Tammy Bruce: “With everything we’ve seen with how the American People have responded to this unfairness, we don’t like unfairness. The Country is built on a blind Justice System…It is not a game.”
0:00
0:00
71 posts from Wednesday, May 29, 2024
Day AnalysisJesse Watters: “This is a case with a crime they won’t tell you, and it’s not even in the D.A.’s jurisdiction, but the jury can pick whatever crime they want, and they can all disagree on the crime, and it’s still a unanimous decision…It’s like a buffet!”
0:00
0:00
Greg Gutfeld: “We were told for, I don’t know, three years, that ‘No one is above the law,’ but they were saying that because they were making sure that Trump was below the Law. They didn’t raise the bar for him, they lowered it, and so you are prosecuting the current Leading Candidate with an unprecedented theory that is so difficult to follow that nobody knows what’s going on. Wouldn’t you want to streamline this, and make it the best possible, most persuasive argument possible since this is the leading Presidential Candidate?”
0:00
0:00
Thank you Kevin! Kevin O’Leary: “If I polled 10,000 Independent Voters right now, let’s say I could just wave a magic wand and do that on a panel, I bet you after all of these six weeks, whatever it’s been, even if you watch the synopsis every night on the News somewhere, whatever outlet you watch, you are still 99% totally confused on what the hell is going on…IT’S BAD FOR THE AMERICAN BRAND!”
0:00
0:00
Judge Jeanine Pirro: “This is a kangaroo court…It was a sad day for me. I sat with Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley and Trey Gowdy, and we were all like ‘This is unheard of.’”
0:00
0:00
Greg Gutfeld: “No one knows what the crime is, but it’s the trial - That is the crime. What is interesting about this is it paints Trump in an incredibly appealing way. He’s up against the wall. Meanwhile, Joe Biden needs a wall to stand up on. And this guy, he’s best when he’s angry, and he’s focused, and he’s direct. When you compare the way he is, and that kind of energy to what is in the White House now, it’s persuasive. I mean, you look at this guy, and you go, ‘I get it, that guy’s pissed off, and he’s clear.’ Meanwhile, this guy speaks in these amorphous fantasies about ‘a threat to Democracy.’ He can’t solve anything. He doesn’t know what’s going on, and this guy is fighting for his life. I mean, it’s a pretty stark choice for Americans if they‘re paying attention to this, but maybe most of them, they’re tuned out, because they know this is all B.S.”
0:00
0:00
Neil Cavuto and Shannon Bream should team up and do a Show together. The Ratings wouldn’t be good, because they’re anti-MAGA, but it’s not all about the Ratings!
0:00
0:00
Mr. Wonderful: “This is bad for the American Brand!”
0:00
0:00
The grotesque trial charade gets even worse this morning. The Stalinist clown judge directed the jury that they can choose among three areas of crimes to convict the former president: 1. Violations of federal election law (which no one in that courtroom is familiar with, and the judge specifically prevents Brad Smith from testifying about); 2. The falsification of business records; and 3. Tax violations Of course, the issue for all of the above is the requirement of a criminal intent. Furthermore, the idea that jurors can pick 1 of the 3, and they don't have to unanimously agree on which of the three, is another shocking development. Moreover, the federal campaign violation has still not been defined.
I never knew Shannon Bream was so “naïve.” In her interview with my Representative, Alina Habba, Shannon just suggested that Crooked Joe Biden was not involved in my Show Trial. HOW STUPID! Not only is he involved, he is virtually leading it, and all of the other Trials as well - Meaning, his people, because he’s not mentally sharp enough to lead anything! Just take a look at the DOJ/White House Thugs involved, and everything else. Biden is incompetent, and feels that Weaponization is the only way he can win. He’s counting on the Shannon Breams of the World to get him there. Bad day for Shannon!
0:00
0:00
Video transcript
>> Listen, but the Biden administration is not responsible for this trial. >> How can you say the Biden administration is not responsible for this trial? >> It's a state trial, it's Alvin Bragg. Whether you think there's a political motive for him, it's not connected to the DOJ. I mean, Shannon- >> The feds passed on these election charges. >> Shannon, you should look at how many logs they have of state officials, Letitia James, Fannie Willis, visiting the White House and then tell me that this is not a Biden trial. I don't care- >> The feds pass on this case is the point I'm making. >> The feds passed on this case, also DA Cy Vance passed on this case. >> Years ago, and then it came back. >> And Bragg passed on this case. You know, when it came back, when he decided to run for office. So tell me how that's not an indication that Joe Biden, who just sent his campaign down here with Robert De Niro yesterday, isn't a part of this. Frankly, any question that we had of that was squashed yesterday. And if you have even more concerns about whether he's involved in this, look at the fact that he is publicizing, literally publicizing for tonight to have a speech if a verdict comes out. That's a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile, our country is falling apart, he's got
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
JUDGE JEANINE: “THIS IS UNHEARD OF….”
