Post from Truth Social

Um, so we went over this last hour, but we may have an entirely new audience this hour. So give us your thoughts on the prudence of what the judge did in this case. Well, it was the right decision because Judge Michonne might have ended up not just the judge who, uh, imprisoned Donald Trump. He could have been the judge that reelected Donald Trump. I mean, the, if he, if he actually did impose jail, uh, as Carl Rove noted, that could have been just the catalyst needed, uh, to put Trump over the top. Uh, that's an example of how, uh, curious this calendar is for any type of sentencing. It also means that because of the dates selected here, uh, that the election's going to have a huge impact on sentencing. Uh, if Donald Trump is reelected, uh, as president, uh, then it seems very unlikely that Michonne, uh, would sentence him to jail. It's also unlikely that he could succeed in keeping him in jail because of the conflict with his presidential duties. If he, if Trump loses the election, then indeed that might make it easier for Michonne to do precisely that. So the election has really grown in considerable importance in terms of this sentencing. But keep in mind, whatever Michonne does, uh, it doesn't change what he previously did in this case. I think that he has committed layers of reversible error. I think there was evidence at his trial that the Supreme Court would view as privileged and should not have been before the jury. So there is a long, uh, runway between here and there when it comes to any jail sentence. All right. So we are getting a brand new reaction through our own Brooke Singman here who just spoke to the former president following the judge's decision. He tells her the case was delayed. Because everyone realizes there was no case and I did nothing wrong. He says, he also adds that as a case, it is a case that should have never been brought Jonathan. Uh, the public understands that and so does every legal scholar that has looked at it and studied it. I greatly respect the words of necessary being used in the decision because there should be no, if necessary, the case should be dead. It says the former president and brand new remarks to Fox, Jonathan. I certainly agree that this case should never have been brought. I think the former president is correct. This is a political case. Uh, it's a case based on rather novel interpretations of the law. I'm not too sure those interpretations will withstand a review, but I think that the case is overtly political. It was the weakest of the cases, uh, in my view, uh, to go forward. So I believe the former president is right on that front. Uh, the question now, uh, is how these appeals will play out. The president has a rather target rich environment, uh, with this trial. Uh, there are a lot of things here that I think could be reversible. Uh, in some respects, I expect that people in the Trump camp, uh, almost quietly hoped that Michonne would continue his record in the case. Michonne, uh, was quite one sided, uh, in his rulings. I sat in that courtroom and I was astonished by how he consistently ruled against the Trump, uh, team. Even when in my view, they were clearly correct in the motions that they were making. But still you got unanimous decision from 12 jurors, maybe not on the underlying predicate crime, but in the overall crime, you got unanimous decisions so that, you know, they seem to agree with what the prosecution was selling. Um, so this is up, so I think it's, no, I think it's also important to remember what they rendered their ruling on. I've been critical of the jurors. I'm critical of the judge. He told those jurors that they didn't even have to agree what occurred in the case. He gave them various possible reasons why acts were committed and he didn't even force them to record how they voted on what really occurred. All of that is part of the novelty in my view of this case that should be reviewed. Yeah. That was the point I was making that they might not have had unanimity on the underlying predicate crime, but they did in the overall aspect of the case. But you understand politics as well as you understand the law. Now that this is off the table, there will be no sentencing between now and November the fifth. Uh, the voting was supposed to start in North Carolina, but because of a lawsuit that Bobby Kennedy has filed to get his name off the ballot, they've delayed sending out those ballots or letting people vote, um, until time to be determined in the future. We don't know when that's going to be, but what do you think now is the overall effect on the election? If there is any at all, well, first of all, these ballot fights are rather curious. The Michigan secretary of state previously tried to get a popular candidate off the ballot and she's now fighting to keep a non-existent candidate on the ballot because I, I, many people view this as a rather political agenda, uh, to pull away votes from the former president in North Carolina. They said they could switch ballots, but it might take a week. Well, they're going to spend more than that in litigation. So there's a lot of question as to why these democratic secretaries of state are clinging on to Kennedy, uh, to keep him on these ballots in very close states. Now this ruling is going to have an impact, uh, in the sense that many people, I think, correctly viewed New York as lawfare, correctly viewed this as a political case, uh, any sentencing that Michonne would have come down with, I think would have not, uh, been particularly welcomed by most of the public. It would have reminded them of this, this, this campaign again against the former president. So in some ways, I think the Harris campaign is probably celebrating, uh, that they won't have that attention on the Manhattan case. Uh, really something here, um, just looking for, for more out of the letter itself and the implications for the case going forward, Jonathan, I'm sure you've had a chance to see it by now, uh, but using the words and phrases like wanted to avoid the appearance of however unwarded that proceeding had been, uh, that this had been affected by the election. Um, that's interesting, right? And not like we have heard that from this judge before. No, I mean, look, I, I support, I, I, you know, it was not one of those that was piling on Michonne, but I have to say after sitting in his courtroom, I was very surprised. And what I thought was a one sided approach to that trial, it reminded me of an old judge who used to say his defense ready to present its case and then say, are the prosecutors ready to present our case? I mean, the, uh, there was, uh, in my view, a lack of balance there. We have not heard this type of language from Michonne, uh, and he, he refused to do things during the trial that could have accommodated the environment in which the trial was occurring, including a gag order that I think was excessive. Uh, and the irony of course was that the president, the former president's polls went up when he was gagged partially, I think, because people saw the unfairness partially because he sort of stayed on script. But that may have weighed in all of this, Michonne actually witnessed how his conduct at the trial, the trial itself worked in Trump's favor. That would have been nothing, uh, in comparison to what would have happened if he sends Trump to home confinement or to jail. I think Michonne was aware of that. You know, it's funny. So many things have happened since this verdict was added up that, uh, I mean, this thing has been so far in the rear view mirror that you almost have to remind yourself of what happened during the trial. But here's what the spokesperson for, uh, DA Alvin Bragg's office said. A jury of 12 New Yorkers swiftly and unanimously convicted Donald Trump with 34 felony counts. The Manhattan DA's office stands ready for sentencing on the new date set by the court. Of course, the new date is the new date for the moment, but that could change too. It can, because remember there are a lot of appeals, uh, that are, are going forward. Uh, the Supreme Court, his decision on immunity does hit this case. It's true that much of the conduct in this case did not involve the president while he was in office. But some did. In fact, the critical payments that occurred, uh, occurred while he was in office. The prosecutors came back to that over and over again about his multitasking, paying these things off while he was president of the United States, the testimony of Hope Hicks. All of that can contaminate the trial. Now all of our expectation is that Michonne is the least likely judge, uh, to say, you know what, I can't really unravel all of that, let's have a new trial. Uh, but he's going to have to make a very convincing case for the appellate court because you know, the Supreme Court made very clear that they wanted breathing room for presidents. They did, they did not want these to be close questions as to when your former aides could pop up in court and testify against you in cases like this. All right, Jonathan, thank you very much for joining us via phone and then on camera, we We really appreciate you joining us here. He's everywhere.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.