Thank you so much for being here.
Obviously, that trial date falling March 25th is right in the middle of the campaign season.
You know it's not easy to prepare for a trial.
It takes a lot of time.
Is there a concern it's going to cut into his campaigning?
>> Absolutely.
I mean, it has to cut into his campaigning.
And his opinion is that is by design.
I think we've seen with a lot of the cases and as we spoke about I handle a lot of New
York cases.
There's been this same theme where his cases seem to get fast tracked and there is concern
that is intentional.
I would like to think as a lawyer I trust the judicial system.
I have seen that sometimes that doesn't always happen.
We never want politics to get into the courtroom right?
I think it's unfair that it's in the middle of an election season.
I would like to see him get through whatever he needs to get through as the leading candidate
for the GOP.
And then move forward.
[7:35:55 AM]
And then move forward.
The.
>> And the judge seemed to acknowledge that he had why.
He spent most of the hearing talking about what trump can and can't say about this especially
as they're starting to get the evidence that the prosecutors have here.
Is he going to abide by that protective order?
>> Absolutely.
You know, president trump has always abided by any order he's never been sanctioned by
a judge for not listening to the rules and myself having been his attorney on numerous
cases, I can tell you that he respects the court's orders.
Does he think he's being treated fairly?
Absolutely not.
Do I think so?
Absolutely not.
I doesn't have no respect for the law.
He respects the law and judges.
He wants to see fairness come back to this country.
>> He's been attacking the judge in this case, the one who is essentially explaining what
his rights are yesterday.
Is he going to lay off the attacks on that judge now going forward?
>> You know, I think he'll have to put yourself in his shoes.
He is not only a human being, a citizen, he's a political candidate that has a reputation
[7:36:56 AM]
candidate that has a reputation as not just a real estate tycoon but an incredible president
and also a politician.
So, when you see the judges that somehow got the same cases, you can't think that is a
coincidence.
That was a very unfair case in my opinion.
That is something if you were John doe, maybe it would have just gotten a slap on the wrist,
paid a fine and move on.
Somehow he gets him again.
You can't help but think there that there is something going on.
There my client has a right to be angry and has a first amendment right to speak like
we both do and he will use it in the extent of the court's order.
>> That is an important part.
He is known as this trump hating judge but no evidence that he is a trump hating judge.
This comes as E. Jean Carroll and her lawsuit which is separate from this but note following
the CNN town hall and comments that trump made about her is now amended that las lawsuit
to add more money to
[7:37:58 AM]
lawsuit to add more money to that.
Is there concern that what he says is getting him in more trouble here.
He goes and tacks her the day after he is -- excuse me, he is found libel for defaming
her and sexually abusing her?
>> Let's talk about.
That I'm glad you brought it up.
As a candidate, part of your job and part -- as a president, part of your job is to
address people that bring claims as bill Clinton had to address, right?
He didn't do this.
So, we have the court saying we have a jury that said he did not rape her.
Let's not forget that.
And he is then speaking to a person who is falsely accusing him of something that is
heinous and nobody is more sympathetic than I am to sexual assault victims, rape victims.
But I'm confused on how a jury could have gotten it so wrong.
They say you don't rape someone but sexual abuse and then you defame somebody for saying
I didn't rape her when they said he didn't.
And they found he didn't.
So, the fact she's going to amend it and this is aside from
[7:38:58 AM]
amend it and this is aside from my sympathy to real victims tells me what her motives
R the fact she is trying to amend a complaint from 2018 because they wants to change the
terms from rape to sexual assault now, you're not allowed to retrofit cases.
That's not how this goes.
I can't agree with it.
I'm going to fight it vehemently.
And I think it's wrong.
I think he has a right to say it's wrong.
I didn't do it.
And what she's doing is wrong and it's a shame to real victims.
Honestly.
It's a shame.
>> Well, he was libel for sexual abuse.
The idea he defamed her and goes out the next day and continues to attack her, not defending
himself, he is calling it a con job, a hoax.
Those are the comments he made online.
There is there not advice talking about it more only hurts him more?
Clearly evident here?
>> He's a public person.
He has a write to speak, especially when someone says publicly and she went on TV and said
he raped me.
Well, that's the most offensive thing can you possibly say.
I know Donald Trump very well.
And you know Donald Trump.
[7:39:59 AM]
And you know Donald Trump.
He is a kind person.
Whatever he projects when he's Ang rishgs he is a candidate being attacked.
He is under siege at all times.
This is a man who only knows how to operate and has operated this country amazingly well
under siege at all times.
I think he's outraged.
He has a right to be.
He has a first amendment right to speak and say this is say lie.
