0:00

With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky

0:03

just about anywhere. Dearly beloved, we

0:05

are gathered here today to... Has anyone

0:07

seen the bride and groom? Sorry,

0:09

sorry, we're here. We were getting lucky in the

0:11

limo and we lost track of time. No,

0:14

Lucky Land Casino, with cash prizes that add

0:16

up quicker than a guest registry. In

0:19

that case, I pronounce you lucky. Play

0:21

Play for free at luckylandslots.com.

0:23

Daily bonuses are waiting. No purchase necessary.

0:25

Void where prohibited by law. 18 plus. Terms

0:28

and conditions apply. See website for details. You

0:31

are listening to an Encore presentation of

0:33

the TalkingFeds podcast. For more episodes, please

0:35

go to Apple, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever

0:37

you get your audio entertainment. Before we

0:39

jump into the show, I wanted to

0:42

take a minute to tell you about

0:44

an exciting upcoming event. You

0:47

may remember that I launched a

0:49

live speaker series in March called

0:51

Talking San Diego. You can get

0:53

all the info for that at

0:55

talkingsandiego.net. But with

0:57

the success of our first event

1:00

with Congressman Jamie Raskin, we are

1:02

keeping it rolling. On May 15th

1:04

at 7pm at University of San

1:07

Diego's Shiley Theater, I'll

1:09

be in a conversation with MSNBC

1:11

host and former White House Press

1:13

Secretary Jen Psaki about

1:16

her new book, Say More,

1:18

and other parts of her

1:20

varied and exciting professional and

1:22

personal life. I can't wait

1:25

to bring Jen to the San Diego stage

1:27

and I really hope to see some TalkingFeds

1:29

fans there. To purchase tickets

1:31

and for more information, plus

1:33

an opportunity to get a signed

1:36

copy of Jen's new book, click

1:38

the link in the episode description. Thanks

1:41

for listening. Welcome

1:49

to TalkingFeds, a roundtable that brings

1:52

together prominent former federal officials and

1:54

special guests for a dynamic discussion

1:57

of the most important political and

1:59

legal topics. topics of the day. I'm

2:01

Harry Littman. It was

2:04

a remarkable, historic week, the first

2:06

full week of evidence in the

2:08

first trial ever against a former

2:10

president. I had the great

2:12

privilege of being present in the courtroom.

2:15

And this week I'm accompanied by

2:17

two stalwarts of talking feds who,

2:19

like me, bore witness to

2:21

history and a very experienced New

2:24

York State prosecutor who's been following

2:26

the trial closely. As

2:28

you'll hear, our discussion analyzes the

2:30

high points, stress points, and pivot

2:33

points of the trial. But it

2:35

also attends to important nuances that

2:37

most accounts have missed due to

2:39

the trials not being televised. Details

2:42

such as the reactions and

2:44

overall attentiveness of the jury,

2:46

the soft-spoken but hard-fisted control

2:48

of Judge Mertan over the

2:50

proceedings, and the range of

2:52

reactions from Trump himself including

2:55

his not infrequent naps.

2:58

The headline of the week

3:00

was the prosecution's successful use

3:03

of former National Enquirer CEO

3:05

David Pecker to lay down

3:07

the tracks of the overall

3:09

narrative emphasizing the goal of

3:11

burying information of Trump's sexual

3:13

liaisons in order to avoid

3:15

harm to his presidential campaign.

3:18

Pecker brought the story all the way

3:21

up to the beginning of the Stormy

3:23

Daniels episode that triggers the criminal conduct

3:25

in the case and that the DA

3:27

will pick up starting this week. We

3:30

focus as well on the important side

3:32

drama of Judge Mertan's efforts to bring

3:34

Trump to heel and the

3:37

coming reckoning for Trump's multiple brazen

3:39

violations of the gag order that

3:41

the judge imposed. What

3:44

follows is a little raw and rough,

3:46

but that's because it is also more

3:48

than a little genuine. The immediate

3:50

reaction of two expert commentators and

3:53

me, all of whom were in

3:55

the room where it happened, and

3:58

a former senior official. in

4:00

the New York DA's office. And

4:03

they are. Karen Friedman-Agnifolo

4:05

is an attorney, CNN legal

4:08

analyst and co-host of the

4:10

Legal AF podcast on the

4:12

Midas Touch Network. Karen

4:15

previously served as Chief Assistant

4:17

District Attorney in the Manhattan

4:19

District Attorney's Office under Cyrus

4:21

Vance Jr. Norm

4:23

Eisen is a Senior Fellow in

4:25

Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute

4:28

and the founder and chair of

4:30

the States United Democracy Center. He

4:33

served as Special Counsel to the House Judiciary

4:35

Committee from 2019 to 2020 and

4:40

as US Ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011

4:42

to 2014. His

4:46

latest book, Trying Trump, which

4:48

focuses on this very trial

4:50

is now available for purchase.

4:53

John Alter is an

4:55

award-winning author, filmmaker, columnist

4:57

and MSNBC political analyst.

5:00

Okay, we wanna really sort of

5:02

bear down on

5:04

what's been going on. Let's start

5:06

with David Pecker who finishes his

5:09

direct today. We're taping on Thursday.

5:11

What about on the direct? As

5:15

expected, a lot of damage or

5:17

just sort of set the table.

5:20

How do you think it

5:22

went based on expectations, anybody?

5:25

This 2016 election interference case

5:28

is the same pattern as the 2021, deceiving

5:31

voters to grasp power

5:33

and covering it up. And David

5:36

Pecker went first for a reason.

5:38

He turned out to be the star

5:41

witness for the prosecution. If

5:44

he can survive cross-examination, we'll come

5:46

to that. And he gives

5:49

you, the hardest thing in this

5:51

case is to prove Trump's criminal

5:54

intent. Was this

5:56

just a routine, not disclosure deal like

5:58

they do all the time? was it

6:00

intended to boost his campaign? And

6:02

Tucker takes you through all five

6:05

acts of the drama

6:07

of election interference, of corrupt election influence.

6:09

All right, and we'll go through it.

6:11

We'll go ahead. I

6:13

think that, you know, I'm

6:16

not sure that the jury is necessarily gonna

6:18

buy that it's illegal trying to

6:20

influence an election. In the opening statement,

6:22

Todd Blanche, you know, made, he

6:25

landed with a point saying, you know, this

6:27

is democracy, right? The other

6:29

reaction that they're gonna have is, wow,

6:31

this is a sleazy business. This guy

6:33

is a scuzzy journalist. He

6:35

shouldn't even be called a journalist

6:38

with his checkbook journalism and printing

6:40

all these bogus stories about Trump's

6:43

rivals. But I do think it

6:45

sets the table. It's like a

6:47

dress rehearsal so that

6:49

when Michael Cohen is

6:52

the witness on the actual crime,

6:54

the falsification of the business records,

6:57

it fits into a pattern of

7:00

the way they operate. And Cohen is not

7:02

all on his own, because

7:04

a lot of what Pekka is

7:06

doing is corroborating in advance, testimony

7:09

that Michael Cohen will deliver. So there's been

7:11

all this talk about how Michael Cohen, he's

7:13

a terrible witness, he's a liar. Well,

7:16

Pekka is not really,

7:18

he doesn't come across as a liar, he comes

7:20

across as an older, sleazy

7:23

tabloid journalist who is corroborating

7:25

an awful lot of

7:28

the meat of this case. Yeah, I thought, Karen,

7:30

he was, if anything, like a very forthcoming apple

7:32

bowl. Yeah, we broke the law. Yeah, this is

7:34

how it works. He

7:36

was a very kind of easygoing

7:39

witness. What was your impression of Pekka? Well,

7:42

first of all, thank you for

7:44

allowing this former state prosecutor onto

7:46

Talking Feds. Look, I wasn't in

7:48

the court room. I've just

7:50

been reading the cold transcripts. So those of

7:53

you who were there and got a

7:55

sense of it, I think it's invaluable. So

7:58

I thought Pekka was absolutely.

