these 19? i mean, the term is joint issue. it means that everybody has to sign on the indictment formally and that is the defendant enters a plea of not guilty and the prosecutor recognizes that. in terms of the guilty plea for everybody, i m not sure. i think it is going to be a polarizing case. there is a lot of danger that people on both sides folks that hate donald trump, folks that love don t trump and think that he can do no wrong, are going to end up on any of the forgeries that are going to be picked in this case. jury selection class at voter state university, because there is election is the most important part of any trial and here it is going to be huge because you are thinking that even one mistake by the state, one mistake by the federal government, it is a hung jury and you have got to try that long trial all over again, potentially lasting years. i m curious as to what their questions are going to be like and, at the state level, you re talking about the actual pros
high-profile cases against public officials when i was a prosecutor and so there are two cases going on and a i m going after somebody who is high-profile. there are the cases in the court of public opinion, which is one of the high-profile individual care about, and then there is a case that is going on in the courtroom, they only care about that second case as much as it is going to affect the first case. the mugshot for donald trump, in the court of public opinion, they ve got to point to that and say they are defiant. i m standing strong, regardless of what they re doing they can take me down the case as they take me down they re going to take you down. in the courtroom, as a prosecutor during closing argument, i m going to point that saying that this is someone who has no regard for the law. it s someone who is acting as the king pin of a criminal enterprise and needs to be held accountable by you, the jurors. of course the dea, fani willis, is hoping to maybe have a trial start
so, i look at this from the standpoint of how it is going to play at trial. what a lot of people don t know is that in closing arguments the prosecution will often used the mugshot of the defendant and, if you look at donald trump s mugshot, he looks got mob boss. i was scrolling through facebook during the break and i have a saw a number of posts on both sides, folks on the right saying that he looks presidential, folks on the left to say he looks like a mob boss. when you re trying to try a rico case, these mugshots are going to be terrific in closing argument. let s hone into that for a second, because it is the way that he is looking. he wanted to look defiant, according to his people. what does that tell you and how would you show it in a closing argument? not just show, it buttigieg there is no remorse, that he is defiant because he thought he was entitled. how would you actually use this? absolutely, at one of the things you have to keep in mind here is, i did several
the norm. and this trial would be televised in georgia. and so trump, who is afraid, like sunlight, the way vampires are afraid of sunlight and garlic, is going to do everything possible to try and have this case in federal court. you are absolutely right. if it is moved to federal court, it doesn t mean that it federal prosecutors and the united states justice department who will run the prosecution. it doesn t mean that a future president could pardon. but it does change the rules like televised trials and the like. i think, stephanie, that these removal actions will fail. it is true that there is a law, pass after the civil war, that gives federal employees in certain circumstances the right to move a federal case to federal court. but it doesn t apply here. i think there are three reasons. one is you have to be performing a federal function. and donald trump, as president, or mark meadows, as his chief of staff, are not performing a federal function. the president, in our
more was, as these cases proceed, and you actually end up in a trial and one of these four places, those are average jurors who, they will spend for example, in pittsburgh, we just had a trial of the shooter at the tree of life synagogue they spent weeks interviewing hundreds of people to be on that jury, just to find people who had not been exposed to the news so much that they were biased or had some other reason to be biased for or against that shooter. and so you can imagine in the trump case, you are going to end up with people who really don t have a bone to pick, politically, and probably haven t paid a whole lot of attention to the news. it s going to be hard to say if any of them convict him that this was always the work of nefarious partisan democrats. stuart, i got to thinking when i was watching that video real a moment ago, josh hawley, one of the lawmakers out there, calling this absurd. is there a reason a lot of these lawmakers is the reason they are not walking