May 29, 2024 • 31 mins
Mark Brnovich, Former Attorney General of Arizona, talks about how unprecedented the judge’s jury instructions are from start to finish was in the Trump case.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
All right, tell you Scott cha an hour two Sean
Hannity's show toll free on numbers eight hundred nine four one, Sean,
if you want to be a part of the program,
we've been telling you. The jury has made four requests.
Jury instructions given this morning, and they have been deliberating
for a little over four hours and thirty eight minutes,
and they have requested four things. Now the judges suggesting
(00:22):
that they work on the Conan Pecker testimony tomorrow, which,
to be honest, makes a lot of sense considering they
were there late yesterday, and if the judge wants to
stick to the four thirty timetable that he himself set up,
it would probably would be better for them to hear
the instructions and the transcripts before they restart their deliberations.
(00:44):
So it looks like my guess, if the judges suggesting
that they they were now learning that they're suggesting they
work on this tomorrow, that the judge will probably dismissed
the jury for the day. The four questions that are
in testimony David Pecker's testimony about the phone conversation with
Donald Trump, Pecker's testimony about the decision regarding the assignment
(01:07):
of playboy model Karen McDougal's life right, Pecker's testimony about
the twenty sixteen Trump Tower meeting, Michael Cohen's testimony about
the twenty sixteen Trump Tower meeting. What can you glean
from this? What does this mean? I guess it's anybody's guests.
But anyway, the jury is requested to hear these instructions
(01:28):
after the judge denied them a copy of the instructions.
They've now been deliberating over four hours now. Trump's attorney
Todd Blanche looked at Trump gave him a smile as
the second note was handing to the judge from the jurors.
Not sure Trump's team believes the longer it takes, the
(01:48):
better it is for them, because it means people are
disagreeing with each other. Probably a good analysis, but you
got to really listen to everybody that we have ever
interviewed regarding the these cases. You can't read into a
lot of it anyway. Here to help us read into
it anyway, even though it goes against what I just said,
Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, best selling author David
(02:11):
shooncivil writes attorney who previously represented President Trump as well. Gentlemen,
welcome back to the program. Greg, I start with you.
What do you make, if anything, of the request from
the jury and the judge now but the judge now
has officially dismissed the jury. Court resumes at nine point
thirty tomorrow morning.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Your analysis, I think is a good one.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
I mean you could have been called wait, wait, hang on,
can you repeat that. I didn't quite hear you, er,
my friend.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
But you know you chose the wicked path of journalism. Look,
you know there is a temptation to read a lot
into this, but I think you're right. You know, these
jurors seem confused. I mean they're asking to see just
about everything, including jury instructions with the judge wouldn't allow
(03:02):
them to take in the courtroom or in the deliberation room.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Well, I thought there were two jurors that were going
to have it on a computer.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Am I wrong on that?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Matt.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Let me pull up my notes as you're talking here.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
I thought juror number four and during number six, or
hang on a second, I got it right here. All
the evidence from the trial has been uploaded onto the
laptop evidence. Okay, so I stand corrected to myself. Duror
four and Juror six volunteered to operate it for the group.
All the evidence from the trial, in other words, evidence
(03:39):
things that have been presented in as evidence but not instructions.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
You're correct.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
So you know, it looks like they want to see
everything from Michael Cohen to David Pecker, even a part
of the case that really is utterly irrelevant to the charges,
and that's Karen McDougall. And so one is tempted to
draw the conclusion you did, and that is that you know,
as I predicted, this is a jumbled mess that was
(04:10):
presented by Alvin Bragg and his team of partisan prosecutors.
It was like, you know, let's throw spaghetti at the
wall and see what sticks. And you know, I think
they have created an enormous amount of confusion. It's up
to the jurors to try to weigh true the lunacy
in search of the truth.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Let me go to something. You are the first person
to point this out to me. I'm a long time
ago on this. Once this bizarre theory came out that
the judge telling the jurors that you know that there's
no need to agree on what has occurred, and they
can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.
(04:55):
In other words, they can think Donald Trump's guilty for
separate reasons. Reason A, reason be re and C. Four
of them can support reason A but he's guilty, or
could support reason B he's guilty but for a different reason,
and option number CE an entirely different reason. Now you
pointed out, and well, the first to point out to
(05:15):
me that the Supreme Court has been very very clear
in this that they have held that unanimity and jury
verdicts is required under the sixth and seventh Amendments.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
Do you want to expand on that.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Well, the latest case was twenty twenty Ramos versus Louisiana,
and it's a case that every lawyer who tries cases knows.
And basically what Mershan has done here is he has
ripped up Trump's due process rights. He instructed the jury
they need not agree unanimously on which of the three
(05:51):
mysterious secondary crimes that the defendants supposedly committed. So, in
other words, they're free to pick and choose whatever they
like without consensus. How in the world can that be,
Because Unanimous jury decisions are a that rock constitutional principle
derived from the sixth and seventh Amendment, and that requirement
(06:14):
extends not just to the verdict itself, but to all issues,
including every necessary element of an alleged crime. It's an
indispensable feature of jury trials. It's what makes America's system
of justice the envy of the world. But in the
case against Donald Trump, jurors can agree to disagree while
(06:38):
still reaching the ultimate verdict. You know, this is an
Alice in Wonderland case with a mad hatter judge in
which the principles of fairness he has turned upside down.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Well, I keep saying that he's basically drops cinder blocks
on the scales of justice. To say, the prosecution from
a case that was going down the toilet, especially after
the cross examination of Michael Kohne.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
David showing great to have you back.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Let me get your take on the jury requests here,
and what do you read into it of anything?
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (07:17):
Again, I mean your first common was right that we
can't read too much into it. We don't have crystal balls.
But part of it, which Greg alluded to, is it
really shows you why we have a rule a prophylactic
rule against introducing irrelevant evidence. The fact that they're interested
is that Karen McDougall story tells you that you know,
(07:37):
they're considering things that really should ever have been a
part of this trial. And the risk of it is
they consider it to determine whether Whetherdent Trump is guilty
or not guilty, and that's specifically prohibited with respect to
the finding of different alleged crimes. But the most fundamental
problem that we've discussed on here is the indictment is
fatally defective as a constitutional matter for not a leting
(08:00):
what the target crime is. It's a matter of due
process and a bunch of other fair trial rights, and
its New York and the Federal constitution. You can't put
a defendant to trial without knowing what it is the
target crime was supposed to have been. If we're a
tax crime, that's one defense, campaign finance another defense. And
I'll give you an illustration. I mean, the elements of
(08:22):
these alleged crimes. The government came up with a variety
of three originally four. The elements are all technical. What
intent was required for each crime? When you defended the
case all along, did you put in evidence about where
the contribution came from. In case we're really talking about
a campaign contribution crime. I'll tell you why that's irrelevant.
