>> Speaker 1: Former Trump lawyer predicted he'll be jailed over the gag orders. Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb said he believes former President Trump will be sent to jail if he violates partial gag order. [00:00:15] Here's what he told CNN. >> Speaker 2: Well, the New York judge fined him $10,000. That's in a civil case. That's not as consequential as judge Chutkan's case. Think judge Chuktan prudently allowed Trump to try to persuade her to extend the gag order. [00:00:32] She concluded on the basis of his conduct this week not to do so and I think she'll come in with a much heavier penalty. And ultimately, I think he'll spend a night or a weekend in jail. >> Wow. >> I think it will take that to stop him. [00:00:54] >> Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think a mug shot after that ain't going to help him. Dina, what do you think about the implications of this? >> Speaker 3: Let me break this down for your viewers, because there's so many cases right now and there's different gag orders. The one where he got the $10,000 fine is the civil fraud case in New York and [00:01:13] that judge said he can't speak about his staffers. He failed to take down a reference on his website, so he got the fine of 10,000. It was his second fine, the first one was 5000. The reason why the lawyer is saying in the Judge Chutkan's case he thinks he could get jail is because that is the case Jack Smith, [00:01:31] it's the election interference case in Washington, DC and it is a criminal case. The one he got fined 10,000 is a civil case. Being a criminal defendant is much different in America than having a civil case even if it's a civil case against the government, it's much more constrained. [00:01:49] So if a criminal defendant is making statements that could appear threatening and violating a gag order, then I do agree she will be much more likely to jail him than a judge in a civil case would do that and that's why the lawyer was making that difference and I agree. [00:02:07] I think you could have a vague odds right now whether or not Donald Trump is going to be jailed by the end, because he's really bad at constraining himself. I do think he doesn't wanna go to jail. He might like the publicity, but I think he won't like having to do all the things [00:02:22] that an inmate would have to do like a strip search. So he might try to limit it, but can he really keep quiet for the months that it's gonna require? I think it also could be likely that he would violate the gag order. >> Speaker 1: Thank you so much and I think that makes perfect sense and [00:02:40] we know Trump can't be quiet. No three-year old can contain themselves and he falls right in that category. Judge Tanya Chutkan is overseeing the case like you said that alleged that former president conspired to overturn the results of the frequently, [00:02:56] I'm sorry, of the 2020 election. It will too go to trial in March, this is gonna be so interesting to me. March is when elections start happening. I'm an election guy, so we have primaries starting to happen and Trump's gonna be running from state to state and court to court. Trump has frequently disparaged Chutkan and potential witnesses with insulting [00:03:15] nicknames and other digs including calling Chutkan a Trump hating judge. I think Trump don't understand anybody that loves the law of America is a Trump hating judge, because he put himself in a position where it's nothing else left, but that. I mean, you can't respect the law and Trump in the same time. [00:03:32] It is almost impossible to do anything like that and I think these names where you call people tiny Tim or whatever you call your opponents in politics sounds funny on a trail, but in actuality, it lacks the decorum that's gonna be necessary to keep him out of jail like you said. [00:03:49] In another update, members of Trump family are set to testify in the fraud trial. >> Speaker 4: So this week, several members of the Trump family will be taking the stand in the $250,000,000 civil fraud trial against the former president and his company. [00:04:05] The New York State Attorney General's Office announced on Friday, they plan on calling Trump's oldest children to the stand on separate days this week. Donald Trump Jr. will testify this Wednesday, followed by Eric Trump on Thursday and Ivanka Trump on Friday. [00:04:22] The former president himself is expected to be called next Monday. Prosecutors say, they expect Trump will be their final witness. Meanwhile, Trump has not let up on his attacks against the judge in the case. On his truth social page, Trump called judge Engoron crazy and corrupt. [00:04:39] Trump has already been fined twice for breaking a gag order for speaking against the court staff. There is no protection against speaking against the judge or prosecutors. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, I think this leeway is not given to any other defendants. [00:04:54] So when I hear Trump and everybody crying about this two-tier justice system, they're absolutely right. They don't understand that they're benefiting from it. They're not losing from it, they're not discouraged. I would love to hear what you think, Dina about Donald Trump's oldest kids testifying or have to testify and [00:05:11] then him also testifying because we know they're not capable of telling the truth. Could they put themselves in jeopardy too on stand? >> Speaker 3: I mean, absolutely, if they decide to perjure themselves, they can open themselves to perjury charges, but I just love that image. I think that we have for years seen that political process be enabled [00:05:31] to bring Donald Trump to justice for the many things he's done to this country, but the justice system is working and they are just treating him like everybody else. He thinks he's being treated differently. I mean, I think he's being treated differently. [00:05:47] Like you said, he's being allowed to maybe speak more than a typical defendant might, but he's being treated the same, really, as everyone else. He's getting subpoenas. He has a right to defend himself. He loses motions, he wins motions. And as a result, we are finally giving him and his family. [00:06:05] They have to explain themselves in a court of law. And as a lawyer, I absolutely love that they have to do that. And just to break this down again for your viewers, he has already been found guilty of fraud in this case on a summary judgment motion which is extraordinary. [00:06:24] It's not typical to win, but there was so much fraud. The judge showed they won on summary judgment. This is just a matter of how much do they have to pay. The state is looking for $250 million in penalty and that is what this trial is. [00:06:42] It's a damages trial, but the guilt has already been decided. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, the guilt has already been decided. This is something that people didn't think was possible in our justice system. They thought Trump was just gonna keep walking away. And right now, there's a stay on the order to stop him from doing business. [00:07:00] But this could be the end of the Trump empire, especially in New York as we know it, as he has always enjoyed it with his dad's money. Not his money, his dad's money. I will say for me as a person again who loves election, we're coming up on what the people that do politics call get out [00:07:15] the vote period the last week of elections. And for me to be able to get updates of Trump's family on trial leading up to it, even with him the day before election is like icing on a cake for me. So it's not just an off year election day, it's also trump family is in court day. [00:07:31] Take your family to court day, Trump. Meanwhile, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner predicts another judge will scratch Trump from the ballot. Kirschner said that why the judge who is presiding over the litigation is [00:07:47] that Colorado courtroom or in that Colorado courtroom, if she is an honest broker of the facts and the law and I have no reason to believe she's not. She will conclude that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore disqualified from serving as president again, according to Glenn Kirschner. [00:08:08] Man, that to me is big news. I just wanna talk about this for a little bit. I know what this is gonna do, I know the politics behind this. This is tragic, I do wanna hear the legal matter that he's talking about. Dina, you can break that down, but the politics for [00:08:24] this judge is not just about her being an honest broker or the straight shooter. We also got to acknowledge that the politics of taking Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado will send the maggots over the edge and we may be on the brink of civil war at that moment. [00:08:40] >> Speaker 3: It's true. From a political perspective, I've heard people on both sides. He's like, we should just let the people decide. This idea of taking somebody off the ballot is wrong and it is a really valid point. But the reason why they're even able to getting this traction, [00:08:56] the legal reason is because the constitution specifically says that if you participate in an insurrection, then you are ineligible. And only Congress can decide after the fact that you are in fact, eligible. They can waive your ineligibility, let's say that's how they wrote it. [00:09:14] And Trump tried to say that the court couldn't decide the insurrection that it was up to Congress and that was one of the things the judge said. She said, it wouldn't make sense for Congress to be the only arbiter of whether or not an insurrection occurred if they were in fact the only one who could kind of waive that. [00:09:31] But if Colorado and I think we're day three on that trial, if Colorado decides that in fact, he participated in insurrection under the constitution and is ineligible, we will for sure see this in front of the Supreme Court. Whether or not the Supreme Court, who we know is very conservative at this [00:09:50] moment would uphold that, I think it's really unlikely. First of all, it would definitely be a first impression case which means the Supreme Court has never decided this before. And it is in some ways, I think a radical idea, but there is a lot of evidence that shows that he's an insurrectionist. [00:10:08] So I think they might try to do something like dismiss it on some sort of jurisdictional grounds or somehow, it's not know without actually going to the heart of the issue. The Supreme Court likes to dismiss cases on procedural grounds, let's say. [00:10:28] I could very much see that. >> Speaker 1: I think this is an interesting thing and I'm ready to see how it play out. The case is being presided over by judge Sarah Wallace, who already tossed Trump's tries to get the lawsuit thrown out. [00:10:45] She's already shot that down. It was brought in by six Colorado voters arguing that Trump should be disqualified from holding office, claiming he engaged in summoning and inciting a mob to halt the certification of the election that favored then president elect Joe Biden. [00:11:01] And therefore, expose himself to the 14th Amendment. It is wonderful, this is what I like about lawyers. When I went to law school, my favorite part was about how lawyers tie in history to what they're saying because you're speaking to the nature of why the 14th Amendment is pertinent in this case. [00:11:17] The amendment is one of those amendments that are called the black amendments because it was written after slaves was free and also trying to bring those who seceded, the states who seceded back into the union. So it prevented those people who participated in the union. I mean, I'm sorry, [00:11:33] the confederate secession from ever holding office in the new union. And I think talking about mob and inciting and summoning, these are languages that we can relate to cuz we knew what type of behaviors that these people talking about those who split from the or try to split this country in half were capable of. [00:11:51] So I would love for you to close us out on this segment about that, talking about the 14th Amendment and the language used. >> Speaker 3: You're absolutely right, that is why it came about is to address the insurrection that was happening at the time and it's never been tested since. [00:12:08] So that's why there's this question of would the Supreme Court say that, that was an insurrection? I mean, I think that ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide that was not an insurrection. I cannot see them saying that he is not qualified to be on the ballot. I think the best hope, if you don't want him on the ballot is a conviction. [00:12:28] I think he will be convicted on one of his criminal charges in one of these many cases this year. The evidence is overwhelming. We haven't talked about Fony Wallace's case in Georgia, but it is a very strong case that is going to be televised. [00:12:44] I'm so grateful the American people are gonna watch all these people testify against him and I think he's gonna get convicted of one of those charges and I think that may be more appropriate way of holding him accountable anyway than completely just taking him off the ballot. [00:13:00] >> Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that's an easier appeal to swallow like American people seeing him get convicted, listening and hearing all of these facts played out. The way Fani Willis, I think will be a better way to take him off the ballot.