'Extraordinary': Hear what happened in court as Trump tried to delay his criminal trial

CNN
11 Apr 202408:44

Summary

TLDRA New York appeals court judge has denied former President Donald Trump's motion to delay the criminal trial related to hush money payments, marking another defeat in a series of attempts to delay or derail the proceedings. Trump's legal team has been aggressive in their defense, but their motions have been swiftly rejected by the courts. The case is set to move forward, with the defense facing the challenge of walking a fine line between making legitimate arguments and risking being seen as frivolous or untimely.

Takeaways

  • đŸš« A New York appeals court judge denied former President Donald Trump's motion to delay the criminal trial related to hush money payments.
  • 📆 The trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, with Trump's legal team making multiple attempts to delay or derail it.
  • đŸŽ„ Trump has previously tried to exclude testimony from Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer, which was denied last month.
  • đŸš« Trump's attempts to exclude testimony from Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, as well as motions to exclude virtually every piece of prosecution evidence, have also been denied.
  • ⚖ The defense argues that the trial judge should recuse himself due to alleged impartiality, but the judge and appellate courts have found no evidence to support this.
  • 🔎 The defense's main argument is seeking another chance to appeal decisions that have already been made, which the district attorney's office argues is not how the process works.
  • 📊 The pace of the hearings and filings has been rapid, with three hearings and three defeats for Trump's team within three days.
  • đŸ€” There is speculation that Trump may try to take his case to the Supreme Court, especially given the upcoming hearing on presidential immunity.
  • 📝 Trump's recent social media posts, where he called potential witnesses 'sleaze bags', could potentially violate the gag order.
  • 📈 The judges and appellate courts are taking Trump's appeals seriously but have been swiftly denying them, showing little appetite to delay the trial.

Q & A

  • What was the primary focus of the recent court hearing involving Donald Trump?

    -The primary focus of the recent court hearing was on Trump's motion to delay the criminal trial related to hush money payments and attempts to get the judge to recuse himself from the case.

  • How did the appeals court respond to Trump's attempts to delay the trial?

    -The appeals court denied Trump's motion to delay the trial, marking another instance where his attempts to postpone the legal proceedings have been unsuccessful.

  • What was the argument presented by Trump's attorney for seeking more time?

    -Trump's attorney argued for more time to file additional defense motions and to challenge the gag order, claiming that the judge was biased due to his daughter's potential connections to Democratic campaigns.

  • What was the Manhattan District Attorney's response to the claims of bias and the request for a delay?

    -The Manhattan District Attorney's office argued that the claims of bias were unfounded and that the way things were being handled was standard procedure, emphasizing that the trial should proceed as scheduled.

  • What previous attempts has Trump made to influence the trial's proceedings?

    -Trump has previously made attempts to exclude testimony from Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, as well as to exclude virtually every piece of prosecution evidence, including those related to the catch and kill scheme. He has also demanded the trial judge recuse himself.

  • How did the court accommodate the urgency of the Trump case?

    -The court rearranged its schedule and even converted the basement of a courtroom into a makeshift bench to accommodate the oral arguments, showing the seriousness with which they were taking the case.

  • What was the legal panel's perspective on the pace and nature of Trump's filings?

    -The legal panel found the pace and nature of the filings to be outrageous, with multiple hearings and defeats in a short span. They noted that the motions were being swiftly rejected by the courts, indicating a lack of appetite within the judiciary to delay the trial.

  • What potential next steps could Trump take in his legal strategy?

    -Trump could potentially take his case to the Supreme Court, especially given that they are hearing a related issue on presidential immunity. However, it is uncertain whether this would result in a delay of the state court trial.

  • Could Trump's social media posts about the witnesses be considered a violation of the gag order?

    -Yes, Trump's directç§°ć‘Œ of the witnesses as 'sleaze bags' could be seen as a violation of the gag order, which could prompt the District Attorney to take action to enforce the order in court.

  • What is the significance of Trump's attempts to delay the trial?

    -The attempts to delay the trial are seen as desperate efforts to postpone the legal proceedings, which could be interpreted as an attempt to exhaust all possible legal avenues to delay justice.

  • What is the potential impact of Trump's legal strategy on his credibility?