I was looking at a part of the jury instruction
(08:44):
that instructed the jury that at the time of these acts,
the campaign contribution limit was twenty seven hundred dollars. Well,
the theory of the prosecution in this case is that
Trump made a campaign contribution through by paying this money
to his own contribution. The FEC rules are clear that
twenty seven undred dollars limit doesn't apply to a candidate's
(09:05):
own contribution to his own campaign, some of his personal funds.
So what was that jury instruction doing in there?
Speaker 1 (09:11):
It's very well, but I think it's it even goes
deeper than that. He has a lawyer who he pays
on a personal level. It was not part of his administration.
This is post the campaign. Everybody had known about the
Stormy Daniel's issue. It was not new news. I have
the letter from twenty eighteen that Stormy said. I read
(09:32):
it earlier in the last hour. You know, I became
aware news outlets are alleging I had a sexual end
or romantic affair with Donald Trump any many years ago.
And I am stating with complete clarity that this is
absolutely false. This is January twenty eighteen. My involvement with
Donald Trump was limited to a few public appearances and
(09:53):
nothing more. And when I met Donald Trump, he was
very gracious, professional, a complete gentleman to me and everyone
in my presence. And then she also talked about this allegation.
I denied it in two thousand and six, twenty eleven,
twenty fifteen, sixteen, I mean, and now denied it in
twenty eighteen for crying out loud. So I'm trying to understand,
(10:14):
and that she never received She actually says, rumors I've
received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false. So
I mean, it's it's to me, it's pretty damning in
and of itself.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
So what are we talking about here?
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Donald Trump paying his lawyer to go into a legal
nda or you know where is catch and kill illegal?
Speaker 3 (10:35):
When you know Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 1 (10:36):
I would argue it probably was involved in many leaking
of many stories all throughout this.
Speaker 5 (10:43):
Yeah, well the lawyer himself said that the money was
not hush money, It was a settlement all of that. Now,
that's why, you know, as you said all along and
Gregor said there was no crime here. The problem here is,
you know, the judges waited these jury instructions. Are they
going to have special verdict sheets so we know what
crime it is the jurors agreed on was committed here.
It's a farce. It's an absolutely moronic farce.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
What are we to read into the length of time
that the jury deliberates before they come back with either
a note to the judge saying.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
That they.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Just hit a point where they are hung, that they
don't they can't find agreement, or is there a point,
you know, Greg is it?
Speaker 3 (11:27):
You know?
Speaker 1 (11:27):
The judge at that point, I assume, will instruct them
to probably try and go back and solve the differences.
But if they can't come to an agreement in that
in that jury room, this case is over.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
Yeah, I think that's true. The judge will normally introduce
an Allen charge otherwise known as the dynamite charge. Go
back in there and try harder. But you know, I've
seen deliberations stretch on for a couple of weeks. If
the judge believes that they are progressing in earnest it's
(12:00):
constructive that they might actually reach a unanimous decision, then
he continues to encourage them to keep at it. But
you know, I've also seen shorter deliberations in which the
jurors have made it abundantly clear we're deadlocked, we ain't changing,
and it doesn't matter how much time we spend in
(12:22):
the deliberation room. So you know, every case is different.
It tends to be a bit subjective on the part
of the judge. So you know, we'll see how this unfolds.
But I never thought this would be a quick decision
for the reason I stated initially. This is a massive,
(12:43):
massive confusion, jumbled stories, jumbled law, none of it well organized,
and it's you know, spaghetti against the wall.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Let me ask about how the judges handled this case.
In this the idea that the prosecution and closing arguments
was able to over and over and over and over
again claim that the payments were campaign violations, and the
judge allowing that claim to stand uncontradicted. Now, the defense
(13:19):
tried to object, and every objection was overruled by the judge,
and so the judge allowed that. Now that's the example
that I'm referring to when I talk about cinder blocks
on the scales of justice. I think we saw that
when the judge, for example, would not allow even the
(13:41):
testimony of Bradley Smith, who is an expert on FVC law,
why interviewed? Who would have said that there's no crime here?
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Right?
Speaker 4 (13:51):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
I mean, look, there are so many reversible yerrors committed
by this judge you need a calculate later to keep track.
I think that was a mistake by the judge. Equally
was a mistake when the judge said I'm not going
to allow you to discuss the law in closing arguments.
(14:14):
I mean that ranks high on the list of the
most outrageous rulings ever rendered. It's beyond incompetence. It's venal
because obviously what lawyers do is they talk about the
law and the evidence and for the defense how the
evidence doesn't meet the law. Prosecutors argue the exact opposite,
(14:39):
and they know in advance the jury instructions and they
weave it together with the evidence and the facts. In
the case, Judge Marshaun would have none of them, and
it's just evidence of his you know, I think it's incompetence.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Unbelievable times we're living in anyway, David shown Greg, thank
you both appreciate you both being with us eight hundred
ninety four to one. Shawn is on number if you
want to be a part of the program, if you're
just joining us. The jury has been dismissed for the day.
We are on Verdict Watch. Day one is in the books,
but the jury has made now four requests for testimony
(15:17):
former National Inquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about the phone
conversation with Donald Trump, Pecker's testimony about the decision regarding
the assignment of playboy model Karen McDougall's life rights, Pecker's
testimony about the twenty sixteen Trump Tower meeting, and Michael
Cohne's testimony about the twenty sixteen Trump Tower meeting. Why
they would want anything from Michael Cohne, I don't know,
(15:40):
but if you remember Pecker publisher of the National Inquirer
at the time, and he did get a deal with
the prosecution that they wouldn't prosecute him if he testified.
But anyway, he got a phone call from Trump. You're
at an investor meeting. Attorney for Karen McDougall was shot
(16:00):
a story of having had sex with Trump years earlier.
