Joins us now,
the former Trump White House lawyer.
So Ty another historic day.
And here you are.
It is the first time
a former president in the United States
has ever been charged
with crimes committed while in office.
What's your reaction watching this
historic day?
Well,
as you know, I think this is sad.
I think it
unfortunately is.
The situation could have been avoided.
Trump foisted upon
the Department of Justice,
by the way he conducted themselves
in his last few days in office and by
the criminal conduct that he committed as
as he finished his presidency.
I do think
as we've discussed that
former Judge Ludwig's
poignant comments on what
this means for America and for the world,
you know, the fact that,
you know,
the star
that America
has been to the rest of the world
for the past 250 years,
you know,
is is a little
has been dimmed greatly by Trump.
But it's a little brighter tonight
because as a country we've shown
that we are going to stand up
for the Constitution,
that we are not going to
tolerate unconstitutional
criminal behavior
and that we will apply that law
to the highest offices in the land.
So this could be an inflection point
I hope it is.
In terms of America returning to
greater standing within the world and
forcefully demonstrating our commitment
to the rule of law.
So, Ty,
the next court date is August 28th.
That's when we'll find out when the trial
set to begin.
Trump's attorney, John Lauro.
Already today
in the hearing,
pushed back on prosecutors
push for a quote unquote speedy trial.
Is using a lot of time
because there's
a massive amount of discovery
that he needs to do
and it just can't happen quickly.
Is the clear implication?
Does that add up and how long will
it take?
No, it doesn't add up.
And I think,
you know, Mr.
Lauro, for all his skills,
which I understand to be considerable,
you know, he he's been in this case
for two weeks, ten days.
He doesn't know all the facts.
Couldn't possibly have mastered them all
by now.
He's making only political arguments
He's been out
insisting that they're
criminalizing speech,
where the simple counter to that is,
you actually can
facilitate and further a crime
through speech and be prosecuted for it.
Just as an example, in
some of the reporting today where,
you know,
if Tony
Soprano tells one of his guys
to whack a witness.
Well, that's speech, but that's a crime.
So I think some of his arguments are
a little
not well thought out and
and purely theatrical.
I think in terms of the theory that this
case could take nine months
You know, that's that's delusional.
The government has
a very, very strong case.
They will probably need, I would say,
somewhere in the neighborhood of
four to six weeks to put on their case.
But the defendant has virtually nothing
to come back with.
It's not like he can say, you know,
I didn't say that.
You know, if if Trump and Pence
and Eastmond and Meadows and other
people are all in the same room
and say he did
yeah.
It's not like he can go out and find
somebody to say, you know, Trump,
Trump really believed he lost.
That's hearsay.
That's that's that's that's an opinion.
The only person they can put Trump's
state of mind
into the trial is Trump
and Trump testifying
subjection and self to,
you know, questions like,
let me run through
this.
505, 500 or 600 examples of TV clips
where you lied to the country
and can you just explain each lie to us?
He's not going to testify.
So I think the likelihood of the defense
putting our case is, is nil.
I don't think they have anything
that they can come back with.
And the
direct questioning by the prosecution,
while it it'll be lengthy,
it will be consistent
with the narrative set
forth in the indictment.
But when you're saying,
you know, four to six weeks to present it
and then they wouldn't have much to say,
I mean,
this could be extremely quick.
I mean, when.
I mean, are you implying
this is something that literally could be
you know, you could be through
you could be done by Christmas.
Well, you could.
Although I will say one thing,
you know,
just check in
is an excellent judge
and a no nonsense judge.
And she will move this case
expeditiously.
But as a former public defender,
you know,
she's very mindful of the rights
the defendants have, the due
process rights
She's not going to disadvantage
the defendant by trying this case
at a pace that, you know,
treats him unfairly.
So whatever date she sets,
she will have taken all that
into consideration.
But, yes,
I do think this case
could get to trial shortly
after the first of the year.
And
I wouldn't be surprised to see it
be the first one on the docket.
All right, Ty, thank you very much.