Jonathan Turley: NY v Trump case is 'collapsing' under its own weight

Before those comments, joining us will be former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy, George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley, and former U.S. Attorney Katie Trasy, Welcome everyone, Andy. I'll start with you first, as we do. Wait for the former president's comments here. What do you think the strategy is now with this cross-examination that's going on in that courtroom? Well, evidently what they're trying to emphasize based on the reports that we're hearing is that these agreements, these non-disclosure agreements are legal, they're a staple of civil settlements in the United States, they're upheld all the time. and they are not criminals and they will build on that to the final argument that not only are they not criminals, Trump actually is. in charge of them in the impeachment interesting Jonathan uh, when the former president walks out of that courtroom, I can only imagine what he's going to have to say, but at this point, based on what we've heard coming out of that courtroom, do you think he ?

We will look at this as a good day or a bad day. I think they should see it as a good day if this is what they thought was his strongest start. This is a particularly anemic

case

. I mean, the bird described how he asked Trump about Cohen's refund and Trump said I don't know anything about that but the most important thing is that now you have the defense pointing out that he did the same thing with other celebrities, the point is that Trump He was and is a celebrity, he was, he had a hit television show and that was really good for the magazine and Pecker himself said that he had a couple of different motivations here because this is what my readers wanted too.

None of that makes a particularly good

case

for anything criminal, but it's still missing. it's the fact that he just described doing the same thing with celebrities because there's nothing illegal about this, there's nothing illegal about having an NDA, you can object to it, you can't like the underlying story, but it's not a campaign contribution and the federal government. Yes, Katie I made it clear. I definitely agree that the first witness should definitely be his strongest witness and Pecker's testimony did nothing to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt; In fact, he even said he assumed Trump wanted the stories removed for his campaign purposes. but I didn't have any direct evidence of that and an assumption is very far from proof Beyond a reasonable doubt that that was the only motivation behind these very legal agreements, so I certainly don't know what kind of ground they gained from it U, aside from the fact of establishing that there were a lot of conversations with Michael Cohen that seemed to be coordinating this on Trump's behalf and again, we don't know if Trump was aware of what Cohen was broadcasting and claiming that Trump knew that is certainly something. that's very much up for debate, okay, Andy, I want to take our viewers and listeners through something that just came to us outside of the courtroom and get your answer, as Pecker's testimony is ongoing. at this time regarding and This is the cross-examination that will take place at this August 2015 meeting in 2023.

Pecker testified the wrong date of the meeting and prosecutors had to correct it. Okay, I'm just reading this verb as we walk out of the courtroom. um B, the cross, Trump. The lawyer doing the cross-examination right now is pressing Pecker to question his memory and different series of events Trump's lawyer is asking when was the most recent meeting Pecker had with prosecutors. Pecker said two or three weeks ago. Pecker said there were probably five meetings in total with prosecutors December 2023 February 2024 seemed nervous and doesn't remember specifically saying I don't have my calendar in front of me Trump's lawyer then said it's hard to remember the dates um to Trump's lawyer He said it's hard to remember the dates of these things, even when they happened just a few months ago.

What you learn from that exchange, Andy, well, it's a pretty standard line of questioning to Sandra, where you know once the witness has given a version of events that it's useful. to the government or at least that the state believes is useful, that they poke holes in it as the Defense Council by showing that the witness is not as sure perhaps as it seemed in the direct examination that the memory is not as good, perhaps the credibility is not as high as you might have suspected, what I would like to doubt here is that I actually think Pcker overall is a very good witness for Trump, he is clearly not a hostile witness and I know him.

I need to make some points about his memory, maybe that will help with something you want to say at the end of the summary of the case to the jury. That's fine, but I wouldn't cross the line and make him a hostile witness or get him endorsed because I believe. he's more inclined to help Trump than hurt him, you agree with that, Jonathan, I absolutely agree with that, I think Andy is right on the surface, this guy has a gun to his head, he has an agreement that he signed, uh, he doesn't want to be there. uh you don't want to give him a motivation here uh, but I think they said they're scoring points right now, which also applies to what's going to happen in 18 minutes.

Penning is in danger of caging Trump in that courtroom. I can't speak, I think the other side is waiting for him to come out and vent, but what we're seeing from Pecker is how weak this case is. It's almost incomprehensible, so the president doesn't need to rehabilitate his case or give them anything. statements made outside the courtroom uh this case is

collapsing

under its own

weight

uh that also means that the president himself should not take the stand in this case it is such a weak case uh that prosecutors would be given a possible chance uh that they Otherwise there wouldn't be Katie maybe that's where we end things here uh that question for you do you agree with Jonathan that at this point uh with that big decision before him that the former president should not take the stand in your own defense?

I agree that it would be very risky for him with the arena of all the rulings allowing all of these other findings in the other civil cases and therefore it would simply attack his credibility in a way that is not necessary and open him up in a way that is not really necessary. It is necessary for the defense at this time because the case is very weak. It's obvious why Alvin Brag didn't originally think this case should be the first to be closed, but for practical reasons it was the only one that could proceed and it's a real risk for them right now because it doesn't look good, it doesn't shape up as a clear example of criminal conduct, it's getting more confusing every day, well, we'll continue to rely on any updates that come out of that courtroom.

We will likely have the court closing for the day shortly and the former president, his team, previously said that he is expected to come out of the courtroom and speak on camera and we will have that for our live viewers. Thanks to you three for joining. we, thank you, thank you, hello everyone, I'm Brian Kilme. I want you to do me a favor. I want you to click to subscribe to the Fox News YouTube page. This is the only way I know for sure they won't. miss any great commentary, any great news, any great interview that comes to you on Fox.

You can get it all here on YouTube, so subscribe right now.