Alvin Bragg Has a SECRET WEAPON Against Trump

prosecutor versus felon that's now become the framing of the election between vice president kamla Harris a former prosecutor a former Attorney General a former senator now the vice president and top of the democratic ticket Donald Trump a convicted felon someone who's been found liable for sexual assault someone who's been found liable for systemic fraud Harry we need to talk about though the case where Donald Trump was convicted on the 34 separate felony count we know the United States Supreme Court in their absolute immunity order not only cloaked the presidency or in this case Donald Trump's conduct since Trump had appealed to the Supreme Court an absolute immunity for core constitutional functions also for official acts but the Supreme Court did something Donald Trump didn't even ask for they also provided some evidentiary exclusion rule for evidence that relates to official acts where there could be a presumption that the acts are official in the first instance such that evidence relating to a president in this case Trump's time in the White House could not be used in any other criminal cases at all and we know from the Manhattan district attorney criminal case there was certain evidence that was introduced even though the criminal conduct clearly relates to conduct before Donald Trump was ever in office there was evidence about Donald Trump's men's Rea his mental state of things he said during AXS conduct while in the office things he said to Hope six things he said to Westerose his uh assistant having people over at the White House posting from his Official White House account at the time and so Donald Trump filed a motion with Justice meran saying look you have to now throw out my conviction in the Manhattan district attorney criminal case because of the evidentiary exclusion rule not the underlying act but all of this evidence came in it's prejudicial you have to throw out the case now you and I were wondering okay what's this district attorney brief GNA look like and I thought it was powerful it talks about Donald Trump's waiver of certain arguments and then it also talks about even if there wasn't a waiver judge you've now have a full evidentiary record in front of you so you know that any presumption that could exist that these were official acts are rebutted this conduct is clearly unofficial and as a result these charges should stick you already do the balancing analysis or whatever the Supreme Court wants you to do because you saw it and so let's sentence him put him in jail we have sentencing coming up in September th this Supreme Court decision doesn't matter one iota what do you think arry about this They Came Out Swinging yeah they did let me first I just got start on where you started and the rhetorical prosecutor versus felon this ready-made line I prosecuted sexual predators he is one is wow just uh just what a what a haym maker okay uh you're right B it's comprehensive it's something else it is meticulous because of the incredible sort of overreach of the Supreme Court and especially this evidence sary rule you're talking about it forces brag to go March step by step by step by step with each bit of evidence and you're right sometimes he says waver because there are a few ones where Trump made a an objection based on immunity and the law in New York is if you don't you wave it even if even if uh it's based on a later Supreme Court case that people didn't know was coming so you have waiver then the then the thrust of the case is this doesn't fit under the Supreme Court uh test and then the final uh layer of harmless eror even if you uh actually admitted it in error there's still uh really overwhelming evidence and no reasonable jury would find otherwise that by the way is a really solid kind of means for a trial judge to rule because the trial judge was there I was there as you know at the trial and it's just true hope piix who's going I'll explain in a moment but that's going to be the most uh the real Focus she got up and said things and it was as the prosecution said devastating she cried on the stand but she was there basically to say what a what a total frenzy and panic the whole um campaign was was in when stormy damiels came forward in the wake of Access Hollywood and man we had evidence of that just you know in every direction David pecker Michael Cohen and the like okay um so the to really go through this they do it very well you ha you have to do every piece of evidence so what are there tweets but he never um even tried to say there was immunity there there's a um OG form of a financial ethics form but I think the Supreme Court says in the immunity case an official record you can get in and then the focus will be on hopix and here's the deal uh after all this happens the pre-trial conduct in 2018 he's the president and the Wall Street Journal does the story about this and she comes in and says oh they've just published this and the like and he says uh oh good thing it was now and not before the election which of course is very strong evidence of what they were doing um but you have the Supreme Court the United States being so expansive so let's just think about that conversation they're in the Oval Office on the one hand here's your communications director here is here is Trump talking about this story and if you have this really broad categorical approach that the Supreme Court seems to endorse is that sort of automatically categorically generically official uh or what the AG says is it part es it brag parses it more finely he says look they're talking here but they're they're talking about unofficial conduct and it's unofficial conduct