UNBIASED - May 31, 2024: 20 QUESTIONS (Trump's Guilty Verdict Edition)

Starting point is 00:00:00 Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

Starting point is 00:00:26 BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

Starting point is 00:00:50 call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. This is Friday, May 31st, and this is a special episode of Unbiased where I'm going to be answering your questions about Trump's guilty verdict. I do want to say a few things before I get into it because, wow, what a polarizing topic this is. I need you to understand that I am not always going to tell you what you want to hear. I have said from the start that listening to nonpartisan news guarantees that you'll hear something that you don't necessarily want to hear. That's a fact. I will never provide you with intentional confirmation bias. That's just not something I do. I will tell you the facts

Starting point is 00:01:46 so that you can form your own opinions based on those facts. If you're looking for confirmation bias, I'm not your girl. So if you're still listening, if I still have you here, you're hungry to learn more and you have a desire to learn, first of all, thank you for being here. All I ask is that you go into this episode with an open mind and a thirst for knowledge. Also, throughout this episode, we're going to talk about a lot of issues that presented themselves throughout this case. I just want to make one thing clear about the jury's role in this case. The jury's job is to decide whether the prosecution proved its charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Starting point is 00:02:29 All other issues you hear me talk about throughout this episode, constitutional issues, charging issues, bias and credibility issues, things of that nature, the jury cannot take that into account. The jury can't say, oh, we think Trump's Sixth Amendment right was violated, we're going to acquit him. No. The jury just has to say, okay, here are the charges that are presented to us. Have these elements been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes or no. So this will make more sense as we go through the episode, but I just felt that that was an important note to make ahead of time. There wasn't really any other place that that note fit in. Now, without further ado, let's get into the Q&A. Number one, is it true the verdict was not unanimous? By the way, someone also asked why the judge divided the jury into four groups.

Starting point is 00:03:13 I swear I do not know where some of this information comes from, but let me just say that didn't happen. In fact, the jury wasn't even allowed to talk about the case unless all 12 members were present. There was no splitting of the jury, period. But let's talk about the unanimity issue. I covered this in yesterday's episode, but we're going to cover it again and probably in a little bit more detail. Here's what happened. Trump was charged with 34 counts of one crime, falsifying business records in the first degree. What that entails is this, falsifying business records with the intent to conceal or commit another crime. That other crime

Starting point is 00:03:53 was a violation of New York election law 17152, which prohibits conspiring to promote someone to or prevent someone from public office by unlawful means. So the elements of the crime were as follows. Trump created or caused false business records with the intent to conspire to promote someone to or prevent someone from public office by unlawful means. There are six elements here. One, Trump created or caused. Two, false business records. Three, with the intent. Four, to conspire. Five, to promote someone to or prevent someone from public office. Six, by unlawful means. The jury had to find unanimously that those six elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to return a guilty verdict. Again, let me make this clear. The jury had to

Starting point is 00:04:45 unanimously find that beyond a reasonable doubt, Trump created or caused false business records with the intent to conspire to promote someone to or prevent someone from public office by unlawful means. So the next question is what constitutes unlawful means? Well, New York election law 17152 doesn't specify, which implies that so long as the defendant, in this case Trump, conspired to promote someone to or prevent someone from public office in some illegal way, doesn't matter what illegal way, just some illegal way, the defendant committed the crime. Now here's what the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has said about unlawful means and jury verdicts or means and jury verdicts.

