Shocking prison interview: ‘Trump will be convicted’ in hush money trial, says Michael Avenatti

AVOIDED IN EVERY OTHER

INVESTIGATION PROBE AND CASE.

IT HAS LED TO THIS SPEEDY

CRIMINAL TILE BEGINNING TONIGHT.

THEY ARE AT THE CENTER OF THE

FACTS THAT THIS D.A. USED TO

INDICT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP

AND NOW AS DANIELS PREPARES TO

TESTIFY IN THIS TRAIL, WE KNOW

THAT ON THE OTHER HAND,

AVENATTI'S STORY TOOK A VERY

DIFFERENT TURN.

THE LAWYER WAS CONVICTED ON

CRIMES AND FRAUD RELATED TO

REPRESENTING STORMY DANIELS AND

OTHER CLIENTS.

HE WAS HIT WITH A SEVERE 19-YEAR

PRISON SENTENCE IN TOTAL.

HE IS NOW INCARCERATED IN

CALIFORNIA'S TERMINAL ISLAND

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION.

SO HERE'S THE DEAL TONIGHT.

AVENATTI IS BOTH CENTRAL TO NEXT

WEEK'S TRIAL AND HARD TO REACH

NOW EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A MEDIA

FIXTURE AT THE HEIGHT OF HIS

WORK FOR STORMY DANIELS.

BUT SINCE GOING TO PRISON AS I

MENTIONED, HE HAS NOT SPOKEN IN

AN INTERVIEW ABOUT THIS CASE

UNTIL NOW.

SO AS THIS FIRST EVER TRIAL OF A

FORMER PRESIDENT BEGINS, NEXT

WEEK, WHICH WAS JUST REAFFIRMED

THAT SCHEDULE BY AN APPEALS

COURT TODAY, AS HE IS A VERY

NEWS WORTHY AND LEGALLY RELEVANT

GUEST, HE IS SPEAKING OUT FOR

THE FIRST TIME FROM PRISON ON

THE NOW HISTORIC CASE HE HELPED

IGNITE.

JOINING US NOW BY PHONE IS

MICHAEL AVENATTI, THE FORMER

LAWYER TO STORMY DANIELS.

MICHAEL, WELCOME.

>> IT'S GOOD TO HEAR YOUR VOICE,

ARI.

>> IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU.

WE HAVE A LOT OF NEWS TO GET TO.

BUT FIRST, HOW ARE YOU HOLDING

UP?

>> WELL, AS ELTON JOHN ONCE

WROTE, I'M STILL STANDING, ARI.

I'M DOING FINE AND YOU KNOW, TO

THOSE WHO WERE HOPING THAT

PERHAPS THIS LAST FEW YEARS

WOULD YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY

DESTROY ME, I'VE GOT SOME BAD

NEWS FOR THEM AND THAT IS THAT

IT HASN'T.

I'M GOING TO COME OUT OF THIS

BETTER AND STRONGER THAN EVER

AND YOU KNOW, EVERY DAY, I

STRIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS

DOES NOT DEFINE ME.

I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE

ULTIMATELY YOU KNOW, A CHAPTER

IN A VERY LONG BOOK AS OPPOSED

TO THE BOOK.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

YOU JOIN US IN A VERY NEWS

WORTHY TIME.

SOME OF YOUR LAWYERING LET TO

THE EXPOSURE, THE EVIDENCE IN

THIS CASE.

THE NEW YORK TRIAL NOW WILL BE

DONALD TRUMP'S FIRST AND

POSSIBLY ONLY TRIAL THIS YEAR.

HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE STRENGTH

OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE?

>> WELL, I THINK WHAT I'M ABOUT

TO SAY IS GOING TO SURPRISE A

LOT OF PEOPLE AND THAT IS THAT

YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS THE

WRONG CASE AT THE WRONG TIME.

I THINK THAT THE CASE IS IN MANY

WAYS

WAYS STALE AT THIS JUNCTURE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONDUCT

THAT OCCURRED SOME EIGHT YEARS

AGO.

I THINK THE FACT THAT IT'S

OCCURRING IN STATE COURT IN NEW

YORK IS A MISTAKE.

AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU ARE

GOING TO POTENTIALLY DEPRIVE

TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS OF

THEIR CHOICE FOR THE PRESIDENCY

OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER WE

AGREE WITH THOSE FOLKS OR NOT OR

REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE MAY THINK

OF DONALD TRUMP, I THINK IT'S A

MISTAKE TO DO IT BASED ON A CASE

OF THIS NATURE.

I WAS HOPING FRANKLY THAT THERE

WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS HAND

WRINGING, LESS BEDWETTING AND

THAT THE JANUARY 6th CASE WOULD

HAVE BEEN FILED IN A MORE TIMELY

MANNER.

THERE'S NO EXCUSE OR REASON AS

TO WHY THAT CASE COULD NOT HAVE

BEEN BROUGHT IN 2021.

AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT

IN 2021.

AND HAD IT BEEN BROUGHT IN 2021,

WE WOULD NOT FIND OURSELVES IN

THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN

RIGHT NOW.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN

CRITICAL OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS THE

SECOND, NOT THE SECOND, BUT THE

D.C. CIRCUIT.

I THINK THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE

FRANKLY MISPLACED.

>> MICHAEL, HAVE YOU BEEN IN

TOUCH WITH D.A. BRAGG'S OFFICE

AND WHAT SPECIFICALLY IN

EVIDENCE OR LOGIC DO YOU THINK

IS WRONG WITH THIS CASE?

>> I'M GOING TO DECLINE TO

ANSWER AS TO WHETHER I'VE BEEN

IN TOUCH WITH EITHER THE DEFENSE

OR THE D.A.'S OFFICE, BUT LET ME

SAY THIS IN RESPONSE TO THE

SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE CASE HAS A

LOT OF PROBLEMS.

NOW THAT, I DON'T MEAN TO

SUGGEST THAT MEANS THAT TRUMP

WILL NOT BE CONVICTED BECAUSE I

THINK HE WILL BE CONVICTED.

BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, HE'S A

CRIMINAL DEFENDANT AND IN OUR

SOCIETY, I DON'T BELIEVE

CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS GENERALLY

GET A FAIR SHAKE.

IN FACT, I THINK THE PERCENTAGE

OF CONVICTIONS DEMONSTRATES THAT

THE DECK IS STACKED DECIDEDLY

AGAINST ALL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS.

NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, I DON'T THINK HE CAN

GET A FAIR TRIAL IN NEW YORK.

AND TO THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THAT

IN FACT HE CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL

IN NEW YORK WITH A NEW YORK

JURY, I WOULD ASK THEM IF THEY

WERE TO GO TO SLEEP TONIGHT AND

WAKE UP TOMORROW AND FOUND OUT

THAT THE CASE HAD BEEN MOVED TO

MISSISSIPPI OR ALABAMA, WOULD

THINK STILL THINK THE TRIAL WAS

GOING TO BE FAIR.

I THINK IF THEY WERE BEING

HONEST, THEY WOULD ANSWER NO.

SO, I DON'T THINK HE CAN GET A

FAIR TRIAL IN NEW YORK.

BUT SEPARATE APART FROM THAT, I

THINK THE CASE DOES HAVE

PROBLEMS.

NUMBER ONE, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE

NARRATER WITNESSES ARE GOING TO

BE IN THE CASE AND BY THAT, I

MEAN THAT EVERY CASE NEEDS TO

HAVE ONE OR TWO PRIMARY

WITNESSES WHO TELL THE STORY.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I SURMISE

THAT THE D.A. IS GOING TO USE

POTENTIALLY MICHAEL COHEN OR

STORMY DANIELS FOR THAT PURPOSE.

AND I THINK THAT HAS THE

POTENTIAL TO BE A DISASTER.

MICHAEL COHEN, AND YOU KNOW I'VE

NEVER BEEN A FAN OF MICHAEL FOR

VARIOUS REASONS.

YOU KNOW, HE'S A SERIAL LIAR.

HE'S SHOWN HIMSELF INCAPABLE OF

TELLING THE TRUTH.

HIS LEGAL ACUMEN LEAVES A LOT TO

BE DESIRED.

LET'S JUST SAY IF LEONARD HAND

OR DARROW HAD A LOVE CHILD, IT

WOULD BE COHEN.

>> HE CLAIMED HE JUST PAID

RETAINER MONEY AND NOW IT'S

BEING PROSECUTED AS FINANCIAL

FROUD, LYING ABOUT THE EXPENSE.

