May 30, 2024 • 32 mins
Sean reviews the jury requests for additional information that came through today's Trump trial. What does it all mean? Sean has his two cents.
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):
Thank you Scott Shannon, and thanks to all of you
for being with us. Here is our toll free telephone
number if you want to be a part of the program.
It's eight hundred nine to four one sean if you
want to join us. For three hours and thirty eight minutes,
the jury has been deliberating posts getting jury instructions from
(00:21):
Judge Juan Mershawan but probably the most corrupt abusively biased
judge I've ever seen in my life. But that's a
story we'll get into in some specificity, in detail. And
as I said from the beginning of this case, Donald
Trump cannot get a fair trial in New York. We've
(00:42):
already seen this in the civil trial where a judge
named Erdouan, you know, were just locked into this insane
valuation Tomar a lago at eighteen million dollars. And we've
gone over that in great specificity, in great detail. But
what it really just is, what are you saying in
(01:02):
my ear Linda text? Oh text, you want me to
stop my monologue?
Speaker 2 (01:07):
That? Well, I was trying to be incognito about it,
but so much for that. We just wanted to alert
you that the defendants and the jurors were just called
back into the room. We don't know if it's a
verdict or a note from the jeury or what, but
we're just alerting you to that, sir.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Okay. What we know is that the jurors and the
defendants are back in the courtroom. Okay. I have no
idea why that would be. And if it is, maybe
they have a verdict. They haven't announced it yet. If
they do, usually you're given time. I do know that
all the parties were staying on location at the courtroom.
In other words, Donald Trump did not go back to
(01:41):
Trump Tower, and that all parties remained in the courtroom.
And if the verdict is back this quickly, I would
not expect a good verdict. That's my take. But I
don't think it's a verdict as early. We'll see, and anyway,
the jury must act unanimously. But what really happened here,
and and one of the most amazing things, Usually they
(02:03):
would send notes to a judge and not be brought
back into the courtroom, and not bring the defendant back
into the courtroom. I have no idea what's going on here.
Could be a verdict, and if it is, we'll bring
it to you live as it happens. But anyway, so
one thing in particular, and the jury instructions were given
today and they were as I expected. But in the
(02:24):
lead up to this is we saw the absolute destruction,
especially of the prosecution's case and their key witness, their
star witness, and that would be Michael Coney, was just
eviscerated and gutted when a cross examination took place and
exposed to in a lie, for example, on the issue
(02:46):
of the phone call with Keith Schiller and the kid
that apparently had been prank calling him, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera. So where did you see that, by the way,
because it's not on Fox yet, I'm looking it is.
It says the jury is currently deliberating. It's a prosecution. Oh,
the prosecution and the Trump team are back in court.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Because the jury may have a note or the drawers
may be being brought back in. They don't know yet.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Okay, Well, you said the jurors were bracket brought back.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
In, potentially being brought back in for a jeury note
or a potential verdict. Nobody knows very much right now,
we're on jury watch.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
It would usually be a note if we're going to
look at that. But if the it sounds to me
like a question, is that being asked? That's what it
sounds like at this that that's my.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Best I know what the question I was, why are
we all here? This is so dumb? That would be
my question.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
That would be I wish that was the case. I
wish you were on the jury.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Oh listen, if I was on that jewelry, I'd be
the four woman.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
I would out the Oh, I'm sure you would. You'd
have everybody unanimous verdict. Don gilts all right? Anyway, So
for the prosecution, the Trump team are back in the courtroom.
I have spies there and if they'll get a text
or two and find out what's actually going on there
all right, now, before the jury, you know, entered, Remember
(04:10):
the idea that this judge now and I kept using
the analogy that he's taken the scales of justice and
he's been placing cinder blocks on it because he had
to save this case from the prosecution, because the prosecution
got destroyed and their star witness got destroyed, and the
entire case was in jeopardy and basically everything that they
(04:33):
were arguing. Now, remember, we can't negate the other issues
that are involved here that are relevant, you know, because
I found it pretty interesting that Donald Trump, and I'll
play this later in the program today. You know, he
didn't sound particularly optimistic today, saying that even Mother Teresa
couldn't beat these charges based on what has happened in
(04:54):
the final days of this case. And the final days
of this case, remember you had an FBC chairman who
wanted to testify on what the actual law was, and
they prevented him from doing that. Bradley Smith is his name.
I've interviewed him. He said, no crime was committed. That's
why the FBC didn't go after him. That's why cy
Vance didn't go after Donald Trump on this, That's why
(05:17):
the SDN Y didn't go after him on this. That's
why even Joe Biden's weaponized Justice Department did not go
after him on this. So there were reasons for all
of that. But the case, as it began to fall apart,
we began to see, oh okay, now now we're beginning
to see the true colors of Judge Mershaw. And you know,
we did see it every time that the defense would
(05:37):
object that defense that that objection was overruled and and
you know, he gave very different treatment of all the
latitude in the world to the the prosecution in this case.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
You know.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
But the fact that he says that, oh, we're not
going to listen to Bradley Smith, an expert on the law,
and that's that novel legal theory that they've been using,
that somehow they're going to bypass the statute of limitations
on this what would otherwise be a misdemeanor bookkeeping error,
and we're going to turn this into a campaign finance violation,
something that had never happened before, you know, which is
(06:12):
why the judge had to give as part of his
jury instructions today, the option to only convict on misdemeanors.
He doesn't give them that option. He can't give them
that option because the statute of limitations have run out
on that option. On that option. Yeah, they're now reporting
on Fox that it's unclear if there is a jury note.
(06:33):
If there is a note, usually you'll get reported because
somebody will lead it. So we will know probably within
this hour. And then the judge saying, well, that will
be my job that the parties are not to go
into what the law is. This is a court of law.
These are lawyers representing in this case a defendant, Donald Trump,
who's presumed innocent. You know that's that they should worry
(06:57):
everybody that it's only going to be his interpretation of
the law. You know the fact that the Steinlass denied
Stormy Daniels was trying to extore Trump, well, one must
go back to her January ten, twenty eighteen letter where
she said to whom it may concern, I recently became
aware certain news outlets are alleging that I had a
(07:17):
sexual and romantic affair with Donald Trump many, many years ago.
I'm stating with complete clarity that this is absolutely false.
