May 2, 2024 • 43 mins
Discover the inner workings of the legal system as we navigate the turbulent waters of Donald Trump's Manhattan trial with former prosecutor Eric Lisann.
Follow Eric @twitter.com/ericlisann
This episode peels back the layers of complex legal strategies and the spectacle of courtroom drama. We explore how Trump's repeated contempt charges for violating a gag order could reshape the judicial landscape, with Eric providing his seasoned perspective on the rare nature of such violations and their ramifications. The balance between legal proceedings and the political narrative becomes a focal point, as we address the court's measured response to Trump's defiance without stoking the fires of his fervent support base.
Turn the page to a chapter where storytelling in the courtroom takes center stage; this isn't just about the dry recitation of facts but the art of persuasion. With Eric's insight, we scrutinize the roles that Michael Cohen and David Pecker play in Trump's legal saga, their testimonies potentially pivoting misdemeanors into felonies. Amidst the serious legal discussions, we share a lighter moment, musing over "Don Snorleone" and the image of courtroom drowsiness in the political theater. Yet, we quickly return to the gravity of the situation, considering the implications of a defendant's lack of engagement for the judge and jury and what that might signal about their view of the legal process.
Our final act traverses the broader investigations into Trump's affairs by the Southern District of New York. The narrative unfolds to expose the undercurrents of political influence within the Department of Justice, casting a long shadow over the pursuit of justice. As we bid farewell to Eric Lasan and his invaluable contributions, the episode extends an invitation to join us in further dialogues across the social media sphere. We're not just here to discuss; we're here to connect and enrich the conversation with our community of listeners, eager for the next chapter in this unfolding political and legal drama.
Support the show:
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2003879/support
Follow our show's hosts on
Twitter:
twitter.com/@CoolTXchick
twitter.com/@Caroldedwine
twitter.com/taradublinrocks
twitter.com/blackknight10k
twitter.com/@pardonpod
Find Tara's book here:
Taradublinrocks.com
Find Ty's book here:
Consequence of Choice
Subscribe to Tara's substack:
taradublin.substack.com
Subscribe to Ty's substack:
https://theworldasiseeit.substack.com/
Support Our Sponsor: Sheets & Giggles
Eucalyptus Sheets (Recommended):
Sleep Mask (I use this every night)
Eucalyptus Comfortor
...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
one, two, three, four , hi.
This is d night and I amspeaking to former prosecutor
eric lasan.
I'd like to welcome him to theshow.
Uh, he is going to be providingus some information and some
analysis on the developmentsover the course of this trump
trial here in Manhattan.
(00:23):
Eric, it's a pleasure to meetyou Likewise, and so earlier
today there was a contempthearing for Donald Trump's
numerous violations of his gagorder, his court-imposed gag
order.
Out of 10 proposed violations,the judge found that he met the
(00:46):
standard of guilt beyond areasonable doubt for nine of
them.
And just, you know, is part ofyour experience as a former
prosecutor, I guess.
Generally speaking, like, howoften is it that you even see an
individual being held incontempt in violation of a gag
order, not just once, butmultiple times?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Very rare, I mean, I've never seen it at all
actually.
I've seen threats by the judgeand I've seen a few cases where
there's been sort of a summarycontempt, where it happens in
the courtroom, which under moststate laws the judge can
immediately act upon without aseparate proceeding, where
(01:28):
somebody's been locked up for aday I once saw it overnight.
But I've never seen this typeof continuous back and forth and
really a daring by thedefendant of the judge to do
anything.
And in fact it's worked for MrTrump in all of his cases so far
, because nobody's ever calledhim out for him.
(01:49):
In the civil fraud trial.
He was fined by the judge therein Goran but even though the
judge was furious and Mr Trumphad brazenly crossed the line,
there was no sanction.
And I, among many people, havealways pointed out that unless
and until there's detention,it's really unlikely that Trump
(02:13):
is going to stop or modify hisbehavior.
So we'll see here.
I think Judge Mershon and thedistrict attorney's office all
understood that they couldn't domuch off the bat.
Even though they said thesewere egregious violations, they
didn't act immediately.
They waited a week to have thehearing and then the violations
(02:34):
kept piling up.
Obviously, the fine amount of$1,000 is irrisible.
It's just symbolic.
It's not going to have anyeffect, but maybe the warning
that the next time we mean it,if the next time you do it, we
won't just give you a sterntalking to, we might incarcerate
you.
Maybe this time, among allother times alone, among all the
(02:57):
times this has gotten Trump'sattention this is something
we're only going to find out aseach day goes by.
I note that already today hehad more attacks on the judge,
which is not a violation of thegag order, but he's obviously
going to continue going afterthe judge and and I find it hard
(03:18):
to imagine that he's going torestrain going after Michael
Cohen again whenever hetestifies, and I think each day
is going to be a volcano.
And then, if it happens, thereal test then for credibility
is whether the judge actuallyincarcerates Trump.
He clearly doesn't want to doit.
The district attorney hasn'tbeen pushing for it.
(03:39):
Everybody recognizes that it'sa dangerous situation because
you know we're really talkingwhen we're talking about Mr
Trump's base.
It's a lone wolf kind of a loneactor threat that's initiated.
It's even though he might callfor people to come down to the
courthouse and nobody comes, andthat kind of thing.
(03:59):
The real danger is there's alot of people out there that are
tuning into his rantings andhis social media posts.
Nobody knows where they all are.
They could be anywhere and itonly takes one of them and we've
seen many instances of this todo something because he or she
(04:20):
feels like he's been called todo it by these posts.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
So that's a big part of the danger.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
The judge is just focused on the witnesses and the
jurors, but it's more than that.
But even the witnesses and thejurors, they're in danger.
If you know, we have thiscontinued talk by Mr Trump and
then, on a separate matter Ithink he was talking about, if
the election doesn't go his way,then he's not ruling out
violence.
Violence and the call to it isnever far from him.
(04:49):
So, instead of my feeling isit's inevitable.
This is a slow motion trainwreck in terms of coming to a
reckoning with Trump and andhe's going to have to be
detained next time it happens.
But whether Judge Merchant buysinto that, I don't know.
It might mean an immediateappeal, it might mean some sort
(05:11):
of a delay in the trial, but Idon't think that's a reason not
to do it if it's called for.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Right.
What do you think about JudgeMerchant's nuanced approach to
giving Trump a break on that onecount in terms of his comments
about Michael Cohen, given thatCohen had been publicly making
statements about Trump, althoughI guess technically so?
Cohen tweeted that he would berefraining from making any
public comments about Trump inthe near future, as long as the
(05:39):
trial is proceeding.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
But it was still a violation of the gag order.
But it was still a violation ofthe gag order.
So it's again.
It's a.
It's a case of the judgebending over backwards, trying
to give Trump every possiblebreak.
So if and when the hammer everdoes come down, nobody can
legitimately claim that Trumpwasn't warned or that there's
(06:03):
some that it's because of someinfringement on his political
speech rights, although thoseclaims will inevitably occur
anyway.
But I think that the judge couldhave found a violation even on
the on the one count of MichaelCohen.
You know, if he, if the judgewanted to, he could amend again
the gag order To my way oflooking at it.
(06:27):
You know it's not really whatCohen is saying is not really a
threat to Trump.
But when Trump responds withhis much larger following and
you know he's at once the leaderof the Republican Party and the
leader of all these other sortof off-schedule groups or
(06:48):
militias, it's a reallyasymmetrical threat.
But if the judge wants toequate that with Michael Cohen,
he's just giving him a break.
But there's still nine othercounts.
The predicate is there.
If the behavior continues, it'snot going to matter whether
that one extra count is includedthere.
There's a basis there for thejudge to exercise his discretion
(07:12):
and detain Trump.
And he knows, I'm sure thejudge, and the district
attorney's office as well, isthinking well, what happens when
this goes up on appeal?
You never know what theappellate court might do.
But they can't be limited andparalyzed by that.
They have to take the actionthat is obviously necessary to
(07:33):
restore the legitimacy of theproceedings, which otherwise, I
think, has been going well yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Well, I think you know look again, I'm not a
lawyer, but I would assume thisis Machan going out of his way
to make sure whatever theverdict is in this case is
appeal proof and bending overbackwards for Trump, while it
shouldn't be done.
I mean there's there's noappeals court.
That's going to.
Well, I guess in New York it'sthe no, it is the appeals court.
(07:59):
They will eventually look atthis and they'll be like there's
no way, because Machan is goingout of his way, to bend over
backwards to appease Trump inevery single fashion.
So I mean, I guess in thatsense he's he's doing his due
diligence.
But so normally I feel like inin white collar cases like this,
where there's the submission ofevidence like documents or
(08:23):
phone records and such, bothparties typically tend to.
I suppose they both stipulatethat the documents are what they
are.
But in this instance, trump'slegal team decided to make the
prosecutors call witnesses, likethe archivist at CNN or
(08:46):
whatever, to validate thesevideos and such, and typically
these things just addunnecessary delays in these
trials.
