All Episodes
Previous Next
April 5, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
32:17
Jarrett and Schoen - April 4th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
All right, hour to Sean Hannity Show.
Thanks for being with us.
Toll-free, our numbers, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, so actually in the break, I'm reading through in great specificity and detail the indictment of President Trump, and it pretty much sounds the same.
Now, pay close attention to this, and then we'll bring in our legal experts for commentary a little bit later in the program.
It says, the grand jury of the county of New York, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of penal law 175.10 committed as follows.
The defendant in the county of New York and elsewhere on or about February 14, 2017, with the intent to defraud and intend to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.
By the way, stop there.
With the intent to defraud.
How do they know what the intention of President Trump was?
And remember, it was Michael Cohn that said he and he alone was involved in this arrangement.
That the Trump organization, the Trump campaign, had nothing to do with it.
Not him through his lawyer.
He said that.
Oh, by the way, I think he actually said it himself too.
And so what do you mean he did it?
What does that mean?
And then it says, and the intent to commit another crime.
What other crime?
Words matter in indictments.
And aid and conceal the commission thereof made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohn dated February 14, 2017, blah, blah, blah.
And then it goes on from there.
And it's the same penal code, third count, fourth count, and we keep going in the fifth count and the sixth count.
And let's see, you know, except you're now dealing with either Michael Cohn, an entry in the detailed general ledger for Donald J. Trump, Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number blankety blankety blank.
That's the only difference.
And then it becomes again, the same exact law cited in the seventh count and in the eighth count and in the ninth count and in the 10th count and in the 11th count falsified business records in the first degree.
And in the 12th count and in the 13th count and in the 14th count and the 15th count and the 16th count.
And again, it always says intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime.
What other crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof?
First of all, how do you prove intent to defraud and how do you have intent to commit another crime?
What do you mean intent to commit another crime?
I intend.
I'm so mad at somebody.
I'm going to somebody says, I'll kill you if you do that.
They mean that probably not.
Did you have the intent because you said it?
Is that what you're saying?
I mean, this is insane.
17th count, same thing.
18th count, same thing.
19th count, same thing.
20th count, same thing.
21st account, same thing.
22nd account, same thing.
23rd account, same thing.
24th account, same thing.
25th account, same thing.
26th account, same thing.
What am I up to?
27th account, same thing.
28th account, same thing.
29th account, same thing.
20, let's see, 30th count, same thing.
31st account, same thing.
32nd account, same thing.
33rd account, same thing.
34th account, same thing.
All based on the novel theory concocted, never before used insanity of overly aggressive.
You talk about the word prosecutorial abuse.
This is it in spades.
You know, and keep in mind what I read in the last hour.
The top criminals, theft, robbery, rape, all these charges constantly downgraded to misdemeanors.
This is the only case where, because the statute of limitations had passed for New York state law, they try to reach to a federal law.
Well, I interviewed the former FVC chair.
So this is not in any way rise to a level that this is criminal.
Not at all.
And you look at Alvin Bragg.
Look at this guy.
52% of felony arrests downgraded to misdemeanors.
That was in 2022.
That was last year.
By the way, the daughter of the presiding judge in the case worked for Biden and Harris.
I'm sure we can expect somebody to say that they're taking themselves out.
No, that's not going to happen.
But then you look in 2022, 50% of felony cases result in conviction.
That is a failure rate of 50%.
In 2022, the defendant in 34% of felony cases pleaded to a misdemeanor.
I mean, this is not a law and order district attorney.
And this is a guy that ran a campaign for the very purpose of going after one man, one family.
You know, let's see.
We've got other examples.
His tenure as DA due in large part to the warp priorities in this far-left agenda.
We went over yesterday.
The New York Times rightly pointed out because George Soros claiming I didn't donate any money to Alvin Bragg.
No, but the color of change did.
It's a group, and the million dollars they donated to the Bragg campaign, where did they get it from?
