Let us know when they're rolling dice.
We have the attorneys.
The attorneys are five, four, four,
one, two, one. Here on.
So there's not a happy day
Saturday for this country.
Oh, I think that.
Can you hear me? You're on your.
You're on.
I think that what you saw.
Okay. I hear you guys.
Today
is exactly what you're thinking here.
For the past
seven years, you're sitting there,
and the district attorney has turned
what is actually a political issue
into a political prosecution.
And it's not a good day.
It's not a sad day.
I'm I don't expect.
I don't expect this to happen.
In this country,
you don't expect this to happen
to somebody who was the president
of the United States.
And on the one hand on the one hand,
there's not really any surprises.
I know
there was a lot of talk over the past
several weeks, in the past several days
about what's
going to be in this indictment
and it's going to be there that
we don't know.
There must be something besides what
we've been talking about for the past
four or five years.
There wasn't.
There's nothing.
The indictment itself is is boilerplate.
It doesn't allege
any federal crime, any state crime
that's been violated.
It doesn't allege
what the false statement is.
And it's really disappointing.
It's sad.
And we're going to fight it.
We're going to find
anything in the end.
Were you surprised
were you surprised
by anything in the news?
No, we you know, I was surprised.
There were no facts in there.
I mean, normally in India,
they have alleged facts.
So they said that
this was a false business market
entry to aid and abet another crime.
We're not saying
what the other crime was.
Can you talk about his demeanor?
How was he doing?
Reaction was when
I saw the charges against him.
When you see what his reaction was,
what do you expect his reaction was?
I mean, his reaction
his reaction
was that exactly what would happen
if it happened to anybody
that I'm looking at now or anybody
that's hearing what you're saying.
He's he's frustrated. He's upset.
But I'll tell you what, he's motivated
and it's not going to stop him
and it's not going to slow him down.
And it's it's exactly what he expected.
And so, to that extent, no surprise.
But he's also he's also he's also
upset and frustrated and disappointed
with the fact.
What about anything else that he
was talking about?
The judge did
the district attorney's statement
that what they perceived to be
an inappropriate rhetoric of some sort.
Obviously, you responded
and the judge just took it in
and he asked the parties to consider
what they're saying and not saying.
He did not admonish the president.
And that's important
that if the president not
say why,
he did not request
that the president
not use language,
he requested that everybody correct
frame from using language is talking.
By the way.
That includes that includes the witnesses
and witnesses for the people
who are talking
just as much as the former president
swinging a baseball bat
at the head of the Manhattan.
Well, I don't know where you got that,
because it was a tweet that was
you know, it wasn't a. First of all.
First of all,
first of all, my picture was not him
swinging a baseball bat.
I mean, if you want to just walk back,
go right ahead.
I won't address that.
Yes, it is.
He wasn't throwing a baseball bat
at anyone's head.
That was a picture of him
showing off an American made bat.
But someone else put a picture
of the district attorney next to him.
And in an article posted that he was
using language that incites those.
And we're going to talk about today.
Here's what we're going to talk about.
They're going to talk about
the insufficiency of this case.
And I will say this to you.
Today's unsealing of this indictment
shows that the rule of law died
in this country
because everyone is not above the law.
No one's below it either.
And if this man's name was not Donald J.
Trump, there was no scenario.
We'd all be here today.
Please understand
that based on these charges,
what are we going to do?
When? Tonight, at 8:00?
What do we do?
What are we going to
you know, you'll hear it.
You know,
one of the things you've seen
where he did
you think that was realistic?
You know,
can you guys talk about
there's a lot of speculation
about the unity
among the defense attorneys.
Look at this. Look at this.
Is that why you trying to do this
together?
We don't know.
They chose to come out together
so we could speak with one voice.
But there is no disunity here.
It's gossip and it's a nonsense.
And we've been working together
and we will be working together.
And this, to me,
quite frankly, is the best team
I've ever worked with the lawyers.
I'm honored to be working
with these guys.
It's a family. It's team.
And we have one mission
and will achieve that next move.
What's your next move?
I'm going to go home.
What about the change of venue
you went to?
We're going to start filing.
