Straight Down the Middle — The Trump Verdict —Ep. 1

Summary

The video script discusses the Trump hush money case, highlighting the constitutional issues surrounding the verdict. Law professor Jed Rubenfeld explains that Trump can still run for office despite the conviction and raises concerns about selective prosecution, the indictment's lack of specificity on the underlying crime, and the jury's non-unanimous decision on the election law violation. He suggests Trump's lawyers may appeal these constitutional questions and even seek a federal restraining order to halt the judgment of guilt until these issues are resolved.

Takeaways

• 🏆 Trump has been found guilty in the hush money case, but this does not prevent him from running for office or being elected president.
• 📖 The case revolves around a two-step crime: falsification of business records to conceal a second, unspecified crime related to campaign expenses.
• 🤔 The nature of the second crime is ambiguous, with the prosecution suggesting it could be a New York tax violation, a federal campaign finance violation, or a New York election law violation.
• 🎯 The indictment did not specify the underlying offense, which raises constitutional questions about the right to know the charges against a defendant under the Sixth Amendment.
• 🔍 There is debate over whether the prosecution is an instance of selective prosecution, which would be unconstitutional if proven to be motivated by political bias.
• 🤝 The jury was not required to be unanimous about the specific violation that constituted the second crime, which may conflict with constitutional requirements for a unanimous jury.
• 📚 Jed Rubenfeld, a law professor, suggests that there are serious constitutional issues with the case, including potential violations of the Sixth Amendment and the right to a fair trial.
• 📉 The case could have implications for the next presidential election, as polls indicate that a conviction might influence voters' decisions, potentially affecting the election's outcome.
• 📈 Trump's lawyers might consider suing in federal court for a temporary restraining order to halt the entry of a judgment of guilt until constitutional issues are resolved.
• 📝 The sentencing is scheduled for July 11th, and it is uncertain what the outcome will be, with the judge having discretion over the sentence, including the possibility of incarceration.
• 🚨 If the conviction is found to be unconstitutional after the appeal, the impact on the election could be irreparable, emphasizing the urgency and importance of resolving constitutional questions promptly.

Q & A

What is the significance of the Trump hush money case verdict according to the speaker?

The speaker emphasizes that the Trump hush money case is momentous and has serious constitutional implications, especially concerning the potential for a former or running president to become a target for criminal prosecution.

Can a former president or a presidential candidate be prevented from running for office due to criminal prosecution?

No, according to the speaker, states cannot decertify a candidate or remove them from the ballot based on criminal prosecution, including if the individual is found guilty of a felony.

What is the historical precedent for a presidential candidate running from jail?

The speaker mentions Eugene Debs, who ran for president from a federal penitentiary in 1920 and received almost a million votes, demonstrating that running for president from jail is possible.

What was Trump charged with in the hush money case?

Trump was charged with a two-step crime: falsification of business records to conceal a second crime, which the speaker suggests was likely a New York election law violation.

Why is the second crime in Trump's charges considered 'tricky'?

The second crime is tricky because the indictment did not specify what the second crime was, leading to uncertainty about what exactly the jury found Trump guilty of.

What constitutional issues are raised by the speaker regarding the Trump case?

The speaker raises issues of selective prosecution, the Sixth Amendment right to know the charges, and the potential for an unconstitutional non-unanimous verdict.

What is the argument against the indictment being constitutional due to the lack of specification of the second crime?

The argument is based on the Second Circuit case law that requires an indictment to identify the underlying offense when a crime depends on the violation of another statute, which the speaker suggests was not done in Trump's indictment.

Why might the speaker's suggested federal lawsuit be significant for Trump's case?

The suggested federal lawsuit could be significant because it could lead to a temporary restraining order preventing the entry of a judgment of guilt until federal courts, possibly even the Supreme Court, can review the constitutionality of the prosecution.

What is the potential 'irreparable harm' mentioned by the speaker in relation to the election?

