May 30, 2024 • 15 mins
Gregg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst & Best Selling Author and Horace Cooper, legal commentator and Co-Chair of the Black Leadership Network Project 21 and author of Put Ya’ll Back in Chains: How Biden’s policies harm Blacks, take a look at the jury deliberations in the Trump trial.
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 (00:00):
All right, hour two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and
nine four one Sean. If you want to be a
part of the program, thank you, Scott Channon. We are
now eleven minutes, eleven hours, eleven minutes into jury deliberations.
We went through what had happened earlier this morning. They
had the readback on the four questions that were handed
over late in the afternoon yesterday, and I got to
(00:25):
tell you some interesting things came out of this. Greg
Jared Fox News legal analyst and of course best selling
author joins us. Now, one of the things that really
stood out to me is the three times I don't
pay for stories. I don't pay for stories. I don't
pay for stories. That was pretty interesting in terms of readback.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Yeah, you know, the fact is that paying for a
story to be suppressed or paying for a story be promoted,
it's crime. And you know, the prosecution has tried to
create the appearance, the illusion that somehow that's a crime.
(01:08):
Nondisclosure agreements is a crime. I mean, putting Stormy Daniels
on the witness stand and having to recount intimate details
of alleged sacks. I mean, that's not a crime. And
it's utterly irrelevant to the case. And yet not only
did Alvin Bragg's partisan das do it, the judge allowed it.
(01:30):
He allowed anything and everything. When it came time for
the defense, you know, he put a rope around them
and made their opportunity to present a counter narrative very,
very limited. So I think it underscores that this is
a bias judge. And you know, as you and I
(01:51):
were talking, I've tried cases, I've covered cases forty four years,
and I have never seen such a disgraceful abuse of
the legal system. A district attorney who contorted the law
beyond recognition, and a hyperbiased judge who has really disgraced
(02:14):
the bench with one sided, errant decisions, punitive rulings. This
legal theory is simply made up. It exists nowhere in
the law. And what is such a shame but everybody
should see it, is that Alvin Bragg and Walmershan the judge,
have been working in tandem. They're trying to wrongfully convict
(02:36):
somebody who is completely innocent, and they don't care that
it'll never stand up on appeal. They took non crimes,
dead misdemeanors disguised them as felonies. It's all pure fiction,
and they wrapped it up in a pretty little bow
of legal deceptions and a lying witness for the name
(02:57):
of Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Pretty amazing. And then we got to keep into account.
You know, not only a novel legal theory. I mean,
if you just go through the list of I would
argue reversible errors and conflicts and clear conflicts and the
lack of recusal. Biden donor judge the issue with the
daughter and the family DA gets runs on a get
(03:21):
Trump platform. Then we've learned from Bob Costello. Oh yeah,
he gave the DA's office exculpatory information and it was
helped withheld from the indicting grand jury. He gave it
to them beforehand, which by law he was supposed to
share with them. Uh, they're not gonna let, you know,
Bradley testify as it relates to the former FBC chair
(03:42):
and explain the law jury instructions. You know, basically, you know,
so favor the prosecution in this case. The idea not
only a novel legal theory that nobody really knew about
or even knows about to this day, but you can
still find them guilty. And four of you can find
them guilty for this reason, and for them find you
guilty for this reason and for for the other reason.
(04:04):
You know, Greg, you've been pointing out Andres versus the US,
Ramos versus Louisiana twenty twenty. All these jury verdicts require unanimity,
and to find guilt, jurs must always agree without descent,
on every necessary element of the reported crime. I mean,
it can't get any more corrupt than this.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Yeah, I mean, it's bad enough that the judge didn't
require the prosecution to disclose this mystical, cryptic secondary crime.
Nobody knows what it is, least of all the jurors,
and that is a blatant violation of the sixth Amenma.
You are entitled as a defendant to be told what
(04:47):
these specific actuusations against you are.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Well.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
They never did.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Well.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
It could be three possibilities. We didn't identify them in
the indictment, we didn't charge them, but they are there
if you cook your neck and squint your eyes. Judge
Marsham then made it worse. She said telling the jury
they don't have to agree unanimously on which of the
three possible secondary crimes that trump allegedly committed. My goodness,
(05:19):
what he's really saying is you can agree to disagree
and still convict. That is shocking, because it really is.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Let's get Horace Cooper's take on this. Horace, what's your take?
