the, the the fire body, so this is a, this is the daily show that you've come to know that's very different because we call no punches. so look for the trip. um, number one, for the 1st time ever a u. s. president is being tried on criminal charges. it has begun. truth. bob, number 2 is mr. trump corrupt a serious criminal charge or just a business man protecting his brand. misdemeanor will explain both trip. um number 3. can mr. trump end up in jail? what are the odds we're going to tell you? i'm rick sanchez. this is direct impact

the . all right, so this is the day to do this story because it's on the somewhat cd corruption case against donald trump is on. and the opening arguments have been delivered. according to the prosecutor representing the state of new york, bringing charges against mr. trump. he is a man who seemed to quote, corrupt the 2016 election by silencing people who would have hurt his chances of winning. according to, by the way, the state of new york with mr. trump did, was quoting again, election, fraud, pure and simple. those are the words that were ordered by the opening arguments or during the opening arguments by the past years was the words mister traps. lawyers though, had different words. they tell a very different story. they say this is

a fraud. and with the former president, it had nothing to do with the election. defense attorney todd blanche seems to admit that mr. trump did pay off the controversial porn star. but it says it wasn't brought. as you said, it was a fraud and it had nothing to do with the election. he says it was simply done to quoting here, proud tact, his family, his reputation, and his brand. and it was not a crime. so okay, here's what we should do since the thing is just starting, i kind of want to give you a, a setup, right? this is non political, here's what's gonna happen in the trial, right? so let's, let's go through the, some of the players. these are the players where you will hear about what you're not going to see them, at least not testifying because the case is not going to be televised. and there will be no cameras in the court room front and center,

the former president who becomes the 1st ever to face a criminal trial in the country's history. all right, baseball card number to spare me daniels? yes. she really is a pornographic movie star whose real name is stephanie clifford. and did apparently have an encounter with mr. trump. michael cohen. he was mr. trump's lawyer who actually paid a hush money to miss daniels and was then repaid by mister truck comments or jail time for the incident. and now will testify against trump, who he says should also go to jail just like you to karen mcdougal. she is a former playboy model, who is said to also have had an affair with mr. trump, and then agreed to sell her story for a $150000.00 about it. however, a magazine who bought it, buried it instead. the story that is not her. david packer. hm.

interesting name. huh. he is the publisher of the magazine who paid mcdougal, prosecutors argue he was mr. trump associate and would often do this to silence his critics. do what? well, it's called catch and kill. pay for the exclusive rights to a story and then kill it. instead of doing it. fucker is also a witness in the case. so there you have a, some of the big players that we know of right now. others possibly could be introduced aside from the prosecutors and defense attorneys. those are the people who are going to be really making up this drama. right. but what about the drama itself? what for example, does the state of new york have to prove right about donald trump? that's a very good question. they need to prove that what mr. trump did wasn't just to pay

off. that's not enough by itself to show that he committed a felony that had to go beyond that. they also can't just say that mr. trump lied when he had mr. cohen pay daniels on his behalf, because that just by itself would only be a misdemeanor, not a felony. so, not really that big of a deal. so what does the state have to prove to convict mr. trump, of a more serious crime, a felony, and they have to prove that he did all of this as part of another underlying crime. so the payoff itself is not enough. he had to have done it for another reason, a more serious crime, an underlying crime. that's the term that used underlying now it was approved for example, that the money was spent to improve his chances of winning the election. if they can do that, they can say the only way is

a new pay this off is because he didn't want voters to know about what you did right. then they could say that it wasn't just a payment to avoid embarrassment or so his wife didn't find out what he had done would be a fair and all that stuff. but that he wasn't stead influencing the election within the li, the campaign finance payment. that's their argument that they say they're going to be able to prove if that becomes the underlying crime, that he was actually making a campaign finance payment. then the case becomes a felony. so that's what, that's what they have to do, not just show that he did it, but why he did it. so what about mr. trump? lawyers, what, what do they need to do? what do they have to show in this case? another good question. here's lawyers need to portray the daniels pay off as a private matter then the charges against him as nothing more than a technical bookkeeping violation. oh, i was suppose to put it in the ledger as i paid here, but it actually went down as i paid over there. people make mistakes when it comes

to bookkeeping all the time. that's what they're going to argue. by the way, that would not be substantial enough toward a criminal charge against the former president. and they also need to try and show that prosecutors are overreach. you need to tell the jury these guys are come on. this isn't that big a deal and they're trying to make the case bigger than it is that's, that's kind of like their job. that's what you're going to be hearing. and that, linking this case, right, they're going to say you're trying to link this case to federal election law. so those 2 things have nothing to do with each other. they're gonna say that that's kind of a weird approach. that would test the interaction of the laws at the state and at the federal levels. because remember, campaign finance is a federal matter. it's about a state matter. he's being charged in a state court. did you follow that? and here's another question. this is important. so the question is probably the one that is most asked, can mr. trump actually go to jail if he's found guilty,