even the conversation because nobody Hicks isn't there for any as the as brag puts it forward-facing um conduct of of spinning it to the public or doing the the official things that a communications director does it's just this hope to Donald kind of private conversation and that seems right to me uh the um but if it's wrong the harmless error argument uh is is I think quite strong here the an important point the waiver argument not so strong it's a little you still of an argument and brag makes it but uh Trump definitely twice in trial said hopix this is immunity there's um a problem so that's going to be first to test where the court is uh at you know how broad is it just is it just enough that a you're they're in the White House and she's his communications director it shouldn't be because you want to look at facts and context as the court says and it really isn't um official but let me let me give you the sort of bottom line um I think I think meran will deny this and and he will base it a lot on harmless error and that's a really hard thing to overturn and it should be the trial court saw it I think the appell division that the the appeals uh in the next level of the New York courts will do the same thing and pro I think a the court of appeals which is like the Supreme Court the highest level of New York a will probably take the case and B I think also will probably deny it and then we have you know the the big top circus and on one First Street Northeast can will the the Supreme Court then reach down and and you know somehow uh upset the apple cart again but look if we are here as you say um Ben K Harris has won and the whole time urgency goes away that would be a reversal but this um case would it wouldn't make it go away the very very worst thing happens is a retrial which I think brag would do and I think even more likely why does the Supreme Court the United States want to take a case based on harmless air analysis that's like the definition of a you know fact kind of bound question that the Supreme Court doesn't deal with but I just want to point out the dynamic in all of these have changed on the one hand they've changed in a precarious way because if Trump wins each of them with but maybe not New York uh are in are in all kinds of hurt but on the other hand if he loses so is 2002 5 2026 it doesn't you know we he still has a date that he can't escape and the Jeopardy you know the The Sword of Damocles as the lawyers say hanging over his head so in that sense um he you know it's it's still a big problem but keep your eyes on all you uh minus listeners the hopix testimony and what uh meran says in particular about harmless error because a I think it's right and B it's a bottom line that they that it shouldn't matter what hap what the Supreme Court ultimately decides and whether this was immune stuff if it's harmless error it's harmless error and I was there mun was there so much evidence it's harmless air let me give you my prediction I think Justice Maran denies Donald Trump's attempt to try to dismiss this y we move on to sentencing week later or so in September oh that's the whole big thing right September that that he will not I'm sorry to interrupt you but that's the one thing that does matter for the election does the September 18th sensing go forward and I agree with you it will but let let me get back to you I don't know if it's a week but September 18th September 18th 10: am that's when it'll take place so you do the sentencing then and you know he I think he will stay the sentence pending the appeals I think he'll give a stiff sentence I think it'll be a real sentence you know look sentencing you to you know 18 months two years you know based on the conduct that was in but I'm gonna stay it you can go and appeal it and and you you think less I mean that for this crime that would be more than stiff that would be brick wall stiff but but I agree with you a few months because the in the in the Run of of these crimes you'll often get a non-custodial sentence so a custodial one will be serious you know just for political reasons to hear the court pronounced you must go to jail Donald Trump when this is all over yeah that's that's serious in of itself but I I I don't see us getting that high but the big difference is jail or no jail well we will keep everybody posted each step of the way here but um you know as a as a lawyer I really appreciated the way they engaged with a very challenging supreme court order and how they framed it exactly as you described accurately to deal with all of the landmines and that's no e like that's no easy task I have to imagine they consulted some of the best appellant lawyers who parsed through that Supreme Court decision and really crafted every word in this brief was intentionally chosen it was not just someone typing quite literally every word had been analyzed and reanalyzed given the stakes that's why we like analyzing it for all of you the best place to get that analysis other than the mightest touch Network or I'll say equal the mightest touch network is the talking fed's YouTube channel um led by Harry Litman that Channel's on fire it's doing incredible hit subscribe there and 'll help that channel get to half a million uh subscribers just search talking feds YouTube thanks everybody thank you so much Ben and a quick point to add they are meticulous and they write it for merchan but they know there's another audience the Appel at courts even up to the Supreme Court so that's part of what makes it a really professional job thanks for tuning in if you enjoyed this video and other talking feds content please take a second to like And subscribe talk to you later