Video transcript
Thank you so much for joining us. So, Judge, tell us your thoughts in this moment. I don't know, predictions, what we're leaving out, what should we be looking at as this jury is deliberating? - I'm flabbergasted by the charges to the jury. You may have already gone through that, but I was doing something else. I have never heard a jury charge like this judge's charge to this jury. We knew the judge was flaky. We knew that he hated Donald Trump, but this judge is beyond the pale. To say that he's gonna take dead misdemeanors and raise them to felonies when they don't have to unanimously agree on what that felony is is stunning to me. It is absolutely stunning. I wanna be clear about something. In New York State, when I was a DA, if I wanted to raise a misdemeanor, and by the way, not a misdemeanor that is expired in terms of the statute of limitations, but if I wanted to raise a misdemeanor to a felony, the only way to do that would be to file a certificate of conviction of another crime. It could be a DWI, it could be a gun possession, to prove that in this particular case, this misdemeanor would end up as a felony, and that is done outside of the presence of the jury, where it's very clear that there's another real committed convicted case that raises the level of misdemeanor to a felony. This judge is making stuff up as he goes along. This is a kangaroo court. I'll tell you that the level of reversible error on this is stunning, and this judge, unfortunately, is connected to the jury in the sense they see him as this calm, reliable guy who is as out of control in terms of the law, and he doesn't know it, or he's making it up as he goes along, so that this defendant, a former president of the United States, is convicted of dead misdemeanors that, like magic, is turned into a felony. This is unheard of, Sandra and John, and I gotta tell you one more thing. It's almost like it's a rabbit show. You're gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat, but don't look over here, look at Stormy Daniels. Look at what she said. None of that had anything to do with this. It's all about destroying Donald Trump, and this jury charge has set me over the edge in terms of the law that's being made up as we go along in a felony that we have no idea of, but now it's New York election law, but it could be federal election law, too, or it could be a tax violation, and even if he didn't underpay his taxes, it could still be a crime. What is this man talking about? Right, and then, Judge, there's the other aspect of this, which is the multiple choice aspect of the predicate crime, that the jury does not need to unanimously agree on what the predicate crime was. When you were a judge in New York, did you ever instruct the jury to say, here's a smorgasbord of things that you can find him guilty of, and you don't all have to find him guilty of the same thing. Some of you can find him guilty of one thing or her. Some others can find him or her guilty of something else, and then the remainder of you can figure out something else to find him or her guilty on. Have you ever issued an instruction like that? It's not done. John, it's not done. And let's talk about the one of three. One is a federal election campaign violation, the other is a tax violation, and the other is the creation of additional records. Federal election campaign violation, they did not let Brad Smith testify, but you heard David Pecker testify about a federal election campaign problem. You heard Michael Cohen testify about that, but Donald Trump in his defense was not allowed to talk about it, but now, all of a sudden, the jury has the ability to go in and not agree that that is one of the felonies that is necessary to resurrect these dead misdemeanors, but there's no evidence. The defense couldn't defend themselves on it. That's bizarre, John. No one has heard of this. It's like a menu, A, column A, B, or C. You don't all have to agree on it, whatever, folks. This is a kangaroo court. This is unheard of. I'm telling you, I've done this for 32 years. I'm not a federal prosecutor. I'm a state prosecutor. I'm not a federal judge. I'm a county judge, just like Mershawn. This is New York law. This is my wheelhouse. He is wrong. - All right. - Judge, thank you. - Thanks, Judge. - And the problem is, okay, guys. - Nope, finish your thought. Finish your thought. - No, and the sad part about it is this jury is gonna think they're doing the right thing based upon a charge that no one has ever heard of and that he created. - All right. - Thank you, Judge. - Thank you. We'll be right back after this. Stay tuned.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
ELECTION INTERFERENCE!
Video transcript
>> Yeah, Shannon and Trey, my Twitter's been on fire ever since I put out Trey, what you reported earlier today that four jurors could agree on one crime, four jurors could agree on a different crime and four jurors could agree on a different crime other than that. And as long as it adds up to 12, that's okay. So it's not unanimity on exactly what the crime is, but you get 12 jurors saying he's guilty. As Andy said earlier today, he doesn't know how to square that with the constitution. Trey, you want to go first then, Shannon? >> I don't want to go first because I don't know how to square it either. I think what makes it even more complicated is, I mean, I would have asked for a special verdict form, at least tell us which crime you picked. The judge mentioned three crimes, but as Andy and Shannon and I have been discussing, it could be a crime that the judge didn't even mention. Furthermore, when does something become a crime? To me, it's when a jury of 12 says you're guilty or when you admit it, but crime has a specific meaning to me, does it have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? What are the elements of this unknown crime? It is, to me, void for vagueness.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
WEAPONIZATION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM!
Video transcript
Of course it is, and the unfairness of this Harris is not just in the four corners of the case. You know, it's peculiar, as you point out, that former President Trump can't speak about the witnesses, can't speak about various things connected to the case, but other witnesses in the case are not gagged. But the other thing, and this is what I think is the arrogance of the way the courts have approached their task with these four indictments against the former president who is running for election in November. There are things in life and things in America that are more important than the administration of justice in a single case. And one of them is the right of the American people to have robust debate in connection with an election for the most important office, not just in the country, but in the world. And we have a situation where President Trump is the only person who's gagged. So Joe Biden can say whatever he wants about the president's travails. Other opponents of former President Trump can say whatever they want. And he's the guy who's in the middle of the vortex, and he can't say anything. That has consequences, not just for the administration of justice in this trial, but for how we run our campaigns. It's not just that he can't talk. And he said, you know, I took a big lead in the polls. Amazingly, he's done quite well not talking about this case, he doesn't have to, everybody else is, to the chagrin of one man, President Biden. So he sent his campaign surrogates out yesterday, Robert De Niro, another octogenarian who, you know, was struggling, but whatever. He goes outside the courthouse and then begins to battle for President Biden and trying to soak up some of that limelight. You know, Andy, it is amazing when you look at how politically tinged this entire process is. And we are still sitting here now waiting for a jury to deliberate. >> Yeah, and here's the amazing thing, Harris, this is the trial because it's a state trial that I think Biden would have been able to say that all this stuff Trump is saying about how I'm in control of everything. You know, that's a state thing, I don't have anything to do with it. He sends his surrogates here, which basically puts his mark on it. But the other thing I want people to understand is that in any other context in the United States, if a local state prosecutor were trying to enforce federal law, the Justice Department would be papering the state courts and the local federal court with all kinds of motions to try to prevent that from happening. The Biden Justice Department is perfectly content to have Alvin Bragg enforcing federal law as long as it's against President Trump. But he's not enforcing it in a way that is consistent with what the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department would normally do. And I don't think the Justice Department would countenance this in any situation other than a prosecution of Trump. >> Andy McCarthy, always great to get you in focus your expertise.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
RT @realDonaldTrumpBiden Witch Hunt!