is going to be going to jail? actually, the chances of that happening are slim. even if mr. trump is convicted, he's unlikely to face any present time. why? because even at the felony level falsified business records, gary's a sentence of up to 4 years in prison. for the 1st time offenders, particularly a non violent cases, what they often get is probation. and finally, if mr. trump is found guilty, can you still run for president? yes, absolutely. there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits them from doing so . however, there is a button here kind of a big, but there are some states that might then argue that they have the right to take it off the ballot based on what their state constitution say about a convicted felon running for office. that's where this thing could possibly get

confusing. so here we go. let's discuss it further because there's still, i know a lot of questions that a lot going on and there's dabbles are, he's a writer, he's a journalist and an expert on the us constitution and he's good enough to join us right now. maybe we start with that last part, the part where trump's attorneys are going to say to the jury look um yeah, he may have done something which could have been a crime because he somehow made a pay off and he had his attorney do it. and he didn't do it, but that he paid his attorney. so that was deceptive. however, you can't put that together with any campaign finance laws because that's a bridge too far. is that an important point that you think they're going to stress, right? oh yeah, totally important. i mean, i think the, uh, i think the, uh, the case is a real stretch. i mean, tying what is uh, at that, that's the kind of a, uh, a, uh, an accounting fudge uh and a misdemeanor. or that tying it to

a violation of federal election laws strikes me as just about the biggest stretches . i can imagine especially because federal prosecutors themselves exec m a, so decided to pass on it. there wasn't enough there. but uh, albert bag ran for d. a on it and i get trump platform. so this campaign promise fulfilled. he's got a club club with some, this is the best he can do and therefore he's going forward. but let me, let me quibble with you there on that a little bit. i hear republicans make that argument all the time. all they're just bringing this case because it's trump. where were those people every time a 17 year old black kid in the hood gets his life ruined by smoking a marijuana cigarette. where were they? every time we see injustice put upon some american doesn't have enough money to pay for lawyers. i mean, all of a sudden the,

we just discovered that the judicial system in this country often times is not blind. and we're only going to bring it up in this case. right. oh, yeah, totally. i mean, i mean, i completely agree. i mean, anybody who's ever sat through a trial in the manhattan court room, uh, you know, knows that this is a highly uncertain business and a lot of stuff goes wrong. yeah. a lot of ordinary people, wind up getting screwed up, screwed royally. and uh, she's not going to accept that and hopefully prosecute to your point is subjective . it's subjective across the board, not just in this case. you know, it's subjective. it's also regressive because the 17 year old kid smoking a joint, you'll only goes to jail if he's black and poor. believe me. if he's a prep school student with a, a lawyer, dad, and, and a mom sobbing hysterically at his side,

he does not go to jail. he never goes to jail, may be goes to, you know, to the court mandated, you know, some kind of therapy program, but that's it. i mean, they'll still be able to apply it. so you know, for admission to yell next this the following year. uh so yeah, this is a, this is comple whitley redress completely filed up. there are so many, so many, so many abuses that go on. but the fact that there are abuse is doesn't mean that is okay to abusing a donald trump in this instance. i mean, i don't like donald trump, but certainly this whole case of you know, is completely bonkers. what do you make? what do you make up, dan of? i think one of the most fascinating parts of this, and of course, is matters to me because i'm a journalist and that never heard about this until it became public. as i started reading about this case, there's this whole catch in to say where some people have so much money. um, you know, to be able to pay a 100150000 dollars,

200000 dollars every time somebody has something on you. and you have a guy who is a publisher for a magazine, and i tell him, hey, go give this guy money on the story, but don't do the story. thereby, we killed the story. that's, that whole thing is really fascinating. what do you think of it? had you heard of it before? and what impact might it have on the jury? i actually, i had not heard was it before, but i've heard a lot about the national inquiry. you know, this is the, this, the magazine that, you know, by the house, wives, new hampshire. we're having our sex with space. aliens, you know, uh, this has been their, their, their, their money maker. uh so you know, so i'm not surprised that goes this far, but, but like it should be fair to be fair. i mean, trump is a guy who's running for president is he's got a checkered past. he's a big business man, he's glamorous, you know, he's been on page. so there was no countless times. page 6 in your post, i mean countless times. so. so from, from the point of view,

a lot of people are kind of comes coming out of the, what work with stories to tell. and they want to be, you know, they want to be paid off. you know, whether it's the know there's this, the, the building inspector who, who claims that from the slip slip of a bribe where the playboy center falls, who claims that she slip with trump, etc. everybody is got a reason. everybody's got a, got a, a, a motive to, to, to pick him up from money. so therefore, it seems that his organization, you know, ran an operation in which they tried just to stop these people before they could make trouble. going to the final weeks. the campaign and trump had enough problems with you know, what that uh, that same is, you know, access hollywood tape which you know, tied him up for, for weeks. the last thing you needed was in late october to have stormy daniels come forth with some kind of salacious 6 tail. uh so yeah. so you know that until

