Stay updated with breaking news from Demonstrative. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
judge. but you know, there are benefits and negatives to a bench only trial. you have cut through the wheat and the chaff. you don't have to deal with the procedural issues of bringing a jury in and out. the person who decides what's relevant or admissible or even inappropriate as evidence is the judge, so he can't unring that bell in his head. it's a very interesting thing to try a case before a judge, a bench trial, and so your closing argument has to be tailored to that. you've got to get right down to the bare bones. focus on your main bullet points. don't go in for the theatrics because you don't have a jury. so much of the closing argument is demonstrative, is the theatrics, expected to be shorter than it would be if is were a jury trial and expect kise to focus on their best witnesses, none of whom were named trump. >> he was a witness,lo with eric, and don jr. and ivanka. >> sure, but that wasn't the best part of their case.
me standing up and have been pride in who i am. the fact that we have gotten to this place is demonstrative of what we need to move and do going forward in order to begin to reverse the cycle. unfortunately, for as long as we continue to politicize these conversations, it's going to continue to happen. >> it's going to result in actual action on racist thoughts. it's going to become violence. christina, i really want to ask you the same question. it's the dehumanization for me, right? it's this idea that somebody could look at a group of people, minding their own business. innocent victims, shopping on a saturday afternoon. because of their skin color only, they can be targeted for death. what are your thoughts? >> katie, my heart is very heavy. my grandparents live just a few miles away from downtown jacksonville and a tiny town called yulee. i just, it's a beautiful place with some of the most fantastic people ever. i know that their hearts are heavy as well. katie, here's the thing. all of these things are interconnected. you can't have an entire party
of who the republican party is right now more so than it is demonstrative that is— now more so than it is demonstrative that is donald trump, a criminal, guite _ that is donald trump, a criminal, quite frankly. that is donald trump, a criminal, quite frankly-— that is donald trump, a criminal, quite frankly. what you are talking about are a _ quite frankly. what you are talking about are a number _ quite frankly. what you are talking about are a number of _ quite frankly. what you are talking about are a number of die-hard i about are a number of die—hard supporters, right, republicans, but what about the wider public? what about the wider us? are they still looking at him and thinking, we can vote for you? the looking at him and thinking, we can vote for you?— looking at him and thinking, we can vote for ou? ,, ,., ., vote for you? the wider us soured on trum a vote for you? the wider us soured on trump a while — vote for you? the wider us soured on trump a while ago. _ vote for you? the wider us soured on trump a while ago. we _ vote for you? the wider us soured on trump a while ago. we saw— vote for you? the wider us soured on trump a while ago. we saw that - vote for you? the wider us soured on trump a while ago. we saw that it - trump a while ago. we saw that it that 20/20 election that he claims he won, _ that 20/20 election that he claims he won, fictitiously, but we also side _ he won, fictitiously, but we also side and — he won, fictitiously, but we also side and the midterms. typically in our country. — side and the midterms. typically in our country, the midterm elections committee — our country, the midterm elections committee election that happens for congress _ committee election that happens for congress right after a presidential election. — congress right after a presidential election, two years after a presidential election, typically swings — presidential election, typically swings to the opposite party. this time, _ swings to the opposite party. this time, that— swings to the opposite party. this time, that red wave that everybody expected _ time, that red wave that everybody expected to happen because historically that is what happens, that did — historically that is what happens, that did not happen. that was in large _ that did not happen. that was in large part— that did not happen. that was in large part because of donald trump going _ large part because of donald trump going around to various states and basically— going around to various states and basically killing the vote for republicans. i feel as though donald trump _ republicans. i feel as though donald trump has _ republicans. i feel as though donald trump has proven time and time again that he _ trump has proven time and time again that he is— trump has proven time and time again that he is a _ trump has proven time and time again that he is a down ballot to murderer when _ that he is a down ballot to murderer when it— that he is a down ballot to murderer when it comes to getting other
time he holds these rallies, he criticises the same people and he kind of, says the same things. he does, it's not surprising. former president — does, it's not surprising. former president trump is speaking to his base at— president trump is speaking to his base at these rallies. these are die-hard — base at these rallies. these are die—hard trump fans, sycophants who will vote _ die—hard trump fans, sycophants who will vote for _ die—hard trump fans, sycophants who will vote for him no matter what, post _ will vote for him no matter what, post january six, on his third indictment, he will soon have a fourth — indictment, he will soon have a fourth one. _ indictment, he will soon have a fourth one, he's not even participating in the first republican debate he is so far ahead of those _ republican debate he is so far ahead of those who are also on that primary— of those who are also on that primary stage. this isn't surprising. he is talking to people who is— surprising. he is talking to people who is going to vote for him no matter what. who is going to vote for him no matterwhat. i who is going to vote for him no matter what. i do think that it is intrinsic to— matter what. i do think that it is intrinsic to who the republican party— intrinsic to who the republican party has — intrinsic to who the republican party has become that they cannot -et party has become that they cannot get rid _ party has become that they cannot get rid of— party has become that they cannot get rid of this man, no matter what level— get rid of this man, no matter what level of— get rid of this man, no matter what level of criminality he has done, regardless of him trying to steal the election, uproot our democracy, regardless _ the election, uproot our democracy, regardless of him not calling down his folks _ regardless of him not calling down his folks when they were at the capitol — his folks when they were at the capitol on— his folks when they were at the capitol on january his folks when they were at the capitol onjanuary six, his folks when they were at the capitol on january six, threatening to hang _ capitol on january six, threatening to hang his— capitol on january six, threatening to hang his sitting vice president at the _ to hang his sitting vice president at the time. this is demonstrative of who— at the time. this is demonstrative of who the — at the time. this is demonstrative of who the republican party is right now more _
anne, if you could tell us more about the lesson of sumner county and possibly how it can replicate or is replicating nationally. >> so, sumner county, it feels almost unfair to pick on them, but it's a county in tennessee that's controlled by not even republicans but by a group that calls itself constitutional republicans. there are no democrats in sumner county. they haven't won an election there in a couple decades. what you see is the radicalization of those who are there. so the division is between constitutional republicans and normal republicans, who they call rhinos. there is a constant attempt to show that this is a -- they're making a break with the past. they're firing the hr director. they're refuing to let the electoral commission move into new offices. these are small, tiny, local issues, but they're demonstrative of what happens when you have a one-party system, a one-party state.
