COUNTRY. AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN RECENT ELECTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU CONGRESSWOMAN, ANNIE KUSTER, LET ME GO ON TO FORMER PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP. ONCE AGAIN, SPLITTING HIS TIME THIS WEEK BETWEEN THE CAMPAIGN AND THE COURTHOUSE. TRUMP CLASHED WITH THE JUDGE IN THE E. JEAN CARROLL DEFAMATION TRIAL, WHILE ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS HERE IN NEW YORK. IN THE MEANTIME, NEW FOOTAGE WAS RELEASED THIS WEEK OF TRUMP'S DEPOSITION IN HIS CIVIL FRAUD CASE, AND ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONTACT AGAINST FULTON COUNTY D.A., FANI WILLIS, HAVE SHAKEN UP THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE IN GEORGIA. JOINING ME NOW, TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THIS, IS JOE TACOPINA. HE'S THE FORMER LAWYER OF PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP, AND JOE, THANK YOU FOR BEING ON. AND JOINING US ON MONDAY. YOU ANNOUNCED YOU ARE DEPARTING TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM, JUST DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE SAID TO REPRESENT HIM IN THE CARROLL CASE. THIS IS THE FIRST INTERVIEW YOU HAVE DONE SINCE YOU LEFT THE TEAM. YOU AND I HAVE WORKED TOGETHER FOR YEARS ON CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, AND I KNOW YOU AS A TENACIOUS, AGGRESSIVE LAWYER. WHY WOULD YOU LEAVE THE TEAM? >> BY THE WAY, IT'S THE FIRST AND ONLY INTERVIEW, REVERENT, THAT I WILL BE DOING ON THIS TOPIC. YOU ARE SOMEONE, OBVIOUSLY, VERY SPECIAL TO ME. SOMEONE I HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH. VERY SPECIAL TI'M GOING TO DISCE AND ONLY ONCE, TO THE DEGREE I CAN. I LEFT THE TEAM BECAUSE IT WAS JUST MY TIME. I HAD A -- I HAD TO FOLLOW MY COMPASS. MY COMPASS TOLD ME IT WAS MY TIME THERE WAS DONE. THERE ARE A LOT OF PERSONAL REASONS THAT WENT INTO THAT. THINGS THAT I CAN'T AND WON'T DISCUSS. I ALSO HAVE A$AP ROCKY'S TRIAL COMING UP THIS YEAR, WHICH IS GOING TO TAKE MOST OF MY YEAR. THE TENSION THAT'S GOING TO BE PUT INTO THAT CASE, THERE'S A LOT OF RIDING ON THAT FOR THAT YOUNG MAN, HIS WIFE, AND HIS FAMILY. THERE ARE PERSONAL REASONS. AND AS MUCH AS I LOVE TO DISCUSS THEM, I JUST CAN'T. BECAUSE WHILE I SEE MANY LAWYERS, EX LAWYERS OF THE PRESIDENT, GO ON TELEVISION ONCE THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE TEAM OR LEAVE THE TEAM, AND DISCUSS HIM, AND HIS LEGAL TEAM, AND HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND CRITICIZE EVERYONE AROUND, IT'S NOT PROFESSIONAL, IT'S PETTY, AND SHOWS A LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN ONESELF WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE AND DO THAT. THERE'S ALSO A FIDUCIARY EXPLANATION. REGARDLESS OF HOW I FEEL PERSONALLY, I HAVE TO STAY CLOSE WHEN IT COMES TO THE EXACT PERSONAL REASONS. REVEREND, YOU AND I ARE VERY CLOSE. WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THAT. BUT I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THE LAWYERS WHO DO THINGS THAT, IN MY OPINION, MAKE THEM LOOK VERY BAD, AND VIOLATE WHAT AND ATTORNEYS PRIVILEGES MEAN TO A CLIENT, WHETHER YOU ARE WITH THE CLIENT OR NO LONGER WITH THE CLIENT. WHETHER YOU LIKE THE CLIENT OR