uh, makes a certain amount of sense and that contract but, but what again uh, let me push back on you. why pay if you didn't do it? if you didn't do it, if you didn't sleep with a porn star or a playboy bunny, and if you didn't have your best friend give her a 150000 dollars to automatically claim to do the story and then kill it. if you had nothing to do with any of that stuff, why don't you just had nothing to do with this them? i don't know what your people are even talking about and walk away yet, but yeah, that's that. that's really, that's really the admirable thing to do. we are quite right, but anyhow, but, but the, but the fact is what the, what is the all the old line uh, you know, a lie is around the block before it suits even puts its, uh, its, its boots on. yeah. i mean, the navigation like that cuz how i stuff up are good sized stuff up for, you know, for weeks the press would want to talk to tom, but nothing else. you know, the trump campaign would been, you know, salted in his tracks as the press focused on the stormy damp daniels and go. and i

wouldn't really heard of, or conceivably might have heard him. let's talk so therefore, you know, therefore he's as long as you want me to stop it. i'm going to take a break. and when i come back, i want to ask you about this whole underlying crime thing because the seems to be right at the crypts of this, of this whole matter that the prosecution has to be able to prove. how important is it? where's that, where's it come from in the constitution? and how likely is it that it will be the difference maker in this case, we're going to talk about that with them. as our stay right there will be our truck, [000:00:00;00] the

take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify all confused who really wants a better wills, and is it just as a chosen few fractured images present? it is for us. can you see through their illusion going underground? can the mass of 8 bill for ukraine passed by the us congress is sherise, the conflict will continue. countless lives will continue to be lost. but will this aid all sort of the events being played out on the ground? there is no reason to believe so anyhow, his name is cook joe, is it s h a s which is the situation of a button which i did with it gives you that. yeah. it's just our stuff for us to do

it over. so the super intuitive down your just interest most of the long ago that was the live for confession and for them to kinda able to just double check with the rest the books. are they all just in the on the money on the phone with the some of the full of korean. they've given us additional 20 minutes for us kind of a much less the push the of just opinion noise. yeah. i mean, the only, so i'm spending, if i need to, okay, and so especially with combust from assignment, couldn't be dispelled interest. there's couple of thoughts or choice because i choose to play on a team. it's almost 9 you should have for them. so i'm assuming graphics,

which is really the monday i'm rick sanchez, and this is a direct impact and i'm talking to dallas are about the donald trump case. we're talking about the donald trump case because it's finally begun. we've heard so much about an actual criminal case and there's been so many political opinions, one way or another on this case. and i think what we're trying to get to here is, what are the facts? how strong is the case or how weak is the case? and what we know right now is that what the prosecutor should has to do to try and find donald trump guilty is a bit of a novel argument that they have to create. they have to not only prove that he did this, which by the way it seems like the defense is stipulating. he did it, you know, they're not going to go in there and say, no, he never had a relationship with stormy daniels or this other woman mcdougal. what they're saying is, what the hell does that have to do with him being charged with a felony in this case?

because, you know, he didn't want his wife to find out, or he was embarrassed, or he wanted to predict his brand, what they have to prove. the prosecutors, as we've discussed, is that it was more than that. what it was actually try to do was try and make sure the american people didn't find out about these things. and by trying to make sure the american people didn't find out about this, he was interfering in the campaign because he paid over a $100000.00 in both cases. and they're going to say, well, those weren't really pay off. they were kind campaign finance payments. and that's what they have to be able to show. it's a bit of a sticky wicket. his dad has been telling us, but it's a really important part of this case. then i'm wondering, where were you surprised when you 1st started reading about this case and you read that? that's the avenue that they were going to take. and what did you think of it when you 1st heard about it? and what do you think of it now? that's right. yeah, i was very surprised. i mean, it was, i saw it was

a real stretch then i think the same thing now. and you know, by the way, um, uh let me just correct you on one on one of course of course not admitted to having a sexual relationship with uh what story daniels, uh, everyone assumes he did, but he actually has not admitted to that. um, so uh well let me, let me, let me, let me, let me just add a one. let me just add something to that during opening arguments that i read carefully last night. there was no indication by his attorneys that they were going to argue that point and you're right, that doesn't mean they're saying he did. they're just also not saying you didn't for what it matters. right. so from his point of view, some woman comes out with a story that is believable, although he insist is not true. and therefore, in order to so you know, to make sure everything goes, go smoothly in the final weeks of the campaign. these pacer some money tells her be quiet and go away. and so hope and if yours, which is donald trump is you can,

