>>> WE ARE EXACTLY TWO WEEKS OUT
FROM THE SCHEDULED START OF
DONALD TRUMP’S FIRST, POSSIBLY
ONLY CRIMINAL TRIAL, IT’S THE
ONE IN NEW YORK, AND THE
EX-PRESIDENT SEEKING TO DERAIL
IT AND DELAY IT BY ANY AND ALL
MEANS POSSIBLE.
IN COURT DOCUMENTS FILED TODAY
HIS LAWYERS ARGUED THAT
MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ALVIN BRAGG’S CASE AGAINST
DONALD TRUMP SHOULD BE PAUSED
UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT WEIGHS
IN ON THE SCOPE OF HIS SO-CALLED
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY.
THEY ARE SET TO HEAR ARGUMENTS
ON THAT ISSUE ON APRIL 25th.
TRUMP’S LAWYERS ARGUE THAT
PROSECUTORS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT
THEY WILL INTRODUCE, QUOTE,
SEVERAL TYPES OF EVIDENCE THAT
IMPLICATE THE CONCEPT OF
OFFICIAL ACTS FOR PURPOSES OF
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY.
PART OF THE POTENTIAL EVIDENCE
THAT THEY ARGUE SHOULD BE
PRECLUDED FROM BEING USED AT
TRIAL INCLUDE TRUMP’S PUBLIC
STATEMENTS ABOUT MICHAEL COHEN
BECAUSE, THEY ARGUE, HE MADE
THOSE STATEMENTS IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT.
WE’RE BACK WITH ANDREW, LISA AND
DONNA.
LISA, TRANSLATE.
>> THIS IS A HAIL MARY TO END
ALL HAIL MARYS.
WE’VE GOT JURY SELECTION
STARTING IN TWO WEEKS.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, NICOLLE, I
JUST WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK
AND LET OUR VIEWERS KNOW, DONALD
TRUMP WAIVED AN IMMUNITY DEFENSE
IN THIS CASE MONTHS AND MONTHS
AND MONTHS AGO.
HE TRIED TO FLOAT IT IN TRYING
TO GET HIS CASE REMOVED TO
FEDERAL COURT.
IT WAS SOUNDLY REJECTED BY A
FEDERAL JUDGE.
HE INITIALLY TRIED TO APPEAL.
AND WHEN HE REALIZED THAT THAT
APPEAL WOULD CONFLICT WITH
ARGUMENTS HE WAS ADVANCING IN
THE 14th AMENDMENT CASES HE
WITHDREW THAT APPEAL LAST
NOVEMBER.
AND NOW SUDDENLY TWO WEEKS UNTIL
THE START OF JURY SELECTION HE’S
NOT SAYING HE’S IMMUNE FROM THE
ENTIRE SUIT BECAUSE HE KNOWS
HE’S WAIVED THAT ARGUMENT.
WHAT HE’S SAYING IS BECAUSE THE
STATE INTENDS TO INTRODUCE
EVIDENCE ABOUT STATEMENTS THAT
HE MADE WHEN HE WAS ALREADY
PRESIDENT THIS COURT SHOULD WAIT
TO HEAR THE SCOPE OF HIS
IMMUNITY DEFENSE IF ANY.
WE KNOW THAT ORAL ARGUMENT IS
NOT UNTIL APRIL 25th.
THERE IS NO VALID PRESIDENTIAL
IMMUNITY DEFENSE AS APPLIED TO
TRUMP’S TWEETS ABOUT MICHAEL
COHEN, FOR EXAMPLE.
IN FACT, THE ENTIRE CASE IS
ABOUT PERSONAL ACTS.
THINGS THAT DONALD TRUMP DID TO
DISGUISE THE FACT THAT HE HAD
ENGAGED IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE
VIOLATIONS WITH MICHAEL COHEN
AND OTHERS INCLUDING THE FOLKS
AT THE "NATIONAL ENQUIRER."
THERE IS NOTHING OFFICIAL ABOUT
THAT.
WHEN YOU ARE ACTING IN YOUR
CAPACITY AS A CANDIDATE AND
THEREAFTER TO COVER UP WHAT YOU
DID AS A CANDIDATE, THAT’S
INHERENTLY NOT OFFICIAL.
AND YET THEY ARE MAKING THIS
HORRIBLY SPECIOUS ARGUMENT AND
AT THE SAME TIME TELLING JUDGE
AILEEN CANNON IN FLORIDA THAT
THEY NEED MORE TIME IN HER CASE.