Starting point is 00:05:31 This is a 1999 case called Richardson v. United States. In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that a crime's elements require unanimity by a jury, but the means used to carry out the crime does not. So the opinion reads, quote, a jury in a federal criminal case cannot convict unless it unanimously finds that the government has proved each element of the offense. However, it need not always decide unanimously which several possible means the defendant used to commit an element, end quote. The court then provides this hypothetical robbery statute. So as an example, it says, let's say you have this robbery statute that makes it a crime to take from a person through force or threat of force that person's property. The elements of that crime would be

Starting point is 00:06:21 one to take, two from a person, three through force or threat of force, and four, property. Meaning the prosecution has to prove all four of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt to get a guilty robbery conviction. Also meaning the jury has to unanimously find that the prosecution proved all four of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt to return a guilty verdict. But the court continues in its Richardson opinion, and it says this. It says, quote, where, for example, an element of robbery is force or the threat of force, some jurors might conclude that the defendant used a knife to create the threat. Others might conclude he used a gun. But that disagreement, a disagreement about means, would not matter so long as all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the government had proved the necessary related element, namely that the defendant had threatened force. End quote. court in Richardson is saying is that when it comes to federal criminal statutes and granted Trump's case is a state case, the jury has to unanimously find that the prosecution proved all

Starting point is 00:07:30 elements beyond a reasonable doubt, but the jury doesn't have to unanimously agree as to the means used to carry out that element. So if we apply that precedent to Trump's case, and again, keep in mind the Richardson holding is a little bit different than Trump's case because Trump's case is a state case, whereas Richardson was a federal case. And I'll get into another big difference in a little bit. But if we apply the Supreme Court's ruling here, it would mean that the jury must unanimously determine that in creating those false business records, Trump had the intent to conspire to promote someone to or

Starting point is 00:08:05 prevent someone from public office by unlawful means. Those six elements that we just talked about a few minutes ago. However, if means at the state level is the same as what the court said in Richardson, then one could infer that the jurors in Trump's case do not need to unanimously agree as to the underlying means used to conspire. So maybe some jurors found that the unlawful means was a violation of the Federal Elections Campaign Act. Maybe other jurors found that the unlawful means was a violation of tax law. Maybe other jurors found that the unlawful means was further falsification of business records. But again, per the court's holding in Richardson, so long as the jury unanimously agrees that Trump created or caused false business records with the intent to conspire

Starting point is 00:08:59 to promote someone to or prevent someone from public office by unlawful means, the jury doesn't necessarily have to unanimously agree as to what the unlawful means were. With all of that said, we have to remember, again, that Richardson is a federal case, not a state case, so things may be a little bit different. Also, potentially a bigger differential is the fact that the means discussed in Richardson were a little different than the means at issue in Trump's case, right? The means exemplified in Richardson were types of weapons that were used to threaten force in a robbery. The means in Trump's case are actual underlying violations of law, right? Technically, still means, but a very different type of means. We're not just talking about whether Trump falsified business records with

Starting point is 00:09:52 a pen or a pencil. We're talking about whether Trump conspired to promote his candidacy by either a violation of federal election law, state tax laws, or further falsification of business records. So Trump's case is a bit different than Richardson, but I can certainly see the argument on both sides. I can see why the judge instructed the jury the way that he did, and I can also see why one would argue that the instruction was improper. I should also mention that this is certainly an issue Trump can and probably will raise on appeal. When he appeals this case, he can argue that the jury should have been instructed

Starting point is 00:10:28 to agree unanimously on the means of the underlying violations of law and see what the appellate court says about that argument. But I really hope, I really, really hope that I made this point clear

Starting point is 00:10:42 because I have way too many people on social media telling me that I'm wrong for saying the verdict was unanimous, that I'm the one spreading lies. But we have to have our facts straight. The verdict was unanimous as to the elements of each charge. But the agreement as to the unlawful means used to carry out the actual charge was not unanimous. And maybe it didn't have to be. We don't know for sure.