They drag them out forever.
What is your opinion on Trump'sstrategy, or at least as it
pertains to his legal team, indragging this out unnecessarily?
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Your observation is absolutely right.
Often these things arestipulated to much more often
than not and it does drag it out.
But my sense is that Trumpisn't viewing this as a
conventional case and it isn't.
He's not a conventionaldefendant and I think he knows
if it goes down in any sort of aconventional way he's cooked.
The evidence here seems to be,so far it's very strong, and he
(09:30):
doesn't really, I mean otherthan maybe hoping you know one
or more jurors just is sosympathetic to him that they're
going to reject the evidence.
I don't think he's going to beable to meet the evidence, no
matter what his lawyers do.
So I think you know this is allpart and parcel of his sort of
reptilian resistance and hisdelay tactics, which overall
(09:54):
have served him well, and evenon a micro scale of this
individual trial, he's going totry to drag it out.
You know if he's going to makethese custodians come in and
just testify as toadministrative or clerical
things that aren't really anissue and it's going to
inconvenience the jury and thejudge.
I think he views it as a goodthing, and I don't know that
(10:17):
he's wrong, because I thinkotherwise— he's going to be
convicted.
So he's got to do everything hecan to.
You know, throw a monkey wrenchinto the works and and he's
going to call the shots and he'strying to tell his attorneys
(10:37):
what to do and of course it'srisking pushing the attorneys
into areas where they canthemselves get into trouble,
pushing the attorneys into areaswhere they can themselves get
into trouble.
But they knew that when theysigned on for this and I think
they are getting paid.
People used to joke that as hisattorney you wouldn't get paid.
But we know now that all theseattorneys are getting paid and
they're getting paid good moneyand that's what you know.
(11:00):
Trump's not paying it, but he'sgetting other people to pay it.
So I think the you know thatincreases the possibility that
attorneys will just do whatTrump says.
Even Todd Blanch, who you knowsupposedly was claimed by many
to be, you know, more of a buythe book guy and could be
effective.
(11:20):
I don't think that's going tobe the case here.
I don't think Trump cares ifBlanche has any credibility with
the court and I don't think hecares if he has any credibility
with most of the jury.
His strategy is just to try toget that pick off, that one
juror who can cause a hung jury,and so I think we might see a
(11:43):
lot of you know we're not out ofthe woods yet in seeing certain
disruptions and things of thatnature.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Right.
So one more thing along thisline of like these unusual delay
tactics.
Now, I know some prosecutorswere concerned about the idea
that there are numerous Ibelieve three lawyers on the
jury.
Three lawyers on the jury andin this case, with these delay
(12:10):
tactics, typically theprosecution is not allowed to
allude to the fact that Trump'slawyers are basically wasting
the jury's time.
But I think if you have acouple of lawyers on the jury
who are familiar with how thisprocess typically plays out,
they might actually look at thisas pretty annoying and have an
effect on some of thedeliberations with the jury.
But again, I'm not a lawyer.
I wouldn't necessarily knowthat to be the case, but just my
(12:33):
personal insight.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I think that's probably right.
I agree with you there.
Now there's many differenttypes of lawyers.
I don't recall what theseparticular ones that are on the
jury actually practiced inwhether they did litigation or
something totally unrelated butthere's a good chance that
they'll understand what this is.
But you're also right They'llbe instructed not to
(12:57):
legitimately factor that in inapplying the law to the facts.
Now, whether that's strictlyfollowed or not, we don't ever
really know, but the judge willgive them an instruction that
all of these legal rulings andother things that don't come
into evidence are not to beconsidered by them.
(13:18):
So there'll be that type oflimiting instruction too, and I
think all that again is going tocontribute to Trump seeking to
draw this out If he could.
I don't think he.
You know, if this goes anothermonth, I don't think he cares.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
No, yeah, despite his claims that he'd rather be out
campaigning.
I'm sure the last thing hewants is a conviction on his
record.
So we can rewind back a littlebit to some of the first witness
in the case.
What do you think about theprosecution's game plan here of,
in all intents and purposes,making David Pecker their star
(13:54):
witness?
Is this like an attempt to tominimize some of the problems
that might come with MichaelCohen's testimony, or the
testimony of Stormy Daniels andsuch, or the testimony?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
of Stormy Daniels and such.
I think so, but I think, evenmore than that, it worked out
really well because he you know,as a prosecutor you rarely get
everything out without a hiccup,and that happened here.
I mean, obviously Pecker hashis own implication in this.
(14:24):
He could have been chargedcriminally but he didn't shy
away from that fact.
He openly discussed the factthat he had signed
non-prosecution agreements andhe obviously doesn't really come
across as somebody that bearsan animus to Trump.
He still considers themselvesto be friends and allies
transactional of sort I thinkPecker himself is sort of like
(14:45):
Trump the transactional guy andprobably to be friends and
allies transactional of sort.
I think Pecker himself is sortof like Trump the transactional
guy and probably to be in thatbusiness that he was in.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
I think Pecker specifically referred to Trump
as a mentor, which is a strangecomparison, but okay, I don't
think I'd want to look at ittells you a lot about the
relationship between the two andand I think it works for the
prosecution because he didn'thave an axe to grind.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
One of the criticisms of Michael Cohen is that he's
got an axe to grind.
But I mean Cohen's axe to grind, I think is legitimate and
doesn't necessarily mean he'snot telling the truth, but here
with Pecker we don't have he'snot grinding an ax.
He does corroborate Cohen, buthe also laid the whole scene out
, the whole context for theillegality of it, the stakes
(15:34):
that they understood what theywere doing was illegal or they
thought it well could have been.
But they understood also theimportance for the election.
They felt like this isnecessary, that this scheme they
hatched and executed wasnecessary in order for Trump to
(15:55):
win.
Whether that's right or not, asthe prosecution has said many
times, we don't really know.
But they certainly thought thatwas the case and it was not an
unreasonable thought.
And he also laid out the wholelandscape of this type of
tabloid journalism if you reallywant to call it journalism, but
technically I guess it comesunder that, even though it has
no regard for what actuallyhappened.
He was very open about it andthe minor sort of concessions
(16:19):
that came out oncross-examination where he had
done similar things for ArnoldSchwarzenegger and Tiger Woods,
you know, and other celebrities.
I don't think is a huge win forTrump.
I mean it doesn't mitigate whathappened here and it can be
differentiated.
I mean, if you thought that wasbad, the thing with Trump is
(16:41):
even a level worse so, withhigher stakes.
So I think and it caught thepublic's attention, it made
people understand there is asignificance to this trial.
It's not just about businessrecords being misclassified or,
you know, running throughsomething, through the company
that maybe shouldn't have been.
It's a lot more.
This was really all aboutillegally influencing the
(17:04):
election and they knew that.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, speaking of the falsification of business
records.
So in New York, typically theseare charged as misdemeanors and
you basically have to bootstrapthem up to a felony by showing
they were committed infurtherance of another crime.
And what do you think about theprosecution's strategy of
basically starting off the trialwith bootstrapping them up
(17:29):
before they even get to the ideaof the payments being the
records being falsified?
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Well, you always want to start the trial with a
witness that's going to beengaging and sort of help paint
a broader picture for what comesafter.
So it's not always a check thebox thing, it's not always
necessarily strictlychronological and you have to
recognize the jurors are peopleyou know they're sitting there,
(17:59):
you know morning to lateafternoon every day and you want
to give them somethinginteresting.
You don't want to start withkind of a weak witness in terms
of that witness's ability toengage with the jury.
So Pecker is somebody that doespresent a compelling story and
I'm sure obviously unfortunatelywe don't have a camera in, but
(18:23):
the sense is, and certainly fromthe reports from people who are
there are, that the jury wasengaged.
So I think that kind of mandated, you know Pecker is the obvious
choice to to start with andthey can fill in the gaps later.
But they've you know they'vegot other videos.
They've you know they've gotother videos.
(18:48):
There's going to be audiorecordings presumably that'll
come in and obviously bankrecords and other documents
that's going to have to come in.
But at least the jury is goingto have some understanding of
the broader picture when thosethings come in now and they
won't be totally lost.
So I think that was a goodchoice by the district
attorney's office.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
I think that was a good choice by the district
attorney's office.
Yeah right, I think theprosecution did a really good
job of putting everything into aframe for the jury from the get
go, so they have a lens to viewevery piece of evidence that's
presented after the fact.
But speaking of like creatingan environment that's engaging
(19:23):
for the jury, and this is likenot legal analysis, but what do
you think of the fact that Trumpcan't stay awake in the first
criminal trial of a formerpresident in the history of the
United States?
Like that?
He can't summon the attentionto even stay awake.
It's, it's beyond wild.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
With you on that.
I like the nickname you gavehim, or that you amplified don
snorleone yes, that was me.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
I take credit for that, yeah yeah, that was good.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
That's very apt.
I think if if he hadn't beencalling his political opponent
sleepy joe and trying to make abig deal about that, then it
might not have been sodevastating.