DON'T LIKE THE CLIENT. BUT I JUST HAD TO FOLLOW MY COMPASS, IT WAS MY TIME. >> I DON'T WANT YOU TO VIOLATE ANY OF YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY, LAWYER CONFIDENTIALITY. BUT WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAD TO GO WITH YOUR COMPASS, OBVIOUSLY SOME THINGS HAPPENED THAT YOUR COMPASS WENT A DIFFERENT WAY THAN WHERE YOUR COMPASS WAS WHEN YOU WENT IN. AND YOU'RE DEALING WITH PROBABLY THE PROBABLY THE MOST UNHINGED DEFENDANT OF ALL-TIME. SOME LAWYERS SAY THAT HE NEVER WANTED HIM TO TAKE THE STAND, YOU KNOW THE KIND OF PERSON HE IS. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO BE SPECIFIC. BUT IS IT YOUR MORAL COMPASS THAT JERK TO BACK INTO FIGHTING FOR THOSE OF US THAT WE KNOW, THAT YOU'VE GIVEN A CAREER? YOU AND I WORKED ON MEEK MILL'S, WE'VE WORKED ON MANY CASES, YOU GO IN LIKE A TIGER. YOU'RE NOT THE KIND OF PERSON THAT BACKS DOWN UNLESS THERE WAS A REASON YOU BACK DOWN. >> AND THERE'S A REASON. AND I HAPPILY -- I LOVE YOUR JACKET BY THE WAY, I THINK IT'S A SPECTACULAR JACKET, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. >> THE WITNESS IS TRYING TO DISTRACT ME FROM THE QUESTION. >> THERE ARE MORAL REASONS. YOU'RE RIGHT. I WOULD PROBABLY REAL THOSE REASONS, I'M TALKING TO, AND ONLY YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO THE NEW YORK TIMES THAT EVERYONE ELSE, IT JUST WASN'T RIGHT. I'M TALKING TO YOU BECAUSE OF MY LEVEL OF RESPECT FOR YOU. YOU'RE THE ONLY PERSON I WOULD EVEN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH. THEY WERE THINGS THAT JUST DIDN'T WORK OUT FOR ME. THAT DIDN'T MAKE ME WANT TO CONTINUE IN THAT ROLE. I HAVE NOTHING BAD TO SAY ABOUT ANYONE. I'M JUST NOT GOING TO DO THAT. MY ONLY PERSONABLE THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN. >> YOU DO KNOW DONALD TRUMP MAY HAVE SOMETHING BAD TO SAY ABOUT YOU AFTER COMING ON MY SHOW. >> THAT'S OKAY. IT'S PART OF THE PLAYBOOK. >> THEN LET ME ASK YOU THIS, ON WEDNESDAY, THE JUDGE IN E. JEAN CARROLL'S CASE, THE SECOND TRIAL, THREATENED TO THROW TRUMP OUT OF THE COURT FOR BEING DISRUPTIVE, DURING WITNESS TESTIMONY. TRUMP HAS MADE A POINT OF SHOWING UP FOR MANY OF THE RECENT COURT DATES, EVEN WHEN HIS PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY BY LAW. AS A LAWYER, TAKE YOU OUT OF THE TRUMP CASE, DO YOU THINK TRUMP IS HURTING HIMSELF WITH HIS COURTROOM BEHAVIOR? OR DO YOU THINK PERHAPS HIS MOTIVES ARE MORE POLITICAL THAN LEGAL? >> THEY ARE CLEARLY MORE POLITICAL THAN LEGAL. IF YOUR LAWYER, THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO IS YOU WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS YOUR CLIENT TO TAKE ON THE JUDGE, ESPECIALLY JUDGE KAPLAN, WHO IS A SERIOUS DISTRICT FEDERAL GEORGE. WHO I KNOW VERY WELL. TRIED MULTIPLE CASES IN FRONT OF HIM. HE DOESN'T SUFFER FOOLS, AND HE DOESN'T LIKE -- HE LIKES VERY FORMAL PROCEEDINGS IN HIS COURTROOM. HE DOESN'T WANT TO SITUATION WHERE ANYONE IS TALKING BACK TO HIM. I KNOW HOW THAT IS AFFECTING HIM. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, LOOK, DONALD TRUMP IS DOING WHAT DONALD TRUMP NEEDS TO DO TO GET HIS MESSAGE OUT TO HIS SUPPORTERS. IT'S PART OF THE PLAYBOOK. GO BACK TO THE CIVIL CASE IN MANHATTAN. IT'S JUST HOW HE'S CHOSEN TO DEAL WITH THESE CASES. AS A LAWYER, OBVIOUSLY, YOU LIKE IT TO BE ABOUT THE FACTS IN THE LAW, BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS AN OPTION. >> NOW, NEWLY-MADE PUBLIC VIDEO FOOTAGE OF TRUMP'S APRIL 2023 DEPOSITION, TO NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL, LETITIA JAMES, WAS RELEASED JUST YESTERDAY, AS PART OF AN ONGOING TRIAL THAT WILL DETERMINE IF TRUMP AND HIS COMPANY, INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED HIS NET WORTH WHEN APPLYING FOR LOANS. LET ME PLAY A CLIP. >> IF I WANTED TO SHOW YOU A GOOD STATEMENT, I WOULD HAVE ADDED MAYBE TEN BILLION DOLLARS OR SOMETHING FOR THE BREAD. I DIDN'T PUT THE BRAND IN THERE. I THINK MY BRAND VALUE IS PROBABLY MY GREATEST ASSET. EVEN THOUGH GETS TARNISHED BY PEOPLE LIKE THIS SUING ME. I BECAME PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF THE BRAND. OKAY? I BECAME PRESIDENT. I DIDN'T GET TO SAY -- I THINK IT'S THE HOTTEST BRAND IN THE WORLD. >> THE HOTTEST BRAND IN THE WORLD. HE COULD HAVE ADDED TEN BILLION DOLLARS. WHAT GOES THROUGH YOUR MIND WHEN YOU HEAR THIS KIND OF ANSWER FROM YOUR FORMER CLIENT? I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT YOU HEARD IN PRIVATE WHEN HE IS SUCH A NARCISSIST. >> YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T REPRESENT HIM IN THAT CASE. BUT I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I THINK HE IS SAYING IS THAT HIS BRAND VALUE ADDS MORE TO THE PROPERTY VALUE THAN IT WOULD NORMALLY IF IT WERE OWNED BY ME, FOR EXAMPLE. >> BUT WHAT BANK GOES BY BRAND VALUE? >> YOU KNOW, -- >> IT JUST MAKES NO LEGAL SENSE. >> I AGREE WITH YOU. THERE WERE SOME MORTGAGE COMPANIES, BACK IN THE DAY, BEFORE HE WAS A POLARIZING FIGURE, THAT WOULD HAVE DONE WORK WITH -- >> YOU GO BACK TO THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE, THERE'S ALWAYS A POLARIZING FIGURE. >> I KNOW THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THERE WAS A POINT WHERE THE TRUMP REAL ESTATE NAME WAS, IN THIS COUNTRY, VERY PROMINENT. HIS BOOKS THE ART OF THE DEAL, ALL THAT STUFF. I THINK LENDERS WERE FALLING OVER EACH OTHER TO GIVE HIM MONEY. LOOK, THERE'S A LEVEL OF EGO THAT IS VERY HIGH. ALMOST UNMATCHED, I WOULD SAY. AND WHETHER YOU LIKE HIM OR HATE HIM, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT VERY STRONGLY ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT FENCE, THE ONE THING YOU HAVE TO SAY IS HIS BRAND HAS GOTTEN HIM WHERE HE IS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE THE BRAND, YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE WAY HE SENDS HIS MESSAGES OUT, BUT HIS BRAND DID GET HIM INTO THAT WHITE HOUSE. IT WASN'T BECAUSE HIS POLITICAL BACKGROUND OR HIS -- >> HE HAD NO POLITICAL BACKGROUND. >> EXACTLY. REV, THAT'S MY POINT. IT HAD TO BE THE BRAND. SO IN THAT REGARD, YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HIS BRAND GOT HIM TO WHERE HE IS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE THE WAY HE RELATES IT. >> BUT ON A COURT OF LAW, HE'D HAVE TO ESTABLISH WHY A BANQUET DO THAT, PARTICULARLY WHEN HE SAYS HIMSELF, HE PUT HIS BRAND THERE. THERE WERE MANY INSTITUTIONS THAT TURNED HIM DOWN, WHICH IS WHY HE WENT TO A PARTICULAR BANK. I KNOW YOU ARE THE LAWYER THERE, BUT FACTS ARE THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF BANGS AND LOANING INSTITUTIONS THAT WOULD NOT FALL OVER THEMSELVES TO EMBRACE HIS BRAND OR WHAT HE WAS PROPOSING. >> YEAH, LOOK, THIS IS A STRANGE CASE. THERE WAS NO -- THE BANKS THAT WERE DOING THE DEALS WITH HIM, THEY MADE OUT VERY WELL ON THEIR PROFITS. HE DIDN'T MISS ANY PAYMENTS. WHETHER THE VALUE WAS -- THE ONE THING I KNOW IS THAT THEY GAVE A DISCLAIMER, WHEN THEY SET THOSE VALUATIONS INTO THE BANKS. THEY SAY, THIS IS OUR REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT, DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE, WHICH THEY DID. THAT CASE DOESN'T EXCITE ME. THAT CASE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ONE OF THE STRONG CASES. THE MANHATTAN D.A.'S CASE THAT I WAS ON, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A STRONG CASE. THERE'S OTHER CASES. THERE'S GEORGIA, THERE'S WASHINGTON D.C.. >> YOU THINK SOME OF THEM ARE STRONG CASES? >> THOSE ARE SERIOUS CASES. TWO FEDERAL CASES ARE SERIOUS CASES. I THINK THEY ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. >> DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE, JUST AS A LAWYER, YOU'RE OUT OF HIS CASE, YOU ARE BACK DOING WHICH YOU'VE BEEN KNOWN TO DO, ARE YOU GOING TO BE DOING WORK WITH ALL OF US AGAIN ON A LOT OF CASES? >> ONE OF THE OTHER REASONS IS THIS CLEARS THE PAN FOR US TO RESUME OUR WORKING RELATIONSHIP. WHICH MEANS THE WORLD TO ME. BECAUSE YOU ARE OUR COUNTRY'S PREMIERS CIVIL -- TO BE PART OF YOUR LEGAL TEAM, IT MEANS EVERYTHING TO ME. >> I'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK FOR YOU, BECAUSE CIVIL RIGHTS HASN'T GONE ANYWHERE. >> I KNOW THAT. HAPPY TO GET BACK. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DO YOU THINK, WITHOUT VIOLATING ANY PRECEDENTS, KNOWING THAT SOME OF THESE CASES ARE, AS YOU SAY, SERIOUS, IS IT POSSIBLE DONALD TRUMP COULD END UP CONVICTED OF ONE OF THESE CASES, IN YOUR MIND? >> IS IT POSSIBLE? ABSOLUTELY. YOU HAVE A JURY OF 12 WHO IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO DECIDE THIS. JACK SMITH IS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WHO I KNEW FROM HIS DAYS IN BROOKLYN. THAT'S A SERIOUS PROSECUTOR. THESE ARE FEDERAL CASES, AND YOU HAVE A JURY. >> AND YOU DON'T THINK THEY'RE POLITICAL? YOU THINK THEY'RE GOOD CASES. NOT JUST POLITICS. >> LOOK, DO I THINK THERE'S A POLITICAL BET TO SOME OF THIS, SOME OF THE WAY THIS WAS GONE ABOUT, YES I DO. DO I THINK THESE CASES ARE INVALID CASES? LOOK, A GRAND JURY VOTED TO INDICT. HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO FACE A JURY IN WASHINGTON. >> FOR GRANARIES. >> YEAH, FOR. THANK YOU. WASHINGTON D.C., FLORIDA, AND NEW YORK CITY. I WOULD SAY MAYBE THREE OF THOSE VENUES ARE NOT PARTICULARLY BIG TRUMP VENUES, RIGHT? NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., AND ATLANTA. THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING TO REALLY HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH THERE. YOU CAN'T SAY THERE'S NO WAY HE WILL GET CONVICTED, THERE IS NO WAY HE WILL BE SENTENCED. >> AND THERE'S PROSECUTORS THAT DESPITE WHATEVER POLITICAL ANGLE YOU DON'T THINK WOULD BRING CASES, THEY DON'T THINK THERE WAS SOME LEGAL CASE. >> I'M SURE THEY BELIEVE IN THEIR CASES. I DO.