My involvement with Donald Trump was limited to a few
public appearances and nothing more. When I met Donald Trump,
he was gracious, professional, a complete gentleman to me and
everyone in my presence. The rumors that I received hush
(07:38):
money from Donald Trump are completely false. If indeed I
did have a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you
wouldn't be reading about it in the news. You'd be
reading about it in my book. But the fact of
the matter is these stories are not true. Okay, all right,
it is a jury note. We have that confirmed, all right,
we'll find out what that jury note is That means,
(08:00):
I guess questions have arisen as to the law, and
I assume that Judge Mershawn will put more cinder blocks
on the side of the prosecution. But then we had
the issue of Bob Costello, who would have impeached pretty
much all of the testimony of Michael Kohne and said
(08:21):
none of it is true and none of it can
be taken as truth. And if he was allowed to
even go deeper, he would have implicated the DA himself
because he spent an hour and a half, he says,
on a zoom call, saying that he laid out all
the exculpatory evidence before the case was brought to the
grand jury, which would have obligated Alvin Bragg and his
team to bring that information of the grand jury, which
(08:43):
is a violation of the law in New York. Now
Stein Glass just the Smiths Cohnes admitted, you know, the
theft of the Trump organization, Well, you know, you can't
blame him. You know, he felt like he was done
wrong here and he struggles, you know, amounted he earned
millions and millions of dollars, millions of dollars in this
(09:06):
in this case for crying out loud as a result
of his working for Donald Trump between books and podcasts,
et cetera, et cetera. But then it got worse from
there because you know, then he has the whole meltdown
clear of the courtroom incident with Bob Costello and what
else we say in jury requests Cone and Pecker testimony,
that's what they're asking for. I don't know why they'd
(09:28):
wont Cone testimony. Okay, you just sent it to me.
Hang on, let me take a look at it.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
All.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Right. Here we are, So the jury request number one
we the jury request David Pecker's testimony regarding phone conversation
with Donald Trump while Pecker was in investor meeting. Two
jury requests too, Pecker testimony about a decision not to
finalize and fund the assignment of McDougall's life rights. Three
(09:59):
Pecker two testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting. For Michael
Cone testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting. Okay, I'm not sure
if you can read anything into that. I really don't.
But anyway, back to the judge in this case, you know,
they go into great, great, you know, detail on things
that had absolutely no relevance in this case. It was
(10:22):
you know the fact that the judge let Stormy Daniels
drone on and on talking about dead people and salacious
sexual escapades without stopping. It is just pretty unbelievable to
me and the prosecutors. You know, just said Trump gave
his orders. What do you mean, Trump gave his orders
to Alan Weiselberg, who the defense didn't want to call.
(10:44):
The prosecution didn't want to call because he would have
contradicted Cone. They're the ones that didn't call him. And
he's not far away, because he's in Rikers Island at
seventy six years of age. And the worst part of
what happened yesterday, and this is where the big cinder
blocks were put on the scales of justice. Nothing from
the judge and nothing from the defense. The jury was
(11:05):
told dozens of times by the prosecution that the payments
were campaign violations, and the judge allowed that false claim
to go uncontradicted again and again and again. Yesterday. You know,
they're out there saying that Trump lied, denying that they
were campaign contributions, and the judge treated all of that
(11:27):
as argument and Steinlass making the statement of law is
contradicted by a wide variety of experts, and there's been
no evidence that that case was made. And by allowing
prosecutors to repeatedly state that these transactions were campaign violations,
Mershan turned this into, you know, basically, you know, a
(11:48):
slam dunk case against Donald Trump. Allowed prosecutors to quote
even from books on how Trump said you should attack
those that attack you. You know, Steinlass refers to week
from Trump and says that's intending to threaten a witness.
The judge finally sustained the objection, which he was not
willing to do. I mean, they're basically able to act
(12:11):
with utter impunity. I kind of like the way that
it was described by Jonathan Turley, and I think he's
right in his description of this. Mershawan seems to have
kept the defense in a small neighborhood and allowing the
prosecutors to go globe trotting with what is prejudicial and
improper references that they were able to get away with
again and again and again. Then it all culminates today
(12:34):
in jury jury instructions. In other words, the judge said,
the jurors, you know, delivering a verdict. He said, there's
no need to agree on what has occurred. They can
disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.
He's talking about three choices. In other words, they could
split four people believe he's guilty for a reason A,
(12:56):
four people believe for reason B, four people believe for
reason and the judge would still treat them unanimously, meaning
a unanimous guilty verdict. There's a big problem with that,
that that judge instruction. Then the problem is is that
jurors do not have He's saying, jurors don't have to
(13:17):
agree unanimously on what crime Trump committed. And it's that's
that that is all cinderblocks again on the scales of justice.
Because the US Supreme Court is held unanimity and jury
verdicts is absolutely required under the sixth Amendment and the
Seventh Amendment of our Constitution, and that requirement extends to
(13:40):
all issues. You don't get to say, well, I think
he's guilty for reason A, and I think he's guilty
for reason B, and I think he's guilty for reason C.
To find somebody guilty, as per the US Supreme Court,
jurors must always agree without dissent, on every necessary element
of the purported crime. This is an indispensable feature of
(14:02):
jury trials. And again, more cinder blocks on the scales
of justice in this court room. And maybe Trump in
the end is right. Maybe Trump is right. Maybe Trump
can't you know, maybe Mother Teresa herself, you know, couldn't
get a fair verdict in this case. She couldn't beat
(14:23):
these charges, you know. But it is amazing. And I
said this on Fox and Friends this morning, and I'll
reiterate it now. I don't care what the outcome is
in this case because it will be overturned on appeal.
There's way too many avenues on appeal. That's number one,
but that may happen after the election. But number two,
I don't think it's going to impact this election at all.
(14:44):
One hundred and thirty thousand dollars NDA from eight years ago,
just like mar Lago is worth closer to a billion
dollars than eighteen million. I'll show you all the property.
I put it on TV before all right, twenty five
to the top of the hour, eight hundred and nine
four one, Sean, if you want to be a part
of the program, we'll get our legal panel up and
(15:05):
running and going. We'll check in with Greg, Jared David
Schon former Arizona age Mark Bernovitch will be here as well.
Got a note from a lawyer friend of mine. You know,
do you read anything or glean anything from these notes? Quote?