    -Continuously filing motions that are swiftly rejected could potentially harm Trump's credibility before the court, as it might create a 'boy who cried wolf' scenario where the judge starts to disregard his pleas.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Court Rulings and Trump's Legal Strategies

The paragraph discusses the legal proceedings involving Donald Trump, focusing on the denial of his motion to delay the criminal trial related to hush money payments by a New York Appeals Court Judge. It highlights Trump's repeated attempts to delay or derail the trial, including seeking a change of venue, challenging the gag order, and trying to exclude testimony from key witnesses like Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal. The summary emphasizes the swift rejection of these motions by the judiciary and the upcoming trial despite Trump's continued efforts to seek legal recourse.

05:00

🔍 Legal Analysts Discuss Trump's Motions and Prospects

This paragraph features a discussion among legal analysts and experts about the implications of Trump's legal strategies. They analyze the recent rejection of his motions by the courts and the potential for further legal action, such as appealing to the Supreme Court. The conversation touches on the potential impact of the Supreme Court hearing on presidential immunity, the likelihood of the Supreme Court intervening, and the legal and strategic considerations for Trump's defense team. The analysts also discuss the potential consequences of Trump's public statements about the witnesses, which could be seen as violating the gag order.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Donald John Trump

Donald John Trump, commonly known as Donald Trump, is the 45th President of the United States and a prominent businessman. In the context of this video, he is the central figure involved in a legal case, facing a criminal trial and multiple attempts to delay or derail the proceedings.

💡New York Appeals Court

The New York Appeals Court is a legal entity responsible for reviewing decisions made by lower courts in the state. In this video, it is mentioned as the court that denied Trump's motion to delay the criminal trial related to hush money payments.

💡Hush Money

Hush money refers to payments made to keep someone quiet, often to cover up a scandal or prevent the disclosure of sensitive information. In the context of this video, it relates to the criminal charges against Trump, where he is accused of directing payments to silence individuals during his presidential campaign.

💡Recuse

To recuse oneself means to remove or disqualify oneself from a legal case due to a conflict of interest or bias. In this video, Trump's legal team is attempting to get the trial judge recused, alleging that the judge's impartiality is compromised due to his daughter's work connections.

💡Michael Cohen

Michael Cohen is a former lawyer and fixer for Donald Trump. He is a key figure in the legal case discussed in the video, as Trump's team has tried to exclude his testimony, which was denied by the court.

💡Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal

Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal are both individuals who have claimed to have had affairs with Donald Trump. They are relevant to the video's content as Trump's legal team has tried to exclude their testimonies and related evidence from the trial.

💡Catch and Kill Scheme

The 'catch and kill' scheme refers to a journalistic practice where potentially damaging stories are acquired with no intention of publishing them, effectively silencing the information. In the context of this video, it is a central element of the case against Trump, relating to the alleged cover-up of certain scandals.

💡Gag Order

A gag order is a legal order issued by a court prohibiting certain people from discussing publicly the details of a legal case or related matters. In this video, it is mentioned in the context of Trump's violation of the gag order by publicly commenting on the witnesses in his trial.

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States, and it has the ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state courts. In the video, it is mentioned as a potential venue for Trump's legal team to appeal the decisions made by the lower courts.

💡Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity refers to the legal doctrine that a sitting president cannot be criminally investigated or prosecuted for actions taken while in office. In this video, it is discussed as a potential argument for Trump's legal team to delay the trial, although the context is a state court case and not federal.

💡Legal Panel

A legal panel is a group of experts, typically lawyers or judges, who discuss and analyze legal matters. In the context of this video, the legal panel is likely a group of analysts or attorneys who will discuss the intricacies of the case and the rulings made by the courts.

Highlights

A New York appeals court judge denied Donald Trump's motion to delay Monday's hush money criminal trial.

This is the second time in two days that the appeals court denied a Trump attempt to delay the trial.

Trump's legal team sought more time to pursue a change of venue motion.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office argued against the delay, stating that it is not how these things work.

Trump has made multiple attempts to delay or derail the trial, including demanding the trial judge recuse himself for the second time.

Trump tried to exclude testimony from his former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, which was denied last month.

Trump's motion to exclude testimony from Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal was also denied.

The heart of the case involves the catch and kill scheme, and Trump has attempted to exclude virtually every piece of prosecution evidence.

