U. S. President. So we are all in luck. We know that Closing Arguments at Donald Trumps new york Hush Money Trial begin tuesday. They are expected to take most of the day, and then its a matter of how long it takes a jury to reach a verdict. That is, if they are able to reach a verdict at all. Were going to get back to that. But first, lets not forget that this Hush Money Trial is just one of Donald Trumps many indictments. There was bad news for him this week and one of the other cases against him. And trumps classified documents case, the one in which he is accused by federal prosecutors of illegally hoarding classified documents at mara lago and then trying to hide them from the federal government, newly unsealed documents this week revealed new evidence of more possible Obstruction Of Justice by the former president. Quote, once trump realized that Security Cameras at maralago could capture his employees moving classified Government Information that officials were attempting to retrieve as the government issued a subpoena for the camera footage, trump allegedly assured that they would avoid the cameras when moving boxes. Those new revelations were not what donald trump and his allies chose to focus on in these documents. Instead, they chose to focus on some random out of context language they pull from the fbi Search Warrant for maralago, and pretend that the fbi search, which, as you recall, was arranged in advance with the Secret Service while donald trump was not at home, was actually a secret attempt by President Biden to use the fbi to kill donald trump. I mean, this was so bonkers, even by trump standards. But the fbi took the highly unusual step of issuing a direct Response Debunking trumps claim. Even Attorney GeneralMerrick Garland, who is allergic to stepping into anything that might be construed as political, even he could not let this one slide. That allegation is false, and it is extremely dangerous. The document that is being referred to in the allegation is a Justice Department standard policy limiting the use of force. As the fbi advises, it is part of a standard Operations Plan for searches, and in fact, it was even used in the consensual search of President Bidens home. You can see why trump and his allies would want to distract the substance of the classified documents case. Of all the cases against trump, legal experts generally seem to consider the maralago to the closest to a slamdunk and prosecutorial terms. He tried to hide them, then he tried to hide the evidence that he was hiding them. But of course, it doesnt matter how strong a case is if it never goes to trial. In the Trump Appointed FloridaFederal Judge has postponed this tile indefinitely as she holds hearing after hearing on increasingly absurd motions from trumps legal team. Trumps other federal trial, on charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election, is also indefinitely postponed as the Supreme Court waits as long as humanly possible to deliver its ruling on whether the president is completely immune from criminal charges. The argument that trump has full immunity for any criminal act seemed like a stretch, even for the Supreme Court. Another we know that one of the justices flew proinsurrection flags at two of his homes while the Court Considered 2020 election cases, now that we know that, anything seems possible. One reason the new york hush money case has been able to look ahead is because its a state case, which means it is out of reach of trumps allies in the federal judiciary. But donald trump has a plan for that. Sources tell Rolling Stone this week that trump has been speaking to several republicans in congress about passing legislation that would shield former president s from state prosecutions. Trump has even hinted publicly at the strategy right outside of his new york courtroom. They think its a scam, they think its a joke. I cant believe its happening to democracy in this country. We have a lot of them do want to come and just say, has lots of laws to stop things like this. That is trump theyre saying that republican lawmakers making the pilgrimage to his trial shouldnt read stay in washington passed lots of laws to this to stop things like this, meaning the case against donald trump. Of course, in order for legislation like that to be passed and signed into law, donald trump would need to be president with a Republican House and a republican senate. It goes without saying that the federal case against him, all of them, would disappear if he returns to the white house. Trumps legal fate and his political fate are inextricably intertwined. Which is why so much hangs on what happens next week when this Hush Money Trial goes to the jury. No one knows what effect a conviction might have on his president ial bid. But if he is not convicted, trump will obviously treat that as a mouse if legal and political victory. Writing today in politico, former political prosecutor lays out a couple ways that jurors could get to a guilty verdict, whether or not they ultimately find Michael Collins testimony credible or not. But as they point out, the defense only has to convince one juror that there is reasonable doubt on some element of the charges