we ve read the media reports about how difficult things can be. it seems like some of them, it s a difficult case. the personalities involved. i think it s a mistake for the team to have tried to find this be all and all for purposes of the arraignment. the arraignment is a pro form of step in the case. they don t need it. i would personally put together the best team of lawyers possible, and then find a florida lawyer familiar with the demographics, going to help the jury selection, respected by the court if possible. and go from there. i would first want my best team of lawyers. they need a local council as a matter of law there. they had that with a person at the stature of the former solicitor general in mr. kise. jim, i want your perspective in a moment. david, first, isn t there something they need to move quickly on? of course, we don t get the answer today of when an export court appearance is going to be. obviously, since two of trump s other attorneys handling this case spe
every right to take these documents. he said i did everything right. and they indicted me. how much does that complicate a search for an attorney? you know, i don t think it does all that. much a person should have the rights to defend themselves in public. i think what is much much more interesting is why nobody is criticizing jack smith for getting out, in front of the public, the night of the indictment, having a press conference with a peacock with an american flag behind him and that is wrong. a judge is going to instruct the jury not to make a decision based on the indictment, to wait for the proof. so, i m not sure why jack smith did that. i m not sure why prosecutors are holding press conferences. i think it s unseemly. and i think it s wrong. it s interesting for you to say that. because what we had heard as we were covering it in the immediate mid-aftermath of learning that trump s indictment was the silence of the justice department and that trump himself was the one f
the arraignment is a pro form of step in the case. they don t need it. i would personally put together the best team of lawyers possible, and then find a florida lawyer familiar with the demographics, going to help the jury selection, respected by the court if possible. and go from there. i would first want my best team of lawyers. they need a local council as a matter of law there. they had that with a person at the stature of the former solicitor general in mr. kise. jim, i want your perspective in a moment. david, first, isn t there something they need to move quickly on? of course, we don t get the answer today of when an export
even look like? i can t imagine. even in a normal case, jury selection is very complicated. it s sort of like the world s most difficult game show. you know very limited amounts of facts about each person, but you kind of have to guess if this person is going to be there. with donald trump, the goal isn t to get 12 people would ve never heard of him. that is utterly impossible. the goal is to find 12 people who you believe can put aside whatever their personal or political views are and judge the case on the evidence alone. jurors will be asked explicitly that. can you put aside whatever you believe and base your decision solely on the facts and evidence of this case? and a lot of questions kind of following up on that. ultimately, the lawyers are going to have a limited amount of strikes, the ability to throw a limited amount of jurors off. they re going to use their gut instinct. do i trust this person or not? do i like the vibe of this person? it s a guessing game. united to ask
the one framing the narrative of what had happened, and we weren t hearing anything from the justice department. isn t that just as problematic? well, trump beat them too it, as trump is opt to do. but jack smith held a press conference maybe too late for the media. but why is he holding a press conference at all? it is odd. he had a speaking indictment, what i call a show-and-tell indictment with pictures and everything. that should speak for itself. it s weird that a prosecutor would get in front of the camera and sort of preen about we want a speedy trial. government doesn t get a right to a speedy trial. don t you have a right to a speedy trial as a person? is that preening? the defendant has the right to a speedy trial, not the prosecutor. so for the prosecutor to say we want a speedy trial, well, i think that was just for the cameras, because he doesn t have a right to a speedy trial. only a defendant does. so this case is going to take a long time. you don t think he was