The irreparable harm refers to the possibility that an unlawful or unconstitutional conviction could affect the outcome of the next presidential election, and even if reversed on appeal later, the effect on the election could not be undone.

What is the speaker's proposed action for Trump's lawyers in response to the verdict?

The speaker suggests that Trump's lawyers should file an action in federal court under Section 1983, asking for a temporary emergency restraining order to halt the entry of a judgment of guilt until the constitutionality of the case can be reviewed.

Outlines

00:00

⚖️ Overview of Trump's Guilty Verdict

The video begins by introducing the significance of Trump's guilty verdict in the hush money case. It highlights the constitutional implications and the dangers of prosecuting a former president. Jed Rubenfeld, a law professor at Yale, explains that while Trump can still run for office, the case's complexity lies in its constitutional challenges. He mentions the two-step nature of the crime involving falsification of business records to conceal another crime.

05:00

❓ The Second Crime in Question

This paragraph delves into the uncertainties surrounding the second crime Trump allegedly concealed. The state did not specify the second crime in the indictment, leaving multiple theories open, including tax violations, campaign finance violations, and election law violations. The jury's decision was based on the New York election law violation, but the exact nature of the concealed crime remains unclear.

10:01

📝 Constitutional Issues with the Indictment

Rubenfeld discusses the constitutional requirement for an indictment to specify the underlying offense in cases involving multiple crimes. He references a federal case to illustrate this point, arguing that the lack of specificity in Trump's indictment could violate the Sixth Amendment. Despite attempts to clarify through additional documents, the exact second crime remains unspecified, raising constitutional concerns.

15:03

⚖️ Unanimity and the Jury's Decision

The video addresses the constitutional requirement for a unanimous jury decision in felony prosecutions. Rubenfeld explains that the jury in Trump's case was not required to be unanimous about the specific underlying crime, potentially violating constitutional principles. He outlines the complexities of this issue and the implications for the case's validity.

20:03

🚨 Next Steps and Potential Legal Actions

Rubenfeld outlines the possible next steps for Trump's legal team, including seeking a temporary restraining order in federal court to prevent the entry of a judgment of guilt. He emphasizes the importance of federal review of the constitutional issues before the election to avoid irreparable harm. The video concludes with a call for a conclusive ruling on the case's constitutionality.

Keywords

💡Hush money

Hush money refers to payments made to silence someone, often to prevent the public disclosure of potentially damaging information. In the video, it is mentioned that Trump's lawyer paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about her allegations of an affair with Trump, which is central to the case being discussed.

💡Verdict

A verdict is the decision made by a jury at the end of a trial, determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The script mentions that the jury has found Trump guilty, which is a pivotal moment in the case and the basis for further legal discussions.

💡Constitutional law

Constitutional law encompasses the rules and legal principles derived from a constitution, including the U.S. Constitution, that define the operation of a government and the rights of individuals. The video's speaker, Jed Rubenfeld, is a law professor specializing in constitutional law, and he discusses the constitutional implications of the case.

💡Falsification of business records

Falsification of business records is a crime that involves making false entries in a business's official documents. The script describes how Trump was charged with this crime for allegedly misrepresenting payments to Stormy Daniels as legal expenses when they were actually hush money.

💡Campaign expenses

Campaign expenses refer to the costs incurred by a political campaign. In the video, it is argued that the payments made to Stormy Daniels were actually campaign expenses, meant to influence the election, and thus should not have been recorded as legal expenses.

💡Selective prosecution

Selective prosecution occurs when law enforcement or prosecutors target certain individuals for prosecution based on personal or political reasons rather than objective criteria. The video raises the issue of whether the case against Trump is an example of selective prosecution due to political motivations.

💡Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to be informed of the charges against you, and the right to confront witnesses, among other rights. The video discusses a potential Sixth Amendment violation in the case due to the lack of clarity on what the 'second crime' was that the falsified records were meant to conceal.