Trump denied it, and this was all part of catch
and kill, which is not illegal. And then Pecker saying
what should I do? I said, I think you should
buy the story and take it off the market. Anyway,
Pecker said, and they had a friendship going back many
years prior. But anyway, Pecker said, Trump described McDougall as
(16:21):
a nice person and said Comb would soon call him.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
Blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Months later, Pecker reached an agreement to transfer McDougall's life
rights to Comb, but the deal fell through after their
general counsel advice against going forward with the transfer. And anyway,
Pecker said to Comb, the assignment deal is off. I'm
not going to forward it. It's a bad idea. I
want you to rip up the agreement, and Coin apparently
(16:45):
had a meltdown. Pecker and Comb both testified about it,
meeting at Trump Tower in twenty fifteen. Pecker said he
was meeting where he agreed to be the eyes and ears,
you know, looking out for any negative stories about Trump.
By the way, not illegal. Anyway, Let's bring in former
Attorney General the Great State of Arizona, Mark Bernovich is
(17:07):
with us, sir, how are you?
Speaker 4 (17:09):
I'm very good, Sean. Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
What do you make of the jury's questions and what
I just read back to you about what took place
in that testimony.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Well, I first and foremost what you said, assuming that
all of that is true, it is not a crime.
And literally there was not one single piece of direct
evidence saying that somehow the former president wanted to falsify
business records, which technically, even though the statuteal limitations has
expired on that, that's supposedly the quomer. Looking at second
(17:40):
thing is I learned a long time ago not to
read too much into jury questions. I mean, there was
a lot of stuff the prosecutors threw against the wall,
and frankly, Sean, I look, I prosecute a gang cases.
I was a federal prosecutor, and great prosecutors, even good prosecutors,
recognize that you want to save and preserve your case
on appeal. But there has been so many errors in
(18:01):
this case from the very beginning with not only the
judge and what the prosecutors themselves argued, and even some
of the testimony they allowed him from story meet Daniels
that really there is no way, no way, even with
an entirely democratic appellate court, this case will withstand any
sort of scrutiny. And to me, as I was listening
today and even these questions, I kept thinking to myself,
(18:24):
this case really is more ridiculous every day. It is
the theater absurd. Think about it.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
As you just said this, By the way, there's no
charge on the McDougall side of this none.
Speaker 4 (18:34):
There was fake news before we even knew it, that event.
And then you had an adult film star who literally
has dedicated her adult life to doing anything for money,
you know, testify and here testimony men may have been
the worst performance of her entire career. And then you
had Robert de Niro get up and do a rant
outside of the courtroom. I literally was expecting today when
(18:55):
those jury questions came in for the judge to bang
the gabble and say live from New York, it's Saturday night,
because I mean, this is really it's like, it's so ridiculous. Objectively,
it frankly is unconscidable, unprecedented, and unconstitutional. And that's what
people need to take away from even those questions today.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Am I wrong in believing that the judge realized that
the prosecution didn't make their case that Michael Cone was
so gutted on cross that he went in for the
save and sent lifeline after lifeline, and we saw that
when he will, you know, severely limited any testimony as
it relates to the law in this case. Bradley Smith,
(19:36):
the former FEC chair who I've interviewed, said there was
no crime committed. The whole meltdown with Bob Costello, who
would have, if it was allowed, would have impeached all
of Donald Trump's test I'm sorry, Michael Cohne's testimony, and
he would have added that he's spent an hour and
a half on the phone with Alvin Bragg and his
team discussing all the evidence that existed that was go
(20:00):
operatory that they would then have an obligation to bring
before the grand jury, and they did not bring before
the grand jury indicting in this case, that is certainly
going to be an avenue of appeal. I think that
they will win. That's my personal point of view. And
then of course leading into jury instructions today which I
found absurd, which is that the jury don't need to
(20:23):
agree on what has occurred. They can disagree. They can
think of crime committed and four people can think it's A,
four can think it's B, and four can think it's C,
and the judge would still treat it as a unanimous
guilty verdict, which I think is outrageous. Now, we just
had Greg jareded on and he pointed out to the
twenty twenty Ramos versus Louisiana case and the Supreme Court
(20:46):
case that has held unanimity in jury verdicts is required
under the six and seventh Amendments. The requirement extends to
all issues, and to find someone guilty, jurors must always
agree without descent, on every necessary element of a purported crime.
That is not the instructions. This judge, who I believe
(21:08):
again is putting cinderblocks on the scales of justice. And
you can correct me if you disagree with me, as
has done in this case. I think sending a lifeline
and a possible you know, if there's a guilty verdict,
I would put the burden on him.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
Well, look, even on who wants to be a millionaire,
you only get three lifelines, right, But I agree with
your analysis Sean, that time after time the judge kept
throwing the prosecutor's lifelines. And to me, as I said,
good prosecutors recognize and realize that you don't want to
get a conviction at any cost your jobs, you justice,
(21:44):
You want to make sure the conviction's upheld on appeal.
But what has happened systematically, even from the very beginning
of some of the testimony, like the testimony from Stormy Daniels,
completely irrelevant, Some of the information that Michael Cohen or
that the prosecutors using closing argument about his conviction completely irrelevant,
highly prejudicial, shouldn't have been allowed. And you can go
(22:04):
through the litany almost every single witness that either testified
or wasn't allowed to testify. As you noted, the former
president's expert really was putting the cinder blocks, the finger,
the fists, whatever you want to call it, on the
scale of justice. And to me, it's just really sad
as someone that's I mean, I've handled thousands, probably thousands
personally criminal cases are in the course of my career,
(22:26):
and I couldn't help but think of the old Stalin
line about you find me a man, and I will
find you to crime. And in the Soviet Union, what
that meant was is that the political establishment, the intelligentsia,
the deep state, whatever you want to call it, that
if you did not agree with them or cow tact
or what they wanted, they literally would enter her career
(22:48):
and you'd find yourself in prison. And to me, I
just keep saying to all my friends that are left
of center or the people that don't like Trump, that
this isn't about Donald Trump. I mean, at the end
when the prosecutors made their closing argument yesterday, they started
talking about if you find that he tried made this
payment to try to influence the election, he is guilty.
(23:10):
That's not true, that's not the legal standard. But putting
that aside by their own theory, and I've heard people
talk about this, it's like, well, then Hillary Clinton was
guilty for the Steele dossier, which you paid on legal fees.
Clearly that's true. But do people in the media realize
under that very theory, by them suppressing stories by them,
you know, whether it's the mainstream media or whether it's
(23:30):
social media, by suppressing the Hunter Biden's story, they literally
could be charged by a prosecutor out there somewhere because
by doing that, if they had more sales or somehow
they profited from it, and they were doing it to
influence the election. They're guilty of the crime according to
Alvin Bragg's theory. So that has a cheering effect. And
where are all the folks in the ACLU or the
(23:50):
liberal media saying, wait a minute, this theory one day
could come back to buy us. As Ronald Reagan used to.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Say, they're sighted to say. What did Reagan saying?
