into some communities but there are communities like this on the west side of detroit saying i've never seen you, into the sur row date gait. >> interesting, michigan especially because that's a place that joe biden needs to win either one need to win. it's a place where the protest vote because of the war in gaza has taken a toll and joe biden in the primary and they're worried about it in the general election. i wonder if we should expect to see them take a trip out there? >> you think so. one last time, 150,000 votes and many votes left on the table in communities like that? >> trymaine lee, thank you for bringing that us to. those guys were great. like hearing from them. thank you. >> thank you. >> you too. . that's going to do it for me today. happy friday. "deadline: white house" starts right now. . hi, everybody. it's friday. we made it and there's big news at 4:00 in new york, with no less than the fate of our

democracy at stake, the nine justices of the united states supreme court hold in their hands the power to forever alter the trajectory of our country. how they rule on cases having to do with january 6th, violent attempt to disrupt the transfer of power, will echo for generations. so not only is it reasonable for us to expect those nine human beings to go about their process impartially, it's vital that they are seen and perceived as being impartial appearance. the mere appearance of bias could strain our trust in an honest result for these cases, which is why today's news isn't just disturbing, it's scary. "the new york times" cites photos and interviews with neighbors in reporting that in 2021, days before president joe biden's inauguration as president, days after the deadly attack on the united states capitol of january 6th, neighbors of conservative justice samuel alito noticed something on his lawn, an upside

down american flag, a symbol commonly used in those days by trump supporters who falsely suggested the election was stolen, a symbol of stop the steal if you will. that flag flew in the alito's yard, the front yard, as he and his fellow justices were contending with whether to hear a 2020 election case. an argument on which alito would find himself on the losing end. in response to the "new york times" seeking responses, alito provided an e-mailed statement, quote "i had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag. it was briefly placed by," wait for it, mrs. alito," in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable language on yard signs." he blamed his wife. even if one accepts that at face value, we should ask ourselves,

did you do anything to alleviate the perception of bias that an anti-trump lawn sign, a mean neighbor, was so personally insulting to mrs. alito that only recourse they had as a supreme court justice and that justice's wife, was to fly the stop the steal symbol? brandished by some january 6th rioters who attacked the capitol one week before the a widely televised insurrection? again, with not one, but two january 6th related cases looming still, the first on presidential immunity, the other on the fate of a statute used to serve felony obstruction charges on hundreds who attacked the capitol the supreme court must consider how far their new code of conduct goes and who it applies to. quote, a justice should disqualify himself or herself in a flowing which the justice's

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. that is where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. response to the "new york times" report, senator dick durbin, chair of the senate judiciary committee called on alito to recuse himself from cases related to the insurrection. for the court to adopt a binding code of ethics. another reminder, another member of that committee, senator richard blumenthal who will be our guest in a few minutes, echoed that sentiment this morning on "morning joe." >> justice alito should not sit on any of these cases involving donald trump and recuse himself and here's the challenge to chief justice roberts, the united states supreme court's credibility is plummeting. >> all-time low. >> completely. >> lower than perhaps even the united states congress, and that's saying something. and it is due to the supreme

court's own self-inflicted wounds. alito and thomas directly involved in the january 6th insurrection. now they're going to sit on cases involving pivotal legal questions. absolutely unthinkable. >> and here we are, so how the supreme court will ultimately come down on the january 6th cases is unclear. nobody knows. even now before the justices have made public their decisions, the american people have a legitimate reason to be concerned, to have doubt, that the court will make a decision in an entirely impartial manner. it's where we start with our experts and friends, senior editor for slate and host of the amicus podcast dahlia is back, former lead investigator for the select committee tim is back, with us at the table, former top official at the department of justice, msnbc legal analyst andrew weissmann is here.

dahlia, this is a story that doesn't pack a lot of surprises when it comes to alito and thomas, a story that propublica won a pulitzer for their body of reporting a story that, stopped me in my tracks when i saw "the new york times" break this and with the photo that has an image if you love this country, is like a body blow to see the image, and then after i saw the image i read the story and to learn that it flew over the house on the front lawn of one of nine human beings who make up the united states supreme court, is to me an epic scandal. >> i mean, i think it's scandal and we're going to make a category error if we hyper focus on the sam alito is a mean, bitter man, who gets in fights with his neighbors. it takes away from the institutional story that we have focused on that senator blumenthal focused on, which is

how is it possible that there is a supreme court in which not one, but two justices have materially advanced positions in support of something that looks like stop the steal, something that looks like sympathy for the claim that the election was stolen. and that there is no mechanism whatsoever other than their own goodwill unto themselves to stop them. i think that's what's shocking about this story isn't so much that it kind of looks like the alitos should have done what the rest of us do when we fight with our neighbors, trim their rose bushes in the dark of night, but that's not the story. the story is, that yet again, we have two justices who are sitting on cases, one already decided, anderson, the colorado case, two pending, as you said, and the only mechanism that the public has is to be angry and upset? that just can't be the end of the story. >> i mean, andrew weissmann,

that he's a bad neighbor is the least shocking part of the story, right, and a fight with a neighbor, that your instinct is to side with the insurrection is wrong. >> first of all leave aside the story again, i would say it's like the responses to the propublica stuff. the responses made you think these are the people who are deciding to overturn roe versus wade. to dahlia's point it's the right one, if you want to connect the image that you saw, you don't have to look far. if you look at what alito said in the immunity argument, the argument was should a president be subject to the criminal laws,

and it was unbelievable, somebody who is a u.s. attorney, now sitting in the supreme court of the united states, took the position, we cannot trust doj, we cannot trust a grand jury of citizens, we cannot trust the criminal justice system, which by the way, he oversees the constitutional limits on what the government can do, we can't trust that and that's why a president should be immune. you tie that now to what you're seeing. this is a direct line in terms of what he espoused the the oral argument to the image you're seeing. this is not like his wife happened to be doing something because you can tie it to his rhetoric and positions in the court. >> maybe talk about this image. i saw it and immediately remembered it because i sat here and anchored hours of live television on january 6th and i was staring at what the insurrectionists were carrying, a lot carrying trump flags, but a lot of them carried this image

of the flag upside down. there it is. i had to google it on that day. i didn't know what that meant. this is in the view of the insurrectionists, this was their symbol that day. this was the symbol, mrs. alito, according to justice alito, if you even believe him at this point, decided to hang on her front lawn. >> right. absolutely. it is one of the symbols a lot of rioters used to demonstrate their belief that system was inverted, that the outcome was inverted. the symbolism here is that american ideals had been turned upside down that the wrong person is being installed as president because all of this fraud has somehow gone undetected, completely bogus, factually no foundation for that argument, but that's what this symbol of the inverted flag means, and it was on display quite prominently at the capitol on january 6th, which means there's no question, that

whoever made the decision to put that flag up in front of justice alito's house, 11 days later was willingly associating with the insurrectionists with this notion that outcome was somehow inverted. to me it doesn't matter what made the decision. it raises a very clear appearance issue. right. if a supreme court justice, who is making decisions that bear directly upon the legality of what happened on january 6th, the solemnity of our democracy and the election, has evidence that that belief with that symbol at the very least raises an issue of appearance, of bias, of conflict of impro pry ter and why the rules, not just the actual conflict, they say appearance of a conflict, which clearly calls for recusal. >> i mean, i can't believe i'm about to say this, but let's deal with the impossible odds that there would be not one, but

two insurrection of bettors of two people that make up the supreme court. how did the supreme court become literally married to extremists? >> i mean, i guess i want to put aside what we're going to hear in the coming days, which is that it's sexist to judge either mrs. alito or mrs. thomas, right? we've heard over and over again, how dare critics of justices thomas and alito try to muzzle and silence their wives, who are independent agents and can do what they want? clearly, if you look at the ethics rules, it has nothing to do with muzzling your wife. it has to do with, as tim just said, evincing the appearance that you have a dog in this fight. that's the end of the question, and clearly if ginni thomas is making phone calls to legislators or texting mark meadows to say set aside the

