Search Posts

communist show trial. You know, even North Korea, even the former Soviet Union, went to a greater length to create the pretense of fairness that is being seen with this Biden donor judge in this courtroom. He ruled that the jurors do not need even to agree among themselves, not even a majority of them, forget unanimity, need to agree among themselves as to the crime that Donald Trump is alleged to have committed. And of course, we know the reason for this, which is that they want to avoid addressing the fact, we've discussed this at length, Eric, before, but it bears repeating, that the central allegation, unproven, can't be proven, that Donald Trump violated campaign finance law is an impossibility. Because the long standing universally understood definition of campaign finance law is that you must use private funds for private matters like a legal returner, like a settlement dispute, anything to do with your corporation, private business, private family. So Donald Trump, even if you believe in the allegations that the prosecution has put forward, which of course, our bunk, is still completely innocent of a campaign finance violation. >> So Stephen, but allow me, I don't want to cut you off, but this is so important because there are a lot of times people are charged with several different things during a trial, during a case. And if the jury can't come to unanimity on a single charge, the charge has to be thrown out, not guilty of secondary degree murder, not guilty of third degree murder. >> And there's no system in the civilized world, in civil litigation anywhere, where less than a majority is required to agree on what the crime is. The idea that less than a majority would need to agree that he committed the campaign finance violation is such an affront to our system of justice, to our constitution, to the rule of law. And here's another point on this. You may remember, the defense was prevented and precluded from presenting expert testimony that Donald Trump never could be construed to a violated campaign finance law for the reasons that I said. They wanted to call as an expert witness, Brad Smith, the former head of the FEC, which administers campaign finance law in this country. They were precluded from bringing him to testify as to what campaign finance law actually is. But the prosecution was allowed in his closing arguments to say without rebuttal and without evidence that Donald Trump broke campaign finance law. So the judge has doubly stacked this. On the one hand, he's prevented the defense from offering any exculpatory evidence, presenting the jury with any information about the actual long-standing meaning of campaign finance law. And at the same time, he's lowered the threshold for the jury to 12 of you just need to agree that some crime somewhere has been committed, that you want a guilty verdict, but you don't even have to agree what it is. This is one of the saddest days in the history of American jurisdiction.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Joining us now, Saul Weisenberg, former deputy independent counsel and Fox News contributor, Saul Fannie Willis spoke at a church over the weekend and said, "The scripture people keep sending me is 'no weapon formed against you shall prosper,' but just because they don't prosper, it doesn't mean they won't form, even if you feel like everything you're doing in your life is the right thing." So Fannie is the victim, it looks like here, Saul Weisenberg. Well, this is very serious. This is the second time she has made extrajudicial statements that are likely to affect the outcome of the case. It's totally unethical. It's a valid ground, I think, to have her taken off the case and to have the case dismissed. Now the much worse thing she did was several weeks ago when she appeared at the oldest African American church in Atlanta and said that her, the defense attorneys opposing her were racist. That is unquestionably unethical. It's tainting a jury pool that overwhelmingly elected her, and why aren't more people talking about this? Why aren't, I'm only aware of one person in the mainstream media who has commented upon this and condemned it, so it's very disturbing. Oh, Saul, on this New York Letitia James case and the judge, Arthur Angaron, judgment. It took my breath away when I first saw it on Friday. This is an effort to drive him not only out of New York, but out of business. And that message to other entrepreneurs or business people in New York is? Don't screw with the UNO party, and it's not just political candidates, though they're the most in danger. Any really truly radically conservative candidate is in great danger by this kind of activity. All you need is a biased, result-oriented judge and a DA who actually runs on indicting you. But really, anybody is at risk, any business that runs afoul of the progressive orthodoxy, it can be on any of the hot button social issues. So I think it's going to have a real effect. It's real, should be very embarrassing to the state of New York. And again, I can't emphasize it enough. She ran on a platform of getting Trump and then oversaw the case, totally improper in my view. All right, former prosecutor Andrew Weissman, along with other far left prosecutors are out circling the wagons for Judge Angaron, watch. This is really a decision that will cause a lot of pain, not just because of the number, but because of the way in which the company is restricted going forward. So a very, very severe decision. So they want Trump to not be able to move freely, even in his own companies. They have a minder in his company. They've barred him from having anything to do with it for three years. His sons, you know, they're obviously severely restricted as well. I have never in my life witnessed anything like this when there is actually no victim and when the banks, as a good friend of mine mentioned me over the weekend, did their own due diligence on these loans. There's no loss. The judge crows about that in the opinion. He says, really, you don't need it under this statute. And what he's doing is he is disgorging ill-gotten gains by Trump, allegedly ill-gotten gains. But if there's no financial loss by anybody, if people like Deutsche Bank testify we wanted to do business with them, we did our own due diligence, how can there be improper gain to be disgorged? And as for Mr. Weissman, he's an expert on prosecutorial overreach. As you know, it's almost unheard of. You really have to be pathetic to have a judge mention your Brady violation in an opinion. And that is what happened with him several years ago when he was a prosecutor. So, yeah, so any chance we get to bring that up is a good night for me. It's all thanks so much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.