But I think politically that'sone of the worst things for him
to come out of.
This is that this guy it's notjust like he's falling asleep
(20:11):
once, I mean, I think it's likea daily event Every day.
Yes, Every day.
So you know one can imagine,you know easily a situation, the
famous Situation Room.
You know drama, you know.
Do we have to call inairstrikes or go to war in Iran
or wherever the hotspots are?
And everybody's, you knowmaking these, you know detailed
(20:36):
analyses, and Trump as commanderin chief, he's falling asleep.
I mean, is that a visual thatyou know the electorate is going
to go for?
I think not.
So I think that's a huge, ahuge negative for him.
And I guess he's not takingquestions in these you know kind
of press announcements he'sdoing.
(20:57):
But I would think thatsomebody's got to be questioning
him about that as well.
And who knows what he'll say.
Maybe he'll deny that he's evendoing it, but everybody's seen
him doing it.
So his denials, I think, willseem all the more ridiculous.
But you know, what else can hesay?
Speaker 1 (21:15):
move this back toward some, some legal analysis, like
what does it say about adefendant that won't even show,
like a judge and a jury and theprosecution, the basic respect
of staying awake like if you're?
If you were like giving juryinstructions as a judge and
(21:38):
you're like man, this dudedidn't fall asleep in my court
I'll make it really tough on him, no, wiggle his way out of it.
I mean, I you know, look, Iknow judges don't probably don't
take those things personally,but at some point the level of
disrespect is has to enter theminds of the judge and the
jurors.
Am I wrong?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yeah, so far.
In all the other cases, I thinkthat disrespect has shown
through.
In the E Gene Carroll case,when he got walloped with that
second judgment the first onewas only $5 million but
obviously his comportment in thecourtroom, you know, getting up
(22:24):
and walking around it inopportune times and things like
that this judge, I think, is nothaving it.
I think he's told that.
I think Judge Mershon has toldTrump, you know, a few times you
know to sit still or you knowbehave properly.
So he's putting limits on it.
So, yes, I think that's a bigdeal.
(22:44):
Now I have to say I mean I'veseen jurors fall asleep in cases
.
I've even seen judges doze offat certain points.
So I mean the days can get long, although I don't think these
days are particularly long inthis trial, I mean and they've
only had two nominally full daysso far, I believe, or maybe
(23:07):
today was the third one.
But you know anybody can, candoze off.
But if you're the defendant andit's all about you and you're
purporting to direct your legalteam and you're barking out
orders and yet you're fallingasleep, obviously it adds
another layer of absurdity tothe whole proceedings.
And that's what we've got withTrump.
It's a clown show.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
A clown show, my exact words that I was going to
use.
It's a clown show, like I'venever seen anything like it.
And look again the fact thatwe're even trying to talk about
this as though it's completelynormal.
It's still beyond absurd to me,even that degree of normalizing
it, because I want to screamabout how ridiculous this is.
But that would be inappropriate.
So earlier today, theprosecution called Keith
(23:54):
Davidson as a witness.
Were you familiar with thistestimony from earlier today?
Speaker 2 (23:59):
I followed along with that.
I was.
That was interesting to mebecause, you know, really Keith
Davidson had I mean, that wasn'tentirely kosher, so to speak
his representation of StormyDaniels and Karen McDougal,
because he seemed to be somewhatconflicted.
He is he really representingthem and I think he was, but I
(24:21):
don't know if he explained tohis clients in the technically
proper way that you know, did hehave some other conflicts
because of his closerelationships with?
You know the counterparties,you know the AMI and Pecker and
Dylan Howard, and is he reallytrying to get the best deal for
them?
(24:41):
Um, I think those are things,legitimately, that um probably
made him not the best attorneyfor them.
Although I don't think he washorrible, he did get them some,
um, some compensation, but itseems like, given the stakes, he
could have gotten a lot more.
But, um, but, but, but you know.
(25:01):
But he's a legitimate attorneyand he was trying to to work out
transactions here and I thinkhis testimony comes across so
far.
You know, we'll have to see howit ends up and and get the full
cross examination obviously toreally fully assess it, but so
far I think he also comes acrossas credible and it just adds
(25:26):
another layer of corroborationand another layer of strength to
the case, because he's reallyemphasizing also the stakes here
.
They knew that this was allabout winning the election or
not.
Obviously, right after theAccess Hollywood tapes he really
drew the line there.
(25:46):
When that Access Hollywoodstory broke.
That was a game changer.
Trump didn't care aboutsuppressing all this stuff
before that, which is deadly forTrump legally also, because one
of his defenses that he's sortof proffered is that, well,
obviously this is embarrassing.
(26:06):
You know personally, and so youknow these women are not that
I'm saying, it's true whatthey're saying.
But you know my family, my wife, I don't want them, you know,
being subjected to these kindsof stories.
So sure, who wouldn't want tobury that?
But actually Trump is adifferent cat, right, he
couldn't have cared less.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
And his family, right , well, wouldn't he just cut a
check from the Trumporganization from the account
that his family doesn't have anyeyes on.
Wouldn't that just be thesimplest way to go about that?
Speaker 2 (26:49):
Absolutely.
It would have been the simplestway and if he had done that it
wouldn't really have violatedany laws.
It wouldn't have violatedcampaign finance laws.
But at every opportunity hechose to make it much more
complicated to track it.
And I mean he's basically bothDavidson and Pecker and I'm sure
(27:11):
other witnesses will say he hadno interest in paying.
I mean, he's kind of acheapskate with that sort of
stuff.
He had no interest in hushingthis story when it came to his
family.
It was only when the electoralconsequences became evident,
after that whole AccessHollywood recording dropped,
(27:32):
that he radically changed histune because it was for the
election, election.
So it's absurd to think now,given what we've heard, that
this was not about the electionbut really just about his
sensitivity to other people'sfeelings.
You know, all of the witnesstestimony, all of the texts and
(27:54):
communications that have goneback and forth so far have shown
that he had not a care in theworld on the personal side,
about this.
You know he probably didn'tthink there was anything wrong
with it.
I mean, I think he felt totallyentitled to engage in this type
of behavior and that seems tobe more what the evidence is
showing.
But he did not want voters tobe aware of it and to put that
(28:17):
into a context where they mightthink this Access Hollywood tape
was credible.
And also remember Davidson wassaying you know, we all thought
the election was over.
I mean, there's communicationshe sent out at the time.
You know those wave the whiteflag type of statements.
He's not going to win.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Now, after this tape, but Trump made this miraculous
comeback.
I have this one text messageright here from Keith Davidson
to Dylan Howard, I think theeditor at the National Enquirer
Right.
But Trump made this miraculouscomeback, have we done?
And then Howard replied toDavidson oh my God, Like, is
that not like?
No, regardless of what thatsays about Trump's intent here,
(29:08):
clearly Howard and Davidson werewell aware that their actions
had an impact on the election,if not totally responsible for
his victory.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
And they were like in shock.
I think that they had kind ofpulled it off.
And that was one moment ofhumanity where they wondered you
know, are we responsible forwhat can happen here?
And I think the answer to thatis yeah, they are responsible,
among others, but they, you know.
All the harm that caused, Ithink, can somewhat be traced to
(29:41):
them as well as otherindividuals.
And that was a rare moment ofhonesty and self-reflection
between them where theyrecognized the significance of
it.
But Trump recognized it too,because all of a sudden he's
willing to pay out.
He's putting pressure onMichael Cohen.
Now we're getting the story ofthat sort of secondhand through
(30:02):
Davidson and Pecker and theseother text messages.
But we can see that thiscorroborates very strongly that
Trump understood the importanceof getting all this out.
And Pecker, by the way, hetestified that even after Trump
was president, when he met Trumpin the White House, trump was
(30:22):
throwing a dinner in his honor.
And what did they talk about?
They were talking about this.
They were talking about How's mygirl yeah, yeah, I mean he
doesn't want to be briefed onthe presidential daily briefing
Right.
I mean he famously couldn't sitthrough that for even 30
minutes.
They had to dumb it down aboutall the crises in the world.
That for even 30 minutes theyhad to dumb it down about all
the crises in the world.
You know he didn't have themind for that, but boy can he
(30:47):
spend a lot of time when it'sabout him being in power,
whether it's plotting theinsurrection or seeing whether
Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougalis going to say something that
might affect his ability to stayin power.
He's all over that, you know.
So it's very revealing.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
And a total side note here.
But what do you think is like?
What is your take on himlooping in Hope Hicks and Sarah
Sanders into basically a plot tocover up an affair to affect
the election?
Like what do you like?
This is the point at whichwe're.
It's the wire and we're likeare you taking notes on a
(31:27):
criminal conspiracy?
What are we doing?
Like, whose decision was that?
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Where's the wire.
But you know what?
He's rewriting the wire becauseyou know he just doesn't.
He thinks all these people aregoing to go along with him and
he, you know, in the case ofSarah Huckabee Sanders and Hope
Iggs, he was largely correct.
You know.
