Hans A. von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues - including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law, and government reform - as a Senior Legal Fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
This is a podcast from War Here'sLarry Minti with more of ther Saturday Morning
Show. Welcome back to Saturday Morning. A tabloyd muckraker, a porn star,
and a convicted liar. The threetop witnesses in the New York case
against Donald Trump, who was accusedof a bookkeeping error. Yep, that's
(00:25):
the case against former President Donald Trump. Let's bring in legal expert Hans von
Spakowsky, Senior Legal Fellow of theEdwin Mee Center for Legal Justice at the
Heritage Foundation. He's going to breakdown the prosecution's case and what we should
expect from the defense. Hans,let me just start off with your reaction
(00:46):
to the testimony of the star witness, Michael Cohen, and then the cross
examination. I don't think a prosecutorcould have had more of a disastrous week
with his I mean, think abouteverything that came out, both during the
prosecution's questioning and the cross examination,the cross examiner, the lawyer. They
(01:11):
caught him in a lie. Hehad to admit that he had already lied
in his testimony in this case.That's on top of the fact that he's
a convicted perjury. He went tojail for previously life. He had to
admit that he hates Donald Trump witha passion and would do anything to see
(01:32):
him convicted and in jail. Infact, he admitted, yeah, he's
been making money off of this.Then he admitted to cheating his client.
Remember one hundred and thirty thousand dollarspayment, but at one point he admitted
he'd sent invoices legal invoices to theTrump and the Trump Company for over four
(01:56):
hundred thousand dollars. And in additionto cheating his clot he actually recorded telephone
calls with his client. Look,I'm a lawyer. I can't think of
a more unethical thing to do,a greater violation of the professional code of
conduct than requesting your own client.I look, even Anderson Cooper, you
(02:20):
may Amason Cooper at CNN admitted recentlythat even he would doubt Michael Cohen's testimony.
Yeah, Hans, this whole caseseems to be blowing up in the
face of the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. So it's pretty obvious that this case
never should have been brought in thefirst place. Oh, that is absolutely
(02:42):
true, because you keep in mind, in all of this testimony, they
still the prosecutor still has not shownany illegal conduct. The payment to Stormy
Daniels was perfectly legal. The nondisclosure agreement was perfectly legal. Oh and
keep in mind, remember they're tryingto say this was a campaign related expense,
(03:02):
right. The reason this was madewas because Trump didn't want it to
hurt his campaign. Michael Cohen admittedon the stand. Actually, Trump was
really worried that this would hurt hisfamily and hurt particularly his wife. So
he even wiped out the supposed motivethat the prosecution has been pushing all along.
(03:24):
I thought the prosecution Hans in commenton this was brilliant when they'd read
back the testimony and then play MichaelCohen in his own words from his podcast
saying the exact opposite thing time andtime again. Yeah. Look, I
gotta tell you, if he's convictedby this jury, the only reason that
(03:49):
could possibly happen is because they're politicallybiased. I mean, look, any
objective members of a jury after listeningto all of this testimony and this really,
I mean, what's the word youcan use for Cohen? I mean,
this really just repidable guy. Anybodywho would actually believe anything he's saying
(04:11):
or what the prosecution's doing. Ijust don't see how they could find him
guilty. Do you believe Trump's lawyerswill offer any defense or any witnesses or
are they going to just say theprosecution hasn't proven their case. So let's
move on to closing arguments. Well, there's been indications they want to call
in an expert, Brad Smith.I actually know Brad Smith. He was
(04:34):
the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and actually when he left the FBC,
I took a seat of the FBC. And they want to bring him
in because he's an expert on federalcampaign finance law, and they want him
to testify that this kind of apayment is not a campaign related expense,
(04:56):
as the prosecution claims under federal law. But the judg in this case,
Judge Merchant, has issued an orderseverely limiting miss testimony and said that Smith
can't tell the jury that both theFBC and the US Department of Justice didn't
open a prosecution of Trump because theydon't think it's a campaign reletic spense.