George Soros.
So when you say Soros funding prosecutors, this is happening around the country.
Tons of money from tons of people to elect these soft on crime, no bail, defund, dismantle the police radicals.
You know, Bragg's office offered a sweetheart deal to a suspect charged in a brutal anti-Semitic beating of a Jewish man in Manhattan.
I told you about that case.
Anyway, here's Bragg.
He's at the podium.
Under New York State law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and an intent to conceal another crime.
That is exactly what this case is about.
34 false statements made to cover up other crimes.
These are felony crimes in New York State.
No matter who you are, we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct.
The defendant repeatedly made false statements on New York business records.
He also caused others to make false statements.
The defendant claimed that he was paying Michael Cohen for legal services performed in 2017.
This simply was not true.
And it was a false statement that the defendant made month after month in 2017.
April, May, June, and so on through the rest of the year.
For nine straight months, the defendant held documents in his hand containing this key lie, that he was paying Michael Cohen for legal services performed in 2017.
And he personally signed checks for payments to Michael Cohen for each of these nine months.
In total, the grand jury found there were 34 documents with this critical false statement.
Why did Donald Trump repeatedly make these false statements?
The evidence will show that he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election.
Donald Trump, executives at the publishing company American Media Incorporated, Mr. Cohen and others agreed in 2015 to a catch-and-kill scheme.
That is, a scheme to buy and suppress negative information to help Mr. Trump's chance of winning the election.
As part of this scheme, Donald Trump and others made three payments to people who claimed to have negative information about Mr. Trump.
To make these payments, they set up shell companies and they made yet more false statements, including, for example, in AMI, American Media Incorporated's business records.
One of the three people that they paid to keep quiet was a woman named Stormy Daniels.
Less than two weeks before the presidential election, Michael Cohen wired $130,000 to Stormy Daniels' lawyer.
That payment was to hide damaging information from the voting public.
The participant scheme was illegal.
The scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.
The $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution.
Step in here because a number of facts need to come out about this, what you're hearing here.
What you're not hearing is that Mueller passed on this, the DOJ passed on this, the FEC passed on this.
And then you have the testimony of Bob Costello.
Bob Costello said this.
Now, remember, so he's relying on Cohn.
Cohen is going to be a star witness.
He's mentioned in many of these charges.
So Michael Cohn, who is nothing but an admitted liar and ex-con, you know, this is the conversation he had with his former counsel, admitting that he had nothing on Trump and admitting that he was suicidal and admitting that he would do and say anything to prevent himself from going to jail.
Listen.
And I said, Michael, think about this.
Don't answer it quickly.
You said that you were up on the roof, ready to jump.
And I'm telling you that there is a way out of this if you have information.
It has to be true.
What do you have on Donald Trump?
And that's when he started with the same litany that he used for the rest of the two hours.
I swear to God, Bob, I don't have anything on Donald Trump.
I said, any information on the Trump organization?
The only thing I know, said he, is that some money was missing from the Trump inaugural ball or something like that.
And I said, is Donald Trump involved in that?
No.
Does Donald Trump know about that?
He said, no, he didn't know about it then.
I don't even think he knows about it now.
But the point is, when somebody is really thinking of committing suicide and you're offering them a legal way out of this, if he had any information about Donald Trump, that would have been the one time, even for a serial liar like Michael Cohn, to fess up and say, well, I know this or that because I want to save my own hide.
But he didn't do that.
And the statement he gave us was very similar to that statement that you just read.
And I especially made one point.
I pointed out to them that during that first two-hour meeting, Michael Cohn, who, as I said before, was pacing back and forth, would suddenly stop in the middle of whatever he was talking about and turn and point his finger at us and say, I want you guys to understand, I will do whatever the F I have to do.
I will never spend a day in jail.
He said that at least 10 to 20 times during that two-hour period.