Despite being a criminal defendant, Trump has the right to delay justice while also complaining about the timing of the charges.

Trump has shown up for numerous pretrial hearings, even though he was not required to, and has been raising money off them.

The Trump team's latest argument focuses on trying to get the judge to recuse himself from the case due to perceived impartiality.

The argument for recusal is based on claims that the judge's daughter could potentially profit from her work with Democratic campaigns.

Trump's main argument is the desire for another chance to appeal the denial of presidential immunity in a separate federal criminal case.

The appellate judge asked many questions, but the main argument from Trump's side is that the lower court did not follow the correct procedure.

The court had to rearrange tables and chairs in the basement of a courtroom to accommodate the trial starting on Monday.

This is the first time such accommodations have been made, showing the seriousness with which the court is taking the case.

Legal analysts believe that Trump's repeated attempts to delay the case are desperate and that the judiciary is not inclined to move the trial.

There is speculation that Trump may take his case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to delay the trial further.

Trump's social media posts, where he calls potential witnesses sleaze bags, may violate the gag order.

The district attorney's office is expected to address the violation of the gag order by Trump in court.

Trump's actions could be seen as trying to bait the judge into showing bias, but the judge is unlikely to take the bait.

The judge and appellate courts are determined to ensure the trial goes forward as scheduled despite the repeated motions for delay.