Nothing reading tea leaves. I'm guessing the jurors are simply
reviewing testimony in chronological order, which would be a logical
(15:28):
thing to do. They now have been deliberating four hours
and six minutes. But yeah, I think cinder blocks have
been placed on the scales of justice as I've been
going through in great detail in this case. Want to
remind you everything is so expensive. And by the way,
regardless of the outcome, this is what's this campaign's going
to be about. It's going to be about Biden's horrific economy,
(15:52):
Biden inflation, Biden gas prices, Biden's open borders. By the way,
I read thirty thousand Chinese national crossing our border just
for the first six months of this year. Can you
believe it? Unbelievable? Tens of thousands from China, Russia, Iran,
let's see Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, all the stands
(16:15):
you can think of. It's pretty unbelievable and none of
them vetted. And yet all of this now impacting the
lives of pretty much every American. But anyway, things are
really really tough for so many of our fellow Americans.
Everything is so expensive. By the time you simply fill
up your car buy groceries, is not a lot left
if you have anything left. If you're not putting bare
(16:35):
necessities on your credit card, because a lot of people
are doing that, that means you're paying high interest credit
card debt. Now, one good piece of news is the
average homeowner has seen their home appreciating value about eight
point seven percent on average year over year. And so
if you're a homeowner, American Financing can help you. And
interest rates for mortgages are three times lower than the
(16:59):
average credit card break and that means you can consolidate
your debt and save a fortune. Right now, American Financing
is saving their customers on average eight hundred and fifty
four bucks a month, and they're using cash in their
home to pay off high interest credit card debt. Now,
that's like a ten thousand dollars a year raise. That
could be the difference between being in the red every
(17:21):
month and being in the black. Anyway, you can make
a free call, get a no obligation consultation. They never
charge any upfront fee. They're non commissioned people you'd be
talking to. They're full time employees anyway, and just called.
You have nothing to lose, see if they can save
you money every month eight six six six one five
ninety two hundred eight six six six one five ninety
(17:42):
two hundred. On the web, It'samericanfinancing dot net.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
NMLS twenty two three three four Animalist, consumer access dot org.
If you have for rates in the five started six
point seven x nine percent for well qualified borrowers called
eight six sixty six one five ninety two hundred details
about credit cost in terms.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
So the way this is going to play out with
these four requests and questions of the jury is they
will be brought back in the courtroom and they will
be read back the testimony that they are requesting. So
we're gonna watch that very very closely and see what
happens here. The judge went into great specificity in terms
of jury instructions. One of the things he did do
(18:15):
is kind of encourage the jurors to, oh, just come
back to me. But this is where the judge now
has crossed another line and put another ten cinder blocks
on the scales of justice when he said that, you know,
jurors have the ability. You know, you don't have to
agree on what occurred. You could just agree or think
(18:36):
that a crime occurred, but you don't have to agree
on what you believe the crime was or or the
reason for the crime. They can disagree on what the
crime was among three choices. You got to be kidding me.
So you can have four jurors picking option number A,
four choosing option B, and for choosing Option C, and
(18:56):
the judge would still treat all of them like unanimous verdict,
which is beyond outrageous and unprecedented. And you know, unfortunately,
we have a Supreme Court that has ruled on this
very issue and upheld that unanimity in a jury and
a jury verdict is required under the sixth and seventh Amendment.
(19:19):
That requirement extends to all issues. In other words, if
you want to find someone guilty, jurors always agree without
dissent on every necessary element of the purported crime. Now
that is a huge feature as it relates to jury trials.
You know, it's pretty unbelievable to me that this judge
(19:42):
again just making up stuff as he goes along. Why
because because this judge wants to get the verdict that
he wants, and he's worked very hard and has been
working hard to throw this lifeline to the prosecution because
they did such a horrible job with their star witnesses.
(20:03):
Unbelievable times unbelievable. But you know, these are the times
we're living in. It should shock any principal jurist. Jurists,
you know, the idea that they don't have to agree
unanimously and what crime Trump allegedly committed, I mean, is
(20:24):
so antithetical to what our own constitution and our own
Supreme Court is actually ruled on. A pretty amazing time
that we're living in. You know, Alan Dershowitz said something
very interesting. He said, and he's been very good on
this case, and he's a liberal Democrat, and he said,
if there's a conviction here, it will change the justice
(20:46):
system for evermore. And he said, it will weaponize the system.
It will mean that both sides will try to use
the legal system as a way of winning elections. If
there's an acquittal, maybe at least we can say the
jury system works. But if there's a conviction or even
a hung jury. It will show the prosecution benefits from
(21:07):
bringing a case which is in this case, no crime
at all. And he was in the courtroom, by the way,
and he saw the meltdown as it relates to Bob Costello.
It's it's insane, you know. And if you want to
know where the media stands now, let me make a prediction.
There's a guilty verdict. It's going to be like an
(21:28):
orgasmic experience for them. They won't be able to contain
their giddiness, their happiness, all that they've tried to do
from Russia, Russia, Russia, Stormy, Stormy Stormy, impeachment one, impeachment two,
January sixth, democracy in peril, all the arguments they want
to make. They will feel they finally got them. On
(21:49):
one hundred and thirty thousand dollars non disclosure agreement that
was that was literally, I guess on the put down
what it rightly was a legal expense. Michael Cone testified
that he told people he did all of this on
his own, all of it. And he said that, yeah,
(22:13):
I told all these people that, but then claims he
didn't tell him that. But he is a convicted, admitted liar,
and now thief on top of it. What's amazing is
and this is how out of touch and corrupt the
media is and the mob is, you know. Katie Kirk,
charter member of the Trump Derangement Get Trump media Mob,
(22:33):
admitting she's shocked. She's surprised that Joe Biden's lawfair strategy
against Trump has not worked. I mean here she is
liberal former news anchor Katie Kirk, not that anyone really
cares what she has to say, but expressing her shock
that former president Trump appears to be gaining popularity due
to his legal troubles rather than being sunk by them. Quote,
(22:56):
it seems that Donald Trump has the edge right now
despite all his legal woes and the fact that you know,
he's on trial in Stormy Daniels and Michael Kohne, and
he seems to be surprisingly, surprisingly gaining momentum, not losing it.
Then admitted that some of Biden's polling numbers are a
result of his refusal or inability to do more media interviews.
(23:17):
It would behoove him to get out there more. Okay,
he was out there, Linda. I sent you a picture
that James gave me of the crowd in Philadelphia. Apparently
he was playing the race card today again. He's trying,
he's trying desperately to shore up his dramatically falling base
of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and young people.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
We actually have audio of him sean trying to put
words together. Do you want to hear it?
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Oh, shocking, trying to put words together. Yeah, sure, I'll
never forget lying around and him lying around. Actually, they're
trying to erase black history. We're going to write black
history because of American history.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Is it wonderful?
