The New York hush money case against former president Donald Trump is "the weakest case" attorney Alan Dershowitz has seen in his 60 years of practicing law. But yet, the jury may still convict him, the media is freaking out over it, and now, the Biden campaign is even holding events with Robert De Niro outside the courthouse. Dershowitz joins Glenn to explain the "only explanation for this case going forward" and how a guilty verdict "could hurt America more than it could hurt Donald Trump." Plus, he reveals something that the judge hid from the jury and what he would do if he was Trump's attorney.
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, with me to the program. How are you, sir?
ALAN: I'm doing great. I'm very concerned about what's going on in the Manhattan courthouse today. Because they hurt America, more than they could can hurt Donald Trump.
This is the weakest, worst case, I have seen in my 60 years of practicing law.
GLENN: Jeez.
ALAN: And because it's New York, because this is a jury of New Yorkers, and a judge.
There might be a conviction here.
It would be a horrible, horrible blemish. Stain on the American justice system, if that were to happen.
GLENN: You know, Jonathan Turley wrote a great article. I don't know if you saw this. About this trial.
And the last -- the last line is something along the lines of, you know, a three-legged stool in every court case. And this is the most wobbly, without a leg to stand on. And he said, it's not Donald Trump standing on that tool. That is -- that's something that is going to affect all of us, deeply.
And I don't even what an it means, if a -- a court like this, can -- can find any man guilty, like this, because he's unpopular, where is justice, Alan?
ALAN: Or because he's too popular. In this case.
GLENN: Yeah.
ALAN: It means, we're becoming more like, we're not there.
But more like Stalin. Soviet Union. Where Beria said, Stalin, show me the man, and I will find you the crime. Look, I wrote book called Get Trump. That's the only explanation for this case, going forward. A desire to get Trump.
The people, the prosecutors campaigned on the pledge to get Trump. They said, they would find a crime. They couldn't find a crime. Because there is no crime.
So they made one up. They put an expired misdemeanor, together with some select crimes. And they came up with an absurd felony, in this case.
And then they had to use, as their main witness, a guy who has a long, long history of lying, stealing, and they have to depend on his credibility. To prove that Trump actually knew that these payments would be made, and were being listed as legal payments, rather than as reimbursement for a non-disclosure agreement. It's the most absurd.
GLENN: I wonder if -- if Cohen will even be charged with a crime. He admitted under oath, that he stole. No?
ALAN: Yeah. I was hoping for a Perry Mason moment. When he said that on the witness stand, the police would come and put the handcuffs on him and take him away, but that didn't happen. It should have happened.
GLENN: Yeah. Tell me, I was on the jury once.
And the judge, we kept asking him. And he would come in. And he would say, I can't tell you anything.
I can't tell you that.
We would ask the bailiff, can we get this from the judge? Et cetera.
And the judge, he was in a position of power. And he really seemed like our friend.
And really seemed like we could trust him, to make the right decision. You know what I mean?
ALAN: And that's the real problem with our system of justice.
This judge, for example, is a benevolent despot when the jury is there.
He's so nice.
To the jury.
And as soon as the jury goes out. I was one of the only spectators to stay out of the courtroom.
When he emptied it -- then his true sense came out.
Remember the psycho in Taxi Driver?
You talking to me? You looking at me? You talking to me?
That's what he was basically saying to the witness. He hated the fact that the witness.
GLENN: Raised his eyes.
ALAN: Raised his eyes. Or, you know -- to stand and threatened to strike the witness testimony. The jury should have seen that.
And, by the way, the American public should have seen that.
Been on television. The fact that it's on television, is terrible.
GLENN: So, Alan, the thing with the judge. He gives the instructions.
How -- how horribly could that go wrong with him?
Or can -- are there some limits to what he gives as instructions?
ALAN: The limits come in the Court of Appeals, and that can come only after the election. For example, the crucial instruction is going to be ladies gentleman of the jury. The prosecution could have called Alan Weisselberg. He was the other person at that alleged meeting, where the crime occurred.
And the only other witness at that meeting was Cohen, who you shouldn't believe.
But Weisselberg could have been called. The prosecution didn't call him. They could have given an (inaudible), if he had pleaded the Fifth Amendment, but they didn't do it.
And you should, therefore, infer, that had they called him, he would have given them testimony adverse to the prosecution.
GLENN: But he can't say that in closing arguments. Right?
ALAN: He can. If the judge allows that instruction to be given.
If I was a defense attorney, let me tell you what I would do.
I would get a life size picture of Alan Weisselberg. I would put it in the witness stand. And I would say, ladies and gentlemen, you see this picture? That's all you need to see. This picture.
Because the prosecution made a decision not to call this witness. And when you go in that jury room, I want you to be thinking of that picture.
I want you to be thinking of why, only a picture. And not the real witness appeared in this courtroom.
And, you know, would the judge allow that? I don't know. I would try it certainly.
GLENN: And he can't say -- he cannot bring up the FEC was not allowed to --
ALAN: No. He's not going to be able to bring that up.
There's a lot of stuff he wasn't able to bring up. He wasn't allowed to introduce an expert witness, who was the country's leading expert on the FEC. The jury is going to be allowed to conclude, that maybe this was an election fraud.
Even though, the experts say, it wasn't.
So there's a lot of problems with this case.
GLENN: Alan, what does your gut tell you, that will happen after the closing arguments on both sides?
ALAN: My gut says, possibly hung jury.
Let me tell you why: I was in the court lounge watching the jurors very carefully, and I couldn't tell whether they were inclined toward conviction or acquittal. What I could tell, is they didn't seem to like each other that much. They didn't seem to have a close relationship, which jurors sometimes have.
And that is more -- that inclines one to think, that maybe they won't agree. Maybe they will be a hung jury. But we won't know.