Transcripts

00:01

MACHINATION MACHINE THAT IS

00:03

DONALD JOHN TRUMP LATE TODAY, A

00:05

NEW YORK APPEALS COURT JUDGE

00:06

DENIED HIS MOTION TO DELAY

00:08

MONDAY'S HUSH MONEY, CRIMINAL

00:09

TRIAL AND APOLOGIES FOR NOT

00:11

PREFACING THAT WIDTH. STOP ME

00:12

IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE

00:15

BECAUSE YOU HAVE, HERE'S THE

00:15

HEADLINE FROM JUST TWO DAYS

00:16

AGO, APPEALS COURT DENIES AND

00:17

OTHER TRUMP ATTEMPT TO DELAY

00:19

TRIAL. AGAIN, THAT WAS MONDAY,

00:20

SEEKING MORE TIME TO PURSUE A

00:21

CHANGE OF VENUE MOTION. DID

00:24

YESTERDAY AND ASKING FOR MORE

00:25

TIME TO CHALLENGE THE GAG

00:27

ORDER. THEIR CLIENT IS UNDER

00:28

TODAY. IT GOT EVEN RICHER WITH

00:29

ONE ON TRUMP ATTORNEY ARGUING

00:30

FOR MORE TIME TO FILE MORE

00:33

DEFENSE MOTIONS TO WHICH STEVEN

00:34

WU ARGUING FOR THE MANHATTAN

00:36

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

00:37

SAID WAS SIMPLY NOT THE WAY

00:38

THESE THINGS WORK. WE'RE GOING

00:40

TO LEAVE THAT FOR LEGAL PANEL

00:41

TO SORT OUT IN A MOMENT. ONE

00:43

THING THOUGH IS CLEAR THESE

00:44

LAST THREE MOTIONS ARE ONLY THE

00:46

MOST RECENT ATTEMPTS TO DELAY

00:48

OR DERAIL THINGS LAST WEEK, YOU

00:49

FOLLOW THE MOTION DEMANDING THE

00:50

TRIAL JUDGE RECUSED HIMSELF FOR

00:52

THE SECOND TIME. THE FIRST WAS

00:53

LAST SUMMER. HE HAS ALSO TRIED

00:56

TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY FROM HIS

00:57

ONETIME LAWYER AND FIXER,

00:58

MICHAEL COHEN THAT WAS DENIED

00:59

LAST MONTH. AS WAS HIS MOTION

01:01

TO DO THE SAME FOR STORMY

01:02

DANIELS AND KAREN MCDOUGAL AND

01:05

MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE VIRTUALLY

01:06

EVERY PIECE OF PROSECUTION

01:07

EVIDENCE, INCLUDING ON THE

01:08

CATCH AND KILL SCHEME, WHICH AT

01:09

THE HEART OF THE CASE. AND WE

01:11

SHOULD POINT OUT AS A CRIMINAL

01:14

DEFENDANT, EVEN ONE WHO ONCE

01:15

TOLD POLICE AND I QUOTE, PLEASE

01:16

DON'T BE TOO NICE TO CRIMINAL

01:17

SUSPECTS. THE FORMER PRESIDENT

01:19

HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE

01:20

IS DOING, EVERY RIGHT TO TRY TO

01:23

DELAY JUSTICE EVEN WHILE

01:24

COMPLAINING AS HE DID YET AGAIN

01:25

TODAY ON HIS SOCIAL NETWORK

01:26

THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN

01:28

CHARGED THREE YEARS AGO INSTEAD

01:29

OF DURING THE CAMPAIGN. AND

01:31

EVEN OF COURSE, THOUGH HE'S

01:32

SHOWN UP FOR NUMEROUS PRETRIAL

01:33

HEARINGS IN THIS AND OTHER

01:34

TRIALS. NONE OF WHICH HE WAS

01:36

REQUIRED TO AND RAISING MONEY

01:38

OFF THEM ALL THE WHILE SO MORE

01:40

ON TONIGHT'S RULING FROM CNN'S

01:41

KARA SCANNELL, WHO JOINS US

01:43

NOW. SO WHAT IS THE LATEST

01:44

ARGUMENT FROM THE TRUMP TEAM?

01:45

THIS VIOLIN?

01:46

>> SO TODAY'S ISSUE, AS YOU

01:47

SAID, THAT YOU WERE OTHER

01:48

ISSUES EARLIER IN THE WEEK

01:49

TODAY, THE FOCUS WAS ON TRYING

01:51

TO GET THE JUDGE TO RECUSE

01:52

HIMSELF FROM THE CASE. THE SAME

01:53

ARGUMENTS WE HAVE HEARD IN THE

01:54

LOWER OF ARGUMENT WHERE THEY

01:56

SAY THAT THE JUDGE IS IMPARTIAL

01:59

BECAUSE HIS DAUGHTER COULD

02:00

POTENTIALLY PROFIT BECAUSE OF

02:01

WORK OR COMPANY DOES FOR

02:03

DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNS. THE OTHER

02:04

ARGUMENT WAS THIS, JUDGE, JUDGE

02:06

MORE SEAN HAD DENIED TRUMP'S

02:09

EFFORTS TO TRY TO DELAY THE

02:11

TRIAL UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT

02:12

RULED ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY

02:14

IN A COMPLETELY SEPARATE CASE

02:15

AT THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL

02:17

CHARGES. THEY'RE APPEALING THAT

02:19

AND THEY WANTED THE JUDGE THE

02:20

APPELLATE JUDGE, TO PUT THE

02:21

TRIAL AND HOLD FOR THAT. I

02:23

MEAN, THE THE APPELLATE JUDGE

02:24

ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS HERE

02:25

ERROR, BUT TRUMP'S MAIN

02:27

ARGUMENT WAS THEY JUST WANT

02:28

ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE FOR

02:29

SOME OF THIS THE DA'S SAYING,

02:31

YOU'RE NOT EVEN FOLLOWING THE

02:32

RIGHT PROCEDURE HERE. THESE ARE

02:33

THINGS YOU CAN APPEAL UNTIL THE

02:35

CASE IS OVER. WHAT WAS

02:37

INTERESTING IS WE ACTUALLY

02:38

HEARD FROM A LAWYER FOR THE

02:39

COURT TODAY WHO'S SPEAKING ON

02:41

BEHALF OF JUDGE MORE SEAN TO

02:42

THIS ISSUE OF RECUSAL SAYING

02:44

THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO

02:45

EVIDENCE, NO PROOF THAT HE

02:46

STANDS TO BENEFIT BECAUSE OF

02:47

HIS DAUGHTER'S JOB. AND THE

02:49

JUDGE PRETTY SWIFTLY DENIED

02:51

THIS IN THERE ARE SOME SPECIAL

02:53

ACCOMMODATION MADE TODAY IN THE

02:54

COURT. WHAT HAPPENED?

02:55

>> YEAH. I MEAN, THE COURT'S

02:57

CALENDAR WAS PRETTY PACKED THIS

02:57

AFTERNOON. THEY HAD ORAL

02:59

ARGUMENTS FROM OTHER CASES THAT

03:00

HAVE BEEN PENDING FOR AWHILE.