Speaker 3 (24:01):
What did he say?
Speaker 4 (24:03):
It's like seating an alligator to hope to eat you last, Well,
that's a great way to put it.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
What did you make of the fact? And again, I
believe the judges put cinder blocks on the scales of
justice in favor of the prosecution. And you know, all
throughout closing arguments, the jurors had been told dozens of
times that, you know, any of these payments were campaign violations,
and the judge allowed all of it to stand uncontradicted.
(24:31):
And as much as the defense gave up even objecting
because they were overruled almost every time.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
And yeah, and that obviously creates issues for the defense
because you want to see issues preserve them on appeal.
But at the same time, if you keep objecting and
you know the judge is going to favor the prosecution,
you know, it makes no sense to you because it makes
it look like you're trying to hide something or conceal something,
or you know that you're wasting with your time. I
honestly kept thinking when I kept hearing about these wings,
(25:00):
that's like, my goodness, where were these judges when I
was prosecuting gang bangers and you know, tough cases. I mean,
I've had judges restrict how much I could say in
a closing argument versus they got all carte blanche. Even
going back to the very beginning of this, I think
you and I have talked about spoken about this is
that I've never in my life heard of a judge
requiring a criminal defendant or someone accused of the crime,
(25:23):
to sit in the courtroom every single day for emotions,
for juries, for everything, because remember, it's the right of
the accused, it's the person on trials rights that we're
trying to preserve. We're not trying to get a conviction
at any cost. And frankfully, I think the defense should
have kept this argument simple. And you just basically ask
was there any direct evidence that it was done to
(25:44):
influence the election? Well? No, was there any possible explanation
for why he made these payments. Well, yes, maybe to
preserve embarrassment. He's made payments in the past. That in
and of itself shows the prosecution theory is going out
of the water. And then, maybe more importantly, remember that
there was no evidence that he ever intended to conceal
(26:04):
these payments. In fact, the prosecutors themselves said, oh, he
signed him in sharpie and look at his signature. So
if someone's trying to conceal her high payments, why would
they be so bold about it? And ultimately the prosecution
has to prove to all that's beyond a reasonable now
that Trump, the former president, intended to do this to
conceal an illegal campaign contribution. So it's just absolutely asinine.
(26:29):
And frank me, Sean, what I worry about, what I'd
worry about if I'm the president's team is a hungary
because I actually think based on the rulings, what Bragg
has said, the prosecutor, what the judge has done, that
I think they're going to be like, let's retry this
thing in a month, and we could be going through
this again in September and October.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
So I actually think in a weird So hang on
a second, So they're going to retry this in the
middle of an election campaign, as if this hasn't been
bad enough keeping him off the campaign trail.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
You think they'd do it again.
Speaker 4 (27:00):
I think they would based on everything that's happened.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
I mean, look, don't but I'm going to be honest.
I don't see an acquittal option here. I don't think
a New York jury have said from day one, I
don't think you can get a fair trial. I think
I've improven right. He did not get a fair trial.
I do regardless of what the outcome is. I'll stand
by that. And just like mar A Lago is not
worth eighteen million dollars, it's just he can't get a
(27:23):
fair trial in New York DC or Fulton County, Georgia.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, and I think based on the questions there are
clearly and you don't know who's steering this. In a
jury room, it always takes on a dynamic, but it
could be, you know, someone saying, hey, wait a minute,
all we need to show is this, and maybe they're
trying to convince somebody else in the jury that's the
Pecker testimony. But I agree with you, it is it
is unlikely that there will be an acquittal. So the
next best option theoretically for the president is a hung jury.
(27:52):
But I actually think if there's a hung jury, based
on what Bragg has said and done, based on how
this judges conducted this trial, that you will see them
say all right, let's reload it, and let's do it
in September. And as a prosecutor, I've had to retry
a case a couple of times.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
You know what about long standing Justice Department policy and.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
You know what works or doesn't work after So it'll
actually be more disadvantaged at this advantageous to the president
from a trial perspective, but more importantly, as you just
alluded to, we could be in September and October retrying
this literally in the middle of the campaign season. And
once again, it just breaks my heart because America, historically
(28:31):
we have resolved our political differences by exercising our First
Amendment speech rights and the right to vote the ballot box,
so to speak. But unfortunately, you have liberal prosecutors who
want to settle political difference in a jury box, and
that is they have weaponized the criminal justice and that
should concern everyone, whether you're an independent, liberal, conservative, libertarian,
(28:54):
whether you're a Green Party wherever you follow the political spectrum,
this is a dangerous precedent and just because you don't
may not like the president as cannot justify the means.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
Oh, you're echoing the comments that I read earlier from
Alan Derschwitz. We appreciate you being with us. Mark Bernovich,
former age of Arizona. Great to have you, my friend.
Thank your Does they roll along all right? The jury
has well, they're done for the day, and they are
you know, they have these four requests and so we're
(29:25):
gonna wage, wait, watch and see, uh what what that
ultimately means. But they want the read back on these
specific questions that they're asking for, and you know, we're
gonna you know, wait and see. They're going to do
that tomorrow. I think it's going to get pretty interesting.
And I think that you know, asking for Pecker's testimony,
(29:47):
asking for his testimony on regarding phone conversations with Trump,
is meeting at Trump Tower as decision not to finalize
and fund the assignment of McDougall's life rights and cones
testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting more details, Bill O'Reilly next,
(30:08):
As many of you know, my Pillow and Mike Lindell
no longer have the support of big box stores or
shopping channels, and that's the way many of you might
have shopp for their products in the past. Now My
Pillow has found themselves as part of cancel culture, and
this is an opportunity for you because instead of money
going to retailers, guess what, they're passing the savings directly
(30:29):
onto you their customers. Right now, they're having their twenty
five dollars extravaganza sale. Just go to MyPillow dot com
click on the Sean Hannity Square. For example, you can
get their two pack multi use My Pillows twenty five bucks,
My Pillows Sandals twenty five bucks. There are six pack
towel sets you guessed it, twenty five bucks, and for
the first time, the premium My Pillows with the all
(30:51):
new Geeza fabric, any size, any loft level twenty five bucks.
