president biden. >> because there is no reason for me to listen to it in order to make the determinations that i have had to make. >> i don't understand how you can sit before the congressional committee and kind of arbitrate what is indistinguishable from the transcripts if you are not even sure what is on the tapes. >> route garlin says that the tapes are full of hands and arms and also pauses and republicans say that that is exactly why thy want to hear the tapes and compare them to the transcripts. >> harris: of course words on the pace and listening to the cadence and if there's worries in one voice or forgetfulness if there is stress you cannot communicate that with the written word right on the page with no context so that totally makes sense. thank you so much chad very m much. your thoughts? >> pete: on those tapes when the reason there was siting for not going forward and part is the mental acuity of the person being interviewed and that can
when this case does go to trial in the meantime? >> it can. judge mcafee, the trial judge below will handle motions. he's proven to be a good and thoughtful and somewhat efficient trial judge. the trial judge might tell him to hold off on that. it can go forward. i imagine prosecutors are still preparing for the case. they're not going to stop. but they do have to also prepare for this appellate argument in october, chris. >> the panel of judges doesn't collect new evidence. they are arriving at the conclusions when he decided to keep d.a. willis on the case. what will the arguments look and sound like? what are they looking for? >> you're right. appellate courts don't hear new evidence. they make legal determinations based on the record below them.
a lot of people avoid this impolite conversation. there are a few places left where we can actually deliberate this universities are one of them. >> i think that what you are seeing, and, this is somewhat unprecedented, this degree of congressional pressure on universities to shut down certain viewpoints. i can't think of a president since the house un-american activities when you have college presidents being hauled up. >> asking specific names of people who are professors. >> specific names, specific ideologies, specific course offerings. this is a remarkable thing, even if you find some of these things that these professors, some of these professors have said to be a parent, do you really want republicans in congress to be deciding where the line is ? >> that is the issue. it is the same thing with my book club. there are books that are and that may not be to your taste. they might actually be a point but the issue is whether or not the state should have a role in making these determinations and then, secondarily, probably more importantly, given the
from the carol lawsuit. there was a couple of years ago trump filed a lawsuit against clinton and other defendants where he was fined for a frivolous lawsuit. they want to present to the jury these determinations to question the credibility of donald trump. is the district attorney's office argued today to the judge. they said, they're going to question the credibility from clinton to stormy daniels. we shall question the voracity of statements that donald trump makes. >> can i make one correction. it's not to let the defendant know the line of questioning it's to let the defendant what prior bad acts they're going ask ask him about. the other questions he's going
cold war that was very clear from our conversations around the table i believe europeans have expressed that and we'll continue to express that clearly. >> to china in the days and weeks ahead oh, i'm sorry so on that i think you're referring to the so-called leahy law and our work under that. so this is a very important law that's one that we apply across the board and when we're doing these investigations, these inquiries it's something that takes time that has to be done very carefully. >> both in collecting the facts and analyzing them. and that's exactly what we've done. and i think it's fair to say that you'll see results very soon. i made determinations. you can expect to see them in the days ahead for the next question, oliviera burger meanie with rei tgi with afternoon two quick
if he were to testify, and these are some prior court determinations that are further evidence of that. >> joyce, vaughn just ticked through the long list of potential areas of questioning that the d.a. has signaled they want to discuss if trump does take the stand, everything, again, from e. jean carroll to the civil fraud trial to other legal matters. does everything on the list that we know of sound fair game to you? what do you think the judge is likely to do? >> so the judge will have to balance the evidentiary value of this material to the prosecution against the risk of undue prejudice to the defendant. and the courts in new york have said that they leave those determinations up to the judge's sound discretion. he'll only be reversed on appeal if there is a conviction, if he abuses his discretion. so we can expect to see him go carefully through each of these incidents. ana, it's important to note here, this isn't evidence that
to have positive, friendly relations with countries in europe, and at the same time, be fuelling the biggest threat to european security since the end of the cold war. that was very clear from our conversations around the table. i believe europeans have expressed that and will continue to express that, clearly, to china in the days and weeks ahead. i think your referring to the law and work under that. this a very important law and it is one that we apply across the board. when we are doing these investigations, these inquiries, it is something that takes time, it has to be done carefully, both in collecting the facts and analysing them. that is exactly what we have done and i think it is fair to say that you will see results very soon. i have made determinations and you can expect to see them in the days
determination. the list that the d.a.'s office put forward to judge merchan included determinations like the civil fraud trial just from earlier this year as well as the e. jean carroll case, but also, you know, cases like in early 2023 when donald trump was ordered to pay nearly a million dollars to multiple defendants incluing hillary clinton as part of a sprawling lawsuit against her and nearly 40 other defendants, and in that court order, that court ruling at the time from early 2023, it said, quote, mr. trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. the reason why the district attorney's office wants to bring these sort of court orders from prior trials before the jury is to show them that this is mott -- not an isolated case, donald trump as a defendant has had multiple run-ins with the truth and is a questionable defendant
decide to. if it's wide open, i can't imagine he's going to open himself up to that sort of cross-examination. >> and vaughn, when are we expecting decisions or rulings on the evidence from judge marchand? >> reporter: we're expecting here over the course of this afternoon. this process could take as short as an hour here. they're already currently i believe on the fourth previous trial determination that they are going through. of course it's the prosecution that first presents why they believe that they should be able to bring up these determinations, one of the prosecutors for the district attorney's office saying, quote, it's hard to think of something more skbarly in the wheelhouse than a finding by a judge of persistent fraud and illegality. just a moment ago, another quote i'll read you, there's a particular need for the people to assess the defendant's credibility and they intend to make witness credibility the centerpiece for the trial, and that is an argument for permitting this evidence here. essentially making the case that, look, the defense wants to
heard then committee before it goes to the full house. that's what they were trying to get past and couldn't get there. it was a 30, 30 split there's a razor thin republican majority here, 31 republicans to 29 democrats, and they just couldn't get another republican to go with the democrats along party lines there. so we are hearing from both sides of this issue and it's very difficult because whether you call yourself pro-life or pro-choice, there a lot of nuances where each person really considers different, different things on what's reasonable and allowed as far as exceptions and punishments. here are a couple of lawmakers. one, the speaker of the house, republican on the house floor, followed by a democrat and a press conference after the fact here are criminal peanut associated with this. and that's a cilium each of us have to make our own different determinations. can about what level of risk that we're willing to take to continue to provide abortion