“look at all those snacks, you must be a king!” “i did just pay 60% less for my ticket with the gametime app.” “it's the best place to get last-minute deals on tickets.” “i guess i'm just a better fan than you.“ "(crowd cheering) i've got to get the gametime app.” “download the gametime app to get great deals on last-minute tickets.”

before today this country never wants to former president

stand trial on criminal charges. we didn't know what that would look like or feel like that today we found out. in addition to the spectacle of it, there was a little bit of a spectacle, but a lot actually happened during day one of donald trump's trial here in new york city. we will break it down over the course of next hour and we have the perfect people do it with your former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york has been in his courtroom and understands the calculations being made by the prosecutors about everything from jury selection to evidence to gag orders. norman eisen investigated donald trump during his first impeachment and wrote the book on this your case and was at the courthouse today with the trial. and, dan goldman was a prosecutor in new york i worked with the d.a. and the defense attorney todd blanche. i want to start tonight with the scene that unfolded today in lower manhattan. it was both extraordinary and

kind of ordinary all at the same time. on the one hand, a former president of the united states faced the start of his criminal trial which was historic. who knew we would get here? we were skeptical at times but it was almost surreal. helicopters tracked his every movement as it left trump tower and arrived at the courthouse downtown. of course, cameras rolled on , predictably, and uses entrance and exit and speaking to his supporters and nothing is when he did it. that was all kind of different. kind of extraordinary so are the charges for a former president accused of falsifying this is records to a lovely influence the outcome of an election. but on the other hand, in many ways, what we saw today was very ordinary. a guy who was facing 34 felony counts had his day in court as any defendant in this country is entitled to have. he walked into the same dark cause of that year courthouse just like so many accused have

done before. sat at the same table as all of the other defendants. he had legal representation as is his right and face the judge and answer her questions. and soon he will face a jury of his peers. in that sense, today, donald trump was held to the same rules that govern the rest of us. reporters say he even closed his eyes for a period of time. he might've been thinking or he might've been sleeping and who among us have not done that. at the end of the day, trump wanted a circus but inside it was more ordinary than extraordinary. the rule of law the spectacle and we saw that right from the jump. today was billed as jury selection and that was the focus of today and we will talk about that. that was a lot of we were expecting to see the movie -- and we saw a flurry of activity the judge started the day by refusing to recuse himself and

also want trump to face to be misses court without a reason. the judge also made several crucial calls about what evidence will and will not be used and allowed during the trial for example, the infamous access hollywood taper number trump brags about having women. that cannot be played for jurors. prosecutors can use a transcript of the tapered what does that mean? and testimony from michael cohen's -- is a lot but they cannot imply that trump is guilty just because cohen was. the jump city trance at the judge set a hearing for next week after prosecutors argued today that he violated the order today. they are also asking the judge to sanction trump $1000 for each of the three post and tell him to take them down and warn him that another one to put him in jail. after all that, joyce election began. because of the ordinary nature of this trial, this judge had to deal with a whole lot of extra motions and they had to

deal with a whole lot of extra potential jurors but the big lesson learned today is that they did in fact deal with all of it. the court system can do this. donald trump lupton, had his first day in criminal court, walked out and tomorrow he will be back at the table at 9:30 a.m. after months, years, of disappointment and delay tactics, the wheels have justice have turned slowly at times. today, one of the most effective atmospheres of justice was brought to trial and he was stay there until a verdict is reached. starting off us tonight is the former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york it's great to be here with you for you beninese courtrooms for you know what it is like to from time to time. >> let's start with your big take away from the events of today. >> i think it is important to take a moment like you did in your intro to consider what an extruder situation this is. after all the delays and whining and all -- with three of the four cases delay, some because of the supreme court and some because of an ethics

question in georgia. you have actual criminal case that is proceeding. you might say you have finally have the peaceable transition to accountability which is not a small thing. you have a defendant with secret service agent to protect them and so in a manhattan courtroom in state court facing the music and also finding it, reportedly, so monday or maybe he is tired from preparation, that he closes his eyes and apparently ella sleep that is a big deal because people have been concerned that accountability is not forthcoming but it is here in he was a former president of the united states commander-in- chief and maybe again. he is a spine that again but he couldn't hide and some oligarchs cabin somewhere and he doesn't have his own army and the fact that he can be brought to justice in the united states of america

notwithstanding his former standing and possible future standing says something going to ride about the law of -- the rule of law. >> i went through some of this and i think a lot of us are trying to figure out what to make of it. there's a lot of discussion about what admits was admissible and what was not. i want to go through some of that and see how it struck you. the access hollywood tape. they cannot play the tape that they can use the transcription why and what does that mean? >> that's a good question and i have the same question. it's a little bit peculiar. one thing you have to realize is that all cases and certainly in a case that the world is watching and scrutinizing, especially scrutinized by an appellate court, if there is a conviction, is that the judge was to tread carefully and make sure his rulings are sound and within his discretion and he has never been found to abuse his discretion for what argue i think not poorly that the entire access hollywood business should not have come in

