have. because we won the state. >> okay. and we know at a campaign event earlier this week, he called that a perfect phone call, but dave, you've just laid out what they're trying to do in proving this, and it seems like that is some pretty solid evidence with that phone call. >> it is, jessica. you know, you're not going to see donald trump take the stand in this case, if and when he is indicted. i do not think he will go under oath and take the stand in what could be a perjury trap. so the next best thing for jurors is to hear donald trump's own voice on a recording, and that's what separates this case from all the others, and that's why i think this is the second strongest case against donald trump. of the four criminal cases, i think the strongest is the documents case at mar-a-lago. they got dead right on that one. but here you've got donald trump on tape and that's the difference, and that's whey i think -- why i think they've got a really strong case, not just
i think judge chutkan is going to grant it. because why would trump want this information but to intimidate witnesses, to try this case in the court of public opinion. trump's legal team tipped their hand already because his lawyer, lauro, went on all the sunday shows. it's called the full ginzburg. he did that because they warrant their supporters to be riled up. they want to taint the jury pool. i think the judge is going to send a message back. >> every time this legal team puts forward an argument, all of the attorneys at our table, that is not a thing, that is not a legal argument. once they are actually in the courtroom, right, and they are defending their client, what do you expect the argument to be that they make? >> they don't really have many arguments except for the first amendment argument and the advice of council argument that i just did what john eastman told me. both of those arguments require donald trump to testify. and his lawyers do not want him to take the stand. it's a perjury trap. at the very least he could be eviscerated by the
as bill barr said if trump want to go down that road and say it's a counsel defense or i have first amendment protection, he's got to testify and take the stand and that's walking into a perjury trap. i think jack smith has the former president into a bit of a trick bag here. >> yeah, no question trump's best defense would require him to be on the stand. we know how that's gone in the past. let's talk about trump's calender is obviously filling up quickly, and we should never lose sight of the fact all these legal proceedings come in the backdrop of the campaign as i'm sure he's going to be moving rally site to rally site next year. what's your best sequencing of these trials? we know about the one in new york. we can only speculate about the one in georgia. we have the two federal cases, classified documents and now this one on attempts to overturn the election. what do you think that counter is going to look like? >> in a recent interview alvin
and we'll see if it followswill through with that. and then if he can complyhose t with those terms going forwarder . >> john, how do you see this ending? you know, what's going to saveoo us? i never thought i would say this paper. theyr the federal governmentu , one thing they can do is generate reams and reams of paper. if david weiss tried to become a special counsel and he was denied, there will be a paper trail. here if he tried to bring charges against hunter biden in other jurisdictions and he was denied, there'll be a paper trail for that, too. and that is going to be the only b way to really suss ot who is telling the truth here and who is not, you know, ato is a future date, undisclosed. >> i don't think the dojt. him to testify before congress because in that moment that would be a perjury trap. potential if. you're right. anyway, thank you both. john. thank you, matt. good to see you. coming up, biden still refuses to acknowledge his seventh grandchild. how heartless. anyway acknowledge his , some democrats remain unfazed by it. we got the tape. and victor davissome d hanson ws
saying, who knew what and when because these employees work inside mar-a-lago were involved with obstructing justice, even though they were just following orders. so as long as they testify truthfully, there should be no problems for them. but if they lie, they are working into a perjury trap. >> so staying on the classified documents investigation, a federal judge ordering his lawyer to testify for a second time in front of a special grand jury. how rare is that move for a judge to order a lawyer to testify? >> it is rare because we have attorney-client privilege. but that can be pierced by the crime brought against them. it's more likely than not there was a crime of obstruction and the lawyer was used to facilitate it. so it's a big deal. it was corcoran who draft ed th letter that assured the department of justice that all the sensitive documents have been returned. it wasn't true now the person
if you have someone who maybe saw something or knew something. are you offering them immunity? or is there a level of culpability that if they know they're covering documents from the white -- how exposed are they potentially? >> they're just going to be used as witnesses, not the targets of the investigation. you want them to be forthcoming. if they lie they commit perjury and that is a crime and they can be squeezed there. but as far as seeing something that is not necessarily a crime. it depends on their level of involvement. if they walked the documents out of the room where they are supposed to be kept, yeah. they could be brought in and then get immunity from prosecution. you're identifying a correct issue. what if the lawyer paid for by trump says don't cooperate. don't tell the truth. and then you have a conflict. yeah this happens all the time in our world. sometimes it leads to an innocent, a person who is a witness who should not be charged is charged because they end up fall go into a perjury
have the court leave it in contempt and get the documents back, or the fact that he will not turn over the documents and won't even do it with a threat of a contempt order just goes to his intent, and the fact that this is not a mistake that these documents landed at mar-a-lago. this is what he intended. and it also, by, the way shows that they really want to get these documents back, and every second that they are at this beach house in the possession of donald trump is a risk to our national security. >> so actually, that gets to my next question, which is is this the doj's play to actually get the documents back? or do you think that this could be a perjury trap. >> well, again, they put him in a position where they either have to assert that the documents are not there, and if they are than he is in a whole other world of trouble. but if he is not willing to assert anything at all, well, that is
of donald trump is a risk to our national security. >> so actually, that gets to my next question, which is is this the doj's play to actually get the documents back? or do you think that this could be a perjury trap. >> well, again, they put him in a position where they either have to assert that the documents are not there, and if they are than he is in a whole other world of trouble. but if he is not willing to assert anything at all, well, that is because the documents are there. and they are circling the target and i think that they know that they have the goods on the sky. but i would also like to point out, alex, that these are sensitive documents that likely include what is called human source information, where people have risked their lives and livelihood to help the u.s. government to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks, to protect us from another country 's military, or nuclear weapon capabilities. and they are in the hands of someone who has already proven himself willing to leverage
case? or is he going to invoke his fifth amendment privilege in any way? >> 0.0 chance he will provide anything substantive, he may provide something substantive as to carroll's case, which is not really a political one. it is a straight-up court case, in a sense. but, when it comes to anything juicy about what he did as president, doubtful we will hear anything because that is not even relevant to the underlying case. and, the other thing is he may not take the fifth amendment at all. he may use his own version of the fifth amendment. he has testified in many depositions, he has a veteran of depositions. so, the very idea, and i am guilty of this as well. when he first sat i thought oh, that is, it he cannot testify under oath because when you are under oath you are in the perjury trap and bad things will happen. but, you know, what he has done it. he knows how to do it, he is a veteran. i expect he will get in there instead of his invoking his fifth amendment he will use a version of the fifth amendment i'm sure you have seen witnesses use in deposition, which is memory loss. i don't remember, i don't