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Wonderful? But Joe Biden was on the view saying that, oh,
he's going to show America just how smart he is
in this debate. I'm like, Okay, I don't know how
much red Bull could Joe actually drink before a debate.
And he's not going to have the benefit of the
teleprompter that he did have at the State of the
Union address where he was so jacked up he didn't
(24:25):
even allow the Speaker of the House to you know,
my high privilege to think, honor and privilege to introduce
the President of the United States, Bob. Everyone stands and collapse. No,
Joe just went right into a speech and he's Okay,
I'm done, let's go. But I'm sure it was just
Red Bull. Well maybe he was just excited to see everybody.
(24:46):
I don't know. But you want to see how smart
Joe Biden is going to be during debate, Well the debate.
Listen to Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
But I think that American people deserve a debate because
you need to see your choices. You need to s
see Trump, and you need to see the president, and
you need to see the differences and my husband's and
you're going to see how smart he is and the
experience he has. And then you see somebody who, like
you're saying, I'm going to use Joy's words, can't put
(25:15):
a sentence together. And everything is beautiful and it's wondermentious.
The political coverage.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Fit looks some of the political players and some of
the let me ask rhetorical questions. No EU. And here's
(25:48):
something I'm sure the mob and the media will ignore.
The First Lady of the United States saying that this election,
Americans are going to choose good over evil. Now, I've
known that for a long time that conservatives are viewed
as as like a dark force, and they have this
(26:08):
sense that they alone have a monopoly on all virtue.
But if you don't agree with them, you know you
don't have any and that you're basically the enemy. That's
what she's saying, that we're what if you don't agree
with Joe, you're evil. Listen.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
We are going to meet people where they are. We're
going to go to college campuses, We're going to go
to just every state that we can get into. I've
been traveling every single day. Joe has been traveling as
much as he's as possible, and we're not going to
take anything for granted. And those polls are going to turn.
I'm confident of it because as time goes on and
as people start to focus a little bit more about
(26:48):
what's at stake and start to become educated on the
issues and the differences between the two men, I believe
that Americans are going to choose good over.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Each evil, good over evil. Wow, you know what happened
when Donald Trump said the media is the enemy of
the people. Oh, I don't think.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
That's the big talking point of that cut, though. Did
you hear what she almost said? She said, I'm traveling
every day.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
And Joe is traveling as much as he can.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
As much as he can, or as much as he's able.
Who knows, you know, she is a doctor of education.
She's probably a wordsmith. I'm sure everything's it's take this November.
She said, we'll lose all of our rights if there's
another Republican on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
No, we won't want.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
We'll get into every state that we can. You're the first, lady.
Where can't you go? Give me a preak.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
You can go to every state that she wants. But
I mean the fact that the judge allowed this, allowed
this jury, allowed this prosecutor to mislead the jury and
just outright light of them. I mean, and the fact
that they were allowed to I mean the fact that
they had to rehabilitate spoke volumes. But then later they
(28:03):
just allowed to pretty much carte blanche to just just
draw out allegations and lay out Donald Trump's guilty of
you know, election fraud blah blah blah blah, and then
went on and on and on and it's a false
claim and it was allowed to stand as just uncontradicted.
(28:24):
You know that these are campaign violations. No, that's what
the jury is supposed to decide. Here you know, you
forget that in America, the accused have a right to
know what they're being accused of. You know, these are
fundamental concepts enshrined in our Constitution and our Fifth Amendment,
our sixth Amendment. And yet we're now learning on the
(28:46):
fly what the prosecution has been doing all these weeks
at the end of the at the end of the trial.
You know, as far as this election law violation, you know,
you've got to understand here they really point to a
federal election law crime. And how they're doing this is
still unclear. But of course the judge didn't bring any
(29:08):
of this, you know, and allow any discussion only I
will be the one that interprets the law. Well, it's
a court of law. We have experts. Bradley Smith would
have been a really good expert. I interviewed him and
he would have told the jury that it's not a crime.
But the judge, of course, cinder blocks on the scales
of justice, not going to let that happen. The Biden
(29:31):
Donor judge that was selected in this case. I mean,
all you just got to go back to the very
very beginning here and all the things that we now
know about this trial and everything is got to be
understood here. The judge is a Biden donor. I told
you from day one you could not get a fair
(29:52):
trial in New York, regardless and regardless of the outcome.
And I still hold out some hope of a hung jury.
I don't believe that an acquittal is on the table,
to be very honest with you, based on the jury
and jury selection and the venue in which Donald Trump
is being tried, I think the best hope is that
he can get a hung jury. Pretty unbelievable. What else
(30:12):
did we learn? The DA ran on a get Trump platform.
We learned Costello had exculpatory information purposely withheld from the
grand jury involved in indicting Trump. We know the judge's actions,
you know against Costello. He lost his mind. Bradley Smith,
you know who could have explained the law wasn't allowed
to fully testify. Jury instructions exactly what I predicted. They
(30:36):
would be unconstitutional, which I didn't predict, but I predicted
they would be biased. There is a reason the DOJ,
the FEC, the SDNY, Alvin Bragg's predecessor, Cide Vans, and
Bragg himself initially didn't want this case the misdemeanor, whose
statute of limitations had long passed. A novel legal theory
that allows what a city jurisdiction to up jot charged
(31:00):
to a federal election. Felony, a star witness and admitted liar,
felon and now thief NDAs are not illegal. Catch and
killed not illegal. Stormy can drone on about anything, all
the solutions in theendo you want, talk about dead people,
no problem. But you know, the defense was in a box. Unbelievable.
(31:24):
There's so many reasons. If there is a guilty verdict
that'll be overturned on appeal. But I'm telling you it's
not going to impact the election. I stand by that.
I believe that part with all my heart. But it
doesn't make it any better, does it. And I tell
you this. I'll tell you this, assuming that Republicans win
this next election, I would never want Republicans or Conservatives
(31:47):
to ever do this to any Democrat because I believe
in our constitution we should have fidelity to our constitution.
Sean entity. All right, as we roll along, Well, we're
waiting for the judge to get back in the courtroom,
and there's gonna be a readback for separate requests that
(32:10):
have come in from the jury, which we've gone over
in great specificity, in great detail, and we will find out,
you know, what the judge has to say about it.
What they're looking for in a readback. Is we the
jury request David Pecker's testimony regarding phone conversation with Donald
trumpall Pecker was in the investor meeting. Pecker testimony about
(32:33):
decision not to finalize the fun assignment of McDougall's life rights,
Pecker testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting, Michael cohone's testimony regarding
Trump Tower meeting. So those readbacks should be happening in
the next hour. Then I assume the jury will be
done for the day.
