yeah, so, he s famous for not listening to his lawyers, of course. you really can t give him any advice apparently. but you re right, not only does he answer questions beyond where he probably should, but his tone, he comes across as arrogant, pet atlanta. he insults e. jean carroll, her attorney. he just really, really is a terrible witness, which is why he has to sit for the deposition. he didn t have to have a choice. i don t think we ll voluntarily see imever testify because he s such a bad witness and because the impeachment evidence is so vast he would really get clobbered. he is a terrible witness. i don t envy his lawyers having to defend him. thank you. next, signs of splits between russia s military commanders and the mercenary army doing much of the fighting for russia in ukraine. what the wagner group leader announced today, and why it may just ator the course of the war. .
testimony of outcry witnesses, other women who claim to have been assaulted, various experts and she will testify. so she s got all of that in her favor. on the other side, mr. trump has lost several key rulings. and i want to ask you about in addition on the other side is the big question, well, i would say i m probably not going too far out there to say unlikely he is going to testify and there s even a question if he s going to show up in court at all. not required to. but what impact do you think that has if he doesn t show in court for this? the jury is not going to like that. they re going to think either he doesn t care enough about this case to show up or that he has something bad to say. i do think it s highly unlikely in this case that he will, in fact, show up for trial. he s not known for being focused, so i think direct examination would be difficult and of course on cross-examination there s all manner of impeachment evidence that the plaintiff s lawyers can
running into things. which is very relevant to this case. how? yellow how? because relevant to this case. how? yellow how? because we relevant to this case. how? yellow how? because we believe - relevant to this case. how? yellow how? because we believe that s i how? because we believe that s exactly how? because we believe that s exactly what she did. she was asked if she exactly what she did. she was asked if she ever exactly what she did. she was asked if she ever said exactly what she did. she was asked if she ever sai if she ever said that, she said no, we have impeachment if she ever said that, she said no, we have impeachment evidence l if she ever said that, she said no, i we have impeachment evidence that she has. but we have impeachment evidence that she has. , ., ., ., she has. but you have no testified. she has. but you have no testified. that - she has. but you have no testified. that she - she has. but you have no l testified. that she was. she has. but yo
and defeating joe biden orn whoever the democrat nomineeevee is . democrat nomination is. this doesn so this doesn t surprise me at all. but how far out over his skis is bragge on the legal aspect? of this? any american who eveng coul considers the idea that mr. brigg could indict president trump ought to be a strike at the rule of law, outraged. consti anyb a strike at the rule of law to strike at our constitution. and the fact talking that anyont be talking about an indictment or an arraignment afterr bo s ty today is even more bob costello s testimony today is even more than outrageous. the granrageous.grand juryd jurn exculpatory and impeachment evidence. the prosecutor had an obligation to present that until bob castel o testifiedb costel today, they hadn t heard that bob costello s testimony they ve is qualitatively and material materially different from anything they ve heard.a cohen spoke to him as a lawyerco . bob costello has three hundred and thirty email exchanges. ut a