Fox News legal expert John Yoo all but declared Donald the winner of both the ongoing criminal case in New York and the undecided Supreme Court immunity case.
JOHN YOO: We're asking what is the crime that Judge Merchan thinks happened here? I think the more we see, the less there is. Combine that with what you were asking earlier, how does this interact with Trump's immunity case? This has been - I'm shocked, actually, how good a day Trump had on both legal fronts. Usually, you don't win a two front war, ask Germany in 1945. But it looks like Trump has successfully, actually turning the legal tables in his favor. I wouldn't have expected this. I think the judiciary's being fairer to him than most people would have expected, and I think actually the less Trump makes it about him, the better he's going to do.
This is a lot of chicken counting before they’ve hatched. There’s only been one witness so far in Trump’s New York criminal trial, David Pecker, and his testimony has not concluded.
(From Ellen: It looks like Trump’s lawyers got in some good points while cross-examining Pecker but it does not appear they destroyed the prosecution’s case. In any event, the case is far from over. As for the Supreme Court’s immunity hearing, Politico called it a “surprisingly good day for Trump” but the decision has not yet been rendered.)
In any event, comparing Trump’s un-won criminal cases to the end of World War II, is outrageous. Host Sandra Smith did not challenge the comparison.
Also, according to former federal prosecutor Shan Wu, the New York criminal case against Trump is strong, with “excellent jury appeal.” So one possibly good cross examination does not mean the defense has won.
You can watch Yoo below, from the April 25, 2024 Your World.
Here Yoo advises Trump to keep in line with the whole strategy of the Thomas wing of the Supreme Court, which is to make their decision on presidential immunity as little as possible about Trump.
One wonders how torture-touter John Yoo defines “fair”. He thinks it’s fairer than people expected for Clarance Thomas not to even bother to explain why he doesn’t recuse himself??
As I understand it, in New York the prosecution achieved their goal of establishing that David Pecker’s favors to Trump were—in contrast to all of his other ventures in “checkbook journalism”—distinctly political. Not exactly “turning the tables” on the prosecution.
