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.
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 sugg ....
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. peop ....
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. ....