Search Posts

I think much depends on the closing argument. The element of the alleged crimes were never proven in this case. Business records were not false. They were accurate. Trump had no involvement. There's no evidence. He willfully violated election laws, and no laws were even broken. Plus it's factually impossible to influence an election after it's over yet. That's how the indictment reads. Even if Trump knew about the Stormy Daniels NDA, so what? That's not unlawful, so I come to the basic question, Pete, where is the crime? It's nowhere. This is what I call a Bigfoot case. It's a trial in search of an imaginary crime.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Greg Jarrett. All right, Greg, let's start with the fact that they're trying to, the Trump team is trying to dismiss the Florida documents case. Where's that going to go? Well, as I said on the day of the FBI raid, the retention of documents, Steve, by a former president is not a criminal case. It's a civil matter. It's governed exclusively by the Presidential Records Act. So if the government wants records returned, the proper remedy is a civil court action, not a criminal indictment. That's in fact how it was handled in the Bill Clinton case at the time. The DOJ argued an ex-president can keep whatever he wants and a federal judge agreed with that. But here because it's Trump, Biden's attorney general and the special counsel reversed course. They renounced their longstanding position and they went after Trump criminally, even though he had declassification authority while president, which by the way, Joe Biden didn't have when he removed documents.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

these developments. Trump's legal spokeswoman Alina Haber is with us. Alina your reaction to that. My reaction is probably like most human beings with any decency and soul to joke about an assassination of a former president and leading candidate is deranged. It's sick and it should be handled appropriately as it goes to Fannie Willis. I just if those allegations are true Sean and I have a lot to say about this. That is so disturbing on so many levels. Number one for the constituents of the state of Georgia that your taxpayer dollars are subsidizing her boyfriend who is now teamed up with her to persecute and prosecute Trump for the American people that when I thought we really couldn't get any lower when I thought we really couldn't attack him anymore with literally no self-respect and dignity we have this. We have a woman who's now bringing in quadruple ten times what she's making whatever the number is and then vacationing on taxpayer dollars and then in their spare time talking about going after Trump you know you shared the very devastating news Sean about Melania's mom and I have had the pleasure of meeting her and her husband and I think we all have to remember as human beings as Americans Democrats Republicans this is a human being and we all have family and when you lose a loved one you are still a person and I think the American people forget that Donald Trump is a person with a family who is fighting the fight but also has real life happening and I would just like to remind everybody to hug everyone and that you love and send my condolences to the Trump family tonight. A lot of people like to speculate you know about well maybe she's not at this event or that event my understanding is she's been personally taking care of her mom for a long period of time now just she's been doing it quietly and and she's a private person and she'd ever write to do so but back to this issue so that's right so so here you have it sounds like that the DA's office in Georgia they're hiring outside counsel they're paying them outside counsel fees and as a result that is funding a lifestyle that benefits in this case the district attorney that's going after Donald Trump I would imagine that on some level that she's compromised what does that mean for you know the quote RICO case which I never quite understood. It's unbelievable I've always said it Sean I know you've said it they'll accuse him of the things they are doing themselves and that is the case right here it's a perfect example it says it all if this is true if she really was using taxpayer dollars to funnel vacations and then go after Trump completely disregarding ethics completely prosecuting it's called selective prosecution you are going after someone as a target and then teaming up with your friends the only RICO I see is the RICO with the DA's and AG's that is happening the conspiracy is not a conspiracy at all we have Soros backed and other funders that we've seen that are backing these individuals and they are coordinating they are profiting and they are becoming famous and politically their agenda is all the same get Trump that is the only RICO case I see here that is the only RICO case the facts are to the truth Donald Trump has done nothing wrong and they have intentionally done this and waiting to interfere with an election because they can't beat him in the polls. What about the issue of the immunity case going before three judge panel arguments held earlier today at times based on reports I read it almost seemed to go off the rails asking what if the president instructs SEAL team six to kill innocent people you know would the president be acting in his capacity as the president of the United States would they have immunity that seemed to go off the rails I understand two of the three judges a three judge panel were Biden appointed judges that's that's correct I've actually been in front of a judge in New York and been asked the same question on the Michael Cohen case I won that case on immunity it's hypotheticals that do not currently exist because the real facts are so easy to win that we have to now argue the slippery slope argument of if he kills someone will be held accountable he didn't kill anyone he didn't cause an insurrection he didn't get charged for it but they're using hypotheticals to frighten America this is a slam dunk case he should have him absolute immunity and presidential immunity you know it was Ted Cruz who said earlier in the show democracy and jeopardy that's that's Joe Biden's big campaign slogan but they're the people that don't want Donald Trump to even be on the ticket citing insurrection which he's never been charged with makes no sense Alina thank you