YOU HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN

THE CASE.

IS DONALD TRUMP LYING WHEN HE

SAYS IT WAS GOING TO BE A RE

RETAINER?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTERVIEWS

YOU AND I CONDUCTED IN 2018,

I'VE ALWAYS SCOFFED AT THAT.

MY POINT IS ONE JUST OF TRIAL

DYNAMICS.

WHO'S GOING TO TELL THE STORY.

THE PROBLEM IS IF THE

PROSECUTION RELIES PREDOMINANTLY

ON MICHAEL COHEN AND DOCUMENTS

DON'T ADMIT THEMSELVES INTO

EVIDENCE.

I SEE VARIOUS LEGAL COMMENTATORS

TALK ABOUT WELL, THIS IS A

DOCUMENT CASE.

WELL, THAT MAY BE TRUE TO A

CERTAIN DEGREE, BUT YOU'VE STILL

GOT TO HAVE SOMEBODY ON THE

STAND THAT TELLS THE STORY.

AND TO SAY THAT MICHAEL COHEN IS

A PROBLEM WITNESS WOULD BE AN

UNDERSTATEMENT.

I MEAN, AND LOOK.

HERE'S THE OTHER ISSUE, ARI.

YOU KNOW, ALINA ABBA IS NOT

GOING TO BE TRYING THIS CASE FOR

DONALD TRUMP.

I DON'T KNOW HE GOT THEM, BUT HE

GOT REAL LAWYERS IN THIS CASE.

AND THESE LAWYERS KNOW THEIR WAY

AROUND A COURTROOM AND I THINK

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN

ABSOLUTE FIELD DAY WITH MICHAEL

CON ON THE STAND.

>> YOU SAID SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE

SURPRISED THAT YOU SPEAKING TO

US TODAY, SEE ALL THE WEAKNESS

IN THIS CASE.

I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT

BACK WHEN YOU WERE INVOLVED, YOU

SAID TRUMP SHOULD HAVE

LIABILITY.

YOU SAID FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN

NEW YORK SHOULD PRESENT THIS FOR

POTENTIAL INDICTMENT OF TRUMP

WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT.

SO HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN GOING

FROM THAT THEN TO WHAT YOU'RE

SAYING TONIGHT THAT YOU THINK

THIS IS A TROUBLED CASE?

>> WELL, I CAN EXPLAIN IT THIS

WAY, ARI.

AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

I WROTE AN OP-ED IN "THE NEW

YORK TIMES" IN 2018 IN OCTOBER

WHICH PREDATED THE CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATION INTO ME BY ABOUT

TEN DAYS COINCIDENTALLY ENOUGH

AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN KINS

COINCIDENCES.

I ADVOCATED FOR THE INDICTMENT

OF THEN SITTING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I STAND BY THAT 100%.

I ADVOCATED FOR FEDERAL

PROSECUTORS IN THE SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO BRING

CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARGES.

AND BY THE WAY, NO COACH IN

EXPLANATION HAS EVER BEEN

PROVIDED BY ANYBODY AS TO WHO

MADE THAT DECISION AND WHY THEY

DIDN'T BRING THOSE CHARGES

EITHER WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT OR

IMMEDIATELY THERE AFTER.

I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION THAT

PEOPLE NEED TO ASK.

THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH

THIS CASE NOW, I HAVE A NUMBER

OF PROBLEMS.

FIRST OF ALL, CASES ARE NOT LIKE

FINE RED WINE, ARI.

THEY DON'T GET BETTER WITH AGE.

AND THIS CASE HASN'T GOTTEN

BETTER WITH AGE.

NUMBER TWO, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS

CASE BELONGS IN STATE COURT AND

I THINK IT RESTS ON A LEGALLY

TENUOUS THEORY.

NAMELY THAT THE CRIME THAT WAS

ATTEMPTED TO BE COVERED UP WAS A

FEDERAL ELECTION CRIME.

I THINK THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM

POTENTIALLY ON APPEAL.

FOR THE STATE.

AND NUMBER THREE --

>> LET ME SLOW YOU DOWN.

YOU'RE JUST TO BE CLEAR SAYING

THAT WITH YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF ALL

OF THIS, IF THE D.A. IS TRYING

TO MAKE THIS STICK AS FELONY, AS

A SERIOUS MATTER, BASED ON

FEDERAL RATHER THAN STATE CRIME,

YOU THINK THAT COULD BE A HOLE

IN THE WHOLE THEORY OF THIS

CASE?