💡Unanimous jury

A unanimous jury refers to a jury that must reach a verdict with the agreement of all its members. The script mentions that the judge in the case instructed the jury that they did not need to be unanimous about the underlying crime related to the election law violation, which raises constitutional questions.

💡Indictment

An indictment is a formal charge or allegation made against someone, typically by a grand jury, that they have committed a crime. The video discusses the indictment against Trump, noting that it charged him with a two-step crime without specifying the second crime, which is a point of contention.

💡Appeal

An appeal is a legal procedure by which a case is brought from a lower court to a higher court for a new trial. The script suggests that Trump's team will likely appeal the conviction, arguing that the case involves several constitutional issues that need to be addressed by higher courts.

💡Irreparable harm

Irreparable harm refers to harm that cannot be undone or compensated for by monetary damages. In the context of the video, the term is used to describe the potential impact of an unlawful conviction on the upcoming election, which could influence its outcome and cause lasting damage even if the conviction is later overturned.

Highlights

Trump has been found guilty in the hush money case.

It's crucial that criminal prosecutions are done lawfully and constitutionally, especially for high-profile individuals.

Trump can still run for president despite this conviction, and states cannot disqualify him from the ballot.

In 1920, Eugene Debs ran for president from a jail cell and received almost a million votes.

The core of the case involves falsification of business records related to hush money payments.

The indictment did not specify the second crime Trump was allegedly trying to conceal, creating legal ambiguity.

The case's complexity lies in whether the payments were considered legal expenses or campaign expenses.

Constitutional issues include selective prosecution and the requirement to inform the defendant of the charges.

The prosecution's shifting theories about the second crime further complicate the case.

The requirement for a unanimous jury verdict is a key constitutional issue in this case.

Potential sentencing includes a maximum of 136 years, but the actual outcome is uncertain.

The appeal process could take years, potentially impacting the upcoming presidential election.

Trump's legal team might seek an emergency temporary restraining order in federal court to halt the judgment of guilt.

The case's outcome could set a dangerous precedent for political prosecutions in the United States.

A federal court review of the prosecution's constitutionality might be necessary before the election.