election results, then you are compromised. it has nothing to do with subordinating women. the other thing that i think is really, really important here, and we should not miss it, is that these are justices who presumably were involved in decisions about granting cert, right, this immunity case, there was a rock solid d.c. circuit opinion the court could have affirmed it, this trial could be happening if not over in judge chutkan's courtroom right now. so one of the questions i have, the structural questions, again, not is justice alito bad, i want to know how they voted on these cert grants. i want to know if they were part and parsing of slow walking what would have been the only criminal case in a federal court that is now not happening because possibly two of the justices voted to slow walk it. there are questions beyond just,

you know, were they insurrectionists or did their spouses support insurrection. there's also questions beyond just the appearance of impropriety. there were questions about how they voted in cases that may now not get heard before the election. >> tim, i always thought the fact that trump was so enthusiastic for the election to make its way to the supreme court, i know you guys looked at his tweets, supreme court, supreme court, the whole texas case of which now speaker mike johnson was the tip of the spear, as liz cheney keeps reminding us all to rally u.s. congressional support for, was a device to get stop the steal in front of the supreme court? take us back in time to how integral in trump's view in your investigation the supreme court was? >> yeah. so the whole political coup, nicole, depending upon reliable republicans in congress or on

the supreme court, being willing to go along with this crazy theory of john eastman's that you could reject certified slates of lectors, get it to the house of representatives. john eastman actually suggested that supreme court potentially would avoid getting involved because it was a political question, which would then kick this to congress, where the president and former president and his co-conspirators believed the fact that they control 26 or 27 of the state legislators, they could get it thrown into the house, they could win. all of this depended upon the false belief that republican office holders or judges appointed by republican presidents, would go along with it. thankfully, that did not happen for mike pence to brad raffensperger and bill barr, feels strange defending them, but on this issue they didn't go along with it despite their political ideologies.

there's no question, nicole, that the president hoped that the fact that he had appointed so many of these judges and others were sympathetic politically to him, would be an important consideration in executing this legal strategy, which had no basis. >> you know, i take dahlia's point we shouldn't get lost and i think you're referring to the interview with fox news, i think only kristi noem has gone on fox news to defend herself and made it worse, i think alito joins noem in that category, but it's important to talk about the climate his neighbors felt and the reason the story came out four years later. i think there's so much to deduce from how a human being treats their neighbors and the relationships on their block and the relationships they have in a school community and what not. the "times" reports half dozen neighbors who saw the flag or knew of it were anonymous because they said they did not want to add to the

contentiousness on the block. they feared reprisal. this is not a new story. this happened four years ago and the neighbors were scared to say what they saw. i mean i worked in the administration that said if you see something say something. we are so paralyzed by the threat of domestic extremism that the neighbors of a supreme court justice who were hanging the insurrection flag in their yard were too scared to tell anybody? >> it's that and it's almost scarier than that. you're certainly right, the notion that they were afraid of reprisal or stayed anonymous, tells you where we are in this moment of, you know, terror and incitement of violence. another point under that that is almost more chilling which is why are lawyers who argue cases before the supreme court, january 6th cases, not standing up and saying, you should be recused. you're totally biased. why is clarence thomas on this case? they're not doing that either. they're chilled for fear of

prepriceal. the argument in anderson, the colorado case, everybody knew that justice thomas and now we see alito shouldn't be sitting on the case, but nobody says it. we're looking at not just the neighbors who are terrified of reprisal, we're looking at everyone, an entire country, afraid to say this is not how it's done. why? they have absolute immunity from consequences. almost no point in speaking up if you have a court that has the power to decide who faces consequences and the they never face consequences. >> you know, andrew weissmann -- president biden sat where you're sitting told me would he ever contemplate any supreme court reforms. you've got, as pointed out, you've got public faith in the supreme court plunging. it's fallen faster than any institution and senator blumenthal who will join us who

said it's less popular than the congress, than the media, take that. there is a remedy. roberts could hold the justices to the same standards. standards for employees of the supreme court, may not engage in partisan political activity, partisan political activity related to elections contested by political parties. for example, employees may not publicly support or oppose a partisan political organization or candidate. this includes displaying signed -- signs or bumper stickers, stating positions on social media. employees may not engage in nonpartisan activity if it could reflect adversely on the dignity or impartiality of the court or interferes with the duties. the upside down flag is associated with one of the two parties, trump supporters, at the capitol that day and absolutely makes it impossible for that body to be dignified. >> there are remedies. i mean, i won't say it is easy. obviously, dahlia's point is

that people who appear there can actually have more gumption. we're about to hear -- we heard from senator durbin and other senators can have hearings, theshg do more than say what we're saying, this shouldn't happen. they're in position to do more about it and to exert pressure. obviously, there was a presidential commission on what to do with the supreme court, the leading sort of idea is to have term limits. >> yeah. >> it doesn't solve the ethics issue, but writ large, at least it caps it so that the person isn't there for as long as this. >> forever. >> yeah. >> just to look at the weeds for a second, just -- can we consider for a moment what justice alito's defense is here? understanding because of the photo he can't just say it didn't happen. even let's assume his wife put

it up, take that as a given, even though we just have the statement, lots of reasons to think -- his lawn, he didn't see it? i mean -- >> he didn't say he didn't see it. >> exactly. it's up for days. he never saw that? i mean, he doesn't -- didn't talk to his wife? didn't see the flag? didn't think maybe i should take this down? remember the environment we were in. let's go back to january 6th. what was going on in washington? i mean, i keep saying this about the judges who have these cases, everyone who was in washington lived it. it was happening there around them. >> they were sitting. >> i don't think people can understand just how central it was to what was happening in that city and how shocking even for us just watching it on tv. and he didn't think, maybe i should take this down? i mean, and then the response, i'm doing this in response to what? how is -- how is putting a stop the steal flag that you know

about, you are not taking down, how is that somehow justified by a neighbor? i don't care. say the neighbor -- >> my neighbor -- >> what the neighbor says go biden, that means you put up this flag as a sitting supreme court justice? it is -- it is so much -- it is such a denigration of what should be sort of a court. >> let me ask you, dahlia, alito is there because hair yet myers, bush's dear friend and pick for the seat doesn't make it. not enough support in his own party, the nomination fails. alito is bush's distant second choice after hair yet myers who was white house counsel. does that add to the chip? is he a partisan hack? what happened to alito or was he always this guy? >> he wasn't this guy, and, in fact, on the court of appeals,

he was not known to be this guy. there's no question, i think, that he feels that the confirmation hearing for the supreme court that they made his wife cry, that he was insulted. you may recall they implied he was a racist because of a group he was involved with in princeton and from that point on, i think he has become angrier and angrier. one of the shattering parts of this story this is not justice alito holding up, you know, some standard for equality and dignity and the american way. he's having a fight and in order to own his neighbor, he's decided to put up, you know, an scrummist symbol. the smallist, the pettiness, this is the hill he wants to die on? that is the part as andrew says, so beyond unbecoming for somebody who is going to be deciding in the next few weeks

and months, massive, massive existential questions about presidential power and the rule of law. >> the thing about integrity, these guys are going to miss it when it's all gone. our next guest says there's no way justices alito and clarence thomas should be ruling or deciding on cases involving donald trump and january 6th calling the latest revelation beyond disturbing. a member of the senate judiciary committee, senator richard blumenthal. the first ever criminal trial of an american ex-president is in the home stretch. day 19 is on monday. picking up with star witness and former fixer michael cohen who will be back on the stand. will the criminal defendant testify next? not even his lawyers know or will say. we'll look at the week ahead and much more when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. n't go anywhe.

since my citi custom cash® card automatically adjusts to earn me more cash back in my top eligible category... suddenly life's feeling a little more automatic. like doors opening wherever i go... [sound of airplane overhead] even the ground is moving for me! y'all seeing this? wild! and i don't even have to activate anything. oooooohhh... automatic sashimi! earn cash back that automatically adjusts to how you spend with the citi custom cash® card.

