trump left office when they could have indicted him. tacopina made the point that it s fair to say that s going to be a point of contention as the case goes forward. assuming though we don t know that s the fact that bragg is bringing forward as a crime. he could allege that new york state campaign finance which has its own issues it s a complicated case. it hasn t been brought before, but the grand jurors decided there was enough probable cause for an indictment. there s a saying a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich i know the doj isn t reacting and the administration wants to stay away from this. are you hearing anything behind
debate as with so many things in america of people who want to lie their way through this or claim that accountability is a prosecution. those claims will be tested in court. if a judge finds or a jury perceives this d.a. or this process has been politicized and it s not about the evidence, i think it would blow up in their face that s why we have an adversarial process. the burden is on the d.a. s office, not the defendant. those things have to be tested in court not at mypillow.com or any place that recycles conspiracy theories. one more thing, katy, as we reflect on this i just looked at the filing, the people versus donald trump, defendant, we lived through an insurrection. we lived through an effort to overthrow democracy. the investigation in that case is open and ongoing. we re living through the normalizing of that.
they can do it by charging conspiracy because there was a conspiracy here between trump and others, including michael cohen and david pecker, to try and catch and kill stories to influence the election potentially they could charge conspiracy which to charge a conspiracy, that s what you you put language in there and tell the language of the story that makes it a talking indictment the other way they can do it, when you file a case, file a statement of facts i think they might do one of those here because there s so much speculation and interest in the case and i suspect that s what they ll do, one of those two things in this case. how much risk do you think alvin bragg is taking by bringing this case, this 7-year-old case about a hush money payment to a porn star do you think it s worth it a lot of republicans say you had
with an untested legal theory? it s untested it s not that it hasn t been brought before there have been several cases where it s been relied on a federal crime for falsification of documents when we were investigating the big banks. one of those banks pled guilty and the theory was it wasn t appealed because they pled guilty the case was brought it s not that it s never been done before, it s just never been tested. i m not as bothered by the bump up to what makes the misdemeanor a felony it s that you intended to conceal a crime. i m not as bothered by the legal theory as some people are. it would be one thing if the
president of the united states i don t know how you just let that pass or let that slide given those factors just because the only reason you wouldn t bring the case is because he was president nobody is above the law. i think it s worthwhile. i think it s worth considering the fact that in case he is jack smith let s assume jack smith brings a case against him. if a republican wins the next election, donald trump or any other republican wins the next election, they can pardon donald trump for any convictions he has, except state prosecutions the manhattan district attorney s case and the fulton county georgia case, those are state prosecutions and he won t be able to pardon himself or another republican can t pardon him. we have to see if vonnie willis decides to bring charges