Biden Witch Hunt!
Video transcript
of Sunday Night in America, Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor and former assistant U.S. attorney in litigant who corresponded for Fox Business. So, Andy, let's start with you. The judge said that the jury has to unanimously believe that Donald Trump committed a crime in order to convict him, but they do not need to unanimously agree on what that crime was. And in what world does that work? Not in any world I've ever been in, John. What makes a criminal prosecution appropriate in the sense of taking somebody's liberty away, the array of constitutional protections we have. I've always understood them in 20 years of prosecuting cases and then more years than I care to count analyzing them. I've always understood that to mean every crime has a set of essential elements, and what the jury has to be unanimous on is that the government's proved the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, it's an essential element of that case. Of this case, it's the most essential element of the count that they find this other crime because the only reason we're here is because Bragg used that other crime to inflate what would otherwise be a misdemeanor into a felony that allowed him to escape the statute of limitations. So, the thought that they don't have to be unanimous on that makes no sense to me constitutionally.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Judge Jeanine: “That’s bizarre—NO ONE has heard of this…”
Video transcript
But there's no evidence, the defense couldn't defend themselves on it. That's bizarre, John, no one has heard of this. It's like a menu, A column A, B, or C. You don't all have to agree on it, whatever, folks. This is a kangaroo court, this is unheard of. I'm telling you, I've done this for 32 years. I'm not a federal prosecutor, I'm a state prosecutor, I'm not a federal judge, I'm a county judge just like Mershawn. This is New York law, this is my wheelhouse. He is wrong.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
0:00
0:00
JUDGE JEANINE: “THIS IS UNHEARD OF….”
Video transcript
Thank you so much for joining us. So, Judge, tell us your thoughts in this moment. I don't know, predictions, what we're leaving out, what should we be looking at as this jury is deliberating? - I'm flabbergasted by the charges to the jury. You may have already gone through that, but I was doing something else. I have never heard a jury charge like this judge's charge to this jury. We knew the judge was flaky. We knew that he hated Donald Trump, but this judge is beyond the pale. To say that he's gonna take dead misdemeanors and raise them to felonies when they don't have to unanimously agree on what that felony is is stunning to me. It is absolutely stunning. I wanna be clear about something. In New York State, when I was a DA, if I wanted to raise a misdemeanor, and by the way, not a misdemeanor that is expired in terms of the statute of limitations, but if I wanted to raise a misdemeanor to a felony, the only way to do that would be to file a certificate of conviction of another crime. It could be a DWI, it could be a gun possession, to prove that in this particular case, this misdemeanor would end up as a felony, and that is done outside of the presence of the jury, where it's very clear that there's another real committed convicted case that raises the level of misdemeanor to a felony. This judge is making stuff up as he goes along. This is a kangaroo court. I'll tell you that the level of reversible error on this is stunning, and this judge, unfortunately, is connected to the jury in the sense they see him as this calm, reliable guy who is as out of control in terms of the law, and he doesn't know it, or he's making it up as he goes along, so that this defendant, a former president of the United States, is convicted of dead misdemeanors that, like magic, is turned into a felony. This is unheard of, Sandra and John, and I gotta tell you one more thing. It's almost like it's a rabbit show. You're gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat, but don't look over here, look at Stormy Daniels. Look at what she said. None of that had anything to do with this. It's all about destroying Donald Trump, and this jury charge has set me over the edge in terms of the law that's being made up as we go along in a felony that we have no idea of, but now it's New York election law, but it could be federal election law, too, or it could be a tax violation, and even if he didn't underpay his taxes, it could still be a crime. What is this man talking about? Right, and then, Judge, there's the other aspect of this, which is the multiple choice aspect of the predicate crime, that the jury does not need to unanimously agree on what the predicate crime was. When you were a judge in New York, did you ever instruct the jury to say, here's a smorgasbord of things that you can find him guilty of, and you don't all have to find him guilty of the same thing. Some of you can find him guilty of one thing or her. Some others can find him or her guilty of something else, and then the remainder of you can figure out something else to find him or her guilty on. Have you ever issued an instruction like that? It's not done. John, it's not done. And let's talk about the one of three. One is a federal election campaign violation, the other is a tax violation, and the other is the creation of additional records. Federal election campaign violation, they did not let Brad Smith testify, but you heard David Pecker testify about a federal election campaign problem. You heard Michael Cohen testify about that, but Donald Trump in his defense was not allowed to talk about it, but now, all of a sudden, the jury has the ability to go in and not agree that that is one of the felonies that is necessary to resurrect these dead misdemeanors, but there's no evidence. The defense couldn't defend themselves on it. That's bizarre, John. No one has heard of this. It's like a menu, A, column A, B, or C. You don't all have to agree on it, whatever, folks. This is a kangaroo court. This is unheard of. I'm telling you, I've done this for 32 years. I'm not a federal prosecutor. I'm a state prosecutor. I'm not a federal judge. I'm a county judge, just like Mershawn. This is New York law. This is my wheelhouse. He is wrong. - All right. - Judge, thank you. - Thanks, Judge. - And the problem is, okay, guys. - Nope, finish your thought. Finish your thought. - No, and the sad part about it is this jury is gonna think they're doing the right thing based upon a charge that no one has ever heard of and that he created. - All right. - Thank you, Judge. - Thank you. We'll be right back after this. Stay tuned.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
0:00
0:00
Jim Trusty: “As a prosecutor, that judgment has really widened the playing field here by saying there doesn't need to be unanimous agreement.”