But to MyPillow dot Com click on the Sean Hannity
Square or just call eight hundred nine one nine six
zero nine zero. You get free shipping on any order
over seventy five bucks. MyPillow dot Com promo code Hannity
All right, tell you Scott cha an hour two Sean
Hannity's show toll free on numbers eight hundred nine four one, Sean,
if you want to be a part of the program,
we've been telling you. The jury has made four requests.
Jury instructions given this morning, and they have been deliberating
for a little over four hours and thirty eight minutes,
and they have requested four things. Now the judges suggesting
(00:22):
that they work on the Conan Pecker testimony tomorrow, which,
to be honest, makes a lot of sense considering they
were there late yesterday, and if the judge wants to
stick to the four thirty timetable that he himself set up,
it would probably would be better for them to hear
the instructions and the transcripts before they restart their deliberations.
(00:44):
So it looks like my guess, if the judges suggesting
that they they were now learning that they're suggesting they
work on this tomorrow, that the judge will probably dismissed
the jury for the day. The four questions that are
in testimony David Pecker's testimony about the phone conversation with
Donald Trump, Pecker's testimony about the decision regarding the assignment
(01:07):
of playboy model Karen McDougal's life right, Pecker's testimony about
the twenty sixteen Trump Tower meeting, Michael Cohen's testimony about
the twenty sixteen Trump Tower meeting. What can you glean
from this? What does this mean? I guess it's anybody's guests.
But anyway, the jury is requested to hear these instructions
(01:28):
after the judge denied them a copy of the instructions.
They've now been deliberating over four hours now. Trump's attorney
Todd Blanche looked at Trump gave him a smile as
the second note was handing to the judge from the jurors.
Not sure Trump's team believes the longer it takes, the
(01:48):
better it is for them, because it means people are
disagreeing with each other. Probably a good analysis, but you
got to really listen to everybody that we have ever
interviewed regarding the these cases. You can't read into a
lot of it anyway. Here to help us read into
it anyway, even though it goes against what I just said,
Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, best selling author David
(02:11):
shooncivil writes attorney who previously represented President Trump as well. Gentlemen,
welcome back to the program. Greg, I start with you.
What do you make, if anything, of the request from
the jury and the judge now but the judge now
has officially dismissed the jury. Court resumes at nine point
thirty tomorrow morning.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Your analysis, I think is a good one.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
I mean you could have been called wait, wait, hang on,
can you repeat that. I didn't quite hear you, er,
my friend.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
But you know you chose the wicked path of journalism. Look,
you know there is a temptation to read a lot
into this, but I think you're right. You know, these
jurors seem confused. I mean they're asking to see just
about everything, including jury instructions with the judge wouldn't allow
(03:02):
them to take in the courtroom or in the deliberation room.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Well, I thought there were two jurors that were going
to have it on a computer.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Am I wrong on that?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Matt.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Let me pull up my notes as you're talking here.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
I thought juror number four and during number six, or
hang on a second, I got it right here. All
the evidence from the trial has been uploaded onto the
laptop evidence. Okay, so I stand corrected to myself. Duror
four and Juror six volunteered to operate it for the group.
All the evidence from the trial, in other words, evidence
(03:39):
things that have been presented in as evidence but not instructions.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
You're correct.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
So you know, it looks like they want to see
everything from Michael Cohen to David Pecker, even a part
of the case that really is utterly irrelevant to the charges,
and that's Karen McDougall. And so one is tempted to
draw the conclusion you did, and that is that you know,
as I predicted, this is a jumbled mess that was
(04:10):
presented by Alvin Bragg and his team of partisan prosecutors.
It was like, you know, let's throw spaghetti at the
wall and see what sticks. And you know, I think
they have created an enormous amount of confusion. It's up
to the jurors to try to weigh true the lunacy
in search of the truth.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Let me go to something. You are the first person
to point this out to me. I'm a long time
ago on this. Once this bizarre theory came out that
the judge telling the jurors that you know that there's
no need to agree on what has occurred, and they
can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.
(04:55):
In other words, they can think Donald Trump's guilty for
separate reasons. Reason A, reason be re and C. Four
of them can support reason A but he's guilty, or
could support reason B he's guilty but for a different reason,
and option number CE an entirely different reason. Now you
pointed out, and well, the first to point out to
(05:15):
me that the Supreme Court has been very very clear
in this that they have held that unanimity and jury
verdicts is required under the sixth and seventh Amendments.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
Do you want to expand on that.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Well, the latest case was twenty twenty Ramos versus Louisiana,
and it's a case that every lawyer who tries cases knows.
And basically what Mershan has done here is he has
ripped up Trump's due process rights. He instructed the jury
they need not agree unanimously on which of the three
(05:51):
mysterious secondary crimes that the defendants supposedly committed. So, in
other words, they're free to pick and choose whatever they
like without consensus. How in the world can that be,
Because Unanimous jury decisions are a that rock constitutional principle
derived from the sixth and seventh Amendment, and that requirement
(06:14):
extends not just to the verdict itself, but to all issues,
including every necessary element of an alleged crime. It's an
indispensable feature of jury trials. It's what makes America's system
of justice the envy of the world. But in the
case against Donald Trump, jurors can agree to disagree while
(06:38):
still reaching the ultimate verdict. You know, this is an
Alice in Wonderland case with a mad hatter judge in
which the principles of fairness he has turned upside down.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Well, I keep saying that he's basically drops cinder blocks
on the scales of justice. To say, the prosecution from
a case that was going down the toilet, especially after
the cross examination of Michael Kohne.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
David showing great to have you back.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Let me get your take on the jury requests here,
and what do you read into it of anything?
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (07:17):
Again, I mean your first common was right that we
can't read too much into it. We don't have crystal balls.
But part of it, which Greg alluded to, is it
really shows you why we have a rule a prophylactic
rule against introducing irrelevant evidence. The fact that they're interested
is that Karen McDougall story tells you that you know,
(07:37):
they're considering things that really should ever have been a
part of this trial. And the risk of it is
they consider it to determine whether Whetherdent Trump is guilty
or not guilty, and that's specifically prohibited with respect to
the finding of different alleged crimes. But the most fundamental
problem that we've discussed on here is the indictment is
fatally defective as a constitutional matter for not a leting
(08:00):
what the target crime is. It's a matter of due
process and a bunch of other fair trial rights, and
its New York and the Federal constitution. You can't put
a defendant to trial without knowing what it is the
target crime was supposed to have been. If we're a
tax crime, that's one defense, campaign finance another defense. And
I'll give you an illustration. I mean, the elements of
(08:22):
these alleged crimes. The government came up with a variety
of three originally four. The elements are all technical. What
intent was required for each crime? When you defended the
case all along, did you put in evidence about where
the contribution came from. In case we're really talking about
a campaign contribution crime. I'll tell you why that's irrelevant.