It was a bizarre mantra, but it made it clear to us that Michael Cohn was saying, I will lie, cheat, steal, shoot someone.
I will never spend a day in jail.
Well, what happened?
He did spend more than a day in jail.
And who does he blame?
Not himself, even though counts one through seven related to times before he even met Donald Trump.
So he blames Donald Trump.
Now, with all that in your mind, remember, most of the payments they're talking about in the charges are saying on or about, you know, whatever in 2017.
Well, this letter from Michael Cohn's lawyer to the head of the FEC, I'm writing on behalf of Michael Cohn, and it goes on, in a private transaction in 2016 before the U.S. presidential election, Mr. Cohn used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford.
Either the Trump organization or the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohn for the payment directly or indirectly.
They're saying the payments came in in 2017 for this.
Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, which are entirely speculative, neither Mr. Cohn nor essential consultants LLC made any in-kind contributions to the Donald J. Trump for President Inc.
or any other presidential campaign committee.
Mr. Cohn has not been a government employee during any of the relevant period of time.
The payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution or expenditure, and therefore the FEC lacks jurisdiction over this matter.
And the complainants have not and cannot present any evidence to the contrary.
That's in 2018.
This indictment always talks about monies in 2017, the intent to defraud and intend to commit another crime, whatever the other crime is.
It's your guess.
I've never seen anything like this in my life, especially from Mr. Cut'em Loose Alvin Bragg.
Anyway.
So here is the challenge and the burden.
Now, remember, you can indict a ham sandwich.
Remember, this grand jury did not hear a single word from the president's defense team.
No exculpatory evidence was presented to them.
It was a one-sided, this is what happened, this is what he did, this is what happened.
And their star witness clearly is going to be a convicted felon, admitted a serial liar by the name of Michael Cohn.
He's lied repeatedly and admittedly so.
And he's going to say, well, look at the payment.
Look at this.
So you're going to have to take his word that a payment in 2017 was made for this deal that he, in his own words, and he through his lawyer, say that he did facilitate on his own and that the Trump organization, the Trump campaign, was not a party to the transaction.
So are you going to believe him?
And then, of course, the meeting with his advisor, Bob Costello, is going to be devastating.
And I just think on cross, I just, I mean, even the most liberal New York jury, which is what Donald Trump's going to get, how do you prove this case?
I think it's very difficult.
The timeline is that letter from Michael Cohn's attorney, McDermott, Will, and Emery, this guy, Stephen Ryan, counsel for Michael Cohn, was that was February 2018.
We'll continue.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
We have the indictment in front of us.
We'll get to all legal experts.
We'll get to your calls today.
I do promise that part.
I know a lot of you want to weigh in on all of the events unfolding today.
800-941-Sean is our number.
You know, one of the saddest things about all of this is all this time now, and there's going to be a tsunami of never-ending, non-stop, you know, legal issues that Donald Trump has to face.
But you know what we're not focused on?
An economy that has gone to hell in a hambasket.
We're not focusing on China and their alliances and their obvious plans to fill the void of American leadership and the alliance with Russia and Putin and the alliance with Iran and the Mullahs and the peace agreements with the Saudis and the Iranians and now the Saudis in Syria.
We're not paying attention to all of their maneuverings in Cuba and Latin America and Africa and their 10-year military buildup or President Xi's comments that he wants to go to war or he's planning for a war and increasing his defense budget by another 10% this year.
Who's he going to war with or what's going on with Taiwan?
This is what, when we don't have a strong U.S. president, this is what happens.
Listen, I'm telling you right now, President Xi and President Putin see this as a golden opportunity that America is now completely abdicated its role in the world as the leader of the free world.
And to fill that vacuum, they are racing in there very quickly to take full advantage of it all.
And they're doing it successfully.
We're not talking about any of that stuff.
Anyway, we're going to get our legal minds all over this issue of this indictment from today in just a minute.
Look, tax season now is right around the corner.