[mind blown explosion noise] it's odd how in an instant things can transform. slipping out of balance into freefall. i'm glad i found stability amidst it all. gold. standing the test of time. norman, bad news... gold. i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go.

plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

joining our coverage democratic senator richard blumenthal, great state of connecticut. senator, what do we do now? >> what we do now is, number one, seek a code of ethics because the supreme court has none. it has rules and principles they've adopted but they are not a code of conduct and not enforceable. congress really should be put on the spot, and i think that the suggestion that litigants, perhaps, should raise the issue of recusal in these cases

involving trump is not a bad idea, but it's unlikely to have effect. what i think we need to do now is put the supreme court on the ballot, say that membership on the supreme court is going to be a lasting impact of this election, and that the choices as to who will replace the current justices likely will be made by the next president. the choices we make in this election will determine whether or not the supreme court really reflects america, as to its plummeting support in the american public, you know, the supreme court is a fundamentally anti-democratic institution, chosen by a president, elected by no one, sitting for life, and if it begins losing trust, as it's doing, it will be very, very difficult for it to

recover. but we need to make sure that there is support for a supreme court that would reflect america's basic rules. what i'm hearing from you is the remedy if your view is what republicans have done with issues of the supreme court for generations, is that conceding there's not much that can be done without a partner in chief justice roberts? >> we need to put the blame on republicans for what's happening in the supreme court. they are the ones responsible for the current members, thomas and alito, are flagrantly are violating basic standards of principle and decency and the american people ought to understand these choices that are made in elections will have consequences for the courts, and that is putting the courts on the ballot. remember if samuel alito were a

member of a lower court, and he put that flag upside down on his property, he would be likely investigated, probably disciplined, but definitely in my view disqualified for sitting on any case involving the insurrection or donald trump, and that fact just highlights that the supreme court has no code of ethics. it's the only agency, only branch of government, only part of the judiciary that has no code of ethics. >> the window into the extremist views with which two of nine people, i'm not great at math, somewhere more than 20%, less than 33%, that number of justices on a nine-person body, dine with, associate with, are married to people who believe in what chris fehr wray called

domestic terrorism, and before tucker carlson got ahold of him so did ted cruz. the fact that an event described as domestic terrorism was an event that ginni thomas was enthusiastic about, went into tim haighty's committee and proud of the e-mail and text she sent, believed the election was stolen, and this flag, samuel alito, if we believe him, that's everybody's choice who's watching, said it was his wife's choice to fly the flag carried by insurrectionists on january 6th, how are two of the people on the supreme court surrounded by that extremist ideology? >> i can't explain what is going through their heads and how they could have arrived at this state of mind, but the danger is that they will infect others with the same kind of perspective. the supreme court is a very

cloistered and isolated institution. i was a law clerk to a justice there for a year, and i've argued cases before the supreme court. i foe how difficult it is to raise difficult issues before the court, but the possibility that others can be influenced by them, i think is very real, and the -- the duty here is on the part of the chief justice, really, to show some leadership, to demonstrate some backbone and spine, and to bring some sense of decency and standards to the court beyond the code that they've adopted which has no enforceability, no teeth. he has to lead and make sure that alito and thomas do not sit on these cases, and it involves reaching out to those other members of the court. >> i mean, i guess andrew

weissmann, the court has weighed in on cases. you don't get there anyway, that was unanimous. but to dahlia's point, they've already -- their fingers are already dirty on january 6th. the decision to hear trump's claim of absolute immunity at trump's request and not jack smith guarantees that there will be no trial for trump before election day? >> and as we're sitting here, one thing that we do not know, to follow up on your point and dahlia's point, we do not know if the reason there is no decision, that it's been argued we're all waiting, is whether justice alito, justice thomas, or both, are holding it up because they're writing a dissent and, you know, the sort of, as the senator would know, you know, there's a decorum that they sort of wait for people to, you know, you don't just say you have to write your dissent in a

day. we don't know whether they're putting a hold on this. we know what their views are. it's really shocking. i guess my only question for the senator, i think it's totally fair and right to say that the -- that the supreme court is on the ballot. that is legitimate thing for people to understand, which ever way they want to vote. that is a consequence. but is there anything that senate can do or should it be doing something, or is that something that's not a realistic possibility? >> senator? >> what it should be doing and those points are well taken, it should be voting on a code of ethnics and establishing an inspector general, it should be requiring more transparency. i propose that the shadow docket be severely limited. that docket where the court makes decisions without revealing what the makeup of the majority is or writing any

opinions. and it should be made more transparent. will it happen? we need to be clear eyed. republicans have circled the wagons and in effect regarded any effort to make the court more accountable and more transparent an attack on them as republicans and on the justices that they have appointed. so they see it in purely stark, political terms that mean probably they will vote against any of those reforms and i agree we probably should have a hearing to expose the utter hypocrisy of republicans on this issue. >> i'm going to ask all of you, call an audible, stick around through a commercial. i have one more question for you, dahlia. there's such a laguardia style of backup of planes on the runway. the investigation of themselves

over the leak of dobbs, there is the conduct of ginni thomas around the insurrection. i mean there's so many things, i wonder if we can just go to all of you who are so much smarter than i am on these issues and ask if chief justice roberts possesses a breaking point or any power? i have to sneak in a break first. we'll be right back with that. we'll be right back with that. ua to help manage blood sugar response. uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day.

♪ that colonoscopy for getting screened ♪ ♪ is why i'm delaying ♪ ♪ i heard i had a choice ♪ ♪ i know the name, that's what i'm saying ♪ -cologuard®? -cologuard. cologuard! -screen for colon cancer. -at home, like you want. -you the man! -actually, he's a box.

cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45+ at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ i did it my way ♪

. dahlia, i know that answer is always there's not much we can do, right.

but does the chief justice still want to be the chief justice? does he say if i can't do anything, if i can't preserve this body that i arguably love and came here to serve, but have overseen its fastest, largest plunge in public confidence, then i am going to stop being its chief, and i'm going to give that back, and i'm going to let -- does he have to stay and preside over the destruction of the public support and love for the united states supreme court? >> look, i think the one piece of good news he does care deeply. i think he lies awake and night at worries in the way justice alito and thomas do not. i think he believes, and we have given him the right to believe, these are just little sort of umbrage episodes the public gets grumpy about the dobbs leak and then again about dobbs and then a little mad about, you know, the immunity case, but the public doesn't care.

least no sustained caring. i think that if the chief justice is waiting for, you know, the court to be sort of smoldering rubble before he gets it, then we're all in big trouble. i think it's our job to say and everyone on the panel has said it today, we're almost there, awfully close, and the time to save it is not after the court has lost all legitimacy but to do it now before the court loses all legitimacy. >> the kid in the sixth sense you're dead you just don't know it. thank you for spending more time with me than any of you planned to. senator, thank you very much for making time for us. andrew, you'll be back in the next hour. tim, thank you for being part of our coverage. we'll check in with someone near and dear to me the show and all of you, eva in ukraine taking a step, taking matters into his own hand, putting his life on

the line so serve the nation he loves. e the nation he loves. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well ♪ ♪ jardiance! ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance ♪ ♪ at each day's start! ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to see ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪ jardiance works twenty-four seven in your body to flush out some sugar. and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function,

and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. you may have an increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of infection in your legs or feet. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell ♪ ♪ the little pill ♪ ♪ with a big story to tell! ♪ my mental health was better. but uncontrollable movements called td, tardive dyskinesia, started disrupting my day. td felt embarrassing. i felt like disconnecting. i asked my doctor about treating my td, and learned about ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪ ingrezza is clinically proven for reducing td.

most people saw results in just two weeks. people taking ingrezza can stay on most mental health meds. only number-one prescribed ingrezza has simple dosing for td: always one pill, once daily. ingrezza can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have thoughts of suicide. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including angioedema, potential heart rhythm problems, and abnormal movements. report fevers, stiff muscles, or problems thinking as these may be life threatening. sleepiness is the most common side effect. take control by asking your doctor about ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪

. the coming weeks and months will demand a great deal of ukrainians who have already sacrificed so much, but i have come to ukraine with a message. you are not alone. >> that was u.s. secretary of state antony blinken in ukraine this week with a somber, but supportive message, as russia's brutal illegal war in ukraine

reaches a new stage. yun president vladimir putin launched a summer offensive in the last week with moscow's forces taking a dozen villages in ukraine. ukrainian president zelenskyy said russia's advances have bee a wave of drone attacks, part of kyiv's strategy with the war with russia to take it beyond the front line as the military continues to struggle with manpower. friend of the show, former adviser to ukrainian president zelenskyy igor novikov with news of your own. tell us. >> well, hi, nicole. i told you privately and i think i said it publicly, this day will come, unfortunately, it has come, not because the war is going well for us. i am joining the armed forces and so are many, many ukrainians. if not all of them. and to be honest, i mean, i'm

surprised. i get messages of support, but this might sound -- but i can tell you one thing, first of all serving your country and pro effect texting your country is a privilege. honor and dignity are not so. so this is the news that i have. >> igor, to say i'm worried and my heart saying could be an understatement. my viewers are worried and i speak for them when my heart sank. it's important to remind everybody of all the ways you've been serving your country since the earliest days of the war. you've been protecting your neighborhood, your children, our earliest conversations were about protecting your children in your own house. tell me how you and your family are doing? >> well the family is doing well. yes, i was, in fact, part of our neighborhood watch. i even have photos. this is ridiculous, because i

have no military experience, i'm not a military guy. i have hardly ever shot a machine gun in my life. and when, you know, when you have to rely on terminators like myself to defend the country you need to kind of start paying attention to why that is the case. the reason for that is because, first of all, that six-month delay in military aid, has cost us greatly. it has cost our energy infrastructure. i'm in the middle of a blackout and my generator is running. secondly, it has cost us our best soldiers. now everyone has to fight. but for us, i mean the choice is simple. we either fight and win or die. >> you track our politics as closely as anybody i know stateside, we talk about it all the time on and off tv, say a little bit more about delay. it ended in a good way, mike johnson between visiting new york did do something heroic when he supported aid for

ukraine, but there was a delay. say more about the real world consequences of our dysfunctional politics. >> well, two main lessons for me at least to share here, first of all, yes, luckily the aid is on the way, but that six-month delay has cost us greatly. putin is applauding everyone who is behind that delay. so that's lesson number one. whenever your bureaucracy or politics gets in the way people die, in places like ukraine where we're fighting for freedom and liberty and democracy. secondly, even when you change the channel, you know, democracy dies in darkness and every time you pay attention to that snooze fest of a court case instead of people fighting for freedom, you know, that's democracy horrifi. >> you know, in the beginning, when you and i worked together to, sort of, try to harness the support the people of this country feel for you and your country and your president, i

would say to people, you know, on monday, they were just like us, right? they were picking their kids up from school. some of them working remotely still. and then on tuesday, russia invaded. and i wonder if you can just -- do you still remember before, or is it just -- are all your memories now clouded out by the reality of raising a family in the middle of a war zone? >> i do remember before. the memories come from pictures and videos and social media. i don't remember what it's like flying on a plane, for example. i used to have frequent flier programs. and i don't remember what it's like to just go on holiday. i don't remember what it's like to go to seaside with your family. so, that's bad. but new memories are being made as well. first of all, we feel the resilience because of the blackouts. and seeing those people surprised by the fact that somebody cares and somebody is out there, strangers trying to

help you, that's great. i actually have a positive story to share. you know, thousands of schools have been destroyed in ukraine, and i told you this in private. but there's the first ever american christian school being built near kyiv. and i'm incredibly grateful to people like, for example, andrew -- who i've introduced you to, a student from stanford university who started students supporting ukraine initiative. and, you know, schools are being built, christian schools are being built. i wonder what tucker carlson has got to say about that. >> and they have a focus on soccer, futbol, they told me. we call it soccer here still. egor, it is with a very, very heavy heart that i tell you to stay safe, as you take this new role in serving your country. i hope you will join us often. another thing that weighs on you is our country's a.d.d., our inability to stay focused on the fact that you're not fighting just for ukraine.

you're fighting for us. you're fighting our enemy in russia and in putin, and you're fighting to protect democracy, not just there but here. please come back as often as you are able to, my friend. >> thank you. when we come back, the conspiracy theorist who brutally attacked the husband of nancy pelosi has been sentenced to prison for his crimes. i'll tell you for how long when we come back. u for how long whe we come back in my office tell me about their frequent dry eyes, which may point to dry eye disease. millions of americans were estimated to have it. they've tried artificial tears again and again, but the relief is temporary. xiidra can provide lasting relief. xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. doctor: why wait? ask your eye doctor about a 90-day prescription for xiidra today. (vo) red hot deal days are here. ask your eye doctor about aonly until may 29th. get a bundle of your choice on us. so you'll get a free phone and a smartwatch and a tablet.

yep, all 3 on us only at verizon. it's hard to explain what this feels like. ♪♪ moving piles of earth. towing up to 4,000 lbs. cutting millions of blades of grass. nothing compares to experiencing it for yourself. you just have to get in the seat. clem's not a morning person. or a... people person. but he is an “i can solve this in 4 different ways” person. you need clem. clem needs benefits. work with principal so we can help you with a plan that's right for him. you know what i'm saying? let our expertise round out yours. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates

matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire ♪♪ imagine a future where plastic is not wasted... but instead remade over and over... into the things that keep our food fresher, our families safer, and our planet cleaner. to help us get there, america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars to create innovative products and new recycling technologies for sustainable change. because when you push for smarter solutions, big things can happen. our biggest challenge? uncertainty. hidden fees, surcharges... who knows what to expect! turn shipping to your advantage. keep it simple...with clear, upfront pricing. with usps ground advantage®. ♪♪ what if we don't get down in time to get a birthday gift for zoe? with usps ground advantage®. don't panic. with etsy we can find the perfect gift, and send her a preview right away.

thanks guys. [ surprised scream ] don't panic. gift easy with etsy. why would i use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? i like to do things myself. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. kayak... aaaaaaaahhhh kayak. search one and done. some accountability today in

the horrific attack of paul pelosi, the husband of former house speaker nancy pelosi. that attack took place inside their home in san francisco in october of 2022. his attacker, david depape, has been sentenced to 30 years in prison after being found guilty of attempted kidnapping of a federal official and assault. depape, who entered the pelosi home wielding a hammer, asking, quote, where is nancy, held her husband, paul pelosi, against his will in their own home until law enforcement officials arrived, when he then attacked pelosi, striking him in the head with a hammer. in a statement, the pelosi family said they, quote, couldn't be prouder of their pop and his tremendous courage in saving his own life the night of the attack. speaker pelosi and her family are immensely grateful to all who have sent love and prayers, as mr. pelosi continues his recovery. depape faces state charges which

include attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. when we come back, the first ever criminal trial of a former u.s. president. we'll see what happens next after a short break. resident we'll see what happens next after a short break.

donald trump would never plead the fifth amendment. >> if you are innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment. >> now he's on trial for hiding hush money payments to a porn star. but he won't take the stand. donald, why won't you testify? after all, you believe only guilty cowards take the fifth. >> fifth amendment, fifth amendment, fifth amendment. horrible. horrible. >> take the stand, donald, or admit you're a coward. >> how about them apples? hi, again, everybody. it's 5:00 in new york on a friday. it is the big open question at this point. will he or won't he?

