Search Posts

here with more fox news contributor jonathan turley is with us why do i doubt you get together with like-minded uh lawyers and say well what are we going to say about trump today why do i doubt that ever happened in your life ever he's you're an independent thinker well i've well i've never been so happy not to be invited somewhere so i i think that this is a mutual decision on both parties uh but you know look no matter how much they talk about it you can't make a sousier into a silk purse and that's what this trial is it's getting more and more embarrassing uh you know today they suggested there was a second crime another dead misdemeanor that they're zapping back into life uh he's saying that uh trump illegally conspired to promote his own election and it's it's you sort of get your mind around that uh even if everything that they stated is proven to be true factually all of the uh the payment of the the non-disclosure agreement uh the recording of it in this way that's not being really that contested because all of that can be true and there would still be no crime and that's what has left many of us mystified that the judge is letting this get by because we still don't see that legal linchpin the judge seems to be shrugging and saying well it's close enough for jazz let's go ahead and let it go to the jury when most of us don't see a crime here well let me look at this you have called this and an embarrassment you say you're in utter disbelief uh this case never should have been brought uh alan dershowitz uh andy mccarthy i mentioned the new york times op-ed mark levin greg jarrett and and i watched i listened very closely to the opening arguments they keep talking about a conspiracy to commit they talk about election fraud election interference all these big buzzwords none of which donald trump has even been been charged with in this case and i'm sitting there thinking beyond the fact the statute of limitations are gone beyond the fact that the judge donated to the biden campaign and there are questions about whether or not he should have recused himself i believe he should have uh beyond the fact that this is eight years old beyond the fact that the doj law that they're now relying on because new york state statutes don't cover this it's only a misdemeanor uh even in that case biden's doj passed on charging donald trump because they didn't think it was applicable you know how are we here and it's an it's a venue that is not friendly to donald trump you could still get a guilty verdict out of this jury that's scary to me it is scary and it is very much in the play here that i think that bragg is hoping the jury will not look beyond the identity of the defendant because you know the fact is they're saying well you shouldn't have listed this as a legal expense all right what is he supposed to list it as what if he put down nuisance payment what if he put down settlement of personal embarrassment would that really convert this to a non-crime there wasn't a crime here because this wasn't a federal campaign contribution the department of justice as you noted did not see that as a criminal act they did not charge that and so once again you get back to the role of the judge here that we're going through a trial that seems desperate to find a crime but you can't even get that from the indictment or the opening statements the fact that we had to wait for the opening statements for bragg to even fully articulate what his theory was shows how weak this case really is and it's only that weakness is only becoming more and more evident every day but okay but but what what i see them trying to do and correct me if you think i'm wrong i see that they're trying to muddy the waters they're using a lot of loaded terms about donald trump uh they sound like they're trying to make this into the crime of the century there's no applicable law and now you've now the defense has to explain all of that to mostly non-lawyers that are on a jury there are two lawyers apparently on the jury so my question is well what would you say to donald trump's attorneys how would you argue the smoke and mirrors that they keep throwing up and where are the objections i'd like to see more objections well they're going to have to keep on hammering away to this jury that it's not a question of proving facts that are lawful it's like saying we're going to approve we're going to show you he drove 55 miles an hour down the highway well you're allowed to do that right so they're setting up all of these factual claims that can be proven because they're largely not denied this the really reversible error in this case may come down to the instructions and how the judge tries to put this together for the jury because at some point he's got to inform the jury that there's nothing unlawful about an nda there's nothing this is not a federal campaign contribution in the view of the federal government but to make those legal issues clear is to disassemble this case so we a lot is going to be sort of unfolding here but i think the trump team has done a very good job so far in bringing that out and we're going to be looking at some major fireworks in the next few days you know when when you put cohen on the stand you're going to have a truly circus-like environment i mean you've got someone who a judge just recently denounced as a serial perjurer and he's going to get on the stand and he's going to be the star witness yeah and and you have a biden donating uh perhaps conflicted judge that should have been recused or should have recused himself uh which obviously would be an issue upon appeal but any appeal may happen after the election that that doesn't help. Jonathan Turley, thank you, we appreciate it.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.