On June 14th, 2023, marking the 77th birthday of Donald Trump, CBS Radio hosted an enlightening discussion with legal analyst and attorney Andrew Lieb. The interview revolved around the former president's current legal situation following his recent arraignment and pre-birthday celebration in Bedminster.

In this deep-dive conversation, Lieb shared intriguing insights into Trump's defense strategy, potential repercussions, and the challenging path ahead for his legal team.

Trump's Defense Strategy: The 'What About Isms':

Lieb noted that Trump's defense seemed to hinge heavily on 'what about isms.' This is a tactic where the accused attempts to deflect blame by bringing attention to similar offenses committed by others. In Trump's case, the targets of his 'what about isms' are often Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. 

However, Lieb was quick to point out the ineffectiveness of this strategy in a court of law. The legal focus is solely on the individual on trial—in this instance, Trump—not anyone else. Thus, accusations directed towards Clinton, Biden, or others would be deemed irrelevant.

Trump's Legal Defense: A Game of Suppression:

According to Lieb, the defense's primary task should be to ascertain whether any evidence has been obtained illegally. If that's the case, their efforts should be directed towards suppressing such evidence. This approach takes precedence over simply trying to prove innocence. It's all about making it difficult for the prosecutor to prove guilt, rather than making it easy for the defense to prove innocence.

The Double-Edged Sword of Public Statements:

Lieb had some advice for Trump: stop talking about the case, especially on the campaign trail. As a legal professional, he believes any public discourse about the case could potentially be used against Trump in court. However, he recognized the potential political benefits of such communication, as playing the victim might appeal to Trump's base of supporters.

The Outlook: A High Likelihood of Jail Time?

In a somewhat startling revelation, Lieb expressed a belief that, based on the current state of affairs, Trump is likely to face jail time. He made it clear that this prediction doesn't factor in any potential actions the defense team could take, such as suppressing evidence or getting charges dismissed.

Further, Lieb noted that this is just the beginning. Besides the present case, there's a possibility of Trump facing additional charges in Georgia, and at the federal level in NJ—especially related to the sharing of classified documents, and in DC.

Andrew Lieb, a renowned constitutional attorney, was recently invited to provide expert commentary on Scripps News regarding the groundbreaking indictments of former President Donald Trump in Florida and Washington DC. The charges range from mishandling classified documents to violating the Espionage Act.

Lieb described the indictments as shocking due to their sheer magnitude. He highlighted that the incident marked a significant moment in U.S. history, where a former president was facing legal scrutiny on this scale. 

He also addressed House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's public backlash against the indictment, which he deemed as a severe injustice and an unprecedented politicization of the judiciary.

According to Lieb, it is essential to appreciate that no one, including a former president, is above the law. At the same time, he noted that the case could set a precedent where potential public office candidates must maintain impeccable records to avoid similar legal scrutiny.

Lieb underlined the potential political implications of the indictment, suggesting that while it could benefit Trump in terms of visibility and fundraising amidst a crowded nomination field, the former president should prioritize his legal defense over political aspirations due to the severity of the charges.

The attorney eloquently captured the dilemma many Americans are currently grappling with: the desire for the rule of law to prevail versus the fear of potential political witch-hunts. In Lieb's view, the resolution of this case could significantly impact public trust in our judicial system and the very foundations of our democracy.