will donald trump take the stand in his defense in his own criminal trial? will the jury get to hear from the man at the center of all of it. we've seen the ex-president take the stand or go under oath for very short periods of times in previous trials. it hasn't gone very well for him. in november of last year, he testified in the civil fraud trial against him and his businesses, where he flung insults and barbs at the judge. the attorney general who brought the case, and the lawyer questioning him. just like that ad called him out on during an earlier deposition, in that case, he pled the fifth a lot of times. >> in 2019 statement of financial condition contained false and misleading valuations and statements. is that correct? >> same answer. >> you knew at the time it was finalized that the year 2019 statement of financial condition contained false and misleading statements, is that correct? >> same answer. same answer. same answer. >> same answer was the fifth. there also was, of course, this rather memorable moment from his

deposition in the e. jean carroll defamation lawsuit. >> i don't even know the woman. let's say, i don't who. it's marla. >> you said marla is in this photo? >> that's marla, yeah. it's my wife. >> which woman are you pointing to? >> here. >> the person you just pointed to was e. jean carroll. >> oh, i see. >> the wife or the woman accusing me of sexual assault. wife, wife? no, no. the other one. the one accusing you of sexual assault. remains to be seen what he will do next week. as for his behavior at the trial so far, a reporter at "the new york times" describes him this way, quote, he strides into the courtroom just before proceedings begin each morning, a heavily made up person, who directs gram masses, glowers, and winks towards the recorders. his face falls when he thinks he's not being observed. and sometimes when he stands up from the defense table, i can

see him ready himself to face the press, jutting out his jaw before turning toward our seats. court will be back in session next week when we will see the conclusion of michael cohen's testimony. the prosecution and defense could begin their closing arguments right after that on tuesday. judge merchan told the lawyers to have the closing arguments ready by tuesday. it has been almost one month since witness testimony began in this criminal trial. so far we have heard 19 individuals paint a pretty vivid picture of the sleazy world of tabloids and celebrity gossip. they have explained phone and bank records and described a 2016 trump campaign in extreme damage control mode in the aftermath of the release of the "access hollywood" tape. the jury heard from stormy daniels, the recipient of the $130,000 in hush money. and most recently, we heard from trump's former fixer, michael cohen, the man who directly ties the ex-president to those payments and the reimbursement.

in just a few days, this case could be in the hands of the jurors, 12 people deciding the criminality of a man who is both an ex-president and a current presidential candidate in the only trial that will likely take place before the american voters go to the polls. it's where we start this hour. we have a full table here on a friday. former criminal division deputy chief at sdny, a current msnbc legal analyst, christy greenberg is back, plus former executive anchor with american media inc. and special correspondent for "the hollywood reporter," retired new york city judge, judge grass sew is here. he's been at the trial every day, taking notes and watching astutely. and andrew weissman has been here since 4:00. thank you for sticking around. welcome. thank you so much for being here. i know you visited with some of our colleagues and some of our regulars. i wonder what your impression is from taking it all in and, sort of, having a sense of what

stands out. when the whole thing is over, jurors are back to left to remember what really stuck with them. >> overall i think the d.a. has structured a very, very strong case. i think it's fitting together. i think there's abundant evidence already on the record to support a conviction of donald trump with respect to all of the counts, frankly. however, on thursday afternoon, right before the lunch break, starting around 12:30-ish, michael cohen took a direct hit. prior to that, on his credibility. prior to that, there were things like, you know, his previous perjuries, nasty comments regarding a deceased judge, judge paulie, who he said was "in it" with the federal prosecutors who prosecuted him, which i always felt very offputting and i imagine the jury probably felt that way too. but nothing directly on point to his previous testimony. but then they hit him with respect to a crucial phone call

that he previously testified on monday, may 13th about, with donald trump, october 24th, about 8:00 p.m., 8:02 p.m. to be exact, that he was ready to pull the trigger on the scheme to get the $130,000 payoff to stormy daniels through her attorney, keith davidson. and he wanted to get the sign-off from trump. he wanted to let him know, we're ready to go because he was using his money from a home equity loan. so, he testified, he calls keith schiller. keith schiller, you know, gives him a text, you know, call now. he calls, lays it out to trump, good to go. very clean, very straight. then on thursday, he's hit by todd blanche on cross-examination with some crazy call involving -- >> a 14-year-old. >> -- a 14-year-old who was threatening him. so, it's a 7:48 text from

michael cohen to keith schiller saying, what do we do about people who threaten people and that kind of thing? and it's in that context that he gets the call me to keith schiller. and then it's laid out that apparently the call had a lot to do with that threat. and then it's followed up and it's a very short call. it's 1:36. >> 96 seconds. >> it's followed up the following morning at about 8:00 a.m. or 7:58 a.m., i believe, a text from cohen to shiller, did you talk to the parents yet? so, here's the thing. cohen was initially flat footed by that. he wasn't prepared for it by the d.a., which was quite surprising. the d.a. had access to the same records that the defense did. and now this is coming out as an entirely new story. so, cohen's kind of like, i would say, tap dancing and saying, well, maybe we could have talked about both things.

if we would have -- if it would have been in his direct testimony on monday -- >> the insulation. >> -- it could have been explained. >> how do you clean it up, though? do you -- on redirect -- is it bad enough -- it sounds like in your estimation it's bad enough they're going to want to come back to it on redirect. >> 100%. >> what does that look like? >> it looks like it's something of an oversight. i have a lot going on in my life. i'm getting hit with things left and right. i forgot it. i shouldn't have forgot it. that's the best they can do. it was a very important call in its own right but it's not fatal because there's so much other evidence. the fatal part is there's key links to this evidence that michael cohen provides. in particular -- he uniquely provides -- a january 17, 2017, meeting with him and weisselberg and trump on the 26th floor in trump tower, where they basically lay out the whole plan. the infamous weisselberg notes, thumbs up by trump, puts him in

the soup. following up on february 8 of 2017, a one-on-one in the oval office where trump is saying things to cohen like, how are you doing on money? i'm okay. well, okay, don't worry, the checks are coming. which of these nine $35,000 checks signed by trump in addition to two other checks from the trump organization. what the d.a. is going to ultimately have to do is convince the jury that donald trump had motive and intent to assist cohen or help cohen cover up a crime, the fee ka crime, not the $130,000 was really an unreported campaign contribution. so, his credibility in establishing that is unique and crucial. so, if the october 24th problem leads into the jury questioning these other issues, well, that's the stuff that doubt is made of. that's where we are. >> and how much would you expect

them to come back to everything that came before cohen? i mean, obviously they made a strategic decision that he would go last. david pecker puts trump in the room where the original catch and kill is hatched. puts on the relief couch. so glad that story didn't come up before. you had all these people smear michael cohen and make clear he didn't have a leash longer than 4 inches long to do anything. two, he couldn't spend a dime without talking to donald trump first. and three, he didn't have the sex and he didn't benefit from it being kept secret. >> i think one might argue this. and josh steinglass, who is the lead, is reported to be the person who's going to do the summation. so, you can be sure it's going to be really terrific in terms of just very experienced. and i think what you're saying is exactly how i would approach it, which is, let's go through all the evidence. leave him aside. we're going to come back to him and we'll talk about him. but let's talk about all of the evidence. i read a piece in "the new york

times," just before michael cohen testified, about that issue. do you call him because the case, i thought, was surprisingly strong. i thought that david pecker opening, to your point, in terms of the order brief was sort of masterful in term of laying it out. and then you turn to michael cohen. i actually do think that -- i mean, there's no way they brought this case thinking, oh, you know what? you have to believe michael cohen or else you can't convict. i think they're going to say that. and they're going to say he's corroborated about the things that really matter. and even if you just use your common sense, yes, of course he's a liar. that was a given in the beginning, middle, and end of the case, and they're still going to say that. but it doesn't mean if you -- this is very much like judge engoron in the civil case said. you could be convicted of perjury. you could be a liar. it doesn't mean you're always lying about everything. >> right, right. and i mean, every mob trial features unseemly characters that were part of the mob. i mean, the witness couldn't be a blunt person.