(05:20):
So I don't know if they're goingto actually bring him in, but I
know that's one of the people theywanted to bring in. We are talking
with Hans von Spakowsky's senior legal fellowat the Edwin Mees Center for Legal and
Judicial Studies with the Heritage Foundation.I know you were saying, you can't
imagine a guilty verdict. So wheredo you see this heading of a hung
(05:43):
jury, a not guilty verdict,or do you think that the jury in
Manhattan is that biased they might stillfind him guilty. Well, I do
think it's hard to find an unbiasedjury in Manhattan, and I think that's
one of the reasons Alvin Bragg boughtbrought When I think not just me,
but many experts, legal experts saidis a bogus case. I think the
(06:09):
likelihood, Look, they could findhim not guilty, but I think there's
a high likelihood that at least oneor two of the jurors will realize this
is a bogus case, and youprobably may get a hung jury. There
are two attorneys on the jury.Do you think that matters, Well,
I would hope so. But onthe other hand, I've dealt with members
(06:33):
of the New York City Bar Associationand some of them are pretty biased.
So I don't know if that's goingto make a difference. Well, no
matter what happens, I certainly hopethe Heritage Foundation keeps going after Alvin Bragg's
information. For all the correspondences betweenthe DA's office in Manhattan and the Biden
(06:55):
administration. You're not giving up thatfight no matter what happens. Oh,
no or not. And the factthat he look, he's pursuing this case
while he is totally neglecting criminal prosecutionsof felons. He refuses to prosecute misdemeanors.
In other words, he's ignoring thesafety of the average Joe in New
(07:17):
York City. One last question,and again we're talking with Hans von Spakowski
from the Heritage Foundation. I knowlaw is your expertise, but let's talk
politics for one second. How doyou think if it's a hung jury or
a not guilty verdict, how doyou think that'll affect the presidential campaign going
forward. Well, look, thepolling already shows that a majority of Americans
(07:41):
think that this is a bogus caseand that this, along with all of
the other prosecutions of an ex presidentfor the first time in American history,
are because we now have a twotier justice system, and that these are
political prosecutions, and if there's ahung jury or he's found innocent, Listen,
that's just gonna confirm what the majorityof the public believes. And look,
(08:05):
it's probably gonna help him get electedpresident. Hans, as always,
thank you so much for your time, Thanks for having me. Hans von
Spakowski, Senior Legal Fellow of theEdwin Mees Center for Legal Justice at the
Heritage Foundation. This has been apodcast from wor
This is a podcast from War Here'sLarry Minti with more of ther Saturday Morning
Show. Welcome back to Saturday Morning. A tabloyd muckraker, a porn star,
and a convicted liar. The threetop witnesses in the New York case
against Donald Trump, who was accusedof a bookkeeping error. Yep, that's
(00:25):
the case against former President Donald Trump. Let's bring in legal expert Hans von
Spakowsky, Senior Legal Fellow of theEdwin Mee Center for Legal Justice at the
Heritage Foundation. He's going to breakdown the prosecution's case and what we should
expect from the defense. Hans,let me just start off with your reaction
(00:46):
to the testimony of the star witness, Michael Cohen, and then the cross
examination. I don't think a prosecutorcould have had more of a disastrous week
with his I mean, think abouteverything that came out, both during the
prosecution's questioning and the cross examination,the cross examiner, the lawyer. They
(01:11):
caught him in a lie. Hehad to admit that he had already lied
in his testimony in this case.That's on top of the fact that he's
a convicted perjury. He went tojail for previously life. He had to
admit that he hates Donald Trump witha passion and would do anything to see
(01:32):
him convicted and in jail. Infact, he admitted, yeah, he's
been making money off of this.Then he admitted to cheating his client.
Remember one hundred and thirty thousand dollarspayment, but at one point he admitted
he'd sent invoices legal invoices to theTrump and the Trump Company for over four
(01:56):
hundred thousand dollars. And in additionto cheating his clot he actually recorded telephone
calls with his client. Look,I'm a lawyer. I can't think of
a more unethical thing to do,a greater violation of the professional code of
conduct than requesting your own client.I look, even Anderson Cooper, you
(02:20):
may Amason Cooper at CNN admitted recentlythat even he would doubt Michael Cohen's testimony.