Starting point is 00:11:10 And if anyone is telling you that we do know for sure, they are lying to you. So the takeaway from this is that the verdict was unanimous as to all of the elements of the crime. But we will see how a court ultimately resolves the dispute in due time because this is not a cut and dry issue no matter what people tell you. It's not a cut and dry issue. Moving on. Can Donald Trump still run for president despite the conviction? Yes. The constitution only lays out three requirements for running for president. So long as you satisfy those three requirements, you're good to go. You have to be at least 35 years old at the time of inauguration. You have to have lived in the United States for at least 14 years at the time of inauguration, and you have to be a natural-born

Starting point is 00:11:55 citizen. That's it. Nothing prevents a convicted felon from running for president. I've also heard some people suggest that states may be able to individually preclude Trump from their state ballot now that he's been convicted. This isn't true either. The Supreme Court just held in Trump versus Anderson that when it comes to federal elections, states cannot prohibit federal candidates from appearing on their ballots so long as those candidates meet the constitutional requirements, which Trump does. So yes, Trump can still run for president despite being convicted. Question three is similar to question two. Question number three, can he still serve as president if elected? Yes, nothing

Starting point is 00:12:36 prohibits this either. Question number four, what happens next? How does the appeals process work? From here, before the appeal even happens, Trump's team will be filing some what are called post-judgment motions. They already asked for an acquittal of the charges notwithstanding the guilty verdict, but that was denied yesterday by the judge. Eventually, likely within a few weeks, Trump will file his notice of appeal, and then shortly after that, his attorneys will file their brief with New York's first judicial department appellate court, which is the next court up. That brief will lay out all of Trump's grounds for appeal. The grounds could range in scope from Stormy Daniels testimony, arguing that it was too prejudicial to deprivation

Starting point is 00:13:22 of a fair and impartial jury, to improper jury instructions, to an impartial judge, denial of a witness, everything in between. If the appellate division upholds the conviction, Trump can then request permission from the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state of New York. New York does it a little bit differently. The Supreme Court is actually the lowest court, and then the Court of Appeals is the highest court. So then the New York Court of Appeals can be asked to review the case. Again, the New York Court of Appeals can either hear the appeal or reject it. And then, of course, the last step in the appeal would be to the United States Supreme Court, where, again, the Supreme Court can either accept or reject the appeal.

Starting point is 00:14:03 And it goes without saying, if at some point on appeal, Trump's conviction is overturned, the prosecution, the state of New York can appeal to try to get that conviction reinstated in the same manner that Trump would appeal. So the appeals process can take a while. I'd imagine with the election, maybe the appeals process happens quicker than it usually would, but also maybe not. We'll just have to see how it plays out. It's really up to the courts from here. Question number five, when is sentencing? Sentencing is scheduled for July 11th at 10 a.m. Eastern time in Manhattan. It will be the same judge overseeing the sentencing. Question number six, does an appeal happen before sentencing takes place or is enforced? Yes, the appeal will happen before sentencing, most likely, unless Trump's team appeals the verdict in the sentence in one appeal.

Starting point is 00:14:55 But regardless, even if the appeal was filed before sentencing, it wouldn't necessarily stop the sentencing. The sentencing can still go forward on July 11th, even if the appeal is pending. But what can happen is that the sentence gets postponed until the appeal plays out. So let's just say, hypothetically, Trump is sentenced to probation. His probation may not start until after the appeals are exhausted. And again, that's just a hypothetical. Who knows what he'll ultimately be sentenced to, but all that to say, regardless of the sentence, it could be postponed until the appeals are exhausted. Question number seven, how long could he go to jail for? What are the possibilities for sentencing? Technically, the charges allow for a maximum sentence of 20

Starting point is 00:15:41 years in prison, and actually the maximum penalty for each count is four years, which if you do the math, four times 34 counts is 136 years. But New York law caps the sentencing for this type of felony at 20 years. I really don't believe he'll go to jail. Here's why. Number one, he's a first time offender. Number two, the election. Sending him to jail would be clear election interference, whether willful or not. But number three, and I've said this from the start, you have to think about the fact that Trump is entitled to Secret Service protection for the rest of his life. You run into a really big problem with what to do with the Secret Service agents. You can't deprive them of their

Starting point is 00:16:19 constitutional rights by sending them to jail too. And yes, there's an argument that, you know, it would be like a shift, like a normal shift. They would just work from the jail, but there's a lot of signs pointing to no jail time. Outside of jail time, Trump could face house arrest, although I don't see this happening either. Maybe probation in some way, maybe community service hours, possibly a fine, maybe some combination thereof. And the sentence can be appealed to, which Trump's attorney and Trump himself has already said that that will be appealed to, which Trump's attorney and Trump himself has already said that that will be appealed regardless of what it is. Question number eight, how fast can he get an appeal and or Supreme Court action? It's hard to say. It's really going to be