8:00

absolutely crushing witness for

8:02

Donald Trump. I assumed, and

8:05

at my own peril, I just

8:07

never gave him any credence. I thought he was just

8:09

going to be context. He had nothing to do with

8:11

Stormy. He was paying off

8:13

people that wasn't illegal. And so

8:16

he's just going to give a background and kind of

8:18

a warm up almost, you know, just to kind of

8:21

warm up the jury, give the

8:23

context and background and set up for

8:25

Michael Cohen. But wow, I

8:27

was blown away by this testimony.

8:29

He sets up the whole criminal

8:32

scheme. He is a co-conspirator and

8:34

he set up the criminal scheme.

8:36

And the criminal scheme was a

8:38

conspiracy to violate election laws. In

8:41

fact, he said over and over

8:43

again that he knew that they

8:45

violated election laws. And there was

8:47

a really, really significant piece of

8:50

evidence that came in today as

8:52

a contemporaneous text message between

8:54

him and Dylan Howard, his

8:57

deputy is number two, where

8:59

and again, it's not he

9:02

said, she said kind of thing. This is

9:04

a text message sent out the time and

9:06

the prosecutor Josh Steinglass did a great job

9:08

at corroborating that. It's one thing to catch

9:10

and kill stories for people. But when you're

9:12

doing it as part of an election to

9:14

influence an election, then you have to declare

9:16

that money. If you're paying people off, that

9:18

becomes an election violation. And

9:21

this contemporaneous text message says

9:23

that Dylan Howard wrote to

9:26

David Pekka, it said, essentially,

9:28

at least if Trump wins,

9:31

I'll be pardoned for election fraud,

9:33

because they were so worried about

9:35

the fact that they were committing

9:37

election fraud. And I think

9:39

that he talked a lot about these meetings

9:41

that they had to discuss this. And so

9:43

he wanted to get paid back because then

9:45

it might not be election fraud, right? Then

9:47

it's just influencing an election the way you're

9:49

allowed to do it in a democracy. But

9:51

then when he got stiffed, he didn't get

9:53

paid back for the doorman. He didn't get paid

9:55

back for Karen McDougall. When they got

9:57

to Stormy Daniels, that was a bridge to far

10:00

for him, A, because she's a porn star and

10:02

Walmart, his biggest customer doesn't like porn stars and doesn't

10:04

want him to be in bed with her. So he's

10:06

like, I'm not paying, I'm not a piggy bank. I'm

10:08

not paying this money and I'll do

10:10

it for you if you pay me back, but you don't

10:13

pay me back. So you have to handle

10:15

this yourself. So that's where it turns into a conspiracy

10:18

to commit a fraud. And he could say

10:20

all he wants. He didn't think this was

10:22

a crime. David Pekker was given a non

10:24

non-profit agreement by the Senate and a cooperation

10:26

agreement by the state. So

10:28

the state investigated this, they prosecuted Michael

10:31

Cohen for this. He went to prison

10:33

for it. David Pekker was given a non-pros

10:35

for it. So Donald Trump can say all

10:37

he wants is this isn't a crime. There's

10:39

so much consciousness of guilt in these statements,

10:41

in these co-conspirator statements that have come in

10:43

that, wow, he sets up the crime. And

10:45

this falsification of business records, that's just a

10:48

coverup. Yes, that's the charge because that's

10:50

what we have in New York state and it's

10:52

the easiest to prove. My theory

10:54

is because Donald Trump only attacks Michael Cohen

10:56

and Stormy Daniels, we all just kind of

10:58

thought, oh, this is a dumb false business

11:00

records case with a porn star, hush

11:03

money, hush money, hush money. And we all

11:05

dutifully went along that way. But as we

11:07

were digging into this, a light bulb went

11:09

off and it actually went off norm when

11:11

I read your New York Times piece about

11:13

it. When I read how Donald Trump won

11:15

by 80,000 votes in three

11:17

swing states, period, full stop.

11:20

And how in 2016, people weren't desensitized

11:23

to his scandals. It was a big

11:25

deal and they were doing everything they

11:27

could to suppress this. And

11:29

this was the scheme. This was

11:32

the election scheme and they succeeded and

11:34

he became president. So to me, they

11:36

did the best job today at spelling

11:39

that out and proving it. That is

11:41

the time to get to Michael Cohen.

11:44

I mean, Michael Cohen is

11:46

not that important anymore at

11:48

this point. And there

11:50

were multiple times, by the way, that Tucker

11:52

said, I spoke to Trump. Trump

11:55

was in the room. Trump thanked me later. Trump had

11:57

a dinner for me later. Trump invited me to the

11:59

White House. So I think all of

12:01

those connections where it was him and Michael

12:03

Cohen were very very effective I

12:06

also think to answer your question is how do I

12:08

think it came across that he? Actually

12:10

thinks that confidence mentor and has

12:12

no animosity towards them That's incredibly

12:14

effective because Michael Cohen by contrast is

12:16

has a vendetta against him So so this

12:19

guy he is his friend He's just telling

12:21

the truth right and he's not making it

12:23

worse than it is and he's not making

12:25

it better than it is He's telling the truth about

12:28

the things that they are the Dylan

12:30

Howard text to a relative I think

12:32

it was about how like he's you

12:34

can get pardoned for fraud like that

12:37

has not been admitted yet That was

12:39

with the jury out of

12:41

the room out of the courtroom So

12:43

the lawyers were arguing about whether that

12:46

is admissible That's a great point that

12:48

I missed wasn't in the courtroom,

12:50

but that's an excellent point Yeah,

12:52

so the clarification that I'm hoping you

12:54

can you know shed light

12:56

on relates to New York State law And

12:58

this is what I think a

13:01

lot of people have been wondering is is

13:03

the scaffolding of New York State

13:05

law? strong enough

13:07

to support them going for

13:09

conspiracy and what do they do about

13:13

Jurors in the jury room saying well

13:15

if they if it's a conspiracy Why

13:17

didn't they indict him for conspiracy which

13:19

with two lawyers on the jury? Yeah,

13:22

we'll come up. It's a question though

13:24

And this goes to your point earlier

13:28

John about whether he's charged

13:31

with election interference forties

13:34

felony document falsification Count

13:36

these 34 counts to

13:38

be bannies there has

13:41

to be intent To

13:43

commit aid or conceal

13:46

another crime you didn't have to prove

13:48

beyond a reasonable that all the elements

13:51

All you have to prove is that

13:53

Trump had criminal intent That's

13:55

one of those three

13:57

statutes all three were in the

13:59

opening statement. That's New

14:01

York law and that's normal.

14:07

And Karen has a wonderful

14:09

example drawn from burglary. Karen

14:11

why don't you answer

14:13

John's question by explaining the burglary

14:15

example. Lucky

14:19

Land Slots. You can get lucky just

14:21

about anywhere. Dearly beloved, we are gathered

14:23

here today to... anyone Has anyone seen

14:25

the bride and groom? Sorry,

14:27

sorry, we're here. we were getting We were getting lucky in

14:29

the limo and we lost track of time. No,

14:32

Lucky Land Casino. With cash prizes that add up

14:34

quicker than a guest registry. In that case I pronounce

14:36

you lucky. In that case, I pronounce you lucky. Play

14:39

for free at luckylandslots.com. Daily bonuses are

14:41

waiting. No No purchase necessary. Void where

14:43

prohibited by law. 18 plus. Terms and

14:46

conditions apply. Step into

14:48

the world of power, loyalty,

14:50

and luck. I'm gonna make him

14:52

an offer you can't refuse. With

14:55

family, canoles, and spins mean everything.

