WE'RE CONTINUING OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE ONGOING CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN DONALD TRUMP'S CRIMINAL TRIAL. >> AS I SPEAK, THE PROSECUTION IS MAKING ITS CLOSING ARGUMENT. JUDGE MERCHAN URGING THE PROSECUTION LEAD BY JOSHUA STEINGLASS, WHO HAS GIVEN THE CLOSING ARGUMENT TONIGHT TO END THE PRESENTATION BY 8:00 P.M. BY THE WAY, THAT WOULD BE FIVE HOURS OF CLOSING ARGUMENT FROM THE PROSECUTION ALONE. WE'RE SEAN TELLING JURORS THAT THE COURT IS QUOTE, TO TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF THEIR FLEXIBILITY TONIGHT. SO WE'RE AT 7:31 EASTERN SEEING IF THIS ACTUALLY WILL CONCLUDE HERE IN THE NEXT FEW MOMENTS, OUTFRONT. NOW, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER, TY COBB AND TIE. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME SO WE'RE NOW GETTING INTO OUR FIVE POSSIBLY THE PROSECUTION'S CLOSING HOW QUICKLY DO YOU THINK ONCE THIS GETS TO THE JURY TOMORROW MORNING, WE BELIEVE HOW QUICKLY WILL THERE BE A VERDICT SO I THINK WE'LL HAVE A VERDICT FRIDAY AFTERNOON AT AT THE LATEST IT COULD BE MONDAY, BUT I THINK THIS CASE COULD EASILY BE RESOLVED BY THE WEEKEND AND FRIDAYS ARE USUALLY A TRUSTWORTHY DATA ESTIMATE VERDICT RETURN BECAUSE JURORS TYPICALLY DON'T WANT TO SPEND SPEND THE WEEKEND ON THIS KIND OF STUFF AND THEY DON'T REALLY WANT TO COME BACK THE NEXT WEEK AND DELVE HAD THREE FULL DAYS TO CONSIDER IT. >> I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S LIKELY THE DAY. >> ALL RIGHT. SO YOU THINK BY FRIDAY, YOU ALSO THINK THE JURY WILL FIND TRUMP GUILTY. HOW COME? >> I DO. I THINK WELL, I THINK IT'S A COMBINATION OF THINGS, BUT PRIMARILY IT'S BECAUSE THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALMOST REQUIRE IT. THE JUDGE IS NOT GOING TO INSTRUCT ON ANY ANY LEVEL OF INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE THAT TRUMP SHOULD HAVE HAD OR FOR MUST HAVE HAD WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND CRIME, THE GENERICALLY REFERENCED CAMPAIGN FINANCE CRIMES AND THE JURY CERTAINLY CAN'T BE UNANIMOUS ON WHATEVER THAT CRIME IS BECAUSE THE CRIME ITSELF HASN'T BEEN IDENTIFIED IT'S OUT THERE AS MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES AND BOTH THOSE CONCEPTS ARE A LITTLE AT ODDS WITH TRADITIONAL CRIMINAL REQUIREMENTS OF KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT AND UNANIMITY BUT THIS IS VERY ODD STATUTE, I THINK AS APPLIED HERE THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT ON APPEAL THAT IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IMPLIED. >> ALL RIGHT. SO CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN TIES SO THAT JUST VERY, VERY SIMPLY, WHAT INSTRUCTIONS ARE YOU REFERRING TO HERE THAT THE THE JURY THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUT OUT THERE THAT YOU'RE SAYING WHAT WOULD THAT BASICALLY SAY? THEY CAN'T CONSIDER THE MOTIVE OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE WELL, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT THEY DON'T SAY THAT IT'S YOU THEY OMIT ANY REFERENCE TO WHAT THE STANDARD IS FOR TRUMP'S KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT WITH REGARD TO WHATEVER THAT CRIME IS, AND THEY DON'T SPECIFY SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE CRIME IS. >> AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE CRIMINAL POSSIBILITIES UNDER THE CAMPAIGN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS FROM FALSE INFORMATION TO TO TO TAKING ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS, EITHER IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS, CASH CONTRIBUTIONS, VARIETY CONTRIBUTION THERE ARE A LOT OF ELEMENTS. SO THOSE PARTICULAR OFFENSES, NONE OF WHICH IS GOING TO BE TOLD TO THE JURY SO ALL RIGHT. >> SO YOU THINK THAT IT IS THAT THAT SPECIFIC PART ABOUT THE UNDERLYING CRIME ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE THAT IS GOING TO ENSURE THE GUILTY VERDICT. AND THEN JUST DRAW THAT LINE FOR ME. FROM ONE TO THE OTHER SURE. >> SO SO THEY'RE GOING TO BASICALLY BE DECIDING REALLY ONLY THE BOOKKEEPING RECORDS AND HAVING