potential defense for how the documents got to mar-a-lago, but it doesn t say anything about why they remained there, in other words, why didn t the former president return them and apparently obstruct the investigation as well. so it really isn t in any way sort of a complete defense that s been articulated, but i think it s sort of the best you can do if you re defense counsel with a very, very difficult set of facts. we ve only got 30 seconds left, andrew, but i m curious if you think another possibility and you ve been around a lot of legal maneuvering in your day could it be a hail mary, maybe a sign that team trump or trump himself is nervous about just how serious this case is oh, absolutely. i think that is what s going on, which is, you know, trying to make some hay politically, try and get the house to do what they re doing with alvin bragg to try and in some way get the public to disagree with what s going on here. but as i said, it s really at
you sometimes have what yo might characterize as potential big case and you sometimes have a potential smaller case and i will tell you that without exception, the large cases are the cases that are more difficult to prove. the more complicated the allegations, the harder the more potential defense there are. and sometimes, you have smaller case, where the fact and the evidence are jus staring you in the face. and they are just undeniable and i think that is what alvin bragg has here he has got the documents he has the check with trump signature on it. he s got the testimony o michael cohen and of storm daniels. he has, apparently corroborating testimony from others who were vehicles i having this hush money paid. and i don t think it is fair i this situation to criticiz alvin bragg, for going through the case, where he has the stronger evidence. because when you have
particularly fraud prosecutors when you are looking at what i call, a big defendant. that s a significant defended. i don t think anyone can say that the former president is not a significant defendant. you sometimes have what yo might characterize as potential big case and you sometimes have a potential smaller case and i will tell you that without exception, the large cases are the cases that are more difficult to prove. the more complicated the allegations, the harder the more potential defense there are. and sometimes, you have smaller case, where the fact and the evidence are jus staring you in the face. and they are just undeniable and i think that is what alvin bragg has here he has got the documents he has the check with trump signature on it. he s got the testimony o michael cohen and of storm daniels. he has, apparently corroborating testimony from others who were vehicles i
most of congress has yet to see, let alone the republic and has the ability to now act in a similar manner around information. taking a step back, it is more than about the first amendment or defamation. it is also about what might still be forthcoming from that very network. and wolf, to laura s point. rupert murdoch testimony guts what i think is the best potential defense for fox. their defense, they ve art tick lated is these were newsworthy comments by the then president and his top advisers and we re reporting them. now murdoch admitted we endorsed them but he tried to draw this distinction, not fox but the anchors. who is fox if not the voices of the top journalists and reporters. and it is interesting, lauer s a, this dominion $1.6 billion defamation case against fox is set to head to trial next month. are you surprised they haven t settled in.
was trying to box out a potential defense by trump. cipollone can complete that picture but i hear cipollone s testimony is more necessary on broader january 6th case he might be bringing regarding clark, eastman, and the broader context of it there. i think the documents case could be ready and i wouldn t be surprised if jack smith indicted that case while the january six case is still ongoing. what are the implications of that be if it were another case? i think first of all there would be a potentially an issue where someone who s a witness in the other case or potentially defended the other cases has already been charged. but that happens sometimes and you have to make decisions as a federal prosecutor. do you want to charge now or do you want to wait until you have everything. i think those would be separate cases in any event. they really are not related to each other other than dozen defendants. so i think it makes a lot of