14:57

Now you want to get mixed

15:00

up in the family business. Introducing

15:02

the Godfather at champacasino.com. Test your

15:04

luck in the shadowy world of

15:07

the Godfather slot. Someday I will

15:09

call upon you to do a

15:11

service for me. Play the Godfather

15:14

now at champacasino.com. Welcome to the

15:16

family. Hello!

15:22

It is Ryan and we could all

15:24

use an extra bright spot in our

15:26

day. Could we Just to make up

15:28

for things like sitting in traffic, doing

15:30

the dishes, counting your steps. you know

15:33

all the mundane stop? That is why

15:35

I'm such a big fan of Schomburg

15:37

Casino Shumpert Casino. All your favorite social

15:39

casino style games you can play for

15:41

free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses that

15:43

your brain your day law actually lock.

15:45

So sign up Now! A Chump But

15:48

casino.com That's Chump A casino.com No purchase

15:50

necessary. I lost. With Lucky

15:52

Land slot you can get lucky just

15:54

about anywhere. It's Captain Speakey.

15:57

We've got Clear Runway. The

15:59

weather's fine. but we're just going to circle

16:01

up here a while and get lucky. No,

16:03

no, nothing like that. It's just these cash prizes

16:05

that I'm like, so I suggest you sit back,

16:07

keep your trade table up right, and start getting

16:10

lucky. Play for

16:12

free at luckywinfluts.com. Are you

16:14

feeling lucky? No purchase necessary.

16:16

Voidware prohibited by law. 18-plus terms

16:18

and conditions apply. The website

16:20

for details. Well, it's

16:22

two questions. One's conspiracy. The

16:25

thing about the conspiracy question is

16:28

it's a good point about why didn't they

16:30

charge conspiracy. And I have a theory, which

16:32

is this is an e-cellon

16:34

which is the lowest level felony. And so

16:36

conspiracy to commit an e is actually an

16:38

a-mystimena. And so number one,

16:40

the statute of limitations would have run

16:42

on an a-mystimena. And number two, you

16:44

don't want to charge a misdemeanor when

16:46

you have felonies because you don't want

16:49

the jury to compromise. And you don't

16:51

need to charge conspiracy to

16:53

get the benefits of all

16:55

the co-conspirator statements and all

16:57

the co-conspiracy law, especially

16:59

because the state election

17:02

crime that they're using to bump up

17:04

the business record has

17:06

conspiracy built into the language of

17:08

the crime. It's actually conspiracy to

17:10

commit election fraud. So their theory

17:12

very much involves conspiracy in two

17:14

different ways. And so you're right,

17:17

though, that I think the jury

17:19

charge will definitely settle that for

17:21

the lawyers on the jury. But that's to

17:23

be determined. What Norm's asking and what he wants

17:25

me to explain is there's a

17:27

lot of people who, in the beginning, were like, well, how are

17:29

they going to prove what crime? And what

17:31

crime is it? And how does that work,

17:33

et cetera? And it's a

17:35

general intent is what it is to commit

17:38

a crime that they have to prove. And

17:40

if you look at the jury charge for

17:42

burglary, and you look at how burglaries are

17:44

charged, and I've actually confirmed this with several

17:46

retired New York State judges since because we've

17:48

been talking it through because this is really

17:50

the issue that a lot of people struggle

17:52

with. And the answer is a burglary

17:55

in New York is essentially a

17:57

trespass, which is a misdemeanor. So

18:00

you enter knowingly and unlawfully to a

18:02

location without permission and authority. That's just

18:04

a trespass, which is an A misdemeanor.

18:06

And what turns it into a burglary

18:08

is if you have an intent to

18:10

commit a crime therein. And

18:13

so let's just say you have a guy

18:15

coming into an apartment and

18:17

he walks in and opens the door

18:19

and he's holding a toothbrush and a sleeping bag

18:21

and a pillow. And he says,

18:23

well, I'm just looking for a place to

18:26

sleep. You could only charge him trespass. You

18:28

couldn't charge him with burglary, even though it's

18:30

trespassing a dwelling. But let's say he's

18:32

that same guy opens the door and

18:34

instead of carrying those items, he has

18:36

a safe cracker and he has burglar

18:38

stools and he has a condom and

18:40

sex toys and whatever, all that kind

18:42

of stuff. And he gets caught

18:44

as soon as he sets foot in the

18:46

door and he gets arrested for burglary. We

18:49

would charge it as a burglary with an intent

18:51

to commit a crime therein, but we wouldn't necessarily

18:53

commit to which crime because we don't know what

18:56

he was going to do. He might've wanted, you

18:58

know, we don't know what his plan was. He

19:00

could have done this or that or the other

19:02

thing. And but you can infer a crime based

19:04

on a general intent. So that's how they charge

19:07

burglary. And I pulled the criminal jury instructions for

19:09

burglary and it's consistent with that. Where

19:11

it gets complicated is if the prosecution

19:13

locks themselves into a theory, then they have

19:15

to prove that. I want to

19:17

assert moderators control the fruit. I want to

19:19

go back to Pekka and talk facts first and

19:22

then talk about some of the gnarly legal

19:24

issues. So one, I just

19:26

want to reaffirm what you were talking

19:28

about, Karen. We found out today, I

19:30

found out today that there was

19:33

a sort of mystery. Why did

19:35

Pekka kind of get off the

19:37

train when it came time to

19:39

Stormy Daniels? And we learned the

19:42

narrative that he got heartburn over

19:44

McDougal specifically because his lawyers

19:47

told him you're messing

19:49

with a campaign violation. And

19:52

so that to me really... So I

19:55

thought did they have some kind of

19:57

parting of the ways or fights? No.

20:00

understood that there was a

20:02

campaign violation there and that very much

20:04

reaffirmed the kind of theme of why

20:06

are we doing this? We're doing this

20:08

to help Donald Trump's campaign. And also,

20:10

I think you're on a central point

20:12

of today because in the jury's mind,

20:14

it's establishing that if

20:17

you pay somebody hush money, that

20:19

is an in-kind contribution. Even

20:22

layman jurors know that it's

20:25

not just writing a check to a candidate, that there

20:27

are other ways that you

20:29

can help a candidate that constitutes

20:31

a major campaign contribution

20:33

and that this guy that they're

20:35

looking at almost went to

20:37

jail for doing that. And so

20:40

they're wondering, well, why shouldn't Trump be

20:42

convicted because he was involved

20:44

in the same thing. So that takes

20:46

you into campaign finance

20:48

in a way that is part

20:50

of the narrative. It's not a

20:52

kind of an abstract, oh, campaign

20:55

violations. It all is very

20:58

natural coming out of

21:00

the narrative that Pekka was describing.

21:02

Yeah, I really agree. And it

21:04

makes, we have a really logical

21:06

progression from Dino the doorman

21:08

to Karen McDougal and now to

21:10

Stormy Daniels. And also, it's very

21:12

much anchored around, just one more

21:14

quick point, the real crisis. And

21:16

Pekka knows all of this. Pekka

21:18

Cohen Trump know all of it.

21:20

He again and again had specific

21:23

meetings and conversations that put Trump

21:25

right in the middle that the

21:27

access Hollywood had been such a

21:29

crisis. And now when Stormy Daniels

21:31

comes forward, they're really freaking out.

21:33

Norman. Yeah, I just agree

21:35

with you, but organizing it into the 5X

21:38

of the conspiracy follow-up on epilogue,

21:40

the cover-up. The

21:43

5X are the Trump Tower meeting,

21:45

which we're going to talk about.