03:02

SO IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THIS

03:04

GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE CASE,

03:05

THE TRIAL STARTING ON MONDAY,

03:07

THEY WENT INTO THE BASEMENT OF

03:08

A COURTROOM AND REARRANGE

03:09

TABLES AND CHAIRS TO CREATE A

03:12

BENCH FROM THE JUDGE, INCLUDING

03:12

PULLING OUT A PUFFY, BIG

03:16

PROCEDURAL CHAIR FOR THE JUDGE

03:17

ARRANGING TABLE SO THE LAWYERS

03:18

HAD PLACES TO ARGUE AND THEN

03:21

REPORTERS WERE SITTING ON

03:22

CHAIRS AND TABLES IN THE BACK

03:24

IT WAS REALLY EXTRAORDINARY.

03:25

AND WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT AS

03:26

THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE EVER

03:27

DONE THAT, BUT CLEARLY TAKING

03:29

ALL OF THESE APPEALS VERY

03:31

SERIOUSLY, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE

03:32

ALL BEEN SWIFTLY DENIED, I WANT

03:34

TO BRING IN OUR LEGAL ANALYST

03:36

KAREN AGNIFILO AND ELIE HONIG

03:40

ELLIOTT, THE TEMPO OF THIS.

03:41

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT? I MEAN,

03:42

THREE HEARINGS, THREE DAYS,

03:43

THREE DEFEATS THIS IS

03:44

RIDICULOUS.

03:45

>> LET'S JUST SAY THAT

03:45

STRAIGHT UP. I MEAN, WE TALKED

03:46

LAST WEEK, HENDERSON. I SAID

03:47

NEXT WEEK, MEANING THIS WEEK,

03:48

EXPECT TO SEE A FLURRY OF

03:49

MOTIONS

03:50

>> BUT THE

03:52

>> PACE AND THE NATURE OF THESE

03:54

FILINGS, IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND

03:55

LOOK, I HAVE DEFENDED AND WE'LL

03:57

DEFEND DONALD TRUMP'S RIGHT.

03:58

ANY DEFENDANTS RIGHT. TO

04:00

AGGRESSIVELY DEFEND HIMSELF,

04:02

BUT THESE MOTIONS, HE'S

04:02

BRINGING, FIRST OF ALL, OR

04:03

COMPLETELY OUT OF TIME. HE'S

04:05

ALREADY BROUGHT MOST OF THEM,

04:06

AS KARA SAID, THEY'VE ALREADY

04:07

BEEN REJECTED. NOW HE'S JUST

04:08

TRYING AGAIN AND THERE'S JUST

04:10

NOTHING TO THEM. AND IT'S

04:13

INTERESTING, ALMOST BORDERLINE

04:15

COMEDIC, TO SEE HOW QUICKLY

04:15

THEY'RE BEING REJECTED. WE'RE

04:16

SEEING COURTS OF APPEALS REJECT

04:18

THESE CASES IN 20 MINUTES, 45

04:20

MINUTES. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO

04:21

GIVE HIM HIS SAY, BUT THERE'S

04:24

NO APPETITE HERE IN THE

04:25

JUDICIARY TO MOVE THIS TRIAL.

04:26

>> AND KAREN, I MEAN, IS IT

04:28

DONE BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY

04:29

WEDNESDAY, SO THERE'S A COUPLE

04:30

OF MORE DAYS.

04:32

>> YEAH, THERE'S TWO MORE

04:32

BUSINESS DAYS. I THINK WE'RE

04:33

GOING TO SEE MORE ACTIVITY.

04:35

THIS IS DESPERATE. THE NUMBER

04:38

OF TIMES HE'S BEEN TRYING TO

04:39

DELAY THIS CASE THE DA'S OFFICE

04:40

SAID IT WAS AT LEAST TEN TIMES.

