Search Posts

I was saddened to watch it. I disagree with this verdict. I think, as I said before, that this case was legally unfounded. When they were reading those guilty verdicts, the one thing that we didn't know is really what he was found guilty of. Because if you remember, the judge allowed the jury to find guilt on any one of three secondary crimes. We weren't told whether the jury found any one of those crimes, whether they found all three of those crimes. I'm not too sure we will know that. That's one of the many issues that I think presents reversible problems in this case. So what I would say is that this is a historic moment. We all have to take a breath. But for those upset by this verdict, remember this remains a country committed to the rule of law. And this is going to go up on appeal. I think it's going to be reversed in the state or federal systems.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Thank you very much. Here we go again. Five weeks. I've been here. I'm gagged. I'd like to answer all of your questions. They're very easy questions to answer, but I'm gagged, so I can't talk as much as I would like to about this ridiculous case that's hurting our country so badly. Some of the reviews from yesterday are the -- and by the way, everyone's against this case, too. I haven't seen one legal scholar or expert in the law say that this case should have been filed. It should not have been filed, or at a minimum it should have been filed seven years ago. Seven years old. Everybody turned it down, including federal elections turned it down. Southern District turned it down. Bragg turned it down. Then he rejuvenated it when I was running for office. It's a terrible thing. At the request of Biden, the editors of the National Review say, "Quit Trump." Bragg has failed to prove his charges. Totally failed. Greg Jarrett. Because all of the stuff came in after the elections. How were they defrauded? And then you say, "What about Hillary with the dossier? What about all of the other things that go?" And this is nothing. This is nothing. But what about all of the corruption, the voter fraud, that you've seen over the last year on behalf of the Democrats, and nobody talks about it? This is ridiculous what they're talking about. This is called running for office. Greg Jarrett. The government, which received full payment on all taxable income. The government, by the way, received full payment. The taxes were paid in full. In fact, they made comment on that. Even if the taxes were paid in full, the federal elections commission that concluded the money paid did not constitute a campaign contribution under the law. And remember, this judge wouldn't allow us. He's a very conflicted judge. Everybody knows that. You don't want to talk about what the conflict was. I'm not allowed to talk about it because of a gag order that he put on me. It's the one subject he really doesn't want to talk about. There was no fraud. There was no conspiracy. It's that simple. Moreover, without a primary crime, there can be no secondary crime. It's a classic lawfare, weaponizing statutes. Because the law has been -- okay, because no law has been broken. There's a jury chair. Elihonic legal analyst for CNN. The crime here is not easy to explain or to understand. It's just not understandable. In other words, there is no crime. This is CNN. Catherine Christian from MSNBC -- I call it MSDNC -- legal analyst. It's difficult because it's a very nuanced argument. It's never been prosecuted before. This is an argument that has never been prosecuted before. And hopefully, it'll never be prosecuted again. Andy McCarthy -- this is anything but standard. It's the antithesis of standard, actually. The idea that they do not have to agree on what the other crime is. We spent six weeks wondering, "What is the other crime? What is the other crime?" And at the end, the thud we all get is this. There's three or four of them, and you could pick one from the other, and they don't have to agree on anything. And what he's saying is it's so -- it's so corrupt. Nobody has ever heard of anything like this. It's called "pick 'em." It's like the latter. You pick 'em. You pick 'em. And you don't have to be -- even though in a criminal case, you have to be unanimous, you don't have to be -- just give a couple of votes, because the judge, unfortunately, is corrupt. Judge Jeanine Pirro, no one has heard of this. It's like it's a menu column A, B, or C. You don't have to agree on it. This is a kangaroo court. This is unheard of. I've never seen anything like it. I've done this for 32 years. I'm not a federal prosecutor or a state prosecutor, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm not a federal judge. I'm a county judge, just like Russia. This is New York law. This is my wheelhouse. He is 100 percent wrong. He's wrong. That's what Jeanine Pirro, a very good woman, very smart woman -- Jonathan Turley. This is becoming a three-card Monty game on "Where is the Crime?" Smart guy. "Where is the Crime?" Mike Davis. The U.S. would sanction a country for doing this. I think that's good. I think that's good. Steve Hilda seems that every single day, these proceedings go on. The judge and the prosecutor just go out of their way to prove Trump's a point. And I guess he is -- I think I'll prove him my point when you think -- that's why I -- I write some of these things that are very sad. Mark Levin, this Stalinist-like case -- he's a Stalinist-like case -- it has prevented President Trump from running for office. It has prevented him from campaigning. He's unable to campaign because he's been in a courthouse for five weeks. And yet, we just had a ball came out -- NPR. Trump's 54. Biden's 42. And that's with independents. That's the best we've ever had. They said this is the single-best ball that Trump has ever had with independents. Trump's largest lead among independent voters -- NPR, Marist College -- 44-28. And Junior is way down -- way, way down. But it's -- it's -- 44. Junior is extremely liberal. By the way, he's extremely radical left. I think you know that. But he seems to be hurting Biden probably a little bit. So that's it -- it's a disgrace. The millions and millions of dollars that have spent daily on this case -- outside, it looks like it's Fort Knox, like the Guardian -- I've never seen so many police them. Now, with Columbia University, you can plan to tent right in front of the main door, no problem. NYU just put your tent up. Don't worry about it. Over here. But I just want to say that this is a very sad day for America. The whole world is watching. And it's a very sad day for New York. I've gone through two of these trials already. It's a very -- with the same kind of a judge. It's all worked. It's all rigged. The whole thing -- the whole system is rigged. Judge Ann Gordon was overturned five times, in my case, and he's going to be overturned again. And we were treated very, very badly. And the outside world is watching, and the outside world is just not going to bring their business to New York. And that's going to cost the city trillions and the state trillions and trillions of dollars businesses are leaving. And people are fleeing. So, you can see the quotes yourself, and thank you all very much. We'll come in later on in the evening, but we'll be here. It looks like a long time. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Thank you very much. I would say, in listening to the charges from the judge, who's, as you know, very conflicted and corrupt, because of the confliction, very, very corrupt. Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged. The whole country is a mess between the borders and fake elections, and you have a trial like this where the judge is so conflicted he can't breathe. He's got to do his job, and it's not for me that I can tell you. It's a disgrace. And I mean that Mother Teresa could not beat those charges, but we'll see. We'll see how we do. It's a very disgraceful situation. Every single legal scholar and expert said, "This is no case. It shouldn't be brought." And it certainly could have been brought seven years ago, not in the middle of a presidential election. It was all done by Joe Biden. This judge contributed to Joe Biden. And far worse than that, but I'm not allowed to talk about it, because I have a gag order. Far worse than that, by a thousand times worse than that. The worst I've ever heard, but I can't talk about it. It'll be talked about, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. But it'll be talked about in the history books. What's happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody's seen before, ever. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen. So I'll stay around here. This is five weeks. And five weeks are really essentially not campaigning, although I took a big lead in the polls over the last few weeks on -- something's going on. Because I think the people of this country see that this is a rigged deal. It's a weaponized deal for the Democrats to hit their political opponent. For Joe Biden, the worst -- the worst President in the history of the United States, he's destroying our country. He's letting millions of people from jails, from prisons, from Insanus Islands, from mental institutions. Drug dealers pour in. Venezuela, if you look at their crime statistics, they've gunned down 72 percent in crime because they're releasing all their criminals into our country because of this horrible President that we have. And then they have a protest of Robert De Niro yesterday. He's a fool. He was a broken-down fool, standing out there. And he got -- he got maggot. He got maggot yesterday. He got a big dose of it. But I just want to say it's a very unfair trial. It should have never happened. If it was going to happen, it should have happened seven years ago. As you know, Greg didn't want to bring it. The Southern District didn't bring it. The FEC didn't bring it. This judge didn't even let us use the number one election attorney. He's making the rules. He doesn't know anything about elections. He doesn't know anything about voting and vote counts. He doesn't know anything about this stuff. That's not his profession. We had the leading election expert in the country, Brad Smith, ready to testify. I wouldn't let him do it. They wouldn't let another gentleman who represented -- and you know very well, you saw it. It was the worst I think I've ever seen and it would treat it on a stand. Bob Costello wouldn't let him talk about all of the hundreds of emails that he was sent by a gentleman, another gentleman who I can't mention because I'm -- I'm gagged. Every time I speak to you, you ask me simple questions. I'm not allowed to give you the answer because I'm gagged by this judge. But we have a very, very serious problem here. I mean, our country is going bad. And remember -- and let me just leave you with this. This is all because of Joe Biden and his -- and I don't even think it's him. I don't think he's smart enough to think about it. But it's the people that surround him in the office. They're smart. They're fascists. They're communists. But they're smart. And they're ruining our country. But we're going to win this election. November 5th is going to be the most important day in the history of our country. We're going to take back our country from these fascists and these thugs that are destroying us with inflation and with everything they do, how stupid they are, allowing 15, 16, 17 million people into our country, totally unvented, totally unchecked. We're going to bring back our nation November 5th. Remember, the most important day in the history of our country. In the meantime, this trial is rigged. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Welcome to this special edition of Hannity. I'm Pete Hegseth in for Sean. While the anti-Trump kangaroo court in New York City was not in session today, and won't be back until after the long Memorial Day weekend, pro-Biden Judge Juan Marchon is more than happy to drag this out. It's his time to shine, after all. Unfortunately, for Marchon and other Trump-hating Democrats across the country, the prosecution's case is a disaster. But that's, of course, not stopping Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist from the Bronx, from openly fantasizing about keeping Trump in a box. Watch. Not to make a point, like most communists, AOC loves the thought of turning the justice system against her political opponents, of course. Not making a point, he's got an ankle bracelet. AOC is now particularly unnerved because Trump is set to host a massive political event in her district. Tomorrow, the former president will hit the campaign trail where? In the Bronx. No Republican since Ronald Reagan has won New York. But according to polls, Donald Trump now has a real chance. Biden is up by just single digits in New York in a new CNN college poll. Needless to say, Americans with Trump derangement syndrome, they are panicking. This includes the disgraced former FBI director Jim Comey, who is begging Americans to vote for Joe Biden. Watch. When you think about a second Trump administration, what do you think the implications would be for the FBI? Oh, serious, for the Justice Department and the FBI, because Trump is coming for those institutions. He knows their power, and I think he has regrets that he didn't work hard enough to corrupt them last time. So he's coming for them, and that's a danger for all Americans. This election matters because of a reason like that. People have to participate. You cannot sit on the sideline. I don't care how you feel about Joe Biden. You must vote for him because the consequences on the other side are too severe. According to Jim Comey, holding government bureaucrats accountable is a threat to America, of course. Thankfully, Jim is no longer with the FBI thanks to Donald Trump. Here with reaction, Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Greg, did the socialists from the Bronx just sort of admit what the entire trial is actually all about? It's a virtual ankle bracelet. That's what they want. He's forced to campaign here because we're keeping him here. Absolutely. Sometimes I truly wonder how AOC manages to think with that brain of hers. She essentially has admitted that this case against Donald Trump is election interference and brazen lawfare, and I pity her Bronx constituents have only become poorer and some of them poverty stricken during Sandy's tenure while she's yucking it up with a fancy gala's inexpensive gown. The point of Trump's rally in the Bronx is to underscore just how Bidenomics has ruined these people's lives, but AOC is the woman who said, "Oh, unemployment is low because everybody has two jobs." Pete, that is some kind of stupid. Sure is, Pam. She wants to deride it as there's no point, but there very much is a point. She has to be smart enough to know that it's a generational politician in the Republican Party that could venture into the Bronx and gather a crowd that Joe Biden couldn't, a Democrat in that place. She definitely is making a point and she definitely knows that, just can't say it. Oh, she sure does, Pete. It's her hometown. She's born in the Bronx. She couldn't draw her high school class to come out and see her. Yet Donald Trump leaves New York yesterday after a grueling day in court, flies to Texas today, holds two multi-million dollar fundraisers. Last month in Palm Beach raised over 50 million dollars, the largest fundraiser ever, and in April almost doubled by 25 million dollars with the Democrats raised. So she can't handle it. Now he's flying back to hold a fundraiser, excuse me, a rally in the Bronx, a rally. I was in New York yesterday, people everywhere, all they're talking about is going to the rally tomorrow night to support President Trump. I can't wait to see how crowded it is. It's going to be something to see, no doubt. Check it out on the Fox News channel.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

