instead to broadly make the argument that an indictment, a federal indictment, another one of the former president they believed would cause more turmoil in the country. of course the idea of whether or not jack smith was receptive to that message, we don t know that, and we don t believe we don t have any reason to believe, i should say, that it changes the nature of this investigation and the direction of it. kay tlan, stand by. norm eyes zen with us as well. norm, what do you make of the arguments trump s legal team is now making to the special counsel, jack smith? do you think the counsel will buy it? wolf, i don t think he ll buy it. as you know, i practiced law for years, criminal defense law, with john lauro, who was in that meeting. i m sure he made a forceful presentation. he picked a novel approach, according to kaitlan s reporting, of talking about the effect this would have, not arguing the facts of the case. i suspect he articulated some of trump s defenses. we saw t
other than himself in the two victims. he got him to concede that point. if that s the case, if he didn t kill him, who did? i think that s probably one of the strongest points that the prosecutor made. however, i think the prosecutor has overplayed some of their hand, because they have not been able to establish motives. despite all the testimony about all these financial crimes. and there s a lot of them, to be sure. despite the fact that he has lied and admitted he has lied, they have not been able to tie any of this stuff up to a motive, a reason to kill this man s wife and his son. and the jury is listening for that. of course we all know prosecutors don t have to prove motive, but when they do, he needs to be something that is credible, because that will take away from the credibility of the rest of their presentation. sean: andrew, what do you think? i think alex murdaugh and his legal team made a big, big mistake by having him testify. it violates rule number one of crimina