Starting point is 00:16:56 up to the appeals court. There's a long way to go, a lot of potential appeals. So it could take months if it's really expedited, but it could also take years. We just, we don't know. Question number nine, how does this affect the campaign trail? What does this mean for the election? It doesn't really affect much other than Trump having to attend sentencing and potentially more hearings. Even if the judge were to sentence Trump to, let's say, house arrest or jail, the sentence is going to be appealed and therefore postponed. So Trump's sentence, if anything, as I said, wouldn't start until all appeals are exhausted, which I highly doubt would happen before the election, meaning the campaign

Starting point is 00:17:37 trail wouldn't be affected. The election itself will still happen as normal. Nothing really changes there. Question number 10. Why do some people say the trial was corrupt? There's a few reasons. One, the charges were combined in a way that prosecutors have seemingly never combined them before. But I'll actually talk about this specific issue more in the next question. The second reason being the judge himself. Trump's attorney had requested the judge recuse himself from the case because his daughter is or at least was the president and COO of a firm called Authentic Campaigns. What Authentic Campaigns does is digital campaign work for Democratic political candidates specifically.

Starting point is 00:18:21 The firm was paid more than $2.1 million in 2020 by Biden's campaign, more than $7.5 million in 2019 for Harris's campaign. The firm has also done work for various Democratic governors across the country, like Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, as well as the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and the top PACs supporting House and Senate Democrats. So her being the judge's daughter and having so much involvement with the Democratic Party has certainly raised eyebrows. On top of that, there was at one time a picture posted to an ex-account, which was attributed to the judge's daughter that showed a picture of Trump behind bars. But after that post came to light, the court released a statement saying that the account no longer belonged to the judge's daughter. The judge's daughter hadn't had access to the account for over a year. She had deleted it. It was no longer hers. But still, the incident caused questions. in 2020, as well as to a group that prides itself on, quote, resisting the Republican Party and

Starting point is 00:19:25 Donald Trump's radical right-wing legacy. End quote. Marchand was subsequently cautioned by the New York State Commission on Judiciary Conduct for his donation because the donation went against judicial rules. So given all of this, one could make the argument that the judge himself is motivated by partisanship and as well as financial gain for his daughter. Outside of him and his daughter personally, you also have trial-related matters. So you have the gag order, which prevented Trump from speaking about members of the court. And some argue that this was a violation of Trump's First Amendment rights, given that the witnesses against him, like Michael Cohen, were allowed to talk about it every day and go live on social media every night and say whatever they wanted, yet Trump was restricted. You also have the jury instruction debacle, which I already went over. There's a whole theory that this whole prosecution is election interference, which I'll talk about banning the testimony of the former Federal Election

Starting point is 00:20:25 Commission chairman, Bradley Smith. Here's what happened with that, just to kind of clear it up. Trump wanted to call Smith as an expert to testify about election-related matters, including election laws. In March, Judge Mershon ruled that Smith could testify as to the background information about the FEC and define certain terms that were relevant to the case. But Smith could not offer an opinion as to whether Trump broke federal election laws or how to interpret or apply those laws. Following that ruling, Trump's team decided it's not necessary to call Smith as a witness given how restricted Smith's testimony would be. So it's not that the judge banned Smith from testifying per se,

Starting point is 00:21:05 but he restricted important parts of the testimony to the point where it wasn't worth calling him as a witness. Now, from a legal perspective, I can see why Smith wouldn't be able to opine as to how to interpret or apply laws. But restricting Smith's testimony as to whether Trump broke federal election laws is a bit dicey. We see tons of cases where experts are brought in on both sides to support their party's assertion. The prosecution could have just as easily gotten a witness of their own to opine as to whether Trump broke election laws and say that he did. That kind of stuff isn't necessarily out of the norm. But regardless, that's what the judge's ruling was. So that ties into the corruption idea as well. There's also the theory that President Biden was the one calling the shots in this case.