Thank you Scott Shannon, and thanks to all of you
for being with us. Here is our toll free telephone
number if you want to be a part of the program.
It's eight hundred nine to four one sean if you
want to join us. For three hours and thirty eight minutes,
the jury has been deliberating posts getting jury instructions from
(00:21):
Judge Juan Mershawan but probably the most corrupt abusively biased
judge I've ever seen in my life. But that's a
story we'll get into in some specificity, in detail. And
as I said from the beginning of this case, Donald
Trump cannot get a fair trial in New York. We've
(00:42):
already seen this in the civil trial where a judge
named Erdouan, you know, were just locked into this insane
valuation Tomar a lago at eighteen million dollars. And we've
gone over that in great specificity, in great detail. But
what it really just is, what are you saying in
(01:02):
my ear Linda text? Oh text, you want me to
stop my monologue?
Speaker 2 (01:07):
That? Well, I was trying to be incognito about it,
but so much for that. We just wanted to alert
you that the defendants and the jurors were just called
back into the room. We don't know if it's a
verdict or a note from the jeury or what, but
we're just alerting you to that, sir.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Okay. What we know is that the jurors and the
defendants are back in the courtroom. Okay. I have no
idea why that would be. And if it is, maybe
they have a verdict. They haven't announced it yet. If
they do, usually you're given time. I do know that
all the parties were staying on location at the courtroom.
In other words, Donald Trump did not go back to
(01:41):
Trump Tower, and that all parties remained in the courtroom.
And if the verdict is back this quickly, I would
not expect a good verdict. That's my take. But I
don't think it's a verdict as early. We'll see, and anyway,
the jury must act unanimously. But what really happened here,
and and one of the most amazing things, Usually they
(02:03):
would send notes to a judge and not be brought
back into the courtroom, and not bring the defendant back
into the courtroom. I have no idea what's going on here.
Could be a verdict, and if it is, we'll bring
it to you live as it happens. But anyway, so
one thing in particular, and the jury instructions were given
today and they were as I expected. But in the
(02:24):
lead up to this is we saw the absolute destruction,
especially of the prosecution's case and their key witness, their
star witness, and that would be Michael Coney, was just
eviscerated and gutted when a cross examination took place and
exposed to in a lie, for example, on the issue
(02:46):
of the phone call with Keith Schiller and the kid
that apparently had been prank calling him, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera. So where did you see that, by the way,
because it's not on Fox yet, I'm looking it is.
It says the jury is currently deliberating. It's a prosecution. Oh,
the prosecution and the Trump team are back in court.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Because the jury may have a note or the drawers
may be being brought back in. They don't know yet.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Okay, Well, you said the jurors were bracket brought back.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
In, potentially being brought back in for a jeury note
or a potential verdict. Nobody knows very much right now,
we're on jury watch.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
It would usually be a note if we're going to
look at that. But if the it sounds to me
like a question, is that being asked? That's what it
sounds like at this that that's my.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Best I know what the question I was, why are
we all here? This is so dumb? That would be
my question.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
That would be I wish that was the case. I
wish you were on the jury.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Oh listen, if I was on that jewelry, I'd be
the four woman.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
I would out the Oh, I'm sure you would. You'd
have everybody unanimous verdict. Don gilts all right? Anyway, So
for the prosecution, the Trump team are back in the courtroom.
I have spies there and if they'll get a text
or two and find out what's actually going on there
all right, now, before the jury, you know, entered, Remember
(04:10):
the idea that this judge now and I kept using
the analogy that he's taken the scales of justice and
he's been placing cinder blocks on it because he had
to save this case from the prosecution, because the prosecution
got destroyed and their star witness got destroyed, and the
entire case was in jeopardy and basically everything that they
(04:33):
were arguing. Now, remember, we can't negate the other issues
that are involved here that are relevant, you know, because
I found it pretty interesting that Donald Trump, and I'll
play this later in the program today. You know, he
didn't sound particularly optimistic today, saying that even Mother Teresa
couldn't beat these charges based on what has happened in
(04:54):
the final days of this case. And the final days
of this case, remember you had an FBC chairman who
wanted to testify on what the actual law was, and
they prevented him from doing that. Bradley Smith is his name.
I've interviewed him. He said, no crime was committed. That's
why the FBC didn't go after him. That's why cy
Vance didn't go after Donald Trump on this, That's why
(05:17):
the SDN Y didn't go after him on this. That's
why even Joe Biden's weaponized Justice Department did not go
after him on this. So there were reasons for all
of that. But the case, as it began to fall apart,
we began to see, oh okay, now now we're beginning
to see the true colors of Judge Mershaw. And you know,
we did see it every time that the defense would
(05:37):
object that defense that that objection was overruled and and
you know, he gave very different treatment of all the
latitude in the world to the the prosecution in this case.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
You know.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
But the fact that he says that, oh, we're not
going to listen to Bradley Smith, an expert on the law,
and that's that novel legal theory that they've been using,
that somehow they're going to bypass the statute of limitations
on this what would otherwise be a misdemeanor bookkeeping error,
and we're going to turn this into a campaign finance violation,
something that had never happened before, you know, which is
(06:12):
why the judge had to give as part of his
jury instructions today, the option to only convict on misdemeanors.
He doesn't give them that option. He can't give them
that option because the statute of limitations have run out
on that option. On that option. Yeah, they're now reporting
on Fox that it's unclear if there is a jury note.
(06:33):
If there is a note, usually you'll get reported because
somebody will lead it. So we will know probably within
this hour. And then the judge saying, well, that will
be my job that the parties are not to go
into what the law is. This is a court of law.
These are lawyers representing in this case a defendant, Donald Trump,
who's presumed innocent. You know that's that they should worry
(06:57):
everybody that it's only going to be his interpretation of
the law. You know the fact that the Steinlass denied
Stormy Daniels was trying to extore Trump, well, one must
go back to her January ten, twenty eighteen letter where
she said to whom it may concern, I recently became
aware certain news outlets are alleging that I had a
(07:17):
sexual and romantic affair with Donald Trump many, many years ago.
I'm stating with complete clarity that this is absolutely false.
