Post from Truth Social

with me now the 5 co-hosts judge Jeanine Pirro, a former New York State judge and district attorney, a ton of experience with all of this. There's another picture of Jeanine. It's another life. How are you? Good to have you here today. So what's your reaction to Judge Rishon moving? You are? I am stunned. Look, this is a judge who at every turn ruled against Donald Trump. This is a judge who allowed prejudicial evidence to come in, evidence that had nothing to do with the underlying charge. And speaking of the underlying charge, most of it is expired pursuant to the statute of limitations, bootstrapped and resurrected by another crime that the jury didn't have to really identify. And there's a lot of hearsay and there's some privileged information. Then in the interim is a Supreme Court decision that came out in July that said, hey, you know, you have to separate immunity or immunize and privilege testimony from the underlying essence of the crimes in this case. And now all of a sudden Judge Rishon is saying, well, I don't want to be political here. I think it's time that we took, you know, took note of the fact that we're in a presidential election season. Are you kidding me? This is a political decision made by a judge who said, you know what, this is a close election. I'm not going to give Donald Trump any kind of advantage here. That's my interpretation based upon a judge who did everything he could. Even the verdict sheet in this case is not, you don't, you can't understand it. I've never seen anything like it. And so now suddenly the DA, Martha agrees, the DA says, we're not going to object to his sentencing. They want to throw him in jail, but they know that this is a case that will that will go in Trump's favor and they don't want that to happen. So this is Alvin Bragg. There's so many cases that we've been keeping straight, but this was, this was the hush money case. And you remember that Alvin Bragg basically took something that was beyond the statute of limitations and extrapolated it into, I think 34 counts. It was in the end, which had people outraged back then. Do you think that they are now looking at this situation and that they got cold feet? I mean, at one point, Marshawn did say back in the courtroom, you know, it's not lost on me that I have someone here who may be the next president of the United States. Do you think that they just said, you know what, we don't, we don't really want this on our shoulders. Well, I think that it is inevitable that this case will be reversed. And I think that maybe Marshawn did everything he had to do, that he allowed in testimony regarding a crime that nobody knows what it was. And that in the end, they will be able to say that Donald Trump is a convicted felon. He's been convicted on 34 counts, but you know what, we're going to delay this sentencing because maybe if they had this sentencing and Donald Trump took an appeal, depending upon how quickly the appellate court wanted to rule on this, I mean, this is an important case where exigent circumstances would require an appellate court to take it up immediately. They don't want to be slapped down either. So I mean, there are so many avenues here in this case, but the one thing that is so essential to understand, Martha, is that every turn was against Donald Trump. Now all of a sudden we're clean. We don't want to get involved in anything political. It's a presidential election season and we're going to, we're going to just adjourn the sentencing until after election. And by the way, Jack Smith got a superseding indictment, right? Georgia's nowhere at that case. We don't know even know who the prosecutor is. You were Sean doesn't want to be hanging alone on this where he's definitely going to be slapped. Let me ask you this, which is a purely political question about all of this, because there was clearly a big rush in all these cases. Jack Smith wanted his cases, which were January 6th in the documents case, which got thrown out by the judge in Florida. They wanted all this to happen before the election. Do you think that the fact that Kamala Harris is now the candidate has made them cool their heels a little bit, that they're less worried about a second president Trump term? They may look at it and say, you know, the, the, it looks tight. And that's why I go back to the political that this little bit where if you put or sentence of someone running for president on house arrest or whatever confinement, the country will go crazy. We are a Republic. We are, this is the United States. You don't put someone running for president in jail or house confined about November 26th when we'll know, I mean, whether he's the next president or he is not, or he loses the election. Will there be a sentencing then they will have to make a decision first on the immunity part of this based on the Supreme court's decision that will then be appealed. And then they would probably go to a sentencing. But here's the thing. If he's president, they can't put him in jail at that point. Okay. Because he's got to run the country. Yeah. You know, there's a lot of, a lot of avenues on this one, but I've never seen them say, we don't want to be political now. Yeah. You know, we're, we're within two months of this election. So this obviously would have had a big bearing on it. It may have helped Trump if he was sentenced every single move along the way here, the more he was persecuted by the legal system, the more it helped him. But this one is off the table for now. Judge, always great to see you. Thank you so much for coming. I will see you on the five.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.