as hillary clinton. it is not. jim comey said it over and over, they could not prove intent it is why there were no charges. and in the court of public opinion, donald trump can get a lot of traction, they love saying that. what about the clinton s, what about this one, what about that one? if you are his defense attorney, how do you show up in court where trump having made that argument over and over just like, i was allowed to do this, presidents are allowed to do whatever they want. also not true. but that was what trump is telling the general public. you keep the courts separate. public opinion, say what you, won t keep like. you re right, we are not going to make that fly in a court of law so what we are going to do is delay and defer so that you do not face that until after the election when who knows, you might have been elected president and the doj to just dismiss the case. one more thing mister president, i hope that you plan are not testifying because if i m your lawyer
very high profile cases, you can almost always find 12 people that although they may have heard some things about the, case say that they can set aside what they have heard publicly based on what they hear in court. there are still a lot of decent, ordinary, common sense citizens out there who i m confident can be found to decide this case fairly. harry, some trump allies are arguing that so, maybe he had the documents, maybe he should not have had them, but he did not give them to anyone. now, we do not know if that is or is not true. but let s take it at face value. let s say it is true, does that help donald trump in any way? again, it helps him in the court of public opinion. not in the court of law, where it is irrelevant. notice that smith was very and barb is 100 sent right, they are not going to talk, we there was 90 seconds but he starts out on the blocks with the risk to national security both our national interest and the men
meanwhile trump is filling that void with misinformation and his allies are helping him do the same. how does the doj handle that? it is very difficult, stephanie. there is an asymmetry of information and on trump knows that. i am sure he will continue to pump out this information throughout this a process. in many ways the justice department s hands were tied, there are ethical constraints about talking about the case beyond what is in the four corners of the indictment. as you say, they can speak through their motions and briefs in court but in other ways donald trump has really a huge advantage, here especially because this case is unlikely to go to trial for many, many months. well into 2024, i would think by the time this case goes to trial. i think the one thing that matters in the end is that the verdict is what happens in court and not out in the public and in the media and at rallies and other kinds of things. you raise an interesting point, which is the possibility of taint
peers before or after an election was really going to matter to voters because if that matters, simply the fact that he is being indicted would be a bigger deal. what is interesting to me is that we have sort of crossed a rubicon in american politics where the idea of somebody being convicted to not only seen particular important to supporters, does not seem particularly important to the party when she represents. there are not republicans coming out and saying that we do not want our to be indicted twice and continues to be under investigation into other jurisdictions with two other cases. i think that is the bigger takeaway. they ve not said that yet, but they have time. i want to talk about the georgia case, john. earlier today some officials from georgia were in miami scoping out the security set up there. what does that tell you about fani willis s case? it tells me that she feels like she is going to have donald trump in her court room