for this case to end in a hung jury, which is a defective acquittal for trump. It is rare the stuff of movies for a case to plausibly turn on the quality of each sides Closing Arguments, but this could be one of those cases. So buckle up for next week. 20 me now are george conway, board president for the society for the rule of law in the two and a contributor to the atlantic, charles pullman, former new york executor, and anna bauer, legal fellow corresponded for laffaire, focused on the four criminal cases against trump. Charles, let me just start first with the strength of the case as it stands right now. I mean, the Misdemeanor Charge, falsification of business records, seems pretty provable based on whats been presented. I feel like theres a lot of concern about the Felony Charge and how tight you think the prosecutions case is. So there is one very key element to the Misdemeanor Charge that i think prosecutors should be slightly concerned about, and that is the word cause. When you are talking about to cause someone to falsify business records, we know that donald trump himself was not going to the computer and making the records that ultimately appeared, that were falsified. The notion is, where the question becomes, did he instruct . Did he direct . Did he advise someone to do that, whether it was weisselberg or not . We know weisselbergs handwriting is all over Different Things and pieces of evidence. Thats what they should be concerned about with respect to the misdemeanor. Is the issue of intent. I think that you get there because of the notion of david testimony. Its all on Donald Trumps mind in relation to the election. You get to establish the intent there, however, with respect to the misdemeanor, its one of the things i think the prosecutors should be concerned about. The other thing is, this is somewhat of a novel and convoluted legal hearing, and i think that the Jury Instructions are going to be pivotal in terms of how straightforward this becomes laid out for all the jurors so that no one gets confused. Yeah. George, when we hear about the first criminal trial of a u. S. President , does it concern you that the legal strategy here in terms of the prosecutions novel . Does that worry you . I dont actually think its not novel. The Manhattan District Attorneys Office uses this statute a lot and uses it in combination with the requirement that there be a coverup of another crime to establish felonies. And i mean, as i understand it, it happens in many, many contacts. It hasnt happened in this particular context because how many former president s that we had that paid off Adult Film Stars and cover the hush money payments up using their own private business . Not many, but thats just a factual distinction. The fact of the matter is, the statute is used all the time in this way in different situations. Let me take another bite at the apple. Does any part of it concern you . I mean, bragg doesnt need to lay out what that Step Up Charge is. The judge seems on board with that. But does any part of going from a misdemeanor to a Felony Concern you, legally speaking . Not really. I think its pretty clear that they were covering up a Campaign Finance violation at the minimum. To advance money for the purposes of running a political campaign. Thats what this was about. There was no evidence that he had any other motive that you keep this Stormy Daniels a fair , or whatever you want to call it, the Stormy Daniels sex quiet before the trial. I think the evidence is overwhelming on that. To go back to the basic charge of whether he caused it, he did cause it. It was all run by him. He signed some of these checks. I dont think there really is a weak spot in the governments case. And, you know, i do think its possible that they could get a hung jury. I dont think youre going to get an acquittal, and a hung jury would just require one person to basically disregard the evidence and disbelieve Michael Cohen, i guess. The problem with that is that Michael Cullen was corroborated by the documents. Essentially, his direct examination was walking through the documents and explaining the documents, putting them into context, and theres really no other Alternative Explanation for what those documents show. Anna, to georges point about Michael Cullen, a lot of the prosecutions case would seem to rest on cohens testimony, but there is a scaffolding that they built around him. I do wonder, if you talk about three points of, lets say, vulnerability in cohens testimony, it would seem to be, one, the fact that we didnt know he had stolen money from the trump organization. Two, there seems to be some discrepancy about the calls he imagined with trump were in fact calls with trump. They were through his body man, keith schiller. And three, the sort of corroborating witness here is Alan Weisselberg, and we didnt hear from him. So we are reliant on cohens testimony about his conversations with donald trump. You see those as the kind of points that the defense might best exploit and Closing Arguments . I certainly think that those are some of the points that they are going to try to exploit in the Closing Arguments in terms of Michael Cullens credibility. I also would