Search Posts

Let's bring in Fox News, legal analyst now, Greg Jarrett, to talk about this. Greg, good morning to you. Good morning, Steve. Okay, so court adjourned on Friday. I know the judge told the jurors, "Okay, I don't want you reading about this case. I don't want you talking to anybody about this case." So what they're doing is they're playing over in their heads what they heard last week and put yourself on the jury. If you were one of those jurors who heard what you heard, what's your headline today? Well I think the jurors could be forgiven for wondering, "Where's the crime?" Because nothing in the courtroom last week dealt with the actual charges. None of the witnesses actually testified about any relevant crime recognized by law. Instead, it was sort of this weird kabuki theater or theater of the absurd, Steve. I mean, David Pecker, who ran the National Enquirer, was on the witness stand most of the week. He told us what we already knew, that tabloid was sleazy, promoting and killing stories. But Steve, that's not a crime. Paying people for their silence is not a crime. Influencing an election is not a crime either. That's what campaigns are designed to do. Yet Alvin Bragg's legal minions in court keep using the words "conspiracy" and "fraud." Well Trump hasn't been charged with that, so this hair-brained prosecution is exactly what Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch warned about during the immunity hearing last week. Prosecutors misusing the criminal law to target political opponents. To your point about, in describing this, we've been describing it as a hush money trial. It wasn't the hush money for Karen McDougal, the playboy playmate, it was Stormy Daniels. But Stormy Daniels really didn't come up much last week, so you've got to figure out, okay, they're setting the table, because you guys worked in a linear fashion, you're going to introduce people to her, McDougal, and then you bring in the banker, you bring in Rona, his former personal assistant, and then you go from there. At what point do they start bringing up Stormy Daniels? Well I would imagine they have to at some point in time. I mean, McDougal was irrelevant and prejudicial. It was the introduction of similar bad acts, which is exactly what led to the reversal of Harvey Weinstein sex crime cases, and yet this judge is allowing that sort of evidence. You know, the goofiest part of this prosecution, Steve, is that Bragg claims Trump falsified private business records to influence an election, but look at the indictment, all of the alleged bookkeeping offenses happened in 2017, after the 2016 election. It's a pretty neat trick to unlawfully influence an election after it occurred. Lots of details, that's why we've got you to talk about it each and every day of the trial and before. Greg, thank you very much for joining us live. My pleasure, Steve. Thanks. You bet.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.