I was looking at a part of the jury instruction
(08:44):
that instructed the jury that at the time of these acts,
the campaign contribution limit was twenty seven hundred dollars. Well,
the theory of the prosecution in this case is that
Trump made a campaign contribution through by paying this money
to his own contribution. The FEC rules are clear that
twenty seven undred dollars limit doesn't apply to a candidate's
(09:05):
own contribution to his own campaign, some of his personal funds.
So what was that jury instruction doing in there?
Speaker 1 (09:11):
It's very well, but I think it's it even goes
deeper than that. He has a lawyer who he pays
on a personal level. It was not part of his administration.
This is post the campaign. Everybody had known about the
Stormy Daniel's issue. It was not new news. I have
the letter from twenty eighteen that Stormy said. I read
(09:32):
it earlier in the last hour. You know, I became
aware news outlets are alleging I had a sexual end
or romantic affair with Donald Trump any many years ago.
And I am stating with complete clarity that this is
absolutely false. This is January twenty eighteen. My involvement with
Donald Trump was limited to a few public appearances and
(09:53):
nothing more. And when I met Donald Trump, he was
very gracious, professional, a complete gentleman to me and everyone
in my presence. And then she also talked about this allegation.
I denied it in two thousand and six, twenty eleven,
twenty fifteen, sixteen, I mean, and now denied it in
twenty eighteen for crying out loud. So I'm trying to understand,
(10:14):
and that she never received She actually says, rumors I've
received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false. So
I mean, it's it's to me, it's pretty damning in
and of itself.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
So what are we talking about here?
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Donald Trump paying his lawyer to go into a legal
nda or you know where is catch and kill illegal?
Speaker 3 (10:35):
When you know Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 1 (10:36):
I would argue it probably was involved in many leaking
of many stories all throughout this.
Speaker 5 (10:43):
Yeah, well the lawyer himself said that the money was
not hush money, It was a settlement all of that. Now,
that's why, you know, as you said all along and
Gregor said there was no crime here. The problem here is,
you know, the judges waited these jury instructions. Are they
going to have special verdict sheets so we know what
crime it is the jurors agreed on was committed here.
It's a farce. It's an absolutely moronic farce.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
What are we to read into the length of time
that the jury deliberates before they come back with either
a note to the judge saying.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
That they.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Just hit a point where they are hung, that they
don't they can't find agreement, or is there a point,
you know, Greg is it?
Speaker 3 (11:27):
You know?
Speaker 1 (11:27):
The judge at that point, I assume, will instruct them
to probably try and go back and solve the differences.
But if they can't come to an agreement in that
in that jury room, this case is over.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
Yeah, I think that's true. The judge will normally introduce
an Allen charge otherwise known as the dynamite charge. Go
back in there and try harder. But you know, I've
seen deliberations stretch on for a couple of weeks. If
the judge believes that they are progressing in earnest it's
(12:00):
constructive that they might actually reach a unanimous decision, then
he continues to encourage them to keep at it. But
you know, I've also seen shorter deliberations in which the
jurors have made it abundantly clear we're deadlocked, we ain't changing,
and it doesn't matter how much time we spend in
(12:22):
the deliberation room. So you know, every case is different.
It tends to be a bit subjective on the part
of the judge. So you know, we'll see how this unfolds.
But I never thought this would be a quick decision
for the reason I stated initially. This is a massive,
(12:43):
massive confusion, jumbled stories, jumbled law, none of it well organized,
and it's you know, spaghetti against the wall.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Let me ask about how the judges handled this case.
In this the idea that the prosecution and closing arguments
was able to over and over and over and over
again claim that the payments were campaign violations, and the
judge allowing that claim to stand uncontradicted. Now, the defense
(13:19):
tried to object, and every objection was overruled by the judge,
and so the judge allowed that. Now that's the example
that I'm referring to when I talk about cinder blocks
on the scales of justice. I think we saw that
when the judge, for example, would not allow even the
(13:41):
testimony of Bradley Smith, who is an expert on FVC law,
why interviewed? Who would have said that there's no crime here?
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Right?
Speaker 4 (13:51):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
I mean, look, there are so many reversible yerrors committed
by this judge you need a calculate later to keep track.
I think that was a mistake by the judge. Equally
was a mistake when the judge said I'm not going
to allow you to discuss the law in closing arguments.
(14:14):
I mean that ranks high on the list of the
most outrageous rulings ever rendered. It's beyond incompetence. It's venal
because obviously what lawyers do is they talk about the
law and the evidence and for the defense how the
evidence doesn't meet the law. Prosecutors argue the exact opposite,
(14:39):
and they know in advance the jury instructions and they
weave it together with the evidence and the facts. In
the case, Judge Marshaun would have none of them, and
it's just evidence of his you know, I think it's incompetence.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Unbelievable times we're living in anyway, David shown Greg, thank
you both appreciate you both being with us eight hundred
ninety four to one. Shawn is on number if you
want to be a part of the program, if you're
just joining us. The jury has been dismissed for the day.
We are on Verdict Watch. Day one is in the books,
but the jury has made now four requests for testimony
(15:17):
former National Inquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about the phone
conversation with Donald Trump, Pecker's testimony about the decision regarding
the assignment of playboy model Karen McDougall's life rights, Pecker's
testimony about the twenty sixteen Trump Tower meeting, and Michael
Cohne's testimony about the twenty sixteen Trump Tower meeting. Why
they would want anything from Michael Cohne, I don't know,
(15:40):
but if you remember Pecker publisher of the National Inquirer
at the time, and he did get a deal with
the prosecution that they wouldn't prosecute him if he testified.
But anyway, he got a phone call from Trump. You're
at an investor meeting. Attorney for Karen McDougall was shot
(16:00):
a story of having had sex with Trump years earlier.
Trump denied it, and this was all part of catch
and kill, which is not illegal. And then Pecker saying
what should I do? I said, I think you should
buy the story and take it off the market. Anyway,
Pecker said, and they had a friendship going back many
years prior. But anyway, Pecker said, Trump described McDougall as
(16:21):
a nice person and said Comb would soon call him.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
Blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Months later, Pecker reached an agreement to transfer McDougall's life
rights to Comb, but the deal fell through after their
general counsel advice against going forward with the transfer. And anyway,
Pecker said to Comb, the assignment deal is off. I'm
not going to forward it. It's a bad idea. I
want you to rip up the agreement, and Coin apparently
(16:45):
had a meltdown. Pecker and Comb both testified about it,
meeting at Trump Tower in twenty fifteen. Pecker said he
was meeting where he agreed to be the eyes and ears,
you know, looking out for any negative stories about Trump.
