion. as a sort of red herring in the case. that suggests she is not

someone you should trust. meaning she is not someone you should believe. that is why i go back to the testimony on direct which is the story picked up after that access hollywood tape. that is their argument about the motive of donald trump. they have to show his intent. this was another example of evidence. >> that makes sense. i want to turn to louisiana. and her sort of temperament which is interesting because you dealt directly with her. talking to you but also our team in the control room. if we can jump down to something we cooked up from the louisiana section on her demeanor. prosecutors asked her at times to slow down so jurors could

understand. tell us about growing up in louisiana. this goes to the human side of testimony. i think we have her talking about that outside of court. take a listen. >> i grew up in this pretty rough neighborhood in baton rouge. a lot of drugs and violence. my step mom susan who gifted me with my love of horses. my first horse show. i started riding horses when i was 11. >> just a little bit of the human being here rather than only defining her public life or in court by this interaction. though what is that makes her a witness. i'm curious in closing, anything you can tell us about her and how you think that came across? everything from speech patterns and slowing down. to whether or not at the end of the day and i mean that literally, the end of the day of testimony, the jury says yeah. this may not be a perfect person. they may not exactly relate to her. but is this a truthful person i can understand or do i dismiss

this person? for example, between her and cohen, you can imagine there may be jurors who find her more relatable than him. your thoughts on all that having dealt with her as a source? >> when she wanted to sell the story to slate, she said she needed the money because taking care of her horses was expensive and i think her daughter was having riding lessons. i said oh, you have horses and she told me about that. that is a passion of hers. all of that goes to her truthfulness. she is a performer. he has, she tells stories well. maybe that is part of her louisiana background. she has that lift of gab. and i think she was up there at the witness stand. again, i didn't see it. i think she started going into this mode where she is

performing in a way. and doesn't take anything away from the truthfulness. it is a narrative sense. she is very good at but i think she was also very nervous. and that probably accounted for her talking really quickly. and how the jury will read all that is anybody's guess. >> you have a new york courtroom with a reality tv star turned president. and an actress on the stand and a bunch of loud lawyers. yes. there might be some unavoidably performative moments. i think that is fair. all this is interesting and fair. what we know about the history. so thanks to both of you. still ahead, we turn to a whole other aspect of all of this. which is in the ensuing years from when that access hollywood tape came out, to the presidency of donald trump and the me two movement. there is a wider thing happening. we will talk about it next. eni. we will talk about it next.

hey, everybody. w. kamau bell here. they say that america is the land of the free. but right now, people in the u.s. are seeing their freedoms taken away at an alarming rate. freedoms some of us take for granted. the right to vote. equal access to health care. book banning and other forms of censorship that threaten our right to learn. and here's something truly shocking, right now in our country hundreds of thousands of people are incarcerated simply because they couldn't afford bail. that's not free and it's not fair. but there is hope for change.

it lives in people like you and in a great organization called the american civil liberties union. so please join me and other concerned americans in defending our civil liberties by joining the aclu as a guardian of liberty today. all it takes is just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. when you're surrounded by oppressive laws you can't just sit back and be oppressed. you get up and fight and all of us at the aclu are fighting for you. whether it's criminal justice reform or protecting the lgbtq plus rights, abortion rights or voting rights. the aclu is in the courts fighting for your rights, and mine and i, for one, sleep better at night knowing they're working every day in all 50 states to protect our freedoms. but these freedoms are at risk. we have to fight for them tirelessly and with your help, we will continue to do so. so please go to myaclu.org and join the fight for just $19 a month. use your credit card and get this special

we the people t-shirt, aclu magazine and more to show you're helping ensure justice for all. as an individual, donating to the aclu is one of the most powerful things you can do to fight for justice. but the aclu can't do it alone. they need your support now to continue defending our democracy and the freedoms we hold dear. so please join us. call or go online to myaclu.org today. thank you.

the king has been dethroned. he is no longer untouchable. >> he himself was nothing. it was an astonishing discovery for me. he is nothing. we don't need to be afraid of him. >> and nobody should be untouchable. it doesn't matter what your job description is. whether you are are the president. >> now it is about fighting for

all women. >> women who dealt with donald trump and then faced him down in court. that's the wider context for stormy daniel's key testimony today. as a witness. we are joined by special guest on what is a big legal day here. nancy erica smith. she has represented many women including gretchen carlson in her the lawsuit against fox news. we thought of you today. very curious what you thought of the testimony. but we thought of you more broadly. what we saw is part of a shift that donald trump's political life and electoral college victory in 16 helped catalyze. >> i was very impressed with tomorrowy daniel's testimony.

it is really outrageous we can't watch it live. it is our courtroom. and this is an historic and important trial and it only helps donald trump that we can't watch it. but i do think it is very, very wonderful that brave women come forward and tell their stories. women from the beginning of time have been accused of lying about the abuse that men heap on us. from the beginning of time. and the judiciary from the beginning of the judiciary has failed women. horribly. it used to be you couldn't claim you were raped unless you screamed enough. you had to cry. it was only recently that in some countries it is illegal for a husband to rape his wife. and there is this basic belief that women are lying. and the weinstein verdict is an incredible travesty. overturning that important jury

award because it has been admissible from the beginning of time. if you have a certain way of abusing women, just like if you had a certain way of being a serial killer it should be something the jury has a right to hear. there is a dig difference between he said she said and he said she said she said she said. so i think that while we have made some headway and i really admire e. jean carroll and stormy daniels for what they are doing. the pearl clutching and the mistrial motions and some of the commenters saying well, she went too far when she said he blocked the door. why are we always silencing women? why can't we put total context why donald trump would break the law so the american people

