Trump's lawyers CRASH AND BURN with failure during trial

The Legal Breakdown with BTC & Glenn Kirschner
9 May 202415:04

Summary

TLDRThe legal breakdown discusses the recent developments in Trump's New York criminal trial. The prosecution's decision not to call Karen McDougall as a witness is seen as a sign of their confidence in the case following Stormy Daniels' testimony. Trump's team's repeated calls for a mistrial are viewed as a public opinion play and a strategy to preserve potential appeal issues, but may risk losing credibility with the court. The defense's aggressive approach towards Daniels is believed to be influenced by Trump himself, rather than a legal strategy. The judge's refusal to modify the gag order to allow Trump to freely discuss Daniels post-testimony is upheld to maintain the integrity of the trial. The prosecution may be wrapping up their case sooner than expected, indicating a narrowing of the case focus as the trial progresses.

Takeaways

  • 🚨 The Trump team's attempt to preclude Karen McDougall from testifying was unsuccessful, indicating the prosecution's confidence in their case.
  • πŸ“‰ The decision to not call McDougall suggests that the prosecution believes their evidence is strong without her testimony.
  • πŸ—£οΈ Trump's attorneys have made multiple mistrial motions, possibly to influence public opinion and preserve grounds for appeal.
  • πŸ‘Ž Repeated mistrial motions may risk the defense's credibility with the court if they are perceived as frivolous.
  • πŸ€” The defense's strategy of denying the affair with Stormy Daniels could backfire if it implies that Daniels is committing perjury.
  • 🧐 The defense's aggressive approach towards Daniels may be influenced by Trump's desire for a more confrontational strategy.
  • πŸ’­ The jury may infer from Trump's silence, but they cannot hold his decision not to testify against him due to the Fifth Amendment.
  • πŸ’° The payment of $130,000 to Daniels by Trump for her silence could suggest a reason to doubt the defense's narrative.
  • πŸ›Œ The subject of Melania Trump's sleeping arrangements could have been used to rebut Daniels' testimony, but it was not pursued.
  • 🚫 The judge rejected the Trump team's request to amend the gag order to allow attacking Daniels post-testimony, citing the need to protect the integrity of the trial.
  • ⏱️ The prosecution may be nearing the end of their case, possibly wrapping up earlier than initially expected.

Q & A

  • What is the significance of the DA's office not calling Karen McDougall to testify?

    -The decision not to call Karen McDougall suggests that the prosecutors are confident in their case after Stormy Daniels' testimony. It indicates that they believe they have strong enough evidence without additional witnesses.

  • Why do defense teams sometimes move for a mistrial?

    -Defense teams may move for a mistrial for several reasons, including to play to public opinion, to signal that something is going wrong with the prosecution's case, or to preserve the right to appeal on the basis of a perceived legal error.

  • How can making repeated mistrial motions affect a defense attorney's credibility with the court?

    -If the judge perceives the motions as frivolous and repetitive without a legal purpose, it may irritate the judge and lead to a loss of credibility for the defense attorney, which can be detrimental to their client's case.

  • What is the strategy behind Trump's attorneys denying that an affair occurred between Trump and Stormy Daniels?

    -This strategy could imply that Stormy Daniels is committing perjury, which is a felony. However, it may not be a smart legal strategy as it puts the defense attorney in a position of attacking the character of a witness, potentially alienating the jury.

  • Why might the Trump team be taking an aggressive approach in their defense?

    -It is suggested that the aggressive approach may be due to directives from Donald Trump himself, who is described as wanting his attorneys to be more forceful and critical of the witnesses.

  • What impact could the defense's questioning of Stormy Daniels have on the jury?

    -The defense's aggressive questioning could backfire if the jury perceives it as an attack on a witness, especially if the witness's responses are measured and believable, which might leave a negative impression of the defense.

  • Why might Donald Trump not take the stand to testify?

    -Donald Trump may choose not to testify to avoid self-incrimination, as he has the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Additionally, the lack of his testimony does not legally impact the case, though it may affect the jury's perception.

  • What inference can the jury make if Donald Trump does not testify?

    -The jury cannot hold Trump's decision not to testify against him, as it is a constitutional right. However, they may draw their own conclusions based on the evidence presented and the absence of Trump's personal testimony.

  • Why did the judge reject the Trump team's request to amend the gag order after Stormy Daniels' testimony?

    -The judge rejected the request to maintain the integrity of the trial and to prevent any retaliation or attack on witnesses, which could potentially influence other witnesses' willingness to testify.

