Things got spicy on CNN when Trump supporter Dr. Phil McGraw clashed with CNN anchor Abby Phillip, defending former President Donal Trump after his recent conviction as Phillip tried to shoot down Dr. Phil’s arguments and argue that the former president was very obviously quite guilty in the case, leading to his conviction.
As background, Trump was convicted by a jury of twelve New Yorkers on all 34 felony counts related to the falsification of business documents brought against him by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in what many, particularly on the right, argued was an obviously political trial meant to “get Trump” rather than serve justice.
In any case, Phillip began the contentious conversation, asking, “Would you mind telling us — I mean, tell us why you think he didn’t get due process. I mean, the proceedings, we had reporters in there. I was there for a lot of it. There was a judge and he adjudicated a lot of these questions. Why do you think he wasn’t given a fair process?”
McGraw, arguing that the jury was asked to consider something that was very much not “black letter law” but was instead a “puzzle” of a case that was controversial. He also hinted that Judge Juan Merchan’s decision to allow former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to testify was “very prejudicial” to former President Trump in the case.
He said, “Well, I think it’s a number of things. I think there, from a jury standpoint, and, again, let me be clear, I’m not a lawyer, I look at it from, in terms of what the jury was given to solve this puzzle. And I think they heard some things that were very prejudicial that had nothing to do with solving the problem of the case at hand. I think there are some things that are considered black letter law or hornbook law, that’s just really not something that is controversial at all that was violated. I think you don’t have someone that is considered to be an accomplice in a, in a crime that has pled out or made a non-prosecution agreement and allow that information in to the jury’s awareness because it’s very prejudicial and it’s not really probative of anything that they’re asked to be problem solving or consider.”
Phillip attacked him for that remark about allowing Cohen to testify, firing back, “Who are you referring to there? Michael Cohen? I mean, well, Dr. Phil, I don’t want to get too deep into the law here, but it is not uncommon at all for people who are accomplices to crimes, people who have taken plea deals, non-prosecute — that is not uncommon at all for those people to then testify in subsequent trials for their alleged co-conspirators. That’s kind of how a lot of these prosecutions work.”
Dr. Phil then asked to to give him “examples of where that has been considered appropriate” and she, stumbling somewhat over her words at first, said, “I mean, it — look, prosecutors are prosecuting organized crime all the time. And in a lot of those cases, they are relying on co-conspirators to put people who are at the higher levels of the organization behind bars. I just — I don’t understand how you can say that because someone signed a not — or, you know, was not prosecuted, signed a non-prosecution agreement, that information or their testimony cannot be presented before the jury if they were a part of the alleged scheme.”
Dr. Phil tried to respond, saying, “Well, you’ll have to give me an example to respond to, because I just simply don’t agree with that. I think it’s not typical for juries to do this. I’ve spent most of my career —” At that point she cut him off, snapping, “It happens in mob cases all the time. I don’t — look, Dr. Phil, I mean, I don’t understand why you would think that Michael Cohen, who is a key person in a lot of the narrative here, should not have been allowed to testify in this case, is that what you’re saying?”
He said, “No, that’s not what I’m saying. I said what I said. I think the fact that he made an agreement to say that he is guilty of the crime that the defendant is being tried for prejudices the jury that, hey, here’s someone that’s supposedly an accomplice that has said I’m guilty of this. That prejudices a jury about the person that’s currently on trial for the same crime.”
Phillip then, somewhat bizarrely given his controversial past, continued trying to defend Michael Cohen, telling Dr. Phil, “I have some quibbles with what you’re describing as the same crime. Michael Cohen was not charged with falsifying business records, that he actually did not — was not prosecuted for that crime.”
Watch them here:
Featured image credit: screengrab from the embedded video
"*" indicates required fields