concerns about would there be objections to the government being able to introduce into evidence at trial, that dialogue up at bedminster where trump is referring to a document, the dialogue you played at the top of the show? or would that be ruled by the court to be more prejudicial than probative since the document was not the basis for a charge? guess what, the document is now a basis for a charge. so i think any argument that that audio shouldn t be admissible is going to fail. or if it doesn t fail, if there are successful motions to suppress, those are things that government can appeal. that part of it, to me i could just hear trump thinking that, you know, he s figured it all out. and despite just by transportation, right? right. he creates the nexus that now brings it all together. which, frank, begs the question for me, what is trump thinking at this point in light of all of
interesting that the highlighters were requested but no questions. i thought that perhaps it came from the fact that in california and in this case the jurors were allowed to take notes. so, rather than come back into the courtroom and ask for read-back of testimony, which was sort of the practice when i was practicing law in washington, d.c., as a prosecutor, perhaps they needed the highlighters to remind themselves of the most powerful evidence that came in front of them or perhaps to go through those jury instructions. remember, there s only one count here, involuntary manslaughter, but the jury instructions were actually quite kmrefl. that is because this case is much more of a medical malpractice type case rather than sort of the typical hom stied that we all see on csi and that sort of thing, homicide by gun, by knife. so perhaps they needed it to weed through the elements that were outlined in the jury instructions, which again were pretty complicated. reporter: le