Breaking down Trump’s claims he can’t get a fair trial in 2020 election case

Read the Full Transcript

• Amna Nawaz:

  In the federal criminal cases involving former President Trump this week, we have seen the first legal skirmishes, significant questions over venues and evidence and, from Trump himself, a push for the judge assigned to his criminal trial to in D.C. to recuse herself.

  Lisa Desjardins has more on the brewing legal fight.

• Lisa Desjardins:

  The former president has said on his social media platform that he could not receive a fair trial in a case presided over by D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

  Chutkan was nominated the bench by former President Obama and approved 95-0 in the U.S. Senate. She has issued firm sentences in cases involving January 6 rioters. This is one of the former president's recent arguments trying not just to shape the trials ahead, but the perception of them, in these important early days.

  Joining me now is David Kelley, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

  David, let's start with this idea of venues. How often do judges give in this argument, agree with defense attorneys that a venue should change?

  David Kelley, Former U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York: Venue arguments are rarely granted in federal criminal cases. They're often thought of.

  They're often — applications are often made for it, but rarely are they granted. I think part of that is the tremendous faith that the system has and should have in the ability of jurors to abide their oath to try to decide cases based on the fact putting aside any kind of preconceived notions of the issues involved.

• Lisa Desjardins:

  Now, the judge also in the Florida case, the classified documents case, is raising a different question about venues.

  She is asking the Justice Department why they had one grand jury initially start this case in Washington and then transferred the case to a grand jury in Florida. Trump's team is making a lot out of that. What do you make? Is that unusual to have two grand juries for one indictment?

• David Kelley:

  It's a little unusual, but I don't see it as a big deal.

  The grand jury rules for the federal system are free — are pretty liberal in that regard. So, for example, if Jack Smith had presented a tremendous amount of evidence in D.C., on this particular case, but then decided the venue was more properly placed in the Southern District of Florida, it would be very simple to, for instance, just sit down with the D.C. — with — excuse me — with the Florida grand jury and simply read to them the transcript of the proceedings before the grand jury in D.C.

  So, it's a pretty simple procedure. And I don't really think it's a big deal for them to have used both grand juries, so long as sufficient evidence was presented to the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. And I would — I would have no question that it has been.

• Lisa Desjardins:

  Now, the former president is known for taking on his opponents sharply attacking them. And, as we mentioned, he has said he has problems with Judge Tanya Chutkan in the D.C. case right now.

  Our Judy Woodruff spoke to another former federal judge, Michael Luttig, about his accusations against her yesterday.

• Judy Woodruff:

  The former president is criticizing the judge who's hearing the case. He's saying that he can't get a fair trial and she ought to be removed.

  I mean, how does something like that sit in a situation like this?

  J. Michael Luttig, Former Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge: Now, this is radical and it's unprecedented in American history that any person, let alone a president of the United States of America, would conduct himself toward the courts of the United States in the way that he has already begun to do and will continue.

• Lisa Desjardins:

  Those are some strong words.

  Is this kind of idea unprecedented? And what do you think the chances are of success for a judge removing herself?

• David Kelley:

  Look, Judge Luttig is one of the more thoughtful and accomplished jurists in this country. And I wouldn't disagree with him at all.

  I think that the accusations are completely baseless. I mean, he hasn't even really had any contact with this judge. And, already, he's making claims that she should be recused. And it's funny that his own appointee in Florida, he's not making those accusations about it. And he's had about as much contact with her as he has with the judge in D.C.

  So it's really — it's really unfortunate that he's taking this attack. And I think it's unfortunate, because I think it sets a really bad example for people in the country, number one.

  Number two, from a legal and a strategic standpoint, it gets him absolutely nowhere.

• Lisa Desjardins:

  I want to step back a little bit and think a little bit more big picture to all of this.

  It's the job of every defense attorney to try and poke holes in what the prosecutors are doing. But, in this case, we know that the Trump team, from my reporting, is raising a very broad idea. They are asking, I know, if their client can get a fair trial anywhere in this country. He is a unique defendant. Most of this country decided whether they wanted him as president or not, has rendered an opinion him.

  What do you think of that idea that they are putting out there that any fair jury might be hard to find?

• David Kelley:

  Look, first off, on both issues, one of the old sayings is, if you have a really good case, you pound the facts. And if you have a really bad case against, you pound the table.

  And that's what we're hearing, a lot of screaming. No one's really dealing with the facts here. I don't think it's a fair assessment to say you can't get a fair trial anywhere. That's really a bogus claim, and that when you look at cases where there have been change of venues motions that have been unsuccessful, you still see at the end of the day a very fair trial, one that is unassailable.

  And I think that's what we're going to see here. This is not an election. The issues for the jury to decide are not about public policy. They're not about politics. They're about facts. And jurors are sworn to uphold an oath to listen carefully to the facts, to the evidence to the testimony, and make their decision based on that.

  And my experience, in having tried a number of cases and been around the justice system, I think jurors — I like to say that, when anybody comes to me and said they'd like to get out of jury duty, they complain and moan about doing jury service, but, once they take that oath, I find that the vast majority abide their oath dutifully.

• Lisa Desjardins:

  David Kelley, thank you for your time.

• David Kelley:

  Sure thing. Thanks so much.