note that we pretty recurring theme of the defense trying to portray Michael Cullen as someone who has made a career off of talking about donald trump. Portrayed him as someone who is kind of out for revenge, or has a vendetta against his former boss. Going to those points, i still the ones that you just mentioned, alex, i still am not convinced that those will be entirely effective, although as you all have mentioned, it only does take one juror. One reason being that, first, going to the questions around Michael Cohen stealing from the trump organization, he already admitted that on direct examination. It wasnt much of a gotcha moment, whenever it came to the crossexamination and when he actually fessed up to that. And then also, i will say that Michael Cullen, we have heard again and again throughout this trial, as the prosecution presented its case, Michael Cohen is someone who, you know, was maybe a little bit sleazy, with someone who people didnt like very much. And so i think the jurors came into his testimony kind of expecting to maybe not see Michael Cohen as the most credible witness, but their expectations were low, and the prosecution already has so much Corroborating Evidence with respect to the documents, phone calls, the other testimony of people like david pecker and hope hicks. And i think were going to see in the prosecutions Closing Arguments when they are trying to, you know, bolster Michael Cohens credibility, even though he is a key witness, is that hes going to be painting a meticulous timeline that really works through all of this Corroborating Evidence so that they can say and look, yes. You have Michael Cohen, weve heard from. Hes a guy whos made mistakes, look to all of this other Corroborating Evidence when you are making your decision. I think the Closing Arguments, i hear what anna is saying there, it feels like they are going to kill him with details. Just in excess of evidence, a real ticktock of how this crime unfolded. I was thinking to myself, they have to be careful not to get too deeply into the weeds. What i mean by that is, the details that are necessary to establish this case are not necessarily so voluminous that you have to point on every single thing. The key is, you want to tell a coherent story that has a believable theme, and that satisfies the elements of the crime that need to be proven. For me as a former prosecutor, one of the things that at some point, and lining up the elements im going to say, you hear from the judge and the judge will instruct you on the law, i want you to listen for the following things. And then im going to say, as you think about one, think about a. B, 2, and so on and so forth. You dont want to spend so much time on details that you confuse the jury. You want to do enough for you tell a story that is coherent and that aligns and reconciles with what you have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt. George, do you have an expectation of a story, if there is one, that the defense will tell . Throughout this trial, its been hard to understand if they are presenting a narrative at all. That is a problem, is that they dont have a narrative. Thats going to be the most effective part of the prosecutions presentation at the end, is that they have a narrative. They have a story. It coheres. All the documents confirm the story, and Michael Cohens testimony fills in the gap. And even Alan Weisselberg is present. His testimony comes in the form of a handwritten document that, in no uncertain terms, was a fraud. You know, the problem with the defense that theyve always had is that they do not have an Alternative Explanation for facts that are really fundamentally uncontested. Yes, they can attack cohens testimony. They can argue that maybe cohen misremembered one phone call, although the prosecution came back with evidence that, in fact, donald trump was standing right next to schiller when Michael Cohen called him on october 24th, 2016. And they dont have an Alternative Explanation for what Alan Weisselberg was writing on that sheet of paper. They have no Alternative Explanation, and all they could do is nitpick. Frankly, thats what we saw in there, and their Cross Examinations, which were completely meandering, and not very cohesive. And the reason why they werent cohesive in that way and didnt tell a Counter Narrative is because there is none. Important to remember, for everything the george said, the defense doesnt have to have a story if the people thats critical to understand and remember. Dont go anywhere. We have a lot more to talk about coming up. Democratic senators want to meet with chief Justice John Roberts to discuss the controversial flags flown by his colleague, samuel alito. At first, we have new reporting today that trump would like his friends in congress to pass a law to make all of his legal headaches disappear. Were going to explain that coming up next. First treatment. Immunotherapies work with your Immune System to attack cancer. But Opdivo Plus Yervoy is the first combination of 2 immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer that has spread, tests positive for pdl1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. Opdivo plus yervoy is no