Alvin Bragg just realized he can't prove Trump committed a crime: Legal expert

Fox Business

15 May 202405:32

Summary

TLDRThe discussion revolves around the legal strategies and implications of Donald Trump's court case involving Stormy Daniels. Experts debate the prosecution's effectiveness and Trump's legal maneuvers, highlighting key moments such as Cohen's testimony and Trump's potential risks if he takes the stand. The analysis also considers the impact on Trump's political standing and the possible outcomes of the multiple charges against him.

Takeaways

🗣️ The discussion revolves around the legal strategy and tactics in a case involving Donald Trump, focusing on his alleged affair with Stormy Daniels and the subsequent non-disclosure agreement (NDA) payment.
📉 The prosecution's strategy is criticized for not effectively targeting Trump, with the assertion that it has not significantly impacted his lead in battleground states.
🚫 There is a suggestion that Trump's legal team made a mistake by denying the affair and NDA payment, which could have narrowed the scope of the case.
🤔 The speaker questions whether the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove Trump's intent to defraud, beyond a reasonable doubt.
🚫 It is advised that Trump should not testify due to the risk of being asked about the affair and the potential negative impact on his character.
🕳️ The discussion implies that the prosecution may be setting a trap for Trump to testify, hoping his impulsive nature will lead him to make a mistake.
🧐 The speaker suggests that the defense should limit the number of witnesses, possibly relying on the lack of sufficient evidence for a conviction.
📚 There is a mention of the numerous counts against Trump, which are argued to be variations of a single crime, implying potential for a mistrial if the counts are not consolidated.
🤨 The possibility of Trump being found guilty on all counts is questioned, with the speaker doubting the likelihood of a single decision to cheat the law 34 times.
📉 The speaker believes that focusing on Trump's state of mind is crucial for the jury's decision, hinting at the complexity of proving intent across multiple counts.
📈 The overall sentiment is that the prosecution's strategy has been poor, while Trump's legal strategy has been more effective, despite potential weaknesses in courtroom tactics.

Q & A

What does the speaker imply about the prosecution's strategy in the case involving Donald Trump?
-The speaker implies that the prosecution's strategy was to knock Donald Trump out of the race, but they have done poorly at the strategic level as Trump is leading in almost all battleground states.
What does the speaker suggest about the tactics used in the courtroom?
-The speaker suggests that Donald Trump's team has not performed as well as they could have in terms of courtroom tactics, particularly regarding the denial of any involvement with Stormy Daniels.
Why does the speaker believe that admitting to an affair with Stormy Daniels and the payment for an NDA would have been a better strategy for Trump?
-The speaker believes that such an admission would have narrowed the case, allowing the focus to be on whether Trump intended to defraud New York and cover up a campaign-finance contribution, which is the real crime in question.
What is the speaker's opinion on whether Donald Trump should testify?
-The speaker advises against it, suggesting that the prosecution is setting a trap for Trump by daring him to testify, which could be a big mistake if he were to do so.
What does the speaker think the defense should do in terms of presenting witnesses?
-The speaker believes the defense should present very few witnesses, possibly just one or two accountants, and not bring on anyone important, relying on the judge to decide if there is enough evidence for the jury.
What is the speaker's view on the counts against Donald Trump related to business malpractice?
-The speaker views the multiple counts as essentially being the same crime, split into different counts for every check written, and suggests that if they were to be combined, it would come down to one decision regarding Trump's state of mind.
What is the implication of the speaker regarding the character attacks on Donald Trump?
-The speaker implies that the character attacks are an attempt to destroy Trump's reputation and make the jury want to convict him of something, even if the prosecution cannot prove a crime under the law.
How does the speaker evaluate the likelihood of Donald Trump being found guilty on any of the counts?
-The speaker is skeptical, suggesting that it is unlikely that Trump would be found guilty on all counts, as it would require proving his intent to break the law in 34 separate instances.
What does the speaker suggest about the role of Michael Cohen in captivating the jury?
-The speaker suggests that the reports of Cohen's involvement are captivating the jury, possibly due to the denial by Donald Trump and his lawyers of any wrongdoing.
null
-null
What is the speaker's view on the importance of proving Donald Trump's mental state in the case?
-The speaker emphasizes that the key to the case is proving Donald Trump's mental state and his intent to commit the alleged crime, which the prosecution has not done beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is the strategic mistake mentioned by the speaker that could have been avoided by admitting to the affair and NDA payment?
-The strategic mistake was the broad denial of any involvement, which led to a wider case. Admitting to the affair and NDA payment could have narrowed the focus to the specific legal issue of intent to defraud.
What does the speaker suggest about the potential outcome of the case if it were to go to a decision?
-The speaker suggests that if the case were to be decided on the combined counts, it would come down to evaluating Donald Trump's state of mind and the likelihood of him intentionally cheating the law multiple times.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Legal Strategy and Tactics in the Trump Case

The first paragraph discusses the legal strategy and tactics surrounding Donald Trump's case. It mentions the cross-examination of Michael Cohen, a former deputy assistant attorney general, and the impact of the Stormy Daniels case on the jury. The speaker argues that the prosecution's strategy was flawed as it aimed to knock Trump out of the race but instead found him leading in battleground states. The tactics in the courtroom are criticized, with the suggestion that Trump's team should have admitted to the affair and the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) payment to narrow the case's focus. The paragraph also touches on the risk of Trump taking the stand and the potential trap set by the prosecution, urging Trump not to testify.