Transcripts

the Trump hush money case so the jury

verdict is in Trump's been found guilty

look this is a momentous case

everybody's talking about it most people

don't fully understand it but here's

something we all know it's a dangerous

president nobody wants it to be the rule

in America that if you're a former

president or if you're running for

president you become a target for

criminal prosecution it is hugely

important that if there is a criminal

prosecution it be done lawfully and

constitutionally I'm Jed rubenfeld I'm a

law professor at yel law school I write

and teach and litigate about

constitutional law and I'm going to tell

you that there are some serious

constitutional problems with this case

but I'm going to lay it out for you

without any partisan bias I hope and I'm

going to take you through it also I'm

going to tell you what I would do if I

was Trump's lawyers right now cuz I have

some ideas about what they might do that

you might not have heard before but I'll

get to that at the end let's get the

simple stuff out of the way first can

Trump still run for office yes he can

could States desertify him could they

take him off the ballot because of this

prosecution no they cannot that's

straight up unconstitutional if you're

found guilty even of a felony you can

still run for president and States

cannot try to take you off their ballot

could Trump run for president if he's in

jail yes he could back in 1920 a guy

named Eugene Debs ran for president from

the jail cell of a federal penitentiary

he got almost a million votes about 3%

of the vote so it can be done okay

that's actually the easiest stuff here

to answer now let's turn to a harder

question what exactly was Trump just

found guilty of now normally in a

criminal case that would not be a tricky

question the defendant was found guilty

of robbing some Bank on some particular

day and if he's found guilty he's found

guilty and you know what he's found

guilty of that is not quite the case

here it's not anywhere near so simple so

was Trump charged with unlawfully having

an affair no because that's not unlawful

well was he charged with hushing it up

was he charged with paying money to keep

that quiet no because that's not

unlawful whatever you might think about

it paying hush money

to keep quiet allegations of an affair

or something else there's nothing

criminal there's nothing unlawful about

that so what what was he charged with he

was charged with a two-step crime

there's two pieces of it step one

falsification of business records

falsification of what business records

it starts back in 2016 when Trump's

lawyer Michael Cohen pays

$130,000 to stormmy Daniels to keep her

quiet to get her to sign an NDA saying

she won't publish her allegations about

having had an affair with former

president Trump he was not then former

president but with Donald Trump Cohen

pays her that $130,000 now skipped to

2017 Trump is President and he starts

reimbursing Cohen for the payment that

Cohen made to Daniels and he spreads

that uh reimbursement payment together

with other uh money that he paid to

Cohen he spreads that over 12 months and

that generates business records checks

bookkeeping entries and those checks and

bookkeeping entries they say that the

payments are going toward legal expenses

now believe it or not the whole case in

the starting phases depends on this is

there something false about saying that

those payments were for legal expenses

the prosecution says yes those are false

statements why because because the

payments were hush money payments and

more specifically they were campaign

expenses expenses made to to further his

campaign

they weren't legal expenses they were

hush money campaign expenses the other

side Trump's people they say what are

you talking about those are payments

made to Trump's lawyer for services he

performed as a lawyer so those are legal

expenses believe it or not you got to

answer that first question if you think

those were legal expenses then there was

no false business record and Trump

should not have been convicted but lots

of people believe as the prosecution

said that no those were hush money

campaign expenses not legal expenses so

they were false okay that's step one

because Trump was not charged only with

falsification of a business record he

was charged with falsifying a business

record to conceal a second crime that

he'd already committed that's how the

charges become felony charges and if

you're wondering it's because he spaced

out the payments over 12 months

generating like three business records

each time almost three you get to 34

counts of false business records you may

have read There are 34 counts that's the

34 counts but then the question is what

second crime is the state saying that he

was trying to conceal through these

allegedly false business records so it's

a two-step crime falsifying business

records in order to conceal a second

crime that he'd already committed so

what was a second crime well that's

where things get tricky because the

indictment didn't say the indictment

said that he' falsified business records

to conceal a second crime but it never

said what the second crime was and to

this day a lot of people are unsure what

the jury thought because what the state

did was it did not commit itself to what

the second crime might be in its papers

before trial the state said look we got

we got a bunch of different theories and

we got at least three theories one

theory was the second crime was a a New

York tax violation one theory was the

second crime was a federal campaign

Finance violation one theory was it was

a New York election law violation and

and here's where things get even

trickier because the New York election

law violation is itself a two-step crime

it's the crime under New York law of

trying to influence an election through

unlawful means that is through violating