By the way, not illegal. Anyway, Let's bring in former
Attorney General the Great State of Arizona, Mark Bernovich is
(17:07):
with us, sir, how are you?
Speaker 4 (17:09):
I'm very good, Sean. Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
What do you make of the jury's questions and what
I just read back to you about what took place
in that testimony.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Well, I first and foremost what you said, assuming that
all of that is true, it is not a crime.
And literally there was not one single piece of direct
evidence saying that somehow the former president wanted to falsify
business records, which technically, even though the statuteal limitations has
expired on that, that's supposedly the quomer. Looking at second
(17:40):
thing is I learned a long time ago not to
read too much into jury questions. I mean, there was
a lot of stuff the prosecutors threw against the wall,
and frankly, Sean, I look, I prosecute a gang cases.
I was a federal prosecutor, and great prosecutors, even good prosecutors,
recognize that you want to save and preserve your case
on appeal. But there has been so many errors in
(18:01):
this case from the very beginning with not only the
judge and what the prosecutors themselves argued, and even some
of the testimony they allowed him from story meet Daniels
that really there is no way, no way, even with
an entirely democratic appellate court, this case will withstand any
sort of scrutiny. And to me, as I was listening
today and even these questions, I kept thinking to myself,
(18:24):
this case really is more ridiculous every day. It is
the theater absurd. Think about it.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
As you just said this, By the way, there's no
charge on the McDougall side of this none.
Speaker 4 (18:34):
There was fake news before we even knew it, that event.
And then you had an adult film star who literally
has dedicated her adult life to doing anything for money,
you know, testify and here testimony men may have been
the worst performance of her entire career. And then you
had Robert de Niro get up and do a rant
outside of the courtroom. I literally was expecting today when
(18:55):
those jury questions came in for the judge to bang
the gabble and say live from New York, it's Saturday night,
because I mean, this is really it's like, it's so ridiculous. Objectively,
it frankly is unconscidable, unprecedented, and unconstitutional. And that's what
people need to take away from even those questions today.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Am I wrong in believing that the judge realized that
the prosecution didn't make their case that Michael Cone was
so gutted on cross that he went in for the
save and sent lifeline after lifeline, and we saw that
when he will, you know, severely limited any testimony as
it relates to the law in this case. Bradley Smith,
(19:36):
the former FEC chair who I've interviewed, said there was
no crime committed. The whole meltdown with Bob Costello, who
would have, if it was allowed, would have impeached all
of Donald Trump's test I'm sorry, Michael Cohne's testimony, and
he would have added that he's spent an hour and
a half on the phone with Alvin Bragg and his
team discussing all the evidence that existed that was go
(20:00):
operatory that they would then have an obligation to bring
before the grand jury, and they did not bring before
the grand jury indicting in this case, that is certainly
going to be an avenue of appeal. I think that
they will win. That's my personal point of view. And
then of course leading into jury instructions today which I
found absurd, which is that the jury don't need to
(20:23):
agree on what has occurred. They can disagree. They can
think of crime committed and four people can think it's A,
four can think it's B, and four can think it's C,
and the judge would still treat it as a unanimous
guilty verdict, which I think is outrageous. Now, we just
had Greg jareded on and he pointed out to the
twenty twenty Ramos versus Louisiana case and the Supreme Court
(20:46):
case that has held unanimity in jury verdicts is required
under the six and seventh Amendments. The requirement extends to
all issues, and to find someone guilty, jurors must always
agree without descent, on every necessary element of a purported crime.
That is not the instructions. This judge, who I believe
(21:08):
again is putting cinderblocks on the scales of justice. And
you can correct me if you disagree with me, as
has done in this case. I think sending a lifeline
and a possible you know, if there's a guilty verdict,
I would put the burden on him.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
Well, look, even on who wants to be a millionaire,
you only get three lifelines, right, But I agree with
your analysis Sean, that time after time the judge kept
throwing the prosecutor's lifelines. And to me, as I said,
good prosecutors recognize and realize that you don't want to
get a conviction at any cost your jobs, you justice,
(21:44):
You want to make sure the conviction's upheld on appeal.
But what has happened systematically, even from the very beginning
of some of the testimony, like the testimony from Stormy Daniels,
completely irrelevant, Some of the information that Michael Cohen or
that the prosecutors using closing argument about his conviction completely irrelevant,
highly prejudicial, shouldn't have been allowed. And you can go
(22:04):
through the litany almost every single witness that either testified
or wasn't allowed to testify. As you noted, the former
president's expert really was putting the cinder blocks, the finger,
the fists, whatever you want to call it, on the
scale of justice. And to me, it's just really sad
as someone that's I mean, I've handled thousands, probably thousands
personally criminal cases are in the course of my career,
(22:26):
and I couldn't help but think of the old Stalin
line about you find me a man, and I will
find you to crime. And in the Soviet Union, what
that meant was is that the political establishment, the intelligentsia,
the deep state, whatever you want to call it, that
if you did not agree with them or cow tact
or what they wanted, they literally would enter her career
(22:48):
and you'd find yourself in prison. And to me, I
just keep saying to all my friends that are left
of center or the people that don't like Trump, that
this isn't about Donald Trump. I mean, at the end
when the prosecutors made their closing argument yesterday, they started
talking about if you find that he tried made this
payment to try to influence the election, he is guilty.
(23:10):
That's not true, that's not the legal standard. But putting
that aside by their own theory, and I've heard people
talk about this, it's like, well, then Hillary Clinton was
guilty for the Steele dossier, which you paid on legal fees.
Clearly that's true. But do people in the media realize
under that very theory, by them suppressing stories by them,
you know, whether it's the mainstream media or whether it's
(23:30):
social media, by suppressing the Hunter Biden's story, they literally
could be charged by a prosecutor out there somewhere because
by doing that, if they had more sales or somehow
they profited from it, and they were doing it to
influence the election. They're guilty of the crime according to
Alvin Bragg's theory. So that has a cheering effect. And
where are all the folks in the ACLU or the
(23:50):
liberal media saying, wait a minute, this theory one day
could come back to buy us. As Ronald Reagan used to.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Say, they're sighted to say. What did Reagan saying?