there would be very few people in our jails. >> i will tell you a story about i a number of times put sammy -- on the stand as the cooperating witness. he was the underboss of the family who was then cooperating. and the baggage he had, in addition to participating in 19 murders -- leave that aside -- he was -- he had been captured on tape saying that, if you go to the grand jury, he talked about what you need to do. and he said that for a certain percent of the time -- i can't remember. it was 60 or 70%, you can tell the truth. and he said for another percentage, you can bob and weave. he'd had examples of how to deflect, what do you mean? i don't understand. and he said the other 10% of the time, just lie because you have to. i remember going to the jury and saying, the only part of that tape that is surprising is that it's only 10%. i mean, of course -- and then you talk about cooperation. you talk about different interests that the person has. and that's where you can -- and

no one is going to be sitting there saying, oh, he is a paragon of virtue. i mean, this trial -- frankly the person that comes off the best is probably stormy daniels. david pecker had a hideous story in terms of this country. hope hicks, as lawrence o'donnell said, is no paragon. and, you know, was saying a lot of things. and very complicit in a lot of horrific things. so, no one's going to be saying, you have to believe michael cohen, except the defense will be saying exactly -- they will try to say, he's critical -- >> and that that call was essential. i think the other piece of it and the other question -- and i don't know this. i've only been a juror. i've never studied them. i don't know the science of them. i've never selected them. i think it probably says more about me than anybody else that i didn't think twice to sit on one. we don't know what they latched on to. but it is undeniable that the two witnesses that were slaughtered most brutally by

trump's team were stormy daniels, the woman he chose to have sex with, and michael cohen, the man he asked to cover it up. those things are -- they may sort of speak to your gut than what's happening in the courtroom, but it's undeniable. >> and i was sitting there and, you know, we were just building up to it just before lunch and they'd been throwing a lot of daggers towards michael cohen, obviously trying to trip him up on a lot of fronts. and yes, this was something you could tell blanche was working his way to. he raised his voice, looked at trump, looked around to the press, the human printer, did you get this down? this was the bombshell? >> after 19 days, they somethin. >> this is the moment. and i left lunch thinking, you know what? you can get a lot into a 90-second phone call. you can talk about a lot of things. and i don't think it's this bombshell that a lot of people are making out. i didn't feel that was just -- you know, we've come so far from david pecker through to hope hicks.

there's a reason, as we've all acknowledged, that michael cohen was on the stand last. and what he's been saying has been corroborated already by david pecker and by hope hicks. so, i just didn't leave that moment and think that it was this kind of absolute ripper, bombshell looking at me being like, this is it. this is what we've been working for. >> and there's this other piece of it that's todd blanche bombed. so, in trump world, you only get to bomb in a public performative capacity once. there's the legal blow he clearly landed on michael cohen, which they were expecting on tuesday, which they previewed with the press tuesday. that was his goal tuesday. he did not achieve that goal on tuesday. he lands the blow on thursday. what david kelly said yesterday is cohen wasn't there really as a -- he was there -- everything had been precorroborated, preestablished. he's there to, sort of, add a human voice to things people have already seen with their own

eyes, a fraudulent document 12 times over. who signed that one? they weren't all signed by the same people. is it your sense he's on stand in the first place because they felt everything that came before him was strong enough to withstand a blow like this? . >> i think so. i think he's been corroborated in so many ways t. story the defense wants to tell doesn't make sense. you not only have to believe that michael cohen went rogue but that allen weisselberg did the same thing. that doesn't really track with everything we've heard about how the trump organization operates. i think the one thing i would say is, i agree with you. yes, it was, i guess, a bombshell moment in the sense that there wasn't a whole lot happening otherwise. but i don't know. i forgave him for it because this was eight years ago. this was 2016. for him to remember -- he went through -- this wasn't the only conversation he had with donald trump about this topic. there were multiple calls. there were multiple -- >> two on the 26th. >> yes, right?

and they were two short calls on the 26th, and then we have these other conversations. so, again, the fact that other topics would have come up, i mean, he remembers that they talked about it. he remembers the broad strokes. i think remembering every little detail of those conversations, ask anybody to do that from last week and i think they would have a hard time. >> i don't remember what i led with yesterday. >> he remembers the takeaway from the conversation. i thought he was still credible on that point. >> does trump testify? >> he would be crazy too because if he does -- >> he's crazy though. >> if he does, rather than be focused on right now where the prosecution is supposed to be ending with michael cohen, in which case the last words we're hearing are, you know, from michael cohen are those words about revenge is a dish best served cold. instead now we're going to be hearing about e. jean carroll. now we're going to hear about all the ways in which he was, you know, threatening a poor law clerk in his last trial. that is coming in.

the judge has said that comes in. we hear about the trump foundation and self-dealing. we hear about the civil fraud that he was engaged in. all of that is fair game. and now there is a shift. people will forget real quick about anything michael cohen was doing, and it will go right back to all of the things donald trump has done in the past. they would be crazy to do it. the only way i can see him doing it is if he just says, look, i need to take that control. and it's just chaos. but, again, we saw him in the civil fraud trial testify, and it was chaos. there was no control. he was just railing about witch hunts. and then you saw before judge kaplan and it was a very different story. as soon as he started to go off of the proffer of what he was supposed to talk about was, judge kaplan shut it down, instructed the jury, you can't consider that. it was short and sweet. he was off the stand within minutes of being on the stand. i think judge merchan is more in the judge kaplan camp.

he is not going to allow this to become a circus. knowing that, i don't think donald trump will take the stand. >> i'm not just saying this because i've got a bet on the line with our colleague, i don't think he does. if he does, it turns into what we've been hearing out in the hallway, which are these free wheeling, free styling moments and the whole thing going into, you know, summations, just going to go completely off the track. and now the last sort the jury has of this bloke going off on tangents. >> because he can't ramble. we have to sneak in a commercial break. much more to get to as we look ahead to the final days of the disgraced ex-president's election interference hush money trial. plus what happens when the rule of law is eroded and right wing extremists are empowered? that's a question at the heart of some powerful brand-new reporting in "the new york times." it's about jewish ultra nationalist settlers who go largely unpunished in the face

of violence against palestinians. the pulitzer prize winner will be our guest later in the hour. don't go anywhere. st later in tr don't go anywhere. oh no. running low? with chewy, always keep their bowl full. save 35% on your first autoship order. get the food they love. delivered again and again. (♪♪) [thud]

there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add on an all new footlong sidekick. we're talking a $2 footlong churro. $3 footlong pretzel and a five dollar footlong cookie.

every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick. order one with your favorite subway series sub today. and they're all coming? those who are still order owith us, yes.favorite grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

i can only warn people, the more people that follow mr. trump, as i did blindly, are going to suffer the same consequences that i'm suffering. >> not for nothing. weisselberg is also in jail. we're back with christy lock less than, george, and andrew. george, what has judge merchan, been able to do, if anything, about the cutouts trump has

deployed to get around the gag order, the republican members of congress who are out threatening the judge's daughter, and doing the things trump isn't able to do. >> the judge is doing exactly the right thing. he's ignoring them. they're trying to bait him. they're trying to throw the trial off track. and judge merchan is not buying it. i've never met judge merchan personally, but i've been there every day from the first day of jury selection. he is the epitome of what anyone would want in a judge in this country, federal, state, local. he calls them as he sees them. he's ruled for the trump team as many times as he's ruled for the defense team. he's actually made objections on behalf of the defense on occasion. and then being accused of not objecting enough for them. i mean, so what's going on outside, i feel, with defendant trump importing all these

want-to-be vice presidents and attacking the judge -- when they're attacking the judge, they're attacking the rule of law. it's not about the judge personally. it's a premeditated attack on the rule of law, and that's the stuff that anarchy and right-wing fascism is made of. it's disgraceful. it's disgusting. it should stop. just because i'm saying it, are they going to? no. but it's what i believe, and i credit the judge. he will not be bated. this case will go to verdict, whatever that verdict is. >> it's such an important point and it is, to me, the bigger picture that the country's going to experience. if you're a really enthusiastic trump supporter, you might not see it that way. if you're anywhere on earth one, you do. it is not normal to have -- and i actually think that whether they prevail or not, i can't imagine the state attacking the judge and saying it's an illegitimate verdict. but we know trump will if he's

not acquitted. it is part of the asymmetry of the right wing in america. >> can we go now back to what we started with today, which is the image of justice alito's home, where he's flying the upside-down flag as a symbol of antilaw enforcement, antirule of law, from a sitting supreme court justice. that is a straight line from him to trump to those protesters who are saying that there should not be a decision. there were 60 judges who listened to the arguments, heard facts, who said there was no fraud, this was a fair election. and you have a supreme court justice with this upside-down flag sitting on cases and then fast forward to what you're seeing with the, as you said, the, sort of, vice president want-to-bes and donald trump denigrating the rule of law.

