Trump’s attorneys fail MISERABLY in court on first official trial date

you're watching the legal breakdown so

we've got the first day of the actual

trial on the books for Donald Trump in

Manhattan this is his first criminal

trial so we're going to cover that right

now but first just for those watching

Glenn and I will be covering the

entirety of the Trump trial uh happening

right now in Manhattan so if you want to

follow along with our coverage which

will be brief and right to the point

please subscribe to both of our channels

I'll put the links on this screen and

also in the post description of this

video okay so Glenn day one is done what

did we learn from today you know what we

learned Brian is the prosecution open

strong as we've been predicting all

along the evidence against Donald Trump

is considerable I would go so far as to

call it mountainous it's very strong and

what we also learned is that the defense

um doesn't seem to have brought much to

the juror's attention that is concrete

that undercuts the quality the strength

or the quantity of the incriminating

evidence that Alvin Bragg and his team

of prosecutors have masked against

Donald Trump and we'll talk in a few

minutes about some of the highlights

maybe more accurately low lights of some

of what the defense opened on but what I

took away from reading all of the

accounts many of them coming out of the

courtroom in real time is it was a very

strong solid and persuasive opening

statement by the prosecution and it

looks like the defense has an uphill

climb if they're going to be able to

persuade the jurors that they're really

is some Reasonable Doubt some

significant weakness or shortfall in the

prosecution's case so was today

essentially opening statements that

would outline what uh what both the

prosecutors and the defense are going to

focus on moving forward yes opening

statements are in essence a roadmap that

the parties the lawyers give to the jury

regarding what they expect the evidence

to prove you know now when the

prosecutors open basically they try to

accomplish three things they obviously

highlight the incriminating evidence

they front the weaknesses in their case

we call that drawing The Sting the

reason we do that is because the last

thing any prosecutor ever wants to hear

a defense attorney open on is let me

tell you what the prosecution didn't

tell you Michael Cohen is a convicted

felon and a liar so that's why the

prosecution fronts that evidence but

then talks about all of the corbor a

that supports and affirms everything

Michael Cohen will testify about so we

draw the sting and then the last thing

the prosecutors do in their opening is

they want to build their credibility

with the jurors you want that jury to

look at you the prosecutor as the voice

of reason as an honest broker of the

facts and the law and I've given so many

opening statements uh Brian in my 30

years as a prosecutor it's funny because

you watch the faces of the jurors when

you begin to talk about the weaknesses

in your case and you can see the wheels

turning they're like wait a minute this

guy's trying to prove his case Beyond A

Reasonable Doubt but he's telling us

about the weaknesses what does it do it

gives the jurors a comfort level that

you're going to bring them the case The

Good the Bad and the Ugly warts and all

and you're going to explain why those

weaknesses are really not that

significant because you've got

corroboration and ultimately you know I

didn't pick as the prosec computer I

didn't pick Michael Cohen as a witness

you know who picked Michael Cohen as a

witness Donald Trump is co- his

co-conspirator when he entered into this

corrupt scheme to falsify business

records to cover up hush money payments

to gain unfair advantage in this uh in

the 2016 presidential election now Trump

has been going around saying that you

know this is outside of Court saying

that he paid Michael Cohen for legal

services and that he has uh the total

right to do that why is that a lie um

well first of all Donald Trump does have

a complete right to pay Michael Cohen

for Legal Services here's the problem he

wasn't paying him for Legal Services he

was reimbursing Michael Cohen because

Michael Cohen Donald Trump Alan

weisselberg the Chief Financial Officer

and David pecker you can't make that

name up who is the head of Ami American

Media Incorporated which runs the

national Inquirer tabloid they entered

into an agreement uh an agreement a

conspiracy a criminal agreement to try

to catch and kill stories pay to cover

up damaging information about Donald

Trump and interestingly also to run what

were false stories about Donald Trump's

political opponents remember how Ted

Cruz's dad was apparently in League with

the JFK assassin yes that was a product

of the national Inquirer um they entered

into this criminal agreement and as part

of the Criminal agreement the conspiracy

Michael Cohen paid stormmy Daniels

$130,000 out of his own funds and then

Donald Trump had to pay him back really

interesting part of the opening

statement today was that um part of this

Arrangement was that Michael Cohen got

reimbursed the

$130,000 but not just

$130,000 he agreed with Alan weiselberg

that they would Pat it they would make

it4 $20,000 why so they could uh

disguise what was reimbursement payments

and pretend that it was income for legal

services rendered which it absolutely

wasn't and they falsified business

records 34 times over each one being a

four-year felony under the laws of New

York so again to recap you ask doesn't

Donald Trump get to pay his lawyer for

business expenses and legal fees of

course he does but that is not what was

going on here now Trump's defense

attorney had a line that stuck out at me

um and I'm sure it's the same line that