Speaker 3 (24:01):
What did he say?
Speaker 4 (24:03):
It's like seating an alligator to hope to eat you last, Well,
that's a great way to put it.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
What did you make of the fact? And again, I
believe the judges put cinder blocks on the scales of
justice in favor of the prosecution. And you know, all
throughout closing arguments, the jurors had been told dozens of
times that, you know, any of these payments were campaign violations,
and the judge allowed all of it to stand uncontradicted.
(24:31):
And as much as the defense gave up even objecting
because they were overruled almost every time.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
And yeah, and that obviously creates issues for the defense
because you want to see issues preserve them on appeal.
But at the same time, if you keep objecting and
you know the judge is going to favor the prosecution,
you know, it makes no sense to you because it makes
it look like you're trying to hide something or conceal something,
or you know that you're wasting with your time. I
honestly kept thinking when I kept hearing about these wings,
(25:00):
that's like, my goodness, where were these judges when I
was prosecuting gang bangers and you know, tough cases. I mean,
I've had judges restrict how much I could say in
a closing argument versus they got all carte blanche. Even
going back to the very beginning of this, I think
you and I have talked about spoken about this is
that I've never in my life heard of a judge
requiring a criminal defendant or someone accused of the crime,
(25:23):
to sit in the courtroom every single day for emotions,
for juries, for everything, because remember, it's the right of
the accused, it's the person on trials rights that we're
trying to preserve. We're not trying to get a conviction
at any cost. And frankfully, I think the defense should
have kept this argument simple. And you just basically ask
was there any direct evidence that it was done to
(25:44):
influence the election? Well? No, was there any possible explanation
for why he made these payments. Well, yes, maybe to
preserve embarrassment. He's made payments in the past. That in
and of itself shows the prosecution theory is going out
of the water. And then, maybe more importantly, remember that
there was no evidence that he ever intended to conceal
(26:04):
these payments. In fact, the prosecutors themselves said, oh, he
signed him in sharpie and look at his signature. So
if someone's trying to conceal her high payments, why would
they be so bold about it? And ultimately the prosecution
has to prove to all that's beyond a reasonable now
that Trump, the former president, intended to do this to
conceal an illegal campaign contribution. So it's just absolutely asinine.
(26:29):
And frank me, Sean, what I worry about, what I'd
worry about if I'm the president's team is a hungary
because I actually think based on the rulings, what Bragg
has said, the prosecutor, what the judge has done, that
I think they're going to be like, let's retry this
thing in a month, and we could be going through
this again in September and October.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
So I actually think in a weird So hang on
a second, So they're going to retry this in the
middle of an election campaign, as if this hasn't been
bad enough keeping him off the campaign trail.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
You think they'd do it again.
Speaker 4 (27:00):
I think they would based on everything that's happened.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
I mean, look, don't but I'm going to be honest.
I don't see an acquittal option here. I don't think
a New York jury have said from day one, I
don't think you can get a fair trial. I think
I've improven right. He did not get a fair trial.
I do regardless of what the outcome is. I'll stand
by that. And just like mar A Lago is not
worth eighteen million dollars, it's just he can't get a
(27:23):
fair trial in New York DC or Fulton County, Georgia.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, and I think based on the questions there are
clearly and you don't know who's steering this. In a
jury room, it always takes on a dynamic, but it
could be, you know, someone saying, hey, wait a minute,
all we need to show is this, and maybe they're
trying to convince somebody else in the jury that's the
Pecker testimony. But I agree with you, it is it
is unlikely that there will be an acquittal. So the
next best option theoretically for the president is a hung jury.
(27:52):
But I actually think if there's a hung jury, based
on what Bragg has said and done, based on how
this judges conducted this trial, that you will see them
say all right, let's reload it, and let's do it
in September. And as a prosecutor, I've had to retry
a case a couple of times.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
You know what about long standing Justice Department policy and.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
You know what works or doesn't work after So it'll
actually be more disadvantaged at this advantageous to the president
from a trial perspective, but more importantly, as you just
alluded to, we could be in September and October retrying
this literally in the middle of the campaign season. And
once again, it just breaks my heart because America, historically
(28:31):
we have resolved our political differences by exercising our First
Amendment speech rights and the right to vote the ballot box,
so to speak. But unfortunately, you have liberal prosecutors who
want to settle political difference in a jury box, and
that is they have weaponized the criminal justice and that
should concern everyone, whether you're an independent, liberal, conservative, libertarian,
(28:54):
whether you're a Green Party wherever you follow the political spectrum,
this is a dangerous precedent and just because you don't
may not like the president as cannot justify the means.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
Oh, you're echoing the comments that I read earlier from
Alan Derschwitz. We appreciate you being with us. Mark Bernovich,
former age of Arizona. Great to have you, my friend.
Thank your Does they roll along all right? The jury
has well, they're done for the day, and they are
you know, they have these four requests and so we're
(29:25):
gonna wage, wait, watch and see, uh what what that
ultimately means. But they want the read back on these
specific questions that they're asking for, and you know, we're
gonna you know, wait and see. They're going to do
that tomorrow. I think it's going to get pretty interesting.
And I think that you know, asking for Pecker's testimony,
(29:47):
asking for his testimony on regarding phone conversations with Trump,
is meeting at Trump Tower as decision not to finalize
and fund the assignment of McDougall's life rights and cones
testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting more details, Bill O'Reilly next,
(30:08):
As many of you know, my Pillow and Mike Lindell
no longer have the support of big box stores or
shopping channels, and that's the way many of you might
have shopp for their products in the past. Now My
Pillow has found themselves as part of cancel culture, and
this is an opportunity for you because instead of money
going to retailers, guess what, they're passing the savings directly
(30:29):
onto you their customers. Right now, they're having their twenty
five dollars extravaganza sale. Just go to MyPillow dot com
click on the Sean Hannity Square. For example, you can
get their two pack multi use My Pillows twenty five bucks,
My Pillows Sandals twenty five bucks. There are six pack
towel sets you guessed it, twenty five bucks, and for
the first time, the premium My Pillows with the all
(30:51):
new Geeza fabric, any size, any loft level twenty five bucks.
But to MyPillow dot Com click on the Sean Hannity
Square or just call eight hundred nine one nine six
zero nine zero. You get free shipping on any order
over seventy five bucks. MyPillow dot Com promo code Hannity
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.