. >> at all? >> you can make the argument that the trump team made even though it is probative for the idea that there were so freaked out by this tape, they wanted to well, you know, disclosure of this relationship so they made the payoff i think a judge could have decided to not let that in for fear that being something that was reversible on appeal, but what i don't understand and i think laypeople and lawyers alike don't fully understand this, what is a presidential difference between allowing in the transcript and every single word that was uttered versus the tape? in fact, because the tape doesn't have -- is not a videotape but it is an audiotape. they have one but not the other. i'm not sure why that makes a lot of sense. >> i guess i feel better that there is not a clarity of answer there for >> he was giving one to the defense on the record will show one a record shows that a judge seems to be going down the middle and finding in his or

her discretion for the prosecution, sometimes for the defense, that sets a record on appeal of showing that this person wasn't single-mindedly trying to screw the defense or prosecution or vice versa. i think it is a reasonably good record so far. >> the other piece and it was the michael cohen of it all. it could be a theme of the next several weeks. some testimony in a guilty plea was left but they can apply trump is guilty just because cohen was picked to a layperson and a mom lawyer you are thinking, wait. michael cohen went to jail for this thing that trump actually participated in. how is that not the case and how is it not admissible in court? >> the fact that the guilty plea is not admissible is for other reasons for just because someone else in a conspiracy has pled guilty to something, you don't wanted to be impeded to the person on trial but you

have to separately proved in a separate proceeding with separate trial evidence and witnesses, that the person on trial is guilty. but it does have arguably some spillover effect because jurors , although it can't be argued to the jury, they will say, wait a minute. you have this nucleus of facts about which is other person was convicted and felt guilty and some other court. that means a crime was committed and they might think they might apply that to trump. instructions to the jury that they cannot consider that that purpose and if the judge determines under the law that you can't consider that for that purpose, but it is a double edged sword. on one hand it's helping to prosecutors because some guy was convicted of a crime that maybe proves there was a crime but on the other hand there's a witness who is convicted of a crime. among the crimes he is convicted of his lying and who are you going to believe now? this lying witness or -- >> donald trump has the hush

money that was paid for but we will see how this plays out. i want to ask you about jury selection. you have been a big part of jury selection in the past. there's a couple things that happened that struck out. at the first panel of 96 jurors was dismissed after they said they could not be fair and impartial they could have lied. maybe they are being honest. that's a good thing. there's also a jury question or that was lengthy and asked a lot of questions about media consumption. did anything sick-outs you about the questionnaire or the number of people who recuse themselves today? >> i think it is a down the middle questionnaire. i think most of the questions of the 42 were agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense. there is a subset of questions that there was no agreement on that i think the judge made a good determination about what they were and how they should be free spirit you don't usually see scores of people in the first round say they cannot be fair. you know you said something a

second that i think is worthy of comment. presumably there are dozens of people in the jury pool who don't like donald trump i don't want him to become president and decided i'm going to take my way into the droid and be part of the process that convicts donald trump because maybe it will hurt him politically or otherwise. they didn't do that. the fact that you have a significant number of people who decided they were not going to be part of something that is not appropriate, i will just absent myself. i think that is a good sign about the fairness of the trial. >> that's interesting and an interesting take. there is a ruling next week on the gag order and i think that gag order is the big question of $1000 for each tweet but they are not going to put him in jail which seems unlikely. is that really going to prevent him from attacking people in this case that he shouldn't be attacking? like the judge, the judge's family? what do you think? >> i think the gag order is a little bit of a sideshow.

there's not a lot of teeth in the gag order. donald trump, and maybe a big deal for the judge to put donald trump in prison for a day or two or three days, so if he crosses over a little bit, i think the real main show is the evidence will be presented at trial and i think, you know, it's a difficult thing to be a juror in this case. if donald trump steps over the line with prospective jurors which i don't think he will do. he is not that stupid. then i think you will see a congregation. there is this making fun of people around the judge's circle or the court which specifically he is allowed to do. i think he will get away with it. >> all things we are watching. they will be back tomorrow. preet bharara. thank you for being with us coming up, what was it like inside that courtroom.

