Search Posts

legal analyst, Greg Jarrett, former Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz. Let's go to the Trump issue first. Professor, we know the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of presidential immunity. We know in this case that evidence was presented to that jury, Hope Hicks, for example, testimony given in that case directly tying Donald Trump to the time he was in the office. That case on every measure should be thrown out, a novel legal case, statute of limitations long gone for a legal NDA that was labeled an NDA and put together by a lawyer for the president. Well, this is a slam dunk for appeal, which is exactly why Greg doesn't want it to go to appeal. He wants to campaign for office next year with the scalp of Donald Trump saying, "I have him. I have him convicted by a jury. He wants to make sure when he serves as president, he's always referred to by CNN as a president who was convicted by a jury." This is an attempt to circumvent the appellate process. It's illegal. It's unethical. It's unconstitutional. It's immoral. And my advice to the Trump lawyers is if Marshawn says he's going to put this sentencing off for four years, immediately file a writ of mandamus to the appellate courts. It's a very, very appropriate writ because the writ of mandamus is designed to get review when you can't get an appeal. And here, by denying him the right to be sentenced right now, they're denying him the right to appeal because under New York law, you can't appeal until you have a final judgment. And a final judgment means a sentence. So this is an attempt to circumvent the law. It's an attempt to put Greg above the law. And I think the courts will hold him responsible and will do the right thing and reverse this conviction on appeal. Do you agree with that, Greg Jarrett? Or maybe just let the judge sentence Donald Trump, then go through the appeals process while he is president. Sure. Well, we just don't know what he's going to do. But I do agree that delaying the Trump case for four years is ludicrous. It's an insult to justice and it violates state law, by the way, that requires sentencing within 12 months from conviction. The dilemma for Trump's lawyers is that they cannot appeal all of Mershawn's chronic reversible errors at trial until there is, as the professor points out, an adjudication. Well, that happens at sentencing. They can, however, immediately appeal if Mershawn denies the motion to dismiss on the immunity claim. If the judge refuses to rule, and that's what he's doing right now, they should seek a writ of mandamus from a higher court, force him to do his job, for goodness sakes. But also the defense still has pending a petition to remove the case to federal court where it belongs, because this was always an incoherent prosecution. It should never have been brought. Bragg manipulated the law, transforming misdemeanors into phantom felonies. He claimed it influenced the election. Well, guess what? The transactions happened after the election. And it's not a crime to conceal a perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement. People do it every day. So in the end, the conviction will never stand up. Mershawn and Bragg know it. That's why they want to delay the inevitable. All right, I'll stay with you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.