Yeah, Hans, this whole caseseems to be blowing up in the
face of the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. So it's pretty obvious that this case
never should have been brought in thefirst place. Oh, that is absolutely
(02:42):
true, because you keep in mind, in all of this testimony, they
still the prosecutor still has not shownany illegal conduct. The payment to Stormy
Daniels was perfectly legal. The nondisclosure agreement was perfectly legal. Oh and
keep in mind, remember they're tryingto say this was a campaign related expense,
(03:02):
right. The reason this was madewas because Trump didn't want it to
hurt his campaign. Michael Cohen admittedon the stand. Actually, Trump was
really worried that this would hurt hisfamily and hurt particularly his wife. So
he even wiped out the supposed motivethat the prosecution has been pushing all along.
(03:24):
I thought the prosecution Hans in commenton this was brilliant when they'd read
back the testimony and then play MichaelCohen in his own words from his podcast
saying the exact opposite thing time andtime again. Yeah. Look, I
gotta tell you, if he's convictedby this jury, the only reason that
(03:49):
could possibly happen is because they're politicallybiased. I mean, look, any
objective members of a jury after listeningto all of this testimony and this really,
I mean, what's the word youcan use for Cohen? I mean,
this really just repidable guy. Anybodywho would actually believe anything he's saying
(04:11):
or what the prosecution's doing. Ijust don't see how they could find him
guilty. Do you believe Trump's lawyerswill offer any defense or any witnesses or
are they going to just say theprosecution hasn't proven their case. So let's
move on to closing arguments. Well, there's been indications they want to call
in an expert, Brad Smith.I actually know Brad Smith. He was
(04:34):
the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and actually when he left the FBC,
I took a seat of the FBC. And they want to bring him
in because he's an expert on federalcampaign finance law, and they want him
to testify that this kind of apayment is not a campaign related expense,
(04:56):
as the prosecution claims under federal law. But the judg in this case,
Judge Merchant, has issued an orderseverely limiting miss testimony and said that Smith
can't tell the jury that both theFBC and the US Department of Justice didn't
open a prosecution of Trump because theydon't think it's a campaign reletic spense.
(05:20):
So I don't know if they're goingto actually bring him in, but I
know that's one of the people theywanted to bring in. We are talking
with Hans von Spakowsky's senior legal fellowat the Edwin Mees Center for Legal and
Judicial Studies with the Heritage Foundation.I know you were saying, you can't
imagine a guilty verdict. So wheredo you see this heading of a hung
(05:43):
jury, a not guilty verdict,or do you think that the jury in
Manhattan is that biased they might stillfind him guilty. Well, I do
think it's hard to find an unbiasedjury in Manhattan, and I think that's
one of the reasons Alvin Bragg boughtbrought When I think not just me,
but many experts, legal experts saidis a bogus case. I think the
(06:09):
likelihood, Look, they could findhim not guilty, but I think there's
a high likelihood that at least oneor two of the jurors will realize this
is a bogus case, and youprobably may get a hung jury. There
are two attorneys on the jury.Do you think that matters, Well,
I would hope so. But onthe other hand, I've dealt with members
(06:33):
of the New York City Bar Associationand some of them are pretty biased.
So I don't know if that's goingto make a difference. Well, no
matter what happens, I certainly hopethe Heritage Foundation keeps going after Alvin Bragg's
information. For all the correspondences betweenthe DA's office in Manhattan and the Biden
(06:55):
administration. You're not giving up thatfight no matter what happens. Oh,
no or not. And the factthat he look, he's pursuing this case
while he is totally neglecting criminal prosecutionsof felons. He refuses to prosecute misdemeanors.
In other words, he's ignoring thesafety of the average Joe in New
(07:17):
York City. One last question,and again we're talking with Hans von Spakowski
from the Heritage Foundation. I knowlaw is your expertise, but let's talk
politics for one second. How doyou think if it's a hung jury or
a not guilty verdict, how doyou think that'll affect the presidential campaign going
forward. Well, look, thepolling already shows that a majority of Americans
(07:41):
think that this is a bogus caseand that this, along with all of
the other prosecutions of an ex presidentfor the first time in American history,
are because we now have a twotier justice system, and that these are
political prosecutions, and if there's ahung jury or he's found innocent, Listen,
that's just gonna confirm what the majorityof the public believes. And look,
(08:05):
it's probably gonna help him get electedpresident. Hans, as always,
thank you so much for your time, Thanks for having me. Hans von
Spakowski, Senior Legal Fellow of theEdwin Mees Center for Legal Justice at the
Heritage Foundation. This has been apodcast from wor
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.