In fact, I think James Comeywas in one of these meetings,
right?
Speaker 1 (31:52):
The FBI director.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
I think he was in a meeting with Becker.
I mean, any other person isgoing to be thinking, you know
you don't want these peopleinvolved, but he thinks they're
all going to be with the programof covering this up.
And he wasn't necessarily wrongon that.
You know, I think even Comeywas still trying to get his
bearings as to what was going on.
(32:15):
But I think in Trump's mindthese people were all in on the
criminal conspiracy.
You know they're with him andthat's why he gets furious when
people break with him.
You know he saves his harshestrhetoric for those people.
It is really type of a mafiamentality which many people have
(32:35):
commented on.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
For sure.
And you talk about the factthat he expects these people to
engage in conspiracies to coverup his crimes and just takes
that for granted.
Have you even considered how,just what a random event it is
like, how random it is that theorigin story for this
(32:57):
investigation itself actuallyspun off from the Mueller
investigation?
Like this would never havehappened if Robert Mueller's
team had never gotten access tosome of the records from the
Trump organization and been ableto look at these payments and
be like, huh, that seemssuspicious, let's, let's spin
that off to the SouthernDistrict of New York.
And then there was also theopportunity for the Southern
(33:18):
District to continue.
Is such a late stage is because, well, he basically called and
killed the investigation, right,he was like, hey, manhattan
(33:40):
DA's office, don't worry aboutthis, sdny has got it.
And then he's telling SDNY, hey, ixnay on that investigation.
Like just a weird tale thatwe've ended up in this place
like this.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Well, it's a disturbing tale because, you
know, and SDNY, out of all ofthe US attorneys offices around
the United States, they kind ofheld themselves out as being the
most independent.
They called themselves it's notthe Southern District of New
York, it's the SovereignDistrict of New York.
Nobody tells us what to do andpeople were sort of repeating
(34:14):
that line, which was false.
Barr was having his, you know,minions and the deputies, and
Rosenstein's deputies, andcalling and putting pressure on
it, even after Cohen had beenprosecuted and convicted and
sentenced to jail.
Well, you know.
So what kind of a message isthat?
Here, the exact same conductwhich benefits Trump has
(34:39):
resulted in the lower personbeing prosecuted and going to
jail, but but the prosecutorialauthorities in this case the
Southern District of New York,nominally being obviously part
of the Department of Justicedeciding no, the Southern
District of New York not onlybeing obviously part of the
Department of Justice, decidingno, not to go through with it.
It's a terrible look and theyhave never really wanted to
admit that, that that happened,but clearly that it did.
(35:03):
And now instead actually otherpeople, on their behalf, I think
, have tried to scapegoatMichael Cohen, saying he wasn't
credible.
So how could they go forward.
But Alvin Bragg in the districtattorney's office has put the
lie to that.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
Let's bring this back full circle.
So you know, cohen doesobviously have these credibility
issues, but one of the thingswe found out during the course
of Packer's testimony is that hesigned a non-prosecution
agreement with the manhattanda's office in 2019.
So if the southern district ofnew york really wanted to pursue
these charges, all they had todo was work their way up the
(35:41):
chain to david pecker, theirstar witness, right there.
Why, I don't understand.
Why is it they didn't take nextsteps on that?
Do any due diligence?
I mean, obviously you know BillBarr, unreliable narrator here,
with his take on on how thatproceeded.
Obviously he had a hand inmaking sure this didn't go any
further, but and we even had theinstance of them, you know,
(36:03):
erasing numerous instances ofmentions of individual one and
Cohen's indictment Like it seemslike the fix was in from the
get go once Barr was.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
That's right.
I mean, that was theintervention on Trump's behalf
by high ranking officials at theDepartment of Justice, which
was inappropriate because itwasn't based on policy or equity
or anything like that.
It was just to serve Trump'spersonal needs.
And that might have made itmore difficult for the district
attorney's office to go forward.
If they didn't know what the USattorney's office was doing, if
(36:40):
they thought they were goingforward, they didn't want to
duplicate it.
So I think that made it harder.
I think that was part of theissue.
There was that not only wasthere not cooperation from the
federal side of it for thedistrict attorney's office, but
they might have felt that therewas some interference there and
(37:01):
that delayed it.
I mean, eventually theyprobably realized yeah, this
isn't happening at the federallevel.
Should we go forward at thefederal level?
Should we go forward?
And there was a whole tortuoushistory there where it looked
like it wouldn't go forward fora while, but then they kept at
it and it, you know, looks likenow they've got a really strong
case.
But and then the coup de grace,so to speak, of absurdity or
(37:26):
what I don't know, is that thetrial was almost derailed.
It was certainly continued forabout a month when it turned out
that the US attorney's officethere in the Southern District
had been subpoenaed right, youknow, lawfully subpoenaed and
hadn't complied with it in atimely way.
And then at the last minutethey dumped all kinds of
documents on the case and thatcaused the delay.
(37:50):
So they really were a negativeinfluence here and we haven't
gotten to the bottom of that.
A lot of what Barr did andcaused to be done in the
department has just been sweptunder the rug.
I mean, people don't want to,you know, internally investigate
that, it seems.
But it's important forstraightening things out, going
(38:10):
forward and for accountabilityand for writing a correct
history here to try tounderstand what happened there.
So there's still a lot ofquestions with all of that.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Right, I'm not a fan of news outlets having Bill Barr
on in any fashion whatsoever,but I do have an example of the
shell game that was being playedat DOJ, similar to what was
going on with Manhattan.
You know, manhattan's office inthe Southern District of New
York, specifically RodRosenstein, during the Mueller
investigation, basically tellingthe FBI hey, you know,
(38:39):
mueller's team will handle thecounterintelligence aspect of
the Russia investigation.
And then telling Mueller's teamhey, we're going to spin off
the counterintelligence aspectof the investigation to the FBI,
like, what kind of like?
It seems as though once theycome up with the strategy that
works, once they try to employit over and over.
(39:00):
Same thing with this catch andkill scheme, I would imagine.
But one last thing before.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
I let you go.
And that's a great point.
We never got to the bottom ofthat and the press hasn't gotten
to the bottom of it.
So these are big things thatneed to be gotten to the bottom
of.
You know what's going on withthat?
We've never gotten a straightanswer on that.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
No, I haven't forgotten.
I think about it regularly.
But yeah, one last thing beforeI let you go.
Trump has made it publiclyknown that he's willing to
testify.
Obviously, we can't rely onanything Trump states publicly,
because clearly he's a knownliar.
But let's say you were Trump'slegal counsel.
What would you advise him to doin regards of testifying?
(39:43):
In this case, to insist ontestifying, like how would you
coach him to kind of respond tothe evidence that's been put
forth so far?
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Obviously, we have no idea what else is coming, but
as far as what you're currentlyaware of, it's a great question
because Trump probably is, youknow, the world's worst witness,
I mean, certainly one of themore difficult ones, you can
imagine.
I did have somebody very, verysimilar to him in a big trial,
obviously not of this magnitudein terms of publicity and
(40:15):
involving a former president,but someone with a very similar
personality, and it's adifficult call because you can't
really run through theirtestimony with them.
They won't cooperate.
You don't know what they'regoing to say.
Trump obviously being a knownhabitual liar, I think he
(40:36):
understands enough that hedoesn't really want to testify,
even though he might find it inhis interest to claim that he
will.
But for a normal witness in acase like this, or a normal
defendant in a case like this,your client, if you're
representing that person, that'sthe biggest part of your case,
because if that client can makethe case, if he's credible or if
(40:58):
he's believable to the jury, hecan get right up there and talk
to them directly and the juryis always going to have, you
know, an inquisitiveness aboutwhat the defendant is going to
say yes, they're going to getinstructed by the judge that if
the defendant doesn't testify,you know, don't pay any
(41:19):
attention to that, you don'tdraw anything negative for that.
That's absolutely his right todo so.
The defense will try to say youknow he doesn't need to testify,
the case is so weak.
What's the point?
There's nothing to be addedhere.
But the jury is still going towonder boy.
I wish he had gotten up thereand testified.
So you always want the clientto testify, but I don't think
(41:40):
Trump is fixable.
So it's a really tough question.
I don't think you can make himtestify in a credible way which
doesn't make it worse.
And here's the real issue,because you could say look, he's
probably going to go down inflames anyway.
So maybe his testimony doesn'tmake it worse.
(42:00):
Maybe he speaks to you know onesort of outlier, you know
irrational juror who is justgoing to sympathize with him
against all the evidence.
But here's the risk, even withall that, is that when it comes
to sentencing, the judge takesinto consideration whether the
(42:20):
testimony of the defendant wastruthful or not.
That is appropriate and evenrequired factor in sentencing.
Speaker 1 (42:27):
So it was typically difficult to get a conviction on
something like perjury.
But if it's in the course ofyour own trial, when it's time
for sentencing the judge isgoing to look at that like oh
hey, you told a bunch of fibs onthere, buddy, let's tack on
some extra time.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
And that may be the difference between him going to
jail or him not going to jail.