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Well, you know, Greg and I talked about these cases
that were coming up, and I was a bit more optimistic.
And I'm disappointed and saddened that I was so optimistic
that even in New York, our long historic embrace of
Anglo Saxon criminal justice would be upheld in the state
(05:56):
of New York. And I even said, they are going
to be there judges that are going to be so
appalled at what is attempted that they would be concerned
that they would be smeared. Well, here's where I was wrong.
Even though I talk constitutional law, even though I have
been watching criminal cases, it appears that in the federal
(06:21):
system you are going to follow the actual criminal law,
even if you get a bad judge like Chuckkins. But
the appellate court, and in this case, the Supreme Court
is actually going to see to it that you follow
the law. Even in a state of Georgia. I am
(06:45):
proud to say that what we see is an appeals
court and in a supreme court state supreme court that
want to follow the law. It appears that in the
state of New York, at least during the trial portion itself,
(07:07):
the other appellate courts are just not interested in acting appropriately.
Many other attorneys, both some who say they're pro prosecution,
some who say they are a pro defense, some more liberal,
some more conservatives, have said that this case, this so
(07:32):
called hush money case, is replete with reversible error, and
apparently we're going to have to have this case, if
in fact a conviction ultimately ensues, go to the United
States Supreme Court. That to me is, as we would
(07:54):
say in Texas, a sin and a shame that this
kind of case can't be properly handled in the state
of New York.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Do either, let's say, in the case of conviction. Obviously,
there are so many reversible eras clear conflicts, as we
have discussed at nauseam in great detail. I guess the
next question would be Greg Jarrett, is there any process
for an expedited appeal?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
There is? It's called a common law writ. Now you
can use a common law writ to go directly to
the United States Supreme Court. And here where there are
such egregious violations of due process, of violation of the
guarantees contained in the sixth and seventh Amendments unanimity, which
(08:47):
is a bedrock constitutional principle that has now been utterly
shredded by Judge Marshan. I mean, that is ripe material
for a common law rit now having said that, the
High Court rarely grants them, but this is a rare
case because of who the defendant is and the larger
(09:10):
impact on democracy and society. And so I think it's
a fool's errand to expect the Appellate Division of the
Trial Court to overturn Juan Marshan. They're a rubber stamp.
They're cheering on Judge Marshan and his corrupt view of
(09:31):
how to preside over this case. I have no confidence
in the highest court in New York, which is you know,
of course, backwards, it's called the appellate Court. Everything is
you know, backwards through the looking glass in New York.
So I think the only relief is the federal court system.
(09:53):
And ultimately, as Horace says, the United would.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
They need to go to the appeals court first, or
could they go to directly to the Supreme Court and petition.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Then you can do both. You can file your normal
appellate review in the Appellate Division, which is the next
upper level in New York, while simultaneously seeking relief on
a common law writ with the United States Supreme Court
over fundamental violations of constitutional due process that is guaranteed
(10:29):
in the fourteenth Amendment. And I you know, I think
there may well be enough justices on the Supreme Court
to grant Sir shierrari to be so alarmed at such
egregious violations.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
No, I doge that that they're going to be justices
on the Court that are watching. My observation is I
think many fair minded attorneys are astonished. We're just astonished.