our guest will join me in just 60 seconds. “look at all those snacks, you must be a king!” “i did just pay 60% less for my ticket with the gametime app.” “it's the best place to get last-minute deals on tickets.” “i guess i'm just a better fan than you.“ "(crowd cheering) i've got to get the gametime app.” “download the gametime app to get great deals on last-minute tickets.”

of the four criminal cases that donald trump is facing, the new york election case is the first to overcome donald trump's relentless delay tactics and actually reach trial . started today. yet there is a lot of people out there who have tried to ride off this one as the most political or convoluted of the criminal cases that the former president is facing. as my next guests rides in his new book about this case, he says, quote those criticisms are misplaced. d.a. brack has built a robust case along in early terrell would theory of prosecution. falsifying business records to conceal criminal conduct that had hit damaging information during the 20 16th residential campaign. knowing that trump falsified the records is the crux of the

case but what we heard in court today, they will be just as important for the day to lay out trump's intent and what they did to influence the 20 16th election. they argue for permission to -- with the trump campaign and it is evident they say trump scheme to influence the 2016 election holding back bad stories. that is pretty much implements. but the judge ordered he will allow the exhibit saying it is, quote, necessary to complete the narrative of what took place 20 me now is norm eisen. he investigated donald trump as a special counsel to the house judiciary committee during trump's first impeachment. he was at the courthouse today and he literally, as i just said, wrote the book on this case. okay. i don't know if more people know about this, maybe d.a. bragg probably argues you would, but let me start by

asking the arc of what happened in 2016. as a way to explain trump's motive and intent. this is part of what we heard today and it was an important reminder to me about all of the details around this. >> one of the stunning things about being in court today, jen, was to see that theory of the case unfold in full display both in the morning session when the d.a. laid out a chronology of election interference, as i say in the title of the book. in the afternoon session, when the first words of substance that the judge said to the prospective jurors was, this is a case about allegations of election influence in 2016. so, both have the were expressing the narrative that you ask about. it starts in 2015, actually, with the meeting at trump tower . david , the publisher of the national enquirer, michael cohen

-- so, you have them and you have michael cohen and this is where prosecutors started this morning. on agreement to influence the 2016 election through catch and kill. you actually seldom get a contract to do election interference. that is the prosecutors alleged happen at that meeting and then they took a step by step through the proof. is not just about that elicit campaign payment in october 2016, the benefit to stormy daniels, but there's a similar catch and kill payment to the doorman, karen mcdougal, there is the escalating amounts of anxiety in the trump campaign despite all of this, the access hollywood tape came out. he is worried the prosecutors will see his standing with

women and then the payoff, literally, october 2016 and illegal campaign contribution that constituted election interference. it kept critical information that the american people had a right to know from them and in so doing effected may be altered the outcome of the 2016 election. >> we may never know. as somebody who worked in media, paying for stories that are negative about the candidates that they don't come out into the public. even if they are not fully proven as some of them weren't entirely, but some more. you were in the courtroom today. we saw -- there were no cameras in the courtroom so we start reporting from it. give me a sense of the scene there. did anything surprise you? what was the general feeling? >> well, i thought it was

striking for the idea of america. here you have one of the most famous, maybe the most famous person in the country, perhaps the world. >> beyonce might argue. >> one of the most powerful and wealthy and has spent tens of millions of dollars to delay this moment. in spite of all of that, he is forced to appear behind the judges seat, behind the bench that says, in god we trust. behind him. it was a moment of trust in the american system that jumped up one of the jurors said today, it was so striking. he was being asked these questions, the judge asked them and they stand up and answer. and he said, i believe no one

is above the law, current president, former president, or the janitor. and i thought that summarize what the day was about, but no one is below the law either and donald trump is getting his full rights. it was a slow day today and took much longer than the judge complained what one point if were going to slowly we will not get our wednesdays off. you saw the genius of the american system at play but also some of the challenges of bringing these cases to justice. >> they come back tomorrow. this is part of the legal process. what are you watching for over the next couple days? jury selection, of course. >> the tug-of-war which is going to start developing as both sides have half an hour to question each juror. so, that is going to be an effort of donald trump and his team led by tom -- todd blanche