So these, these are big issues,but I don't think Trump will
testify, because I think hedoesn't want to testify.
Recall, though, that he didtestify for about five minutes
in front of Judge N'Goran, butthere was no jury there, so they
gave him wide latitude to beridiculous.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
Yes, that was actually.
I think Judge N'Goran actuallydid him a disservice there by
letting him and his lawyers justrun wild with their approach in
that case, because they thatdid not prepare them for this
endeavor in Merchan's court.
But I do appreciate you forjoining us.
Thank you so much for yourinput.
Tell everyone where they canfind you on the.
(43:25):
Well, I guess it's no longerknown as Twitter, but X,
formerly Twitter.
Speaker 2 (43:31):
Well, I guess it's no longer known as Twitter, but X,
formerly Twitter, at EricLissan, at E-R-I-C-L-I-S-A-N-N.
And hopefully we can do thisagain or I'll get another.
I should expand into podcastingor YouTube type things, so stay
tuned for that.
But but right now, x, twitter,twitter, and I appreciate all
(43:51):
your engagement there.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
Yeah, thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
My pleasure.
one, two, three, four , hi.
This is d night and I amspeaking to former prosecutor
eric lasan.
I'd like to welcome him to theshow.
Uh, he is going to be providingus some information and some
analysis on the developmentsover the course of this trump
trial here in Manhattan.
(00:23):
Eric, it's a pleasure to meetyou Likewise, and so earlier
today there was a contempthearing for Donald Trump's
numerous violations of his gagorder, his court-imposed gag
order.
Out of 10 proposed violations,the judge found that he met the
(00:46):
standard of guilt beyond areasonable doubt for nine of
them.
And just, you know, is part ofyour experience as a former
prosecutor, I guess.
Generally speaking, like, howoften is it that you even see an
individual being held incontempt in violation of a gag
order, not just once, butmultiple times?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Very rare, I mean, I've never seen it at all
actually.
I've seen threats by the judgeand I've seen a few cases where
there's been sort of a summarycontempt, where it happens in
the courtroom, which under moststate laws the judge can
immediately act upon without aseparate proceeding, where
(01:28):
somebody's been locked up for aday I once saw it overnight.
But I've never seen this typeof continuous back and forth and
really a daring by thedefendant of the judge to do
anything.
And in fact it's worked for MrTrump in all of his cases so far
, because nobody's ever calledhim out for him.
(01:49):
In the civil fraud trial.
He was fined by the judge therein Goran but even though the
judge was furious and Mr Trumphad brazenly crossed the line,
there was no sanction.
And I, among many people, havealways pointed out that unless
and until there's detention,it's really unlikely that Trump
(02:13):
is going to stop or modify hisbehavior.
So we'll see here.
I think Judge Mershon and thedistrict attorney's office all
understood that they couldn't domuch off the bat.
Even though they said thesewere egregious violations, they
didn't act immediately.
They waited a week to have thehearing and then the violations
(02:34):
kept piling up.
Obviously, the fine amount of$1,000 is irrisible.
It's just symbolic.
It's not going to have anyeffect, but maybe the warning
that the next time we mean it,if the next time you do it, we
won't just give you a sterntalking to, we might incarcerate
you.
Maybe this time, among allother times alone, among all the
(02:57):
times this has gotten Trump'sattention this is something
we're only going to find out aseach day goes by.
I note that already today hehad more attacks on the judge,
which is not a violation of thegag order, but he's obviously
going to continue going afterthe judge and and I find it hard
(03:18):
to imagine that he's going torestrain going after Michael
Cohen again whenever hetestifies, and I think each day
is going to be a volcano.
And then, if it happens, thereal test then for credibility
is whether the judge actuallyincarcerates Trump.
He clearly doesn't want to doit.
The district attorney hasn'tbeen pushing for it.
(03:39):
Everybody recognizes that it'sa dangerous situation because
you know we're really talkingwhen we're talking about Mr
Trump's base.
It's a lone wolf kind of a loneactor threat that's initiated.
It's even though he might callfor people to come down to the
courthouse and nobody comes, andthat kind of thing.
(03:59):
The real danger is there's alot of people out there that are
tuning into his rantings andhis social media posts.
Nobody knows where they all are.
They could be anywhere and itonly takes one of them and we've
seen many instances of this todo something because he or she
(04:20):
feels like he's been called todo it by these posts.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
So that's a big part of the danger.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
The judge is just focused on the witnesses and the
jurors, but it's more than that.
But even the witnesses and thejurors, they're in danger.
If you know, we have thiscontinued talk by Mr Trump and
then, on a separate matter Ithink he was talking about, if
the election doesn't go his way,then he's not ruling out
violence.
Violence and the call to it isnever far from him.
(04:49):
So, instead of my feeling isit's inevitable.
This is a slow motion trainwreck in terms of coming to a
reckoning with Trump and andhe's going to have to be
detained next time it happens.
But whether Judge Merchant buysinto that, I don't know.
It might mean an immediateappeal, it might mean some sort
(05:11):
of a delay in the trial, but Idon't think that's a reason not
to do it if it's called for.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Right.
What do you think about JudgeMerchant's nuanced approach to
giving Trump a break on that onecount in terms of his comments
about Michael Cohen, given thatCohen had been publicly making
statements about Trump, althoughI guess technically so?
Cohen tweeted that he would berefraining from making any
public comments about Trump inthe near future, as long as the
(05:39):
trial is proceeding.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
But it was still a violation of the gag order.
But it was still a violation ofthe gag order.
So it's again.
It's a.
It's a case of the judgebending over backwards, trying
to give Trump every possiblebreak.
So if and when the hammer everdoes come down, nobody can
legitimately claim that Trumpwasn't warned or that there's
(06:03):
some that it's because of someinfringement on his political
speech rights, although thoseclaims will inevitably occur
anyway.
But I think that the judge couldhave found a violation even on
the on the one count of MichaelCohen.
You know, if he, if the judgewanted to, he could amend again
the gag order To my way oflooking at it.
(06:27):
You know it's not really whatCohen is saying is not really a
threat to Trump.
But when Trump responds withhis much larger following and
you know he's at once the leaderof the Republican Party and the
leader of all these other sortof off-schedule groups or
(06:48):
militias, it's a reallyasymmetrical threat.
But if the judge wants toequate that with Michael Cohen,
he's just giving him a break.
But there's still nine othercounts.
The predicate is there.
If the behavior continues, it'snot going to matter whether
that one extra count is includedthere.
There's a basis there for thejudge to exercise his discretion
(07:12):
and detain Trump.
And he knows, I'm sure thejudge, and the district
attorney's office as well, isthinking well, what happens when
this goes up on appeal?
You never know what theappellate court might do.
But they can't be limited andparalyzed by that.
They have to take the actionthat is obviously necessary to
(07:33):
restore the legitimacy of theproceedings, which otherwise, I
think, has been going well yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Well, I think you know look again, I'm not a
lawyer, but I would assume thisis Machan going out of his way
to make sure whatever theverdict is in this case is
appeal proof and bending overbackwards for Trump, while it
shouldn't be done.
I mean there's there's noappeals court.
That's going to.
Well, I guess in New York it'sthe no, it is the appeals court.
(07:59):
They will eventually look atthis and they'll be like there's
no way, because Machan is goingout of his way, to bend over
backwards to appease Trump inevery single fashion.
So I mean, I guess in thatsense he's he's doing his due
diligence.
But so normally I feel like inin white collar cases like this,
where there's the submission ofevidence like documents or
(08:23):
phone records and such, bothparties typically tend to.
I suppose they both stipulatethat the documents are what they
are.
But in this instance, trump'slegal team decided to make the
prosecutors call witnesses, likethe archivist at CNN or
(08:46):
whatever, to validate thesevideos and such, and typically
these things just addunnecessary delays in these
trials.
They drag them out forever.
What is your opinion on Trump'sstrategy, or at least as it
pertains to his legal team, indragging this out unnecessarily?
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Your observation is absolutely right.
Often these things arestipulated to much more often
than not and it does drag it out.
But my sense is that Trumpisn't viewing this as a
conventional case and it isn't.
He's not a conventionaldefendant and I think he knows
if it goes down in any sort of aconventional way he's cooked.
The evidence here seems to be,so far it's very strong, and he
(09:30):
doesn't really, I mean otherthan maybe hoping you know one
or more jurors just is sosympathetic to him that they're
going to reject the evidence.
I don't think he's going to beable to meet the evidence, no
matter what his lawyers do.
So I think you know this is allpart and parcel of his sort of
reptilian resistance and hisdelay tactics, which overall
(09:54):
have served him well, and evenon a micro scale of this
individual trial, he's going totry to drag it out.
You know if he's going to makethese custodians come in and
just testify as toadministrative or clerical
things that aren't really anissue and it's going to
inconvenience the jury and thejudge.
I think he views it as a goodthing, and I don't know that
(10:17):
he's wrong, because I thinkotherwise— he's going to be
convicted.