Starting point is 00:21:49 And then finally, there's a theory that the DA who brought the charges against Trump is backed by George Soros because Soros donated to the Color of Change PAC, which supported progressive prosecutors across the country, including DA Bragg in 2021. In fact, when DA Bragg ran, he often touted the fact that he had sued Trump over 100 times. So for all of those reasons, some say this case was corrupt, and that is why you've been hearing that. On a somewhat related note, question 11 is, were the charges created for this trial? I've heard they didn't really exist before this trial. Yes and no. No, the charges weren't created, or at least the laws at issue weren't created. New York Penal Law 17510, which is falsifying business records in the first degree, was enacted in 1986. So it's been around

Starting point is 00:22:38 for almost 30 years. The second crime, New York Election Law 15172, has been around since the mid-1970s, so even older than the first law. Where it gets questionable is these two laws being used in conjunction with one another to create a felony charge. Multiple attorneys within the state of New York that specialize in election law, as well as professors specializing in New York election law, have said that they cannot cite to any other time in which these two laws have been used with one another. That doesn't mean they can't be used together per se. It just means that the prosecution got really creative here and they charged crimes that they've likely never otherwise charged before.

Starting point is 00:23:17 And that speaks to the question, you know, previously asked, which is why do some people say this trial was corrupt? Given the fact that the crimes at issue here have seemingly never been used in conjunction with one another until Trump, it does go to show a bit of a motive. The prosecution was really searching here, and I'm sure that's also something that gets brought up on appeal. Question number 12. What's the two-year statute of limitations argument I'm hearing about? This kind of ties into the question about corruption as well, but in the state of New York, misdemeanors have a statute of limitations of two years, meaning misdemeanor charges cannot be brought against a defendant more than two years after the crime occurred. As we know,

Starting point is 00:23:56 the charges in this case were felony charges. New York has a five-year statute of limitations for felonies, which means since the payments from Trump made to Michael Cohen were made in 2017, the charges would have had to have been brought by 2022. But there were some extensions during the pandemic, and in certain cases, state law can actually stop the clock when a potential defendant is continuously out of the state. So given that he was outside the state of New York starting in 2017 until 2021 and then went to Florida when his presidency ended, and you know, he was obviously out of the state of New York for continuous periods of time, the judge ultimately found that the DA could bring the charges despite being outside that five-year statute of limitations.

Starting point is 00:24:38 That's the issue. And again, this can certainly be raised on appeal as well. Now, the other issue which is related to this and ties into the same argument is that the falsifying of business records, which was a misdemeanor, has a statute of limitations of two years. But DA Bragg attached these two charges that have never been attached before to bring the misdemeanor up to the felony and essentially gain that extra three years of statute of limitations. So it's also part of the argument as well. Question number 13, what are the odds that Trump's conviction gets overturned on appeal? I would say fair. Obviously, I can't give specific odds, but if it does make it to the Supreme Court, I can see a world in which the Supreme Court overturns it. There's a better chance of the Supreme Court overturning it if it gets to that point than the appellate courts in

Starting point is 00:25:24 New York. The Supreme Court, though, would obviously have to find justifiable reason to overturn the conviction. But I can see them taking issue with the jury instructions, the way the laws were stacked, statute of limitations, the Sixth Amendment issue, which I'll talk about more in the next question. It's fair. I can't really say either way, guaranteed yes or no. Question number 14. What's the best case for winning on appeal? So what's Trump's best argument? This is tough to say I would have, you know, it has to be some sort of reversible error, like improper jury instructions or improper evidence or a violation of constitutional rights. I think the impartial

