Sunday Morning Sophistry: Stephanopolous Beclowns Himself Running Defense for Biden on Trump Trial

Will Scharf is currently running for Attorney General in Missouri. He'll face off with current Attorney General Andrew Bailey in the Republican primary on August 6. In the meantime, however, he's serving on the legal team for former President Donald Trump. On Sunday morning, he joined host George Stephanopoulos on ABC News' This Week to discuss the verdict and Trump's next moves.

“The president’s going to cooperate with the pre-sentence investigation and we’re going to speedily appeal this unjust verdict,” former Pres. Trump’s attorney Will Scharf tells @GStephanopoulos.

“I think this case is replete with reversible error.” https://t.co/JwY684N0mM pic.twitter.com/EHVXMcaUZl
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 2, 2024

From that exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: There's a lot I want to get to. One of the things I want to begin with, though, is what Aaron Katersky was just talking about — this pre-sentencing investigation — is the president going to fully cooperate?
SCHARF: The president's going to cooperate with the pre-sentence investigation, and we're going to speedily appeal this unjust verdict. I think this case is replete with reversible error. We plan to vigorously defend President Trump's rights in the appellate courts, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

Stephanopoulos followed up, attempting to "gotcha" Scharf regarding more optimistic statements he made regarding the jury prior to the verdict, but Scharf parried.

Will Scharf, attorney for former Pres. Trump, tells @GStephanopoulos that the legal team will be “challenging Judge Merchan’s failure to recuse on appeal.”

“I think it constitutes a clear due process violation.” https://t.co/e2kOTlInOo pic.twitter.com/sKBsDWzGax
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 2, 2024

Scharf explained why the decision for Trump not to testify was sound, given Judge Merchan's decision regarding the scope of allowable cross-examination to which Trump would have been subjected had he taken the stand. However, he noted that he believed Trump would have made a compelling witness on direct examination. Further, Scharf maintained that a number of Merchan's decisions on evidentiary issues were "frankly astounding" and essentially stacked the deck against Trump.

Former Pres. Trump’s attorney Will Scharf tells @GStephanopoulos that Trump not taking the stand to testify in his own defense was “a decision that was made in light of the way that Judge Merchan was handling these proceedings.” https://t.co/HyyxyOCv1l pic.twitter.com/nY0Xjl85Rm
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 2, 2024

And then Stephanopoulos decided to just rip off the "journalist" mask entirely and go full-on advocate, though Scharf did a solid job pushing back on that.

“I don’t think Pres. Trump is going to end up being subject to any sentence whatsoever.”

Attorney Will Scharf says that the legal team is willing to take the case “all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to vindicate Pres. Trump’s rights.” https://t.co/t6TtI9ad1y pic.twitter.com/yNm0I42NeN
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 2, 2024

STEPHANOPOULOS: You talked about the weaponization of the legal system — of course, it was former President Trump who, throughout the 2016 campaign, led chants of 'Lock her up' about Hillary Clinton — but what do you expect from the sentencing process?
SCHARF: Well, but hold on a second, George. President Trump may have said that, but after he entered office, he certainly didn't weaponize the Department of Justice to pursue his political opponents the way that we've seen President Trump [Biden] and his political allies act in the last couple years. Remember, this case in New York — it was called the "zombie case." It sat and sat and sat. It could have been brought at any point after 2020. And then suddenly, when President Trump announced his campaign for president, was dusted off, rushed in front of a grand jury, and then rushed into court. You want to talk about the politicization of the legal system, I mean, this is Exhibit A. It's absolutely unprecedented in American history. It's not the way that our campaigns are supposed to be run. We contest elections at the ballot box, not in the courts in this country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That is true, but of course, we've never had a former president or presidential candidate facing the kind of charges that the president faced because of his own activities, and of course, the attorney general in Manhattan has nothing to do with the Department of Justice. Finally, what do you expect from the sentencing process?
SCHARF: I vehemently disagree that the district attorney in New York was not politically motivated here, and I vehemently disagree that President Biden and his political allies aren't up to their necks in this prosecution. I think the fact that the Biden campaign –
STEPHANOPOULOS: There's no evidence of that — Sir, there's no — I'm not gonna let you continue to say that. There's just zero evidence of that. The DA in Manhattan (garbled) elected —
SCHARF: Well, how about the fact that Matthew Colangelo was standing over Alvin Bragg's shoulder when he announced this verdict? I mean, Colangelo was the number three official in the Biden Department of Justice, who suddenly disappears and shows up as an assistant district attorney right as Trump's case in New York starts to proceed —
STEPHANOPOULOS: After the decision was made there —
SCHARF: You want to talk about political coordination, George —
STEPHANOPOULOS: This has nothing to do with —
SCHARF: It's right there in front of us —
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, it's not. This has nothing to do with President Biden. Do you want to answer the question about the sentencing process or not?
SCHARF: I completely disagree that this has nothing to do with President Biden. With respect to sentencing, as I said before, we're going to vigorously challenge this case on appeal. I don't think President Trump is going to end up being subject to any sentence whatsoever. And we look forward to getting this case into the next court and taking this, again, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, to vindicate President Trump's rights.

Note how Stephanopoulos repeatedly threw in pointed (and disjointed) editorial "of course" asides before pivoting to the actual question and then got so flustered when Scharf calmly but firmly disagreed. Not only that, but he's the one who pulled the conversation away from the sentencing process question by throwing in his asides. I'm sorry, but that's just embarrassing. Well, I mean, it would be if Stephanopoulos possessed an ounce of journalistic integrity.

CNN Legal Analyst Calls Out 'Unjustified Mess' and Contortion of Law Against Trump