  • What does the payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels imply to the jury?

    -The payment could imply that there is some truth to Stormy Daniels' claims, as it is unlikely that Trump would pay such a large sum for a fabricated story. However, the jury must focus on the presented evidence rather than assumptions.

  • How might the prosecution's case be narrowing as the trial progresses?

    -As the prosecution assesses the persuasiveness of the witnesses and the impact of the defense's cross-examinations, they may decide to focus on the most compelling evidence and witnesses, thus narrowing their case to present a stronger argument to the jury.

Outlines

00:00

πŸ˜€ Trump's Team's Strategy and Mistrial Motions

The first paragraph discusses the legal strategy of Donald Trump's attorneys during his New York criminal trial. The defense team has moved for a mistrial multiple times, which is seen as an attempt to appeal to public opinion and preserve grounds for appeal if necessary. The decision by the DA's office not to call Karen McDougall as a witness is interpreted as a sign of the prosecution's confidence in their case. The paragraph also touches on the potential impact of the defense's tactics on their credibility with the court.

05:00

😠 Trump's Attorneys and Their Approach Toward Stormy Daniels

The second paragraph delves into the tactics used by Trump's attorneys during Stormy Daniels' testimony. The defense's strategy of aggressively questioning Daniels and denying the affair is critiqued as not being a smart legal move, potentially implying that Daniels is committing perjury. The discussion suggests that the defense may be influenced by Trump himself, who is reported to be pushing for a more aggressive approach. The paragraph also highlights key exchanges during the cross-examination that could sway the jury's perception.

10:01

πŸ€” The Implications of Trump's Payment to Daniels and Potential Testimonies

The third paragraph speculates on the significance of Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels and the potential for Melania Trump to testify in rebuttal to Daniels' claims. It questions the logic behind the large payment if Daniels' story were fabricated. The paragraph also addresses the judge's rejection of an amended gag order that would have allowed Trump to speak freely about Daniels after her testimony, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial and preventing witness intimidation.

Mindmap

Keywords

πŸ’‘Mistrial

A mistrial is a legal term referring to a trial that has been rendered invalid due to a procedural error, misconduct, or other issues that prevent a fair trial. In the video, Trump's attorneys have moved for a mistrial multiple times, which is seen as a strategic move to appeal to public opinion and preserve grounds for appeal, even though the judge has rejected these motions.

πŸ’‘Karen McDougall

Karen McDougall is a woman who allegedly had an affair with Donald Trump. The decision by the DA's office not to call her as a witness is mentioned as a sign of the prosecution's confidence in their case, as they feel they have enough evidence without her testimony. This is a significant development in the trial's context.

πŸ’‘Stormy Daniels

Stormy Daniels is an adult film actress who has alleged having an affair with Donald Trump and has testified in the trial. Her testimony and the defense's approach to questioning her are central to the video's discussion, highlighting the strategy and potential implications for the case.

πŸ’‘Public Opinion

Public opinion refers to the collective views of the public on a particular matter. The video discusses how the defense's actions, such as calling for a mistrial, may be aimed at influencing public opinion and shaping the narrative around the case, rather than solely focusing on legal strategy.

πŸ’‘Credibility

Credibility in a legal context refers to the believability and trustworthiness of a witness or attorney. The video highlights concerns that Trump's attorneys might be losing credibility with the court due to their repeated and potentially baseless calls for a mistrial.

πŸ’‘Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from self-incrimination, meaning they cannot be compelled to be witnesses against themselves in a criminal case. The video discusses that Trump's decision not to testify cannot be held against him, as it is his right under the Fifth Amendment.

πŸ’‘Gag Order

A gag order is a legal restraint on the public disclosure of information about a case imposed by a court. In the video, the judge's refusal to modify the gag order to allow Trump to speak freely about Stormy Daniels after her testimony is highlighted as a significant ruling in the trial.

πŸ’‘Perjury

Perjury is the act of lying or making false statements under oath, which is a criminal offense. The video discusses the implication that if Trump's team is correct in their denial of an affair, Stormy Daniels would be committing perjury with her testimony.

πŸ’‘Prosecution's Case

The prosecution's case refers to the legal argument and evidence presented by the prosecution in a criminal trial. The video suggests that the prosecution feels confident in their case, as evidenced by their decision not to call additional witnesses and their focus on a narrowed set of evidence.