My involvement with Donald Trump was limited to a few
public appearances and nothing more. When I met Donald Trump,
he was gracious, professional, a complete gentleman to me and
everyone in my presence. The rumors that I received hush
(07:38):
money from Donald Trump are completely false. If indeed I
did have a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you
wouldn't be reading about it in the news. You'd be
reading about it in my book. But the fact of
the matter is these stories are not true. Okay, all right,
it is a jury note. We have that confirmed, all right,
we'll find out what that jury note is That means,
(08:00):
I guess questions have arisen as to the law, and
I assume that Judge Mershawn will put more cinder blocks
on the side of the prosecution. But then we had
the issue of Bob Costello, who would have impeached pretty
much all of the testimony of Michael Kohne and said
(08:21):
none of it is true and none of it can
be taken as truth. And if he was allowed to
even go deeper, he would have implicated the DA himself
because he spent an hour and a half, he says,
on a zoom call, saying that he laid out all
the exculpatory evidence before the case was brought to the
grand jury, which would have obligated Alvin Bragg and his
team to bring that information of the grand jury, which
(08:43):
is a violation of the law in New York. Now
Stein Glass just the Smiths Cohnes admitted, you know, the
theft of the Trump organization, Well, you know, you can't
blame him. You know, he felt like he was done
wrong here and he struggles, you know, amounted he earned
millions and millions of dollars, millions of dollars in this
(09:06):
in this case for crying out loud as a result
of his working for Donald Trump between books and podcasts,
et cetera, et cetera. But then it got worse from
there because you know, then he has the whole meltdown
clear of the courtroom incident with Bob Costello and what
else we say in jury requests Cone and Pecker testimony,
that's what they're asking for. I don't know why they'd
(09:28):
wont Cone testimony. Okay, you just sent it to me.
Hang on, let me take a look at it.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
All.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Right. Here we are, So the jury request number one
we the jury request David Pecker's testimony regarding phone conversation
with Donald Trump while Pecker was in investor meeting. Two
jury requests too, Pecker testimony about a decision not to
finalize and fund the assignment of McDougall's life rights. Three
(09:59):
Pecker two testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting. For Michael
Cone testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting. Okay, I'm not sure
if you can read anything into that. I really don't.
But anyway, back to the judge in this case, you know,
they go into great, great, you know, detail on things
that had absolutely no relevance in this case. It was
(10:22):
you know the fact that the judge let Stormy Daniels
drone on and on talking about dead people and salacious
sexual escapades without stopping. It is just pretty unbelievable to
me and the prosecutors. You know, just said Trump gave
his orders. What do you mean, Trump gave his orders
to Alan Weiselberg, who the defense didn't want to call.
(10:44):
The prosecution didn't want to call because he would have
contradicted Cone. They're the ones that didn't call him. And
he's not far away, because he's in Rikers Island at
seventy six years of age. And the worst part of
what happened yesterday, and this is where the big cinder
blocks were put on the scales of justice. Nothing from
the judge and nothing from the defense. The jury was
(11:05):
told dozens of times by the prosecution that the payments
were campaign violations, and the judge allowed that false claim
to go uncontradicted again and again and again. Yesterday. You know,
they're out there saying that Trump lied, denying that they
were campaign contributions, and the judge treated all of that
(11:27):
as argument and Steinlass making the statement of law is
contradicted by a wide variety of experts, and there's been
no evidence that that case was made. And by allowing
prosecutors to repeatedly state that these transactions were campaign violations,
Mershan turned this into, you know, basically, you know, a
(11:48):
slam dunk case against Donald Trump. Allowed prosecutors to quote
even from books on how Trump said you should attack
those that attack you. You know, Steinlass refers to week
from Trump and says that's intending to threaten a witness.
The judge finally sustained the objection, which he was not
willing to do. I mean, they're basically able to act
(12:11):
with utter impunity. I kind of like the way that
it was described by Jonathan Turley, and I think he's
right in his description of this. Mershawan seems to have
kept the defense in a small neighborhood and allowing the
prosecutors to go globe trotting with what is prejudicial and
improper references that they were able to get away with
again and again and again. Then it all culminates today
(12:34):
in jury jury instructions. In other words, the judge said,
the jurors, you know, delivering a verdict. He said, there's
no need to agree on what has occurred. They can
disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.
He's talking about three choices. In other words, they could
split four people believe he's guilty for a reason A,
(12:56):
four people believe for reason B, four people believe for
reason and the judge would still treat them unanimously, meaning
a unanimous guilty verdict. There's a big problem with that,
that that judge instruction. Then the problem is is that
jurors do not have He's saying, jurors don't have to
(13:17):
agree unanimously on what crime Trump committed. And it's that's
that that is all cinderblocks again on the scales of justice.
Because the US Supreme Court is held unanimity and jury
verdicts is absolutely required under the sixth Amendment and the
Seventh Amendment of our Constitution, and that requirement extends to
(13:40):
all issues. You don't get to say, well, I think
he's guilty for reason A, and I think he's guilty
for reason B, and I think he's guilty for reason C.
To find somebody guilty, as per the US Supreme Court,
jurors must always agree without dissent, on every necessary element
of the purported crime. This is an indispensable feature of
(14:02):
jury trials. And again, more cinder blocks on the scales
of justice in this court room. And maybe Trump in
the end is right. Maybe Trump is right. Maybe Trump
can't you know, maybe Mother Teresa herself, you know, couldn't
get a fair verdict in this case. She couldn't beat
(14:23):
these charges, you know. But it is amazing. And I
said this on Fox and Friends this morning, and I'll
reiterate it now. I don't care what the outcome is
in this case because it will be overturned on appeal.
There's way too many avenues on appeal. That's number one,
but that may happen after the election. But number two,
I don't think it's going to impact this election at all.
(14:44):
One hundred and thirty thousand dollars NDA from eight years ago,
just like mar Lago is worth closer to a billion
dollars than eighteen million. I'll show you all the property.
I put it on TV before all right, twenty five
to the top of the hour, eight hundred and nine
four one, Sean, if you want to be a part
of the program, we'll get our legal panel up and
(15:05):
running and going. We'll check in with Greg, Jared David
Schon former Arizona age Mark Bernovitch will be here as well.
Got a note from a lawyer friend of mine. You know,
do you read anything or glean anything from these notes? Quote?
Nothing reading tea leaves. I'm guessing the jurors are simply
reviewing testimony in chronological order, which would be a logical
(15:28):
thing to do. They now have been deliberating four hours
and six minutes. But yeah, I think cinder blocks have
been placed on the scales of justice as I've been
going through in great detail in this case. Want to
remind you everything is so expensive. And by the way,
regardless of the outcome, this is what's this campaign's going
to be about. It's going to be about Biden's horrific economy,
(15:52):
Biden inflation, Biden gas prices, Biden's open borders. By the way,
I read thirty thousand Chinese national crossing our border just
for the first six months of this year. Can you
believe it? Unbelievable? Tens of thousands from China, Russia, Iran,
let's see Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, all the stands
(16:15):
you can think of. It's pretty unbelievable and none of
them vetted. And yet all of this now impacting the
lives of pretty much every American. But anyway, things are
really really tough for so many of our fellow Americans.
