Judge corrects Trump's false statement in court

Something really important just happened

as Elie was laying

all of that out for us,

which is that

as soon as Donald Trump

and his attorneys got in the courtroom,

the judge corrected

what Donald Trump falsely asserted

yesterday when he left the courtroom,

which is that

because of the gag order

that's in place,

it prevents him from testifying,

something that Todd Blanch, Trump's

attorney, shook his head

and affirmation at, as Trump said, that

and when Trump entered the courtroom

this morning, the judge said,

no, it doesn't

it doesn't prevent you from testifying.

Yeah, this was fascinating

because this is the first time

we've seen

the judge respond really to

something that Trump has said

outside the court when he addresses

the media

and is clearly correcting the record.

He said, no,

this gag order does not prevent

you from testifying.

And we know that since

the gag order has been in place,

Trump has also repeatedly said

that it's possible that he might testify.

So it felt like yesterday's

statement was intellectually dishonest.

A little bit of politicking at the mikes.

There

But it's interesting

that the judge

took a moment

to set the record straight and say, no,

that's absolutely not true.

Yeah,

because when we had this gag order

hearing last week, Laura,

I mean,

the judge was making clear

that Trump understood

what the parameters of the gag

order were.

Trump's attorney affirmed that, yes,

he did know.

And clearly, there's nothing in it

that Trump himself

cannot choose to testify

that he can testify if he wants to.

He absolutely can.

And they even went further

this remember, there was a hearing

called the Sandoval

hearing that took place

a few weeks ago at this point now,

where the judge was saying

here are the parameters of what people

might be able to ask you

if you do take the stand.

Now, the Sandoval hearing

is a way of saying,

here's your

I notice defendant,

if you want to testify

there are things

we might be able to bring in

but are not the same charge conduct,

but prior bad acts.

And these might be used to

what they call impeach you.

Other words,

point out inconsistencies

or give the jury

an insight and some kind of M.O.

The judge would not have done

that, would not have gone

through the process

that he intended to actually limit

the ability of a defendant to testify.

And, of course,

the whole reason he's doing

this is because

he knows the court of public opinion.

That's not these 18 jurors.

If he wants to testify, it's

well within his rights

and whether he will.

Every I mean, I'm almost salivating

right now as a former prosecutor,

thinking about a defendant

taking the stand,

because you can bring out so many things.

It's Pandora's box.

And once that door is open,

it really cannot be closed

that you really, really careful.

That's why he wants to get ahead of it.

He wants to appear deferential

and yet not do it.

And we're seeing right now

there's an argument

that from Todd Blanch, a

tweet from The Washington Post

should not be admitted

because it includes a photo of Trump,

Billy Bush

and one of the women in the Access

Hollywood video, which, of course,

they cannot show it to prejudicial.

This is fascinating.

Another first this is the first time

the decision, the appeals court

decision related to Harvey

Weinstein has been brought up

just a moment ago.

The Trump team, while they're arguing

about why this evidence

shouldn't come in, cites that decision.

But the judge knocked it down

saying, quote, The Weinstein decision

really doesn't factor into this.

This is something that a lot of sources

in Trump circles have been raising.

Whether that decision

related to Harvey Weinstein's conviction,

whether that could

potentially help Trump here

when it comes to bringing

in certain pieces of evidence.

But the judge making it clear here

he doesn't see it that way.

Yeah, we'll see what the argument is

that they're making here.

Obviously, the Weinstein decision made

in recent weeks was a huge overturn

of his conviction.

And Jim, obviously,

following all of this closely

as this witness

that was on the stand

when court ended yesterday

is expected to retake the stand

as Trump's attorneys

are going to continue

their line of questioning.

We'll see who else takes the stand today.

Yeah.

Should be another lively day of testimony, Caitlin,

maybe some surprises.

Maybe we'll finally see some witnesses.

I think that everybody has been

waiting for at this point.

Ellie, let me go to you first.

Let's let's button up

what they were just talking

about a few moments ago.

We have Trump coming in

yesterday saying, you know,

because of this gag order,

I can't testify.

Apparently, a few moments ago,

he clean that up, try to clarify it.

Let's play a little bit

of what Trump said yesterday.

Talk about on the other side

and then get into what

the judge just said.

Right.

Well, I'm not allowed to testify.

I'm under a gag order.

I guess I can't even testify and not.

We're going to be appealing the gag order

I'd love to answer that question.

It's a very easy question.

The easiest question so far,

but I'm not allowed to testify

because this judge was totally conflicted

it has to be under

an unconstitutional gag order.

Nobody's ever had that before.

And we don't like it that it's not fair.

Really?

I like it when he turns to Todd Blanch

and the top branch

nods and shakes his head. No,

what to say.

I guess some lives have to be cleaned up.

And that's what he did this morning.

And then the judge just a few moments ago

said, no,

you do have the right to testify.

Of course,

water has nothing to do with it.

Good gracious.

The statement by Donald

Trump is so outrageous

so off base, it's

hard to know where to begin.

