there is a happy ending, since that in states like wisconsin, like michigan people have worked on the level to expand democracy. what you realize is democracy itself is very popular when the choice is do we want to preserve democracy or not, over and over americans say they want to preserve it. >> the book is called minority rule, is fantastic and i suggest you check it out. it is out today. >> thanks so much. glad that is all in on this tuesday night. alex wagner start right now. clearly it is essential reading in a moment like this. is always essential reading pickets the best. thank you for having him on, i look forward.

oswald killed jfk which could only mean ted cruz's father was involved in jfk's assassination. it was a stress. but at the time trump was running against cruz for the republican president now, trump was already well on his way to becoming the party's nominee, but ted cruz was still hanging on, and he was refusing to leave the race much to trump's vexatious. by the morning of may 3rd trump was calling into his favorite

morning show. >> his father was with lee harvey oswald prior to oswald being shot. the whole thing is ridiculous. >> by the end of that day ted cruz hadha dropped out of the presidential race but not before responding to trump's allegations. >> you know, donald's source for this is the national enquirer. the national enquirer is tabloid trash, but it's run by his good friend, david pecker, the ceo who's endorsed donald trump. so the national enquirer has become his hit piece he uses to smear anybody and everybody. >> the national ybenquirer has become trump's hit piece he uses to smear anybody and everybody. eight yearsnd ago the transactional relationship between donald trump and the national enquirer was so obvious that ted cruz was just talking about it on the campaign trail.

now, today was the second day of witness testimony in the first criminal trial of a former president, donald trump. and thea focus of the testimon was that -- that very same thing ted cruzme highlighted eight yes ago, the ways in which the national enquirer helped donald trump duringnq the 2016 campaig. david pecker, the former ceo of the enquirer testified his tabloid would run negative stories about each of donald trump's primaries opponents whenever they started to do well in the polls against donald trump. stories like bumling, and then there was shocking claims, pervy ted cruz caught cheating with five secret mistresses. that came outright after a series of polls found ted cruz pulling ahead of donald trump.

what was d going down here wasn even subtle. trump was using the national enquirer to smear his opponents and to undermine their candidacies. and the enquirer was more than willing to oblige. in court today this is how mr. pecker described that process. pecker, michael cohen would call me and say we would like you to run a negative article on let's say for argument sake, on ted cruz. that was the nature of our story and we'd embellish it from there. prosecutor steinglass, you would michael cohen would call you and say we would like you to run a negativewe story is that correc? >> pecker, yes. >> steinglass, who did you understand we to be referring to? pecker, michaelfe cohen told mee was not part of the campaign so

i always assumed mr. trump. when he said we i always assumed he and mr. trump. david pecker and the national enquirer were by his own admission publishing the 2016 at the behest of donald trump at the direction of his lawyer. and then there was what mr. pecker was doinghe behinds the scenes to help trump's campaign. today they asked mr.picker about two negative stories about trump, stories the national enquirer purchased the exclusive rights to and then sat on so that the accusations against trump would not come out before thewo election, a process that now known colloquially and publicly as catch and kill. the first story was about trump's love child. it was a story that was untrue.

then there was karen mcdougal a model and actress who like stormy daniels alleged she had an affair with donald trump. the enquirer also bought the rights to her story she she could not go public with it. what we learned in court today all this behind the scenes maneuvering much like the bombshell cover story was for one express purpose, to help the trump campaign. here'sp prosecutor steinglass, that part of the deal you were going to t notify them so they could buy up negative information on mr. trump, that part, did it help the national enquirer at all? is that going to boost sales of the national enquirer. pecker, no, that didn't help. steinglass, that partt didn't have aei mutual benefit. the purpose ofut that component uzto benefit the campaign. am i understanding you right? pecker, that is right. thepe focus how all this benefitted the trump campaign is important because the

prosecution's central argument in this case,e the reason they were able to charge donald trump with a felony is because they say trump's hush money scheme was all about trying to cover up his criminal activity related to the 2016 election. prosecutors today reveal they are planning to rely on section 17, 152 of the new york criminal code,ew which prohibits any twor moreib persons from conspiring promote or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means. and so it is important that trump'sor arrangement with the national enquirer and subsequent hush money payments wasn't just about helping trump, the man, it was about helping trump the candidate win the election. joining meel now duncan levine, and jeremy sohp lande, former assistant d.a. in the manhattan trial division.

