Legal expert doubts Trump’s story: Court cops don’t cry because 'the vast majority' of people charged are 'guilty'

Former President Donald Trump told Tucker Carlson on Tuesday that when he went to the Manhattan courthouse last week, there were a lot of sobbing cops.

"Tears were pouring down," Trump said about the officers working at the Manhattan courthouse.

On Tuesday night, a panel on MSNBC cast doubt on Trump's story.

When the door opened for Trump to exit the booking office and go into his courtroom, MSNBC commentator Tristan Snell noted that no one was crying. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell remarked that no one even cared enough to hold the door open for Trump as he exited.

But it was former FBI general counsel and NYU Law professor Andrew Weissmann who explained it isn't unusual for the defendant or the defendant's family to cry when they're booked or arranged in court. In Trump's case, his family didn't come with him to court, only his lawyers.

Weissmann said, "That it is not common. The people who are crying in court are, you know, at times the defendant, certainly the defendant's family, for understandable reasons. Court officers and police officers are trained — they just keep that all inside, whatever they are thinking. I can't say that I think that they have a ton of sympathy for people who are charged. They know that the people who are charged are — the vast, vast majority — are guilty. And they are just doing the job to make sure that due process is upheld. But we are, as you note, going to listen to Donald Trump saying this over and over again. And it is going to be in circumstances where it can't be checked. No surprise there. It's also pathetic."

O'Donnell also cited Trump's claim that even if he is convicted of a crime, he still won't drop out of the race.

"It will be interesting because as you note, he could end up being charged in four separate cases two federal and two state," Weissmann explained. "I do think that there is an issue about timing, whether any of those cases will actually come to fruition before the election. The D.A. — D.A. [Alvin] Bragg is trying very hard to have the trial in January. So, he is seeking that. And I have to say that D.A. Bragg is showing a real fearlessness in terms of how he is handling this, and I think strategically. And I think strategically, as Dan pointed out, he is doing the exact right thing, which is getting into court."

He went on to say that when it comes to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who subpoenaed Bragg before the House Judiciary Committee, Bragg has put "him in a position where he actually has to put up or shut up."

"He has to come up with some actual, valid reason why he would be seeking oversight," Weissmann said. "In a court of law. And this is with a federal judge who is not going to put up with a lot of nonsense. During special counsel [Robert] Mueller's investigation, the judge there used to say, what is great about the federal court is this is where facts and law matter. So, what Jim Jordan does publicly and what Dan has been calling him out to do is not going to play in a court of law."

Jordan went to law school, but he's not licensed to practice law, nor has he ever practiced law.

See the full conversation below or at the link here.