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Because of Joe Biden, I spent a lot of time in courts -- federal, state, city. And tomorrow, I'll be attending another Biden- inspired federal appeals court argument on presidential immunity in Washington, D.C. Of course, I was entitled as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief to immunity. I'm entitled to immunity. Every president has immunity, especially one that did the job I did. I did a great job. And I wasn't working for myself; I was working for the country. I wasn't campaigning. The election was long over. Wasn't campaigning. I was looking for voter fraud -- something that I have to do under my mandate. I have to look for voter fraud. And I was finding it -- tremendous amounts of voter fraud in the 2020 election. We have volumes of information. It's all there. And I was doing my job, which I had to do. And it's my obligation to do. And otherwise, running our country and running it well. We didn't have Russia going into Ukraine. We didn't have Israel under attack. We didn't have China talking every day about going into Taiwan. We didn't have inflation. We had a great economy. If I don't get immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden doesn't get immunity. And all of the things he's done to allow the border invasion -- millions and millions of people coming into our country, many from prisons, jails, mental institutions, insane asylums, many terrorists coming into our country -- that's really allowing insurrection and come into a situation where he allowed the surrender to Afghanistan. We surrendered -- the United States of America surrendered to Afghanistan, where we gave them $85 billion worth of free. The best military equipment anywhere in the world left thousands of hostages behind, and they were American hostages behind. Still there, many of them. And 13 dead soldiers and many soldiers so badly hurt. This is gross incompetence. We did a surrender in Afghanistan. Nothing's ever been so embarrassing in the history of our country. Also, the millions and millions of dollars that went into Joe Biden's pockets with money from foreign countries like Russia, Afghanistan, China, many others. I mean, Joe would be ripe for indictment. So you're saying that Trump shouldn't get immunity? But Joe Biden would. I didn't do anything like he did. I ran a great country. This guy has gotten $3.5 million from the mayor of Moscow's wife. What's that all about? And that's the least of it. One of the reasons he's so soft on China is because he received a lot of money from China and he's afraid to do anything about it or say anything because he knows he's afraid to say we have a Manchurian candidate in Joe Biden. We have to get him out by weaponizing the DOJ against his political opponent, me. Joe Biden has opened a giant Pandora's box. As president, I was protecting our country and doing a great job of doing so. And the historians will be saying that. They already are. But just look around at the complete mess that crooked Joe Biden has caused. He's the worst president in the history of our country by far. He's also the most corrupt president. The least I'm entitled to is presidential immunity, just like any other president would get. I'd be the only one that they would even consider not giving me immunity, because for whatever reason, people are angry that I've done such a good job and I've replaced people that were corrupt, that were supposed to be president. So take on the fake Biden indictments. They're all Biden indictments. These aren't indictments, as we say, like God coming down from heaven and saying you did something wrong. These were indictments given and pushed by Joe Biden. And he told his DOJ to do it. Don't believe anything else. He told his DOJ to do it. Go and indict him because he's losing badly in the polls, so badly that he figures this is the only way that he can win. The only problem is that thus far it's pushed us way up in the polls, higher than anybody's ever been, actually, because people see it's a scam and they see it's a persecution and they don't like it when it comes to anything, but certainly not when it comes to a president. They're running a political campaign in a dirty way, even worse than they did previously. And frankly, it's never happened in our country before. It only happens in third world countries or banana republics. They're using their Department of Injustice to go after his political appointment. And this is all him, 100 percent him. He's the one that told him to do it and they obey his orders. It's a shame. Never happened in the United States before, but it's happened now. And he has to be careful because that can happen to him also. The next president, whoever that may be, has a statute of limitations that go back six years. That's a long time, Joe. You have to be very careful. We have to guard and protect our country. We have to do what's right for our country. You don't indict your political opponent because