0:00
0:00
Jim Trusty: “It's the basics of is there any crime here at all?”
0:00
0:00
Media only, no caption.
Video transcript
Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy, who is outside the courthouse, you can best give us an idea of what might be going on with that jury. Tell me about jurors. Well, you know, in New York, juries or juries could be feisty like New York is feisty. I know, Harris, we've spent a lot of time thinking about the other lawyers, the two lawyers on the panel. I can tell you, I grew up in the Bronx. I've been a lawyer for more decades than I can't admit to. They eat lawyers for lunch here in New York City. So just because you have lawyers on the jury doesn't mean that they're going to commandeer the jury, although they could be very influential. We'll just have to see how it plays out. What worries you most about this case? I know you have some concerns. I think the idea that you don't have to agree beyond a reasonable doubt on what exactly was the other crime here that Trump was supposedly committing or concealing under circumstances where the other crime is what makes this case possible because it's what gets them out of the statute of limitations and turns it into a four year felony. That's crazy. And how can that even be approached at this point? The jury is in there. They may come out for a question or two. And I don't even know what they remember about those instructions because that was a long hour of information. It was sleepy time. Shannon Bream has pointed out and they couldn't take notes and it wasn't written down. But what do you see happening with that? Well, I think the good thing about it, Shannon, Harris, I'm sorry, is that we'll be getting notes from them if they're hung up on something. So we'll actually have a read on exactly what it is that's confusing them. And if they asked for a clarification about whether they need to be unanimous on that last thing, we'll know that this was just a completely improper trial. Hung jury, last one. As if we didn't know already. Last one. And again, I quote Judge Janine Pirro on this because it's really, you know, originally her thought based on her own experience of hung juries or with hung juries. How many times can a judge do that? Her experience is she only got one or two that she had seen. What do you see? I really don't like that charge where they tell them to go back and resolve it. But, you know, I haven't seen it work that many times. I've had a case where it was given and the jury hung anyway. And it was a New York jury where the people who were in the minority couldn't be moved. Right. So the judge says, yeah, you go back at it. And they do. And that didn't change. And it isn't up to the jury to call themselves hung jury. The judge has to do that. Annie McCarthy, thank you so very much. You have been just amazing during this entire time. And we And we have so much more work to do on this because we've got to get a verdict.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged!
Video transcript
Thank you very much. I would say, in listening to the charges from the judge, who's, as you know, very conflicted and corrupt, because of the confliction, very, very corrupt. Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged. The whole country is a mess between the borders and fake elections, and you have a trial like this where the judge is so conflicted he can't breathe. He's got to do his job, and it's not for me that I can tell you. It's a disgrace. And I mean that Mother Teresa could not beat those charges, but we'll see. We'll see how we do. It's a very disgraceful situation. Every single legal scholar and expert said, "This is no case. It shouldn't be brought." And it certainly could have been brought seven years ago, not in the middle of a presidential election. It was all done by Joe Biden. This judge contributed to Joe Biden. And far worse than that, but I'm not allowed to talk about it, because I have a gag order. Far worse than that, by a thousand times worse than that. The worst I've ever heard, but I can't talk about it. It'll be talked about, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. But it'll be talked about in the history books. What's happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody's seen before, ever. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen. So I'll stay around here. This is five weeks. And five weeks are really essentially not campaigning, although I took a big lead in the polls over the last few weeks on -- something's going on. Because I think the people of this country see that this is a rigged deal. It's a weaponized deal for the Democrats to hit their political opponent. For Joe Biden, the worst -- the worst President in the history of the United States, he's destroying our country. He's letting millions of people from jails, from prisons, from Insanus Islands, from mental institutions. Drug dealers pour in. Venezuela, if you look at their crime statistics, they've gunned down 72 percent in crime because they're releasing all their criminals into our country because of this horrible President that we have. And then they have a protest of Robert De Niro yesterday. He's a fool. He was a broken-down fool, standing out there. And he got -- he got maggot. He got maggot yesterday. He got a big dose of it. But I just want to say it's a very unfair trial. It should have never happened. If it was going to happen, it should have happened seven years ago. As you know, Greg didn't want to bring it. The Southern District didn't bring it. The FEC didn't bring it. This judge didn't even let us use the number one election attorney. He's making the rules. He doesn't know anything about elections. He doesn't know anything about voting and vote counts. He doesn't know anything about this stuff. That's not his profession. We had the leading election expert in the country, Brad Smith, ready to testify. I wouldn't let him do it. They wouldn't let another gentleman who represented -- and you know very well, you saw it. It was the worst I think I've ever seen and it would treat it on a stand. Bob Costello wouldn't let him talk about all of the hundreds of emails that he was sent by a gentleman, another gentleman who I can't mention because I'm -- I'm gagged. Every time I speak to you, you ask me simple questions. I'm not allowed to give you the answer because I'm gagged by this judge. But we have a very, very serious problem here. I mean, our country is going bad. And remember -- and let me just leave you with this. This is all because of Joe Biden and his -- and I don't even think it's him. I don't think he's smart enough to think about it. But it's the people that surround him in the office. They're smart. They're fascists. They're communists. But they're smart. And they're ruining our country. But we're going to win this election. November 5th is going to be the most important day in the history of our country. We're going to take back our country from these fascists and these thugs that are destroying us with inflation and with everything they do, how stupid they are, allowing 15, 16, 17 million people into our country, totally unvented, totally unchecked. We're going to bring back our nation November 5th. Remember, the most important day in the history of our country. In the meantime, this trial is rigged. Thank you.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
ELECTION INTERFERENCE!