Will include justices on the Supreme Court. You could see
(11:05):
up to seven, maybe even eight justices wanting to overturn
some obvious errors that have occurred in this case. It
needn't come to that. We're supposed to have a state
court system all in all fifty states in which we
(11:27):
are confident that they're going to adhere to the rule
of law. The other observation is that if you are
a business, are a wealthy person in the state of
New York and you're watching this distortion of the law,
dressing up a misdemeanor, putting it into a sort of
(11:51):
a tuxedo and calling it now a felony and then
extending the statute of limitations. What if they did that
to Donald Trump, they did that to your company. It's
time if the state of New York can't get its
business act together, that large companies with assets need to
(12:12):
start thinking about where they're going to locate beyond the
reach of this civil and criminal justice system in this state.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
Yeah, pretty amazing times we're living in. And by the way,
you know, we can continue down our list. You know,
the idea in closing arguments that the prosecution was allowed,
you know, to tell the jury over and over and
over again that the payments were campaign violations. It just
was wrong and should never have been allowed, and the
(12:43):
judge allowed it uncontradicted. You know, the idea that today
in explaining to the jury this issue of you have
to view Michael Khona as an accomplice. Doesn't that suggest
that a crime was committed? In my mind, I think
that's that's certainly not that's pretty inflammatory language.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Greg Jarrett, Well, I see it the other way around,
and in fact, the request by jurors to or at
least one juror to review both Pecker and Cohen's testimony.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Suggests by the way we're just getting this in, the
jury will be dismissed in about ten minutes. So this
is over for the day.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Yeah, and that also tells me, just off the cuff
that they're neverwork close to a decision. If they were, if.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
They were closed, they would stay till six. But we
know that jury's famously come back on Fridays, so Friday
would be a day that you got to think would
be the day they'd come back. But no questions at
the end of today either.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Yeah, I think they are as continuing what I was
saying is they wanted to see Pecker and whether Pecker
corroborated Michael Cohen, because remember that jury instruction you just recited,
Sean by law, Mrshawn had to give it because Cohen's
an accomplice, and under the law, compless testimony by itself
(14:08):
is not enough to convict. There must be corroboration. So
it may very well be that the jury is looking
at Pecker's testimony comparing it to Cohen to see if
any of the corroborates Cohen, and if it doesn't, that's
not enough to convict.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yeah, amazing testimony. I'm holding out for a hung jury,
are you, Greg? Are you Horace?
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Yeah, I'm holding out for a hung jury. I think
there's a very legitimate, real possibility that one or more
jurors are unwilling to convict on this absurd Kakamani legal theory.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Last word, Horace, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Well? I agree with that, but that's where we're likely headed.
I still think that other entities, businesses, influential people need
to start reaffesting the benefit of under the jurisdiction of
New York State's criminal law. Is this of kangaroo court
is going to be allowed?
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Well said? All right, I appreciate you both. Thank you.
I'm not Pollyannis. Yeah, I'm holding out for a hung jury.
But no verdict in this case will shock me based
on the cinder blocks placed on the scales of justice
by the judge and of course the DA
All right, hour two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and
nine four one Sean. If you want to be a
part of the program, thank you, Scott Channon. We are
now eleven minutes, eleven hours, eleven minutes into jury deliberations.
We went through what had happened earlier this morning. They
had the readback on the four questions that were handed
over late in the afternoon yesterday, and I got to
(00:25):
tell you some interesting things came out of this. Greg
Jared Fox News legal analyst and of course best selling
author joins us. Now, one of the things that really
stood out to me is the three times I don't
pay for stories. I don't pay for stories. I don't
pay for stories. That was pretty interesting in terms of readback.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Yeah, you know, the fact is that paying for a
story to be suppressed or paying for a story be promoted,
it's crime. And you know, the prosecution has tried to
create the appearance, the illusion that somehow that's a crime.
(01:08):
Nondisclosure agreements is a crime. I mean, putting Stormy Daniels
on the witness stand and having to recount intimate details
of alleged sacks. I mean, that's not a crime. And
it's utterly irrelevant to the case. And yet not only
did Alvin Bragg's partisan das do it, the judge allowed it.
(01:30):
He allowed anything and everything. When it came time for
the defense, you know, he put a rope around them
and made their opportunity to present a counter narrative very,
very limited. So I think it underscores that this is
a bias judge. And you know, as you and I
(01:51):
were talking, I've tried cases, I've covered cases forty four years,
and I have never seen such a disgraceful abuse of
the legal system. A district attorney who contorted the law
beyond recognition, and a hyperbiased judge who has really disgraced
(02:14):
the bench with one sided, errant decisions, punitive rulings. This
legal theory is simply made up. It exists nowhere in
the law. And what is such a shame but everybody
should see it, is that Alvin Bragg and Walmershan the judge,
have been working in tandem. They're trying to wrongfully convict
(02:36):
somebody who is completely innocent, and they don't care that
it'll never stand up on appeal. They took non crimes,
dead misdemeanors disguised them as felonies. It's all pure fiction,
and they wrapped it up in a pretty little bow
of legal deceptions and a lying witness for the name
(02:57):
of Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Pretty amazing. And then we got to keep into account.
You know, not only a novel legal theory. I mean,
if you just go through the list of I would
argue reversible errors and conflicts and clear conflicts and the
lack of recusal. Biden donor judge the issue with the
daughter and the family DA gets runs on a get
(03:21):
Trump platform. Then we've learned from Bob Costello. Oh yeah,
he gave the DA's office exculpatory information and it was
helped withheld from the indicting grand jury. He gave it
to them beforehand, which by law he was supposed to
share with them. Uh, they're not gonna let, you know,
Bradley testify as it relates to the former FBC chair
(03:42):
and explain the law jury instructions. You know, basically, you know,
so favor the prosecution in this case. The idea not
only a novel legal theory that nobody really knew about
or even knows about to this day, but you can
still find them guilty. And four of you can find
them guilty for this reason, and for them find you
guilty for this reason and for for the other reason.
(04:04):
You know, Greg, you've been pointing out Andres versus the US,
Ramos versus Louisiana twenty twenty. All these jury verdicts require unanimity,
and to find guilt, jurs must always agree without descent,
on every necessary element of the reported crime. I mean,
it can't get any more corrupt than this.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Yeah, I mean, it's bad enough that the judge didn't
require the prosecution to disclose this mystical, cryptic secondary crime.
Nobody knows what it is, least of all the jurors,
and that is a blatant violation of the sixth Amenma.
You are entitled as a defendant to be told what
(04:47):
these specific actuusations against you are.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Well.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
They never did.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Well.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
It could be three possibilities. We didn't identify them in
the indictment, we didn't charge them, but they are there
if you cook your neck and squint your eyes. Judge
Marsham then made it worse. She said telling the jury
they don't have to agree unanimously on which of the
three possible secondary crimes that trump allegedly committed. My goodness,
(05:19):
what he's really saying is you can agree to disagree
and still convict. That is shocking, because it really is.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Let's get Horace Cooper's take on this. Horace, what's your take?
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Well, you know, Greg and I talked about these cases
that were coming up, and I was a bit more optimistic.
And I'm disappointed and saddened that I was so optimistic
that even in New York, our long historic embrace of
Anglo Saxon criminal justice would be upheld in the state
(05:56):
of New York. And I even said, they are going
to be there judges that are going to be so
appalled at what is attempted that they would be concerned
that they would be smeared. Well, here's where I was wrong.
Even though I talk constitutional law, even though I have
been watching criminal cases, it appears that in the federal
(06:21):
system you are going to follow the actual criminal law,
even if you get a bad judge like Chuckkins. But
the appellate court, and in this case, the Supreme Court
is actually going to see to it that you follow
the law. Even in a state of Georgia. I am
(06:45):
proud to say that what we see is an appeals
court and in a supreme court state supreme court that
want to follow the law. It appears that in the
state of New York, at least during the trial portion itself,
(07:07):
the other appellate courts are just not interested in acting appropriately.
Many other attorneys, both some who say they're pro prosecution,
some who say they are a pro defense, some more liberal,
some more conservatives, have said that this case, this so
(07:32):
called hush money case, is replete with reversible error, and
apparently we're going to have to have this case, if
in fact a conviction ultimately ensues, go to the United
States Supreme Court. That to me is, as we would
(07:54):
say in Texas, a sin and a shame that this
kind of case can't be properly handled in the state
of New York.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Do either, let's say, in the case of conviction. Obviously,
there are so many reversible eras clear conflicts, as we
have discussed at nauseam in great detail. I guess the
next question would be Greg Jarrett, is there any process
for an expedited appeal?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
There is? It's called a common law writ. Now you
can use a common law writ to go directly to
the United States Supreme Court. And here where there are
such egregious violations of due process, of violation of the
guarantees contained in the sixth and seventh Amendments unanimity, which
(08:47):
is a bedrock constitutional principle that has now been utterly
shredded by Judge Marshan. I mean, that is ripe material
for a common law rit now having said that, the
High Court rarely grants them, but this is a rare
case because of who the defendant is and the larger
(09:10):
impact on democracy and society. And so I think it's
a fool's errand to expect the Appellate Division of the
Trial Court to overturn Juan Marshan. They're a rubber stamp.