But the gag order has nothing to do

with 0.0 to do

with Donald Trump's ability to testify.

He has the right to testify.

He has the right not to testify.

There will be no limits on that. Right.

By the way, the gag order, let's just understand,

because I always think this

the name gag order is overly suggestive

gag to suggest you can't talk at all

He can say almost anything he wants.

He just has to lay off of witnesses,

jurors, court staff and families.

I mean, we hear him going on rants

almost nightly.

He did this morning.

He did last night.

About the judge, about the D.A.,

about the indictment.

That's all totally fine.

So it's quite a limited gag order.

I think it's worth noting he's

actually not violated the gag order.

They should have one of those signs up

has not violated the gag order.

I think we're on ten days now.

So I don't know.

Maybe he understands

and is complying now.

But Jamie,

it seems to me

the reason why he said that yesterday

and he says stuff like this out

on the campaign trail as well,

he thinks he knows

his supporters are watching. Right.

He knows that he knows are watching.

This is one of the problems

with not having cameras in the courtroom,

not even having audio

the way we do with the Supreme Court.

He comes out at the start of the day,

end of the day.

And that message goes out yesterday

in addition to the gag order.

He was saying things

like he just couldn't talk.

I mean, it gets completely convoluted.

But to Ellie's point

Judge Mershon

was criticized

for sort of holding on the gag order.

It does seem to be working

and he has not ruled.

So he came out this morning

and we got the usual round of grievances.

He attacked the judges, the D.A.,

President Biden, but notably,

he did not attack Michael Cohen.

Other witnesses,

no mention of the jurors.

It is always fascinating.

He's really transparent.

You know, what's getting under his skin?

What did he say?

The judge is allowing salacious testimony

and our side isn't getting anything

But then Donald Trump pivot

a few minutes later.

He says the case is going fine.

Yeah, I do want to draw attention

to what's happening right now

because what we're seeing is Blanche

arguing that a specific true

social from last August

should not come into evidence.

And that true social actually

was a problematic for Donald Trump.

In his federal cases as well.

Jack Smith filed something.

Now, what he said in that true

social was,

if you go after me, I'm coming after you.

Jack Smith

at the time

raised this with a judge

saying that he was threatening witnesses.

The Trump team

scrambled to say

this had nothing to do with witnesses.

This was about news reports

that someone was spending money

against him in the campaign.

Now it appears it's coming up again

and they're having a conversation

about whether or not

this should be included.

Blanche trying to say once more

this was not about witnesses.

I think it's very interesting

that now we're seeing the cross over

in all of his legal cases, particularly

because Donald Trump tends

to put his foot in his mouth,

something that could cause trouble.

How do you

I mean, what do you think about how the judge

is handling this balancing act?

I mean, look, it's

an incredibly tight rope.

He's on a tightrope.

It is incredibly hard balancing act.

They made a reference

to second,

folks might have seen reference

to Marlon no,

the standard in New York

for bringing in prior

acts of an individual and so on.

And there are any number

of very gray areas

that judges have to sort out.

One, in this context of things

they did in the past,

their behavior,

these prior bad accidents,

something to be hearing,

but also how you strike a balance

between speech

that's protected,

particularly for a political candidate.

And frankly,

the judge in his gag order

referenced the fact

that he wanted

to be mindful of the fact

that the former president is himself

a candidate for office.

But to Ellis point, the former president

really can say

virtually anything in the world,

including very explicit

things about the judge or even

the elected district attorney

and has seemed to behave better.

I would note that

in the context

of another civil suit than a civil suit

in the state of New York recently,

it was after the imposition of sanctions

on the president.

They actually start behaving and then.

Yeah.

Carol, how do you think the jurors are reacting

to all of this?

Well,

let me just say about the gag order.

I think the judge is actually doing Trump

a favor.

You know, Trump has two fronts here.

He has the trial and he has the election.

But for as far as the trial is concerned,

with the evidence that I've seen,

if he can just zip it,

he's way better off.

So the judge, by silencing him

and threatening punishment

the quieter he is,

I think the better that he does.

In terms of

how are jurors reacting to this?

I'm sure they're sponges.

Just like Jamie said,

you know, we're just peering

through the courthouse door

to try and see what's going on.

The jurors are seeing everything

they're going to see

when somebody has a vein in their temple

that's throbbing because they're stress,

they're going to see

when people get angry.

But they're really focused on facts

and jurors.

I am a huge proponent of the jury system.

And when people talk about democracy

dying, well,

as long as we have criminal trials

and criminal defendants

have rights, no matter who they are,

we have a thriving democracy.

And these jurors

are going to do their job

and they're going to focus on the facts

and they're going

to scrutinize the motives

because that's

what an adversarial process

forces them to do.

One of the key guardrails

for our democracy.

We'll see if we can keep Trump reined in.

When you said

if he can zip it,

I thought I heard you say

it's hard for him. Right.

But that word,

if it's doing a lot of work.

Well, I think that's why his lawyers like.

Right. You're going to zip

All right, guys, thank you very much.