Former President Donald Trump is leaning on the so-called "Clinton socks case" as a legal precedent to clear his name after he was indicted on 37 counts including "willful retention of national defense information."
table and just go through what you just heard, those three bites of trump, because it sounds to me like his defense is i did it. yes. he, as andrew said, he s had multiple confessions he s made. his public statements are the gift that keeps giving for prosecutors, or plaintiffs attorneys. every time he speaks. i m sure his attorneys say please don t speak, please don t, and he just keeps doing it. so he s admitted that he had the documents, and he contradicts himself also, because he said that he didn t look through the boxes. right. well, clearly he did, because there is an audiotape of him at the same golf club apparently waving around a document and then saying on it, well, it s confidential, and i could have just declassified it when i was president, but i didn t. so he is completely inconsistent, but he has given multiple confessions in this case. if you had someone on the stand in front of you as a prosecutor, and there were previous statements recorded that they recorded
on the stand? could you just use their prior statements as the equivalent of putting them on the stand? you mean cross-examination? yeah. i can t imagine he would, but if he ever took the stand, it would be a dream for anyone cross-examining him. he would have his direct examination and then is it true? and you would just pull up the videos of him, one after another after another. and it speaks for itself. okay, mary mccord, let me go to you on this. because this is trump s other defense. he has been using this a lot, and i think to people who don t know the law and aren t familiar with it, to them it probably sounds credible. here is president trump giving the presidential records act. i had every right to have these documents. the crucial legal precedent is laid out in the most important case ever on this subject known as the clinton socks case. in other words, whatever
aggravating circumstances would most definitely be charged and has been charged. and that is why the clinton defense doesn t make any sense. and that s why the biden defense doesn t make any sense. they re still making it. it leads us to his defense strategy. one of them is that the judge in this case, who seems to have a history and seems to have a history that s very pro-trump basically erases the case, directed verdict, or mess was the timing or somehow makes the case go away. that s one strategy. strategy number two is getting elected president, which means everything is on the line. be elected president and pardoning himself. and the third is plead out. i mean, do you see any i can t think of a fourth. i can t imagine donald trump ever pleading guilty to any crime. yeah. well, he confesses to them, but i can t imagine in a court of law him actually pleading guilty. and in terms of this case, many people say there is no way it
closing this investigation, because it was a mistake there. and when he realized he had them, he gave them back. what happened here, donald trump is not even charged with taking them, despite the fact that he has now admitted he took them. right. he is charged with retaining them after he was requested to give them back. and of course he is charged with a bunch of different obstructive conduct. and that s what makes this case so different than the pence and biden cases, but it also that s also the reason he was prosecuted. and in other cases, that s often been a similar thread there. some kind of lying about the documents once they re in possession. or there is dissemination. we have indications of dissemination here that are in the indictment, but not a charge of dissemination. in part because the dissemination alleged was in bedminster, and not in florida. but there are all kinds of aggravating circumstances in this case that anyone else with those kind of similar