WHY?
BECAUSE THEY’RE GOING TO TRIAL
ON MARCH 25th AS THEY ATTEMPT TO
ADJOURN IT.
THEY ARE PLAYING JUDGES OFF OF
EACH OTHER WITH A SORT OF
CASUALNESS THAT’S ALMOST
BREATHTAKING.
>> I GUESS, ANDREW, I’VE STOPPED
ASKING WHY THEY DO IT BECAUSE
IT’S CLEAR THAT IT’S WORKING.
WILL THIS WORK?
>> I AGREE WITH YOU, THIS IS ONE
WHERE -- YOU KNOW, AS DEFENSE
COUNSEL IF THERE’S LIKE A 1%
CHANCE THAT SOMETHING MIGHT
WORK, ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE A
GOOD FAITH BASIS, YOU MAY MAKE
THE ARGUMENT.
WITH JUDGE CANNON IT’S WORKING.
WITH THE SUPREME COURT IT IS
WORKING.
I DO NOT THINK IT WILL WORK WITH
JUDGE MERCHANT.
THAT IS THE JUDGE WHO’S
OVERSEEING THE NEW YORK CRIMINAL
CASE.
BUT I’M SURE THEY’RE GOING TO
APPEAL HIS RULING AND SEE IF
THEY CAN GET THE CASE STAYED,
WHICH JUST TO BE CLEAR IS NOT
THE ACTION OF AN INNOCENT
PERSON.
SOMEONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE WOULD
NORMALLY WANT TO CLEAR HER NAME,
WOULD NOT BE SITTING THERE
SAYING I DON’T WANT A CRIMINAL
TRIAL.
THEY’D BE SAYING I DIDN’T DO
ANYTHING WRONG AND I WANT MY DAY
IN COURT.
SO HERE YOU’VE GOT THE REVERSE.
WHETHER IT’S JACK SMITH IN THE
D.C. CASE OR THE MAR-A-LAGO CASE
OR ALVIN BRAGG IN THE NEW YORK
CASE.
THEY’RE ALL WANTING A DAY IN
COURT.
THAT’S ACTUALLY PROVIDING THE
DEFENDANT PROCESS.
THEY WANT TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT
HIS DAY IN COURT.
AND DONALD TRUMP IS SAYING WHOA,
I DON’T WANT MY DAY IN COURT, I
DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A FORUM
WHERE THE FACTS AND THE LAW WILL
MATTER, I’M HAPPY TO ENGAGE IN
ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS AND JUST
WHAT I SAY ABOUT THE CASE, I DO
NOT NEED PEOPLE TO HEAR ANY
OTHER STORY.
>> HIS PUBLIC STATEMENTS AREN’T
EVEN TO REALLY DENY THE FACTS OF
ANY OF THESE ISSUES THAT HE’S
FACING LEGALLY.
>> WELL, THIS IS WHAT WE
EXPECTED OF DONALD TRUMP AND
ESPECIALLY AS THESE CASES
EMERGED IN ALL THESE DIFFERENT
JURISDICTIONS, THAT HE WOULD USE
HIS ABILITY TO PLAY THESE CASES
OFF OF ONE ANOTHER, TO PLAY THE
JUDGES OFF OF ONE ANOTHER, AND
TO CONTINUE TO MAKE HIS ARGUMENT
PUBLIC LY
PUBLICLY BECAUSE HE KNOWS IT’S
WORKING FOR HIM POLITICALLY.
SO NO SURPRISE THERE.
BUT I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS
GOING TO BE HOW TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO GET ONE OF THESE CASES
INTO A COURTHOUSE BY -- BEFORE
THE ELECTION ROLLS AROUND.
AND IT MAY BE THIS MARCH 24th
DATE IS THE ONE TO DO THAT.
>> ANDREW, I THINK NIKKI HALEY
STARTED PUBLICLY TALKING ABOUT
THE NEED TO TRY TRUMP FOR HIS
ALLEGED CRIMES.
CHRIS CHRISTIE’S CAMPAIGN I
BELIEVE HAD SOME POLLING THAT
SHOWED THAT IF CONVICTED BY ANY
OF THESE -- IN ANY OF THESE
TRIALS THAT THE BOTTOM FALLS OUT
OF HIS SUPPORT.
YOU LOOK AT HOW HARD HE’S FOUGHT
NOT TO BE ON TRIAL ANYWHERE.
