Harvard law professor says Trump’s jury ‘failed its role'
Summary
TLDRIn this interview, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz expresses his disappointment with the jury in former President Donald Trump's New York City trial, where Trump was found guilty on 34 counts. Dershowitz criticizes the jury selection process, suggesting the jurors were biased against Trump and politically motivated. He also accuses the judge of influencing the verdict and allowing irrelevant testimony. Dershowitz warns that this case could set a dangerous precedent for weaponizing the criminal justice system against political enemies, emphasizing the importance of an impartial judiciary for the rule of law in America.
Takeaways
- 👨⚖️ The former President Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts in a New York City trial, which Alan Dershowitz criticizes as politically motivated.
- 📊 The Biden Harris 2024 Communications Director, Michael Tyler, emphasizes that the verdict shows no one is above the law and that preventing Trump from returning to the Oval Office should be done at the ballot box.
- 🎓 Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz expresses disappointment in the jury, accusing them of being hand-picked to be anti-Trump and failing to check and balance the trial process.
- 🚫 Dershowitz argues that the case was illegitimate, with no serious lawyer believing it was legitimate, and that it was part of a 'Get Trump' mentality.
- 🤔 Concerns are raised about the influence of the judge on the jury, with suggestions that the judge's instructions and the selection process were biased against Trump.
- 🗳️ The trial's outcome is seen as potentially setting a dangerous precedent for weaponizing the criminal justice system against political enemies.
- 📆 The sentencing hearing for Trump is set for July 11th, just days before the Republican National Convention, which some see as politically timed.
- 📘 Dershowitz's book 'Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Constitutional Rule of Law' predicted the outcome of the case, suggesting it was a foregone conclusion.
- 🔄 The Trump team is expected to appeal the case, with the belief that it is full of reversible errors and that the appellate courts should understand the implications of the verdict.
- 🏛️ The Supreme Court is mentioned as a potential venue for the case, with the suggestion that it would likely reverse the conviction but possibly after the election.
- 🛡️ Dershowitz stresses the importance of fighting back against what he sees as the weaponization of the legal system and the need to adhere to the Constitution.
Q & A
What was the outcome of the trial involving former President Donald Trump?
-Former President Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts in his New York City trial.
What did Michael Tyler, the Communications Director for Biden Harris 2024, say in response to the verdict?
-Michael Tyler stated that the verdict demonstrated that no one is above the law and emphasized that the only way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office is through the ballot box.
What is Alan Dershowitz's opinion on the jury's role in the trial?
-Alan Dershowitz expressed disappointment in the jury, claiming they failed to check and balance due to being hand-picked to be anti-Trump, and that their vote was politically motivated rather than based on the facts or law of the case.
How does Dershowitz describe the facts and law of the case against Trump?
-Dershowitz considers the facts and law of the case to be a joke, stating that no serious lawyer, regardless of political affiliation, would privately argue that the case was legitimate.
What precedent does Dershowitz believe could be applied to Trump's case?
-Dershowitz refers to the Weinstein case, suggesting that if the same legal precedent is applied, the verdict against Trump could be reversed on appeal.
What influence did the judge have on the jury's decision according to Dershowitz?
-Dershowitz believes the judge essentially directed a verdict of guilt by giving the jury a multiple-choice defense, allowing them not to agree on secondary crimes, and excluding an expert witness on campaign law.
What is the significance of the judge's decision to set Trump's sentencing hearing for July 11th?
-The decision to set the sentencing hearing days before the Republican National Convention could be seen as politically motivated, potentially influencing the convention's outcome.
What does Dershowitz suggest could be the broader implications of this case?
-Dershowitz warns that this case could lead to the weaponization of the criminal justice system against political enemies, threatening the American system of checks and balances.
What is the Trump appellate team's strategy according to Will Scherf?
-Will Scherf, a member of the Trump appellate team, indicates that the case is filled with reversible errors and that they will appeal as quickly as possible, seeking expedited review.
What does Dershowitz recommend the Trump team do regarding the appeal?
-Dershowitz advises the Trump team to bring on more experienced appellate lawyers, particularly those familiar with New York law, to improve the chances of winning the appeal.
What potential restrictions might President Trump face following the conviction?