thank you for joining me here. i am definitely out of my league when i'm talking about criminal codes and new york law, so i defer to you here on what exactly transpired in the courtroom. duncan, let me start with you in terms of the prosecution articulating this is at least one of the ways in which what donald trump has done here could be seen as a felony. is that what you understood? are we getting it right here? >> this is the first time that the d.a.'s case has actually really come into focus, and it was made clear through the testimony today but really a telling commentda made by one o the prosecutors int a sidebar that this is not a case about -- about falsifying business records. this is a case about the cover-up of uncharged criminal activity. and today wein learned what the uncharged criminal activity is the d.a.'s office is relying on. and really the core of it is that new york state election law statute. but it's a conspiracy between donald trump the defendant, david pecker, the national enquirer, and michael cohen, to

make illegal payments and suppress stories with the purpose of that being to suexpress the stories so that he couldbe win the election. now we know why it is it's been bumped up to felony because it was a falsification of business records for the purpose of creating new york city election -- >> trump's semidefense has not beenid fully articulated is at least with some of these stories or one of them it was to protect his family, right? what's being alleged here from the prosecution is this wasn't about you or maw melania or your

family. there's a history here of the enquirer to help trump in a political capacity. >> absolutely. and if you credit tucker's testimony he said what happened at that meeting was michael cohen, donald trump, and the question of substance what can we you to do help the campaign. he said i'm going to be your eyes andd ears. why are you saying that than no other reason to assist the former president, and at the time the potential president in his campaign. he starts with $30,000 to the doorman for the baby story and mcdougal and to the same point you had bad stories about hillary clinton, bad stories about ted cruz. this was the s vehicle interest donald trump to do his dirty deeds and promote himself. what didpr you make of pecker's testimony just as a witness? i wasn't in the courtroom, and our eyes and ears into the actual sort of tenor e of it ar somewhat limited, but from the transcript and the reporting

you've seen, what is he? how effective was he as a narrator? >> i think he is the case. and without david pecker there is no case. he puts himself at the center of it. he talks about how we get to donald trump. he talks about where michael cohen fits in it. this whole scheme rises and falls through michael cohen to donald trump, and he is at the center of it. and i think in a way his testimony is almost blase, oh, yeah, we were acting doing this and doing that, but the national enquirer was an arm of the trump campaign and that comes out clearly in the testimony, and the timingea becomes so interesting, because for example this doorman had an nda that expired the month trump wins the election. you can see why this all about the election. and davidbo pecker is the first witness, he's the most important witness, he's at the center of it all. >>of the reality is that david

pecker is going to be cross examined. what questions would you have for me given how thorough, and he was so matter of fact in delivering the information to the o courtroom to the jurors. what would your sort of strategy be if you're trump's defense? >> a large part of this is he had immunity. there's a reason why they have immunity. they havehey exposure. and if you have exposure, what are you going to do? you're going to lie, so that's the theory. i want to follow to duncan's point pecker is he's so critical to the case. i don't know if he's the center of the case as duncan believes, but the principle of what he's saying is accurate, that without pecker cohen doesn't have the credibility because he needs david pecker to stand up for him. so does stormy daniels. they need him, so critical. to underestimate him and take

him down i think you start with that immunity issue. >> do you feel -- if you're trump and his team, there's three people involved in this conspiracy. one of them is michael cohen, witness to theis prosecution. one of them is dave pecker who's just taken the stand and very favorable to the prosecution. where does that leave donald trump? do you think that puts pressure on him to take the stand, or is it too far-fetched to imagine f in. >> i think it's arunlikely he'l testify for so many reasons not least of which the cross-examination is going to be brutal, but oneis of the things the prosecution is going to have to prove is that donald trump knew what he was going to do he was breaking the law. there's a knowledge element here. it has to be done with the the intent to break the law. one way he could do that by show and testifying i didn't know these entries were being made. i didn't know i was doing this with the the intent to violate the federal election campaign act. he can do that through his testimony. i highly doubt he'll do it, but you heardgh a lot of speech fro

