at her disposal. what he said, mr. woodward is, don t get me off this case, don t get conflict counsel off this case, preclude the testimony of of yucil taveras. yucil taveras is the central witness in the superseding indictment, andrew. on the obstruction. on the obstruction piece. that is a huge deal effectively that if trump paid for a lawyer, i ve got to keep saying that, someone affiliated with trump world is saying don t take me off this case even though my conflicts of interests are so plainly obvious, get rid of the guy that s causing the conflict of interest. just to be clear to danya s point, that s not the law. this is one where obviously judge cannon has made a lot of wrong decisions but this is un where if she were to rule the testimony has been precluded, she would be reversed. not a case. this is absolutely black letter law, no way that gets
years. it s not usually the way that it goes in other places. it s generally understood that this is criminal. and danya, you have worked on looking at a model prosecution and thinking about how the facts as revealed to the 800 plus-page report fifth with u.s. criminal code. and i m curious what you think of the decisions made here by smith and what the charges are and how strong the cases. i think it s strong. it s fairly, as you just explained, it is laid out in a pretty simple format, easily understandable, digestible bets. the way it s organized, i think, and state by state, or as you said, kind of a sequence, the chronology, the story of the evolution of the false electors slates scheme. it s all readily understandable.
democracies. and generally, when you try to do a cool, it s sort of a situation. you succeeded you become the person in power, or you don t succeed and you end up in prison or worse. it s a very weird situation to try a coup, fail, and then hang out on the golf course for two years. it s not usually the way that it goes in other places. it s generally understood that this is criminal. and danya, you have worked on looking at a model prosecution and thinking about how the facts as revealed to the 800 plus-page report fifth with u. s. criminal code. and i m curious what you think of the decisions made here by smith and what the charges are and how strong the cases. i think it s strong. it s fairly, as you just explained, it is laid out in a pretty simple format, easily understandable, digestible bets. the way it s organized, i think, and state by state, or as you said, kind of a sequence, the chronology, the story of the evolution of the false electors
i think that s a really weak argument. besides the fact that there s good reason to believe that he didn t actually think that he won the election. imagine if he said to mike pence, i m going to break your legs and hurt your family if you don t throw out the electoral votes from wisconsin, even if trump believed that he had won the election, that would still be a crime. he d be using words that wouldn t be protected by the four first amendment. so it s besides the point what he secretly believed or publicly says about whether the election was stolen. it doesn t give him the right to engage in criminal conduct. that s what this indictment alleges. what do you think, danya? i completely agree with rick. that s not a defense. first of all, there is, of course, reams of evidence that show that everyone critical around him was saying there was no fraud, and the former president himself said things
criminal intent. what do you think about that? i think that s a really weak argument. besides the fact that there s good reason to believe that he didn t actually think that he won the election. imagine if he said to mike pence, i m going to break your legs and hurt your family if you don t throw out the electoral votes from wisconsin, even if trump believed that he had won the election, that would still be a crime. he d be using words that wouldn t be protected by the four first amendment. so it s besides the point what he secretly believed or publicly says about whether the election was stolen. it doesn t give him the right to engage in criminal conduct. that s what this indictment alleges. what do you think, danya? i completely agree with rick. that s not a defense. first of all, there is, of course, reams of evidence that show that everyone critical