And remember the words of Ronald Reagan, I'm from the government.
I'm here to help.
Well, government's not helping you.
They make promises they never can fulfill, promises that lead to more poverty and a loss of freedom.
But anyway, their spending addiction is driving up inflation.
The bottom line for you is what do you do in the meantime when two-thirds of the country are living paycheck to paycheck?
And one thing you do do is you look for ways to save money.
One of the best ways to save money and not sacrifice service is making the switch to my cell phone company, and that's pure talk.
Anyway, it's a great company.
Their mission is to save the average American family, which they do close to $1,000 a year.
And guess what?
They use the same cell towers and the exact same 5G network as AT ⁇ T, Verizon, and T-Mobile.
But you save money for the exact same service.
And by the way, you never have to sign a contract.
And by the way, they have a money-back guarantee, and they have great plans available, blazing fast 5G data, unlimited talk and tax, 30 bucks a month.
No contract, money-back guarantee.
The switch is easy to make.
They have a U.S. customer-based service team that will help you in seconds.
Dial pound 250 on yourself.
Say the keyword, save now, do it now, save an additional 50% off your first month.
In these tough economic times, this is smart to do.
Join the stampede away from big carriers, get the exact same coverage, and the average family saves close to $1,000 a year.
Pound $250, key word, save now.
All right, talking about the indictments against President Trump.
There is no surprise at all.
Everything that we thought it would be, it is.
It is one count after another, quote, falsifying business records in the first degree, violation, penal law 175.10.
The defendant in the county of New York and elsewhere on or about February 14th, 2017, with the intent to defraud and intend to commit another crime.
We don't, what is the other crime?
They didn't mention that in any one of the 34 counts.
Maybe Greg Jarrett and David Schoen can tell us.
And conceal the commission thereof made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice for Michael Cohn in many of the cases.
Then another case, the Donald Trump revocable trust bearing voucher, blah, blah, blah, blah, and to Michael Cohn, then from the trust, et cetera, et cetera.
But remember, they're saying that this happened on or about February 14th of 2017.
Okay.
Then we have Michael Cohn's lawyer's letter from 2018, which I just read to you, that in a private transaction in 2016 before a U.S. presidential candidate, Mr. Cohn used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment, $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford.
Either the Trump organization or the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohn for the payment directly or indirectly.
That's 2018.
The timeline is not working out particularly well for Alvin Bragg from what I can see.
Anyway, joining us, Greg Jarrett, Fox News contributor.
Soon will be releasing his new book, Trial of the Century.
David Schoen is with us, civil rights attorney and former attorney for President Trump himself.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Greg Jarrett, let me begin with you.
It's everything we said.
This is a law that has never been used.
This is a novel legal concept.
It has never been used before because the statute of limitations ran out on what would be a misdemeanor charge in New York.
They're trying to marry it to an FEC violation, federal elections law violation, which the FEC, by the way, looked at and passed on, which the DOJ passed on, which the Mueller team passed on, which the former DA passed on, and which Bragg initially passed on.
You know, I got to tell you, in all honesty, this is the damnedest indictment I think I've ever read in 43 years of being a lawyer.
And I've read thousands of indictments.
The problem with this is it doesn't tell the defendant what law he's broken.
Yes, it does say that he allegedly falsified records.
That's a misdemeanor.
And Bragg then waves a magic wand and tries to transform it into a felony by arguing that Trump intended to conceal another crime, but it doesn't say what other crime that is.
At the very end, it sort of alludes generally to finance, campaign finance laws, but it doesn't say, well, is that a state law?
Is that a federal law?
And what's the statute?
What's the crime?
And, you know, so this is, it seems to me, not just a feeble case.
It's flawed on its face.
A defendant is entitled to know what laws he has broken.
And they only tell Trump half the laws he's broken and leave him in suspense to figure out on his own.
It's in one of those books over there up on the shelf, Mr. former president.
