people would not have voted for him. but what do you think of that defense, that was just offered by mr. takapena. when i first heard that, i may have lived a sheltered life but my reaction is i don t think this is all that common. at least in my experience. it is not that common to pay hush money to porn stars to keep stories secret. that said, i think that the issue here, from the prosecution standpoint, is to try to make this about something more than just kind of covering up a personal indiscretion. they have to make a concrete link between this payment and president trump s campaign for office. that is what gives the air of criminality to this and that is what new york, i think, would need to prove in order to convict former president trump of a felony. and carrie, this is one of several investigations into donald trump. there is jack smith, the special council looking into the secret documents issue as well as president trump s involvement in january 6. and then there is the
is the strength of the evidence, the fact that this will be the first time in history, the former president, would be indicted, and charged with a crime. where the evidence is growing, the evidence is mounting. it just has not been tested yet. and that is one of the things, that the justice department will do, with the prosecutors, whether investigators, they will test it from both sides. for the prosecution standpoint, but also, as good defense lawyers would task it. we have not seen any of that, with the january six committee. congresswoman liz cheney revealed at the end of last hearing, that donald trump tried to directly contact a witness, who is not yet testified publicly. and at the committee referred it to the justice department. this witness tampering in the court of public opinion, but i guess amplifying on what you just said in a previous answer, does it rise to that level? in a court of law? i don t think it does yet. i think, congresswoman cheney did something very impo
is inappropriate and that would really annoy the prosecution. but, generally speaking, as a prosecutor you just put your head down and you got to try the case and to the best you can. from the prosecution standpoint, this case does not rise and fall with rick gates and they will be really emphasizing the fact that rick gates was corroborated by a number of other witnesses and a lot of documentary evidence. so they just put their head forward and try to do their job. all right, daniel goldman. thank you so much for being with us. we appreciate it. walt walter isaacon, th son, this lo like a case that s a slam dunk given all of the evidence and the documents against manafort, but at the same time we ve both seen it. you never know what s going to happen in a trial until the jury comes back in. yeah, and i think if the jury comes back in and doesn t convict manafort, this will actually be pretty seismic. you know, we re all talking
on the fact pattern. on how many potential witnesses that you re going to need to interview. on where the evidence takes you. so, it s really hard to put a timeline on these things. i think bob mueller is, he s one of these people that pays extreme attention to detail. and he s going to want to do to me motdically and do this right. donald trump refer to former jim comey as a quote nut job during his meeting with lavrov last week. from a prosecution standpoint, this can t be good for president trump. to have this. well, this is certainly a strong indication that the president is not speaking with defee counsel who are advising him about statements he should be making and how he should be limiting any comments that he makes about his potential conduct.
if he would have dived into a shallow pool. it gives the jury an understanding of how he died. the second thing, we can t sell it short at all. that s the emotional component. whenever you have a medical examiner who was laying out the causes of injury, that has a gripping effect. juries are not supposed to consider emotion at all. when you have something something this significant. juries want to know how did it happen and who do we look at? what do you think is the biggest obstacle for the prosecution and the defense? i think they have the same obstacle but in a different way. from the prosecution standpoint you re looking to find someone accountable for something they did not do. what did porter not do? two critical things. number one, why did he not seek medical attention immediately. number two, why did he not seat belt him into the van as protocol required. if you re the defense, you have