todd blanche in the opening statement. i don't know how they're going to prove thelic of knowledge on mr. gtrump's behalf, but one w you could do it is to not testify. >> in the list of potential witnesses there are some high level trump organization officials who areh prepared toy testify who presumably would further corroborate the idea that donald trump knew what he wasob doing.ea iha mean they have -- is there witness that you've seen from the list of people brought to the stand that could be helpful to ldtrump's case at this point? >> helpful, not necessarily. if you have a witness saying donald trumpwi was meticulous looking over his checks and signing his checks and he wasn't a passive player here, that's not helpful to you. josh steinglass, and chris, it's not their first rodeo. they know what they're doing.

i'm over confident donald trump is in trouble. it's not their verdict, it's the prosecution's verdict. it's not an easy thing. that is why how important david pecker is to give credibility in validating what this is about. because why would you sign off? who cares about hush money? there needs to be some nexus, and that's what these witnesses will show. >> do you have any suspicion what they might try to do in the cross? >> of david pecker? >> yeah. >> i think they're going to do everything they can to showhe hs a liar, what he's saying is not only ill-informed but he's doing it because he got a non pros cushion agreement. theno u.s. attorney's office ha forced a his hand, forced him there today, and he's trying to cover his bases by lying. poke holes in the case one witness at a time, and that's what they're going to be doing with david pecker probably starting tomorrow or the day after. >> well, we shall see. listen, we may know this story quite nowell, at least the broa contours of atit, but when it

comes down to the actual trial, there is so much to dig into. thank you so much for your time tonight. duncan, i think we have lassoed you inav for one more block, so please stay right there. coming up at long last congress votes to send aid toon ukraine. but don't ask anyone in the republican party if this means the debate is settled. and coming up as we await judge merchan's ruling on the gag order prosecutors are suggesting maybe trump wants to go to prison, maybe. more on that coming up next. prison, maybe. more on that coming up next.

the sixth day of donald trump's hush money trial began with a contempt hearing to determine whether the former president should be fined for attack witnesses on social media in direct violation of the gag order imposed by judge juan

merchan. prosecutors opened the hearing asking the judge to impose the maximum fine of $1,000 for each of the ten violations. they also asked judge merchan to warn trump about the possibility of jail time. this is prosecute chris conroy. we're not yet seeking an incarcatory but the defendant seems to be aiming for that and warn the defendant that this conduct will not be tolerated and incarceration is an option should it be nes ser. this is response from trump's lawyer, tom blanche. those comments were in direct response to comments made by these witnesses, not about these criminal proceedings, your honor. when judge merchan pressed mr. blanche on what specific attacks trump was responding to, blanche struggled to answer, which led the judge to say i've asked you

eight or nine times to show me the exact posts that trump was responding to and you have been unable to do that even once. blanche's response, president trump trump has been very careful foocomply with your honor's rules. judge merchan, you mr. blanche, are losing all credibility, i have to tell you that right now. joining me the manhattan d.a. joyce, what are the implications of losing the confidence of the judge in like 48 hours? >> so, yeah, i mean it's never a good thing, right, alex? i think we're all trying to find different ways to express the fact this is the worst development for donald trump's lawyers this early in the trial, and their client has forced it upon them. if donald trump were a normal defendant, his lawyers would have taken him out of the

courtroom, sat him down, and had a meeting with him where they would have said to him we cannot defend you if you continue to do this. they may well have that conversation because trump's posts on truth social tonight had involved attacks on the judge, attacks on alvin bragg, the district attorney, but he seems to have stopped talking at least for the moment about the witnesses. but, frankly, i think it's too late. the judge i think is slow to anger. this is very good judge, a judge who has good control in the courtroom. the fact he had this level of response to todd blanche's attempt to justify trump's conduct does not bode well going forward. >> what does it say about the defense strategy, we knew the gag order was coming. >> i don't think they're arguing as much to the judge as putting