Everything is so expensive. By the time you simply fill
up your car buy groceries, is not a lot left
if you have anything left. If you're not putting bare
(16:35):
necessities on your credit card, because a lot of people
are doing that, that means you're paying high interest credit
card debt. Now, one good piece of news is the
average homeowner has seen their home appreciating value about eight
point seven percent on average year over year. And so
if you're a homeowner, American Financing can help you. And
interest rates for mortgages are three times lower than the
(16:59):
average credit card break and that means you can consolidate
your debt and save a fortune. Right now, American Financing
is saving their customers on average eight hundred and fifty
four bucks a month, and they're using cash in their
home to pay off high interest credit card debt. Now,
that's like a ten thousand dollars a year raise. That
could be the difference between being in the red every
(17:21):
month and being in the black. Anyway, you can make
a free call, get a no obligation consultation. They never
charge any upfront fee. They're non commissioned people you'd be
talking to. They're full time employees anyway, and just called.
You have nothing to lose, see if they can save
you money every month eight six six six one five
ninety two hundred eight six six six one five ninety
(17:42):
two hundred. On the web, It'samericanfinancing dot net.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
NMLS twenty two three three four Animalist, consumer access dot org.
If you have for rates in the five started six
point seven x nine percent for well qualified borrowers called
eight six sixty six one five ninety two hundred details
about credit cost in terms.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
So the way this is going to play out with
these four requests and questions of the jury is they
will be brought back in the courtroom and they will
be read back the testimony that they are requesting. So
we're gonna watch that very very closely and see what
happens here. The judge went into great specificity in terms
of jury instructions. One of the things he did do
(18:15):
is kind of encourage the jurors to, oh, just come
back to me. But this is where the judge now
has crossed another line and put another ten cinder blocks
on the scales of justice when he said that, you know,
jurors have the ability. You know, you don't have to
agree on what occurred. You could just agree or think
(18:36):
that a crime occurred, but you don't have to agree
on what you believe the crime was or or the
reason for the crime. They can disagree on what the
crime was among three choices. You got to be kidding me.
So you can have four jurors picking option number A,
four choosing option B, and for choosing Option C, and
(18:56):
the judge would still treat all of them like unanimous verdict,
which is beyond outrageous and unprecedented. And you know, unfortunately,
we have a Supreme Court that has ruled on this
very issue and upheld that unanimity in a jury and
a jury verdict is required under the sixth and seventh Amendment.
(19:19):
That requirement extends to all issues. In other words, if
you want to find someone guilty, jurors always agree without
dissent on every necessary element of the purported crime. Now
that is a huge feature as it relates to jury trials.
You know, it's pretty unbelievable to me that this judge
(19:42):
again just making up stuff as he goes along. Why
because because this judge wants to get the verdict that
he wants, and he's worked very hard and has been
working hard to throw this lifeline to the prosecution because
they did such a horrible job with their star witnesses.
(20:03):
Unbelievable times unbelievable. But you know, these are the times
we're living in. It should shock any principal jurist. Jurists,
you know, the idea that they don't have to agree
unanimously and what crime Trump allegedly committed, I mean, is
(20:24):
so antithetical to what our own constitution and our own
Supreme Court is actually ruled on. A pretty amazing time
that we're living in. You know, Alan Dershowitz said something
very interesting. He said, and he's been very good on
this case, and he's a liberal Democrat, and he said,
if there's a conviction here, it will change the justice
(20:46):
system for evermore. And he said, it will weaponize the system.
It will mean that both sides will try to use
the legal system as a way of winning elections. If
there's an acquittal, maybe at least we can say the
jury system works. But if there's a conviction or even
a hung jury. It will show the prosecution benefits from
(21:07):
bringing a case which is in this case, no crime
at all. And he was in the courtroom, by the way,
and he saw the meltdown as it relates to Bob Costello.
It's it's insane, you know. And if you want to
know where the media stands now, let me make a prediction.
There's a guilty verdict. It's going to be like an
(21:28):
orgasmic experience for them. They won't be able to contain
their giddiness, their happiness, all that they've tried to do
from Russia, Russia, Russia, Stormy, Stormy Stormy, impeachment one, impeachment two,
January sixth, democracy in peril, all the arguments they want
to make. They will feel they finally got them. On
(21:49):
one hundred and thirty thousand dollars non disclosure agreement that
was that was literally, I guess on the put down
what it rightly was a legal expense. Michael Cone testified
that he told people he did all of this on
his own, all of it. And he said that, yeah,
(22:13):
I told all these people that, but then claims he
didn't tell him that. But he is a convicted, admitted liar,
and now thief on top of it. What's amazing is
and this is how out of touch and corrupt the
media is and the mob is, you know. Katie Kirk,
charter member of the Trump Derangement Get Trump media Mob,
(22:33):
admitting she's shocked. She's surprised that Joe Biden's lawfair strategy
against Trump has not worked. I mean here she is
liberal former news anchor Katie Kirk, not that anyone really
cares what she has to say, but expressing her shock
that former president Trump appears to be gaining popularity due
to his legal troubles rather than being sunk by them. Quote,
(22:56):
it seems that Donald Trump has the edge right now
despite all his legal woes and the fact that you know,
he's on trial in Stormy Daniels and Michael Kohne, and
he seems to be surprisingly, surprisingly gaining momentum, not losing it.
Then admitted that some of Biden's polling numbers are a
result of his refusal or inability to do more media interviews.
(23:17):
It would behoove him to get out there more. Okay,
he was out there, Linda. I sent you a picture
that James gave me of the crowd in Philadelphia. Apparently
he was playing the race card today again. He's trying,
he's trying desperately to shore up his dramatically falling base
of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and young people.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
We actually have audio of him sean trying to put
words together. Do you want to hear it?
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Oh, shocking, trying to put words together. Yeah, sure, I'll
never forget lying around and him lying around. Actually, they're
trying to erase black history. We're going to write black
history because of American history.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Is it wonderful?
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Wonderful? But Joe Biden was on the view saying that, oh,
he's going to show America just how smart he is
in this debate. I'm like, Okay, I don't know how
much red Bull could Joe actually drink before a debate.