some other statute committing some other

offense and what happened was the state

never committed itself to which of those

crimes it was going to try to allege

that Trump was concealing through these

uh business records and that went up

right to the day of the first day of the

trial but during the trial the

prosecution kind of narrowed it down to

one of those uh uh three crimes and the

one it chose was the New York election

law violation but there the problem was

that as I just said that was another

two-step crime where they had to come in

and and show that he uh was trying to

influence an election through the

violation of some other statute and they

never said exactly which other statute

that was going to be and two to this day

we do not know what the jury was

thinking when it convicted him you can

ask a jury for a special verdict and

make the jury say exactly what offense

the jury believes the defendant to have

committed but the judge did not order a

special verdict in this case the judge

ordered what's called a general verdict

and on top of that the judge told the

jury you know when it comes to that

election law offense with its second

crime you don't have to be unanimous

about that two of you could think that

Trump was trying to influence an

election through a tax violation two of

you could think that Trump was trying to

influence an election by falsifying

other records and a bunch of other

people on the jury could think there was

some other violation and the judge said

you don't have to be unanimous about

that is that constitutional can he do

that I'll be turning to that in the next

part of this this show but for now you

understand the basics the jury convicted

him or found him guilty of falsifying a

business record to conceal a second

crime crime that he committed and we

think although you can't be totally sure

that that second crime was a New York

election law violation which itself

required the showing of another legal

violation and we don't know what that

violation was okay part two the

Constitutional issues a lot of lawyers

say that this whole prosecution was

unconstitutional what are their

arguments and do those arguments have

any Merit well the first thing a lot of

people say is you know what this

prosecution would never been brought if

it hadn't been against Donald Trump we

think that Alvin Bragg the district

attorney we think that that he brought

this case because he's pursuing a

vendetta against Trump hates his

policies doesn't want him to be

president the whole point of the

prosecution people say is to undermine

Trump's chances of being president well

if that's true does that make the

prosecution unconstitutional answer yes

it would that's called in legal terms

selective prosecution the state cannot

come after you with a Criminal

prosecution because of hostility toward

or in retaliation against your political

activity that's unconstitutional and if

they're doing that the whole prosecution

is unconstitutional little problem here

though is that's very difficult to prove

that gets into the motives inside the

head of the prosecutor very tough to

prove in fact some courts have held the

only way you can prove it is by coming

up with a comparable case a comparator a

comparable case of somebody else that

the district attorney could have

prosecuted uh on very similar facts but

didn't prosecute because uh the district

attorney liked their politics but didn't

like Trump's politics very hard to come

up with a set of comparable facts like

that believe it or not there might be a

comparator here there might be a very

similar comparable set of facts

involving Hillary Clinton but that's

going to get into too much factual

detail that I don't have time for on

today's show maybe in another show I'll

talk more about that so constitutional

issue number one select is selective

prosecution a lot of people think this

was an instance of selective prosecution

and there is some pretty good reason to

believe it but difficult to prove now

let's turn to issue two the indictment I

told you before the indictment charged

Trump with a two-step crime falsifying

business records to conceal a second

crime but never said what that second

crime was is is that constitutional well

under the United States Constitution

under the Sixth Amendment every criminal

defendant has a right to know the

charges against him so how does that

principle work in this kind of case and

I'll answer it by quoting from a federal

case the court was the United States

court of appeals for the second circuit

and here's what the second circuit said

where an indictment charges a crime that

depends in turn on violation of another

statute the indictment must identify the

underlying offense that sounds kind of

relevant doesn't it I'm going to repeat

it to you where an indictment charges a

crime that depends in turn on violation

of another statute the indictment must

identify the underlying offense well

that's exactly what this indictment did

charged a crime that depended in turn on

the violation of another statute but it

didn't specify or identify the

underlying offense now there's a very

good argument that that indictment was

in violation of federal constit

constitutional law under this second

circuit case and many other cases that

are like it by the way if you want to

look it up at home that case was called

United States versus Puro p i r r o 212

F3 86 I think decided by the second

circuit in 2000 okay so let's say that

this was a defective indictment under

the Sixth Amendment of the United States

Constitution is that the end of the

story does that knock out the whole case

well maybe not because in the

information the state can provide other

details about the crime and can fill in

gaps or cure and this attorney Bragg he

did file an information on the very day

the indictment was unsealed or made

public but the information also didn't

