Stay updated with breaking news from Defense hat. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
that there in fact was no fraud in that he had lost the election, and so it is all a piece and goes to the issue that is going to have some jury appeal, and it is going to be important for the jury to understand that he knew the whole time that the election was not stolen, and it had in fact gone to president biden and he was just trying to overturn the results so he could stay in power, and one more note there. >> i would just say that if he got in front of the jury, and trump's defense team would say, yeah, maybe he believed that then, but perhaps he changed his mind as he learned more, and help me to understand the defense case here, and put on the defense hat here, and what is the defense? >> that is absolutely correct. okay, in february 2020 he was given this briefing in oval office, and he thought that it looked great, but as the situation unfolded he came the
a weekend, one of the things we always talk about is what do you want to send the jury home with because they're not supposed to watch any coverage, right? they're not supposed to discuss with the other jurors or with anybody else, but you know they're going to be thinking about it all weekend, so put on your prosecutor's hat. danny, put on your defense hat. if you're the defense attorney, danny, what do you want to leave them with? what do you hope they're thinking about over the weekend? >> you may not have control over that because the prosecution controls cross-examination right now. and don't think for a minute they're not thinking about stalling as they need to to run this to the very end of the day, and let the jury just marinate in what they want them to think about over the weekend. >> has a seed of doubt been planted at all. >> throughout the entire trial? >> oh, yeah. >> it's a tough call. the prosecution has a good case here. the reason you know that is that the defense may have hinted at a third-party liability case.
it is entirely possible that the trumps could testify and be deposed and comply with the subpoena to the letter of the law, but still provide information or virtually no information that is of use to the new york a.g., right, because they could plead the fifth? >> exactly right. and that is an option that the judge appears to mention in his decision and order which came out moments ago. tom summarized it well. basically -- let me put high defense hat on to try to explain the trump's defenses view of trying to squash the subpoena and get the stay. it is essentially that, look, in a civil case we take that position, but routinely there is a civil and criminal case, i do this too, you go to the civil case, the civil judge and say can we just have a stay, can we put off the civil case until the criminal case is over because after all, my guy can't sit for a deposition, he won't be able to testify. in this case, this is a different kind of civil case, and the a.g. isn't willing to
election set aside. >> certainly the implication, but it does seem that we need that connective tissue, right, michael? it does seem that's going to be the next link. if the committee manages to actually talk to meadows or talk to others around him who can sort of fill in the picture here. but put on the defense hat. i know you're a former prosecutor, but pretend you're representing meadows. you've already released these thousands of pages of documents. what is your strongest ground to claim executive privilege, to keep you from having to actually testify and sit for a deposition? >> i would say that my client has done nothing to violate executive privilege, that he is standing by the former president's request that he not disclose anything that implicates executive privilege. he has not done so. all of that which he has turned over to the committee is non-privileged communications. once the committee said to my client that they intend to ask
it was chilling listening to sara describe what she saw on that videotape and looking back to what was told and reported and testified about in the 2008 trial. >> so here's the issue. my defense hat now as it relates to the tape and that's this. you're going to question about the tape, the authenticity of the tape. you're going to question where did it come from. what's the chain of custody? is it technologically sound? is anybody superimposed on the tape? are they play acting? people do kinky things. >> let me ask you this. people are going to test the ver as its of that tape. >> of course. >> was there a videotape the last time because -- >> there was. >> so he's gotten off charges like this before. >> yes. >> why is this different? >> so i think it's different a couple of reasons. so let's talk about that. back in 2002 when it went to trial in 2008, so there were problems. first all, apparently that videotape is a little more grainy than this videotape. the defense attacked the videotape suggesting it was not him on that videotape, and the victim in the videotape did not testify. people said, oh, it's her, it's her, but she did not testify. >> stay with me.
to what was told and reported and testified about in the 2008 trial. >> so here's the issue. my defense hat now as it relates to the tape and that's this. you're going to question about the tape, the authenticity of the tape. you're going to question where did it come from. what's the chain of custody? is it technologically sound? is anybody superimposed on the tape? are they play acting? people do kinky things. >> let me ask you this. people are going to test the ver as its of that tape. >> of course. >> was there a videotape the last time because -- >> there was. >> so he's gotten off charges like this before. >> yes. >> why is this different? >> so i think it's different a couple of reasons. so let's talk about that. back in 2002 when it went to trial in 2008, so there were problems. first all, apparently that videotape is a little more grainy than this videotape. the defense atakd the videotape suggesting it was not him on that videotape, and the victim in the videotape did not testify. people said, oh, it's her, it's
russians. >> anyone who testifies under oath who lies is committing a form of perjury. right? a very serious crime. but i would say here if i were to put on my defense hat for a minute and say if i'm attorney general sessions, my response would be well, these are the words of a liar. and not just a liar, but a convicted liar, and not just a convicted liar, but the only thing he was convicted of was lying. so yes, those are some compelling words and papadopoulos waffled a little bit. he said my recollection is different, and in that sense, it's inconsistent with the attorney general sessions, but very compelling words from papadopoulos. >> all right. let's talk stormy daniels and the nda. her attorney, michael avenatti says it is not enough. he wants an admission from cohen and the president that this was a vital of campaign finance laws. good luck. good bless. that ain't never happening. >> i want free ice cream in the mail. that's essentially what avenatti is asking for here.
and i guarantee you'll find thousands of women jumping out. i mean, you know, i have to say, again, putting on my white-collar criminal defense hat, can you imagine what emmitt flood, the president's attorney from the distinguished williams & connolly law firm, the premier trial law firm in the united states, started by edward bennett williams, who represented adam clayton powell, "the washington post," michael milton, williams & connolly, i am not a potted plant testimony before congress representing oliver north is thinking? rudy giuliani is making his defense of the president absolutely impossible. he puts his foot in his mouth every single day. he's making admissions that will be admissible in court. it is a nightmare. i was about to give president some advice and say get giuliani off your team but it will
admissible? >> it's history that has this type of ruling in the past. gang tattoos are allowed inside there is already this legal president as exists. in this case, the tattoos were after the killings. >> the timing is critically important. it's extremely important. it's not this. it's much more than any prejudice because of the fact that these tattoos were done after the killing. >> put your defense hat on. the defense argued to the judge that it's speculative. tattoos can have a variety of meeting. the judge did not buy it and he rejected the claim admissible. the judge make the right decision? >> i don't. i think the judge made the mistake and the prosecutor made
violence or would an officer fear less for his life because he's armed and trained? how do you depart that on the 12 people? >> the magic word you said is training. what we're going to see here is officers are trained basically that at any time, anyone could be a threat. there are even studies out that demonstrate suspects laying on the ground have a potential to conceal weapons. i'm not saying based on this video. i think this video is very problematic for this defendant. putting on my defense hat, the defense here is going to, number one, look at all the videos, as we've already seen, and say based on that, there is an incredible realistic threat. again, as joey said, the supreme court will give sort of the benefit of the doubt to officers and not look at the actions in hindsight but what was available to them in terms of information at the moment. that, plus the fact that officers are trained that almost anything can become a threat instantly very quickly.