04:43

JUDGE, MORE SEAN HAS EVEN PUT

04:43

IN HIS ORDERS THAT THE

04:45

DEFENDANT HERE IS TRYING TO

04:46

DELAY THIS CASE. THE JUDGES AND

04:48

THE APPELLATE COURTS KNOW THAT

04:50

THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT WHATEVER

04:52

THE MOTIONS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S

04:54

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY OR A GAG

04:55

ORDER, IT'S ALSO AN EFFORT TO

04:57

DELAY THE TRIAL AND NOT HAVE IT

04:58

GO FORWARD. SO THEY'RE GONNA DO

05:00

EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO MAKE

05:02

SURE THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

05:03

THIS CASE HAS BEEN SCHEDULED

05:04

FOR A LONG TIME AS ELIE SAID,

05:06

MANY OF THESE MOTIONS HAVE BEEN

05:08

MADE ALREADY IN MANY OF THESE

05:09

THINGS HAVE BEEN DECIDED. YES,

05:12

HE DOES HAVE A RIGHT TO DO IT,

05:13

BUT AT A CERTAIN POINT, THEY

05:13

BECOME FRIVOLOUS AND THEY

05:16

BECOME UNTIMELY, AND THEY'VE

05:18

ALREADY BEEN AND DECIDED HE HAS

05:20

TO WATCH THAT. HE HAS TO WALK A

05:21

FINE LINE BETWEEN MAKING TOO

05:24

MANY MOTIONS OVER AND OVER

05:25

AGAIN. THE SAME THING. I THINK

05:26

THE WILDCARD HERE IS IF HE GOES

05:27

TO THE SUPREME COURT, TRIES TO

05:30

GET THEM TO STOP IT BECAUSE

05:31

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT AND TEN

05:33

DAYS, THEY'RE HEARING THE VERY

05:35

ISSUE THAT HE WANTS TO APPEAL.

05:37

THE ISSUE OF PRESIDENTIAL

05:38

IMMUNITY AND THAT'S BEING

05:40

HEARD ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS.

05:41

AND SO HE COULD GO TO THE

05:43

SUPREME COURT AND SAY, LOOK,

05:46

CLEARLY THE JUDGE HERE, IT IS

05:48

BIASED AGAINST ME. I'VE ALREADY

05:49

MADE SEVERAL RECUSAL MOTIONS

05:51

ABOUT HIS DAUGHTER. HE'S

05:52

GAGGING ME, BUT HE DOESN'T GAG

05:53

THE WITNESSES AND THE PRESIDENT

05:56

CENTRAL IMMUNITY IS AN ISSUE

05:58

THAT YOU'RE HEARING IN TEN

05:59

DAYS TIME, AND HE WON'T EVEN

06:00

GIVE ME TEN DAYS. I THINK HE'S

06:02

GOING TO POTENTIALLY PACKAGE IT

06:03

ALL UP AND SEE IF TAKE A SHOT

06:05

THERE AND SEE IF HE CAN GET AN

06:09

EAR OR SOMEBODY WHO HAS NO

06:12

CHANCE I WOULD SAY LEGALLY

06:13

KNOW, BUT IN THIS SUPREME

06:16

COURT, IT'S HARD TO PREDICT

06:18

ANYMORE WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY

06:20

NOT DO. I DON'T THINK LEGALLY

06:21

THERE'S A BASIS FOR IT. THIS

06:24

IS STATE-COURT. THIS IS NOT

06:25

FEDERAL, AND THIS IS COMPLETELY

06:28

SEPARATE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY

06:30

SHOULDN'T APPLY HERE BECAUSE

06:31

THIS IS ALL PERSONAL. THIS IS

06:32

HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY

06:34

>> YES. SOME OF THESE WERE THE

06:36

CHECKS WERE WRITTEN WHILE HE

06:38

WAS PRESIDENT, BUT THEY WERE

06:39

PERSONAL CHECKS ABOUT PERSONAL

06:40

BUSINESS. THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE

06:41

ANYTHING TO DO WITH

06:42

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. SO IT

06:44

SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY MERIT OR

06:45

SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY LEGS, BUT

06:48

THAT'S I THINK HIS LAST

06:49

DESPERATE PROCESS OF FOLLOWING

06:51

IT OUT WITH THE SUPREME COURT

06:53

OR GONEN SUPREME COURT THAT

06:53

WOULD THAT AUTOMATICALLY DELAY

06:55

JURY SELECTION ON MONDAY?