TO TAKE IT ON FAITH FROM THE JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTION THAT THIS WAS ALL BASED ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONCERN ON THE MOTOR BASICALLY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT SO THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO DECIDE DO YOU KNOW THESE CHECKS WERE BEING SIGNED OR WHATEVER? >> BUT NOT THE MOTIVE THAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT THAT AND THE AND WHAT AND WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT WAS AT THOSE CRIMES. >> I MEAN, YOU CAN'T COMMIT A CRIME THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND TO BE A CRIME, AND YOU CAN'T COMMIT A CRIME THAT YOU DON'T INTEND TO COMMIT. AND THAT'S TRUE OF THE EACH OF THE ELEMENTS OF THOSE CRIMES AND THE JURY IS GOING TO HEAR NONE OF THAT ALL RIGHT. >> SO LET ME LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT ONE OTHER POINT THAT I THINK FLOWS FROM THIS TIE AND THAT IS TRUMP'S OVER THE WEEKEND, YOU WENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND HE WAS RAILING, IT SEEMS ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT AS THE JUDGE, THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FINDS THEM GUILTY, A FALSE IT'S MY BUSINESS RECORDS. JUDGE. MERCHAN IS NOT REQUIRING THEM TO BE UNANIMOUS ABOUT THE MOTIVATION, RIGHT. ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE. SO IT SEEMS AS IF HE'S REFERRING TO WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BUT WHAT HE HOW HE PUT IT WAS ON HIS SOCIAL MEDIA POST. IT'S COMPLETELY AND THEN HE PUTS AN ALL CAPS UN-AMERICAN AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION SO I THINK HE HAS A GOOD ARGUMENT. >> HE AND HIS LEGAL TEAM HAVE A STRONG ARGUMENT THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL I THINK THE UN-AMERICAN IS THAT'S ALWAYS SORT OF A SUBJECTIVE THING AND I, I RARELY BUY INTO TRUMP'S SCREEDS BUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I SAY THIS CRITICISM OF THE APPROACH OF THE PROSECUTORS AND THE JUDGE RELUCTANTLY BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, I THINK TRUMP IS THE GREATEST DANGER TO DEMOCRACY THAT THE NATION HA EVEREEN. BUT I DO INK IN THIS CASE YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CERTAINLY COMPELLING LEGAL ISSUES THAT WILL BE RAISED ON APPEAL AND QUITE LIKELY MAYBE SUCCESSFUL. >> CAN I ASK YOUR VIEW TIE AS TO WHY THE JUDGE WOULD NOT INCLUDE WHAT APPEARS TO BE SO CENTRAL SO I THINK THE JUDGE DECIDED EVEN BEFORE THE TRIAL WHEN HE REFUSED TO TACKLE THESE ISSUES. AND DURING JURY INSTRUCTIONS WHEN THEY AGAIN REFUSED TO TACKLE THESE ISSUES THAT HE WAS GOING TO PACKAGE THIS UP FOR THE APPELLATE COURTS AND APPELLATE COURTS RESOLVE THESE THINGS AND THERE IS AN ARGUMENT UNDER THE STATUTE THAT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO WHAT THEY'RE NOT DOING BUT I THINK THAT THEY MAY BE WRONG ON THAT. >> AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE THE APPELLATE COURT TO TELL US THAT THE PROSECUTION IS CLEARLY INTENT TO TAKE A CONVICTION IN IRAN AS I THINK LA ELLIE SAID LAST WEEK AND I THINK HE'S RIGHT THAT THE PROSECUTION IS PROCEEDING IN A WAY THAT IS PRETTY AILEEN PRETTY HEAVILY INTO THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS MOST QUESTIONABLY ADMITTED IN THIS CASE AND THEY'VE SPENT A LOT TIME AND CLOSING ON THAT EVIDENCE. AND I THINK THAT'S RISKY ON APPEAL, BUT GOOD FOR THEIR ODDS OF CONVICTION. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL, TY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT ALWAYS A PLEASURE. >> THANK YOU. NICE TO BE WITH YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU TOO. AND PANEL BACK WITH ME. >> WHY WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION SPENT SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME MAKING THE POINT OF WHAT TRUMP'S MOTIVE WAS, THEN IT GETS REMOVED. >> I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BECOME CRUCIAL, WHETHERT JT SOME SORT OF A MISTRIAL OR AS THAI IS POINTING OUT, FOR APPEAL I'M NOT NECESSARILY I MEAN, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE PEEL IS GOING TO STAY WITHIN NEW YORK COURTS. ESSENTIALLY. AND THE LAW THAT THEY'RE USING, IT IS VERY FAMILIAR TO USE THIS KIND OF A LAW TO SAY THAT THE JURY DOES NOT UNANIMOUSLY HAVE TO AGREE AS TO WHAT THE UNLAWFUL MEANS OR THEY CAN HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS OF WHAT THOSE UNLAWFUL MEANS WE'RE TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION AS LONG AS THEY ALL UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT DONALD TRUMP USED UNLAWFUL MEANS TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION UNDER THE NEW YORK ELECTION LAW, CRIME SO THAT'S, I THINK THEY'RE PRETTY SOLID ON THAT WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS IF TIES RIGHT, THAT THE JUDGE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENT OF WILLFULNESS THAT TRUMP KNEW HE WAS VIOLATING FEDERAL ELECTION LAW. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT GIVE TO THE PROSECUTORS, BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT YET. >> RIGHT. WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE JUDGE INSTRUCTS THE JURORS TOMORROW AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE SAYS THAT THERE'S AN ARGUMENT FOR UNLAWFUL MEANS MEANS UNLAWFUL MEANS, AND THAT COULD MEAN RIGHT. CIVIL VIOLATIONS, NOT JUST CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL ELECTION LAW. >> THAT'S WHAT THE PROSECUTORS ASKED FOR. BUT WE'LL WAIT TO SEE WHAT AND JOEY I MEAN, THE POINT ABOUT WILLFUL, RIGHT? SIZE, YOU NEED TO YOU NEED TO HAVE WILLFULLY DONE SOMETHING AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE KNOWN THAT YOU WERE DOING IT YEAH, IT'S IMPORTANT NOW BECAUSE IT'S IT GOES TO THIS FANCY TERM THAT US LAURA IS CALLED MENS REA, AND THAT'S ABOUT WHAT IS YOUR STATE OF MIND. AND I THINK PROVING STATE OF MIND IS ESSENTIAL IN THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM. YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU ACTING INTENTIONALLY, WERE YOU ACTING NEGLIGENTLY? THAT IS CARELESSLY. WERE YOU ACTING RECKLESSLY? DID YOU CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARD AND SO I THINK DEFINING SOMEONE STATE OF MIND AND HAVING A RULING ON MATT IS CRITICAL. THE OTHER THING VERY BRIEFLY IS DUE PROCESS IS IMPORTANT. YOU CAN'T PREPARE FOR SOMETHING WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PREPARING FOR. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS FRUSTRATED ME IN INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT THIS CASE THE CONCEAL ANOTHER CRIME. WHAT SPECIFICALLY SHOULD BE THE CRIME THAT WAS CONCEALED? WHAT SPECIFIC MENS REA IS ASSOCIATED? WITH THE CONCEALING OF THAT, RIGHT. OKAY. INTENTIONALLY CONCEALING IT, BUT DEFINE FOR ME, DON'T SAY WELL, IT COULD BE TAX LAW, I COULD BE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, IT COULD BE ELECTION LAW, IT COULD BE THIS, IT COULD BE THAT, THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS IS PLAYED. THE REALITY IS, IS BE DEFINITIVE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, IT'S PROBLEMATIC TO ME. >> MARK, HOW DO YOU SEE IT? >> SO I LOOK AT IT I THINK IT'S PROBLEMATIC. CHRIS, RE IN CRIMINAL LAW. LOOK FOR CERTAINTY, RIGHT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROVE THE CASE BROUGHT A REASONABLE DOUBT, WE KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU'RE ATTACKING THE US OVER AND WE CAN DEFEND TO IT THIS ALTERNATIVE WAY OF ARGUING ONE, TWO, OR THREE DIFFERENT WAYS IS A LITTLE BIT TROUBLING TO GOOD IN THE GUT COME OFF AS ATTORNEY IS SORT OF LIKE YOU HAVE TO PROVE UP RECKLESS DRIVING. OKAY. IS RECKLESS DRIVING VALUE USED TO SIGNAL GOING OUTSIDE THE LANES SPEEDING A LITTLE BIT. AND THAT'S SORT OF WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. YOU CAN CONVICT HIM OF RECKLESS DRIVING, BUT YOU DON'T ALL HAVE TO AGREE IT WAS BECAUSE SHE DID PUT ON A SIGNAL OR BECAUSE YOU WERE SPEEDING OR BECAUSE HE WILL OVER THE WHITE LINE AS ALWAYS YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS RECKLESS FREEDOM TO DO THAT. AND QUITE HONESTLY, THAT'S WHAT THE PROSECUTION PROBABLY SHOULD'VE SAID IN A WAY TO TRY