21:47

That was the centerpiece of the

21:49

cross-examination, which kind of fell apart

21:51

at the end today, a little

21:53

embarrassing for Trump. So

21:55

you have the Trump Tower meeting August 2015. I've

22:00

heard you say we agree to, as

22:02

you say, Dominican Bay, to be a

22:04

man. Come into me. Yes, it's like,

22:06

who breaks the law? It was the

22:08

criminal election interference conspiracy.

22:11

Then you have the execution

22:13

of the conspiracy, Act II,

22:15

Dean of the Doorman, Act

22:17

III, Karen McDougall, proving his

22:19

existence, Trump's involvement. Then

22:21

Act IV, the crisis. You need a

22:23

very strong Act IV to put you

22:26

into Act V in Shakespeare, the crisis

22:28

act of Hollywood, the

22:30

solution paid off Stormy before she

22:32

caused it. How thick it is.

22:35

It was already a disabling crisis. And

22:37

who died at the end? So, what

22:39

will be determined by when we talk

22:41

about the

22:45

proper damnation? So I think if you

22:47

see it that way, there's a linear

22:49

quality, is the simplicity

22:52

to what the prosecutors are doing.

22:54

And Pekker checked off all of those

22:56

boxes. He didn't execute on Stormy, but

22:59

he was involved in Stormy. He gave

23:01

you everything else. And he even gave

23:03

you a little bit, not

23:05

today, but Tuesday. The

23:08

days blur together, they're

23:10

so long. And I'm

23:12

toggling between cities. But

23:14

Tuesday, Pekker testified

23:16

about that he saw Trump's,

23:18

or maybe it was Monday.

23:21

He saw Trump's document handling

23:23

practices. He was

23:25

there. So if you know,

23:27

he brings in the packages, he

23:29

looks at the invoice, he inspects, he

23:32

signs the check. So he even gives

23:34

you the coverup. Do you

23:36

have a stainingly effective witness until, you

23:39

know, the contestant says, everybody

23:41

has a blast, but they get punched

23:44

in the face? That's what Trump's damnation

23:46

is. Could be. One more

23:48

detail. He makes it very clear.

23:50

Never mentioned Melania, never mentioned the

23:52

family. You know, Trump's in a

23:54

general quandary here because it's very

23:56

hard for him. We don't

23:58

think he's going to testify. any event, he

24:01

could try to do it then. I think he

24:03

did. But now all he could do is try

24:05

to suggest his version

24:07

of things through their

24:09

witnesses and pecker very strongly.

24:11

I don't see what they're going to do

24:14

with him on cross-examination. Just

24:16

totally pulled the rug out from under the

24:18

notion this is something to do with concern

24:20

about say, Melania and his family. Well, he

24:22

did say a couple times that they were,

24:25

he was concerned about his family

24:27

and the election. The

24:30

only time he ever actually

24:33

mentioned women at

24:35

all, Trump, was when he

24:37

said, how's my girl? About

24:39

the 45 year old at

24:41

the time that Karen McDougal. She's a

24:43

nice girl. And then he would play

24:45

along. But

24:47

a couple of times on two different

24:49

occasions, he's asking pecker

24:52

not just about

24:54

whether she will stay quiet, but

24:57

like how is she? This

24:59

is the guy who's denying that he had an

25:01

eight month affair, 10 month affair with her. And

25:05

that is his flat denial of

25:08

having these sexual liaisons is

25:10

totally ridiculous for the jury. So

25:13

Trump goes into this whole thing

25:16

with, I think

25:18

people believe it from the opening statements

25:21

that he's lying when he

25:24

says he didn't do any of this. Karen,

25:26

impossible burden to carry, right? You know, they

25:28

could have said, yeah, he's a sleazy guy,

25:30

but not a criminal. Instead, maybe because of

25:32

the influence of Trump right there, they had,

25:34

or they can say he's human like Bill

25:37

Clinton. Right. They could have

25:39

done a lot of things, but instead

25:41

it's just a maximalist total denial. But

25:43

they did do the humanity point and

25:45

he's a husband, he's a father. But

25:49

here's the problem with this, because

25:51

I noticed that they did that. That

25:54

is all in anticipation of

25:56

making the argument that

25:59

he didn't. want this to come out because

26:02

it would hurt Melania. The problem with

26:04

that argument is that Cohen

26:07

is going to testify and he's going to

26:09

have some credibility with what he said, especially

26:11

since the table's been set by Pekka. Cohen

26:14

is going to testify very clearly that Keith

26:18

Davidson representing Stormy Daniels

26:21

said show me the money. And Trump

26:23

said, this is in coming testimony in

26:25

a couple of weeks, Trump

26:27

said we don't have to pay her

26:30

because it doesn't matter if it comes

26:32

out after the election.

26:35

In other words, it's not about embarrassing Melania,

26:37

it's about winning the election and then he

26:39

will do what he did to vendors

26:42

at Trump Tower and Hillary brought it up in

26:44

one of the debates. He sniffs people, right?

26:46

He doesn't pay. He can get away with

26:48

it. He was trying to save $130,000 by getting through the election.

26:53

But Stormy Daniels lawyers said, no, we need

26:55

the money. And then they did have

26:57

to give her the money before the election. What

27:00

do you think is coming next? Do they go

27:02

from here to paperwork or do they go from

27:04

here to Karen McDougal and Stormy? That's

27:06

a great question. I thought a lot

27:09

about it. And I think

27:11

it depends. I think it depends

27:13

on when they're done with Pekka because

27:16

they're not going to want to put say Michael Cohen on

27:19

Friday afternoon, right? And then give

27:21

them the whole weekend to

27:23

focus on it and prepare, etc. So

27:26

if they, it depends on when they are

27:29

done with Pekka is what I think. If

27:31

they have a half a day, if the

27:33

cross examination ends tomorrow morning and they have

27:35

a half a day, then I think they

27:37

go to paperwork of some sort or

27:40

they start another witness. But I

27:42

think Michael Cohen is sometime next

27:44

week. I have a question for you. Do

27:46

you think Stormy is going to be called as a witness? I do. But

27:49

I think they want to keep Cohen short if

27:51

they can and in the middle. What do you

27:54

think about the contempt ruling?

27:56

When can we expect that? You

27:58

know, that's just head scratch. Right?

28:00

Why hasn't he decided? And

28:02

I think one

28:05

theory could be that he's just waiting.

28:07

He's sort of a little bit on

28:09

the fence, right? That what are you

28:12

going to do? His options aren't great.

28:14

And so he's just letting them rack

28:16

up and letting them rack up. And he,

28:19

Michael Cohen did something, I think, really smart by

28:21

saying I'm not going to, because, you know, their

28:23

big defense was I'm just reacting to what other

28:25

people are saying. Okay. So Cohen

28:28

took that off the table and said,

28:30

I'm no longer going to be speaking about

28:32

it. So maybe it's possible he's saying, let's

28:34

see what he does now. Because now he

28:36

can't say that he can't say, I'm just

28:38

reacting. Let's see how he does. If

28:40

that stops him, right? If that actually stops

28:42

him, and he doesn't do this anymore, then

28:44

maybe he'll just find him and say, okay,

28:47

I keep going. But if

28:49

he doesn't, and he continues to violate it, I

28:51

think you're going to see a

28:53

sanction that he might put him in for a

28:55

few hours or for the day. At the end of

28:57

the day, he granted the order to show

29:00

cause. The motion didn't ask for

29:02

Joe. That's right. You don't have

29:05

to ask. You know, that's what the prosecution's

29:07

asking for. It's up to the judge.

29:09

And some of these are happening in

29:11

court. And that's a whole other contempt.

29:13

So there's that the judge can utilize.