πŸ’‘Appeal

An appeal is a legal procedure where a party seeks a higher court's review of a trial court's judgment. The video discusses how defense attorneys might make procedural moves during the trial, such as calling for a mistrial, to preserve issues for potential appeal if the client is convicted.

πŸ’‘Cross-Examination

Cross-examination is the questioning of a witness by the opposing counsel to test the accuracy and credibility of the witness's testimony. The video highlights the defense's cross-examination of Stormy Daniels and how her responses could impact the jury's perception of the case.

Highlights

Trump's attorneys moved for a mistrial, indicating a potential misstep that could impact the jury's perception.

The decision not to call Karen McDougall as a witness suggests the prosecution feels confident in their case post-Stormy Daniels' testimony.

Prosecutors may be jettisoning witnesses as the case progresses positively, indicating a strong evidentiary foundation.

Trump's team's repeated attempts for a mistrial may be aimed at influencing public opinion and preserving grounds for appeal.

Judge Mhan's consistent denial of mistrial motions suggests a lack of substantial grounds for such requests.

Trump's attorneys risk losing credibility with the court through potentially frivolous and repetitive motions.

The defense's strategy of aggressively questioning Stormy Daniels may be influenced by Trump's directives rather than legal strategy.

Stormy Daniels' cross-examination revealed her assertive responses, which could impact the jury's view.

The absence of Trump's testimony can create an atmospheric void but cannot be held against him due to the Fifth Amendment.

Jurors may infer from unrebutted testimony and the fact that Trump paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 for her silence.

The suggestion of calling Melania Trump as a witness to rebut Stormy Daniels' claims was discussed.

Trump's request to amend the gag order to freely speak about Stormy Daniels was swiftly rejected by Judge Mhan.

Judge Mhan emphasized the importance of the gag order to maintain the integrity of the trial and the administration of justice.

The prosecution intends to wrap up their case within two weeks, potentially sooner with recent developments.

The prosecution's case is narrowing, suggesting a strategic approach as they assess the impact of the presented evidence.

The expectation of a final resolution in the trial is discussed, with anticipation of a potential criminal conviction.

Daily comprehensive coverage of the trial is promised to keep the audience informed as the case progresses.