I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU -- WHAT DOES
THE SUPREME COURT SAY ITS
REASONING IT FOR HEARING, AS
LISA JUST HEARD, A SPECIOUS
LEGAL ARGUMENT ABOUT IMMUNITY?
I MEAN, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY
STEPPING INTO SOMETHING THAT
TRUMP IS TELLING ALL OF US HE
DOESN’T WANT TO HAPPEN.
HE DOESN’T WANT TO FACE ANY
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE LEGAL
SYSTEM, AS ANYBODY ELSE WOULD,
AS HIS OWN FOLLOWERS DID FOR
THEIR CRIMES ON JANUARY 6th.
WHAT IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
EQUATION SORT OF SAY TO ITSELF
OR SAY IN LAW SCHOOL LECTURES OR
IN DARK ROOMS OR, I DON’T KNOW,
WHEREVER PEOPLE LIKE THAT HANG
OUT?
>> SO THERE ARE SORT OF TWO
ISSUES.
THERE’S THE ISSUE OF THE NEW
YORK CASE AND THE MOTION THAT
WAS JUST MADE.
I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE JUDGE --
THE LOWEST COURT, THE TRIAL
COURT WILL SAY NO.
BUT THEN THERE’S THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER SOME HIGHER COURT UP TO
AND INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT
WOULD STAY THE CASE BASED ON THE
ARGUMENTS.
THESE ARE MUCH, MUCH MORE
FRIVOLOUS, AS LISA HAS POINTED
OUT.
BUT TO YOUR POINT ABOUT WHY IS
THE SUPREME COURT DOING WHAT
IT’S DOING, UNFORTUNATELY, I
THINK THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS
ALTHOUGH WHAT’S BEFORE THAT
COURT IS JUST THE ISSUE OF
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, THAT’S AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE, BUT THAT’S ONE
THAT BOTH SIDES SHOULD WANT TO
HAVE DECIDED QUICKLY.
THE WHOLE POINT OF IT BEING
HEARD NOW IS BECAUSE -- AND NOT
WAITING FOR A TRIAL IS BECAUSE
BOTH SIDES NORMALLY HAVE AN
INTEREST IN HAVING THAT DECIDED
VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT OBVIOUSLY WANTS TO
GET THROUGH THAT AND GO TO
TRIAL.
THE DEFENSE USUALLY IS SAYING --
DONALD TRUMP’S SAYING I SHOULD
NOT BE UNDER INDICTMENT AT ALL,
I SHOULD NOT HAVE A GAG ORDER
THAT’S HURTING ME FROM
CAMPAIGNING.
SO HE SHOULD WANT IT QUICKLY.
BUT I THINK WHAT HE IS DOING AND
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS
ABETTED HERE IS NOT HAVING A
TRIAL AT ALL, BY STAYING -- IS
REALLY NOT LOOKING AT THE ISSUE
BEFORE THEM BUT LOOKING AT THE
BIG PICTURE, WHICH IS NOT
ACTUALLY HAVING A FORUM TO HEAR
THIS CASE.
BUT I DO THINK WITH RESPECT TO
THE NEW YORK CASE IT IS A MUCH
HARDER ARGUMENT FOR THE SUPREME
COURT, FOR SOME FEDERAL COURT TO
STEP IN AND SAY THAT THESE
CHARGES, WHAT IS THE ACTUAL
CHARGES, DO NOT RELATE IN ANY
WAY TO CONDUCT THAT DONALD TRUMP
TOOK IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
IT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE THAT
PAYING HUSH MONEY TO A PORN STAR
TO KEEP INFORMATION FROM GETTING
TO THE PUBLIC IN A DPAN --CAMPAI
REMEMBER, THAT WAS THE GOAL, TO
GET IT OUT OF THE PUBLIC
DISCOURSE IN THE CAMPAIGN.
THAT IS NOT A PRESIDENTIAL
FUNCTION.
AND IT WILL BE VERY HARD FOR
ANYONE TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.
AND USING EVIDENCE THAT COMES
FROM A TIME FRAME THAT DONALD
TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT IS PRECLUDED JUST
BECAUSE YOU HAPPEN TO BE
PRESIDENT.
ANY MORE THAN IF HE WAS
PRESIDENT AND SAID I SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED E. JEAN CARROLL OR I
PAID HUSH MONEY TO A PORN STAR,
THE FACT THAT HE SAID IT WHILE