>> I DO.

AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE

TESTED ON APPEAL.

WHEN TRUMP IS CONVICTED.

AGAIN, I THINK HE WILL BE

CONVICTED.

THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN

IT'S GOING TO HOLD UP.

I BELIEVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO

BRING A CASE AGAINST A SITTING

PRESIDENT OR A FORMER PRESIDENT

WHO TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE

SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY IN TODAY'S

DAY AND AGE WITH HOW DIVIDED WE

ARE, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A

ROCK SOLID, LOCK TIGHT, NEARLY

PERFECT PROSECUTED CASE.

BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU RUN A

HUGE RISK AS TO WHAT IT'S GOING

TO MEAN FOR THE COUNTRY.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THIS CASE

RIGHT NOW IS THE CASE.

AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I

HAVE.

BUT I STAND BEHIND EVERYTHING I

SAID IN 2018.

EVERYTHING I WROTE IN THAT

OP-ED.

AND I REMAIN VERY CONCERNED THAT

NO ONE HAS GOTTEN TO THE BOTTOM

OF WHAT THE HELL EXACTLY

HAPPENED WITH EPSTEIN IN 2018.

WAS THAT DECISION MADE BY

JEFFREY BERMAN?

WILLIAM BARR?

WHO MADE THAT DECISION AND WHY

WAS IT MADE TO TURN A BLIND EYE

TO DONALD TRUMP'S CONDUCT?

>> YOU MENTIONED YOUR HISTORY.

YOU ALSO WROTE THAT THERE ARE

FACTS AND EVIDENCE, TEXTS,

E-MAILS, ET CETERA IN THE HUSH

MONEY CASE THAT HAVE YET TO SEE

THE LIGHT OF DAY THAT WILL BE

QUOTE, VERY DAMAGING TO THE

PROSECUTION.

HAVE THOSE SINCE SEEN THE LIGHT

OF DAY?

WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

>> I'M GOING TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT

WHAT'S BEEN DISCLOSED AND WHO

IT'S BEEN DISCLOSED TO.

I DON'T KNOW ULTIMATELY IF THEY

WILL SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY DURING

THE TRIAL, BUT YOU KNOW, ARI,

OVER THE COURSE OF THE

REPRESENTATION OF MISS DANIELS,

I CAME TO LEARN A NUMBER OF

THINGS, UNFORTUNATELY, FROM HER

THAT TURNED OUT TO BE COMPLETELY

UNTRUE.

AND A LOT OF THAT IS WHAT LED ME

TO TERMINATE MY REPRESENTATION

OF HER IN FEBRUARY OF 2019.

ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I

LEARNED, UNFORTUNATELY, IS THAT

WHAT I HAD BEEN SOLD BY MISS

DANIELS RELATING TO HOW THIS

PAYMENT HAD CAME ABOUT AND WHAT

I HAD SUBSEQUENTLY ADVOCATED ON

TELEVISION AND OTHERS IN

RELIANCE ON WHAT SHE HAD TOLD

ME, TURNED OUT TO BE COMPLETELY

FALSE.

IT HAD BEEN REPRESENTED TO ME

THAT SHE HAD NOT ATTEMPTED TO

EXTORT DONALD TRUMP IN THE

CAMPAIGN IN THE WANING DAYS OF

2016.

THAT THEY HAD COME TO HER AND I

BELIEVED HER WHEN SHE TOLD ME

THAT REPEATEDLY.

UNFORTUNATELY IN EARLY 20 IS19,

CAME TO LEARN THAT WAS NOT TRUE.

>> DOES IT MATTER THE LEGAL CASE

WHO INITIATED IT IF AS YOU SAID

EARLIER, DONALD TRUMP STILL LIED

ABOUT IT AND POSSIBLILYY POTENTI

THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT IT.

>> I DON'T THINK FROM A LEGAL

PERSPECTIVE IT MATTERS, BUT VERY

WELL FROM AN OPTICS STANDPOINT,

IT COULD MATTER.

AGAIN, I BELIEVE HE'S BE

CONVICTED IN THE CASE, BUT I

DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO MOVE

THE NEEDLE TO THE DEGREE SOME

PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IT WILL.