29:15

He can use utilize the judicial summary

29:17

contempt, if he chooses to, because

29:19

some of these are happening while he's in

29:21

court. And when he goes after the jurors,

29:24

he has to control his courtroom. And

29:26

so the judge may on his own

29:28

do something else, depending on what Trump does.

29:30

He's going to start with money. But also, if my

29:33

understanding, maybe I'm completely wrong about this,

29:35

is that if he jails him,

29:38

that opens the door to a delay in the

29:40

trial, not just the time he's in jail. But,

29:42

you know, there are appeals that

29:45

are allowed when it's

29:47

jail time, not fines. Trump

29:49

could slow things down. I think it

29:51

depends on, again, there's three different types

29:53

of contempt. It depends on which vehicle

29:56

he utilizes. Again, if he puts them in for an hour,

29:58

that's not going to delay anything, right? He just. makes

30:00

it sit there during lunch. That's not going to delay

30:02

anything. Karen, I know you got to go. Thanks so

30:04

much for being with us. Thanks for having me. Feel

30:14

like your view never changes. Wondering

30:16

where to next. It's time to

30:19

tour Lake County, the biggest little

30:21

county in Ohio. Lake County is

30:23

home to Ohio's wine country and

30:25

a romantic Grand River Valley. Discover

30:27

over 30 wineries, historic lighthouses, charming

30:29

farmer's markets, and over 30 miles

30:31

of golden coastline and sandy beaches.

30:33

Boutique lodging options range from historic

30:35

homes to hosted presidents to luxury

30:37

cabins in the woods to stunning

30:39

lakefront mansions. Plan your relaxing getaway

30:41

and start your tour at tourlakecounty.com.

30:44

All right, it is now time

30:47

for a spirited debate brought to

30:49

you by our sponsor Total Wine

30:51

and More. Each episode

30:53

you'll be hearing an expert talk

30:56

about the pros and cons of

30:58

a particular issue in the world

31:00

of wines, spirits, and beverages. Thank

31:03

you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we

31:05

appeal the truth about Pinot Noir's to

31:07

see where the grapes shine best, Willamette

31:09

Valley in Oregon or Burgundy, France. Here

31:12

in the U.S., we classify our new

31:14

world wines by the grape. Old world

31:17

wines like those in Europe are classified

31:19

by the region. In France,

31:21

Burgundy is not only the region

31:23

where Pinot Noir wines are from,

31:25

but it's also the Pinot's ancestral

31:27

home. No pressure, Oregon. To level

31:30

set, Pinot Noir is a

31:32

thin skinned grape which makes it difficult

31:34

to grow, especially in warmer climates. Burgundy

31:37

happens to have a cooler climate with

31:39

ample cloud cover, making it the perfect

31:41

home for Pinot's. The cooler

31:43

temperature allows the wines to brighten longer,

31:46

giving the grapes extra time to develop

31:48

more complex flavors like strawberry and dark

31:50

berries to black tea and earthy minerality.

31:52

Burgundy produces Pinot Noir's that are full

31:55

of aromas and nuances. If we have

31:57

a crust upon, we have Pinot's faux

31:59

wine. Lamont Valley in Oregon

32:01

with similar cloud cover, climate, and

32:04

soil composition as Burgundy. Oregon

32:06

produces smooth and fruity wines that are

32:08

slightly earthy and most definitely tasty, giving

32:10

the region of Burgundy a run for

32:13

its money. You can find all of these

32:15

at Total Wine and More where we have a

32:17

huge selection of Pinot Noir from Oregon to Burgundy,

32:20

plus wines from every region in between. All

32:22

that's left now is to reach up to our shelf

32:25

and pluck one out for yourself. Thanks

32:27

to our friends at Total Wine

32:29

and More for today's A Spirited

32:31

Debate. All right,

32:34

let's stick with the advantage we

32:36

bring from having been there, okay?

32:38

And you've been there from the start,

32:40

so give me, you've been watching the

32:42

jury. I have to just today. Let's

32:44

start with them. What did

32:47

you think when they were chosen? Is

32:49

there any among them who you think

32:51

might be a potential holdout? How are

32:53

they striking you now in terms of

32:56

their attentiveness, etc.? Well,

32:58

I, when I'm in court, just as

33:00

I do, I was

33:02

taught actually as a young trial lawyer,

33:05

which is when I first met Harry

33:07

when we were both youngsters, I was

33:09

taught to have like a courtroom

33:13

AWACS, 360. You want to

33:15

know everything that's going out

33:17

of the courtroom. Because sometimes,

33:19

for example, you, it's the

33:23

judge, it's the jury, it's the other

33:25

lawyers, the parties, you look behind you,

33:28

what's going on, you know, these, I

33:30

cut my teeth doing pro bono and

33:32

low bono CJA

33:34

cases in DC Supercourt. And you know,

33:37

you want to see as a cop

33:39

talking to another

33:42

witness, you want to

33:44

understand who's in the courtroom. So, okay,

33:47

so that's how I watch the court

33:49

room. I

33:51

think the jurors extremely

33:55

attentive. They

33:58

are surfing the rhythms, you know,

34:01

they're settling into, they know that's not

34:03

every set of questions,

34:05

you'll see them a lot, and then

34:07

they'll come to the edge of their

34:09

chair. They're taking notes, about ten of

34:11

them, after a paper, very diligently taking

34:14

notes. They're much more alert

34:16

than Trump who fell asleep

34:18

again today. I used Harry's

34:20

binoculars to monitor his wakefulness

34:22

or lack of it. You

34:24

know, there are jurors on

34:26

there who, there's one juror

34:28

who was not aware that

34:31

Trump was charged with four sets of

34:33

felonies in four federal and state

34:35

courts. There's another one who

34:39

follows Trump's truth social. He's

34:41

a Wall Street guy who

34:43

wants information about others. So

34:45

he follows both Kellyanne Conway

34:47

and Michael Cohen. Admittedly followed

34:50

Michael Cohen on Twitter. Right,

34:52

so you've got quite

34:54

a number of well-educated jurors.

34:57

And I think what's important

34:59

about that and the

35:01

fact that you have two, very unusual,

35:04

you have two lawyers, you

35:06

know, that's not, used to be, you couldn't get on

35:08

at all if you were a lawyer in the old

35:10

days. So what does that

35:12

mean? Well I don't, you have nearly

35:14

your experience in any of this, but my

35:17

gut tells me what that means is that if

35:21

the conversation wanders off

35:24

of where it

35:26

should be, that the two lawyers and

35:28

some of the other professionals

35:31

who are on the jury will say we

35:33

need to listen to the judge's instructions. We're

35:36

not freelancing here and the judge told

35:39

us twice that if we find him

35:41

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he used

35:44

the word must convict twice. And

35:46

he'll say something like that. He's

35:49

basically saying no jury nullification. And

35:51

so if somebody tries to play

35:54

jury nullification games, they're gonna get slapped down

35:56

by some of the well-educated people

35:58

on the jury. Let me make

36:01

two more observations about the jury that I

36:03

saw today. The first is you look for

36:05

a point where the jurors as they're coming

36:07

in have kind of cohered

36:09

somewhat, they're laughing with each other,

36:12

I saw none of that. I

36:14

saw 12 individuals. The other thing

36:17

when they file past prompt

36:19

on the way out of

36:21

the courtroom, no eye

36:23

contact. The way in and the way

36:25

out. They do not straight ahead like

36:27

they do not look at it. Soldiers

36:30

for justice. They're like straight ahead. That's

36:32

right. It's really striking. And

36:34

then the other thing that's really striking when

36:36

they come in and the bailiff works all

36:39

rise and Donald Trump has

36:42

to stand up for these 18, 12

36:45

plus 6 alternates, these 18 people.