to knock out the typical manhattan juror. and to try to embrace a jury pool that looks like donald trump's voters. they will not get that in manhattan. they want just one. one angry juror, one juror who will not follow the law, won't follow the evidence, but will be loyal to donald trump. this is a very short judge. a very good prosecution team. they got the longest list. i've been practicing law for over 30 years and it is the longest list of questions i have ever seen. the judge is eight judge of character, not just of the law. i think the checks and balances are there to pick a jury that will honestly adjudicate the facts and if that happens, donald trump is in a lot of trouble. >> norm eisen. a book to read to understand the case. thank you for joining me

tonight. congressman goldman is standing by. he was a congressman and has worked with alvin bragg and todd blanche. we will get his reaction today one of donald trump's first criminal trial after a short break.

as donald trump's first criminal trial began today in new york city i couldn't help but think about the split screen the country is watching play out in real time. on the left you have donald trump, the former commander in

chief sitting on the defense side of the manhattan courtroom. on the right, you have the current commander in chief, print -- president biden. over the next six weeks the contrast will be stark. we don't know how americans will digested but it will be quite a difference between a guy in the courtroom and the guy governing the country. joining me now is democratic congressman dan goldman of new york. he was an assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york and a former colleague of district attorney alvin bragg and donald trump defense attorney todd blanche. it was quite a dinner party to attend. let me start congressman. one of the things that shopping today is there is a perception that the trial or there has been, it is the most politically helpful to donald trump and advantageous to him but i was impressed by the storytelling and all of the

details that were discussed. some of which i had forgotten about. in a recent poll, 64% of voters say the charges are somewhat serious. we will see. we don't know how it would impact voters. if you are talking to a voter and you are -- what would you say to them about why this case matters to them? >> this case matters because it is about our democracy and whether or not our elections will be free and fair and decided ultimately by the people based on the rule of law and election law. what donald trump is alleged to have done is to pay off not one, but two potential different women to silence them from coming out with very damaging information in the weeks before the election. you will recall there was a famous access hollywood tape which received significant attention and donald trump received blowback for the it

was clear that if there was one more thing that came out about his poor behavior, so to speak, misconduct with women, or otherwise, that would have had a damaging effect. in order to avoid that, he paid off a star, stormy daniels, in order to keep her quiet but he did it in any legal scheme to cover it up so no one would note that he did and he did it to avoid campaign finance laws. so you will see a summary of all of these things but this goes to the core heartland of what our elections are about which is a transparency and following the rule of law is essential to our democracy having free and fair elections. >> absolutely. there is a through line or some of these cases with people forget. i want to ask you about -- you worked with alvin bragg and you worked with todd blanche. what you -- people like to

project on these prosecutors who they are or the defense attorneys. what you people know or understand about each of them? their style, their strengths, as they watches trial unfold? >> the great thing about being a prosecutor is i have no idea what their political leanings may have been when we were prosecutors together. we did not discuss it. that is not what a prosecutor pokers job is. they are both true professionals. d.a. bragg will treat this case with the respect that the justice system deserves. he will only speak through his prosecutors in court and court documents. you will not see any press conferences and he will not politicize this. he will let the facts and evidence speak as to whether they are applied sufficiently to the lot to get a conviction. todd blanche is also a professional. he has been a defense lawyer for a while and is an excellent prosecutor. i think you will see much

better defense lawyering from mr. plans that you may have seen in the civil case that donald trump had a couple months ago. >> i also want to ask you about the jury selection process. i became fascinated the jury selection process today. did anything stick out to you about the number of people who pulled themselves out of it or the length of the questionnaire? anything surprising to you? >> it's always interesting when people self select their own biases. i have set for jury duty as a former prosecutor and i have a judge at me and say, are you sure you can be fair and impartial? which i found insulting. of course i can be fair to partial. just because i am a prosecutor doesn't mean i can't look at the facts and evidence like anybody else would. i wonder who is actually pulling him or herself out of because of bias is a bias against trump is a bias for trump? it's hard to tell but i am glad there will be an exhaustive

selection of the jurors because i think the sanctity of the jury pool is going to be vital in this trial. this is going to be a model for murray americans as to how criminal trials work. how our country pokers rule of law operates. and how no person whether the former president or anyone else is above the law. donald trump will be treated as any other defendant will be. all of this politicization and partisanship and campaigning outside of the courtroom will not be allowed in the courtroom. the only thing that will come in our facts and evidence and according to the rule of law and these jurors will ultimately decide whether or not the evidence proved beyond -- proves beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump committed these crimes. that is what our system is based on. now that the trial is actually beginning and is someone who did a number of trials, i am excited for the american people to actually see how this process should work and why

should be applied to donald trump and everyone else in this country no matter the stature of power. >> he walked down the same hallway, that in the same chair as other defendant. thank you so much for making time for us this evening. coming up a deep dive into donald trump's relationship with daniel and then i will talk to the former executive editor of the inquirer. you saw the catching two metros and he wrote about it in a piece for the new times magazine our exclusive interview is coming up in just a few minutes. we'll be right back.