06:57

>> NO, ONLY IF THE SUPREME

06:58

COURT WERE TO STEP IN AND SAY,

07:00

HEY, PUT A HOLD ON THIS. I

07:01

AGREE WITH KARA. I THINK IF

07:03

THERE'S ONE MORE SHOT THAT

07:05

WOULD BE IT. I ALSO AGREE THAT

07:07

IT WILL LOSE ON SUBSTANCE.

07:09

THERE'S A LEGAL DOCTRINE

07:10

CALLED ABSTENTION, MEANING THE

07:11

FEDERAL RECORDS INCLUDING THE

07:13

US SUPREME COURT, ARE VERY

07:14

RELUCTANT TO STEP IN AND PAUSE

07:15

THINGS AT A TRIAL LEVEL, AT A

07:16

STATE COURT. AND I HAVE TO SAY

07:18

THIS

07:18

>> WHEN YOU'RE A

07:20

>> LAWYER, YOUR CREDIBILITY IS

07:21

EVERYTHING AND YOU GET TO A

07:23

POINT WHERE YOU START TO LOSE

07:24

IT WITH THE JUDGE. IT'S LIKE A

07:25

BOY WHO CRIED WOLF PHENOMENON.

07:27

IF YOU COME IN EVERY DAY TO

07:29

THREE TIMES A DAY AND SAY, OH,

07:30

MY GOSH, WE HAVE THIS

07:30

EMERGENCY. OH, MY GOSH. THIS IS

07:33

SUCH AN URGENT SITUATION. YOU

07:34

HAVE TO PAUSE IT. JUDGE, IS

07:36

GOING TO START TUNING YOU OUT

07:36

AND I THINK TRUMP'S TEAM NEEDS

07:37

TO CONSIDER THAT THE FORMER

07:41

PRISON SAY SHARED THE SOCIAL

07:42

MEDIA POSTS IN DEFENSE OF

07:44

HIMSELF FROM STORMY DANIELS,

07:47

FORMER ATTORNEY MICHAEL

07:48

AVINATAN IS IN PRISON RIGHT NOW

07:51

TRUMP ADDED HIS OWN COMMENTARY

07:53

CALLING DANIELS IS IN FORM OF

07:54

TRUMP FIXER MICHAEL COHEN,

07:55

QUOTE, SLEAZE BAGS. THEY BOTH

07:58

LIKELY WITNESSES AT THE TRIAL,

07:59

WOULD THAT VIOLATE THE GAG

08:01

ORDER?

08:02

>> 100%? YES. AND UP TILL NOW,

08:03

TRUMP HAD BEEN SORT OF CRAFTY

08:04

WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS TAKING

08:07

OTHER PEOPLE, SAYING THINGS

08:08

THAT WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE

08:09

GAG ORDER AND JUST RE TWEETING

08:10

OR RETRIEVING THAT, WHICH

08:11

THERE'S MAYBE A GRAY AREA. BUT

08:12

NOW HE SAYS HE CALLS THE TWO

08:14

MAIN WITNESSES SLEAZE BAGS, AND

08:16

THIS IS A MOMENT OF TRUTH OR

08:17

THE DA THE DA NEEDS TO GO TO

08:18

THE JUDGE FIRST THING TOMORROW

08:19

MORNING, SAY THIS VIOLATES THE

08:21

GAG ORDER. YOU NEED TO DO

08:23

SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T ENFORCE

08:24

DISCIPLINE RIGHT NOW, IT'S

08:25

GOING TO GET AWAY FROM YOU.

08:26

>> YOU AGREE WITH THAT GUN?

08:27

>> YES. AND AT THE SAME TIME,

08:28

IT'S CLEAR THAT TRUMP IS

08:30

TRYING TO BAIT THE JUDGE. HE

08:32

WANTS MORE EVIDENCE TO GO TO

08:32

THE SUPREME COURT TO SAY HE'S

08:35

BIASED AGAINST ME AND THE JUDGE

08:36

IS NOT GOING TO TAKE THE BAIT.

08:37

SO THE JUDGE IS GOING TO DO

08:38

EVERYTHING HE CAN TO MAKE THIS

08:40

CASE GO. AND SO I THINK THOSE

08:42

THOSE QUESTIONS AN