a show on for their own client. they're making an argument that is not an argument they know is the winning argument, and this could not have gone any worse for them today and they had to expect that. if they really wanted to win the argument they would have said he went past the line or went up to the line and he's sorry and he's making this argument, which is political argument, and i think as a result of it, this notion of losing credibility with the judge this early in the case is a serious problem and costing them in real world ways. for example, they're not getting to see the next witnesses for the next day, and that's the kind of preparation lawyers do when they're on trial. they spend all night prepping for the next day's witness. they don't know who it is, that's the kind of thing going to trip them umand harm mr. trump at the end of the day. >> i was also struck as many people were at the contention from the prosecution trump is maybe aiming to be prisoned here. can you talk about how feasible

that suggestion sounds to you? >> right, donald trump fund raises every time a judge rules against him, every time he's indicted, i think we can't reject that notion out of hand. the reality of donald trump losing even more control, you know he's struggling to stay in a courtroom without stand up and trying to leave, complaining about the temperature. i think even a brief stay in one of the holding cells in the courthouse would be very difficult for him. nonetheless, there may be some political appeal to him. his base, you know, there have not been exactly large supportive rallies for him outside the courthouse. perhaps this would be something he would view as rallying the base. but the reality is for so many americans who have trump fatigue at this point, the spectacle of watching the former president go into custody might finally be that bridge too far. >> yeah, i'm with joyce on the utility of an hour or two on the

holding cell for donald trump as a matter of stoking political grievance, but i don't know, that seems like a very, very difficult decision for the judge to make. >> i think what's much more likely to happen is that the judge is going to impose the fine the prosecutors are going to ask for. remember $1,000 is the maximum he can get. it's nothing, it's a drop in the bucket for him obviously, so i think that $1,000 fine for him is worth a million dollar ad he could put on tv. what he could do fund raising off a $1,000 fine from judge merchan in this case to say he's being silenced and fined, and they are trying to suppress his right to speak, and they don't want him to become president. he's going to use this for all it's worth. i think it's whether it's a few hours in a holding cell or a few thousand dollars fine, i think he is going to use it for all it's worth, and i think that's the reason you're seeing more posts coming out tonight. he's angling for a fight. he's not shying away from it, and he's basically putting the judge in a corner when there's

really nothing else he can do. >> the other piece of this aside from the political utility and what it means for the justice system is what it does to the actual jurors serving on this. some of the stuff trump has been saying specifically the reposting of jesse waters about liberal activists who are aligned to the judge in order to get on the trump jury, we saw yesterday morning one of these jurors came in the second one with some real trepidation about serving on the jury here. i guess i wonder, joyce, if you're a lawyer in this, are you thinking, okay, we're going to need to go to alternate jurors at a certain point? >> you know, there is that risk. that's why judge merchan went ahead and took the unusual step of putting six alternate jurors on this carb and in a norm case expect it to last a couple of weeks and you might have two or three alternate jurors. it points to a larger problem, which is that the jurors shouldn't be exposed to any of this. the jurors are to not see the

news, they're supposed to tell folks around them, talk to them about the news. in a perfect world they would have no understanding about what donald trump is doing and whether a host on another network was talking about them and outing their identity. but we live in a real world where that seems to be happening. that could have some complicated impacts in this case if there are convictions and if there is an appeal. for now, though, the judge will do his best to reassure jurors, and he will do his best to make sure they understand they must strictly avoid any external news that they are obligated at this point by virtue of the oath that they took to serve to hear only the evidence that's presented to them in the courtroom. >> it is such a stress test for the system, the people involve. i keep going back to judge merchan as well. he is really the most vulnerable person in all this given the fact that trump can continue to say whatever he wants about the

judge on social media. he's not part of the gag order. he has to make these monumental decisions in terms of history. and if he is pushed to put trump in a holding cell for even an hour, that then becomes a line that's been crossed, right, and we've never seen that before in american history. >> it's the job he signed up for, and the jurors are in a different spot because even under the most normal of conditions, it's hard to look somebody in the eye and convict them and send them to jail. that's difficult anytime, but in any case these jurors have such a difficult task knowing there could be actual physical violence against them. they're all in a spot where this has a real world implication, and it's got to be very scary being on the jury and frankly just being the judge and being around all that. >> the judge, judge engoron in the tish james case, i think no, no, judge kaplan said the jurors

not reveal their identity. and that is a testament to the people doing their civic duty. thank you both for making the time. really appreciate it. still ahead tonight, pro-life. arizona wants to be senator kari lake flip-flops once again in her support for arizona's civil war era abortion ban. another example of republicans who cannot figure out what they actually want. we'll have more on that coming up next. we'll have more on that coming up next. shingles. the rash can feel like an intense burning sensation, and last for weeks. shingles could make it hard to be there for your loved ones. over 50? the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside you.