oooh! i can't wait for this family getaway! shingles doesn't care. shingles is a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. ahhh, there's nothing like a day out with friends. that's nice, but shingles doesn't care! 99% of adults 50 years or older already have the virus that causes shingles inside them, and it can reactivate at any time. a perfect day for a family outing! guess what? shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. only shingrix is proven over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today.

of all the criminal cases facing donald trump, and there are many, the one that started today in manhattan is kind of the trumpian's. you expect to read it about it in a tabloid and one, the national enquirer, figures prominently in the story the prosecutors want to tell. and now it is a story -- likely cartwright was a number two man at the newsroom in the lead up to the 2016 a legend -- election. in a new piece for the new york times magazine, he describes that experience and vivid detail. he said he produced -- who said he heard a rumor that chuck fathered a love child with a colleague. cartwright did not find the story incredible -- credible, but that -- they paid the

doorman $30,000 for the rights to his story. not to publish it, to kill it and put it in a safer and never saw the day. that is when he first heard the term catch and kill. they pay a source to tell them and only them their story. then they make sure the story never got told elsewhere. the inquirer did that multiple times on trump's behalf including to silence karen mcdougal with him trump allegedly had another affair. she said there is little doubt whether tabloid offered her $150,000. right after trump became an official party nominee for president. >> why do you think it was that it was after donald trump was a nominee that they came back? >> they wanted to squash the

story. >> through it all, cartwright says the inquirer was in constant contact with michael cohen, donald trump's fixer, who has done jail time for the payoff to stormy daniels. the thing trump tried to hide and is now on trial four. this morning, judge juan merchan said they can sell you will story to the jury. even though it is not about the payments to mcdougal but to stormy daniels. they also called witnesses after they both testify to the grand jury. they could help establish that trump was willing to pay handsomely to bury stories. even those unrelated to the charges in this case that might have negatively impacted his run for president. the judge also ruled that jurors will not hear some big details of the story like the fact that trump's wife was pregnant when he had his alleged affair with mcdougal even though that ruling has prompted media to remind the public of that.

we don't know who will be on the jury or how they will rule. but the trial at all of the diesels around it are another reminded of exactly the kind of person donald trump is. so, how does the former executive editor for the inquirer feel about this case now? i will ask him when he joins me next.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. all on the most reliable 5g mobile network—nationwide. wireless that works for you. for a limited time, ask how to save up to $830 off an eligible 5g phone when you switch to comcast business mobile. don't wait! call, click or visit an xfinity store today.

the details came out of donald trump's first criminal trial will be shocking to plenty of americans but probably not my next guest. lachlan cartwright helped run train its newsroom and any pc describes what it was like reading the indictment against trump. he says, quote, it was a 13 page statement of facts that brought me to tears. on page 3, prosecutors outlined the catching kilt scheme. they reveal to me i have been managing a newsroom with improvised explosive devices planted everywhere. lachlan cartwright joins me now. he is a executive -- this is

such a fascinating piece. i also listen to your piece on the daily and heard you speak, a lot of people don't know this is what happens out there. i want to start with what i just read. you clearly have been paying close attention to this case and know the details very well. you will be in the courtroom, i believe. as someone intimately aware of the con torture, what do you hope people understand >> fundamentally, this is a case about election interference. i understand people are focusing on the payoff to a star, but fundamentally, this is a case about election interference. we go back to a meeting that took place in august 2015 with the person i used to work for david and is with michael cohen and he says i will be the eyes and ears of the campaign. my organization will purchase