So he's got to do everything hecan to.
You know, throw a monkey wrenchinto the works and and he's
going to call the shots and he'strying to tell his attorneys
(10:37):
what to do and of course it'srisking pushing the attorneys
into areas where they canthemselves get into trouble,
pushing the attorneys into areaswhere they can themselves get
into trouble.
But they knew that when theysigned on for this and I think
they are getting paid.
People used to joke that as hisattorney you wouldn't get paid.
But we know now that all theseattorneys are getting paid and
they're getting paid good moneyand that's what you know.
(11:00):
Trump's not paying it, but he'sgetting other people to pay it.
So I think the you know thatincreases the possibility that
attorneys will just do whatTrump says.
Even Todd Blanch, who you knowsupposedly was claimed by many
to be, you know, more of a buythe book guy and could be
effective.
(11:20):
I don't think that's going tobe the case here.
I don't think Trump cares ifBlanche has any credibility with
the court and I don't think hecares if he has any credibility
with most of the jury.
His strategy is just to try toget that pick off, that one
juror who can cause a hung jury,and so I think we might see a
(11:43):
lot of you know we're not out ofthe woods yet in seeing certain
disruptions and things of thatnature.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Right.
So one more thing along thisline of like these unusual delay
tactics.
Now, I know some prosecutorswere concerned about the idea
that there are numerous Ibelieve three lawyers on the
jury.
Three lawyers on the jury andin this case, with these delay
(12:10):
tactics, typically theprosecution is not allowed to
allude to the fact that Trump'slawyers are basically wasting
the jury's time.
But I think if you have acouple of lawyers on the jury
who are familiar with how thisprocess typically plays out,
they might actually look at thisas pretty annoying and have an
effect on some of thedeliberations with the jury.
But again, I'm not a lawyer.
I wouldn't necessarily knowthat to be the case, but just my
(12:33):
personal insight.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I think that's probably right.
I agree with you there.
Now there's many differenttypes of lawyers.
I don't recall what theseparticular ones that are on the
jury actually practiced inwhether they did litigation or
something totally unrelated butthere's a good chance that
they'll understand what this is.
But you're also right They'llbe instructed not to
(12:57):
legitimately factor that in inapplying the law to the facts.
Now, whether that's strictlyfollowed or not, we don't ever
really know, but the judge willgive them an instruction that
all of these legal rulings andother things that don't come
into evidence are not to beconsidered by them.
(13:18):
So there'll be that type oflimiting instruction too, and I
think all that again is going tocontribute to Trump seeking to
draw this out If he could.
I don't think he.
You know, if this goes anothermonth, I don't think he cares.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
No, yeah, despite his claims that he'd rather be out
campaigning.
I'm sure the last thing hewants is a conviction on his
record.
So we can rewind back a littlebit to some of the first witness
in the case.
What do you think about theprosecution's game plan here of,
in all intents and purposes,making David Pecker their star
(13:54):
witness?
Is this like an attempt to tominimize some of the problems
that might come with MichaelCohen's testimony, or the
testimony of Stormy Daniels andsuch, or the testimony?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
of Stormy Daniels and such.
I think so, but I think, evenmore than that, it worked out
really well because he you know,as a prosecutor you rarely get
everything out without a hiccup,and that happened here.
I mean, obviously Pecker hashis own implication in this.
(14:24):
He could have been chargedcriminally but he didn't shy
away from that fact.
He openly discussed the factthat he had signed
non-prosecution agreements andhe obviously doesn't really come
across as somebody that bearsan animus to Trump.
He still considers themselvesto be friends and allies
transactional of sort I thinkPecker himself is sort of like
(14:45):
Trump the transactional guy andprobably to be friends and
allies transactional of sort.
I think Pecker himself is sortof like Trump the transactional
guy and probably to be in thatbusiness that he was in.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
I think Pecker specifically referred to Trump
as a mentor, which is a strangecomparison, but okay, I don't
think I'd want to look at ittells you a lot about the
relationship between the two andand I think it works for the
prosecution because he didn'thave an axe to grind.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
One of the criticisms of Michael Cohen is that he's
got an axe to grind.
But I mean Cohen's axe to grind, I think is legitimate and
doesn't necessarily mean he'snot telling the truth, but here
with Pecker we don't have he'snot grinding an ax.
He does corroborate Cohen, buthe also laid the whole scene out
, the whole context for theillegality of it, the stakes
(15:34):
that they understood what theywere doing was illegal or they
thought it well could have been.
But they understood also theimportance for the election.
They felt like this isnecessary, that this scheme they
hatched and executed wasnecessary in order for Trump to
(15:55):
win.
Whether that's right or not, asthe prosecution has said many
times, we don't really know.
But they certainly thought thatwas the case and it was not an
unreasonable thought.
And he also laid out the wholelandscape of this type of
tabloid journalism if you reallywant to call it journalism, but
technically I guess it comesunder that, even though it has
no regard for what actuallyhappened.
He was very open about it andthe minor sort of concessions
(16:19):
that came out oncross-examination where he had
done similar things for ArnoldSchwarzenegger and Tiger Woods,
you know, and other celebrities.
I don't think is a huge win forTrump.
I mean it doesn't mitigate whathappened here and it can be
differentiated.
I mean, if you thought that wasbad, the thing with Trump is
(16:41):
even a level worse so, withhigher stakes.
So I think and it caught thepublic's attention, it made
people understand there is asignificance to this trial.
It's not just about businessrecords being misclassified or,
you know, running throughsomething, through the company
that maybe shouldn't have been.
It's a lot more.
This was really all aboutillegally influencing the
(17:04):
election and they knew that.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, speaking of the falsification of business
records.
So in New York, typically theseare charged as misdemeanors and
you basically have to bootstrapthem up to a felony by showing
they were committed infurtherance of another crime.
And what do you think about theprosecution's strategy of
basically starting off the trialwith bootstrapping them up
(17:29):
before they even get to the ideaof the payments being the
records being falsified?
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Well, you always want to start the trial with a
witness that's going to beengaging and sort of help paint
a broader picture for what comesafter.
So it's not always a check thebox thing, it's not always
necessarily strictlychronological and you have to
recognize the jurors are peopleyou know they're sitting there,
(17:59):
you know morning to lateafternoon every day and you want
to give them somethinginteresting.
You don't want to start withkind of a weak witness in terms
of that witness's ability toengage with the jury.
So Pecker is somebody that doespresent a compelling story and
I'm sure obviously unfortunatelywe don't have a camera in, but
(18:23):
the sense is, and certainly fromthe reports from people who are
there are, that the jury wasengaged.
So I think that kind of mandated, you know Pecker is the obvious
choice to to start with andthey can fill in the gaps later.
But they've you know they'vegot other videos.
They've you know they've gotother videos.
(18:48):
There's going to be audiorecordings presumably that'll
come in and obviously bankrecords and other documents
that's going to have to come in.
But at least the jury is goingto have some understanding of
the broader picture when thosethings come in now and they
won't be totally lost.
So I think that was a goodchoice by the district
attorney's office.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
I think that was a good choice by the district
attorney's office.
Yeah right, I think theprosecution did a really good
job of putting everything into aframe for the jury from the get
go, so they have a lens to viewevery piece of evidence that's
presented after the fact.
But speaking of like creatingan environment that's engaging
(19:23):
for the jury, and this is likenot legal analysis, but what do
you think of the fact that Trumpcan't stay awake in the first
criminal trial of a formerpresident in the history of the
United States?
Like that?
He can't summon the attentionto even stay awake.
It's, it's beyond wild.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
With you on that.
I like the nickname you gavehim, or that you amplified don
snorleone yes, that was me.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
I take credit for that, yeah yeah, that was good.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
That's very apt.
I think if if he hadn't beencalling his political opponent
sleepy joe and trying to make abig deal about that, then it
might not have been sodevastating.
But I think politically that'sone of the worst things for him
to come out of.
This is that this guy it's notjust like he's falling asleep
(20:11):
once, I mean, I think it's likea daily event Every day.
Yes, Every day.
So you know one can imagine,you know easily a situation, the
famous Situation Room.
You know drama, you know.
Do we have to call inairstrikes or go to war in Iran
or wherever the hotspots are?
And everybody's, you knowmaking these, you know detailed
(20:36):
analyses, and Trump as commanderin chief, he's falling asleep.
I mean, is that a visual thatyou know the electorate is going
to go for?
I think not.
So I think that's a huge, ahuge negative for him.
And I guess he's not takingquestions in these you know kind
of press announcements he'sdoing.
(20:57):
But I would think thatsomebody's got to be questioning
him about that as well.
And who knows what he'll say.
Maybe he'll deny that he's evendoing it, but everybody's seen
him doing it.
So his denials, I think, willseem all the more ridiculous.
But you know, what else can hesay?
Speaker 1 (21:15):
move this back toward some, some legal analysis, like
what does it say about adefendant that won't even show,
like a judge and a jury and theprosecution, the basic respect
of staying awake like if you're?