I didn't do it.
And if somebody is going to keep suing him, we're going to fight back as well.
>> That's his defense.
It was a jury of nine people that found him similarly liable of this.
I want to ask you about this new letter that --
>> But before you go there, if that is our litmus test, we have a New York jury.
Then you must believe that O.J.
Simpson is not guilty.
Sometimes they get it wrong.
It doesn't make sense.
>> I know you're appealing it.
They did find him civilly libel.
It's a jury of nine people.
I believe six women, three men.
They found this.
But I want to talk about this letter from two other attorneys
[7:40:59 AM]
letter from two other attorneys on the former president's legal team they sent last night
-- or they sent yesterday requesting a meeting with the attorney general Merrick Garland
to talk about the special counsel's investigation.
I'm assuming it's the documents investigation.
Do they want to meet with the attorney general or do they want to meet with the special counsel
jack Smith here?
>> I'm not part of that team.
I'm not sure what the intent was there.
I have no idea.
>> The assumption is that it means they believe they could be prepared to have an indictment.
>> Yeah.
I'm not going to assume.
I'll tell you one thing.
What I've seen with the weaponization in the justice system and the Durham report and what
came out with something I personally litigated and I've seen.
This we can't deny the facts.
There is a duel system of justice.
There is a lot of selective prosecution.
I can't speak to that case in particular.
I can tell you as his attorney, somebody who does see how he's treated differently than
a lot of other clients, I have a lot of other high profile clients, I don't see this.
Whatever it is on any of these cases, I think the theme is we
[7:42:02 AM]
cases, I think the theme is we need to clean up the justice system.
We need to clean up politically motivated judges.
And we need to say, okay, there is a court system in place.
There is a justice system in place to protect the American people.
I know that's what Donald Trump wants to do.
To come in, clean it up and get this back to the right track.
Because you and I being able to sit here today is exactly what the country wants.
They want to see us be able to be on different sides of the coin.
Disagree.
But at the end of the day, nobody should be treated differently than anybody else.
I think he is.
>> I would say I'm neutral party in.
This but when it comes to the documents, there is also a special counsel investigating Biden's
documents as well.
Will so there is a duel system of justice here, that's from attorney general Merrick
Garland who appointed that as well.
Is there a sense inside the legal system that something happened that has -- that prompted
the ask for this meeting?
>> I have no -- I truly tell you I'm not on that case.
My hands are full up here with la teesha James and my other lawsuits.
>> So no sense of your end whether this means that the trump legal team beliefs this special
counsel's investigation
[7:43:02 AM]
special counsel's investigation pertained to the documents is coming to an end?
>> No.
I have no sense.
My knowledge is the same as you.
I have no inside knowledge on that.
>> I want to ask you about something else happening inside the trump legal team.
A member of it just recently departed.
He cited internal issues.
He sat down with Paula Reid.
This is how he explained why he left.
>> The real reason is because there are certain individuals that made defending the president
much harder than it need to be.
In particular, there is one individual who works for him, Boris Epstein who had did everything
he could to block us, to prevent us from doing what we could to defend the president.
The in my opinion, he was not very honest with us or with the client on certain things.
There were certain things like the searches that he had attempted to interfere with.
>>> What's your sense?
What was your reaction to what he said there?
>> I thought that was very unprofessional.
[7:44:04 AM]
unprofessional.
I think that as anybody in the workplace, you have type a personalities.
We're all lawyers.
And not everybody is always going to get along.
I think that was a last claim to fame.
He had exited.
And he had been in very high profile position.
And I can tell that you we've seen this happen time and time again.
People leave trump world and they try and come out with stories.
The last horray, for instance.
I don't agree with it.
I was disappointed by what he said.
I don't know that to be the case.
And I think that was quite honestly unprofessional.
>> You don't agree it with.
You don't have any -- do you have any interactions with Boris or anything?
>> Of course.
>> Interfering and searches?
>> Oh, no.
First of all, I'm not involved in.
That Boris is a confidante and somebody who works with the pac and doing his job like
everybody else.
Again, people are just not always going to get along in any job.
I'm sure there are people here you don't get along with.
But if that was the case, I think that was ridiculous and inappropriate kind of butt
hurt
[7:45:04 AM]
inappropriate kind of butt hurt move to say the least.
>> Is the infighting affect the defenses of your client?
>> I have never seen in fighting.
I get along -- >> You have never seen infighting?
>> Not with my legal team.
My team, we get along great and we're friends and we're all in it together and we have different
opinions.
We peacefully and correctly go at it to try to figure out the best legal strategy is for
the president.
That's what lawyers do.