outset: Live & Latest News Updates : Vimarsana.com
stormy daniels. the prosecution from district attorney alvin bag's office is beginning to make the case of a conspiracy all at the direction of the then candidate for president of the united states in 2015, one that would go well into 2016 and into the days leading up to the 2016 election. >> chuck, the importance for the prosecution of repeating what exactly the charges are and the words criminal conspiracy, that i just see in the first five minutes have been repeated a number of times by the prosecution. how do you see this going forward, chuck? >> i don't mean this as a criticism at all, jose. this type of opening is entirely predictable. this is exactly what you would expect a good prosecuor to tell a jury at the outset. you would pick a team. this is about a conspiracy to cover up a relationship and in order to effectuate that conspiracy, to make it work, you
been involved in. now, of course, is unclear if trump will definitely take the stand. this is what called a sandoval hearing, where you get out of the way at the outset, what specifically it is that prosecutors can ask a defendant if he or she takes the stand. the judge revealing that right now is unclear what he has decided. of course, the other big news from this morning is that juror number nine said they had concerns about the media attention in this case. but after meeting with the judge and lawyers that juror has decided to remain on the case. >> all right paula reid. thank you so much. appreciate it. let's talk more about this case so first of all, explain again what the sandoval hearing. >> yes. yeah. sandoval hearing of the fancy way of saying before a defendant has to take the stand or as an option, take the stand. >> they get to know what you're going to ask them. are you going to go about issues? i do or do not want to talk about, it's all about what's called, what's probative versus prejudicial. >> and anything that they have to warn them about are just legal matters. >> well, it's it's basically a
witnesses, if you talk about jurors, there could be consequences. we pray not. but in response to your question, when you see issues like this, it brings to mind the realities of what tuesday's hearing about the gag order is all about you incite people to action. and this could be the result let's go back to the conversation has how much dean about the jurors he says, maybe the judge suits your the judges decided not to do that. >> i think for humanity reasons, you want these, you take these people away from their families, their lives. it's going to be stressful enough. you want them to go home, sleep, they're on bad, see their own children, partners, friends, and things like if that how does th balance out though? what are the risks? is that the right thing to do on a high-profile case? and what are the risks? well, luck. i think a happy jurors are thoughtful juror number one. number two if judge marsha wants this case to move along, and he decided to sequester jury at the outset. this we wouldn't be talking about opening statements come monday. so i think look through an anonymous and they can take
ultimately never ceded. if you are not watching all week, what changed this week? what was the big story out of the courtroom. >> i think it was the difficulty of getting a jury together. we started monday. by tuesday, we had seven seated and wednesday morning, we came in and two overnight changed their mind. one of the reasons was a woman who agreed to do it. her family gasped based on all the information out there even though it was her name. it didn't take much to figure it out for people who knew. so that happened and then there were other jurors who were concerned that the stress was going to be too much. i want to talk about the judge at the outset and this doesn't
press not to report on each juror's past and current employers to protect identities and not to write anything about physical observations, about their appearances or things you would hear like an accent. he said if the press can't follow those orders, he would be open to taking other measures. part of this was a problem from the judge and d.a. some of the answers didn't need to be public and could have been redacted from the start and they weren't. so you are in a tough spot but the judge is doing what he can to protect the jurors. >> suzanne, you are giving a thumbs up to that. >> she nailed it. that was the problem at the outset. >> why didn't they see that? >> i don't know. but when you are asking jurors all of those questions, you can guess who they are. you can google them if they work at this law firm and live at this neighborhood and their wife does this or their husband does this. i was surprised that they
as much as they formed an opinion about trump they likely have one about stormy daniels, the likely have one about michael cohen. in fact, one says he follows him on twitter and he's on the case. oh, sorry. x. x. >> so this is first a legal question, but it's also a political question. it's a question about how judge are sean is proceeding quick briefly. all right. we've got through various selection. they tell what the hiccups today says. we want to start as early as monday. it says he won't give them tuesday off the trump team wanted that passover is monday night into 2s into tuesday. he said no we're going to proceed. so from is that his style from a legal standpoint, number one and number two, does this factor into it all that trump doesn't want to be here, but now he is. and now that he is in a new york courtroom, there approaches. let this go on as long as we possibly can, because once it's done, there are other trials and so he's trying, to trying to delay everything. this one he couldn't delay. now that it's started, you'll want to stretch it. yeah. i mean, look, here's the reality. the reality is is in my view, the judge is doing what he should do. i think this judge and indicating from the outset, john, that if you self
mistake, our response will be regretful for them. >> dana: yet hamas senior official says we call for expanding the scale of the engagement against the -- and the escalation in the region. i would say if you're the iranians, in some ways they've been humiliated this week. not emboldened necessarily. i would welcome your view on that. >> yeah, i totally agree with that. iran conventional military is not strong. weak air force, weak navy, poorly trained and poorly equipped. they have a lot of numbers. the thing they've invested in rockets and missiles. what we saw the other night, saturday night, was absolute major mal function on the part of their missile force, which contributes to the problems their other forces have. that's why i have said from the outset, we can take advantage of iran's major vulnerability, their conventional military force, by hitting them in a very
stay on track. what do you think opening statements could look like on monday i think we do have opening statements on monday and i think you're going to hear from the defense on the defense, sayyed, i think they're gonna go right after the witnesses from the outset. >> what you're going to hear and what their back what their backup particularly michael cohen. >> right. >> you're relying on someone who he's going to make the argument that they're the prosecution is relying on someone who has who has a grudge against the former president and they're going to try to make that point throughout the trial. they're trying to disk credit witnesses from the outset that the prosecution there's going to put on the stand and that's where i don't think they've listed a lot of witnesses for the defensiveness it's all about attacking. it's all about attacking the witnesses, credibility that the prosecution is going to put on in this case. in particular, michael coe yeah. >> and i thought speaking of witnesses, i thought it was significant that the prosecutor
sources that she was not removed because this does open an avenue of attack for the former president. he has to be careful because this is a juror, but this is certainly something that they're going to bring up on appeal. they are reserving every single issue this issue of can they get a fair a fair jury, right. they fought to get that specific number of how many people said at the outset, i can't even be impartial. i gotta go right because they wanted to show how difficult it is in this venue. then you see someone like this getting on the jury after she called him selfish. and i believe self-serving. >> one of the graphic. but that did surprise me that the judge let first day, even though you know that this is going to be an issue not only the court of public opinion, but in a possible appeal if there's a conviction, let's put that up. he just seems very selfish and self-serving, so i don't really appreciate that in any public servant. so i don't know him as a person, so i don't know how he is in terms of his integrity it's just not my cup of tea yeah. >> it's an awkward position to be in when you're the defendant and you have to you're being forced to either use a strike and was out when
we passed resolutions. remember what we said at the outset, we only control one chamber. i barely have control of that. i can't -- senate won't advance our legislation, and the president won't sign it. he won't fulfill his obligation. why is the border not in the package? he didn't have the votes to do it. i have a handful of my republicans at least who will not advance a rule to bring that to the floor to combine it with the ukraine and israel funding. they won't do it. if i don't have the republican votes, that means we have to have democrat votes. >> michael steele, kind of an explosive scene on capitol hill yesterday when the small group of republicans who don't want any aid going out the door, some of them at all, others saying we don't want it without border security measures, although, remember, let's say for the, i don't know, thousandth time, there was a bipartisan border package sent over from the senate, but put that aside for a moment. what do you make of speaker johnson standing up to the hard