So I you know, I would expect a motion to dismiss that this is, you know, an indictment that doesn't supported by the law on its face.
All right, let's get your take, David Shoan.
Yeah, you know, I'd use the word joke, but it's too serious a matter for that.
The indictment is an absolute worse than a joke.
I am surprised by it, quite frankly.
I'm maybe the one guy who is surprised.
I didn't believe that they would stoop this low.
I thought that at least for the good of the country, they would have something more than an indictment dependent on Michael Cohen inside and out.
They can say all they want.
They have corroboration from documents.
At the end of the day, it all depends on Michael Cohen's characterization of those documents.
And yes, they might get Mr. Weiselberg.
They might get Mr. Pecker to say something.
But it's shocking that they would go with this.
I think the answer, you know, first there will be a motion to dismiss, but they'll also file a bill of particulars demanding that the target crime for each of the 34 counts that makes it a felony be identified.
You can't give the prosecution wiggle room so they can have a shifting theory of defense.
Due process demands that.
But I'm going to tell you this.
I think one of the most important things is they've just made members of their office absolutely witnesses in this case.
Mark Pomerance, as you know, was brought in to be the so-called special prosecutor.
He had help from other lawyers who were paid for by private law firms.
Even one member of the Mueller investigation, Greg Andres, was a consultant.
On page 159 of his book, he writes, Julietta Lozano, the head of the Major Economic Crimes Bureau, said she could not ever see calling Cohen to testify about anything because she did not trust anything he said.
Page 227, and I'll leave it here, of his same book, at one point during the meeting, Alvin Bragg, commented that he could not see a world in which we would indict Trump and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness.
Ordinarily, the inner workings of the prosecutor's office, the deliberative processes, are out of bounds.
I think in this case, the Pomeranz book and these kinds of statements opens all of that up, all of the credibility issues with Michael Cohen.
Well, okay, so Michael Cohen, by every account now, is their star witness.
We have the Bob Costello statements about Michael Cohn being suicidal, Michael Cohn being asked repeatedly by Bob Costello if he had any dirt on Donald Trump or the Trump organization.
We have his answer, no, no, no, no, no.
And then what else do we have?
And we have, on top of that, you can add to the fact that he said he'd do anything that he needed to do to stay out of jail.
Is this anything that he needs to do to stay out of jail, even though he went to jail, Greg Garrett?
Yeah, you know, you're a desperate prosecutor if you're resting your case on the disgraced, disbarred Michael Cohen, an infamous liar.
He went to prison for lying to the IRS, lying to banks, lying to Congress.
One of the most disreputable, sleazy people you'll ever have the misfortune to meet.
I think his dishonesty is exceeded only by his unscrupulous zeal to destroy Trump.
If he takes the witness stand, he will be absolutely eviscerated on cross-examination.
Same thing with Stormy Daniels, who, by the way, is not privy to the inner workings of how the Trump organization accounted for the payment.
So I'm not sure the relevance of her forthcoming testimony if she takes the witness stand.
So, I mean, this is a pathetic case.
I agree with Bill Barr.
It's an abomination.
They resurrected a zombie case from the grave, and it's still deader than a doornail.
I think so, too, but, I mean, they're not going to get it.
Let's look at the motions they could file, David.
A motion for a change of venue, a motion to dismiss.
What other motions could they have?
I don't think any of them are going to work.
Do you?
Because I honestly think if you look at all the cases that Donald Trump is now dealing with, there's not a single venue that I would ever want to have a conservative on trial in.
Yeah, I don't think the motion for a change of venue is going to work, quite frankly, but it can be filed.
I don't know that any with this judge, to be perfectly candid, I don't know that any motion will succeed, but it's vitally important to make the record.
I think you're going to have a statute of limitations motion.
You're going to have motions to recuse Alvin Bragg based on his campaign statements.
Absolutely ought to disqualify him and his office and the indictment.
