It happens in what is his third day on television. maybe his second day on television. he was doing the same interview, glenn kirschner, with everyone, and just saying, first amendment, advice of counsel. he s doing the same thing with every interview and then tonight, and by the way, he was doing that in this interview the first half of it, and then tonight he gets to this point, where he starts putting words in his defendants mouth. he starts quotations defendant on the crucial conversation in the indictment with the vice president. and, by the way, the vice presidents chief of staff is there is a witness to this the vice president s counsel was there, as a witness to this. many witnesses to this conversation. and john lauro decide that i m going to make an entry into that conversation right now, which i am learning from andrew weissmann is admissible in this case, which is what i was wondering about as soon as i
Lauro first described appear on pace 34 of the indictment as a criminal conspiracy. and the version of that conversation that donald trump s criminal defense lawyer delivery tonight is every bit as criminal as the version that appears in the indictment. on page 34 of the indictment it says, on january 4th, the defendant, donald trump, held a meeting with coconspirator john eastman. vice president, the vice presidents chief of staff, and the vice president s counsel for the purpose of convincing the vice president, based on the defendant, donald trump s knowingly false claims of election fraud, that the vice president should reject or send to the states biden s legitimate electoral votes rather than count them. that criminal conduct described in that sentence was admitted tonight on television by donald
i don t know why a defense lawyer is going to start giving facts about a critical moment. it s the whole case. and by the way, it is such a damning thing when you put it in context. because remember, what the indictment alleges is prior to that the reason this had to be done with the vice president is because prior to that all the efforts that trump took with respect to the secretaries of state did not work. so, for him to say let s just double check, there s nothing to double check. he actually threatened criminal prosecution against the secretary of state of georgia and he still stuck to his guns. so this sort of, oh, let s just buy some time, it s illegal, and it s not like there s any real dispute. he knew the secretaries of state had said to him, no, there is no issue, these have been certified, there is no legal basis to do it. so i just don t know why john, who is a good lawyer, did not just zip it and not say anything. they don t teach tv in law
Proposed trial date, and then there will be a hearing 25 days from now. august 28th, at which time judge chutkan will set a trial date. that is unusual. it s not surprising knowing the judge that judge chutkan s. i tried murder cases against with her when she was a public defender. i was a decision attorney in d.c. trying homicide cases. it wasn t surprising but it was unusual because ordinarily at these arraignment hearings, where the magistrate judge will do is say, let s all come back in about a month and we will bring our calendars and will begin to ruminate about possible job. it no. judge chutkan will be setting a trial date 25 days from now. i predict it s going to be a speedy trial. andrew weissmann, to the point that we learned from john
There is something, look, he has sort of found religion in the sense that yes, this is now all public, so he can t put his head in the sand. there s something remarkable about the former vice president to the united states and his staff telling us what happened in the oval office with the president of the united states saying. and clearly understood by the vice president that he should overthrow the votes of americans. the thing that is so disheartening about this is this should not be a political issue. you would think this would be an american issue when i was growing up there were all these republicans who were law and order republicans who would be completely appalled by this. to me it s like, there are a lot of good republicans. can you please run one of them?