-Dershowitz does not believe there are immediate restrictions on Trump, but once sentenced, there could be. Trump would likely move to stay the sentence.
What is the potential impact on Michael Cohen following the trial's outcome?
-While Dershowitz suggests Cohen could be charged with perjury for lying in court, he believes it is unlikely due to the 'Get Trump' focus of the case rather than 'Get Cohen'.
Outlines
🏛️ Trump's Conviction and the Perceived Judicial Bias
In this segment, former President Donald Trump is found guilty on 34 counts in a New York City trial. Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz expresses his disappointment with the jury, suggesting they were biased against Trump and not focused on the facts or the law. He criticizes the jury selection process and the judge's instructions, implying that the trial was politically motivated and part of a 'Get Trump' campaign. The discussion also touches on the potential consequences for the rule of law and the weaponization of the criminal justice system against political enemies.
🗳️ Political Implications and the Appeal Process
This paragraph delves into the political ramifications of Trump's conviction, with a focus on the Biden campaign's response and the potential intimidation of the jury. The conversation suggests that the trial's timing and location were politically motivated. It also discusses the appeal process, with Trump's appellate team attorney, Will Scharf, arguing that the case is filled with reversible errors and that an expedited appeal is necessary. The discussion highlights concerns about the integrity of the legal system and the potential for election interference.
🚫 Post-Conviction Restrictions and the Future of Trump's Legal Battle
The final paragraph addresses the immediate implications of Trump's conviction, questioning whether there will be any restrictions on his activities, such as traveling or attending the Republican National Convention. It also raises the issue of Trump's loss of the presumption of innocence and the potential for Michael Cohen to face perjury charges again. The conversation emphasizes the need for a strong appeal and the importance of adhering to constitutional principles, with Dershowitz stressing the broader impact on the rule of law and the need to fight back against what he perceives as a weaponized legal system.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Donald Trump
💡Jury
💡Judge
💡Weaponization of the Criminal Justice System
💡Appeal
💡Campaign Contribution
💡Bias
💡Civil Liberties
💡Checks and Balances
💡Appeal to the Supreme Court
Highlights
Former President Donald Trump found guilty on 34 counts in his New York City trial.
Biden Harris 2024 Communications Director Michael Tyler emphasizes that no one is above the law.
Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz criticizes the jury for failing to check and balance, suggesting they were anti-Trump.
Dershowitz argues that the facts and law of the case are a joke, and no serious lawyer would consider it legitimate.
Concerns raised about the appellate judges being afraid of backlash if they allow Trump to become president.
Maria discusses the influence of the judge on the jury selection and the potential bias against Trump.
Judge Merchan's instructions to the jury are criticized for potentially influencing the verdict.
Dershowitz suggests the case should not have been held in Manhattan due to bias.
Trump's appellate team attorney Will Schaff claims the case is full of reversible errors and plans to appeal.
Dershowitz recommends bringing on more experienced appellate lawyers to handle the appeal.
Concerns about the impact of the conviction on Trump's campaign and his ability to travel or attend events.
Dershowitz argues that the conviction should be ignored by reasonable thinking persons and judges.
Discussion about Michael Cohen's potential perjury charges and his financial interest in the case outcome.
Dershowitz's book 'Get Trump' predicted the outcome of the case, highlighting the political motivations behind the indictment.
The conversation emphasizes the importance of adhering to the Constitution and fighting for the rule of law.
Transcripts
.
MARIA: CONSTANTLY ON DEFENSE,
SIX YEARS LATER.
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP
REACTING TO THE JURY FINDING HIM
GUILTY ON 34 COUNTS IN HIS NEW
YORK CITY TRIAL.
THE BIDEN HARRIS 2024
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, MICHAEL
TYLER, SAYING THIS.
IN NEW YORK, WE SAW THAT NO ONE
IS ABOVE THE LAW.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO KEEP
DONALD TRUMP OUT OF THE OVAL
OFFICE AND THAT IS AT THE BALLOT
BOX.
JOINING ME IS HARVARD LAW
PROFESSOR EMERITUS THE, AUTHOR
OF GET TRUMP, THE THREAT TO
CIVIL LIBERTIES, DUE PROCESS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW, SPOT
ON EVEN BEFORE ALL OF THIS
HAPPENED.
THERE IS THE BOOK.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING
ME THIS MORNING.
YOU'VE SEEN THIS TRIAL UNFOLD
FIRSTHAND.
YOU HAD A FRONT ROW SEAT IN THAT
TRIAL.
YOUR REACTION TO THE VERDICT?
>> MY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT IS WITH
THE JURY.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CHECK
AND BALANCE.
THIS JURY FAILED THE ROLE OF
CHECKING AND BALANCING.
OF COURSE THEY DID BECAUSE THEY
WERE HAND-PICKED BY THE JUDGE,
BY THE PROSECUTOR TO BE
ANTI-TRUMP.
THESE WERE GET TRUMP JURORS.
THESE WERE JURORS WHO VOTED
BETWEEN 85 TO 90% NOT TO ALLOW
TRUMP TO BE PRESIDENT AND THEY
WILL DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT HIM
FROM BEING THE PRESIDENT AND SO
THEIR VOTE WAS THE SECOND VOTE
ON NOVEMBER AGAINST HIM BEING
PRESIDENT.
IT WASN'T A VOTE ON THE FACTS OR
THE LAW OF THE CASE, THE FACTS
OF THE LAW OF THE CASE HERE ARE
N A ABSOLUTE JOKE.
THERE ISN'T A SERIOUS LAWYER IN
THE COUNTRY, DEMOCRAT OR
REPUBLICAN, WHO WOULD PRIVATELY
TELL YOU THIS WAS A LEGITIMATE
CASE.
I'M GETTING CALLS FROM FRIENDS
OF MINE WHO ARE DEMOCRATS AND
WHO ARE LIBERALS BUT WON'T SPEAK
OUT WHO SAY OF COURSE THIS IS
OUTRAGEOUS, OF COURSE THIS IS A
POLITICAL TRIAL, OF COURSE THERE
WAS NO BASIS FOR CONVICTING HIM
OF MISDEMEANOR BASED ON THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BUT WE'RE
THRILLED, WE'RE HAPPY, WE'RE
CHEERING FOR THE RESULT BECAUSE
THIS IS PART OF A WHOLE GET
TRUMP MENTALITY AND MAYBE IT
WILL BACKFIRE, MAYBE IT WON'T.
MAYBE IT WILL BE REVERSED ON
APPEAL OR MY WORRY IS THE
APPELLATE JUDGES ARE JUST LIKE
THE JURORS.
THEY'RE AFRAID OF COMING BACK
HOME AND BEING ACCUSED OF BEING
THE ONES WHO ALLOWED TRUMP TO
BECOME PRESIDENT.
I'M AFRAID THE YOU APPELLATE APS
WILL FALL INTO THE SAME GET
TRUMP TRAP AND WE'LL SEE NO
CHANGE IN OUR SYSTEM OF RULE OF
LAW.
MARIA: HOW MUCH OF THE
INFLUENCE CAME FROM THE JUDGE TO
BEGIN WITH?
I MEAN, I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE
LAST WEEK AND SHE SAID SHE SAW
ALL OF THE JURY SELECTION SHEETS
AND IT WAS ALL LIKE I HATE
TRUMP, I WANT HIM BEHIND BARS, I
MEAN, STUFF LIKE THAT.
WHEN THE JURY WAS SELECTED.
AND THEN JUDGE MERCHAN COMES UP
AND TELLS THEM DON'T WORRY, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS ON A
SECONDARY CRIME.
CHOOSE WHATEVER YOU WANT.
PICK A CRIME AND THAT'S FINE.
IN FACT, WE KNOW IT'S SUPPOSED
TO BE UNANIMOUS.
I MEAN, THEN HE SETS TRUMP'S
SENTENCING HEARING FOR
JULY 11th, DAYS BEFORE THE
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.
SO I WANT TO GET YOUR -- YOU SAY
YOU'RE DISAPPOINTED IN THE JURY.
HOW MUCH OF THE JURY'S BEHAVIOR
WAS BECAUSE OF THE JUDGE AND
WHAT HE TOLD THEM TO DO?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY A DIRECTED
VERDICT OF GUILT BY THE JUDGE,
BY GIVING THEM THE MULTIPLE
CHOICE DEFENSE, BY SAYING YOU
DON'T HAVE TO AGREE ON WHICH
CHARGES WERE THE SECONDARY
CRIMES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE
THEM BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
YOU CAN ACCEPT THE PROSECUTOR'S
ARGUMENT THAT AS A MATTER OF
FACT, THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHILE
KEEPING OUT AN EXPERT WITNESS
WHO REALLY KNOWS CAMPAIGN LAW
WHO WOULD HAVE SAID NO, THIS IS
NOT AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION.
THE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE
DETAILED, SALACIOUS TESTIMONY OF
STORMY DANIELS, IRRELEVANT TO
THE CASE.
IT'S BEEN RULED IN THE WEINSTEIN
CASE THAT IT'S ILLEGAL.
IF THEY APPLY THE WEINSTEIN
PRECEDENT TO THE TRUMP CASE,
THEY WILL REVERSE THIS.
WILL THEY HAVE THE COURAGE TO
ALLOW DONALD TRUMP TO BE THE
NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES?
THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION.
CAN GET JUSTICE IN NEW YORK?
THIS CAN'T BE AN INVITATION TO
LOCAL PROSECUTORS AROUND THE
COUNTRY WHO ARE REPUBLICANS TO
START WEAPONIZING THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND GO AFTER
DEMOCRATS AND START BRINGING
THEM TO TRIAL IN FRONT OF JURORS
THAT ARE VERY ANTI-DEMOCRAT.
THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A WAR
OF WEAPONIZATION OF THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND IT HAS LEGAL
SYSTEMS FAIL.
OUR SYSTEMS OF CHECKS AND
BALANCES WHICH IS THE GREAT
CONTRIBUTION THAT THE AMERICAN
CONSTITUTION MADE FAILED
YESTERDAY AND WE GET MORE -- ON
MY SHOW, I GIVE OUT BANANAS.
WE'RE UP TO EIGHT BANANAS OUT OF
10 ON A BANANA REPUBLIC.
WE LOST OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND
BALANCES YESTERDAY.
MARIA: I LIKE THE FACT YOU GIVE
OUT BANANAS.
IT'S SPOT-ON.
LET ME GET YOUR TAKE ON WHAT WE
HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND
THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN EARLIER THIS
WEEK BECAUSE REMEMBER WHEN WE
WERE ALL WAITING FOR A VERDICT,
THE CAMPAIGN COMES OUT AND THEY
SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
PRESIDENT BIDEN MAKE A STATEMENT
AFTER THE VERDICT IS OUT, HE'S
GOING TO DO IT FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE SO IT DOESN'T LOOK
POLITICAL.
YEAH, RIGHT.
AND THEN THEY SAY IF HE IS
ACQUITTED, IF IT'S A HUNG JURY,
WE ARE PLANNING ATTACKS ON
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I MEAN, WHEN I READ THAT, I WAS
SO TAKEN ABACK, I THOUGHT COULD
THIS ACTUALLY BE TRUE?
ARE THEY ADMITTING THAT THEY ARE
INTIMIDATING PEOPLE RIGHT NOW
EVEN BEFORE -- I MEAN, HOW MUCH
OF THAT INTIMIDATED THE JURY, DO
YOU THINK?
>> WELL, I THINK THE JURY WAS
VERY MUCH INTIMIDATED EVEN
THOUGH THEY WERE ANONYMOUS.
THE JUDGE WAS INTIMIDATED.
NOBODY WANTS TO BE DERSHOWITZ.
THAT MEANS BEING VERY POP OF
LATER IN PLACES LIKE MARTHA'S
VINEYARD AND HARVARD, THEN
DEFENDING PRESIDENT TRUMP ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS AND BEING
COMPLETELY CANCELED SO NO ONE
WILL TALK TO YOU, YOUR FAMILY
MEMBERS, YOUR WIFE.
EVERY JUROR UNDERSTANDS THAT.
EVERY JUDGE UNDERSTANDS THAT.
IF YOU'RE PERCEIVED AS DOING
ANYTHING IN FAVOR OF TRUMP IN A
CITY LIKE NEW YORK, PARTICULARLY
MANHATTAN, YOUR LIFE IS OVER AND
EVERY JUROR UNDERSTOOD THAT,
EVERY JUDGE UNDERSTOOD THAT.
UNDERJUROR GOT OUT OF THE CASE
SAYING I CAN'T STAND THE IDEA
THAT I'LL BE DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST IF I VOTE FOR TRUMP.
THIS CASE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN
HELD IN M MANHATTAN, SHOULD HAVE
BEEN HELD IN STATEN ISLAND OR
ROCKLAND COUNTY, SHOULD HAVE
BEEN HELD AFTER THE ELECTION,
NOT BEFORE THE ELECTION.
EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH THIS
CASE, EVERYTHING THAT AMERICA
STANDS FOR WAS VIOLATED BY THIS.
MARIA: THAT IS SO TERRIBLE WHAT
YOU SAID AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN SOME
PLACE LIKE STATEN ISLAND WHERE
WE KNEW THAT MAYBE WE COULD GET
A SHOT AT SOME FAIRNESS.
WILL SCHARF IS THE TRUMP
APPELLATE TEAM ATTORNEY, HE
JOINED SPECIAL REPORT LAST
NIGHT.
HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.
WATCH.
>> THIS CASE IS REPLETE WITH
REVERSIBLE ERROR, GOING BACK TO
THE VERY FIRST DAY, CONTINUING
THROUGH JURY INSTRUCTIONS, EVERY
ASPECT OF THIS CASE IS RIPE FOR
APPEAL.
WE ARE GOING TO AAPPEAL AS QUICK
CANNILY AS WE CAN.
WE WILL SEEK EXPEDITED REVIEW OF
THIS CASE AND WE'RE GOING TO
TRUST THAT THE APPELLATE COURTS
IN NEW YORK UNDERSTAND THE
DANGEROUS PANDORAS BOX THAT THIS
LAWLESS JUDGMENT HAS OPENED AND
THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE FOB
SHALE RAMIFICATIONS -- POTENTIAL
RAMIFICATION TOSS THE OUR LEGAL
SYSTEM.
MARIA: ONE QUESTION, WHAT
SHOULD THE TRUMP TEAM DO NOW?
THEY'VE GOT 30 DAYS TO APPEAL
AND ALSO WHAT ABOUT THE SUPREME
COURT?
HOW MUCH IS SCOTUS FOCUSED ON
THIS AS THEY DEBATE AND
DELIBERATE OVER THE POTENTIAL
FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY ON THE
JANUARY 6th CASE.
>> SURE.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WILL SCHARF
IS A VERY GOOD LAWYER, GLAD HE'S
STAYING ON THE TEAM.
I WAS NOT THRILLED WITH THE
CHIEF COUNSEL IN THIS CASE BUT
WILL SCHARF IS VERY GOOD AND
THEY NEED TO BRING ON-BOARD SOME
MORE EXPERIENCED APPELLATE
LAWYERS WHO MAYBE COULD MAKE THE
BEST OF THE RECORD IN THIS CASE
AND BRING FORWARD AN APPEAL THAT
HAS SOME CHANCE OF WINNING.
IT'S UP HILL BECAUSE OF THE
JUDGESN NEW YORK, THIS IS UP
HILL.
EVENTUALLY THIS CASE WILL GET TO
THE SUPREME COURT IF THEY TAKE
IT.
IT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY REVERSE
THE CONVICTION BUT THAT MIGHT BE
AFTER THE ELECTION SO IT WILL BE
ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
THERE SHOULD BE AN EXPEDITED
APPEAL.
THEY THEY SHOULD TRY TO GET THIS
CASE UP TO THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND
THEN TO THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT BUT YOU NEED
EXPERIENCED APPELLATE LAWYERS,
PARTICULARLY EXPERIENCED IN NEW
YORK LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO WON
THE WEINSTEIN CASE SHOULD BE
BROUGHT ON IMMEDIATELY.
HE UNDERSTANDS THE LAW OF NEW
YORK AND HE HAS A WINNING RECORD
IN NEW YORK AND YOU ALWAYS NEED
NEW EYES AFTER A LOSS LIKE THIS.
THERE'S SOME GOOD MEMBERS OF THE
TEAM, THE TEAM OF LAWYERS, BUT
THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE --
SHOULD BE REPLACED AND I HOPE
THEY'LL DO THAT AND PUT TOGETHER
A GREAT TEAM BECAUSE IT'S VERY,
VERY IMPORTANT THAT THIS APPEAL
BE WON, NOT ONLY FOR DONALD
TRUMP, BUT FOR EVERY CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES.
THIS PROSECUTION --
MARIA: THIS PROSECUTION WHAT?
>> HAS TO BE REBUKED, HAS THOSE
BE REVERSED.
-- HAS TO BE REVERSED.
FROM JUDGES TO PROSECUTORS, YOU
CAN'T BRING THESE KINDS OF
CASES, EVEN IF YOU WIN THEM IN
FRONT OF THE JURY, THE LAW IS
AGAINST YOU.
THE FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU.
JUSTICE IS AGAINST YOU.
MARIA: YEAH.
>> AND JUST BECAUSE THEY WON
DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A STRONG CASE.
WORST THING ABOUT THE CASE IS
THAT IT'S SUCH A WEAK CASE AND
IT STILL WON IN NEW YORK.
MARIA: YEAH.
WHAT ARE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT
ARE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP RIGHT
NOW?
IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT HIS
CAMPAIGN?
CAN HE TRAVEL?
CAN HE LEAVE THE STATE?
DID TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
CONVENTION?
WHAT SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT
THE RESTRICTIONS THAT'S A
CONVICTION BRINGS?
>> I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY
RESTRICTIONSES AT THE MOMENT.
ONCE HE'S SENTENCED, THERE COULD
BE.
HE'LL MOVE TO STAY THE SENTENCE.
IF THEY DO MOVE THE CONVENTION
UP TO JULY 4th AS THE PREVIOUS
GUEST SAID, THEN WE'LL HAVE A
SENTENCE BEFORE THE CONVENTION
SO THAT'S AN IDEA WHICH IS A
MIXED BLESSING.
HE HAS TO CONTINUE WITH -- HE NO
LONGER HAS THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE.
HE'S INNOCENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW, AS A MATTER OF FACT.
THE FACT THAT A COMPLETELY
BIASED JURY SELECT R&D BY A
COMPLETELY BIASED JUDGE
CONVICTED HIM SHOULDN'T CHANGE
THE ATTITUDE TOWARD HIM.
THE CASE SHOULD BE IGNORED.
THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE IGNORED
BY ANY REASONABLE THINKING
PERSON AND ANY THINKING
REASONABLE JUDGE SHOULD REVERSE
IT ON APPEAL.
MARIA: BY THE WAY, YOU SAID HE
NO LONGER HA HAS THE PRESUMPTION
OF INNOCENCE.
I THINK HE HAD THE PRESUMPTION
OF INNOCENCE GOING IN, OKAY.
EVEN BEFORE THE JURORS SAT DOWN
IN THEIR SEATS I DON'T THINK
THERE WAS ANY PRESUMPTION OF,
YOU KNOW, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS TO
MICHAEL COHEN?
COULD HE BE CHARGED WITH PERJURY
AGAIN.
WE LEARNED HE ACTUALLY STOLE
MONEY FROM TRUMP.
$60,000 HE STOPPLE FROM TRUMP
AND -- HE STOLE FROM TRUMP AND
ADMITTED IT ON THE STAND.
>> HE'S A HERO IN NEW YORK NOW.
HE WILL BE PRAISED.
HE'LL PROBABLY GET A TELEVISION
SHOW AND HE LIED.
HE LOOKED IN THE PUBLIC --
LOOKED AT THE PUBLIC AND SAID I
HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST
INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE
CAMES HE WAS DANCING YESTERDAY,
JUMPING UP AND DOWN WITH JOY.
HE HAS TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL
INTEREST IN THE CASE.
MARIA: COULD HE BE CHARGED WITH
PERJURY AGAIN?
>> HE COULD BE CHARGED WITH
PERJURY BUT HE WON'T BE.
BECAUSE THIS IS GET TRUMP, THIS