Search Posts

Elections are one of the ballot box not in the courtroom, but this year Trump might win in both

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

- All right, let's bring in Fox News legal analyst, Greg Jarrett. So Greg, it's finally gonna happen. How many days do you think this will take to get 12 jurors and six alternates? - Could take as long as 10 days, maybe two weeks, but it's really up to the judge to limit the amount of wadir, the questioning of the jurors and move forward. But I must tell you, I've never seen such a tangled, torturous prosecution that would be brought against no other person except Trump. It's punitive, it's politically driven, brag, contorting the law, taking a business record, misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations, and magically inflating it into 34 felonies, as Eric Sean pointed out. To do that, he had to attach it to a supposed election law violation. Well, it's not. Federal Election Commission investigated, and they said this is perfectly legal. It is not a campaign donation. The DOJ concluded there's no crime here, but enter Alvin Bragg, who's charging under federal law, even though he's a local prosecutor and has no jurisdiction and authority to do that, but the judge is letting him get away with it. - So I just gotta stay on that point about the judge, because Michael Avenatti, who's no former, no fan of the former president, had this to say on Twitter. He talked about the DA encouraging Cohen and Daniels to go out there and do media interviews, and then he followed it up by this. He said to my friends on the left, who insist that they want to preserve democracy and justice, you should be equally outraged by this. Constitutional protections either exist for including the former president, or they don't exist at all. What is happening in this hush money case is a travesty. So if you got Michael Avenatti, who has spent his career, now he's on the other side of justice, trying to take down Donald Trump, saying that the judge is not being fair right here when it comes to a gag order. How can the former president expect a fair trial? - Well, a gag order is a clear violation of the First Amendment, but judges get away with it, because by the time it's challenged on appeal, the case is over. But this case is also something else, a classic example of unequal justice in selective prosecution. Hillary Clinton did pretty much the same thing. She too used a lawyer to secretly pay for the phony Steele dossier and booking it as legal expenses. She was fined by the FEC, but she wasn't prosecuted, and neither was Barack Obama, even though he was fined a whopping $375,000 for hiding donors and keeping illegal contributions. But if your last name is Trump, the standard of justice is completely different and turned on its head. - You're right, it's a double standard. Greg, let's talk about there, the prosecutor's star witness. It's Michael Cohen, he used to be Trump's lawyer exactly. We chuckle because he's flip-flopped so many times in the past, we don't know what to believe. He's been in prison for federal charges himself. So here is a reminder of what he has said, 'cause he told the grand jury a year ago, his goal was to tell the truth. But what is the truth? He flip-flops, listen. - I will be in DC and in New York, anywhere Mr. Trump deems necessary. I'll be there. I did not want to go to the White House. I was offered jobs. Not only is Donald Trump not a racist, he believes that all people are part of one race, the human race. I know what Mr. Trump is. He is a racist, he is a con man, and he is a cheat. The words the media should be using to describe Mr. Trump are generous, compassionate, principled, empathetic, kind, humble, honest, and genuine. He is capable of behaving kindly, but he is not kind. He is capable of committing acts of generosity, but he is not generous. He is capable of being loyal, but he is fundamentally disloyal. - Greg, how can this be the star witness? - You know Cohen, who is never much of a lawyer, is good, it seems, at only one thing, lying prodigiously. You know, Bragg's theory in this case is, well, Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance crimes, so Donald Trump must be guilty, too. Well, that's not the law. The plea of one person does not determine the guilt of another. It's not even admissible evidence at trial. And Cohen gratuitously pled guilty to a non-crime, just a curry favor with the feds in exchange for leniency for as many other crimes, including fraud. But get this, recently in court, he recanted what he stated in his sworn plea deal, which means he either again committed perjury in the plea itself, or perjury in his recent court testimony, and that prompted the judge to call Michael Cohen a serial perjurer. I can't imagine any objective juror believing anything he has to say. Any half-decent defense attorney will utterly destroy Cohen from cross-examination and expose his litany of lies. All right. Thanks, Craig. Appreciate it.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.