an elaborate and solid theory that s backed up by a lot of evidence, and he has just decided to conceal that at this point. that would be a i think it s a strange decision on his part, but nevertheless i m giving him the benefit of the doubt at the end of the day. if all of our legal friends read this indictment and don t see a way to a felony, it s hard to imagine convincing a jury that that they should get there and we and we heard the former national security adviser to donald trump. john bolton, not a fan of donald trump opposite expressing disappointment. ah and saying he thinks that donald trump is guilty as sin of what s alleged, but this is not enough to go after a president with an indictment for the first time in american history, all of our parents have told us at one time or another first impressions, count, and legal sources said there was not enough detail. they thought that it was a mistake from a historic point of
kinds of charges that a local district attorney even in the places largest manhattan can bring against a major political figure for one, at least as of now, all we know are misdemeanor business fraud. um that that is something that that s a lie that he has now crossed that will be used against democrats and others. i think that is a huge risk in the long term again to andrew s point to give him the benefit of the doubt he gets to make his case in court. but he says he had no legal requirement to explain the underpinnings that make it a felony. he may not have a legal requirement. did he have a public requirement? did you have a public good requirement? where you going to bring 34 felony counts against the former president, knighted states. if you re a democrat, if you re under attack, if you do have past statements on the record about going after trump. yes i believe he did. i believe he did have more of a public requirement at this moment not to lay out his entire case. he doesn t hav
view that this was the first case to come out that way, one source said. to me, this is donald trump. you don t bring a knife to a gunfight, so we don t know what we don t know. but this was not, and i mean, i think that that s in some ways. it doesn t even matter what order this came in, i think either way, whether this is the first case of the last case, i think the burden um in a case involving a former president is a lot more. information a lot more legal justification for the charges, and it is puzzling as the previous panel with anderson was just discussing why the statutes that would make this a felony weren t even laid out clearly and so that people can really see what laws they re alleging that he broke. i think that s really puzzling to me because the public interest in this case is so high as a prosecutor, i think the legal underpinnings of all of this
trump, which is they are not coming for me. they re coming for you and i am just standing in the way so forth. wait to see what donald trump are going to get in just a few moments. we expect him any minute now. alright christian homes. thanks very much was waiting for former president to respond to the day s events. when i check in with cnn s paula reid was outside the courthouse in lower manhattan. so can you just walk us through the charges that were instilled today, paul i have read through this indictment, anderson and he s being charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. these are being charged as a felony and in order to charge these as a felony in new york state. you have to prove that these records were falsified in furtherance of another crime, and it s not clear exactly what that larger crime is because it s not charged here. if prosecutors want to argue that these documents were falsified, and we re talking specifically about the way michael cohen was reimbursed