don't wait. ask your doctor about shingles.

save as many babies as possible? our first priority is to save as many babies as possible. >> last year arizona senate candidate kari lake was very clear about being pro-life and anti-choice. a year earlier she'd made abundantly clear that the civil war era zombie law, the one banning nearly all abortions in the state of arizona, that law was a great one, again according to kari lake. >> i'm incredibly thrilled that we are going to have a great law that's already on the books, so it will prohibit abortion in arizona. >> but then two weeks ago that zombie law became actual law thanks to a ruling from the state supreme court, and kari lake had second thoughts.

>> i want to make sure that every woman who finds herself pregnant has more choices. if you look at where the population is on this, a full ban on abortion is not where the people are. >> i'm very pro-life, the near complete ban is a great law. wait, no, a full ban on abortion is not where the people are at. are you following this? stay with me here because kari lake has a new, new opinion on this subject. again, here she is on saturday. >> when this law passed, the arizona supreme court said this was the law of arizona, but, unfortunately, the people run our state have said we're not going to enforce it. so it's really political theater. we don't have that law as much as many of us wish we did. >> we don't have that law as much as many of us wish we did. it's unfortunate that democrats aren't enforcing it. except it's not a good law

because most people aren't for it. except it's a great law. what? this is the modern day republican party, a party that cannot figure out what it wants. speaker of the house mike johnson in 2022 was firmly against providing more u.s. aid to ukraine. he voted against ukraine aid on four separate occasions. but once he was elected speaker last year, according to the reporting from "the washington post," he began sitting in on high level intelligence briefings and speaker johnson changed his mind. when johnson tried to get his own party onboard for ukraine aid, barely half of them agreed. in fact, the only reason the house was able to approve $95 billion for ukraine, israel, and allies in the indo-pacific this past weekend is because democrats came to the rescue. that does not mean the republican in-fighting is over or far from it. trump ally marjorie taylor greene is still threatening to

oust speaker johnson for daring to cross the aisle. that even though trump himself defended johnson on monday saying i think he's trying very hard. but if you thought trump would be the final word on this think again. yesterday trump whisperer steve bannon said trump is actually livid on what speaker johnson did on ukraine. >> he does not support johnson 100%, trust me. he's furious about what happened. >> just to recap here according to republicans ukraine aid is very bad unless it is urgently necessary. but even if you think it is urge wantly necessary it is probably, almost certainly catastrophically a bad idea. and don't even mention the word abortion. we're going to talk more about the rudderless republican party and what democrats can and should do about it with the great claire mccaskill, coming up next. e great claire mccaskill, coming up next.

s. res. 661, s. res. 662, s. res. 663. the presiding officer: is there objection to just moments ago the senate passed a package of four bills to provide billions in foreign aid to ukraine, israel, and taiwan. those bills now headed to president joe biden's desk for his signature. they received bipartisan support tonight, but this final passage only happened because house democrats bailed out republican speaker mike johnson last weekend. joining me now to talk about all that is claire mccaskill, former u.s. senator from the great state of missouri. claire, thank you for joining me here. and i kind of wonder is this a moment -- there's been a lot of

conflicting headlines about who deserves credit here. quite obviously democrats do for bailing out the republican speaker of the house and members of his own party, getting it through the rules committee and out of the house. but do you think mike johnson deserves credit? does he get a gold star for bucking the hard liners in the republican conference? >> i may throw up a little bit when i say this, but, yeah. he got the high level intel briefings, listened to commanders. i think he spent some time talking to people in europe who he knows are our allies. and i think he figured out that he didn't want to be with putin at this moment. he didn't want to be the american who allowed putin to rollover a democracy, and that it was very dangerous for our country and would end up costing our country even more not just

