the way the indctment was brought, without a large amount of classified information described, that would have to be part the discovery process, people looking at the indictment suggest it s built for speed. it s supposed to get into the courtroom. it s supposed to be a case that can be brought quickly in terms of how fast it gets to trial. maybe this case will be brought to a conclusion in the courtroom even before the 2024 election. almost all of that will depend on judge tanya chutkan. i want to talk to you. as i understand it, in your career as a federal prosecutor, there was one case in which you were the counsel on the prosecutor on the prosecutor side and judge chutkan was
ing after it s over it will come out. with every good defense attorney does don t believe what you see, don t believe the documents and clearly they ll argue that mr. cohen isn t credible the argument for the prosecutor side he s credible because look at the documents. yeah, and multiple witnesses corroborating his testimony. a piece this morning titled what s missing in the trump indictment it writes part, a few surprises perhaps astonishment that mr. bragg s case looks even weaker than expected. here s the big question, where s the second crime recalled that falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in new york, a felony only if the books were cooked with an intent to commit another crime to aid or conceal the commission thereof
in that clip there seems pretty sc jolly, he s tried a lot of things to stop this trial from happening, but it will begin. yesterday i was in court and the lawyers involved, they interviewed potential jurors for almost nine hours. they were able to find 22 who pledged to be up by up by unbiased and we ll get to opening statements pretty quickly this morning. and on the prosecutor side, we are expecting them to give a pretty straightforward case. so far they believe it is bannon got a subpoena and he chose to ignore it, he didn t show up, he didn t turnover documents. that is not going to be a long case. we expect them to present two or three witnesses and that should probably begin today, we ll start seeing witnesses. on the defense side, we still are waiting to see exactly what
prosecutor. this is something she continues to be asked about. we want to see crime prosecuted, but not unfairly. and her record as the district attorney and the attorney general, she clearly has laid out where she did programs to try and bring people back in and to work on these things. look, rev is a very important voice in the democratic party. my understanding from talking from him is that he s likely not going to endorse until after his national action network conference in april. but senator harris is definitely high on his list. he brings both a platform on this network. he s got a very popular radio show, and he is the leader of an organization that hundreds of thousands of members and chapters across the country. having his support is going to be very important. . for senator harris, it s a tough line for her to walk. being about criminal justice reform is a big democratic issue when you re on the prosecutor side and have a record of that, it s easy for it to be torn
of mistakes. on comey is not on the prosecutor side. he s on the cops side. if i was defending this, they ran the show, they could have prosecuted hillary if they wanted to. as a matter of fact it s not the prosecution. it was the way it was conducted it doesn t matter how the investigation was conducted. you are claiming that president obama directed the way that the fbi i m not claiming anything. i m saying i have a credible argument to give immunity to any witness, that has to come to doj. that can t come from the fbi directly. doj has to approve that. it s not like he s by himself saying hey here s an immunity agreement. that s not the way it works. you can be the head of an investigation and obstruct it yourself. right. if you are making decisions for a corrupt purpose. that s the language of the obstruction. just so everyone understands that, because when, you know, to a layperson that word corrupt