say what the second crime was so you got

the indictment that doesn't say and then

you got the information that doesn't say

well is that the end of the matter so

now do we have a violation of the sixth

amendment and the whole case is out the

window well maybe not quite because the

defendant are permitted to ask for

another document this document is called

a bill of

particulars and in that document the

state once again can provide more detail

and in this case the Trump team did ask

for a bill of particulars and they

specifically asked you got to tell us

what the second crime is specify what

the second crime is but the state

attorney Bragg arguing for the state he

said no we don't have to tell you we're

not going to give you a bill of

particulars under New York law we don't

have to tell you what the second crime

was we don't have to uh specify the

second crime New York law allows us to

prove that a trial we've got a bunch of

different theories what the second crime

might be and judge meron upheld that

view he held that the state does not

have to tell what the second crime was

and uh that it's okay for the state to

have at least three different theories

of what that second crime might be and

and they can go forward with any of them

at the trial so right up to the day of

the trial the Trump team did not know

what the second crime was going to be as

the trial progressed it became clear

that the state had honed in on that New

York election law offense but remember

that was itself a a two-step crime

trying to influence an election through

unlawful means by violating some other

statute and once again there were a

bunch of different theories about uh

what that second or this case third

offense might have been and uh judge

meron said that's okay State can have a

bunch of different theories of what that

uh further statutory violation was and

the jury can pick and choose among them

well is that constitutional I think

there's a very serious question about

whether that was all constitutional

because you see the sixth amendment

requirement that uh the defendant be

informed of the charges against him

that's not a mere technicality it's

actually like the fundamental principle

of constitutional criminal procedure if

you're charged with a crime if you're

being prosecuted by uh the government

you have a right to know what it is

they're charging you with because we're

not supposed to have a legal system like

France kafka's legal system in the trial

where the protagonist is put through a

trial and found guilty and never told

what it is he's been charged with it's a

very serious matter to not tell the

defendant exactly what charges he's up

against and that's why the second

circuit held what it did in that Puro

case because the defendant has a right

to know to prepare his defense to know

what the uh crimes that the state is

going to put before the jury might be so

he can call the right Witnesses be ready

to defend himself and because it was

because the state was playing hide the

ball on this and and changing its

theories and keeping its theories open

right through the the whole trial I

think there's a very serious potential

uh Sixth Amendment violation that

happened in this case now let me move on

to the unanimity issue so remember what

judge meron does is he tells the jury

okay to find a violation of this New

York election law offense you got to

find that Trump was trying to influence

an election namely his own election

through unlawful meemes through

violating another statute but you don't

have to be unanimous about what the

other statutory violation was is that

unconstitutional well the Constitution

does require a unanimous jury and that

requirement that applies in state

prosecutions as well as Federal

prosecutions that's only been true for a

few years by the way it's only a few

years ago that the Supreme Court said

that that unanimity requirement applies

to state prosecutions but it does to

State felony prosecutions and that's

what this was and so does judge M's

instruction to the jury about non-

unanimity does it violate that principle

well it might but this is kind of

complicated too complicated for me to go

into here there is a case to be made

that that's an unconstitutional jury

instruction that the constitution

requires unanimity on that point but I'd

have to get into cases and complications

I don't have time for right now so I'm

going to stop there you got your three

big constitutional questions selective

prosecution failure to give notice of

what the crime was that's the Sixth

Amendment violation and finally the

danger of an unconstitutional

non-unanimous verdict which might have

occurred in this case there are other

errors that Trump's team uh for sure is

going to allege trial errors evidentiary

ruling errors many other uh errors and

some of them might even amount to

constitutional errors but what I've done

now is I've summarized for you three

major uh constitutional arguments that

you can be sure will be made by Trump's

team when they appeal okay part part

three next steps now we know where we

are Where Do We Go From Here could Trump

actually be put in jail you bet he could

each count of this 34 count indictment

has a maximum penalty attached to it of

four years well that's 4 time 34 that's

a maximum sentence prison sentence of

136 years judge meran could sentence

president Trump to jail for 136 years

will he do that of course not he won't

but could he sentence him to some

incarceration yes he could will he

nobody knows lot of people are saying no

he won't he'll just impose probation or

a fine but truth is sentencing is left

very much open to the judge's discretion

it'll all be up to judge meran and

nobody knows what he'll do at this time

now when is sentencing scheduled for

well judge meran has said it for July

11th will something happen between then

and now yes Trump's team will ask for uh