Transcripts

00:00

you're watching the legal breakdown okay

00:01

so Glenn we have a blockbuster day in

00:03

Trump's New York criminal trial his

00:05

attorneys again moved for a mistrial

00:07

plus a major mistake that I think is

00:09

going to cost them with the jury we're

00:10

going to cover all of that but first

00:11

just a reminder that Glenn and I will be

00:13

doing daily comprehensive coverage of

00:14

this criminal trial in New York so if

00:16

you want to follow along please make

00:17

sure to subscribe okay Glenn first off

00:20

Trump's team wanted to preclude Karen

00:22

McDougall that's another woman he had an

00:24

affair with from testifying and the news

00:26

here is that the DA's office has

00:28

notified the defense that it will not

00:30

call Karen McDougall so it seems like a

00:32

win for the Trump team on its face it

00:34

seems like a bad development what's your

00:36

reaction to this and is this good or bad

00:39

news yeah it's actually not a win for

00:42

the Trump team it actually signals that

00:44

the prosecutors are feeling even more

00:47

confident about their case after the

00:50

testimony of Stormy Daniels concluded so

00:53

let's unravel that you know I can't tell

00:55

you how many times during a case I was

00:57

Prosecuting Brian that I had very

01:00

lengthy witness list but as my Witnesses

01:04

began to testify one after another and I

01:07

saw that they were performing well and I

01:09

saw that the defense attorneys weren't

01:11

really able to make any inroads on

01:14

cross-examination didn't damage their

01:16

credibility you know what I started

01:18

doing I started jettisoning Witnesses

01:21

deciding I don't need to call as many

01:24

witnesses as I originally anticipated

01:27

calling so I can almost promise you that

01:31

when the prosecutors made the Tactical

01:34

decision that you know what we no longer

01:37

need the testimony of Karen McDougall

01:40

it's a sign that they believe the

01:42

quality and quantity of their evidence

01:45

is strong so this may on the surface uh

01:49

or superficially seem like a win for

01:53

team Trump I think it actually is a sign

01:56

that the prosecutors are feeling really

01:59

comfortable and confident in their case

02:02

uh this was also the Trump team's second

02:04

attempt in just so many days at uh

02:06

declaring a mistrial why do they keep

02:08

trying this move like what what do they

02:09

have to gain and and could these

02:11

desperate attempts actually hurt them

02:14

yeah so I think they're they're trying

02:15

to accomplish a couple of things one

02:18

they're still playing to the court of

02:19

public opinion every time there is a

02:21

mistrial motion made what happens

02:24

everybody starts talking about it

02:26

mainstream media picks it up and the

02:28

signal goes out

02:30

that you know something must be going

02:32

sideways in the prosecution's case

02:34

because the defense keeps moving for a

02:36

mistrial well the reality is nothing is

02:39

going sideways and you can tell that

02:42

nothing's going sideways because judge

02:44

mhan is summarily rejecting denying

02:48

mistrial motion after mistrial motion

02:51

the other reason they're making their

02:53

motions is if the defense perceives that

02:56

there is some new error that has been

02:59

made for example by judge Maran and

03:01

letting in a particular piece of

03:04

evidence well then they want to object

03:06

to it and when the objection is

03:07

overruled they want to move for a

03:09

mistrial just to preserve their ability

03:12

to argue on appeal when the mistrial is

03:15

denied you know what that was a legal

03:17

error and judge Maran should have

03:19

granted the mistrial motion so often

03:22

defense attorneys will object and will

03:24

make any number of motions for Relief

03:27

like a mistrial motion simply simply to

03:31

preserve the issue on appeal so they can

03:33

argue it in the event their client is

03:35

convicted and appeals his conviction so

03:38

you know none of this I I think is of

03:41

much consequence it is kind of part of

03:44

the trial dance that goes on in most

03:47

criminal cases mistrial motions are made

03:50

mistrial motions are denied and then the

03:53

case continues to its conclusion Glen we

03:56

heard earlier where uh Donald Trump's

03:58

attorney was risking losing credibility

04:00

with the court does doing something like

04:02

this these baseless efforts at declaring

04:05

a mistrial does that also contribute to

04:07

him losing credibility with the court or

04:09

Trump's team more broadly losing

04:10

credibility with the court potentially

04:13

if the judge believes that they are

04:15

absolutely frivolous motions and if they

04:18

become so repetitive that it's obvious

04:21

that they're not doing it for any legal

04:24

purpose but really just to you know

04:26

either maybe get it out into the court

04:28

of public opinion

04:30

that will turn a judge against the

04:32

defense attorney now judges have to

04:33

endure quite a bit Brian and they really

04:36

are not supposed to take it out on

04:39

Council even when council is sort of

04:42

performing in a less than ideal way um

04:45

but yes you can irritate a judge and the

04:48

judge already upfront told Todd blanch I

04:51

think Donald Trump's lead defense

04:53

attorney in this case you are losing all

04:56

credibility with the court that really

04:58

is like a dagger through the heart of a

05:00

criminal litigator I don't know if Todd

05:01

blanch was ever able to recover from

05:04

that but I don't think uh blanch

05:07

continuing to make frivolous mistrial

05:10

motions will help dig him out of that

05:13

credibility deficit in which he finds

05:15

himself now Trump's attorneys also made

05:18

a remark to Stormy Daniels while she was

05:20

on the stand and they were alleging that

05:22

she again was just making everything up

05:24

and that she and Trump never even had an

05:26

affair uh here's Katie Fang's tweet

05:29

Trump attorney said you changed your

05:31

story many times because you never had

05:32

an affair with President Trump stormy's

05:34

attorney objected and the objection was

05:36

sustained Glenn how in the world is

05:39

denying the most obvious part of this

05:42

case that they had an affair a smart

05:44

strategy for the Trump team because if

05:46

Trump's team is telling the truth then

05:48

that would mean Stormy Daniels is just

05:50

perjuring herself which is a felony

05:52

every single day it's not a a smart

05:56

legal strategy for the Trump team what

05:58

it is is the defense attorney catering

06:02

to an overbearing

06:05

unrealistic

06:06

micromanaging client I am quite sure we

06:10

don't know this for a fact but I would

06:12

draw the reasonable inference that Trump

06:14

told his lawyers you go hard after

06:17

stormmy Daniels berate her belittle her

06:21

call her names if you want the way I do

06:23

I call her horse face I mean that's not

06:26

going to endear Donald Trump to the jury

06:28

you know mocking woman like that um but

06:31

we've seen some New York Times reporting

06:33

about what's going on behind the scenes

06:35

Donald Trump is venting that his defense

06:37

attorneys aren't going hard enough after

06:39

Witnesses they're not being aggressive

06:41

Enough by extension they're not being

06:43

nasty enough these are not legal

06:46

strategies that the defense attorneys

06:48

are um are deploying these are the kind

06:52

of things that um a micromanaging client

06:55

who knows nothing about the tactics of a

06:58

criminal trial is telling his attorneys

07:00

to do you know I was reading some of the

07:02

accounts of the cross-examination of

07:05

stormmy Daniels and I think it's Susan

07:08

necklace is asking her things like you

07:10

know you're really good about making up

07:13

fake stories about sex on film aren't

07:15

you and she said oh I assure you the sex

07:18

was real just like what your client did

07:21

to me in that hotel room was real I mean

07:24

that kind of a comeback in a measured

07:27

tone can can really uh sting in the eyes

07:31

of the jury there was another great

07:33

exchange where the defense attorney said

07:36

to stormmy Daniels well this is not the

07:38

first time a man made a pass at you is

07:41

it she said you know what this is the

07:43

first time a man twice my age much

07:46

bigger than me with a security guard

07:49

standing outside the door made a pass at

07:52

me you know again answers like that oh

07:55

that's going to leave a mark also it it

07:57

does raise the question if if they're

08:00

contending that she's lying there is a

08:02

way for Donald Trump to put his own neck

08:04

on the line and that's just to take the

08:06

stand and testify what he's saying which

08:08

is that he never had an affair with

08:09

Stormy Daniels and yet it doesn't seem

08:11

like he's going to do that so I'm sure

08:13

the jury can infer something from that

08:15

correct no they can infer nothing from a

08:18

defendant who chooses not to testify

08:21

they cannot hold that against a

08:23

defendant in any way because every

08:24

defendant has a Fifth Amendment right

08:27

not to testify not to incriminate

08:29

himself um but they will be drawing

08:32

conclusions if um the testimony of

08:35

stormmy Daniels is largely unrebutted

08:37

right under oath she said over the

08:40

course of seven hours you bet I had this

08:42

encounter with Donald Trump um and there

08:45

were some phone records backing up the

08:47

fact that um she had Trump's phone

08:49

number and Trump's assistant had her

08:52

phone number um but they're going

08:54

they're going to be drawing conclusions

08:56

about Stormy Daniels credibility and

08:58

about what actually happened but the one

09:01

thing they can't do is say well we

09:03

didn't hear from Donald Trump during the

09:05

course of the trial so we're going to

09:07

hold that against him because you know

09:09

listen I defend everybody's right

09:12

against self-incrimination and not

09:14

having their decision to decline to

09:16

testify held against them but that

09:18

doesn't change the fact that

09:20

atmospherically when you have somebody

09:22

who's saying something happened and then

09:23

just a complete vacuum on the other side

09:26

that it doesn't help Trump's testimony

09:28

does it no it doesn't and you know here

09:31

are a couple of other things to to

09:33

consider there's a saying in the law

09:35

it's actually a Latin phrase race ipsa

09:38

loiter translation the thing speaks for

09:41

itself what is the thing Donald Trump

09:45

paid Stormy Daniels

09:48

$130,000 to shut her up so she wouldn't

09:51

tell the story about what happened in

09:54

that hotel room you can bet the jurors

09:58

aren't foolish enough to believe Donald

10:01

Trump paid her

10:03

$130,000 because she was going to make

10:05

up an encounter with Donald Trump that

10:07

doesn't make any sense um here's here's

10:10

another thing this may sound too cute by

10:12

half but if you really want to call a

10:14

witness to rebut what stormy Daniel said

10:17

how about you put Melania on the stand

10:20

here's why I say that recall that stormy

10:22

Daniel said during the encounter in the