05:04

📊 Aggregating Trump's Alleged Crimes

The second paragraph focuses on the decision-making process regarding Donald Trump's state of mind and the aggregation of his alleged crimes. It suggests that the 34 counts against Trump could be seen as one big decision to cheat the law, rather than 34 separate ones. The speaker questions the likelihood of Trump consciously deciding to break the law multiple times and implies that the prosecution may be trying to overwhelm the jury with the number of counts.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Cross-examination

Cross-examination is a legal term referring to the questioning of a witness by the opposing counsel in a trial. It is a critical part of the adversarial system of justice, allowing for the testing of a witness's credibility and the accuracy of their testimony. In the script, it is mentioned that the speaker will be back for the cross-examination, indicating an ongoing legal process.

💡Deputy Assistant Attorney General

This is a high-ranking position within the Department of Justice, typically held by an attorney who assists the Attorney General in legal matters. The mention of a 'former Deputy Assistant Attorney General' in the script suggests that the individual being discussed previously held a significant role in the legal system.

💡Rapture Ring

While 'rapture ring' is not a standard legal term, in the context of the script, it could be a metaphorical expression implying that the jury is being captivated or emotionally swayed by the proceedings. The term is used to describe the impact of the testimony on the jury.

💡Accountants and Business Types

This phrase refers to professionals who work in the fields of accounting and business. In the script, it is used to contrast the interests and discussions of these professionals with the sensational topics being discussed, such as the case involving Stormy Daniels.

💡Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

An NDA is a legally binding contract that establishes a confidential relationship between parties, typically used to protect sensitive information from being disclosed. The script mentions an NDA in the context of a payment made to Stormy Daniels, suggesting it was part of a legal dispute.

💡Prosecution Strategy

Prosecution strategy refers to the approach taken by the prosecution team in a legal case to prove the guilt of the defendant. The script discusses the effectiveness of the prosecution's strategy, suggesting that it was aimed at discrediting Donald Trump rather than focusing on the legal merits of the case.

💡Legal Strategy

Legal strategy involves the methods and tactics used by lawyers to build a case, either for the prosecution or the defense. The script contrasts the prosecution's strategy with what is suggested as a more effective legal strategy by Donald Trump's team, highlighting the importance of strategic decision-making in legal proceedings.

💡Mental State

In legal contexts, a person's mental state is often a critical factor in determining guilt or innocence, particularly in cases that involve intent. The script suggests that proving Donald Trump's mental state to commit a crime is central to the case.

💡Character Attack

A character attack is a strategy where an individual's personal traits or history are used to discredit them, rather than focusing on the specific facts of the case. The script implies that the prosecution may be attempting to discredit Donald Trump's character as part of their strategy.

💡Testifying

Testifying refers to the act of giving evidence under oath in a court of law. The script discusses the potential risks and implications of Donald Trump testifying in the case, highlighting the strategic considerations involved in deciding whether a defendant should take the stand.

💡Mistrial

A mistrial is a legal term for a trial that has been rendered invalid due to a procedural error, misconduct, or other issues that prevent a fair trial. The script suggests the possibility of a mistrial as an outcome of the case, indicating the high stakes and potential complications involved.

Highlights

The speaker anticipates returning for the cross-examination.

Discussion on the role of a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Mention of an interesting take by Lydia and its impact on the jury.

Comment on the lack of focus on financial types and accountants in the discussion.

Reference to Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen's compelling case.

Question about what can be gleaned from the situation regarding Michael Cohen.

Debate on the prosecution's strategy and Donald Trump's legal strategy.

Analysis that the prosecution aimed to knock Donald Trump out of the race but failed.

Donald Trump leading in battleground states according to a New York Times poll.

Critique of the prosecution's courtroom tactics and Donald Trump's response.

Suggestion that admitting to an affair with Stormy Daniels could have narrowed the case.

Argument that the prosecution has not provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Risk associated with Donald Trump taking the stand due to questions about the affair.

Prosecution's strategy to try and discredit Donald Trump's character.

Advice against Donald Trump testifying and the defense's strategy.

Discussion on the counts of business misconduct and the odds of a guilty verdict.

Analysis that the charges are essentially the same crime split into multiple counts.

Speculation on the potential for a mistrial due to the nature of the charges.

Consideration of whether Donald Trump had the intent to break the law in 34 counts.