If you were like giving juryinstructions as a judge and
(21:38):
you're like man, this dudedidn't fall asleep in my court
I'll make it really tough on him, no, wiggle his way out of it.
I mean, I you know, look, Iknow judges don't probably don't
take those things personally,but at some point the level of
disrespect is has to enter theminds of the judge and the
jurors.
Am I wrong?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yeah, so far.
In all the other cases, I thinkthat disrespect has shown
through.
In the E Gene Carroll case,when he got walloped with that
second judgment the first onewas only $5 million but
obviously his comportment in thecourtroom, you know, getting up
(22:24):
and walking around it inopportune times and things like
that this judge, I think, is nothaving it.
I think he's told that.
I think Judge Mershon has toldTrump, you know, a few times you
know to sit still or you knowbehave properly.
So he's putting limits on it.
So, yes, I think that's a bigdeal.
(22:44):
Now I have to say I mean I'veseen jurors fall asleep in cases
.
I've even seen judges doze offat certain points.
So I mean the days can get long, although I don't think these
days are particularly long inthis trial, I mean and they've
only had two nominally full daysso far, I believe, or maybe
(23:07):
today was the third one.
But you know anybody can, candoze off.
But if you're the defendant andit's all about you and you're
purporting to direct your legalteam and you're barking out
orders and yet you're fallingasleep, obviously it adds
another layer of absurdity tothe whole proceedings.
And that's what we've got withTrump.
It's a clown show.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
A clown show, my exact words that I was going to
use.
It's a clown show, like I'venever seen anything like it.
And look again the fact thatwe're even trying to talk about
this as though it's completelynormal.
It's still beyond absurd to me,even that degree of normalizing
it, because I want to screamabout how ridiculous this is.
But that would be inappropriate.
So earlier today, theprosecution called Keith
(23:54):
Davidson as a witness.
Were you familiar with thistestimony from earlier today?
Speaker 2 (23:59):
I followed along with that.
I was.
That was interesting to mebecause, you know, really Keith
Davidson had I mean, that wasn'tentirely kosher, so to speak
his representation of StormyDaniels and Karen McDougal,
because he seemed to be somewhatconflicted.
He is he really representingthem and I think he was, but I
(24:21):
don't know if he explained tohis clients in the technically
proper way that you know, did hehave some other conflicts
because of his closerelationships with?
You know the counterparties,you know the AMI and Pecker and
Dylan Howard, and is he reallytrying to get the best deal for
them?
(24:41):
Um, I think those are things,legitimately, that um probably
made him not the best attorneyfor them.
Although I don't think he washorrible, he did get them some,
um, some compensation, but itseems like, given the stakes, he
could have gotten a lot more.
But, um, but, but, but you know.
(25:01):
But he's a legitimate attorneyand he was trying to to work out
transactions here and I thinkhis testimony comes across so
far.
You know, we'll have to see howit ends up and and get the full
cross examination obviously toreally fully assess it, but so
far I think he also comes acrossas credible and it just adds
(25:26):
another layer of corroborationand another layer of strength to
the case, because he's reallyemphasizing also the stakes here
.
They knew that this was allabout winning the election or
not.
Obviously, right after theAccess Hollywood tapes he really
drew the line there.
(25:46):
When that Access Hollywoodstory broke.
That was a game changer.
Trump didn't care aboutsuppressing all this stuff
before that, which is deadly forTrump legally also, because one
of his defenses that he's sortof proffered is that, well,
obviously this is embarrassing.
(26:06):
You know personally, and so youknow these women are not that
I'm saying, it's true whatthey're saying.
But you know my family, my wife, I don't want them, you know,
being subjected to these kindsof stories.
So sure, who wouldn't want tobury that?
But actually Trump is adifferent cat, right, he
couldn't have cared less.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
And his family, right , well, wouldn't he just cut a
check from the Trumporganization from the account
that his family doesn't have anyeyes on.
Wouldn't that just be thesimplest way to go about that?
Speaker 2 (26:49):
Absolutely.
It would have been the simplestway and if he had done that it
wouldn't really have violatedany laws.
It wouldn't have violatedcampaign finance laws.
But at every opportunity hechose to make it much more
complicated to track it.
And I mean he's basically bothDavidson and Pecker and I'm sure
(27:11):
other witnesses will say he hadno interest in paying.
I mean, he's kind of acheapskate with that sort of
stuff.
He had no interest in hushingthis story when it came to his
family.
It was only when the electoralconsequences became evident,
after that whole AccessHollywood recording dropped,
(27:32):
that he radically changed histune because it was for the
election, election.
So it's absurd to think now,given what we've heard, that
this was not about the electionbut really just about his
sensitivity to other people'sfeelings.
You know, all of the witnesstestimony, all of the texts and
(27:54):
communications that have goneback and forth so far have shown
that he had not a care in theworld on the personal side,
about this.
You know he probably didn'tthink there was anything wrong
with it.
I mean, I think he felt totallyentitled to engage in this type
of behavior and that seems tobe more what the evidence is
showing.
But he did not want voters tobe aware of it and to put that
(28:17):
into a context where they mightthink this Access Hollywood tape
was credible.
And also remember Davidson wassaying you know, we all thought
the election was over.
I mean, there's communicationshe sent out at the time.
You know those wave the whiteflag type of statements.
He's not going to win.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Now, after this tape, but Trump made this miraculous
comeback.
I have this one text messageright here from Keith Davidson
to Dylan Howard, I think theeditor at the National Enquirer
Right.
But Trump made this miraculouscomeback, have we done?
And then Howard replied toDavidson oh my God, Like, is
that not like?
No, regardless of what thatsays about Trump's intent here,
(29:08):
clearly Howard and Davidson werewell aware that their actions
had an impact on the election,if not totally responsible for
his victory.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
And they were like in shock.
I think that they had kind ofpulled it off.
And that was one moment ofhumanity where they wondered you
know, are we responsible forwhat can happen here?
And I think the answer to thatis yeah, they are responsible,
among others, but they, you know.
All the harm that caused, Ithink, can somewhat be traced to
(29:41):
them as well as otherindividuals.
And that was a rare moment ofhonesty and self-reflection
between them where theyrecognized the significance of
it.
But Trump recognized it too,because all of a sudden he's
willing to pay out.
He's putting pressure onMichael Cohen.
Now we're getting the story ofthat sort of secondhand through
(30:02):
Davidson and Pecker and theseother text messages.
But we can see that thiscorroborates very strongly that
Trump understood the importanceof getting all this out.
And Pecker, by the way, hetestified that even after Trump
was president, when he met Trumpin the White House, trump was
(30:22):
throwing a dinner in his honor.
And what did they talk about?
They were talking about this.
They were talking about How's mygirl yeah, yeah, I mean he
doesn't want to be briefed onthe presidential daily briefing
Right.
I mean he famously couldn't sitthrough that for even 30
minutes.
They had to dumb it down aboutall the crises in the world.
That for even 30 minutes theyhad to dumb it down about all
the crises in the world.
You know he didn't have themind for that, but boy can he
(30:47):
spend a lot of time when it'sabout him being in power,
whether it's plotting theinsurrection or seeing whether
Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougalis going to say something that
might affect his ability to stayin power.
He's all over that, you know.
So it's very revealing.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
And a total side note here.
But what do you think is like?
What is your take on himlooping in Hope Hicks and Sarah
Sanders into basically a plot tocover up an affair to affect
the election?
Like what do you like?
This is the point at whichwe're.
It's the wire and we're likeare you taking notes on a
(31:27):
criminal conspiracy?
What are we doing?
Like, whose decision was that?
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Where's the wire.
But you know what?
He's rewriting the wire becauseyou know he just doesn't.
He thinks all these people aregoing to go along with him and
he, you know, in the case ofSarah Huckabee Sanders and Hope
Iggs, he was largely correct.
You know.
In fact, I think James Comeywas in one of these meetings,
right?
Speaker 1 (31:52):
The FBI director.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
I think he was in a meeting with Becker.
I mean, any other person isgoing to be thinking, you know
you don't want these peopleinvolved, but he thinks they're
all going to be with the programof covering this up.
And he wasn't necessarily wrongon that.
You know, I think even Comeywas still trying to get his
bearings as to what was going on.
(32:15):
But I think in Trump's mindthese people were all in on the
criminal conspiracy.
You know they're with him andthat's why he gets furious when
people break with him.
You know he saves his harshestrhetoric for those people.
It is really type of a mafiamentality which many people have
(32:35):
commented on.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
For sure.
And you talk about the factthat he expects these people to
engage in conspiracies to coverup his crimes and just takes
that for granted.
Have you even considered how,just what a random event it is
like, how random it is that theorigin story for this
(32:57):
investigation itself actuallyspun off from the Mueller
investigation?
Like this would never havehappened if Robert Mueller's
team had never gotten access tosome of the records from the
Trump organization and been ableto look at these payments and
be like, huh, that seemssuspicious, let's, let's spin
that off to the SouthernDistrict of New York.
