Fraud Trial Evidence Could Be Used To Convict Trump In Other Trials

Even though the fraud trial taking place in New York is not related at all to the criminal trials pending against Donald Trump, legal experts say that some of the evidence presented at the current trial could be used to help convict Trump in the other trials. Specifically, some of the evidence appears to undermine Trump's main legal defense, which is that he geniunely believed that the 2020 election was stolen. But a piece of evidence introduced last week in the fraud trial actually destroys that claim, as Farron Cousins explains.

Listen to our videos in an audio format by subscribing to our podcast

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

It may seem on the surface, obviously, that the current New York fraud trial that Donald Trump is facing has absolutely nothing to do with any of the other criminal trials that Donald Trump still has pending, right? I mean, there's really no connection between the Stormy Daniels case in New York. There's not much connection, obviously, to the documents case, and there's probably no connection to the Georgia or the federal January 6th cases, right? Well, apparently there is something that was introduced in the New York fraud trial last week that could be used by prosecutors in both Georgia and Special prosecutor Jack Smith's office to make the case that Donald Trump did in fact know that he lost the 2020 presidential election. And this tiny piece of evidence that honestly really doesn't matter much to the fraud trial was a document where Donald Trump restored himself as the main trustee of the Trump organization because of course, when he became president, he switched it over to where he was not the main trustee.

But on January 15th of the year, 2021, while Donald Trump still had five days left in office, he restored himself as the main trustee of the Trump organization, which means Donald Trump knew on January 15th, 2021, that in five days he wasn't going to be the president anymore because he had in fact lost the presidential election. So legal experts have, of course, jumped on this and they say, look, this is actually pretty strong evidence for Jack Smith to use to show, Hey, look, Trump knew he wasn't gonna be the winner. So he put himself back in charge of his own company. Fanny Willis could use it over in Georgia to say, look, he's interfering in our elections, claiming the election was stolen. But he knew the whole time that that wasn't true.

That's what the legal experts are saying, right? There's been a couple articles out there saying, oh, wow, this is a big deal. Um, nah, I'm gonna have to disagree. Guys. The document is, of course, dated January 15th, 2021. Donald Trump was still president of the United States at the time, and yeah, signing the document is a good indication, restoring yourself as trustee, that you knew in five days you weren't gonna be the president anymore. But is this really the smoking gun piece of evidence that a lot of these writers and legal experts are trying to make it out to be? No, it's not. Unfortunately, because, again, this happened on January 15th, nine days prior to that, Congress had already certified the electoral college results, meaning that no matter what President Biden

Was about to, well, president-elect Biden was about to become President Biden, and Trump couldn't stop it. So he could still maintain, if this document is brought up in any of those trials, his legal team could easily counter that by saying, look at the date on it. Right? The, the electoral college had already been certified wrongly so, but it was still certified. So of course, he's gonna give himself his company back because he knew at that point, because of the certification, he couldn't stop it at that point. He couldn't, he couldn't get all the fraud, you know, whatever it is there. That's easy to overcome in court for the defense lawyers. Uh, even as incompetent, by the way, as Donald Trump's defense lawyers seem to be, they could probably overcome that. So we'd like to think that this is a smoking gun piece of evidence, but it really isn't. Um, and I, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news on that, but I also don't want to give you false hope. I think the prosecutors already have enough, as it is. They don't need a document like this to be a gotcha moment for Donald Trump. But in terms of, you know, nails in the coffin, this ain't it. So it's nice to think, but unfortunately, legally speaking, this document really doesn't prove much at all.