never heard this? >> this is not technically a sexual assault case. your point on weinstein is absolutely right. we have a headline on that. conviction overturned on the grounds you mentioned. and some commenters seizing on that. maybe the structures that allow powerful men to prey on women are still in place. he was making the argument this will all backfire. take a listen. >> they bring this case, i believe this will catapult him into the white house. i believe it. because this will show how they are weaponnizing the justice system. they are takeing the vote out of the voter's hand. >> that is not relevant. >> it is certainly relevant. relevant to what? >> to his innocence. either he is innocent or not. >> he is innocent and if they bring this case because he is innocent, this will catapult him to the white house. >> the court is not supposed to care he is a candidate but the

voters do. i'm curious how you respond to that. and that view that this kind of case with this kind of allegation is somehow helpful to him. >> i can't believe it is helpful to him. he has brought us the supreme court that overturned roe v. wade. he has been found guilty of rape of e. jean carroll. and he has paid hush money in order to hide after the hollywood access tape to hide another sexual event that he didn't want the public to have. if he didn't think it was relevant, why did he bring the accusers of bill clinton to the debate with hillary clinton? he clearly thought it was going to affect the election. and the whole fake invoices going to the convicted felon to pay off his lawyer, pretending

it was for legal fees. the thing is that donald trump should have been in jail decades ago. and he's gotten away with everything and the idea that how if you ever hold donald trump responsible and accountable for anything he has done, that maga is only going to really go crazy and put him in the white house, i don't believe that. donald trump keeps saying that his great maga supporters are being kept from out of new york and they can't cheer him on? they are not there. it is just another lie. the wall, the washington post pound he told 30,000 lies just while he was president. i don't believe that. i don't believe that women and i know that white women helped put him in the first time. although he lost by 3 million votes the first time. and i think 17 million the second. >> yeah. >> i don't think they will allow it. >> yeah. nancy, we wanted to hear from you, especially on the wider context on a day like today.

thanks for coming back. i'll see you again. >> thank you ari. >> absolutely. now is rikers island ready to handle trump when he is in prison? stay with us. in prison? stay with us. that means less stress for you. >> woman: thanks. >> tech: my pleasure. have a good one. >> woman: you too. >> tech: schedule today at safelite.com. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ are your gutters clogged? cleaning them can be dangerous, mucky, yuck. get leaffilter. it's as easy as one, two, three. call or click today. get your free gutter inspection on your schedule and get leaffilter installed in as little as a few hours. you'll never have to clean out your gutters again, guaranteed. get leaf filter today. call 833 leaffilter or go to leaffilter.com as easy as 1, 2, 3 i love that my daughter still needs me. but sometimes i can't help due to burning and stabbing pain in my hands, so i use nervive.

nervive's clinical dose of ala reduces nerve discomfort in as little as seven days. now i can help again feel the difference with nervive.

listen up, america! meat has problems. and it's going to take us meat eaters to solve them. so, when the world says too much meat is bad

and we should eat less of it, we say... no, world! we should eat more! because now we can turn plants into burgers and hotdogs... even meatballs! now, plants can be meat! come on people, let's punch cholesterol in the face! heyo! we're solving the meat problem... with more meat! impossible. meat from plants!

if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd like to be. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ white supremacists famously chanted "jews will not replace us" seven years ago, an

instance of the kind of heat we fight today which president biden condemned, including anti- semitism in the u.s. as he warned of the dangers of people minimizing or forgetting the holocaust. >> we give voice to the 6 million jewish people who were systematically targeted, murdered. the terrorist group, hamas, unleashed the deadliest day for the jewish people since the holocaust. i have not forgotten, nor have you. we must not forget. we've seen a ferocious surge of anti-semitism in america and around the world. we should rise against hate and may god bless -- >> that is just some of his remarks at the holocaust memorial, to deal with the facts about bigotry, against black americans, muslims, and other groups, propaganda, and lies.

we will be right back with news about trump and the possibility of going to rikers. much more. take your business to the next stage when you switch to shopify. >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? safelite makes it easy. you can schedule in just a few clicks. and we'll come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> vo: schedule free mobile service now at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ known for following your dreams. known for keeping with tradition. known for discovering new places. no one wants to be known for cancer, but a treatment can be. keytruda is known to treat cancer. fda-approved for 16 types of cancer, including certain early-stage and advanced cancers. one of those cancers is early-stage non—small cell lung cancer. keytruda may be used with certain chemotherapies before surgery when you have early-stage lung cancer,

which can be removed by surgery, and then continued alone after surgery to help prevent your lung cancer from coming back. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation or have a nervous system problem. keytruda is an immunotherapy and is also being studied in hundreds of clinical trials exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer. it's tru. keytruda from merck. see all the types of cancer keytruda is known for at keytruda.com and ask your doctor if keytruda could be right

for you. i still love to surf, snowboard, ifand, of course, skate.ht so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust. (bell ringing) someone needs to customize and save hundreds with liberty mutual! (inaudible sounds) (elevator doors opening) wait, there's an elevator? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪

a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now we're introducing ultimate speed for business, our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds at no additional cost. from the company with 99.9% network reliability and advanced cyber security, it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. and it's all from comcast business.

donald trump has been warned about being sent to jail again and the new york mayor was asked about it. take a look. >> they were talking about how he may go to jail if he continues to violate court orders. is rikers prepared for that? >> our amazing commissioner is prepared for whatever comes on rikers island. we don't want to do a hypothetical but we have professionals at the ready. >> the new york mayor without fanning the flames says they are ready for whatever the judge decides and you can bet trump's lawyers are listening. >> that's it for us did "the last word" is next. the excitement and anticipation in the room hit a new high.