you know, can pass out, you know, some, some big bills pretty freely. so that's what he maintains. he did. so he said it wasn't, he wasn't trying to cover up. he wasn't trying to lie. he was simply trying to prevent somebody from going public with a salacious, but full story. but so, but he's a politician. so who cares back to school cares what he says, dan, come on. this is a court of law. it's not about what some politicians set on the stump. of course. anything, a politician says on the stop, i'm not going to believe i don't care of it's joe biden, or either my, well, i'm not gonna say mother theresa, but no matter who they are, the, what matters is, what are their lawyers going to say when they get into the court room. that's what matters now. yeah, sure. so it matters. yeah. and the of, of the question is, you know, is this a, the question is of overreach? the question is of a desperate prosecutor that desperately a, you know, trying to uh, to advance his political career by, by nailing donald trump, who was about as a, as better as popular manhattan as

a typhoid mary. and send him to prison. dave. and thereby, and, you know, add, you know, ernest strikes i, so that's clearly what's going on here. i mean, i just, this is the, this is not how the system should be used. do you think that he is capable for the system is capable of delivering him a fair trial in a place like new york, where as you say, he is very much loved um, you know, as well. i've sat on juries. i've been, i've been the, i've been non lucky enough to have chosen furniture. yeah. and i was once actually locked away in a hotel for 3 days or deliberate in some case. and uh, and juries goes to visit a very intense experience and enters, you know, they do do their best. they try to figure stuff out. they go over a fine point to the law they, they know they scratch their heads and, and argue with one another. and so, yeah, i think

a jury is capable of deliberate deliberating in a fair way. uh and uh, in, in this case i think that, uh, that merch on the judge is capable of ruling. and i honest and fair way i, i, i'm not very suspicious of the gag orders. i think that merchants political ties are sort of very strange in this case. but i think this whole case is really strange. so, so i don't blame trump for uh, you know, for wanting to point to all these things out. do you think in this case that i for the jury. busy will be able to come up with something where let me rephrase this question. what does the, what do the defense attorneys have to be able to make them understand? so that they come back with a not guilty verdict? what is the most important thing is that they need to do trumps or turn oh,

i think the question of the stretch it is, i mean, i think the idea that you know that he's, he paid this money in order to out and that this, this payment amount into a violation of federal election laws. that is the big question. that's the big hurdle. the prosecution has got to overcome. and that is know that is the, the, the, the, the barrier behind which the, the defense attorneys will high. does it take pot shots of the da's us now, but by the way i do i, i do have a bit of a concern and that i have been watching many of trumps attorneys in the past and these cases and they have not held the well not all of them, but there's been a few that i've made that i wondered why he hired them. do you know anything about these guys that he's using this time? are they, are they uh, credible. i really know. i know. yeah, i mean either i'm, i, i worried i have no idea. yeah. the, and then did you see, you know, where i'm coming from though? i mean, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah. i mean i, i think the question is whether it's from, can, from side defense can, you know,

can we really bond adequately quickly and expertly. and that's with this case. but i think that they really have, uh, they have to have good material to work with. and remember, all you have to do is just plan a reasonable doubt exam one of 12 jurors. and if you do that, then uh then you won the uh you want. dear boy, my god, you do, or is there over wishing this poor man? yeah, he did something wrong, but come on, this is too much and they're doing it because he was the president and etc, etc. dan, up great conversation. i enjoyed it as usual. and let's see how this thing goes. i mean i, i think we've kind of set the table for people now. we just kind of let the process uh, do courses. they say thank you my friend for joining us. yeah, they always a pleasure. thank you so much. always a pleasure to talk to them before we go. i want to remind you of our mission here. something really the side of the world. stop living in little boxes where we think

it's only our box that matters truths. don't live in boxes. truths you're everywhere. advert sanchez, that's what we see, and i'll be looking for you again here on direct impact the a new video of alleged abuse by an officer. today, the sheriff's deputy in columbia, south carolina, forcibly removed his student from a classroom at spring valley high school. i saw him just talked to her sprained her and initially, you know, i didn't think it was a problem because i knew that she was just, is quite a student in the class. someone likes the police officer and says, here is law enforcement that is worse. clearly attacking, abusing power and other than others besides,

this is what's wrong with the probably be on discipline. black church, he was there enforcing a lot to meet the time to quote disturb schools in any way. that means any disturbance that any kids causes and school is probably huge and forces never predict but necessary. a tops people were never gonna change them out. and so people will never change their minds about video. they think i was wrong, and that's it.

the the cut out the video, so it's not someone pretty easy to run them. give that to us again. we use them for similar lots of up to just guess what kinds of them document that initiating look at the results of those. this reasoning why the, the

only thing is a boy in the news, the columbia. and once i saw something, we took the pediatrician source of the the