36:47

He has to stand up. To me,

36:50

that was a wonderful thing to

36:52

see. It tells

36:54

you that for now anyway, the system

36:56

is still intact. On

36:59

this procession, there's

37:01

three processions in

37:04

this courtroom and they're all very

37:06

ceremonial. There's

37:08

Trump comes in in a

37:10

highly formalized

37:12

way with his secret service, Trump lives

37:14

away. You have a secret service in

37:16

front. You have more minds always for

37:18

protection. You have the lawyers and they

37:21

were almost 20. And

37:23

again, I like to look in every direction.

37:25

I noticed Trump's comms study

37:27

and he is a brilliant communications

37:30

practitioner. Jason Miller and somebody who

37:32

must work with Jason are in

37:34

the procession. They peel off and

37:37

sit in the back row of

37:40

the courtroom. I know Jason from our chair at

37:42

CNN. Then

37:44

you have the much less

37:46

formal procession of the

37:49

prosecutors. They come in from a

37:51

side door. They have a room

37:53

off to the side. They

37:55

come in. Sign glasses, kind of

37:57

the opposite. He left away today. who's

38:00

going to do the work on any

38:02

given day because they have a big

38:04

banker's box full of documents. So they

38:06

come processing in, you know, much less

38:09

more homework. And then

38:11

the third procession that you

38:13

get is the jurors. And

38:15

they are solemn, they are

38:18

serious. And to me, that is

38:20

a very good sign. They

38:23

understand that they

38:25

may be the only

38:28

jury because we had

38:31

a Supreme Court today. I know

38:33

we're not going to talk about

38:35

it much. They may be the only

38:37

jury to sit in judgment on Trump's alleged,

38:39

alleged interference. And they get it

38:42

to me for the prosecutors. That's

38:44

a very positive sign. An attentive

38:46

jury, this money intent issue under

38:49

New York law, you need lawyers

38:51

to explain it. It is valid.

38:53

The lawyers will translate that. Some

38:56

people say lawyers give you reasonable doubt.

38:59

But I just that has not been

39:01

my experience in trying to get because

39:03

I like lawyers. Who knows? I mean,

39:06

there's one juror, his haircut

39:08

makes me think he could be Trump. I

39:10

mean, you know, you're just sitting there like

39:12

looking at these guys and you're trying to

39:15

find out things that you can't possibly

39:17

write. We're all this is all like

39:20

this. So let's stick with that. I

39:22

just think people who are listening in

39:24

will like to hear our vantage points.

39:27

So something else that struck me today,

39:29

Mary Chan has a fairly light touch

39:31

and something in particular, they don't have

39:34

long involved arguments about objections. They say

39:36

objection, he knows what they're talking about.

39:38

If he doesn't, he brings them the

39:40

sidebar and then just says one way

39:43

or another doesn't try to make it

39:45

a mini contest, who's going to win and

39:47

who's going to lose. That's

39:50

about speed. I mean, this guy, he's

39:53

got a case where Steve Bannon is

39:55

the defendant that's supposed to

39:57

start in June. And he

39:59

does. want to have to delay that case and

40:02

he is really committed to speed

40:04

and that's been clear from the

40:07

pretrial motions and from

40:09

the first day I watched him he's

40:11

an excellent judge. He

40:13

really understands I

40:15

think he runs the courtroom and he's not

40:18

he's not ego maniacal at all. And I've

40:20

been talking to some of the lawyers who

40:23

tried cases before him and they have very positive

40:26

things to say about him. So I'll just say

40:28

a word about the process and then we can

40:30

move on. I thought Bovet

40:32

was doing a brilliant job with a

40:34

lot of edge and

40:36

when he was insinuating was he

40:39

was supporting the theory you've done

40:41

these nondisclosure agreements. You

40:43

got to get a hundred thousand. A hundred thousand. Yes,

40:47

yes, yes. Oh it's

40:49

worth it. A hundred

40:51

thousand. Hundreds. I wrote it down.

40:53

Hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of thousands.

40:56

He hypnotized him and the jury you know when

40:58

you ask questions of that nasty way is to

41:00

transmit your something's wrong

41:03

with this witness. Yeah, yeah. Got

41:05

so suspicious. Then he

41:07

went in for the end of the day

41:09

kill which was going to be you changed

41:11

your story because the first time when you

41:13

talked to the feds years ago you didn't

41:16

say who picks within and out of the Trump

41:19

lower meeting. And now you

41:21

do. You were influenced and

41:23

you're making this up your fat his

41:25

litany. You're filling the gas. And

41:28

he had pecker and

41:31

pecker asked me this

41:33

question. He's a document

41:35

and he gave us the wrong

41:37

document. Now whether it was intentional

41:40

the judge can look at him

41:42

figure but but it was a

41:44

major boo boo. If you're going

41:46

to refresh the witnesses recollection and

41:48

the witness asks you for a

41:50

document it better damn well be

41:52

a document that you

41:55

know a litany that's about that

41:58

meeting. the

42:00

meaning the judge didn't carry on he

42:03

was really very

42:06

forceful things that when the jury

42:08

you have misled this jury into

42:11

thinking and you've undermined and the

42:14

DA made us think about it when they

42:16

come back tomorrow morning I'm going to tell

42:18

them to disregard and that is that

42:21

is devastating. I think it's a

42:23

little more than disregard he's gonna

42:25

say that he gave them the

42:27

impression that there was something in

42:29

there and it wasn't. I thought

42:31

it was a technically fine cross

42:33

even in fact it had rhythm

42:35

one fact per question correct

42:38

had him say yes yes

42:40

everything. Oh they did a

42:42

lot of damage I don't think there's all

42:45

that much damage to the interpector because he

42:47

just you know gives up everything this was

42:49

the first time he bore into trying to

42:52

do damage yeah so the headline of

42:54

the cross and well now we have two

42:56

Trump lawyers who got you know it's not

42:58

quite as bad as he said to Todd

43:00

Lynch but two of them are

43:03

you know have been slapped around pretty

43:05

good obviously. Red run of Trump that

43:07

was a bad moment. Before that happened

43:09

I was kind of thinking and Michael

43:11

Wolff who's written two books yeah huge

43:13

bestsellers about Trump was making this

43:15

point to me yesterday that he

43:18

thinks Trump has got a fighting blanche

43:20

because he always said I find somebody

43:22

to blame right but he can't replace

43:24

him with Bovet now right he's he

43:26

screwed up I did think Bovet scored

43:29

on the Arnold Schwarzenegger drama man. Explain.

43:31

It makes it harder to say this

43:33

was some sinister Trump Tower conspiracy if

43:36

Hecker has done this for for 25 years

43:39

you know and if it's just and it's just standard

43:41

in the business and one of

43:43

the really sad things is like yesterday

43:46

I saw a couple of

43:48

middle school kids who had gotten into the

43:50

courtroom as spectators and they were being interviewed

43:53

on MSNBC and they were talking

43:55

about how oh it's so

43:58

terrible that the press works this way and

44:00

we learned a lot about bias in the press,

44:02

as if the National Enquirer

44:05

is representing all of

44:07

us, which is a sad

44:10

byproduct of this case. But

44:12

I do think that by

44:14

de-dramatizing the Trump Tower, so-called

44:17

Trump Tower conspiracy, it

44:20

gives jurors a kind

44:22

of permission to minimize the

44:26

whole conspiracy. All right, so now

44:28

let's talk about Cohen. Actually, I'm

44:31

not sure if they've close, McDougal,

44:34

there were details we learned about her

44:36

that were new to me, that she

44:38

really had this great ambitions to do

44:41

ghost-written pieces and her own

44:43

beauty products line or whatever.

