Well, that it's been in the wor,
quite frankly, behind the scenes quite a
while that Blanche was going to come in.
You know, he comes from the firm Cadwallader.
And that firm, quite frankly,
would have a conflict in this c.
The firm Nicholas Gravanti
at that firm represented Mr.
Weisselberg, who you may see
as a witness in the case.
But so Blanche has left the fir,
is now on his own.
And that that I suppose was a development
because of this being retained in this case.
But there was no surprise
within the team about that.
Well, I'm sure they take it quite seriously.
In fact, I know that they do is,
you know, it's very important fr
the team to be able to work together.
Now yesterday I saw a concerning article
in the New York Law Journal in which there,
well, it was concerning because.
Tekapino welcomed Mr.
Blanche to the team.
The article said Blanche would be the lead,
but then Tekapino texted to
the New York Law Journal that.
You can be sure that when the bell rings,
he'll he, takapina, will be handling the
major crosses and some nations and so on.
It's just going to be a process
of learning to work together.
If the team stays as it is.
The former president has every t
to change his team as he's going along.
This is very early in the proceeding.
This indictment came, you know,
at a time when apparently it wasn't expected.
And so it's going to have to ev,
I think.
I think there are at least three motions,
but I think after the arraignmet
they should file a motion to dis
based on the statute of limitat.
It's a very interesting issue,
too detailed probably to go into here.
And then I think they should fia
motion to dismiss and or disqualify Mr.
Bragg. It's unprecedented and sd
be unprecedented from an ethical
standpoint to have run for office and
campaigned specifically targeting the
conviction of a particular Amer.
Citizen Donald Trump.
One of the things that Mr.
Bragg said in his campaign
was whoever has this job,
are they going to convict Donald Trump,
convict him?
There wasn't an investigation
going on at the time.
No allegations against him.
That's just dead wrong.
It shows a conflict of interest.
And I think that should be a mo.
And finally, I think that they should
file a motion to recuse the jud,
find out how this judge
was assigned to the case.
I don't believe in coincidences.
This judge was on the
Trump Organization case,
the Bannon case and now this ca.
And there's an historic practice
in this district attorney's off.
Unique among all in the state fr
judge shopping through a process
of picking a judge to supervise
the grand jury and then having
that judge preside over the cas.
A handpicked judge.
They swore about eight years ago
that they had stopped the pract,
but I think it needs to be investigated
through a motion for recusal.
I don't know that it whether
it can be impartial or not.
I think it's the appearance of e
shopping that has to be explore.
The American public has a great
interest in every issue in this case,
and everyone wants to make sure
that there's a fair trial here.
So that's what I think.
I think the appearance of partiy
or impartiality are key importat
factors in in a case. Good.
It might be that in any case
that a party picks a forum.
But in this case with all of the
judges in this court, it's remarkable.
The Judge merchant sits on this
case and those other cases,
they're not related cases and therefore
I think it has to be explored.
They by federal judge said
about eight years ago that if
this is practice is continuing,
it may give rise to a federal
violation that this practice was
challenged in state court and te
lawyers lost who challenged it.
But when it went to federal cou,
a federal judge suggested this
may be a constitutional. Proble.
It just has to be investigated.