Game Ender - 'Exhibit A' Rocks Alvin Bragg - Trump Case

Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and some people are saying

that Exhibit A was a game ender in the Trump brag prosecution case and some are saying that's

nonsense. Before we get started please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe. Those

little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow. CNN anchor Michael

Smirconish was on television on Saturday when he spoke about the prosecution of Donald Trump and

the testimony of Hope Hicks. Now it's known that Hope Hicks broke down and cried on the witness

stand and that's horrible. I feel sorry for her but what we found out was that if you go to MSNBC

they say it was a game ender, a crushing blow to the Trump case. If you go to Fox News they say it

was a complete disaster. She totally blew it. She ruined the prosecution's case. So which one is it

Michael Smirconish has an idea. He says that we should allow cameras in these courtrooms so the

American people can see what's going on. So they don't have to rely on opinion hosts to tell them

what's going on but they can see with their own eyes and tell you what they believe. It's ridiculous

that in this day and age 2024 cameras are not allowed in these courtrooms. I want to know why

Why in some states can you have cameras in the courtrooms? Other states you can't. This is a

massive trial of a former president. You couldn't make an exception here? Now from my judgment of

the Hope Hicks testimony I do think it hurt the prosecution but I'm biased. I'll be honest about

that. I'm biased and just like MSNBC is biased you know. So I think Smirconish hit the nail on the

head here. I want to know what you guys think. Should we allow cameras in the courtrooms? I want to leave you with what Smirconish said about this so take a listen and then let me

know what you think. As always please remember to like, comment, share and subscribe. I'm

Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you. Take care everybody

Transcript number three. Again just three things I read and I circled. Here we go. This is now the

defense. There's reference to Melania Trump. That's the first highlight. Now go to the end

and Hope Hicks says so I think he was just concerned about what her perception of this

would be. Meaning the hush money payment. This is what the defense wants which is to say Donald

Trump paid that money to protect his family, Barron, his wife etc. It's not because of the

campaign. So to my reading each side got out of Hope Hicks something that they wanted

That's exactly right Michael. She was very clear on one of his big motivations of course was the

campaign. I think that's quite clear from the evidence in the record as a whole but she also

said he was also thinking about his family. Now I have to say this is a situation where there's

something for either side but it's a net win for prosecutors because it's okay for prosecutors if

there's mixed motives as long as one of the substantial motivating factors was the campaign

and was politics. They're okay on that element but I also want to make clear Michael the crux of the

crime here is the accounting. It's the financing of the payments and to that end Hope Hicks doesn't

know anything and shouldn't have known anything. So I think on balance she was a good witness for

the prosecution but she absolutely was not some sort of game ender nail in the coffin

And I want to end where I began which is to say Hope Hicks is example exhibit A for why there

ought to be cameras in the courtroom because yesterday watching the coverage and flipping around on one hand I was told there was just this Perry Mason moment where Hope Hicks realized she

sunk Donald Trump and then on a different network I'm watching and they're like celebrating because

Hope Hicks completely blew up the prosecution case and neither of those is true. Thank you

Ellie appreciate you as always. Thanks Michael. All right