Starting point is 00:26:00 jury argument is good. It's going to be hard to make unless Trump's team can show that the judge failed to do something he should have done to make, you know, ensure the jury would be more impartial. The reality is the constitution guarantees a defendant a right to a fair trial and an impartial jury. It doesn't guarantee the right to a perfect trial or a perfect jury. And sure, some can say that this was an unfair trial, but as Trump has said all along, it's almost impossible to get a fair trial in New York. So what do you even do if that's true? Does that mean that hypothetically someone can just go into a state that's going to treat them unfairly and commit whatever crimes they want because they know when it comes time for prosecution, they'll get off

Starting point is 00:26:38 based on unfair treatment? I mean, it's a hard thing to balance. The improper evidence argument would stem from Stormy Daniels' testimony. You know that her testimony was far more prejudicial than it was probative. And if evidence is more prejudicial than probative, it can't come in. But I don't know that that's the strongest argument either. Not that it's not a good one, but from a legal perspective, if I were to put myself in the shoes of his attorneys, the best argument is probably the jury instructions or a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The jury instruction argument being that the jury should have been required to unanimously agree as to the underlying

Starting point is 00:27:16 unlawful means of the charge, which we talked about earlier. The Sixth Amendment argument being that Trump was deprived of his right to fully understand the charges against him. Because a highly questionable aspect of this case is the fact that the unlawful means that the prosecution alleged were used to carry out the conspiracy were not specified by the DA until right before closing arguments. Now, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that criminal defendants have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them before trial. This, of course, allows the defendant to properly defend himself. And you may remember, actually, in an earlier episode, I said I personally have been waiting for jury instructions because my job is to inform you. But I didn't even fully understand the charges at that point, me being a lawyer, because they hadn't been made clear. So Trump could definitely make an argument,

Starting point is 00:28:07 and it may even be his best argument, that the DA's failure to disclose the unlawful means from the start and the judge's failure to require the prosecution to do so was a violation of Trump's Sixth Amendment rights. Question number 15, as a convicted felon, does Trump lose the right to carry a gun and vote in an election? Let's do the voting part first. Trump is registered to vote in Florida. Florida law says that someone who's registered to vote in Florida but was convicted of a felony in another state, like Trump was, would only be ineligible to vote in Florida if the conviction makes the person ineligible to vote in the state they were convicted in. Now, New York only prevents those who are actually incarcerated for a felony from voting. If you're convicted of a felony in New York, but you're out on parole, probation, you're not

Starting point is 00:28:53 currently in prison, you've served your time already, you were pardoned, whatever it is, you can still vote. As long as you're not actually in prison at the time of the election, you're good. So Trump shouldn't be affected. Obviously, if he's sentenced to jail, which again, I don't think he will be, and he actually has to serve that jail sentence, he wouldn't be able to vote in an election if he's in prison. But I can say with 100% certainty, that will not be an issue in this election, and it probably won't be an issue in 2028 either. Now for the gun question, legally, he cannot carry a gun now that he's been convicted. Federal law, New York law, Florida law, they all prohibit convicted felons from carrying or

Starting point is 00:29:30 possessing a gun. Though again, Florida law defers to the state law in which the felon was convicted. So really only New York law and federal law apply here, but in both instances, no, he cannot carry a gun. I'm not sure he's carrying a gun anyway, considering he has Secret Service with him at all times, but that's your answer. Question number 16. If Trump wins the election, can he pardon himself? We don't know. He could certainly try, but this would be an issue for the Supreme Court to ultimately decide. And just recently, I think it was last month, when the issue of presidential immunity was being argued before the justices, Justice Alito noted that the court had not yet dealt with the issue of whether a

Starting point is 00:30:10 president could pardon himself. And he was grateful of that at the time. The justices don't want to answer that question, but now obviously it seems they may have to at some point. Question number 17, how is Trump's conviction good for him in his election run? I'm seeing that a lot. Well, I obviously can't say for sure, but I think because now you're going to see a lot of those people that support him really show up in a way that they may not have before. And this would happen with any candidate in this position, right? The ones that support the candidate that was just convicted are obviously going to be extremely motivated to prove that he still has their support and that he can still win the election despite the conviction. I mean, just today, Trump's campaign announced that it actually