But when
when you start filing motions, I'm
assuming one of the first things
you're going to just set a motion
to dismiss, assume that obviously
the judge set in motion schedule.
That requires a motion filed in Illinois.
So that's going to be filed.
This whole notion
about how this is sort of like a novel or
do you it's not a notion to
talk about that, but like there's
nothing else to say.
It's the district attorney.
This office has existed for decades
and decades.
And you have
you can find one if you like
you you'll never see like this ever.
You understand this case.
You understand
this was what a state prosecutor
is prosecuting
a federal election
law violation that doesn't exist
according to the federal election
officials.
It's simple as that, that you can
sum it all up like that.
Will there be anything else
in your motion to dismiss that?
We haven't even thought about
all this talk like someone addressed
the defendant
could potentially post discovery
on social media.
Your client will do that.
That won't happen any more than that.
Oscar winning.
What about like a change of venue?
A lot of posting on social media.
We're not we're not having any discussion
about what we
what about the change of venue?
Just answer this question
about the change of venue.
There's a lot. It's premature.
Right. Right.
So why is he
why is he talking about that?
Why is he trying to move this?
So once again, we're three lawyers here
to litigate and fight this case.
We're not PR consultants.
We're not social media consultants.
Donald
Trump has made
one hell of a brand and became president.
United States, with his
social media and post
and everything else is messages.
We are here to talk about the case
and litigate cases.
We can't address what he posted,
what he wants to post it.
But as his attorneys have you told him,
stop posting this rhetoric.
So what I said before,
we can't
literally we can't tell you
what we've discussed.
He's simply concerned
that you mean he's continuing
to go after a judge
talking about the judge's wife,
talking about the family?
I mean, are you.
I mean,
I don't think he's concerned about it.
Yeah, but any other defendant, wouldn't
you be like any other defendant?
Want to be here today
going after the judge?
He is not going after the judge.
He commented that
he thought that there were some issues
that may cause a conflict
that's not going after the judge.
He is not threatening
the judge is not going after that.
He's going after
he has said that the D.A., he is angry
because the D.A.
has brought a case that is unjustified.
And so I'm not going to comment on it
saying you may disagree
with the way he spoke.
You talk about process.
Was he fingerprinted, was there a mop?
Was there room of fact? I think.
Thank you.
I'll tell you what, I saw her counselors
just been listening to
the defense attorneys
for the former president.
CNN's Paula Reid is also at court.
Paula,
you've got new details on the indictment
which jumps out at you.
Yes, Paula, are you there?
Ali, are you?
Yes, I am. Hello.
So go ahead, Paula.
You know,
we've been looking over the indictment.
What really
what really stands out to me
here in layman's terms
is that they're accusing
the former president of engaging
in a scheme to hide unlawful activity
from the public both before
and after the 2016 election.
They're alleging that he engaged in
what are called catch and kill schemes
where you pay someone for their story
and then suppress it
to boost his electoral prospects.
Now they point to three
specific instances.
The first is a $30,000 payment
made to a doorman
who alleged that
the former president
had had a child out of wedlock.
The second payment that we know about
is $150,000 that was paid to.
Karen McDougal alleges
she had an extramarital affair.
And they also point to $130,000
that was given to Stormy Daniels,
who also alleges
she had a sexual relationship
with then candidate Trump.
Then they go on to say that
the way these were reimbursed,
in particular
when it comes to $130,000,
was paid to stormy Daniels.
They say, look,
these were falsely
labeled as legal expenses
and then mischaracterized
for tax purposes.
So it's interesting
that they're trying
to elevate this case
by tying it directly
to the outcome of the 2016 election.
That is an argument
that the district attorney's office
has amplified, that
this isn't just a, quote
unquote, paperwork crime.
This was something
that could have impacted
the outcome of the election.
But what I don't see in here
is any explanation or any new facts
that would make it
clear to the American public
why this is coming out now.
We're talking about conduct
that occurred
seven years ago,
something that's been under investigation
for five years.
And it's unclear
based on this set of facts
if it will be clear to the jury
that this is something
that he should be convicted on
and that there is no political
motivation here.
Now, the district attorney in a short
time will have a press conference
and he may be able to speak
to why he is bringing this case
at this very moment.
But I don't see anything really new here.