negative stories off the market and run negative stories on your rivals. that is something i did not know in real time when i was the executive editor of the inquirer and when we were orchestrating operations such as what happened with -- were trying to find out about trump having a love child. we paid him $30,000 -- they paid him $30,000 and that story never saw the light of day. ultimately, this organization, you have been around politics long enough to know that it is not unusual for a media organization to do favors for a political candidate or campaign. this is the first time in american democracy that i am aware of that immediate organization twist itself into a criminal enterprise to help get a candidate elected. that is what went on here and that is fundamentally what this case is about. >> that is such an important part of the story because it is not just about this one particular case. it's also about the media

organization you used to work for pushing negative stories about a number of people who are trump's rivals. ted cruz, ben carson as well as a slew of negative stories about hillary clinton. we remember are many of us do. talk about how when you touch on it a little bit, the entire media organization was set up to protect a single candidate. >> i mean, i come from tabloids in the uk and i am used to it tabloid journalism. this wasn't that. it did not -- it merges self into basically a propaganda where we want from reporting on celebrities or mass shootings, true kind which is the bread and butter as a celebrity divorces. suddenly we are running stories . hillary has three months to live. >> i remember that one. >> and analyzing pictures of her looking frail and our art department is ginning out these

images to make her look in poor health. it was week after week after week. one of trump's rivals was up in the polls, whether it was ted cruz or someone else, we would be running a negative story and say what you will about the inquirer, but the reach of this publication, it is on supermarket shelves every walmart and in every airport and that real estate was being weaponizing by ami to help get trump elected. that is what alvin bragg is talking about in the statement of facts and indictment. that is what i think people pass over a little bit when we talk about falsifying business records. fundamentally, this was a plot, an agreement to influence the 2016 election and it worked. >> when you work for a campaign the media, magazine covers on grocery store sells -- grocery

store shelves, that is gold to people. we learn that the judge will allow "the national enquirer" covers to be allowed in court. including the one with hillary clinton dying. are there some you think are important for people to see? are there some that you think would particularly make that point? >> is the pattern. the pattern peer to look through what this publication was publishing when i first joined in 2014 when it was tom cruise or it was that kind of mix of celebrity content and to look at how the publication and became a propaganda tool for the trump organization. it was hillary that was dying every other week it was ted cruz 's father who was involved with lee harvey oswald. every other politician there is a suddenly a negative story. it is looking at how this publication was weaponizing and

becoming a propaganda tool and i think that pattern here is incredibly important. >> one of the things that is striking to me about all of this is that you decided to put yourself out there. i mean, you had an nda. >> which i am publicly breaking. >> which you are breaking. you have had threats and talk to me a little bit about that. how you considered that when you decided to be as public as you have been in telling a very personal story? >> i have wanted to tell the story for some reason -- four years for several reasons. it is a story of national importance. secondly, i, as someone who has been pursued over the years because of my help to media organizations as a sort --

source for a lot of the organizations and getting out in real time with "the wall street journal" on the eve of the election. but i also wrote the story for anyone that is in a tight spot that is being -- having the screws turned on them to know that at some point they will have to get to the other side of it and that is what i was able to do. it took several years to get to the other side of this and david and -- i will be down in court and looked him in the eyes and think, i have come out on the other side of this and you folks are here testifying about these matters. so, i have wanted to tell the story for some time. i'm glad i had this opportunity. >> i am grateful you are here and i think it is important to

know that it is incredibly courageous to tell a story like this because of all the reasons for not just the nda but because of all the threats out there. it's an important story for people to understand about what has happened over the years and how there was an effort to suppress information from the american public. i encourage everybody to read, listen to it, you can do both. lachlan cartwright, thank you for joining me this evening. coming up, a preview of my interview with singer and this john legend. you will hear his thoughts as an advocate for criminal justice reform and donald trump claim that he is a victim of two-tier justice. we'll be right back.

i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see

how much you can save. at a time when we are hearing over and over from donald trump that he is somehow the victim of a two-tier system of justice, it's important to be very clear about one thing. there is one system for the powerful and wealthy, people like donald trump, and another system for everyone else. don't take my word for it.

i sat down with someone who has spent the last several years working for people who are victims of an unfair justice system. singer and activist john legend. listen to his response when i tell him about -- >> he is part of a two-tier system of justice but not in the way he thinks he is. he is getting way more concessions than the average criminal defendant would get. he is getting delays, he's got access to all kinds of lorries that are filing this environment. the length every trial and most people don't have access to that kind of lawyering, don't have access to that kind of concessions that the justin system will provide if you can afford it. >> if you can afford it. you can catch the rest of my conversation with john legend this sunday at noon right here on msnbc. that does it for me tonight. rachel maddow will tell us how we got here and what