Video transcript
>> Yeah, Shannon and Trey, my Twitter's been on fire ever since I put out Trey, what you reported earlier today that four jurors could agree on one crime, four jurors could agree on a different crime and four jurors could agree on a different crime other than that. And as long as it adds up to 12, that's okay. So it's not unanimity on exactly what the crime is, but you get 12 jurors saying he's guilty. As Andy said earlier today, he doesn't know how to square that with the constitution. Trey, you want to go first then, Shannon? >> I don't want to go first because I don't know how to square it either. I think what makes it even more complicated is, I mean, I would have asked for a special verdict form, at least tell us which crime you picked. The judge mentioned three crimes, but as Andy and Shannon and I have been discussing, it could be a crime that the judge didn't even mention. Furthermore, when does something become a crime? To me, it's when a jury of 12 says you're guilty or when you admit it, but crime has a specific meaning to me, does it have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? What are the elements of this unknown crime? It is, to me, void for vagueness.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
0:00
0:00
Only the 39 Kids that had to be there showed up!
0:00
0:00
Biden Witch Hunt!
Video transcript
of Sunday Night in America, Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor and former assistant U.S. attorney in litigant who corresponded for Fox Business. So, Andy, let's start with you. The judge said that the jury has to unanimously believe that Donald Trump committed a crime in order to convict him, but they do not need to unanimously agree on what that crime was. And in what world does that work? Not in any world I've ever been in, John. What makes a criminal prosecution appropriate in the sense of taking somebody's liberty away, the array of constitutional protections we have. I've always understood them in 20 years of prosecuting cases and then more years than I care to count analyzing them. I've always understood that to mean every crime has a set of essential elements, and what the jury has to be unanimous on is that the government's proved the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, it's an essential element of that case. Of this case, it's the most essential element of the count that they find this other crime because the only reason we're here is because Bragg used that other crime to inflate what would otherwise be a misdemeanor into a felony that allowed him to escape the statute of limitations. So, the thought that they don't have to be unanimous on that makes no sense to me constitutionally.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
The Scholars and Legal Experts are saying, “THERE IS NO CRIME.”
0:00
0:00
Crooked Joe Biden just announced that he will speak, for a change, at the end of his trial against me. Yesterday he sent his mentally challenged servant, former actor Robert De Niro, to create a little chaos in front of the Courthouse, and to influence the trial. Election Interference!!!
0:00
0:00
According to the Legal Scholars and Experts, the Jury Instructions, given by a highly Conflicted Judge, will go down as the most biased and unfair in Judicial History. Biden Witch Hunt. Election Interference!!!
0:00
0:00
Congratulations to United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for showing the INTELLIGENCE, COURAGE, and “GUTS” to refuse stepping aside from making a decision on anything January 6th related. All U.S. Judges, Justices, and Leaders should have such GRIT - Our Country would be far more advanced than its current status as A BADLY FAILING NATION, headed by the Worst President in American History, Crooked Joe Biden!
0:00
0:00
IT IS RIDICULOUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNAMERICAN that the highly Conflicted, Radical Left Judge is not requiring a unanimous decision on the fake charges against me brought by Soros backed D.A. Alvin Bragg. A THIRD WORLD ELECTION INTERFERENCE HOAX!
0:00
0:00
Video transcript
Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy, who is outside the courthouse, you can best give us an idea of what might be going on with that jury. Tell me about jurors. Well, you know, in New York, juries or juries could be feisty like New York is feisty. I know, Harris, we've spent a lot of time thinking about the other lawyers, the two lawyers on the panel. I can tell you, I grew up in the Bronx. I've been a lawyer for more decades than I can't admit to. They eat lawyers for lunch here in New York City. So just because you have lawyers on the jury doesn't mean that they're going to commandeer the jury, although they could be very influential. We'll just have to see how it plays out. What worries you most about this case? I know you have some concerns. I think the idea that you don't have to agree beyond a reasonable doubt on what exactly was the other crime here that Trump was supposedly committing or concealing under circumstances where the other crime is what makes this case possible because it's what gets them out of the statute of limitations and turns it into a four year felony. That's crazy. And how can that even be approached at this point? The jury is in there. They may come out for a question or two. And I don't even know what they remember about those instructions because that was a long hour of information. It was sleepy time. Shannon Bream has pointed out and they couldn't take notes and it wasn't written down. But what do you see happening with that? Well, I think the good thing about it, Shannon, Harris, I'm sorry, is that we'll be getting notes from them if they're hung up on something. So we'll actually have a read on exactly what it is that's confusing them. And if they asked for a clarification about whether they need to be unanimous on that last thing, we'll know that this was just a completely improper trial. Hung jury, last one. As if we didn't know already. Last one. And again, I quote Judge Janine Pirro on this because it's really, you know, originally her thought based on her own experience of hung juries or with hung juries. How many times can a judge do that? Her experience is she only got one or two that she had seen. What do you see? I really don't like that charge where they tell them to go back and resolve it. But, you know, I haven't seen it work that many times. I've had a case where it was given and the jury hung anyway. And it was a New York jury where the people who were in the minority couldn't be moved. Right. So the judge says, yeah, you go back at it. And they do. And that didn't change. And it isn't up to the jury to call themselves hung jury. The judge has to do that. Annie McCarthy, thank you so very much. You have been just amazing during this entire time. And we And we have so much more work to do on this because we've got to get a verdict.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Thank you Mike!
WEAPONIZATION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM!