majority of homicide victims are black american youth. what happens to their lives? when i was a federal attorney, i did not use a pen without being conscious that i didn't own it. i was a student -- funds of the american people. i can't imagine being a president of american, and yet, politicizing every crime to a political agenda that -- shoving down my puppet face. i think about that national review op-ed. it was demonstrative, but i only disagree with one point. i fear that crime will be politicized: it is already being publicized heavily by that person in the white house and everyone has doing it today. and >> taking a play from his former bosses playbook on this. they wrote this last week. some points to bring it up right now. where's the white house invitation for cops who stop the deranged nashville shooter?
take this may be. it may be that the firm didn't want the representation and maybe that the firm had conflicts of interest, and he couldn't have taken representation at the firm. it maybe. candidly donald trump is not popular here in manhattan. you'll be shocked to know i think i think the vote count in 2020 was 85% for joe biden here in manhattan. and so there may have been some reluctance to take on the representation. john explain the tangled web that we're talking about about how many of donald trump's lawyers know each other have represented each other have fired each other. have suit like i think we have a graphic let me pull this up for everybody. of the flow. okay, basically what we needed. we don't have it at the moment. but we will we needed a flow chart of how they all know each other. so there's a lot of crossover and you know, it starts with joe tacopina, who is donald trump's lead counsel right now, although that's now in debate since todd lance just said he's coming on as lead counsel, so there's two lead counsels, which in a discussion about tensions between lawyers, is demonstrative in and of
counsels, which in a discussion about tensions between lawyers, is demonstrative in and of itself. but tacopina once represented bernard character, the former police commissioner of new york, who then sued tacopina in a case that was later dismissed, um for going behind his back and secretly meeting with the u. s attorney where commissioner kerik who ended up going to jail for four years, said he gave information about me his own client. then carrick hired tim parlato, or to sue tacopina and complained to the bar association. but parla tor is now trump's lawyer in the classified documents case. and then uh um. and then who's next ? is it? bernie davis like the grown up brady bunch without women? davis lanny davis was was representing tacopina in that case against kerik in parliament , or, of course, lanny davis now denies he was to campinas lawyer
i'm not aware of it. that's a lie, all right? >> number two. >> it's part of public record. >> you're probably looking at some phony right wing internet stuff. it ain't true. you should read beyond that. it is not true. >> it's part of public record. >> no it is not public record. >> okay. >> you at some point made a million on your book. you made 1.7 on your book. >> excuse me, i've got the mic now. >> i've got it. >> did you make that statement? >> you had your time. >> okay? >> all right. you're not telling the truth. second of all, you got no evidence that i have ever said that all ceos are corrupt. i have never ever said that. >> probably not all but every time you talk about ceos you do say that. >> chris, a couple of former house guys engaging in some house-like behaviors on the senate side, at least that's how senators would look at it. you don't see that kind of thing in a senate hearing very often. it's demonstrative of how much
probably a moment most effective parts of the prosecutions presentation, wasn't it? >> it really is for a number of reasons. don't forget, we as people, certainly jurors, we learned by seeing. by hearing is okay. but you listen to him, you might get most of it. but when you see it and you really understand it, that's what you remember constantly. that's what the jury remembered when they were seeing it and when they went back to the jury room to talk about it. i love and i like using tools in a courtroom, because we learn by seeing. i thought that was a very, very effective. in the testimony after it, it supports the visualization. >> how effective do you guys think it was? >> it's important because, remember what was happening here. what was happening, that was an expert, by the way, from the prosecution, who was doing that. it is demonstrative, right? >> it came after a defense crime scene expert. >> exactly. remember what they were talking, about which is that it was five foot, tooted would have to be someone who was a lot shorter. remember, the prosecutor was mocking that. >> the defense expert said there is no way six foot four person, which is alex murdaugh, would have been able to fire from that angle, the gun that was used. >> correct. they would've had to -- overly low. just unsustainable. it could not happen. at issue was whether or not the defense was trying to exclude the notion a person of the height of alex murdaugh would've committed this crime.