that is a straight line in terms of what is going on. i want to say the same thing about judge merchan, having been there, i wish people could see it or at least hear it. whatever happens in this case, this is a fair trial. >> i think that that is one of the things that's lost on the public in not seeing and hearing it. i think the other is that as much as trump seeks to pervert the rule of law, he sought to pervert the rule of the press. you're one of the original whistleblowers who goes out and breaks all the rules and tells a story. i wonder how you feel that push and pull is between the broader revelations that stands apart from whatever the jury decides about trump's misdemeanors and whether bumped up to felonies because the underlying election crimes, and what is really outed for the first time, which is that in 2015, they milwaukee a deal to bury and plunder stories that are bad for trump and to elevate ones that smear his political opponents.

>> i've publicly broken by mba to tell the story, and obviously broke it previously by helping "the wall street journal" on the eve of the election, getting the karen mcdougal story out helping with "the times" and other pieces of the story. i could only think that someone who's done what i have done, it would be one of the first to go to the -- someone punished for helping to get stories in the public interest. this was something of profound national importance, i felt, and something i've pursued and persecuted by american media, by david pecker. one thread that i'll get framed, "the new york times" piece framed, which is over eight pages including the cover, with all the legal letters, including from lynnwood and john gibbs, who represents the january 6th people, coming after me, threatening me with a $5 million

lawsuit. the $5 million lawsuit and the one threat that was the one that made me go to the bathroom and repaint it 50 shades of puke, was the threat we will terminate the contract agreement and he will not be allowed to remain in the country any further. and my lawyer said, they're threatening to have you kicked out of the country if you speak out. that was right after the weinstein story had come out, and i said, what's this about? he said, it's about harvey weinstein. i said, i thought it was about donald trump. i didn't have time to give you the laundry list of the things that david pecker and howell were covering up. and that turned a switch in me where i thought to myself, screw these people. i will help. and a few days later, "the new york times" dm'd me on twitter, and i began helping "the times" with the complicity machine piece about everyone that was

complicit in the weinstein story, which led to me saying, it's not just weinstein they're doing this for. you guys should look into it's what they're doing, what they're doing with donald trump. but the chilling effect you get -- i'm a journalist. so, i've copped a lot in my career. but to put in writing, not a subtle threat that we will get you kicked out of the country, we'll get you deported in the hopes of scaring the bejesus out of you is just something that i think about a lot. as i said, i'll have that framed, put up on a wall so i can look at that and every time i'm on the phone with a source or someone equally petrified or scared or under an nda, i can say, i know what it's like. >> i didn't faux had any of this until you showed this right now. this is, to me, what's so important about him not just i always say american ex-president, but he's a current candidate for president in 2024. as a future president, he would scale what he did to you. you're allowed to answer your calls here, especially when it's

important. he would call what he did to you. i mean, that is his vision for the american press. would you say a little bit more? >> the first amendment, right? that's one of the reasons i love working in this country. i've worked in the uk where you get a legal letter and it could really, you know, totally change the course of the story and the reporting just because of the way the british libel laws are structured. that's similar in australia. you come here and work as a journalist because you've got the first amendment protecting you. that's down to the supreme court, but we're seeing certain things are going on at the supreme court. and it just makes you think, what would happen to the free press under another term of donald trump? and i only half joke about someone going to the gu lag. that's why those are ready to go. and i love this country. i got a green card here a couple of years ago. what they were looking for, the trigger point, the leverage on me to keep me solid was my immigration status. god knows what they would try on with someone else. >> well, i think this is part of

the political layer. and we know that that's what trump's obsessed with, right? that's what all the surrogates are about. we don't carry them here because they're not legal in nature. he's not out there talking about the case. he's out there waving around articles that he believes benefit him politically. and i wonder -- i know that the judge will instruct the jurors to make a decision based on the evidence. but because that underlying crime is this election interference, election subversion crime, how much of that narrative is important in a closing statement? >> i think it's very important. i think not only because it's part of the elements here, it's the other crime, right? falsifying business records. it's cover-up of what? of the fact that there was intent to unlawfulfully influence the election. so, it matters. and i think the prosecutors have really laid out that story of the fact that they wanted to kill the stormy daniels story and the stories of kara mcdougal.

they wanted to kill these because they knew how devastating it would be to the election. that through line has been witness after witness after witness has corroborated each other. and we've seen the "access hollywood" transcripts. i think the jury really has a good sense of that. just going back for a second to the retaliation piece. the one other piece that is extraordinary to me is that, you know, you have judge merchan exercising such restraint when they're across the street attacking his daughter. >> right. >> it's one thing to attack the judge, but to attack his daughter. we saw the sentencing of the man who attacked speaker pelosi's husband today. and there has to be a message here that, you know, yes, speech is important. free speech is important. but you know that when you attack certain people and you attack them in a certain way with certain kind of language, there can be really violent consequences. and i think that part, the fact that the judge has been so fair and so neutral, knowing what is going on just outside the courtroom doors, has been really

remarkable. >> directed not at him but his daughter. any parent knows is a much more frightening prospect than anyone attacking you personally. you're the only people who could take one little element of cross and expand it to democracy and the constitution itself and tie it back to the beginning of the first hour, honorary cohosts, all of you. christy -- judge glasso, and andrew weissman started us off today. we are grateful. when we come back, the deeply reported brand-new story about the decades of failure to hold jewish settlers accountable for violence against palestinian villages. "new york times" journalist filing on that piece of reporting will be our next guest. don't go anywhere. guest. don't go anywhere. kayak. i like to do things myself. i do my own searching. it isn't efficient. use kayak.

i can't trust anything else to do the job right. aaaaaaaahhhh! kayak. search one and done. -dad, what's with your toenail? -oh, that...? i'm not sure... -it's a nail fungus infection. -...that's gross! -it's nothing, really... -it's contagious. you can even spread it to other people. -mom, come here! -don't worry about it. it'll go away on its own! -no, it won't go away on its own. it's an infection. you need a prescription. nail fungus is a contagious infection. at the first signs, show it to your doctor... ... and ask if jublia is right for you. jublia is a prescription medicine used to treat toenail fungus. its most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness... ... itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters and pain. jublia is recognized by the apma. most commercially insured patients may pay as little as $0 copay. go to jubliarx.com now to get started. when we say it'll be on time, they expect it to be on time.

turn shipping to your advantage. keep those expectations with reliable ground shipping. thanks brandon. with usps ground advantage®. ♪♪ (vo) red hot deal days are here. withonly until may 29th.ge®. get a bundle of your choice on us. so you'll get a free phone and a smartwatch and a tablet. yep, all 3 on us only at verizon.