44:47

Meaning, I can imagine her not having

44:49

the greatest testimonial qualities, I don't mean

44:52

to be disparaging. But what do you

44:54

think, how and when do they handle

44:56

Cohen? Let me ask your view on

44:59

that, Norma, and I have one. And

45:02

do you think we see either Karen

45:04

McDougal or Stormy Daniels? I

45:07

don't think you're gonna see Karen.

45:09

Personally-abased, huh? Nice girl. Ah,

45:11

she's a nice girl, that was devastating.

45:13

I mean, the pecker testimony was really

45:16

good so much. Karen

45:20

is a little bit of a

45:22

detour for the prosecutors here. They

45:24

have what they need. I mean,

45:26

that's, you know, you run

45:28

the risk of confusing. For

45:31

sure you'll see Stormy. But I

45:34

suspect that what we're gonna get

45:36

to now is they've

45:38

done their star opener. The

45:41

defense is gonna make them

45:44

authenticate everything. They're asking

45:46

Trump organization for a

45:48

document custodian, a third

45:50

party subpoena. They're

45:52

just gonna do a kind of a

45:54

baton death march. Do all,

45:56

I would get it, all or almost

45:58

all 90 votes. out of the way.

46:00

So that's why we have six

46:03

weeks of trial. I mean, you... So they won't

46:05

stipulate to any of that? I mean, why? Where

46:08

does it do them? Just like... Delayed.

46:11

It's loss of Brahma. It's

46:13

the ebbing of the... But

46:15

it's very irregular. And

46:18

judges don't like it either. But they... But do

46:20

jurors like it? If it's... The

46:22

jury... Well, the jury understand that

46:24

it's... Well, the prosecution is going

46:26

on and on. It's because the

46:28

defense forced them to. I think

46:30

Josh Steinglass is a very good

46:33

prosecutor. Yeah, I wanted to get a... Give us your

46:35

sense of him. Like he was doing this thing with...

46:38

You know, to try to authenticate some

46:40

of the texts from Dylan Howard.

46:43

I guess they were maybe from Australia or something, but they

46:45

were somewhere abroad. Yeah. He kept

46:47

asking Pekka to do

46:49

the math on what time it was

46:51

in New York when, you know,

46:54

it was Greenwich Mean Time or something. I don't know what

46:56

it would be. It was Greenwich Mean Time. Yeah. But

46:59

like, who cares? I know that

47:01

he was trying to do that so that

47:03

they couldn't argue that it was a fraud

47:05

because nobody would be texting

47:07

the middle of the night or whatever. But

47:11

that didn't really seem necessary.

47:14

And, you know, I think the jury was kind of going like...

47:17

Really? Look, I think it's been an

47:19

effective presentation for the reasons you guys have both said.

47:22

They established the narrative and extended

47:24

the narrative. It was a little

47:26

long. You know, in general,

47:28

that's the kind of constitutional defect

47:30

of prosecutors, is not getting quite

47:32

crisp enough. We had a lot

47:35

of Pekka, but, you know, it's

47:37

not like... Yeah. Taking a

47:39

testimony from an accountant. It's

47:42

all fun. And I got to say, he

47:44

really struck me. I

47:46

expected a guy who was either going

47:48

to be a little bit reluctant to...

47:50

Oh, I thought he was going to

47:52

be totally reluctant. Right? To

47:55

go get... He was totally forced...

47:58

I mean, by the way... Another

48:00

little nugget that came out today, he hasn't

48:02

spoken to Trump since 2019. Trump

48:05

tries to reach out to him and he's

48:07

a little nervous and doesn't do it. Even

48:09

though he really likes him, considers him his

48:12

mentor, which I think as Karen was just

48:14

saying, that's a good thing for the process.

48:16

I mean, when Hope Hicks takes this down,

48:18

we're going to see what a reluctant witness

48:21

is doing. And under the terms of his

48:23

non-prosecution agreement, he could have

48:25

still had a faulty memory. He could

48:28

have gone up there. And instead he's

48:30

got the memory that Alan sent. He

48:32

remembers everything about all this criminal activity.

48:36

Yeah, that's really true. Before

48:39

we would do the legal questions,

48:41

especially the contempt stuff, any

48:44

thoughts about anyone else in

48:46

the prosecution team? Stylize

48:48

has been for surely the number one

48:50

opinion. But they're going to rotate. Pincher's

48:53

an easy witness. Well, that's why

48:55

you have three leads. Plus they

48:58

have Chris Comroy doing the law stuff,

49:00

including the contempt stuff. When

49:02

you look at those two processions we

49:04

were talking about, they are more leanly

49:06

staffed than the Trump team,

49:08

which is seemingly, I could get contributions

49:10

from all over the country. Yeah, the

49:12

building is 25 years old. Normally,

49:16

people think that the government gets

49:18

out of class. And Ty Cobb,

49:21

one of Trump's former attorneys, said

49:24

he expected that the

49:26

prosecution would get outclassed

49:28

by Trump's lawyers. Todd

49:31

Blanche has a good reputation. Beauva has

49:33

a good reputation. But that's not happened.

49:35

That's right. It's much more even. Yeah,

49:37

I think that's right. I thought that

49:39

I wrote for my – I'm doing

49:42

a trial diary like the one you're

49:44

doing for The Times and the Washington

49:46

Monthly. I'm doing for CNN opinion. And

49:49

I wrote that I thought

49:51

that Blanche

49:54

brought his A game to his

49:56

opening, but Calangelo was A plus.

50:00

has a tax on the law on his

50:02

side and he, you know, this pity has

50:04

come. People love surprises. The

50:06

actual case is so

50:08

much different than the imagined petty

50:11

hush money case. It's legally

50:13

fascinating. The witnesses have been powerful.

50:16

The presentations have been first raised

50:18

and the states are enormous. Now

50:20

we're also seeing your drag in

50:22

Trump's poll numbers. When

50:25

you look at the average, there

50:27

is a legitimate question. So very smart

50:31

people. I'm not a pollster but

50:33

I play one on TV. I've read, wrote, not

50:35

bad for the New York Times on these issues

50:37

with two pros. People think the

50:39

case is having a dragging effect, including

50:43

our friend Jen Rubin wrote because

50:45

it makes Trump seem small. Yes.

50:47

And also here's the only reason.

50:49

And he's written an idea. Sit

50:51

down Mr. Trump. And he does.

50:53

Right. I mean that was a

50:55

striking moment. Yeah. Mr. Trump, please

50:58

take your seat. And

51:00

here is a guy who

51:03

his entire life, he's

51:05

never done what he was told.

51:07

He was so disobedient that

51:10

they sent him away to military academy. You

51:12

know, he never

51:14

listened to anybody about

51:16

anything until now.

51:18

And so now what is he

51:21

doing? He's sitting down like

51:23

the obedient boy he never was.

51:26

If it's not humiliating, it's still

51:28

striking. And I think it was,

51:30

there was a moment there,

51:32

even if people didn't see it on TV,

51:34

where there was like a power shift and

51:37

the power in the courtroom is Judge

51:40

Murchand's. Trump's superpower is

51:42

he's strong. And a lot of

51:44

people, they admire what they see as

51:46

strength. I think he's actually weak, but

51:49

he projects strength. And

51:52

if that goes away, he's in

51:54

real trouble. I'll tell you something really interesting.

51:56

He had to lie yesterday on social

51:58

media and say that he's a good guy. that

52:00

his supporters were

52:02

not allowed in front of the courthouse. The

52:05

reason he had to tell that live is

52:07

completely untrue and that they had blocked off

52:09

traffic to keep his people away completely untrue.

52:11

Traffic was going right through, right past the

52:13

courthouse. The reason he had to say this,

52:15

I've been counting how many pro-Trump

52:18

protesters there are at the courthouse. You know

52:20

how many there were this morning? Seven?

