throes of that addiction. two, that ag garland gave him the space and the authority to pursue and prosecute this case and three, that the united states judicial system is fair. no one in this country is above the law. everyone must be accountable for their actions. even this defendant. however, hunter biden should be no more accountable than any other citizen convicted of this same conduct. the prosecution has been and will continue to be committed to this principle. while many have said that this is a sad day for the bidens who like so many american families have grappled with the consequences of addiction, it is still a good day for the united states. that this conviction is a prime example of the way our judicial system is supposed to work. even president biden saying in a statement that he would respect the outcome of this case, repeating what he told abc news last week. will you accept the jury s outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is? yes. have you ruled
Anybody else. Im going to read from the transcript here. Why didnt you go to your direct report, mr. Morrison, your response, because mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. And then i asked you, did mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around mr. Morrison . And you said, actually, he did say that, i shouldnt talk to any other people. Is that right . Yes, but theres a whole theres a period of time in there between when i spoke to him and when he circled back around. It wasnt that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to enough time for you to go to talk to someone who you wont tell us who it is, right . Ive been instructed not to, representative jordan. Heres what im getting. The lawyer told you not talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to scare keec kent and talk to the one guy schiff wont let us tell you who it is. Representative jordan, i did my
u.s. special correspondent for bbc news, catty cake, embassy correspondent legal correspondent lisa rubin. former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor chuck rosenberg, and msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos are good to have you with us. chuck, i m curious, your first impressions of what happened yesterday and what american should be looking at and what they should be focusing on as we move forward. yeah, is going to be hard, i think, for our very divided country to look at this the way i do. i think it s a relatively simple thing. the government presented a compelling case. they deduced the facts they wanted to produce the call the witnesses they wanted to call and asked the questions they wanted to ask them, and the jury understood the pictures often do. statistically speaking, most juries convict most of the time and that s what happened here.
Payments that trump ended up directing that his books and records be doctored. So yeah, these are the witnesses you get in trials. You know, its interesting to me, jose, if this trial in some ways is unique because its the former president as a defendant, and in other ways, its extraordinarily ordinary, right . These are how openings are done. This is how evidence is deduced, this is how and why the witnesses are ccalled. You can walk into any courtroom in america and hear the judge charge The Jury with these sort of instructions before their Opening Statements and then you would hear these sorts of Opening Statements and you would see these sorts of witnesses in almost any criminal trial. Whats different here is Donald Trump is the defendant. Joining us now is former u. S. Attorney and msnbc legal analyst, barbara mcquaid. Theyre obviously trying to get ahead of potential credibility questions around michael cohen, and colangelo saying cohens
Christian, and critical Defense Attorney and msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos. Lets talk a little bit about, i dont know, lets play games. When were talking about the possibility of Donald Trump testifying, he has said in the past just recently that he wanted to testify and today they talked about that possibility and what that could mean for the case. Whats the any positive aspect for trump to testify . For centuries now, criminal Defense Attorneys have always been risk averse, and ordinarily, it is just too risky to put your client on the stand. They never know as much as the prosecutors and there are tons of bad things that can happen. After all, once the jury loses faith in a particular witness including your client, and they dont believe him, then youre pretty much sunk. But i happen to think x im sure im in the minority, there is a decent chance that Donald Trump will testify. Number one, he believes he is smarter than anyone in the room