not since president lincoln and the civil war have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today. what makes our moment rare is the freedom of democracy are under attack both at home and overseas at the very same time. >> president joe biden using his state of the union address earlier this year to focus our attention on the crisis they see in democracies all around the world, as we grapple with ongoing threats to our. nearly every single u.s. ally has faced threats to their democracy, including one of our closest allies, israel. there's stunning brand-new

reporting in "the new york times" that describes how right wing extremists have gone -- and how the violence these extremists have used to push palestinians off their land is now being trained on politicians they disagree with. all of this pushing israel's democracy to the brink. from that new "times" reporting, quote, the long arc of harassment, assault, and murder of palestinians by jewish settlers is twinned with a shadow history, one of silence, avoidance, and abetment by israeli officials. for many of those officials it is palestinian terrorism that threatens israel. in interviews with more than 100 people, including four former prime ministers, we find a different and perhaps even more destabilizing threat, a long history of crime without punish threatening not only palestinians living within the occupied territories but also the state of israel itself. it is an account of a sometimes

criminal nationalistic movement that has been allowed to operate with impunity and gradually move from the fringes of israeli society. it is a blunt account told by israeli officials themselves of how the occupation came to threaten the integrity of their country's democracy. and the erosion of the rule of law and the empowerment of right wing extremists is not limited to israel, as the republican party here at home moves farther and farther to the right, openly displaying its contempt for democracy. bringing right wing militia groups like the oath keepers and the proud boys into the inner fold, nominates a candidate for president who tries to hold on by force. it should be read as a warning to us. joining us now, pulitzer prize winners, berkman based in tel aviv and norc times reporter -- both awarded the pulitzer prize

as part of the team that won the international reporting earlier this month for their coverage of the israel-hamas war. thank you both for being here. ronan, take me through this incredible body of reporting. >> it started -- i think the world record, not keeping deadlines. it started in september of 2015 and it expanded, i think, for mark and i, not just to focus on one agency but to look at the whole israeli administration, law enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors, intelligence, police, and the way that they systemically failed -- more than failed -- to enforce the law on extreme settlers and ultra-right in israel. basically, creating two systems of law and choose to fight for the enforcement of the law and

counterterrorism in the west bank. it reached a point where there could be one terrorist or suspected terrorist, arab, palestinian, in one place, and just the next hill it could be a jewish terrorist suspected of the same kind of terrorist activity. and yet while they are close, while they are expected to do the same thing, the israeli -- formidable intelligence service of israel will have totally different set of investigation tools, of collection of intelligence. and those two will face very different judges, very different sets of laws, very different sentence. and afterwards, a very different kind of treatment by the public.

condemning those acts. >> mark, you guys talked to four former israeli prime ministers. this is a crisis in their eyes, in their telling to you guys. what is their proposed solution? >> well, right. i mean, first and foremost, we wanted to, sort of, point out for the story that this is a story that the officials themselves are telling for the first time. it's not just outsiders, it's not foreigners. it is people who are concerned about their own democracy, their own rule of law, including former prime ministers. they don't necessarily have a great deal of prescriptive solutions unfortunately in part because this has been this slow drift to the right. it's happened over decades. and it's, sort of, something that people have watched happen. and now they're in a place where the government of bibi netanyahu

is now filled with some of these characters who were once fringe -- you know, fringe radicals who are now not only determining what is happening in the west bank. but they're very much in control of the policy of what happens in gaza in the war. and netanyahu can't really go against them because the government could collapse. and that's the kind of power they have. and so this is something that i think we wanted to point out and emphasize was that, in many ways, this story was out there to be told. but we got people to tell it for the first time because they're so worried about their own country. >> i mean, ronen, as mark is describing, some of your art and skill and pulitzer prizes is because you go digging where nobody else does. and some is because crisis is so

urgent that having a light shown on it is the way to get people talking about it. i wonder if you can say a little bit more about what is happening in israel. out had do the people feel about their government? how do they feel about bibi netanyahu? >> so, i think that if this story, as is, if mark and i, together with our great colleague from the jerusalem bureau of "the new york times," we would have published the this two years ago. this is a story of decades of impunity, decades of total negligence in enforcing the law. something that is seen -- i think the main problem here it's seen by israelis as another country while it's only 20 minutes by car from where i sit today now in north tel aviv. and once you enforce the law in one place and you do not enforce the law and you let extremists attack civilians, embezzle their

land, burn their olive trees, take their houses, deport them from where they live, this kind of impunity will proliferate into the state of israel. if we were publishing this two years ago, we would be facing a strong pushback from the israeli administration. but now what everybody saw, what this government -- the last benjamin netanyahu government has done in all fields, the total collapse, the ability to manage the state and of course this horrible disaster giving hamas the feeling that this is a time of weakness, time to attack. i think a lot of people in israel, including in their administration, including people, as mark said, people -- those sources who gave us access to classified information,

secret documents, they had nothing to gain expect risking themselves and being exposed and delivering those that are being court marshalled. they have cooperated. they helped us because they are so much afraid that this is not just against palestinians. this goes against the basic foundations of the jewish state as a democracy and as a lawful state. and they are really concerned that this is the last moment to save it. >> i want to ask both of you to stick around. i have to sneak in a commercial. immediately when your story broke yesterday, there were voices in this country saying, there were echos and parallels to be drawn here. i want to ask you both about that on the other side. please stay with us. about that on the other side please stay with us.

was that your grandfather,

leading armies to battle? was that your great aunt, keeping armies alive? drafting the plans. taking the pictures. was it your family members who flew? who fixed. who fought. who rose to the occasion. when the world needed them the most. discover, preserve, and share the stories of your family's heroes. explore all us military records on ancestry for free today. today, at america's beverage companies,... ...our bottles might still look the same... ...but they can be remade in a whole new way. thanks to you... we're getting bottles back... and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic. new bottles - made using no new plastic.

you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. and when we get more of them back... ...we can use less new plastic. see how our bottles are made to be remade.

. we're back. as soon as the story posted, curt anderson retweeted it and complimented the reporting and had some commentary about the parallels that could be drawn or at least the questions that could be drawn here. disturbing deep "new york times" history of how israel's radical right-wing religious terrorist fringe has moved into the mainstream, wrecked democracy and taken over the country. the parallels to the u.s. are chilling. we obviously spend a lot of times here focusing on ourselves, which is not good for

anybody, including our friends in israel. but this idea of a lack of accountability, of two systems of justice isn't just what's happening. it's what trump is running on. it's what he's promising to bring here. characterize for me the alarm and if there's a lesson. are we at a different stage than these four former prime ministers feel like they're in in israel? is there still an off ramp for us, or are the parallels real? >> i think sometimes drawing neat parallels between the united states and other kuns is dangerous, because it's always a little bit messier. on one of my reporting trips to israel for this story, ronan and i got out of an interview. i turned to him and said, you know, the same thing is happening here in similar ways. i mean, if you think back, there's an example we use in the story of there was a radical rabbi who came from brooklyn who

became the sort of like idealogical prophet of some of these people we write about. when he got elected to the knesset in the '70s, the likud party members said what he was selling we do not endorse. again, you could look a little bit at the turmoil in the republican party and its pull from what were more traditional republicans towards the trump wing of the republican party. i think there are some parallels and i think there is this question of if this becomes the norm and it is accepted, what are the perils to any democracy? >> in ronan's telling it is this

two-tiered system of justice. outside the courthouse today every day, donald trump is calling for one. he has gone to the supreme court and asked for a two-tiered system of justice. he's asked for absolute immunity. i wonder what the hope is according to the folks you folk -- spoke to, what is their hope for their country? >> the hope is that the people after a year and a half of this government, even if you disregard politics, even if you disregard the extreme rhetoric, this government has proved a

total lack of ability to rule. therefore, i think that the hope of the people in the government is that people will realize this way cannot include two systems of justice, that this way cannot include being very forgiving to thousands of violent offenses against palestinians but hope that the law will be preserved against the violence against jews. [indiscernible] has 80 or 90 convictions in traffic incidents and accidents.

it's not a coincidence they have no respect for the law. the military and the intelligence community are the guardians of democracy. people say only the u.s. government exercising war blacklisting, war boycotts, even the hague, some of those people fought against any prosecution in the hague. they feared nothing except god and the americans. >> an unbelievable piece of brand new reporting from two pulitzer prize winning

journalists. journalists. kayak. no way. why would i use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? kayak. i like to do things myself. i do my own searching. it isn't efficient. use kayak. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. aaaaaaaahhhh! kayak. search one and done.