stuck out at you and that line was

there's nothing wrong with trying to

influence an election it's called

democracy what was your reaction hearing

that well you know it depends on how you

Define influence an election if you

Define influence an election by knocking

on doors putting election campaign signs

in your yard and making stump speeches

as a candidate I'm with you nothing

wrong with that you're trying to

influence the election you're trying to

win or have your candidate win but you

know there really is something wrong

with violating the state laws of New

York to try to cover up the fact that

you are paying to suppress information

that is directly relevant to your

suitability to be a candidate

particularly a candidate for president

of the United States hide that from the

voters and then

cover it up by creating false business

records in violation of New York state

law you know that kind of influencing an

election actually constitutes a crime

Glen there was another line from Trump's

defense attorney that was also

interesting I'm going to read that uh

quote listen use your common sense we're

New Yorkers that's why we're here

wouldn't Common Sense suggest the polar

opposite that that a guy who clearly

wanted a hide damaging information from

the American people ahead of an imminent

election would then commit campaign

Finance violations and subsequent

falsification of business records to do

exactly that Brian that's a great catch

here's the thing I use a version of that

line in every single case I have ever

tried you know what I say I say ladies

and gentlemen the good news is as jurors

you don't check your common sense at the

door you bring it into the courtroom you

bring it into the jury box and you sure

bring it in to the deliberation room

when you are given this case to decide

and when you apply your common sense to

the evidence that you have seen

developed during the course of this

trial you already know the conclusion

that you're going to reach and that is

that Donald Trump committed these crimes

and that he needs to be held accountable

for his decision to commit these crimes

and Common Sense is one of the most

important tools you're going to have in

deciding this case and uh finally let's

cover this uh this was the fourth day

out of five that Donald Trump's been

sitting in this courtroom in Manhattan

that he's fallen asleep mid trial can I

get your thoughts on that you know first

of all In fairness lots of folks fall

asleep during criminal trials I've seen

it happen over and over again in my

career but but H how how many of those

people are engaged in a political

campaign where their principal attack

against their rival is that the other

guy is Sleepy yeah I mean sleepy Joe

Biden how about drowsy Don the defendant

that's really what we should be talking

talking about here but what I was going

to say is I've seen people fall asleep

in the jury box uh I've seen members of

the audience fall asleep I've even seen

a judge doze off every now and then and

the judge's law clerk would would give

the judge A little nudge under the bench

um what you usually don't see is the

defendant fall asleep that one is

unusual I've even seen an attorney or

two fall asleep during the course of the

trial day so um you know Donald Trump is

either you know completely unconcerned

with what's going on um but but I'm

guessing all of this is actually just

taking a toll some of the people who

were reporting from the courtroom said I

mean Trump looks so tired so Haggard so

old and uh he seems to be struggling to

stay awake and struggling to sort of um

behave appropriately in other ways that

I'm not going to go into but um I I

think Donald Trump uh it's all catching

up with him and it's not just his age

and it's not just a lack of sleep

because he's posting incessantly at 2

a.m. about the Witch Hunt um I think

this has got to be weighing on him

because Brian nobody should forget today

was historic because it was the first

opening statement ever in a criminal

trial against the former president of

the United States but this is only the

first of four criminal trials against a

former president of the United States so

you know you do have to wonder how much

one man can take when all of his crimes

have finally come home to roost Glen I

don't want to get too psychological here

but I I feel like for myself if I was in

Donald Trump's position I mean I don't

know if I would ever sleep much less

sleep in the courtroom where my fate is

being determined does it say anything

about the guilt or innocence of a

defendant when that person kind of is

able to fall asleep in mid- trial when

their own freedom is on the line yeah

when things weigh on our minds we

generally have a hard time sleeping um

when things weigh on our minds like

being falsely accused of a crime we

didn't commit you know I I don't know

that you could ever get any shut eye at

all you know there is this phenomenon

and um I I've heard police officers say

that um a defend a defendant who's being

interrogated who's been arrested for a

crime is in an interrogation room is

being interrogated and the detectives

take a break they walk out usually the

cameras continue to run because these

days we video all custodial

interrogations which is a good thing um

a guilty man will fall asleep every time

but on those occasions when somebody has

been arrested and it turns out that

person is innocent when they take a

break in the interrogation and they walk

out you can actually see somebody who

turns out to be innocent of what they're

being accused of virtually bouncing off

the interrogation room walls because

they are so wound up and Ang anxious

about the fact that they're in a

situation that they really don't deserve

to be in I don't know that it's a

