Search Posts

It clearly is not fair, and you know, none of this is fair. This whole trial is a make-believe trial in the sense that these are crimes we've never heard of based upon dead misdemeanors, based upon felonies that are federal crimes that are roped into it for which you don't need a unanimous verdict. And the whole thing is just, you know, they tried smoke and mirrors. You know, he must have done something wrong here, so it will be a very difficult task for the jury to try to figure this out. And the defense wasn't even, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, advised what that original crime was that bootstraps this and makes it into a felony. In addition to the fact they don't have to be unanimous about column A, B, or C that involve federal tax crimes and federal election campaign violations.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

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.

to me it was a very difficult day today. I heard a man with a robe instructing a jury that on issues that I know as a former judge exactly as he was were just plain wrong, reversible error. I was stunned at what he brought up and what he said and specifically I refer number one to the fact that we've been talking for weeks, months actually since in this indictment came down is to what is that unknown felony that will be used to resurrect two dead expired misdemeanors. Well that unknown felony is an election law violation according to this judge that is made up of a federal campaign violation of a creation of a false record or of a tax law violation. The Trump defense team didn't know this so they couldn't speak to it and it is a Fifth Amendment requirement that you know the charges against you, that you know it in the indictment in the bill of particulars and discovery in the opening statement and through the testimony. This was and I knew it during the prosecution summation this was clearly it was like a game between the prosecution and the judge where the defense was left out of it and specifically there was they talked about there was no legitimate press function and no one had talked about that during the course of the trial neither side presented evidence as to what a normal legitimate press function was but the jury hears about it from the prosecution in summation. No evidence whatsoever by either side and of course we know that there was no evidence allowed of a federal campaign election campaign violation because the defense was not allowed to put on Brad Smith who was the head of the Federal Election Campaign Commission. So the prosecution put on evidence the defense wants to put on evidence of what an FEC violation truly is and is not allowed to do that and then the defense of advice of counsel was not allowed that's what Trump wanted. This is a kangaroo court you've never heard of anything other than a unanimous verdict in a criminal trial and here's a new one legal expenses are if you report them as as income is a crime I never I wrote it again reporting money as income when its reimbursement is a crime so the judge is saying that itself is a crime no one knew that they could have argued it at the trial but they didn't have the opportunity so I mean those are just some of the issues it was a sad day for me I sat with Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley and Trey Gowdy and Shannon Britton we were all like this is unheard of.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.