Beyond the fascinating issues posed by CNN’s release of the audio tape, the burden of proof has now been shifted in the court of public opinion. In the court of law the burden always remains on the prosecution. Yet the public is entitled to draw its own conclusions from the available evidence.

Listening to the recording with one’s own ears, rather than reading it through the filter of an indictment or press bias, places the burden on the Trump team to explain what everybody can now hear from Mr. Trump’s own mouth. So far the explanations have been less than satisfactory, but this is just the beginning of what promises to be a long process, both in and out of the courtroom.

Normally defendants are instructed by their lawyers to remain silent before a trial, but here the defendant is running for president and complete silence is not really a political option. So let’s see how the Trump teams — both legal and political — handle the most recent disclosure, namely the recording of what appears to be incriminating statements.

[Dersh has some interesting discussion of the issues around the leaking of the audio too, but it’s not clear that it violates the law regardless of who leaked it. The statements in this recording were already transcribed in the publicly released indictment. His advice to wait until we see the Trump defense’s challenge to this audio in court is well-taken, but again, there would be little reason for a court to throw it out if Trump knew he was being recorded at the time. Trump might have a better answer for this than the one he’s giving at the moment when it comes to a trial, but — and this is a point that Dersh misses — Trump will have to explain why that explanation changed since his public statements this week and last, too. That’s why lawyers tell their clients to keep their mouths shut. — Ed]