Legal analysts debated the nuances of the actual trial that is forthcoming in Miami with former President Donald Trump.
Former top prosecutor for Robert Mueller's team, Andrew Weissmann, noted how unusual it is to see such a high-profile case without high-profile lawyers to match.
"I think there's a very good reason for that. One instance is that, if you look at the charges here, you have a former president being accused of trying to get his lawyers to commit a crime for him, in terms of obstruction of justice," said Weissmann. "That's not unique to these charges. Having been on the Mueller investigation, Volume II was all about [former White House counsel] Don McGahn and his being asked to submit a fake affidavit. Then you have [former White House counsel] Pat Cipollone testifying he was not willing to go along with a fake insurrection."
The next name he mentioned was Michael Cohen, who ultimately took the fall for Trump in the hush money case involving adult film star Stormy Daniels.
"As he has said under oath, he committed for the former president," Weissmann noted. "If you're being asked to represent him, there are four people you can look at on record where you know what you're getting into, which is you better have a really stiff backbone."
Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg explained that any lawyer would see Trump as a client that tends to do and say whatever he wants, believing that he knows better.
"Any good defense attorney is going to tell her client who is under indictment not to talk to the press, not to talk to friends or family about the case, not to talk," said Rosenberg. "That's not an easy thing to do with Mr. Trump. He's inclined to talk. By the way, he's running for president, so we should expect he'll talk often. Here's the problem for him. One, he continues to say things about the case that help prosecutors prove intent in a court of law. He's already done that, and some of those excerpts are in the indictment, and they're helpful to the government. The second is he continues to make contradictory statements. Mr. Trump is not well acquainted with the truth. The more he speaks, the more he speaks in contradictory terms. Should there be a trial, and if he gets on the stand, those contradictory statements, and there are lots of them, are fodder for cross-examination. A good defense attorney tells her client not to talk."
A former federal prosecutor and University of Alabama Law Professor Joyce Vance also said that these lawyers are hamstrung into two different legal strategies, both of which have merits. One is trying the case like a normal attorney would. The other is the more dramatic "witch hunt" strategy attacking the Justice Department and making Trump into a political victim. The battle will be between which is likely the best option and the option that Trump wants to see.
"Ultimately what you need is just one juror," said MSNBC host Katy Tur.
"There are merits to both of those strategies on the defense side of the house, relative benefits, and also some downside to both of them," said Vance. "As Chuck points out, the most important thing you have to do before you can map out a strategy is to get some sort of client control here. You've got to staunch the bleeding that Trump is doing by contradicting himself, by confessing. At this point, the government will be able to put together much of its case on audio tape and video tape and play for the jury the evidence that they need to establish. Many of these crimes come to the jury out of Trump's own mouth. That's the first thing the team will have to deal with."
See the full conversation among the legal experts below or at the link here.
Legal analysts debate whether Trump will want traditional legal strategy or 'witch hunt' battleyoutu.be