52:23

Zero. Do you know how many there

52:25

were on Tuesday? Zero. In

52:27

the middle of the day sometimes, there will be five

52:29

or six. And at the

52:31

end of court today, there were

52:33

three or four. Just screaming

52:36

like one of them was

52:38

a mentally ill man who wasn't even

52:40

pro-Trump who self-immolated. But

52:42

Laura Loomer is one of his, she's

52:44

kind of like the rabbi-corp of Trump,

52:46

you know, the dead ender

52:48

supporter. She comes up on

52:50

the first day, she had about a dozen people with

52:53

her. The first day of the trial. And

52:55

she tells in the New York Times, she has

52:58

to go home to Florida to feed her

53:00

dogs. And she says the other pro-Trump people

53:02

are lazy. They want her to won't show

53:04

up. He's got a lot

53:06

of supporters on Staten Island. They

53:08

are not getting off their hindings

53:11

to come and support him. You

53:13

could argue that even with his base,

53:15

the support is a little bit, it's

53:18

not soft because they're going to stick with him, they're going to

53:20

vote for him. But they're not

53:22

going to go riot on his behalf anymore.

53:24

That ain't happening. And they're not even going

53:26

to yell and scream at any numbers on

53:28

his behalf. And his audience is at

53:30

his events are not very good either. You

53:32

know, so I couldn't agree more. As

53:35

people try to sort of analyze

53:37

what has made him so effective

53:39

to the extent he is, this

53:42

sense of just sticking it

53:44

to the, you know, doing

53:46

whatever he wants and really

53:48

rubbing his nose at anyone,

53:51

that I think a big part of it.

53:53

And for him to be brought to heel,

53:56

it's the worst possible look for him. I

53:58

wonder then, maybe we should call. here,

54:00

what's your thoughts? We haven't talked too much about Trump,

54:03

except he was a sleep alone, he

54:06

was talking to his lawyers. You know,

54:08

as in other cases, I'm

54:10

thinking of the Tish James case, since

54:13

that was formed, he acted up more

54:15

and tried to contrive and manufacture a

54:18

antagonistic relationship with

54:21

the judge, somehow trying to do something

54:23

to change the dynamic. Does he just

54:25

say it and take it and buy

54:27

it? No, no, he's going to do something. So

54:29

you think he'll do something? You think he'll do

54:31

something? He's got to do something, not necessarily in

54:33

the courtroom, but he escalated this morning when he

54:36

was talking. I mean, he says like

54:38

a threat to Packard, be nice. He

54:40

said that to a witness. I mean,

54:44

in what other case does somebody

54:46

say to a witness, I

54:49

understand, be nice? How many

54:51

cases have you had, or John,

54:54

how many cases have you reported

54:56

on, where the

54:59

defendant has had three

55:01

orders to show cause, three orders

55:03

to show cause, you're not even

55:05

two weeks into the trial. Okay,

55:08

but you see it

55:10

also, I mean, we at least

55:12

think he's trying to skate around

55:14

the orders, although you're right, and

55:16

he should be non-consent. So do

55:18

you anticipate then that the act

55:22

of the trial act three, whatever,

55:24

is Trump going into

55:26

full blown, you

55:28

know, spread chit on the walls

55:30

kind of. You mean as Trump

55:32

says, he dared the

55:35

judge, I'll be a modern day

55:37

Nelson Mandela, put me in jail.

55:39

Do you guys want to think

55:41

they're going to go Richard? Reason

55:44

points me in one direction, instinct

55:46

the other. Reason tells me that

55:49

Trump is going to continue to press

55:51

the boundaries too, cause he has to

55:53

show, and you know, he said I'll

55:56

be a modern day Mandela, but

55:59

my instinct is. He's gone up

56:01

to the age. He's got 14 of these

56:03

statements. He won't dare do 15. That's how

56:05

you think that he'll do it. Really? Oh

56:07

no, I see. Because he's afraid the judge

56:09

is going to put him in jail. No,

56:12

I think he doesn't

56:15

want to go to jail. Let's all bless her. But

56:17

I don't think he's going to

56:19

do that. I think he's going to dance right

56:21

up to the line and then maybe he'll go

56:23

quiet for a week and then he'll re-offend three

56:25

or four more times. That just

56:28

costs him another $3,000 or

56:30

$4,000. And he'll kind of pace

56:32

it so that he doesn't actually

56:35

get thrown to jail. All right, Farron,

56:37

I think all three of us are saying,

56:39

I think maybe here's an end for this

56:42

episode. We'll reconvene next week, perhaps in some

56:44

fashion. I also tend to think, look, I

56:46

agree. He tries to push off

56:48

the boundaries when he's outside, shows some bravado.

56:52

But I don't see him doing

56:54

the kind of in-your-face

56:57

attack that we

56:59

saw him do with other

57:01

judges, with then Goran and

57:04

Kaplan. I mean, he really

57:06

insults them. I think that

57:08

dynamic, which was huge. I couldn't hear

57:10

John Moore. It's going to stay that

57:12

way. There's been a power shift and

57:14

he – Trump

57:16

is cow. I do. Then

57:19

he leaves the courtroom and he kicks over the

57:21

traces. Okay, okay. But I'm talking

57:23

about in the court does he somehow really

57:26

torque it up? No, not in the court.

57:29

His freedom hasn't been at

57:31

stake before. And

57:33

that jury, if that

57:35

jury can mix them, then this is

57:37

the judge who will sub him. And

57:40

all of that is in the chapter

57:42

rate of my book, trying

57:44

Trump. I may have a copy

57:46

of it. And there you go.

57:48

There's the man. We'll be back

57:50

next week in the actual

57:53

privileged pew. Watching the whole

57:55

thing. And I

57:57

hope we're doing it together. We

58:00

would be lying if we didn't say it is super

58:02

fun. And

58:04

there's a NEM. All for one. All

58:06

for all. All right. All

58:08

right. See you guys. Thank you

58:11

so much. We

58:14

are out of time. Thank you

58:17

so much, Karen, John and Norm. And

58:20

thank you very much listeners for tuning in

58:22

to Talking Feds. If you

58:24

like what you've heard, please tell a

58:26

friend to subscribe to us on Apple

58:29

Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts.

58:31

And please take a moment to rate

58:33

and review this podcast. You

58:36

can also subscribe to us on

58:38

YouTube where we are posting full

58:40

episodes, talking books and bonus video

58:43

content. You can follow

58:45

us on Twitter at Talking Feds Pod

58:47

and you can look to see our

58:49

latest offerings on Patreon. Talking

58:52

Feds is still a completely independent production.

58:54

So if you like the work we

58:56

do and are inclined to support the

58:58

show, joining our Patreon is the best

59:01

way to do it. You

59:03

can now leave voicemails with your questions

59:05

for me and our guests. Whether for

59:07

talking five or general questions about the

59:10

inner workings of the legal system for

59:12

our sidebar segments, all you have to

59:14

do is call 727-279-5339 and leave a

59:16

voice message

59:22

and you can still also

59:24

email us your questions at

59:26

questions at talkingfeds.com. Thanks

59:29

for tuning in and don't worry, as

59:31

long as you need answers, the

59:33

Feds will keep talking. Talking

59:37

Feds is produced by Catherine

59:39

Devine, Associate Producer Meredith McCabe,

59:42

Sound Engineering by Matt McCardill.

59:45

Our research producer is Zeke Reed.

59:48

Rosie Don Griffin and David

59:50

Lieberman are our contributing writers

59:52

and production assistants by Akshaj

59:54

Turbailu. Our music

59:56

is as ever by the

59:59

amazing Philip Glass. Talking

1:00:01

Feds is a production of Toledo

1:00:04

LLC. I'm Harry Littman. Talk

1:00:07

to you later.