You're going to have a motion to recuse the judge, I would hope, based on the judge shopping process and so on.
But by the way, they have more than just Bob Costello's statements.
They have Bob Costello's contemporaneous note from June 13th, 2018, in which he specifically asked, told Cohen, do everything you can to help yourself.
If you have anything at all on Trump, Stormy Daniels, McDougal, et cetera.
And in those contemporaneous notes from 2018, Cohen told his own lawyer, Bob Costello, he had nothing.
And beyond all of this, even if you believe Cohen, you believe Weisselberg, whoever else is going to testify, is there a crime?
That's the real issue.
And if you call an expert witness like Bradley Smith, former FEC commissioner, so on, there was no crime here.
There couldn't have been a crime as a matter of law.
So you have all of those issues.
Well, I think we have all of them.
So what do you both recommend?
Greg, what would you say the next move of the Trump attorneys, the Trump team ought to be doing?
I'd file several motions to dismiss.
And Sean, you identified one of the most important.
You know, the misdemeanor predicate crime expired five years ago.
Statute of limitations.
Yeah, statute of limitations.
I don't know how you get around the statute of limitations.
Yes, there are exceptions.
It can be told or extended, but not for five years.
And you can't argue that you didn't know where Trump was when he was outside the jurisdiction because everybody knew where he was.
He was residing at the White House.
The fact that he's out of the jurisdiction now and they indict him means they could have indicted him three years ago or four or five years ago, but they didn't do it.
And they didn't do it because there was no case.
He didn't break any laws.
And I think in the end, that will prevail.
I think so, too.
What would you file, David Schoen?
No, absolutely, those motions.
But you're going to hear in the media, I believe, well, this unique statute in New York that extends the statute of limitations when you're continuously out of state was just upheld in the Harvey Weinstein case, and that's true.
And it was upheld in 1999.
The classic case is People versus Noble.
However, the fundamental principle, this is what Greg just said, and it says that in each of the cases, the statute was passed to deal with the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who's out of state and his whereabouts are difficult to ascertain.
There's nobody on this planet who people knew where he was more frequently than Donald Trump.
He's the president of the United States.
You knew where he was almost every minute of every day.
They could have indicted, held the indictment while he was president and so on.
But as you said earlier, Sean, people who reviewed this passed on it.
The U.S. Attorney's Office passed on it.
The FEC passed on it because there was nothing there.
Well, I mean, that's the thing.
Can I go back to the indictment again?
And to defraud and the intent to commit another crime.
What does that mean?
Does anybody know?
Well, it's vague and ambiguous and fatal as far as indictments go.
And unless there is, as David says, a bill of particulars that the prosecutors file to specify what crimes they're talking about, this indictment cannot stand as a matter of law.
So once you get the bill of particulars, if Bragg cites a federal campaign finance, I'll file a motion to dismiss that the district attorney doesn't have jurisdiction to pursue a federal crime.
He's a local prosecutor.
He can only file under state charges.
So, you know, we'll have to wait and see.
But I'm just shocked at the level of incompetency contained in this indictment.
It's really unbelievable.
All right, guys, we appreciate you being with us.
Greg Jarrett and David Shoan, we are 800-941-Sean, our number.
We're going to take a lot of calls next final hour of the show today as we continue.
All right.
We've been all over this.
We've examined it to death.
You've heard from our legal experts.
When we come back, we're going to hit the phones.
Toll-free.
It's 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Loaded up tonight, 9 Eastern on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
The president's attorney, Joe Takapina, Jonathan Turley, the great one Mark Levin.
Eric Trump will be on tonight.
Sarah Carter had an incident with some crazy left-wing lunatics, and we've got that video.
Lindsey Graham tonight will also weigh in defending President Trump.
Anyway, this will be right after his speech.
How long it goes, what time it ultimately starts, I don't know.
But we'll have great response and coverage.
▲
Export Selection