They're cheering on Judge Marshan and his corrupt view of
(09:31):
how to preside over this case. I have no confidence
in the highest court in New York, which is you know,
of course, backwards, it's called the appellate Court. Everything is
you know, backwards through the looking glass in New York.
So I think the only relief is the federal court system.
(09:53):
And ultimately, as Horace says, the United would.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
They need to go to the appeals court first, or
could they go to directly to the Supreme Court and petition.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Then you can do both. You can file your normal
appellate review in the Appellate Division, which is the next
upper level in New York, while simultaneously seeking relief on
a common law writ with the United States Supreme Court
over fundamental violations of constitutional due process that is guaranteed
(10:29):
in the fourteenth Amendment. And I you know, I think
there may well be enough justices on the Supreme Court
to grant Sir shierrari to be so alarmed at such
egregious violations.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
No, I doge that that they're going to be justices
on the Court that are watching. My observation is I
think many fair minded attorneys are astonished. We're just astonished.
Will include justices on the Supreme Court. You could see
(11:05):
up to seven, maybe even eight justices wanting to overturn
some obvious errors that have occurred in this case. It
needn't come to that. We're supposed to have a state
court system all in all fifty states in which we
(11:27):
are confident that they're going to adhere to the rule
of law. The other observation is that if you are
a business, are a wealthy person in the state of
New York and you're watching this distortion of the law,
dressing up a misdemeanor, putting it into a sort of
(11:51):
a tuxedo and calling it now a felony and then
extending the statute of limitations. What if they did that
to Donald Trump, they did that to your company. It's
time if the state of New York can't get its
business act together, that large companies with assets need to
(12:12):
start thinking about where they're going to locate beyond the
reach of this civil and criminal justice system in this state.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
Yeah, pretty amazing times we're living in. And by the way,
you know, we can continue down our list. You know,
the idea in closing arguments that the prosecution was allowed,
you know, to tell the jury over and over and
over again that the payments were campaign violations. It just
was wrong and should never have been allowed, and the
(12:43):
judge allowed it uncontradicted. You know, the idea that today
in explaining to the jury this issue of you have
to view Michael Khona as an accomplice. Doesn't that suggest
that a crime was committed? In my mind, I think
that's that's certainly not that's pretty inflammatory language.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Greg Jarrett, Well, I see it the other way around,
and in fact, the request by jurors to or at
least one juror to review both Pecker and Cohen's testimony.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Suggests by the way we're just getting this in, the
jury will be dismissed in about ten minutes. So this
is over for the day.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Yeah, and that also tells me, just off the cuff
that they're neverwork close to a decision. If they were, if.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
They were closed, they would stay till six. But we
know that jury's famously come back on Fridays, so Friday
would be a day that you got to think would
be the day they'd come back. But no questions at
the end of today either.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Yeah, I think they are as continuing what I was
saying is they wanted to see Pecker and whether Pecker
corroborated Michael Cohen, because remember that jury instruction you just recited,
Sean by law, Mrshawn had to give it because Cohen's
an accomplice, and under the law, compless testimony by itself
(14:08):
is not enough to convict. There must be corroboration. So
it may very well be that the jury is looking
at Pecker's testimony comparing it to Cohen to see if
any of the corroborates Cohen, and if it doesn't, that's
not enough to convict.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yeah, amazing testimony. I'm holding out for a hung jury,
are you, Greg? Are you Horace?
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Yeah, I'm holding out for a hung jury. I think
there's a very legitimate, real possibility that one or more
jurors are unwilling to convict on this absurd Kakamani legal theory.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Last word, Horace, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Well? I agree with that, but that's where we're likely headed.
I still think that other entities, businesses, influential people need
to start reaffesting the benefit of under the jurisdiction of
New York State's criminal law. Is this of kangaroo court
is going to be allowed?
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Well said? All right, I appreciate you both. Thank you.
I'm not Pollyannis. Yeah, I'm holding out for a hung jury.
But no verdict in this case will shock me based
on the cinder blocks placed on the scales of justice
by the judge and of course the DA
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.