in money but maybe even in lives sacrificed in a much bigger and broader conflict. so, yeah, i think it's a gold star. but there's gold stars in other places. i've got to give kind of a gold star to mitch mcconnell because he didn't give up. he actually got more republicans to vote for the ukraine aid tonight than he did back in february. he got the majority of his caucus tonight. he did not get them back in february and, frankly, chuck schumer is not getting enough credit for keeping -- he has the same margin, alex, as the republicans have in the house. he only has 51. >> it's so important to point that out. that's how one party manages a one-seat majority. >> exactly, and look how many times he's kept the democrats together when it really mattered, and we have a lot of different opinions in our party right now especially when it comes to the conflict, the horrific war in gaza right now. so, you know, i think the

leaders writ large in congress get gold stars tonight even though i grudgingly give it out to mitch mcconnell and mike johnson. >> well, listen, i don't think you're wrong to be begrudging in your gold star distribution just because it feels like johnson's desire to pass this ukraine aid bill was based on intelligence and a substantive -- a real feeling about the preservation of democracy. and yet it's hard to imagine he's making that case to his party as the war in ukraine goes on or as he talks about the sort of general foreign policy position of the republican party. i mean it doesn't feel like he's going to use this as a moment to lead and bring his party back from the hinterlands of isolationism when quite clearly he believes that's what's necessary for the betterment of the global order. >> contrast him with who i think is a dunce cap, put this in your

pipe and smoke it. marco rubio voted no today. marco rubio is the ranking member of the intelligence committee in the united states senate. nobody has more intelligence than marco rubio, but he doesn't have the intelligence to go with it or the backbone. so it is really interesting that he is siding with trump in this even though he knows better, and so did another 16 or 17 republicans in the senate and a whole boat load of them in the house. so this is really about are you with trump and putin, or are you with really national security and protecting democracies and freedoms across the globe? >> are you drawing a larger inference about what this might suggest in terms of house leadership? do you think this means mike johnson is ready to do deals with moderate democrats and sort of move things forward here, or is this a one-time thing? >> well, i don't know. i don't think much will move now. you've still got to keep the

government funded, so that might be another power move he's going to have to try to make. i think he knows he is on very, very thin ice right now because the far-right crazy caucus is so angry. but, you know, it could be worse. he could be running for senate in arizona and not even know how he feels an issue doesn't lend itself to flip-flopping very easily and that is our star out in arizona, kari lake who can't decide who she is or why she's running. >> i feel like her inability to take a position on this is so exemplary of a party that knows better but they're not listening to their brains, not listening to their better angels and not listening to the information. >> they're listening to the loudest voices. she flipped again because the loud voices are screaming at her you cannot be against this bill from the 1800s, you must be for this bill.

and, you know, the bill isn't even in effect yet. it will be -- come summer it will be, and local prosecutors still have the ability to bring cases, so she's not even accurate when she says that it can't be enforced or won't be enforced. what she is is somebody who thinks if she talks with -- she's so telegenic and gets the flawless make-up and gets the soft shots and says it clearly she actually believes people will buy what she's selling and they won't see she doesn't have a principle on this issue. if there's one people hate more on someone who agrees on an issue like this, she has no principle on an issue like this. >> i can see a cake in a the background and i love it. >> oh, it's scones. it's blue berry scones. i'd whip you up a hot tea and if

you were here and we'd have a scone. >> thank you and your blue berry scones for joining me tonight for hard talk. >> you bet. coming up protests on campuses across america have led to heated rhetoric and conflicting narratives on all sides. we're going to speak to columbia university's student newspaper on what has and has not been happening on that campus coming up next. not been happening on that campus coming up next.