I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS ALREADY

BAKED INTO THE ANALYSIS RELATING

FOR INSTANCE TO THE CAMPAIGN.

I'VE SEEN THE POLLS AND I'VE

SEEN THE PUNDITS TALK ABOUT THAT

IF HE'S CRIMINALLY CONVICTED,

IT'S GOING TO BE MEANINGFUL AS

IT RELATES TO THE PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTION.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE

TRUE IF HE'S CONVICTED IN THIS

PARTICULAR CASE.

>> RIGHT.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MICHAEL.

YOU'VE THROWN SOME COLD WATER ON

WHAT SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT WAS A

STRONG CASE HERE AND YOU'VE ALSO

GIVEN YOUR ANALYSIS OF WHAT MAY

HAPPEN AND WE'LL ALL BE

WATCHING.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU HAVE

IMPLIED THAT YOUR TREATMENT BY

THE THEN BARR AND TRUMP JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT WAS HARSHER THAN

OTHER PEOPLE MAY HAVE BEEN DEALT

WITH.

IF THEY WERE IN YOUR POSITION.

YOU HAD BECOME FOR A TIME, A

VERY PROMINENT FOE OF THEN

PRESIDENT TRUMP.

DO YOU SAY TONIGHT THAT THERE IS

EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE TREATED

DIFFERENTLY AND IF SO, DOES THAT

MEAN ANYTHING FOR WHAT A SECOND

TERM TRUMP DOJ MIGHT LOOK LIKE

IF HE WERE ELECTED?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY

QUESTION THAT I WAS TREATED

DIFFERENTLY AND I BELIEVE IF

ANYONE IS ASKED THAT HONESTLY

AND LOOKS AT WHAT HAPPENED HERE

AND IF THEY'RE HONEST IN THEIR

ANSWER, I BELIEVE THAT THEY

WOULD ANSWER THE SAME WAY THAT I

HAVE.

I WAS INDICTED IN THREE CASES

WITHIN 54 DAYS.

THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDED TO

STACK THESE SENTENCES ON TOP OF

ONE ANOTHER.

I WAS NOT TREATED FAIRLY AND I

WAS TREATED DIFFERENTLY AND I

FIRMLY BELIEVE AND WILL GO TO MY

GRAVE BELIEVING THAT ONE OF THE

REASONS, THE REASON I WAS

TREATED IN THIS FASHION WAS

BECAUSE I WAS THE BIGGEST ENEMY

OF DONALD TRUMP IN 2018.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

I WAS ALSO HIS MOST DANGEROUS

ENEMY.

>> FINALLY, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO

PEOPLE LISTENING TONIGHT WHO

THINK WELL, EVEN IF THAT'S THE

CASE AND THERE WAS DIFFERENTIAL

TREATMENT, YOU STILL WERE CAUGHT

AND AT TIMES EXPRESSED

CONTRITION FOR CRIMES AND CRIMES

RELATED TO DISHONESTY.

WHY SHOULD PEOPLE TAKE YOUR WORD

ON ANY OF THIS TONIGHT?

>> WELL, BECAUSE I THINK I

DEMONSTRATED OVER A SIGNIFICANT

PERIOD OF TIME AND OVER A COUPLE

OF DECADES OF LEGAL WORK THAT

I'VE DONE A LOT OF GOOD.

THAT A LOT OF WHAT I'D SAID HAS

CHECKED OUT.

THAT I GENERALLY HAVE NOT

TRAFFICKED IN NONSENSE.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT I MADE

MISTAKES.

NO QUESTION THAT I EXERCISED

POOR JUDGMENT AT TIMES, BUT

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT I

EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT AT TIMES

BUT I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO ASK

YOURSELF OR THEMSELVES, ARE YOU

REALLY GOING TO DEFINE SOMEBODY

BY THE WORST THING THEY DID IN

THEIR LIFE OR LOOK AT THE

TOTALITY OF THE BODY OF THEIR

WORK.

>> WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE TO

ANYONE IN HOW TO MAKE SENSE OF

THIS TRIAL?

>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A

CIRCUS.

IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE

ENTERTAINING.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR WORK

CUT OUT FOR YOU, BUT FROM WHAT

I'VE SEEN, YOU'RE CERTAINLY

GOING TO BE UP TO THE TASK.

AND AGAIN, IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE