Harvard law professor says Trump’s jury ‘failed its role'

Fox Business
31 May 202413:37

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

00:00

🏛️ 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.

05:00

🗳️ 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.

10:00

🚫 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

Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, is the central figure in this video. The video discusses his conviction on 34 counts in a New York City trial and reactions to this verdict. Trump's legal challenges and their implications for his political future are a major theme.

💡Jury

The jury in Trump's trial is criticized by Alan Dershowitz for being biased and hand-picked to be anti-Trump. The discussion highlights concerns about the jury's impartiality and the fairness of the judicial process in politically charged cases.

💡Judge

The judge in Trump's trial is accused of influencing the jury and directing a guilty verdict. Specific criticisms include the judge's instructions to the jury and decisions on what evidence was allowed, suggesting a lack of fairness in the trial proceedings.

💡Weaponization of the Criminal Justice System

This concept refers to the use of legal systems for political gain. Dershowitz argues that the prosecution of Trump is an example of this, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent where political opponents are targeted through legal means.

💡Appeal

An appeal is the legal process where a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court. Trump's legal team plans to appeal the conviction, hoping that appellate courts will overturn the verdict due to procedural and substantive errors in the trial.

💡Campaign Contribution

The video discusses the allegation that Trump made an illegal campaign contribution, a central issue in his trial. The judge's handling of this charge and the exclusion of expert testimony on campaign law are highlighted as points of contention.

💡Bias

Bias in this context refers to the perceived prejudice against Trump in the judicial process. Both the jury and the judge are accused of being biased, which is argued to have compromised the fairness of the trial.

💡Civil Liberties

Civil liberties are individual rights protected by law. Dershowitz's book 'Get Trump' discusses the threat to civil liberties posed by politically motivated prosecutions, suggesting that Trump's trial undermines due process and constitutional protections.

💡Checks and Balances

Checks and balances are mechanisms that ensure no branch of government becomes too powerful. The video argues that these mechanisms failed in Trump's trial, with the jury and judge not serving as proper checks on the prosecution's power.

💡Appeal to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S., and Trump's legal team hopes to eventually bring their case there. The expectation is that the Supreme Court might reverse the conviction due to the broader legal and constitutional issues at stake.

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

00:00

.

00:00

MARIA: CONSTANTLY ON DEFENSE,

00:01

SIX YEARS LATER.

00:03

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

00:04

REACTING TO THE JURY FINDING HIM

00:05

GUILTY ON 34 COUNTS IN HIS NEW

00:07

YORK CITY TRIAL.

00:09

THE BIDEN HARRIS 2024

00:11

COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, MICHAEL

00:12

TYLER, SAYING THIS.

00:13

IN NEW YORK, WE SAW THAT NO ONE

00:15

IS ABOVE THE LAW.

00:16

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO KEEP

00:17

DONALD TRUMP OUT OF THE OVAL

00:19

OFFICE AND THAT IS AT THE BALLOT

00:20

BOX.

00:21

JOINING ME IS HARVARD LAW

00:24

PROFESSOR EMERITUS THE, AUTHOR

00:26

OF GET TRUMP, THE THREAT TO

00:27

CIVIL LIBERTIES, DUE PROCESS AND

00:29

CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW, SPOT

00:31

ON EVEN BEFORE ALL OF THIS

00:32

HAPPENED.

00:32

THERE IS THE BOOK.

00:34

ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS HERE.

00:35

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING

00:36

ME THIS MORNING.

00:37

YOU'VE SEEN THIS TRIAL UNFOLD

00:39

FIRSTHAND.

00:40

YOU HAD A FRONT ROW SEAT IN THAT

00:42

TRIAL.

00:42

YOUR REACTION TO THE VERDICT?

00:47

>> MY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT IS WITH

00:53

THE JURY.

00:53

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CHECK

00:55

AND BALANCE.

00:55

THIS JURY FAILED THE ROLE OF

00:57

CHECKING AND BALANCING.

00:59

OF COURSE THEY DID BECAUSE THEY

01:00

WERE HAND-PICKED BY THE JUDGE,

01:03

BY THE PROSECUTOR TO BE

01:05

ANTI-TRUMP.

01:05

THESE WERE GET TRUMP JURORS.

01:07

THESE WERE JURORS WHO VOTED

01:09

BETWEEN 85 TO 90% NOT TO ALLOW

01:12

TRUMP TO BE PRESIDENT AND THEY

01:13

WILL DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT HIM

01:17

FROM BEING THE PRESIDENT AND SO

01:18

THEIR VOTE WAS THE SECOND VOTE

01:21

ON NOVEMBER AGAINST HIM BEING

01:23

PRESIDENT.

01:23

IT WASN'T A VOTE ON THE FACTS OR

01:26

THE LAW OF THE CASE, THE FACTS

01:27

OF THE LAW OF THE CASE HERE ARE

01:29

N A ABSOLUTE JOKE.

01:31

THERE ISN'T A SERIOUS LAWYER IN

01:32

THE COUNTRY, DEMOCRAT OR

01:33

REPUBLICAN, WHO WOULD PRIVATELY

01:35

TELL YOU THIS WAS A LEGITIMATE

01:37

CASE.

01:37

I'M GETTING CALLS FROM FRIENDS

01:38

OF MINE WHO ARE DEMOCRATS AND

01:40

WHO ARE LIBERALS BUT WON'T SPEAK

01:42

OUT WHO SAY OF COURSE THIS IS

01:44

OUTRAGEOUS, OF COURSE THIS IS A

01:45

POLITICAL TRIAL, OF COURSE THERE

01:47

WAS NO BASIS FOR CONVICTING HIM

01:50

OF MISDEMEANOR BASED ON THE

01:52

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BUT WE'RE

01:54

THRILLED, WE'RE HAPPY, WE'RE

01:55

CHEERING FOR THE RESULT BECAUSE

01:56

THIS IS PART OF A WHOLE GET

01:58

TRUMP MENTALITY AND MAYBE IT

02:01

WILL BACKFIRE, MAYBE IT WON'T.

02:03

MAYBE IT WILL BE REVERSED ON

02:05

APPEAL OR MY WORRY IS THE

02:07

APPELLATE JUDGES ARE JUST LIKE

02:09

THE JURORS.

02:10

THEY'RE AFRAID OF COMING BACK

02:11

HOME AND BEING ACCUSED OF BEING

02:13

THE ONES WHO ALLOWED TRUMP TO

02:15

BECOME PRESIDENT.

02:16

I'M AFRAID THE YOU APPELLATE APS

02:20

WILL FALL INTO THE SAME GET

02:21

TRUMP TRAP AND WE'LL SEE NO

02:24

CHANGE IN OUR SYSTEM OF RULE OF

02:26

LAW.

02:26

MARIA: HOW MUCH OF THE

02:27

INFLUENCE CAME FROM THE JUDGE TO

02:29

BEGIN WITH?

02:30

I MEAN, I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE

02:31

LAST WEEK AND SHE SAID SHE SAW

02:33

ALL OF THE JURY SELECTION SHEETS

02:35

AND IT WAS ALL LIKE I HATE

02:37

TRUMP, I WANT HIM BEHIND BARS, I

02:39

MEAN, STUFF LIKE THAT.

02:40

WHEN THE JURY WAS SELECTED.

02:42

AND THEN JUDGE MERCHAN COMES UP

02:45

AND TELLS THEM DON'T WORRY, YOU

02:46

DON'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS ON A

02:48

SECONDARY CRIME.

02:49

CHOOSE WHATEVER YOU WANT.

02:50

PICK A CRIME AND THAT'S FINE.

02:52

IN FACT, WE KNOW IT'S SUPPOSED

02:54

TO BE UNANIMOUS.

02:55

I MEAN, THEN HE SETS TRUMP'S

02:57

SENTENCING HEARING FOR

02:59

JULY 11th, DAYS BEFORE THE

03:00

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.

03:01

SO I WANT TO GET YOUR -- YOU SAY

03:03

YOU'RE DISAPPOINTED IN THE JURY.

03:05

HOW MUCH OF THE JURY'S BEHAVIOR

03:06

WAS BECAUSE OF THE JUDGE AND

03:08

WHAT HE TOLD THEM TO DO?

03:11

>> ABSOLUTELY.

03:12

THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY A DIRECTED

03:14

VERDICT OF GUILT BY THE JUDGE,

03:16

BY GIVING THEM THE MULTIPLE

03:18

CHOICE DEFENSE, BY SAYING YOU

03:20

DON'T HAVE TO AGREE ON WHICH

03:23

CHARGES WERE THE SECONDARY

03:25

CRIMES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE

03:26

THEM BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

03:28

YOU CAN ACCEPT THE PROSECUTOR'S

03:30

ARGUMENT THAT AS A MATTER OF

03:31

FACT, THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL

03:34

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHILE

03:34

KEEPING OUT AN EXPERT WITNESS

03:36

WHO REALLY KNOWS CAMPAIGN LAW

03:38

WHO WOULD HAVE SAID NO, THIS IS

03:40

NOT AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN

03:43

CONTRIBUTION.

03:44

THE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE

03:47

DETAILED, SALACIOUS TESTIMONY OF

03:50

STORMY DANIELS, IRRELEVANT TO

03:54

THE CASE.

03:55

IT'S BEEN RULED IN THE WEINSTEIN

03:56

CASE THAT IT'S ILLEGAL.

03:59

IF THEY APPLY THE WEINSTEIN

04:01

PRECEDENT TO THE TRUMP CASE,

04:03

THEY WILL REVERSE THIS.

04:06

WILL THEY HAVE THE COURAGE TO

04:09

ALLOW DONALD TRUMP TO BE THE

04:11

NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

04:12

STATES?

04:12

THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION.

04:13

CAN GET JUSTICE IN NEW YORK?

04:16

THIS CAN'T BE AN INVITATION TO

04:19

LOCAL PROSECUTORS AROUND THE

04:20

COUNTRY WHO ARE REPUBLICANS TO

04:22

START WEAPONIZING THE CRIMINAL

04:23

JUSTICE SYSTEM AND GO AFTER

04:25

DEMOCRATS AND START BRINGING

04:26

THEM TO TRIAL IN FRONT OF JURORS

04:27

THAT ARE VERY ANTI-DEMOCRAT.

04:29

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A WAR

04:32

OF WEAPONIZATION OF THE CRIMINAL

04:34

JUSTICE SYSTEM AND IT HAS LEGAL

04:38

SYSTEMS FAIL.

04:39

OUR SYSTEMS OF CHECKS AND

04:41

BALANCES WHICH IS THE GREAT

04:42

CONTRIBUTION THAT THE AMERICAN

04:44

CONSTITUTION MADE FAILED

04:46

YESTERDAY AND WE GET MORE -- ON

04:49

MY SHOW, I GIVE OUT BANANAS.

04:52

WE'RE UP TO EIGHT BANANAS OUT OF

04:54

10 ON A BANANA REPUBLIC.

04:57

WE LOST OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND

04:59

BALANCES YESTERDAY.

05:00

MARIA: I LIKE THE FACT YOU GIVE

05:01

OUT BANANAS.

05:02

IT'S SPOT-ON.

05:03

LET ME GET YOUR TAKE ON WHAT WE

05:04

HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND

05:06

THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN EARLIER THIS

05:07

WEEK BECAUSE REMEMBER WHEN WE

05:09

WERE ALL WAITING FOR A VERDICT,

05:12

THE CAMPAIGN COMES OUT AND THEY

05:13

SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE

05:16

PRESIDENT BIDEN MAKE A STATEMENT

05:17

AFTER THE VERDICT IS OUT, HE'S

05:18

GOING TO DO IT FROM THE WHITE

05:20

HOUSE SO IT DOESN'T LOOK

05:22

POLITICAL.

05:22

YEAH, RIGHT.

05:23

AND THEN THEY SAY IF HE IS

05:25

ACQUITTED, IF IT'S A HUNG JURY,

05:27

WE ARE PLANNING ATTACKS ON

05:30

PRESIDENT TRUMP.

05:30

I MEAN, WHEN I READ THAT, I WAS

05:33

SO TAKEN ABACK, I THOUGHT COULD

05:35

THIS ACTUALLY BE TRUE?

05:36

ARE THEY ADMITTING THAT THEY ARE

05:39

INTIMIDATING PEOPLE RIGHT NOW

05:40

EVEN BEFORE -- I MEAN, HOW MUCH

05:42

OF THAT INTIMIDATED THE JURY, DO

05:44

YOU THINK?

05:44

>> WELL, I THINK THE JURY WAS

05:46

VERY MUCH INTIMIDATED EVEN

05:48

THOUGH THEY WERE ANONYMOUS.

05:50

THE JUDGE WAS INTIMIDATED.

05:52

NOBODY WANTS TO BE DERSHOWITZ.

05:54

THAT MEANS BEING VERY POP OF

05:55

LATER IN PLACES LIKE MARTHA'S

05:57

VINEYARD AND HARVARD, THEN

05:59

DEFENDING PRESIDENT TRUMP ON

06:00

CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS AND BEING

06:02

COMPLETELY CANCELED SO NO ONE

06:05

WILL TALK TO YOU, YOUR FAMILY

06:07

MEMBERS, YOUR WIFE.

06:09

EVERY JUROR UNDERSTANDS THAT.

06:10

EVERY JUDGE UNDERSTANDS THAT.

06:12

IF YOU'RE PERCEIVED AS DOING

06:14

ANYTHING IN FAVOR OF TRUMP IN A

06:16

CITY LIKE NEW YORK, PARTICULARLY

06:18

MANHATTAN, YOUR LIFE IS OVER AND

06:20

EVERY JUROR UNDERSTOOD THAT,

06:21

EVERY JUDGE UNDERSTOOD THAT.

06:23

UNDERJUROR GOT OUT OF THE CASE

06:24

SAYING I CAN'T STAND THE IDEA

06:26

THAT I'LL BE DISCRIMINATED

06:29

AGAINST IF I VOTE FOR TRUMP.

06:31

THIS CASE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN

06:32

HELD IN M MANHATTAN, SHOULD HAVE

06:34

BEEN HELD IN STATEN ISLAND OR

06:37

ROCKLAND COUNTY, SHOULD HAVE

06:39

BEEN HELD AFTER THE ELECTION,

06:40

NOT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

06:41

EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH THIS

06:42

CASE, EVERYTHING THAT AMERICA

06:45

STANDS FOR WAS VIOLATED BY THIS.

06:47

MARIA: THAT IS SO TERRIBLE WHAT

06:49

YOU SAID AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT

06:50

SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN SOME

06:52

PLACE LIKE STATEN ISLAND WHERE

06:53

WE KNEW THAT MAYBE WE COULD GET

06:55

A SHOT AT SOME FAIRNESS.

06:57

WILL SCHARF IS THE TRUMP

07:01

APPELLATE TEAM ATTORNEY, HE

07:02

JOINED SPECIAL REPORT LAST

07:03

NIGHT.

07:03

HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.

07:05

WATCH.

07:05

>> THIS CASE IS REPLETE WITH

07:08

REVERSIBLE ERROR, GOING BACK TO

07:09

THE VERY FIRST DAY, CONTINUING

07:11

THROUGH JURY INSTRUCTIONS, EVERY

07:13

ASPECT OF THIS CASE IS RIPE FOR

07:16

APPEAL.

07:16

WE ARE GOING TO AAPPEAL AS QUICK

07:18

CANNILY AS WE CAN.

07:19

WE WILL SEEK EXPEDITED REVIEW OF

07:21

THIS CASE AND WE'RE GOING TO

07:23

TRUST THAT THE APPELLATE COURTS

07:25

IN NEW YORK UNDERSTAND THE

07:27

DANGEROUS PANDORAS BOX THAT THIS

07:30

LAWLESS JUDGMENT HAS OPENED AND

07:32

THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE FOB

07:33

SHALE RAMIFICATIONS -- POTENTIAL

07:36

RAMIFICATION TOSS THE OUR LEGAL

07:37

SYSTEM.

07:38

MARIA: ONE QUESTION, WHAT

07:39

SHOULD THE TRUMP TEAM DO NOW?

07:40

THEY'VE GOT 30 DAYS TO APPEAL

07:42

AND ALSO WHAT ABOUT THE SUPREME

07:44

COURT?

07:44

HOW MUCH IS SCOTUS FOCUSED ON

07:47

THIS AS THEY DEBATE AND

07:50

DELIBERATE OVER THE POTENTIAL

07:51

FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY ON THE

07:53

JANUARY 6th CASE.

07:54

>> SURE.

07:55

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WILL SCHARF

07:56

IS A VERY GOOD LAWYER, GLAD HE'S

07:58

STAYING ON THE TEAM.

07:59

I WAS NOT THRILLED WITH THE

08:00

CHIEF COUNSEL IN THIS CASE BUT

08:03

WILL SCHARF IS VERY GOOD AND

08:05

THEY NEED TO BRING ON-BOARD SOME

08:07

MORE EXPERIENCED APPELLATE

08:10

LAWYERS WHO MAYBE COULD MAKE THE

08:12

BEST OF THE RECORD IN THIS CASE

08:15

AND BRING FORWARD AN APPEAL THAT

08:17

HAS SOME CHANCE OF WINNING.

08:19

IT'S UP HILL BECAUSE OF THE

08:20

JUDGESN NEW YORK, THIS IS UP

08:23

HILL.

08:23

EVENTUALLY THIS CASE WILL GET TO

08:24

THE SUPREME COURT IF THEY TAKE

08:26

IT.

08:27

IT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY REVERSE

08:29

THE CONVICTION BUT THAT MIGHT BE

08:30

AFTER THE ELECTION SO IT WILL BE

08:32

ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

08:33

THERE SHOULD BE AN EXPEDITED

08:35

APPEAL.

08:35

THEY THEY SHOULD TRY TO GET THIS

08:37

CASE UP TO THE NEW YORK COURT OF

08:39

APPEALS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND

08:40

THEN TO THE UNITED STATES

08:41

SUPREME COURT BUT YOU NEED

08:43

EXPERIENCED APPELLATE LAWYERS,

08:45

PARTICULARLY EXPERIENCED IN NEW

08:46

YORK LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO WON

08:51

THE WEINSTEIN CASE SHOULD BE

08:52

BROUGHT ON IMMEDIATELY.

08:55

HE UNDERSTANDS THE LAW OF NEW

08:56

YORK AND HE HAS A WINNING RECORD

08:58

IN NEW YORK AND YOU ALWAYS NEED

09:00

NEW EYES AFTER A LOSS LIKE THIS.

09:03

THERE'S SOME GOOD MEMBERS OF THE

09:07

TEAM, THE TEAM OF LAWYERS, BUT

09:08

THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE --

09:11

SHOULD BE REPLACED AND I HOPE

09:14

THEY'LL DO THAT AND PUT TOGETHER

09:16

A GREAT TEAM BECAUSE IT'S VERY,

09:18

VERY IMPORTANT THAT THIS APPEAL

09:19

BE WON, NOT ONLY FOR DONALD

09:20

TRUMP, BUT FOR EVERY CITIZEN OF

09:24

THE UNITED STATES.

09:26

THIS PROSECUTION --

09:27

MARIA: THIS PROSECUTION WHAT?

09:30

>> HAS TO BE REBUKED, HAS THOSE

09:34

BE REVERSED.

09:34

-- HAS TO BE REVERSED.

09:36

FROM JUDGES TO PROSECUTORS, YOU

09:38

CAN'T BRING THESE KINDS OF

09:39

CASES, EVEN IF YOU WIN THEM IN

09:41

FRONT OF THE JURY, THE LAW IS

09:42

AGAINST YOU.

09:43

THE FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU.

09:45

JUSTICE IS AGAINST YOU.

09:46

MARIA: YEAH.

09:47

>> AND JUST BECAUSE THEY WON

09:49

DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A STRONG CASE.

09:51

WORST THING ABOUT THE CASE IS

09:52

THAT IT'S SUCH A WEAK CASE AND

09:54

IT STILL WON IN NEW YORK.

09:54

MARIA: YEAH.

09:55

WHAT ARE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT

09:57

ARE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP RIGHT

09:58

NOW?

09:58

IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT HIS

10:00

CAMPAIGN?

10:00

CAN HE TRAVEL?

10:01

CAN HE LEAVE THE STATE?

10:03

DID TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL

10:05

CONVENTION?

10:05

WHAT SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT

10:08

THE RESTRICTIONS THAT'S A

10:10

CONVICTION BRINGS?

10:10

>> I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY

10:12

RESTRICTIONSES AT THE MOMENT.

10:15

ONCE HE'S SENTENCED, THERE COULD

10:17

BE.

10:17

HE'LL MOVE TO STAY THE SENTENCE.

10:19

IF THEY DO MOVE THE CONVENTION

10:20

UP TO JULY 4th AS THE PREVIOUS

10:23

GUEST SAID, THEN WE'LL HAVE A

10:24

SENTENCE BEFORE THE CONVENTION

10:26

SO THAT'S AN IDEA WHICH IS A

10:28

MIXED BLESSING.

10:29

HE HAS TO CONTINUE WITH -- HE NO

10:33

LONGER HAS THE PRESUMPTION OF

10:39

INNOCENCE.

10:39

HE'S INNOCENT AS A MATTER OF

10:41

LAW, AS A MATTER OF FACT.

10:43

THE FACT THAT A COMPLETELY

10:45

BIASED JURY SELECT R&D BY A

10:47

COMPLETELY BIASED JUDGE

10:49

CONVICTED HIM SHOULDN'T CHANGE

10:51

THE ATTITUDE TOWARD HIM.

10:52

THE CASE SHOULD BE IGNORED.

10:54

THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE IGNORED

10:55

BY ANY REASONABLE THINKING

10:59

PERSON AND ANY THINKING

11:00

REASONABLE JUDGE SHOULD REVERSE

11:01

IT ON APPEAL.

11:02

MARIA: BY THE WAY, YOU SAID HE

11:04

NO LONGER HA HAS THE PRESUMPTION

11:06

OF INNOCENCE.

11:06

I THINK HE HAD THE PRESUMPTION

11:08

OF INNOCENCE GOING IN, OKAY.

11:09

EVEN BEFORE THE JURORS SAT DOWN

11:11

IN THEIR SEATS I DON'T THINK

11:12

THERE WAS ANY PRESUMPTION OF,

11:16

YOU KNOW, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN

11:22

GUILTY.

11:22

WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS TO

11:24

MICHAEL COHEN?

11:27

COULD HE BE CHARGED WITH PERJURY

11:29

AGAIN.

11:30

WE LEARNED HE ACTUALLY STOLE

11:31

MONEY FROM TRUMP.

11:35

$60,000 HE STOPPLE FROM TRUMP

11:36

AND -- HE STOLE FROM TRUMP AND

11:38

ADMITTED IT ON THE STAND.

11:39

>> HE'S A HERO IN NEW YORK NOW.

11:41

HE WILL BE PRAISED.

11:42

HE'LL PROBABLY GET A TELEVISION

11:43

SHOW AND HE LIED.

11:44

HE LOOKED IN THE PUBLIC --

11:47

LOOKED AT THE PUBLIC AND SAID I

11:49

HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST

11:49

INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE

11:51

CAMES HE WAS DANCING YESTERDAY,

11:53

JUMPING UP AND DOWN WITH JOY.

11:54

HE HAS TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL

11:55

INTEREST IN THE CASE.

11:56

MARIA: COULD HE BE CHARGED WITH

12:00

PERJURY AGAIN?

12:01

>> HE COULD BE CHARGED WITH

12:03

PERJURY BUT HE WON'T BE.

12:04

BECAUSE THIS IS GET TRUMP, THIS