business. it's not a nine-to-five proposition. it's all day and into the night. it's all the things that keep this world turning. the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business. see why comcast business powers more small businesses

than anyone else. get started for $49.99 a month plus ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. don't wait- call today. there are now more than a dozen encampment-style protests on college campuses across the country and what students see as their college's ties to israel. along with these protests are claims that the protests are contributing to a climate of anti-semitism on campus and a debate about where to draw the line between freedom of speech and safety on campus. that debate is happening not only in schools but also in the national press and in the halls of congress. and it has led to the arrest and suspension of hundreds of students across multiple campuses. at the epicenter of all of this

is the encampment-style protest currently on day six at columbia university. since the very first protests and claims of scent semitic incidents following last year's october 7th attack the columbia paper has been on the scene. no paper has covered the protests, the backlash and the transportation of columbia's campus as extensively, with as much detail, and with as much access to all of the subjects involved as the columbia spectator. all these headlines you see on-screen right now are just from today. so for a better understanding of what is actually happening there joining me now is isabella ramirez, editor-in-chief of the columbia spectator. thank you so much for being here. i'm appreciative for what the paper has done and for being on set tonight. can you tell us what the latest is as the administration tries to manage this crisis? >> so just minutes prior to this columbia students just received an e-mail from president shafik

outlining there had been ongoing conversations between the organizers of these encampments and protests and shafik recently outlined a deadline when those conversations must come to reconciliation or as she said in a pretty explicit way they will seek, quote, alternative options for clearing west lawn. now, there was sort of some vagueness as to what that could imply. there was any sort of direct mention of the new york police department. but, of course, looking at the recent events looking at not only what happened on our campus on thursday but what now has spread to new york university and several universities across the nation, we can't help but to sort of especially at the columbia daily spectator be on edge and be ready for the potential that we could relive what occurred on thursday. >> it's been hard for people who are not on campus to understand

exactly what the dynamic is. you know, there's claims of violence, anti-semitic incidents, face-offs. can you to the best of your abilities -- give me a sense how contentious it is, how dangerous it feels, and what the sort of tenor is between the pro-palestinian groups of students and pro-israel students? >> yeah, i mean it's an incredibly complicated thing to describe, and i think the best way to describe it as a student who's currently there and navigating the space, there are different characterizations to the extent of which people feel safe. i think we've tried to navigate that very particularly by, you know, yes, there have been anti-semitic incidents, a lot of them, however, have been attached to off-campus protests. a lot of them have been attached to nonaffiliates who have been protesting outside of our campus in solidarity with those

encampments. >> but are not actually the encampment itself? >> not necessarily. that's not to say there haven't been incidents on our campus. there were particular incidences that happened this past saturday at what we call the sundial, and there were a view violent remarks made and also a specific sign that was held by just one singular protester away from the encampment, again. not on the lawns but very close by that did refer to hamas' military wing. and so people have, of course, pointed to those incidences, and that is very -- that is something we should contend with as campus body, but also there's an interesting element that i think if you weren't really deeply involved in the campus and you weren't seeing the encampment for yourself and walking onto it, of this micro-community that is being formed on this lawn. and what i mean by that is they have regular programming, which is to say they have movie nights and dance performances, and they

have a list of community guidelines. and one of the first guidelines on that list is do not engage with counterprotesters. try to de-escalate, don't try to engage with agitators. and in fact when some of those anti-semitic incidents happened on our campus and also off-campus on saturday columbia university, sort of the big coalition behind this encampment did to an extent denounce those incidences and say, remember, guys this is what we're here for. we're here in support of palestinians and we're here also to demand from the university to potentially divest from its ties to israel. and so, you know, understanding all those moving pieces, it is a lot more nuanced than a lot of people i think -- or how media have been able to portray it in. it's more visible to us. just this past on monday, yesterday for the commencement of passover there was a satyr.

>> yes, at the encampment. >> and that's an incredibly interesting display of why it's important not to display this as monolithic or as even two-sided. i think there are -- >> it's multifaceted. >> certainly multifaceted. there are people on so many different dimensions, identities that belong to pro-israel and pro-palestinian causes, and it can be very dangerous sometimes when we attempt to generalize but also attempt to make it simple. and i think that's what spectator can do is we don't catch the big story we catch every element. >> that's why essentially it's big reading in this moment. thank you so much for everything you're doing to cover this topic. that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. for 50 years the court didn't recognize women in america had a fundamental constitutional right, and donald trump took