he opposes the corrupt election, which you know was corrupt. Everybody knows it was corrupt. The American public knows it was corrupt. You don't indict your political opponent. Thank you very much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Welcome back, America. We're here with one of the great civil rights criminal defense lawyers of our time, David Shone. He also represented President Trump in one of the impeachment cases. You're familiar with him. David Shone, I want to talk about Judge Chunken for a moment. I've made the case that this setting the date on March 4th violates the Sixth Amendment, effective representation by counsel. There's 12.8 million pages of documents. You have five months to prepare. Even the feds couldn't say that they've ever had a case where five months was enough. And this is a very complex case. You have a lot of questions that are raised for the first time, complexity involving a former president, motions, filings. She also sets the date one day before Super Tuesday, the most important date in the election cycle in the Republican primary. She also jumps the line, jumps in front of the first case that's in Florida with Judge Cannon, who already set her trial date for May. And I'm sure that's created a lot of chaos down there on the other case. My argument, David Shone, is she's doing this. She wants a Democrat jury. She wants at least one conviction on one of the counts. So, Donald Trump is walking around with a scarlet letter. Convicted felons are the likes of Chris Christie and others, as well as Democrats can say, well, he's a convicted felon. What's your take on this? Well, I think we've seen just that sort of thing in some of her words. In other words, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. She has made clear that this is only, this is going to be treated like every other case for every other defendant and she won't cow-tow to election concerns and that sort of thing very defensively. Of course, it's not like any other case. There's a great public interest. The government spoke about a public interest in a speedy trial rather than the defendant's interest in a speedy trial. There's a greater public interest here in the election and the democratic process and letting that democratic process run its course. I had a misdemeanor case in this same district set for eight months in the future, not this kind of schedule. This schedule is outrageous. Nobody could prepare in this timeframe, certainly not these lawyers. It's once more, unfortunately, the political process reaching another branch of government where it has no place. And I earlier read what the code of professional conduct is for judges and this would seem to me to violate it in multiple ways. That's number one. Number two, she says it's like any other case, whether it's athletes or anything else. And yet the Department of Justice for several decades, Democrat and Republican attorneys generals have issued memos in March of election years specifically saying this is not like any other case. You better make sure that when you conduct investigations that you do not interfere with a campaign and they go further. You're not to charge people before a campaign unless you get a sign off by the attorney general of the United States himself. But they give warning after warning after warning that this is different, that you are not supposed to use the criminal justice system to affect an election. Yet we have a prosecutor and a judge who are doing exactly that. No? Yeah. Well, I don't think you got the most recent memo, which was if Trump is involved, ignore all previous memos for every other election. No, you're a hundred percent right. In my view, it violates the fifth and the sixth amendment rights. There's no possible way you hit on the most important one, the effective assistance of counsel, but also due process, all of the fair trial rights, the right to compel witnesses. He can't even sort out who the witnesses would be. They don't know what the exculpatory evidence would be. And the prosecutor said, well, they streamlined things and they've gone through and made it easier. It's not for the prosecutor to decide what evidence the defense finds most important. The defense has to do the painstaking work of going through the evidence. Listen, I've had experience with two members of a couple of members of this Mr. Smith's team. And especially in this DC process, I have right now a sanctions motion going against JP Cooney, the lead fellow in this case, and Molly Gaston in another case in this district, we're awaiting a hearing because of their outrageous government misconduct. And in that case, the judge said he's very concerned about their misconduct and he's concerned that they don't seem to be concerned, but we haven't had the hearing yet. So Trump is a speedy trial on behalf of the government, not on behalf of the defender or the public. Let's make that clear. And you have a matter before one of these judges in the same district and they can't seem to get around to it, right? Right. I've got a case actually with judge Chutkin and another judge in this district, Judge Walton, both of whom I'm sure in another setting of fine judges, but literally I've had a motion to dismiss and those are civil cases, but important cases with claims hanging over my client's head. And then literally I've had motions to dismiss pending for over three years without any action on them. Well, maybe judge Chutkin can put that in the front of her calendar and work that out. I mean, it's been sitting there for three years. Yeah, this is a railroad job. That's all it is. You're in simple.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.