10:24

hotel room with Donald Trump the subject

10:27

of Donald Trump's wife came up

10:29

and what did Donald Trump tell Stormy

10:32

Daniels according to her testimony he

10:34

said don't worry about her we sleep in

10:37

separate bedrooms oh well if Stormy

10:40

Daniels is making that up then Donald

10:42

Trump could call to the stand Melania

10:45

and she could testify no we slept in the

10:48

same bedroom so obviously Stormy Daniels

10:51

is making that up the I think Donald

10:53

Trump is going to call Melania to try to

10:57

rebut or undercut the credibility of

10:59

Stormy Daniels I think so probably not

11:02

probably not now the the Trump team also

11:04

tried to amend the gag order now that

11:06

stormmy Daniels testimony had concluded

11:09

and that was to let him be able to speak

11:11

freely about her which is Trump speak

11:13

for attack her uh this was uh sarily

11:17

rejected by the judge he he ordered that

11:19

he wouldn't modify the gag order and he

11:21

cited how Witnesses who've not yet

11:23

testified would see how Witnesses who

11:25

had testified would be treated

11:27

afterwards uh his his uh judge michan's

11:30

quote was your client's track record

11:32

speaks for itself can I have your

11:33

response to that yeah can you imagine if

11:37

judge Maran said you know what I'm going

11:39

to prohibit Donald Trump from attacking

11:42

Witnesses until they complete their

11:44

testimony and then Donald Trump can

11:47

retaliate for the fact that they

11:50

testified against him it sort of defeats

11:53

the purpose of a gag order right isn't

11:55

the whole point so that preventing him

11:57

from being able to attack Witnesses

11:58

wouldn't uh wouldn't allow him to impune

12:01

the Integrity of the trial or or uh or

12:03

or put in Jeopardy the Integrity of this

12:05

trial by preventing these people from

12:07

coming forward to testify isn't allowing

12:09

him to just retaliate against these

12:11

Witnesses after the fact the exact same

12:14

thing as allowing him to attack them

12:15

beforehand doesn't it still prevent

12:17

these people from wanting to come

12:18

forward knowing that whether it's before

12:20

or after they would still be attacked

12:23

yeah to preserve the due administration

12:25

of justice to keep this kind of stuff

12:28

from leak into the jury box and

12:30

infecting the jury's deliberations you

12:33

know the judge is making the exact right

12:35

call no Donald you can't attack

12:38

Witnesses before during or after their

12:42

testimony and I think you know a sure

12:44

sign that this was an easy call for

12:46

judge Maran when the defense said well

12:48

Stormy Daniels is done testifying so we

12:51

want the gag order modified so Donald

12:54

Trump can now attack her for what she

12:56

said I mean I I don't think it took much

12:59

time at least based on what I can glean

13:01

from the reporting between the time the

13:03

defense made that motion or renewed the

13:06

motion to modify the gag order and the

13:08

time that judge Maran shot it down no it

13:10

was just a just a few minutes so it

13:12

didn't didn't seem like judge mshan had

13:14

to dig real deep for this one uh finally

13:16

let's finish off with this now that uh

13:18

we've had a few Witnesses uh complete

13:20

their testimony where are we at in terms

13:21

of this trial and how long do you expect

13:23

that the remainder of the witness uh the

13:26

witness testimonies and the cross-

13:27

examinations are going to take yes so

13:29

it's interesting just a couple of days

13:31

ago the prosecution team said they're

13:33

intending to wrap up their presentation

13:35

of the evidence what we call the

13:37

government's case in Chief within two

13:39

weeks now given the McDougall

13:41

development it very may very well be

13:44

that they're going to be done early next

13:46

week so it does feel like things are

13:49

accelerating but let me tell you Brian

13:51

that's par for the course in so many

13:53

criminal trials as prosecutors continue

13:56

to assess how much evidence they've

13:58

presed presented to the jury you know uh

14:01

over the course of the first several

14:03

witnesses who have testified how

14:05

persuasive it was how little damage the

14:08

defense did undermining The credibility

14:11

of those Witnesses and then as I say we

14:14

often begin jettisoning witness after

14:17

witness you know there's a saying when

14:18

you investigate the case in the grand

14:20

jury you investigate broadly but when

14:23

you get to trial you prove your case

14:25

narrowly and it sounds like the

14:27

prosecution's case is narrowing at this

14:30

point all right well we will stay on top

14:32

of this case as it continues to progress

14:34

and hopefully that's sooner rather than

14:36

later that we see a a final resolution

14:38

to this thing so that we can see a

14:40

criminal conviction uh on the horizon

14:42

here so for those watching right now if

14:43

you want to follow along please make

14:44

sure to subscribe again Glenn and I will

14:46

be doing daily comprehensive coverage of

14:47

this trial from beginning to end so

14:49

please subscribe to both of our channels

14:51

the links are right here on this screen

14:52

I'm Brian tyer Cohen and I'm Glenn

14:54

kersner you're watching the legal

14:56

breakdown

14:59

[Music]

Rate This
β˜…
β˜…
β˜…
β˜…
β˜…

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

Related Tags
Trump TrialNew YorkLegal AnalysisMistrial MotionsWitness TestimonyStormy DanielsCredibilityGag OrderCross-ExaminationJury DynamicsLegal StrategyPublic OpinionProsecution TacticsDefense Strategy