Video transcript
Of course it is, and the unfairness of this Harris is not just in the four corners of the case. You know, it's peculiar, as you point out, that former President Trump can't speak about the witnesses, can't speak about various things connected to the case, but other witnesses in the case are not gagged. But the other thing, and this is what I think is the arrogance of the way the courts have approached their task with these four indictments against the former president who is running for election in November. There are things in life and things in America that are more important than the administration of justice in a single case. And one of them is the right of the American people to have robust debate in connection with an election for the most important office, not just in the country, but in the world. And we have a situation where President Trump is the only person who's gagged. So Joe Biden can say whatever he wants about the president's travails. Other opponents of former President Trump can say whatever they want. And he's the guy who's in the middle of the vortex, and he can't say anything. That has consequences, not just for the administration of justice in this trial, but for how we run our campaigns. It's not just that he can't talk. And he said, you know, I took a big lead in the polls. Amazingly, he's done quite well not talking about this case, he doesn't have to, everybody else is, to the chagrin of one man, President Biden. So he sent his campaign surrogates out yesterday, Robert De Niro, another octogenarian who, you know, was struggling, but whatever. He goes outside the courthouse and then begins to battle for President Biden and trying to soak up some of that limelight. You know, Andy, it is amazing when you look at how politically tinged this entire process is. And we are still sitting here now waiting for a jury to deliberate. >> Yeah, and here's the amazing thing, Harris, this is the trial because it's a state trial that I think Biden would have been able to say that all this stuff Trump is saying about how I'm in control of everything. You know, that's a state thing, I don't have anything to do with it. He sends his surrogates here, which basically puts his mark on it. But the other thing I want people to understand is that in any other context in the United States, if a local state prosecutor were trying to enforce federal law, the Justice Department would be papering the state courts and the local federal court with all kinds of motions to try to prevent that from happening. The Biden Justice Department is perfectly content to have Alvin Bragg enforcing federal law as long as it's against President Trump. But he's not enforcing it in a way that is consistent with what the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department would normally do. And I don't think the Justice Department would countenance this in any situation other than a prosecution of Trump. >> Andy McCarthy, always great to get you in focus your expertise.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
0:00
0:00
I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE CHARGES ARE IN THIS RIGGED CASE—I AM ENTITLED TO SPECIFICITY JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE. THERE IS NO CRIME!
0:00
0:00
Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged!
Video transcript
Thank you very much. I would say, in listening to the charges from the judge, who's, as you know, very conflicted and corrupt, because of the confliction, very, very corrupt. Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged. The whole country is a mess between the borders and fake elections, and you have a trial like this where the judge is so conflicted he can't breathe. He's got to do his job, and it's not for me that I can tell you. It's a disgrace. And I mean that Mother Teresa could not beat those charges, but we'll see. We'll see how we do. It's a very disgraceful situation. Every single legal scholar and expert said, "This is no case. It shouldn't be brought." And it certainly could have been brought seven years ago, not in the middle of a presidential election. It was all done by Joe Biden. This judge contributed to Joe Biden. And far worse than that, but I'm not allowed to talk about it, because I have a gag order. Far worse than that, by a thousand times worse than that. The worst I've ever heard, but I can't talk about it. It'll be talked about, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. But it'll be talked about in the history books. What's happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody's seen before, ever. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen. So I'll stay around here. This is five weeks. And five weeks are really essentially not campaigning, although I took a big lead in the polls over the last few weeks on -- something's going on. Because I think the people of this country see that this is a rigged deal. It's a weaponized deal for the Democrats to hit their political opponent. For Joe Biden, the worst -- the worst President in the history of the United States, he's destroying our country. He's letting millions of people from jails, from prisons, from Insanus Islands, from mental institutions. Drug dealers pour in. Venezuela, if you look at their crime statistics, they've gunned down 72 percent in crime because they're releasing all their criminals into our country because of this horrible President that we have. And then they have a protest of Robert De Niro yesterday. He's a fool. He was a broken-down fool, standing out there. And he got -- he got maggot. He got maggot yesterday. He got a big dose of it. But I just want to say it's a very unfair trial. It should have never happened. If it was going to happen, it should have happened seven years ago. As you know, Greg didn't want to bring it. The Southern District didn't bring it. The FEC didn't bring it. This judge didn't even let us use the number one election attorney. He's making the rules. He doesn't know anything about elections. He doesn't know anything about voting and vote counts. He doesn't know anything about this stuff. That's not his profession. We had the leading election expert in the country, Brad Smith, ready to testify. I wouldn't let him do it. They wouldn't let another gentleman who represented -- and you know very well, you saw it. It was the worst I think I've ever seen and it would treat it on a stand. Bob Costello wouldn't let him talk about all of the hundreds of emails that he was sent by a gentleman, another gentleman who I can't mention because I'm -- I'm gagged. Every time I speak to you, you ask me simple questions. I'm not allowed to give you the answer because I'm gagged by this judge. But we have a very, very serious problem here. I mean, our country is going bad. And remember -- and let me just leave you with this. This is all because of Joe Biden and his -- and I don't even think it's him. I don't think he's smart enough to think about it. But it's the people that surround him in the office. They're smart. They're fascists. They're communists. But they're smart. And they're ruining our country. But we're going to win this election. November 5th is going to be the most important day in the history of our country. We're going to take back our country from these fascists and these thugs that are destroying us with inflation and with everything they do, how stupid they are, allowing 15, 16, 17 million people into our country, totally unvented, totally unchecked. We're going to bring back our nation November 5th. Remember, the most important day in the history of our country. In the meantime, this trial is rigged. Thank you.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
0:00
0:00
Criminal Defense Attorney David W. Fischer, “The prosecution has not established that a criminal offense took place.”
0:00
0:00
Kash Patel: “@realDonaldTrump’s case is littered with reasonable doubt because he is not guilty- there is no crime. He is [an] innocent man.”