here with more fox news contributor jonathan turley is with us why do i doubt you get together with like-minded uh lawyers and say well what are we going to say about trump today why do i doubt that ever happened in your life ever he's you're an independent thinker well i've well i've never been so happy not to be invited somewhere so i i think that this is a mutual decision on both parties uh but you know look no matter how much they talk about it you can't make a sousier into a silk purse and that's what this trial is it's getting more and more embarrassing uh you know today they suggested there was a second crime another dead misdemeanor that they're zapping back into life uh he's saying that uh trump illegally conspired to promote his own election and it's it's you sort of get your mind around that uh even if everything that they stated is proven to be true factually all of the uh the payment of the the non-disclosure agreement uh the recording of it in this way that's not being really that contested because all of that can be true and there would still be no crime and that's what has left many of us mystified that the judge is letting this get by because we still don't see that legal linchpin the judge seems to be shrugging and saying well it's close enough for jazz let's go ahead and let it go to the jury when most of us don't see a crime here well let me look at this you have called this and an embarrassment you say you're in utter disbelief uh this case never should have been brought uh alan dershowitz uh andy mccarthy i mentioned the new york times op-ed mark levin greg jarrett and and i watched i listened very closely to the opening arguments they keep talking about a conspiracy to commit they talk about election fraud election interference all these big buzzwords none of which donald trump has even been been charged with in this case and i'm sitting there thinking beyond the fact the statute of limitations are gone beyond the fact that the judge donated to the biden campaign and there are questions about whether or not he should have recused himself i believe he should have uh beyond the fact that this is eight years old beyond the fact that the doj law that they're now relying on because new york state statutes don't cover this it's only a misdemeanor uh even in that case biden's doj passed on charging donald trump because they didn't think it was applicable you know how are we here and it's an it's a venue that is not friendly to donald trump you could still get a guilty verdict out of this jury that's scary to me it is scary and it is very much in the play here that i think that bragg is hoping the jury will not look beyond the identity of the defendant because you know the fact is they're saying well you shouldn't have listed this as a legal expense all right what is he supposed to list it as what if he put down nuisance payment what if he put down settlement of personal embarrassment would that really convert this to a non-crime there wasn't a crime here because this wasn't a federal campaign contribution the department of justice as you noted did not see that as a criminal act they did not charge that and so once again you get back to the role of the judge here that we're going through a trial that seems desperate to find a crime but you can't even get that from the indictment or the opening statements the fact that we had to wait for the opening statements for bragg to even fully articulate what his theory was shows how weak this case really is and it's only that weakness is only becoming more and more evident every day but okay but but what what i see them trying to do and correct me if you think i'm wrong i see that they're trying to muddy the waters they're using a lot of loaded terms about donald trump uh they sound like they're trying to make this into the crime of the century there's no applicable law and now you've now the defense has to explain all of that to mostly non-lawyers that are on a jury there are two lawyers apparently on the jury so my question is well what would you say to donald trump's attorneys how would you argue the smoke and mirrors that they keep throwing up and where are the objections i'd like to see more objections well they're going to have to keep on hammering away to this jury that it's not a question of proving facts that are lawful it's like saying we're going to approve we're going to show you he drove 55 miles an hour down the highway well you're allowed to do that right so they're setting up all of these factual claims that can be proven because they're largely not denied this the really reversible error in this case may come down to the instructions and how the judge tries to put this together for the jury because at some point he's got to inform the jury that there's nothing unlawful about an nda there's nothing this is not a federal campaign contribution in the view of the federal government but to make those legal issues clear is to disassemble this case so we a lot is going to be sort of unfolding here but i think the trump team has done a very good job so far in bringing that out and we're going to be looking at some major fireworks in the next few days you know when when you put cohen on the stand you're going to have a truly circus-like environment i mean you've got someone who a judge just recently denounced as a serial perjurer and he's going to get on the stand and he's going to be the star witness yeah and and you have a biden donating uh perhaps conflicted judge that should have been recused or should have recused himself uh which obviously would be an issue upon appeal but any appeal may happen after the election that that doesn't help. Jonathan Turley, thank you, we appreciate it.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.