And then there was also theopportunity for the Southern
(33:18):
District to continue.
Is such a late stage is because, well, he basically called and
killed the investigation, right,he was like, hey, manhattan
(33:40):
DA's office, don't worry aboutthis, sdny has got it.
And then he's telling SDNY, hey, ixnay on that investigation.
Like just a weird tale thatwe've ended up in this place
like this.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Well, it's a disturbing tale because, you
know, and SDNY, out of all ofthe US attorneys offices around
the United States, they kind ofheld themselves out as being the
most independent.
They called themselves it's notthe Southern District of New
York, it's the SovereignDistrict of New York.
Nobody tells us what to do andpeople were sort of repeating
(34:14):
that line, which was false.
Barr was having his, you know,minions and the deputies, and
Rosenstein's deputies, andcalling and putting pressure on
it, even after Cohen had beenprosecuted and convicted and
sentenced to jail.
Well, you know.
So what kind of a message isthat?
Here, the exact same conductwhich benefits Trump has
(34:39):
resulted in the lower personbeing prosecuted and going to
jail, but but the prosecutorialauthorities in this case the
Southern District of New York,nominally being obviously part
of the Department of Justicedeciding no, the Southern
District of New York not onlybeing obviously part of the
Department of Justice, decidingno, not to go through with it.
It's a terrible look and theyhave never really wanted to
admit that, that that happened,but clearly that it did.
(35:03):
And now instead actually otherpeople, on their behalf, I think
, have tried to scapegoatMichael Cohen, saying he wasn't
credible.
So how could they go forward.
But Alvin Bragg in the districtattorney's office has put the
lie to that.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
Let's bring this back full circle.
So you know, cohen doesobviously have these credibility
issues, but one of the thingswe found out during the course
of Packer's testimony is that hesigned a non-prosecution
agreement with the manhattanda's office in 2019.
So if the southern district ofnew york really wanted to pursue
these charges, all they had todo was work their way up the
(35:41):
chain to david pecker, theirstar witness, right there.
Why, I don't understand.
Why is it they didn't take nextsteps on that?
Do any due diligence?
I mean, obviously you know BillBarr, unreliable narrator here,
with his take on on how thatproceeded.
Obviously he had a hand inmaking sure this didn't go any
further, but and we even had theinstance of them, you know,
(36:03):
erasing numerous instances ofmentions of individual one and
Cohen's indictment Like it seemslike the fix was in from the
get go once Barr was.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
That's right.
I mean, that was theintervention on Trump's behalf
by high ranking officials at theDepartment of Justice, which
was inappropriate because itwasn't based on policy or equity
or anything like that.
It was just to serve Trump'spersonal needs.
And that might have made itmore difficult for the district
attorney's office to go forward.
If they didn't know what the USattorney's office was doing, if
(36:40):
they thought they were goingforward, they didn't want to
duplicate it.
So I think that made it harder.
I think that was part of theissue.
There was that not only wasthere not cooperation from the
federal side of it for thedistrict attorney's office, but
they might have felt that therewas some interference there and
(37:01):
that delayed it.
I mean, eventually theyprobably realized yeah, this
isn't happening at the federallevel.
Should we go forward at thefederal level?
Should we go forward?
And there was a whole tortuoushistory there where it looked
like it wouldn't go forward fora while, but then they kept at
it and it, you know, looks likenow they've got a really strong
case.
But and then the coup de grace,so to speak, of absurdity or
(37:26):
what I don't know, is that thetrial was almost derailed.
It was certainly continued forabout a month when it turned out
that the US attorney's officethere in the Southern District
had been subpoenaed right, youknow, lawfully subpoenaed and
hadn't complied with it in atimely way.
And then at the last minutethey dumped all kinds of
documents on the case and thatcaused the delay.
(37:50):
So they really were a negativeinfluence here and we haven't
gotten to the bottom of that.
A lot of what Barr did andcaused to be done in the
department has just been sweptunder the rug.
I mean, people don't want to,you know, internally investigate
that, it seems.
But it's important forstraightening things out, going
(38:10):
forward and for accountabilityand for writing a correct
history here to try tounderstand what happened there.
So there's still a lot ofquestions with all of that.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Right, I'm not a fan of news outlets having Bill Barr
on in any fashion whatsoever,but I do have an example of the
shell game that was being playedat DOJ, similar to what was
going on with Manhattan.
You know, manhattan's office inthe Southern District of New
York, specifically RodRosenstein, during the Mueller
investigation, basically tellingthe FBI hey, you know,
(38:39):
mueller's team will handle thecounterintelligence aspect of
the Russia investigation.
And then telling Mueller's teamhey, we're going to spin off
the counterintelligence aspectof the investigation to the FBI,
like, what kind of like?
It seems as though once theycome up with the strategy that
works, once they try to employit over and over.
(39:00):
Same thing with this catch andkill scheme, I would imagine.
But one last thing before.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
I let you go.
And that's a great point.
We never got to the bottom ofthat and the press hasn't gotten
to the bottom of it.
So these are big things thatneed to be gotten to the bottom
of.
You know what's going on withthat?
We've never gotten a straightanswer on that.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
No, I haven't forgotten.
I think about it regularly.
But yeah, one last thing beforeI let you go.
Trump has made it publiclyknown that he's willing to
testify.
Obviously, we can't rely onanything Trump states publicly,
because clearly he's a knownliar.
But let's say you were Trump'slegal counsel.
What would you advise him to doin regards of testifying?
(39:43):
In this case, to insist ontestifying, like how would you
coach him to kind of respond tothe evidence that's been put
forth so far?
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Obviously, we have no idea what else is coming, but
as far as what you're currentlyaware of, it's a great question
because Trump probably is, youknow, the world's worst witness,
I mean, certainly one of themore difficult ones, you can
imagine.
I did have somebody very, verysimilar to him in a big trial,
obviously not of this magnitudein terms of publicity and
(40:15):
involving a former president,but someone with a very similar
personality, and it's adifficult call because you can't
really run through theirtestimony with them.
They won't cooperate.
You don't know what they'regoing to say.
Trump obviously being a knownhabitual liar, I think he
(40:36):
understands enough that hedoesn't really want to testify,
even though he might find it inhis interest to claim that he
will.
But for a normal witness in acase like this, or a normal
defendant in a case like this,your client, if you're
representing that person, that'sthe biggest part of your case,
because if that client can makethe case, if he's credible or if
(40:58):
he's believable to the jury, hecan get right up there and talk
to them directly and the juryis always going to have, you
know, an inquisitiveness aboutwhat the defendant is going to
say yes, they're going to getinstructed by the judge that if
the defendant doesn't testify,you know, don't pay any
(41:19):
attention to that, you don'tdraw anything negative for that.
That's absolutely his right todo so.
The defense will try to say youknow he doesn't need to testify,
the case is so weak.
What's the point?
There's nothing to be addedhere.
But the jury is still going towonder boy.
I wish he had gotten up thereand testified.
So you always want the clientto testify, but I don't think
(41:40):
Trump is fixable.
So it's a really tough question.
I don't think you can make himtestify in a credible way which
doesn't make it worse.
And here's the real issue,because you could say look, he's
probably going to go down inflames anyway.
So maybe his testimony doesn'tmake it worse.
(42:00):
Maybe he speaks to you know onesort of outlier, you know
irrational juror who is justgoing to sympathize with him
against all the evidence.
But here's the risk, even withall that, is that when it comes
to sentencing, the judge takesinto consideration whether the
(42:20):
testimony of the defendant wastruthful or not.
That is appropriate and evenrequired factor in sentencing.
Speaker 1 (42:27):
So it was typically difficult to get a conviction on
something like perjury.
But if it's in the course ofyour own trial, when it's time
for sentencing the judge isgoing to look at that like oh
hey, you told a bunch of fibs onthere, buddy, let's tack on
some extra time.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
And that may be the difference between him going to
jail or him not going to jail.
So these, these are big issues,but I don't think Trump will
testify, because I think hedoesn't want to testify.
Recall, though, that he didtestify for about five minutes
in front of Judge N'Goran, butthere was no jury there, so they
gave him wide latitude to beridiculous.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
Yes, that was actually.
I think Judge N'Goran actuallydid him a disservice there by
letting him and his lawyers justrun wild with their approach in
that case, because they thatdid not prepare them for this
endeavor in Merchan's court.
But I do appreciate you forjoining us.
Thank you so much for yourinput.
Tell everyone where they canfind you on the.
(43:25):
Well, I guess it's no longerknown as Twitter, but X,
formerly Twitter.
Speaker 2 (43:31):
Well, I guess it's no longer known as Twitter, but X,
formerly Twitter, at EricLissan, at E-R-I-C-L-I-S-A-N-N.
And hopefully we can do thisagain or I'll get another.
I should expand into podcastingor YouTube type things, so stay
tuned for that.
But but right now, x, twitter,twitter, and I appreciate all
(43:51):
your engagement there.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
Yeah, thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
My pleasure.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.