0:00
0:00
Jonathan Turley: “Abstract artist Jackson Pollock once said that his paintings have no objective meaning, so the best way for people to enjoy them is to stop looking for it. For many of us, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has created a new school of abstract law…Bragg started with nothing and sold it as a legal abstraction.”
0:00
0:00
Andy McCarthy: “NDAs are legal. An intent to defraud cannot be derived from the performance of a legal act.”
0:00
0:00
Michael Goodwin, The New York Post: “As even CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria put it, ‘I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump.’ What a damning indictment of New York! Bragg once shared the same opinion of the flawed case, dropping the long-running probe soon after taking office in 2022. That put him in good company, with the Federal Election Commission, New York federal prosecutors and his predecessor all previously passing on the case.”
0:00
0:00
Senator Tom Cotton: “If the judge wanted to redeem his reputation and credibility he would direct a verdict of not guilty today for the former president.”
0:00
0:00
Jim Trusty: “That is unlike any trial I could ever think of that you go through the entire trial, and it's still an open question of how this is a felony case.”
0:00
0:00
Lawrence Jones: “The crime has still not been presented before the court.”
0:00
0:00
Laura Ingraham: “There was no crime that was committed.”
0:00
0:00
Doug Collins, Fox News: “Number one we should have never been here to start with. This is a prosecution in search of a crime. It's not there. Donald Trump didn't do anything.”
0:00
0:00
Newt Gingrich: “In New York we have a corrupt judge and a corrupt district attorney creating a corrupt trial trying to frame President Trump.”
0:00
0:00
Leo Terrell: “This is not a courtroom…It is not legal. I’ve been in court for 30 plus years and what is happening in New York, the Democrats, they have hijacked the legal system, and it is outright embarrassing to lawyers.”
0:00
0:00
David Gelman, Fox Business: “Alvin Bragg didn’t want to try this case. The only reason he did it is because former D.A.’s in his Office went and wrote a book pretty much saying, ‘Hey Alvin, you should do this because it’s political’…Nothing has been proven here. That’s why I keep [saying] there should be a directed verdict, meaning the Judge should take it out of the jury’s hands, and say, ‘Prosecution, you did not meet your burden, you did not find that there is a crime here. Donald Trump, go home, go campaign.’”
0:00
0:00
Gregg Jarrett: “There is no credible evidence that Trump engineered or even knew about booking entries by accountants that were not false at all. Nor is there any plausible evidence that he willfully violated campaign laws that were not violations at all. Where is the fraud that prosecutors argued in their opening statement? Like Bigfoot, it’s a fictitious missing link in the case. This has always been a trial in search of an imaginary crime and a disgraceful charade. This case has reasonable doubt written all over it.”
0:00
0:00
Bill O’Reilly: “There is zero evidence he even thought about campaign funding statutes. Repeat. Zero evidence. In order to convict, there has to be ‘criminal intent,’ as the nation saw with the Hillary Clinton private email thing. So, simple man that I am, I can't see a conviction.”
0:00
0:00
Caroline Polisi, CBS Mornings: “Trump himself didn’t go on the drop down menu and say these were reimbursements or retainer fee.”
0:00
0:00
Mike Davis: “When CNN’s Jake Tapper is even admitting that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, you know it's a bad day for the prosecution.”
0:00
0:00
Mark O'Mara, CNN Legal Analyst: “Four hour closing argument is way too long ... Making it more complicated, there’s reasonable doubt."
0:00
0:00
Trial Attorney Randy Zelin, CNN: “There is reasonable doubt all over this case.”
0:00
0:00
Byron York: “Prosecutors did not prove that Trump, intending to defraud, caused false company records to be made, starting in Feb 2017. They never proved that he did it or told anybody to do it. And if they did not prove that, it’s over.”
0:00
0:00
Andrew Cherkasky: “When you can't explain the crime, sometimes that's the evidence of innocence in and of its own right - When you charge them with something, and then you're waiting, and you're waiting, and you never get to it. That's the idea that the person was innocent all along.”
0:00
0:00
Pam Bondi: "He committed no crime...There is nothing there."
0:00
0:00
Gregg Jarrett: "The element of the alleged crimes were never proven in this Case - Business Records were not false, they were accurate. Trump had no involvement, there's no evidence he willfully violated Election Laws, and no Laws were even broken. Plus, it's factually impossible to influence an Election after it's over, yet that's how the Indictment reads...Where is the crime? It's nowhere! This is what I call a Bigfoot Case. It's a Trial in search of an imaginary crime."
0:00
0:00
Gregg Jarrett: "This Case against Donald Trump is Election Interference and Brazen Lawfare."
0:00
0:00
Pete Hegseth: "The Prosecution's case is a disaster!"
0:00
0:00
NDA’s ARE TOTALLY LEGAL AND ACCEPTED!
0:00
0:00
DEFENSE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE!
0:00
0:00
Gregg Jarrett: “They manipulated the justice system to create this illusion of wrongdoing…”
Video transcript
All right, both the defense and prosecution have now delivered their closing arguments. What kind of an impact will they have on the jury's final verdict? Here to weigh in. Fox News legal analyst, best-selling author Greg Jarrett, Harvard law professor, and best-selling author Alan Dershowitz. Good to see you both. Greg, start with you. One of the things I found pretty interesting is the judge allowing this false claim by the prosecution to be brought in again and again and again, uncontradicted and the judge allowing even the prosecution to read unrelated quotes from Trump's book, again, why would they allow that? Trey Gowdy said, "It's stunning some of the objections which are overruled. The prosecution just accused Donald J. Trump of threatening witnesses. The objection was overruled even on that." I mean, at some point here, you know, you've got to say cinder blocks and, I don't know, bricks are put on the scales of justice in this case by the judge. Oh, yeah. It's one in a long list of reversible errors by the judge. And here, Sean, in the history of American law, never has a defendant been tried on an unidentified charge. No ethical prosecutor would ever do it. No fair or competent judge would ever allow it because every defendant has a right to be informed of the precise accusations against him. It's guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment. But even now, nobody least of all the jury knows for sure. And as I say, it's one of the many reversible errors committed by Judge Marchant. I think the fix was in from the outset. This case was rigged by an unscrupulous DA and a biased judge, and together, they worked to engineer an absurd legal theory. It would never withstand judicial scrutiny. They know it. But their goal, I think, is to gain a wrongful conviction to delegitimize Trump's candidacy. They contorted the law. They manipulated the justice system to create this illusion of wrongdoing. The end justifies any means.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
0:00
0:00
THE D.A.’s OFFICE WAS ALLOWED TO GO ON WITH 5 HOURS OF BULL…. YESTERDAY. I have no rights against this Crooked Judge’s Gag Order!
