Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsMSFwBF-4SWD5msARwYkdw/join
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and the judge in the Stormy
0:05
Daniels Donald Trump Alvin Bragg hush money case. Well he just made a massive decision
0:11
Before we get started please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe
0:15
Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow
0:20
As you may know Donald Trump has said he wants to testify in this trial. He said it's very
0:25
important to him to testify in this trial. He believes he is his best witness and his best
0:30
advocate and I kind of don't blame him. Look if your reputation was being sullied and dragged about
0:36
wouldn't you want to defend yourself? But they're going to make this tough on him
0:41
The judge has decided that yes prior past you know acts, prior past being held in contempt by
0:50
the judge in the E. Jean Carroll case or the verdict or things that he said and done in
0:56
different cases in different situations can be admitted to the case if Trump testifies
1:03
Now that well that could put a freeze on Trump testifying. He doesn't want that brought into
1:07
this case. It has nothing to do with this case. Prior acts that really are flimsy at best in my
1:14
opinion that he got convicted on or his company was found guilty of or whatever
1:20
Those things shouldn't have any bearing here. It has nothing to do with this case
1:25
But this judge I think and I think you know the attorneys Alvin Bragg they don't want Trump on
1:30
that witness stand because they know he can influence that jury to side with him. They're
1:36
terrified of that. Absolutely terrified of that and this I think this is a way to freeze him out
1:43
That's my opinion. I do want to know your opinion. Please watch this report and then let me know
1:48
what you think when you like, comment, share and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America
1:53
We love you guys. God bless you. Take care everybody. Welcome back to CNN special coverage of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial
2:03
Before today's testimony the judge established what prior bad acts could be used to cross-examine
2:08
the former president if and I have to emphasize the if he chooses to take the stand. His attorneys
2:14
so far have not said whether Trump will testify despite this comment that he made just on Friday
2:28
And joining me now is CNN contributor John Dean who served as White House counsel to Richard Nixon
2:34
and also co-wrote the book Authoritarian Nightmare Trump and His Followers. So John you know I'm just
2:41
curious here to set the stage on this. Trump has a big decision to make about whether he should will
2:45
testify or not as an attorney as someone who would have been in the position of watching
2:50
uh the maybe the first president to have a criminal trial except for things turned out
2:55
differently in the case of Nixon. Do you think Trump should testify? It's rare that any defense
3:01
attorney wants his client to testify. In this instance it's possible but to me doubtful
3:08
particularly since the rulings on the Sandoval hearing are really very negative for Trump
3:16
Lots of the bad acts lots of his prior behavior such as the E. Gene Carroll defamation the Letitia
3:23
James's lawsuit against him for fraud those can all come into play and he has to address them
3:30
and that could be very uncomfortable for him. That's right in the Sandoval hearing of course established what they were allowed to ask if he
3:39
does take the stand as you point out all those prior cases are now fair and square on the table
3:44
One thing John though that is not on the table the judge said that the Access Hollywood tape
3:48
the infamous grab him by the pee tape could not be shown to jurors. Now I guess on the one hand
3:54
I don't think there's anyone in this country who doesn't know about that tape and hasn't heard that
3:58
tape. Nonetheless it is years ago at this point many people on this jury may not have thought
4:02
about it for a long time may not be thinking of it in the context of this so the fact that they're
4:06
not allowed to play it may matter. How do you see it and what do you make of the judge saying no to
4:12
that tape? Well I can understand why the judge didn't want to have the actual recording played
4:19
to the jury because it could be deemed too prejudicial but still they're going to get the
4:25
content they're going to get a transcript of what was said on that bus pulling into the Access
4:31
Hollywood show so and that is a chance to actually hear it word by word in a way that is even clearer
4:39
and more discussed
Legal
Scandals & Investigations
Politics


