Last week, two of former President Donald Trump’s co-defendants in Fulton County’s election interference case accepted plea deals that offered lower charges in exchange for cooperation with the prosecution during the trial. The development sparked speculation as to how these two individuals might bolster the prosecution’s case against the former president as it seeks to convict him for allegedly engaging in illegal activity to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Scott Grubman, the attorney representing Kenneth Chesebro, appeared on MSNBC on Saturday morning to discuss his client’s plea deal, which involved the defendant pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit filing false documents. The attorney claimed Chesebro was involved in a conspiracy to file fake elector certificates to swing the election in Trump’s favor while not actually believing that the former president truly won the election.

“First of all, Mr. Chesebro never believed in 'the big lie.' If you asked Mr. Cheseboro today who won the 2020 presidential election, he would say, 'Joe Biden'…but you referred to him in the opening as the architect of the fake elector scheme. But I want to be clear about something. While, yes, this is a felony he plead guilty to. It was the RICO that accused him of being the architect of the fake elector scheme. And I want to ask you and all your listeners, Katie, for one moment to think about this question: If Mr. Chesebro was the architect of the fake elector scheme, if Mr. Chesebro was the architect of some plan to bring down democracy, which is what I've heard over and over for the last couple of months, both in court and out of court, would the district attorney of Fulton County have offered him probation and first offender status? I think the answer is no, and I think if you asked her, the answer would be no.”

"[Kenneth] Chesebro is a man of his word. He will testify truthfully if called by the state... But at the same time, I will say if he's called by a defendant, he will come testify and testify truthfully." Scott Grubman after his client pleaded guilty in the Georgia case on Friday pic.twitter.com/jFNh069u8C

— The Katie Phang Show (@katiephangshow) October 21, 2023

Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney, expressed confidence that “truthful testimony from both Chesebro and Powell would be favorable” to his defense strategy. Yet, most in the chattering class have speculated that the co-defendants’ testimony would likely harm Trump’s chances of escaping conviction.

However, there could be a chance that Sadow’s words were more than mere posturing. Perhaps the testimony will add details that suggest that Trump was not involved in a grand scheme to defraud Congress and the nation into overturning the outcome of the election. It could provide fodder for the defense to argue that Sidney Powell, Chesebro, and others acted on their own without the former president’s knowledge.

Moreover, if the co-defendants’ testimony does not come off as credible, the jury might decide that they are acting in self-interest to comply with the plea deal and avoid further prosecution. Additionally, their words might serve to place the blame on themselves without involving Trump in their machinations.

On the other hand, there are potential pitfalls for Trump’s defense. If the co-defendants can reliably put Trump at the center of the alleged plot, it could cause trouble for the former president – especially if the prosecution has other evidence showing that he was intimately involved in the fake electors scheme. In this instance, the “truth” these individuals tell on the stand could provide more damning evidence of wrongdoing on Trump’s part.

It is also possible that Sadow’s comments could be a calculated move to shape the narrative. By asserting that truthful testimony from Powell and Chesebro would be favorable to his client, he might be placing a bet on the court of public opinion by priming the nation to believe that they will show that Trump is not guilty – as long as they are telling the truth. Perhaps he believes that this will cause the public to doubt the witnesses if their testimonies do implicate Trump in the scheme.

Either way, as the Chesebro and Powell cases unfold, it will show whether their participation in the trial will prove “favorable” to Trump.