perfect parallel between those anecdotes

and what we're seeing of Donald Trump

but I think there may be something to it

and that's obviously something that the

court staff and the attorneys would have

some mindfulness of but that isn't

something that the jury would understand

because these are all first timers in a

situation like this is that right well

but we have two lawyers on the jury and

I've heard so much discussion over the

last 48 hours or so from legal analysts

uh from trial lawyers included uh about

whether it's a good idea or a bad idea

to have lawyers on the jury I think most

criminal litigators are of the opinion

that they don't want lawyers on their

juries I had the opposite uh view when I

was a prosecutor I actually liked and

had lawyers on my juries routinely

because I didn't strike them I didn't

move to strike them and it was because I

actually got to talk to a number of them

after the trial had concluded in my

local prosecutions not my federal

prosecutions I did both and in federal

court you're not allowed to talk to the

jurors after the trial is over except

with express permission of the judge and

I had these lawyers SL jurors often tell

me the same thing you know Glenn there

were people in there that were really

not following the judge's legal

instructions that we are Duty bound to

follow and they would start sort of

wildly speculating and spinning out of

control about alternate theories that

were not based in the evidence or the

lack of evidence so what I did as a

lawyer who was abiding by the judges

instructions I would bring them back to

the judge's instructions I'd say let's

review the instructions the judge gave

us about how we are not to speculate

right that's not what Reasonable Doubt

is it's not a speculative or fanciful

doubt that is precisely the language of

the Reasonable Doubt instruction of law

that the judge gives the juries so I

came to believe that lawyers on juries

are generally a good thing well to that

point there was a list of all of the

news sources I believe it was the New

York Times I compiled a list of all of

the news sources where the jurors who'd

been selected for this trial get their

news and one of the jurors juror number

two was the only one who got their news

exclusively from truth social and from X

um so didn't exactly bode well for

somebody who's like open to to the truth

and that that part actually worried me

quite a bit there was also one jur jur

number four who got their news from zero

news sources so everyone's like hey good

on that person just living living your

best life and unencumbered by by having

to read any news source but for jur

number two who only got their news from

True social and from X or Twitter I I

was worried about that but but I'm

presuming that you're going to say that

this isn't really a worrisome moment for

you because you know to that exact point

there are lots of folks on the jury who

can recognize like you know uh um your

your your personal preferences or

affiliations or allegiances aside if

you're just going to focus on what the

evidence presents in this case that

these people will be able to look beyond

that yeah and and here are a couple of

thoughts about that juror I saw that as

well and it piqued my interest and all

things being equal I wouldn't put that

in the plus column for a sort of fair

impartial and informed juror who says

they get their news on Twitter or X and

Truth social but there are also a lot of

people who say look I watch MSNBC and

fox and there are things on Twitter and

on X that are from reputable news

organizations I post on Twitter I'm not

saying I'm a news organization but MSNBC

and CNN and the Wall Street Journal and

the New York Times and lots of other

Publications post on Twitter so you know

I don't want to project the best case

scenario here but somebody could say

yeah I look at all that stuff on X I

also look at truth social because who's

not interested in what Donald Trump is

posting um and I can discern fact from

fiction but here's the thing Brian just

because a juror says this is where I

generally go each day to see what's

going on in the world X and Truth social

that does not disqualify somebody um

from sitting fairly and impartially in

isolation as long as they can say look

regardless of how I absorb my news or

try to keep myself informed what I

pledge that I can do your honor is look

at the evidence in the case and make a

decision based only on the evidence that

is presented to us not based on whatever

is going on on X or truth social or on

Fox news or on MSNBC or CNN so you know

no one answer in isolation disqualifies

a juror so I'm hoping that the balance

of the answers that that particular

juror gave gave the prosecution a

comfort level that you know okay perhaps

not the ideal juror but they've other

said enough things that satisfy us that

they can be fair and impartial if

they're selected you know to serve on

the jury in this case right I'm kind of

leaning on the fact that these um that

these prosecutors had the ability to

preemptor strike any jurors that they

didn't think could sit and uh and and

you know give an impartial uh view of

this case and the fact that they didn't

strike this juror you know I'm going to

perhaps naively but just assume that

they that they knew what they were doing

by virtue of leaving that juror on the

jury so with that said we will continue

to cover the entirety of this trial as

it continues to play out for those

watching right now if you want to follow

along with the Trump trial that's

happening in Manhattan right now please

make sure to subscribe the links to both

of our channels are right here on this

screen I'm Brian terer Cohen and I'm

Glenn kersner you're watching the legal

breakdown

[Music]