0:00
0:00
“THEY DON’T HAVE A CRIME AND THEY KNOW IT..”
Video transcript
reaction from the trump campaign is trump 2024 national press secretary caroline leavitt in the courtroom today caroline let's get your take on today's events and and maybe dovetail off of what professor turley was saying well today was an absolute dumpster fire for the biden campaign shawn they woke up to a headline in politico that the democrat party is in a full blown freakout over joe biden's failing and desperate campaign and a couple hours later they showed up to the criminal courthouse in manhattan joe biden's spokesperson was holding a press conference all but conceding that this entire case comes from the top it comes from crooked joe biden who is using alvin bragg as a far left prosecutor because no other prosecutor in america in their right mind would proceed with this case other than alvin bragg who has trump derangement syndrome and who is the star guest at that press conference outside the courthouse today robert deniro an out of touch elitist actor from hollywood because those are the only people left in this country who support joe biden and he went on an unhinged tirade about president trump you know what he didn't mention the real problems that americans are facing the fact that they are petrified about this weaponized government that joe biden is leading the fact that inflation is robbing them of thousands of dollars every single month the fact that we have a wide open border because of joe biden's weakness that has allowed an invasion of millions of illegal criminals and terrorists into our great country joe biden's campaign is so desperate that was outside the courtroom and then inside the courtroom the george soros funded prosecution completely imploded they have lost the plot it took them more than four hours to conclude their closing arguments because they don't have a crime and they know it
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
0:00
0:00
KANGAROO COURT! A CORRUPT AND CONFLICTED JUDGE. RELIANCE ON COUNSEL (ADVISE OF COUNSEL) NOT ALLOWED BY MERCHAN, A FIRST. HIS RULINGS, ON A CASE THAT SHOULD, ACCORDING TO ALL LEGAL SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS, NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, HAVE MADE THIS A BIDEN PUSHED WITCH HUNT. THERE WAS NO CRIME, EXCEPT FOR THE BUM THAT GOT CAUGHT STEALING FROM ME! IN GOD WE TRUST!
0:00
0:00
Video transcript
Trump is a great president because Trump is all about the land of opportunity he don't see color he don't see race Trump is about the people. Thank you. I love Donald Trump. I hope you come back. What do you think of all the Trump goods but there's only one Biden camp. I don't even know. Forget Biden, forget Biden. Trump. Ring Trump back, please. Trump. Yeah.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
I never knew how small, both mentally and physically, Wacko Former Actor Robert De Niro was. Today, De Niro, who suffers from an incurable case of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, commonly known in the medical community as TDS, was met, outside the Courthouse, with a force far greater than the Radical Left - MAGA. Robert, whose movies, artistry, and brand have gone WAY DOWN IN VALUE since he entered the political arena at the request of Crooked Joe Biden, looked so pathetic and sad out there. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio!!!
0:00
0:00
BIDEN WITCH HUNT!
CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT I, AS A DEFENDANT, AM NOT ALLOWED TO REBUT OR CORRECT THE MANY LIES TOLD DURUNG THE 5 HOUR FILIBUSTER JUST PUT ON BY THE SOROS BACKED D.A.’s OFFICE IN THE MANHATTAN COURT. WHAT A DISGRACEFUL PERFORMANCE OF MISREPRESENTATION IT WAS!!! MAGA2024
0:00
0:00
I DIDN’T HAVE A FIXER, I HAD A LAWYER WHO, AT THAT TIME, WAS FULLY ACCREDITED AND ACCEPTED WITHIN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, BUT THE JUDGE IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO USE THE RELIANCE ON COUNSEL DEFENSE. I MAY BE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO AND, THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS A VERY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND RESTRICTIVE GAG ORDER. NOT FAIR — FREEDOM!
0:00
0:00
THE GREATEST CASE I’VE EVER SEEN FOR RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, AND JUDGE MERCHAN WILL NOT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, LET ME USE THAT AS A DEFENSE IN THIS RIGGED TRIAL. ANOTHER TERM, ADVICE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE!
0:00
0:00
AI Day Analysis
Machine-generated analysis of the 2024-05-29 posts below. Not written by their author.
Eve of Verdict: 61 Posts, Zero Topics Beyond the Trial
Trump spent the entire day consumed by his Manhattan criminal trial, posting over 60 times without mentioning a single other topic — not even major world events. The morning opened with angry outbursts about the judge and gag order, then gave way to a massive coordinated barrage of over 20 quotes from Fox News personalities and allied commentators, all declaring "no crime" was committed. Scattered between these curated quotes were raw emotional eruptions attacking Robert De Niro, accusing Biden of orchestrating the prosecution, and lashing out at a Fox News anchor who dared question the conspiracy theory. The overwhelming mood was defensive and anxious, with Trump and his team racing to build a narrative framework that would cast any guilty verdict as illegitimate before the jury could return one the following day.