Starting point is 00:30:49 doubled its prior single day fundraising record following his conviction. Also, keep in mind that close to half of the country felt that these charges should have never been brought in the first place or that Trump wasn't being treated fairly. One poll conducted at the end of April by PBS, NewsHour, NPR and Morris shows 45 percent of Americans overall say the investigations into Trump are unfair and designed to obstruct his presidential campaign. Another poll conducted also in April, this one by AP and Nork, shows 44 percent of Americans are not very or not confident at all that Trump is being treated fairly by prosecutors in New York. And then finally, an April CNN poll found that even though 33% of people felt Trump's

Starting point is 00:31:34 actions related to his business records were illegal, 56% of people were not confident Trump's jury would be able to reach a fair verdict. And 34% felt that Trump is being treated more harshly than most other criminal defendants. So given that data, I would attribute any benefit to his election run to the fact that his supporters and potentially even those that are on the fence but see the trial as being unfair are more motivated to see him get reelected than they were before. Question number 18. Why were there 34 counts? The 34 counts were for each of the checks, invoices and vouchers. So there were,

Starting point is 00:32:11 I believe the breakdown was 11 checks, 11 invoices and 12 vouchers, which added together equals 34. Could the charges have been consolidated? Sure, but they didn't have to be. The crime of falsifying business records technically pertains to each individual record that was falsified. So naturally, the prosecutors were going to bring as many counts as they possibly could, because the more counts, the more likely they are to get a guilty verdict. Question number 19. Why was this called a hush money case when the actual crime was undermining the election? Well, as we've seen with all of his cases, they're each given a short nickname, right?

Starting point is 00:32:42 You have the classified documents case, the federal election interference case, the Georgia election interference case, and the hush money case. It's just sort of this name that the media gave to the case when, you know, they started talking about it. A better name for the case objectively would have been the business records case. That's really what this case is about. Undermining the election was the underlying charge, but the real charge here was falsifying business records in the first degree. So I guess the answer is just that hush money is the name the media gave to it. And that's what everyone sort of ran with because that's just what everyone knew it as. And finally, question number 20, Trump and his attorneys were granted the ability to handpick the jury,

Starting point is 00:33:20 right? Did he act on that? No, Trump was never given the ability to handpick the jury. The way jury selection works is this. A pool of jurors will go into the courtroom and the judge gives a little statement about what the case is about. The judge then asks the jurors if they can be fair and impartial. Those who self-identify as not being able to be fair and impartial are dismissed. And then the jurors that are left are given this questionnaire that's put together by both the defense and the prosecution. These questions are meant to test the bias of the jury. So it's things like, which news outlets do you watch? Whether they've supported extremist groups? Have you ever attended a rally for Trump? Things like that. The jurors then read these answers out loud, the answers to the questionnaire, and the

Starting point is 00:34:03 attorneys and the judge can ask additional follow-up questions to vet each potential juror further. Then the lawyers on each side, so the prosecution and the defense, have 10 strikes that they can use to remove any juror for any reason at all. They don't have to explain, they can just remove them. 10. On top of that, the lawyers on each side have an unlimited number of strikes for cause. So in this case, the attorneys have to argue as to why that juror should be stricken for cause and hope that the judge grants it. That whole process continues over and over again until 12 jurors and six alternates are picked.

Starting point is 00:34:37 So no, Trump did not get to handpick the jury. That would never happen because that technically wouldn't be a fair and impartial jury either. That was 20 questions i cannot thank you enough for being here for giving me the time and the grace to explain all of this to you if it means anything i can almost guarantee that now that you've listened to this episode and i'm sure you've listened to other episodes as well you are now more informed about this case this trial trial, this verdict than 90% of the population. So congratulations. We love an informed, rational group of people, don't we? Have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.

UNBIASED - May 31, 2024: 20 QUESTIONS (Trump's Guilty Verdict Edition)

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.