And he's not going to have the benefit of the
teleprompter that he did have at the State of the
Union address where he was so jacked up he didn't
(24:25):
even allow the Speaker of the House to you know,
my high privilege to think, honor and privilege to introduce
the President of the United States, Bob. Everyone stands and collapse. No,
Joe just went right into a speech and he's Okay,
I'm done, let's go. But I'm sure it was just
Red Bull. Well maybe he was just excited to see everybody.
(24:46):
I don't know. But you want to see how smart
Joe Biden is going to be during debate, Well the debate.
Listen to Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
But I think that American people deserve a debate because
you need to see your choices. You need to s
see Trump, and you need to see the president, and
you need to see the differences and my husband's and
you're going to see how smart he is and the
experience he has. And then you see somebody who, like
you're saying, I'm going to use Joy's words, can't put
(25:15):
a sentence together. And everything is beautiful and it's wondermentious.
The political coverage.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Fit looks some of the political players and some of
the let me ask rhetorical questions. No EU. And here's
(25:48):
something I'm sure the mob and the media will ignore.
The First Lady of the United States saying that this election,
Americans are going to choose good over evil. Now, I've
known that for a long time that conservatives are viewed
as as like a dark force, and they have this
(26:08):
sense that they alone have a monopoly on all virtue.
But if you don't agree with them, you know you
don't have any and that you're basically the enemy. That's
what she's saying, that we're what if you don't agree
with Joe, you're evil. Listen.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
We are going to meet people where they are. We're
going to go to college campuses, We're going to go
to just every state that we can get into. I've
been traveling every single day. Joe has been traveling as
much as he's as possible, and we're not going to
take anything for granted. And those polls are going to turn.
I'm confident of it because as time goes on and
as people start to focus a little bit more about
(26:48):
what's at stake and start to become educated on the
issues and the differences between the two men, I believe
that Americans are going to choose good over.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Each evil, good over evil. Wow, you know what happened
when Donald Trump said the media is the enemy of
the people. Oh, I don't think.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
That's the big talking point of that cut, though. Did
you hear what she almost said? She said, I'm traveling
every day.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
And Joe is traveling as much as he can.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
As much as he can, or as much as he's able.
Who knows, you know, she is a doctor of education.
She's probably a wordsmith. I'm sure everything's it's take this November.
She said, we'll lose all of our rights if there's
another Republican on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
No, we won't want.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
We'll get into every state that we can. You're the first, lady.
Where can't you go? Give me a preak.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
You can go to every state that she wants. But
I mean the fact that the judge allowed this, allowed
this jury, allowed this prosecutor to mislead the jury and
just outright light of them. I mean, and the fact
that they were allowed to I mean the fact that
they had to rehabilitate spoke volumes. But then later they
(28:03):
just allowed to pretty much carte blanche to just just
draw out allegations and lay out Donald Trump's guilty of
you know, election fraud blah blah blah blah, and then
went on and on and on and it's a false
claim and it was allowed to stand as just uncontradicted.
(28:24):
You know that these are campaign violations. No, that's what
the jury is supposed to decide. Here you know, you
forget that in America, the accused have a right to
know what they're being accused of. You know, these are
fundamental concepts enshrined in our Constitution and our Fifth Amendment,
our sixth Amendment. And yet we're now learning on the
(28:46):
fly what the prosecution has been doing all these weeks
at the end of the at the end of the trial.
You know, as far as this election law violation, you know,
you've got to understand here they really point to a
federal election law crime. And how they're doing this is
still unclear. But of course the judge didn't bring any
(29:08):
of this, you know, and allow any discussion only I
will be the one that interprets the law. Well, it's
a court of law. We have experts. Bradley Smith would
have been a really good expert. I interviewed him and
he would have told the jury that it's not a crime.
But the judge, of course, cinder blocks on the scales
of justice, not going to let that happen. The Biden
(29:31):
Donor judge that was selected in this case. I mean,
all you just got to go back to the very
very beginning here and all the things that we now
know about this trial and everything is got to be
understood here. The judge is a Biden donor. I told
you from day one you could not get a fair
(29:52):
trial in New York, regardless and regardless of the outcome.
And I still hold out some hope of a hung jury.
I don't believe that an acquittal is on the table,
to be very honest with you, based on the jury
and jury selection and the venue in which Donald Trump
is being tried, I think the best hope is that
he can get a hung jury. Pretty unbelievable. What else
(30:12):
did we learn? The DA ran on a get Trump platform.
We learned Costello had exculpatory information purposely withheld from the
grand jury involved in indicting Trump. We know the judge's actions,
you know against Costello. He lost his mind. Bradley Smith,
you know who could have explained the law wasn't allowed
to fully testify. Jury instructions exactly what I predicted. They
(30:36):
would be unconstitutional, which I didn't predict, but I predicted
they would be biased. There is a reason the DOJ,
the FEC, the SDNY, Alvin Bragg's predecessor, Cide Vans, and
Bragg himself initially didn't want this case the misdemeanor, whose
statute of limitations had long passed. A novel legal theory
that allows what a city jurisdiction to up jot charged
(31:00):
to a federal election. Felony, a star witness and admitted liar,
felon and now thief NDAs are not illegal. Catch and
killed not illegal. Stormy can drone on about anything, all
the solutions in theendo you want, talk about dead people,
no problem. But you know, the defense was in a box. Unbelievable.
(31:24):
There's so many reasons. If there is a guilty verdict
that'll be overturned on appeal. But I'm telling you it's
not going to impact the election. I stand by that.
I believe that part with all my heart. But it
doesn't make it any better, does it. And I tell
you this. I'll tell you this, assuming that Republicans win
this next election, I would never want Republicans or Conservatives
(31:47):
to ever do this to any Democrat because I believe
in our constitution we should have fidelity to our constitution.
Sean entity. All right, as we roll along, Well, we're
waiting for the judge to get back in the courtroom,
and there's gonna be a readback for separate requests that
(32:10):
have come in from the jury, which we've gone over
in great specificity, in great detail, and we will find out,
you know, what the judge has to say about it.
What they're looking for in a readback. Is we the
jury request David Pecker's testimony regarding phone conversation with Donald
trumpall Pecker was in the investor meeting. Pecker testimony about
(32:33):
decision not to finalize the fun assignment of McDougall's life rights,
Pecker testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting, Michael cohone's testimony regarding
Trump Tower meeting. So those readbacks should be happening in
the next hour. Then I assume the jury will be
done for the day.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!