Trump’s only way to defend his incriminating videos could destroy him in the end: legal analysts
Legal analysts have spent the 24 hours in wake of Donald Trump's interview with Bret Baier saying that the former president destroyed any hope he had at a defense in the documents case. Now, some are saying that interview is part of a large number of statements that will be used to put Trump in a tough spot in a trial.
The indicted former president are scheduled to face off in court in Aug., according to Judge Aileen Cannon, though experts warn that isn't likely to be a reality. In the case, prosecutors are expected to use some of the interviews with Trump against him.
"The whole statement is rambling and a little confusing," said former SDNY US Attorney David Kelley. "Look, a case like this is not likely to go to trial under normal circumstances. I don't see him taking a plea. And if he goes to trial, he really needs to testify. But I don't see him testifying. It's a real conundrum. But this will be the prosecution's way of having him testify by playing this without cross-examination. The jury is going to see this, and I think it digs a deep hole for him."
He agreed with MSNBC host Ari Melber's assessment that special counsel Jack Smith and his team were building a kind of reel of Trump's greatest hits to play at trial.
"You want to take all the statements you can that a defendant is going to make. Particularly when he's not going to take the stand," Kelley continued. "Now, if he takes the stand, they'll use this to cross-examine him on. If he doesn't, these are admissions that are relative and probative."
New York University Law Professor Melissa Murray suggested looking at the E. Jean Carroll case as an example of how public statements could be used.
In that case, Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, asked Trump about his own public statements in the taped deposition and got him to respond. She then matched the deposition statements with the "Access Hollywood" tape "to reinforce the notion that this is someone who on a regular basis seemed to find no problem sexually assaulting women without their consent."
Murray explained the idea would be to reinforce such claims "to the jury that this is someone who could do this. You could see Jack Smith doing this."
So, Trump's only way of explaining away the video interviews is by taking the stand, which would subject him to a lot of other questions that could make him look bad. It's a no-win situation.
Ahead of the E. Jean Carroll case, conservative hosts began asking Trump if he will testify to defend himself. That hasn't happened this time around.
See the commentary in the video below or at the link here.