judgment notwithstanding the verdict

they'll ask for judge meran to throw out

the verdict and find Trump innocent

despite the verdict and judge mam will

turn that down then there will be

arguments about what the sentence should

be briefing on both sides possibly even

a hearing then on July 11th sentencing

will be announced and at that point that

triggers the Trump team's right to

appeal to what court would they appeal

well they would appeal to New York's

appell level court and they would make

arguments of the kind that I've

summarized to you and other arguments as

well and they will say throw out this

conviction and uh after the appell court

rules then the case could go up to New

York's highest court which is actually

called the court of appeals but it's New

York's highest court and after that the

case could go up to the Supreme Court

and ultimately it might well go to the

Supreme Court where finally we will have

a definitive uh conclusive ruling on

whether the conviction was

constitutional or not of course that

would take years and that's a problem

here why is it a problem it's a problem

because the election will have taken

place and if this conviction is unlawful

and unconstitutional it could have an

effect on that election there are

surveys many polls in which a

substantial number of American voters

say they will not vote for Trump if he

is convicted of a felony many

Independents say that many Republicans

even say that if that's true an unlawful

conviction in this case could interfere

with and in fact decide the outcome of

the next election of the next president

of the United United States even if the

conviction were reversed on appeal years

later that effect could not be undone in

legal terms that's called irreparable

harm the irreparable harm once again is

that a convicted felon could affect the

election could decide the election and

if so then district attorney Bragg and

judge meron will have unlawfully

interfered with the election and and

decided the outcome of the next election

through unconstitutional means and no

years long appeal could have any effect

on that well is is that where we are so

are we stuck with that possibility well

believe it or not there is one other

Avenue that the Trump lawyers could

pursue they could sue in federal court

and ask for a emergency temporary

restraining order restraining order of

what well let me tell you something that

you might not know you've probably been

reading in the Press if you've been

reading about this case that Trump is

already a convicted felon the jury has

convicted him he's a convicted felon

well guess what that's not true you're

not a convicted felon because of a jury

verdict you're not convicted unless the

judge enters a judgment of guilt against

you the judge still has the power as I

told you before to throw out that

verdict and enter a judgment of acquit

you are not convicted until the judge

enters that Judgment of guilt now in New

York it's very likely that judge meran

will enter that Judgment of guilt

against Trump on the same day that he

issued sentencing that would be July

11th so what would this federal case be

about in this Federal action Trump would

sue uh uh just attorney Bragg and other

state actors and ask the judge the

federal judge for an emergency temporary

restraining order halting judge meron

from entering that Judgment of guilt

until the federal courts have had an

opportunity to review and rule on the

serious constitutional arguments that

exist here and let me tell you why I

think that might be a very important

thing to happen because going after

criminally a former president of the

United States and somebody who is

running for president now that's a very

bad look for this country it's an

especially bad look when the folks bring

in the case and the judge deciding it

are members of the opposing political

party and it's an even worse look when

the crime is so unclear that the state

is hiding the ball about what the actual

charges are right up through the trial

and indeed into the trial and even now

we don't know exactly what the jury

found Trump guilty of if you're going to

go after a former president and somebody

who's running for president now

the poll leading candidate if you're a

member of the other party and you're

going to do that you better have the

goods you better not be pursuing some

novel legal Theory where you have to

hide the ball it's not even clear what

the charges are that could be a very

dangerous precedent for this country a

very bad and dangerous precedent and

that's why it's so important for a

federal court to review the

constitutionality of this prosecution

and decide was it constitutional was it

not to achieve that the only way to

achieve that before the election takes

place is for the Trump team to file an

action in federal court and ask the

federal court to temporarily hold off

the entry of the Judgment of guilt until

the federal courts and maybe the Supreme

Court itself can on an emergency basis

adjudicate the likelihood of success of

these constitutional arguments if that

doesn't happen then that irreparable

harm danger that I mentioned before well

that's that's where we are but if it

does happen the nation could get a

ruling from the federal courts even the

Supreme Court of the United States

before the election takes place and

maybe that's what the nation needs and

maybe that's what the law requires here

so if I were Trump's lawyer that's

probably what I would do I would run

into federal court file this action

under section

1983 and ask for a temporary emergency

restraining order will Trump's lawyers

do that I have no idea but uh that's

what I would do and now I've come to the

end of what I had to say today about

Trump's guilty verdict in this case I

hope you learned something from it if

you want to know uh uh more detail about

it well tune in to other episodes thanks

for listening goodbye