Our next guest says, "The deck is stacked against the former president in this politically driven case." Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett wrote about it on foxnews.com. Here to explain it now, Greg, your thoughts, barring a last minute reprieve, the show starts Monday. Yeah, and Trump is fighting for a fair trial, Brian, and an impartial jury. That's his constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment. But in Manhattan, as you say, the deck is stacked against him. You've got a biased judge, a jury pool dominated by Trump-hating New Yorkers. He's right, I think, to demand that the trial judge recuse himself because his adult daughter has a vested interest in her father's case. She runs a Democrat consulting firm that solicited tens of millions of dollars by citing her father's case. She has a financial interest in the outcome, and under ethical rules, that's a disqualifying conflict of interest. And Trump's other challenge is based on immunity, which is, of course, under review by the US Supreme Court. Some of the allegations and evidence against him in the New York case took place while he was president. Why not wait until the high court decides that issue? Oral arguments are in just a couple of weeks. But there is a rush to convict Trump in advance of the election. Right. So you say he's accused of falsifying company records to hide the nature of payments to his former lawyer as it relates to Stormy Daniels. This is something that they had to extend the statute of limitations to try and upgrade the charge from misdemeanor to a felony. Now, do you think that President Trump's legal team is up for the challenge? Could they be ready to defend the president in a way that could convince at least one juror? Well, I would hope so. I think they're a fine team of lawyers, and their argument is quite valid. You know, paying somebody for silence is not a crime. So instead, the DA Alvin Bragg accuses Trump of falsely accounting for it. At best, that's a mere misdemeanor, as you point out. That was barred long ago by the statute of limitations. So Bragg is trying to circumvent that by twisting the law and claiming, "Oh, it's an illegal campaign donation and thus a felony." No, it's not. The federal election commission concluded it doesn't qualify as a campaign expenditure to the Department of Justice said, "Hey, there's no crime here. Alvin Bragg doesn't care. He's decided to charge Trump criminally, even though he has no authority as a local prosecutor to charge federal crimes in a federal election." Greg, just do this. Look at this trial. See the 76-year-old CFO of a Trump organization back in Rikers while illegal immigrants, shoplifts and ransacked stores beat up cops. No one gets charged for crimes. There seems to be a nonstop bail reform cannot be penetrated. But we have to go and arrest Donald Trump and his CFO to keep New York safe. Are they that oblivious to how bad this looks around the country, around the world? They are oblivious, and I think they're delusional. These indictments all have one common denominator, Brian. They're politically driven. We didn't see this for what it is, an abuse of our legal system meant to interfere in the presidential election. But polls show it's backfiring, only solidifying Trump's support. Voters see him really as a villain, not as a villain rather, but as a victim of unscrupulous political enemies who are weaponizing the law. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out. More on this on foxnews.com, you have your legal analysis there. One thing is for sure, the president's got to be in court most of the time for the next six weeks, which will not help his campaign. Greg, thank you.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Post from Truth Social
“THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST TRUMP IN NYC”
Video transcript 4:09
Our next guest says, "The deck is stacked against the former president in this politically driven case." Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett wrote about it on foxnews.com. Here to explain it now, Greg, your thoughts, barring a last minute reprieve, the show starts Monday. Yeah, and Trump is fighting for a fair trial, Brian, and an impartial jury. That's his constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment. But in Manhattan, as you say, the deck is stacked against him. You've got a biased judge, a jury pool dominated by Trump-hating New Yorkers. He's right, I think, to demand that the trial judge recuse himself because his adult daughter has a vested interest in her father's case. She runs a Democrat consulting firm that solicited tens of millions of dollars by citing her father's case. She has a financial interest in the outcome, and under ethical rules, that's a disqualifying conflict of interest. And Trump's other challenge is based on immunity, which is, of course, under review by the US Supreme Court. Some of the allegations and evidence against him in the New York case took place while he was president. Why not wait until the high court decides that issue? Oral arguments are in just a couple of weeks. But there is a rush to convict Trump in advance of the election. Right. So you say he's accused of falsifying company records to hide the nature of payments to his former lawyer as it relates to Stormy Daniels. This is something that they had to extend the statute of limitations to try and upgrade the charge from misdemeanor to a felony. Now, do you think that President Trump's legal team is up for the challenge? Could they be ready to defend the president in a way that could convince at least one juror? Well, I would hope so. I think they're a fine team of lawyers, and their argument is quite valid. You know, paying somebody for silence is not a crime. So instead, the DA Alvin Bragg accuses Trump of falsely accounting for it. At best, that's a mere misdemeanor, as you point out. That was barred long ago by the statute of limitations. So Bragg is trying to circumvent that by twisting the law and claiming, "Oh, it's an illegal campaign donation and thus a felony." No, it's not. The federal election commission concluded it doesn't qualify as a campaign expenditure to the Department of Justice said, "Hey, there's no crime here. Alvin Bragg doesn't care. He's decided to charge Trump criminally, even though he has no authority as a local prosecutor to charge federal crimes in a federal election." Greg, just do this. Look at this trial. See the 76-year-old CFO of a Trump organization back in Rikers while illegal immigrants, shoplifts and ransacked stores beat up cops. No one gets charged for crimes. There seems to be a nonstop bail reform cannot be penetrated. But we have to go and arrest Donald Trump and his CFO to keep New York safe. Are they that oblivious to how bad this looks around the country, around the world? They are oblivious, and I think they're delusional. These indictments all have one common denominator, Brian. They're politically driven. We didn't see this for what it is, an abuse of our legal system meant to interfere in the presidential election. But polls show it's backfiring, only solidifying Trump's support. Voters see him really as a villain, not as a villain rather, but as a victim of unscrupulous political enemies who are weaponizing the law. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out. More on this on foxnews.com, you have your legal analysis there. One thing is for sure, the president's got to be in court most of the time for the next six weeks, which will not help his campaign. Greg, thank you.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.