Sean Hannity Show - Gregg Jarrett - May 30th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 31, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show

16:18

Gregg Jarrett - May 30th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, thank you, Scott Shannon.
	We are now 11 hours, 11 minutes into jury deliberations.
	We went through what had happened earlier this morning.
	They had the readback on the four questions that were handed over late in the afternoon yesterday.
	And I got to tell you, some interesting things came out of this.
	Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, and of course, best-selling author joins us now.
	One of the things that really stood out to me is the three times, I don't pay for stories.
	I don't pay for stories.
	I don't pay for stories.
	That was pretty interesting in terms of readback.
	Yeah, you know, the fact is that paying for a story to be suppressed or paying for a story to be promoted, it's not a crime.
	And, you know, the prosecution has tried to create the appearance, the illusion that somehow that's a crime.
	Nondisclosure agreements is a crime.
	I mean, putting Stormy Daniels on the witness stand and having her recount intimate details of alleged sex, I mean, that's not a crime and it's utterly irrelevant to the case.
	And yet, not only did Alvin Bragg's partisan DAs do it, the judge allowed it.
	He allowed anything and everything.
	When it came time for the defense, you know, he put a rope around them and made their opportunity to present a counter narrative very, very limited.
	So I think it underscores that this is a biased judge.
	And, you know, as you and I were talking, I've tried cases, I've covered cases 44 years, and I have never seen such a disgraceful abuse of the legal system.
	A district attorney who contorted the law beyond recognition and a hyper-biased judge who has really disgraced the bench with one-sided, errant decisions, punitive rulings.
	This legal theory is simply made up.
	It exists nowhere in the law.
	And what is such a shame, but everybody should see it, is that Alvin Bragg and Lamar Shawn the judge have been working in tandem.
	They're trying to wrongfully convict somebody who is completely innocent.
	And they don't care that it'll never stand up on appeal.
	They took non-crimes, dead misdemeanors, disguised them as felonies.
	It's all pure fiction.
	And they wrapped it up in a pretty little bow of legal deceptions and a lying witness by the name of Michael Cohen.
	Pretty amazing.
	And we got to keep into account, you know, not only a novel legal theory.
	I mean, if you just go through the list of, I would argue, reversible errors and conflicts and clear conflicts and the lack of recusal Biden donor judge, the issue with the daughter and the family.
	DA gets runs on a get Trump platform.
	Then we've learned from Bob Costello, oh, yeah, he gave the DA's office exculpatory information and it was withheld from the indicting grand jury.
	He gave it to them beforehand, which by law he was supposed to share with them.
	They're not going to let Bradley testify as it relates to the former FEC chair and explain the law.
	Jury instructions, you know, basically, you know, so favor the prosecution in this case, the idea, not only a novel legal theory that nobody really knew about or even knows about to this day, but you can still find him guilty, and four of you can find him guilty for this reason, and four can find you guilty for this reason, and four for the other reason.
	You know, Greg, you've been pointing out Andres versus the U.S., Ramos versus Louisiana 2020.
	All these jury verdicts require unanimity, and to find guilt, jurors must always agree without dissent on every necessary element of the purported crime.
	I mean, it can't get any more corrupt than this.
	Yeah, I mean, it's bad enough that the judge didn't require the prosecution to disclose this mystical, cryptic secondary crime.
	Nobody knows what it is, least of all the jurors.
	And that is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment.
	You are entitled as a defendant to be told what the specific accusations against you are.
	Well, they never did.
	They said, well, there could be three possibilities.
	We didn't identify them in the indictment.
	We didn't charge them, but they are there if you crook your neck and squint your eyes.
	Judge Marshon then made it worse.
	He said, telling the jury they don't have to agree unanimously on which of the three possible secondary crimes that Trump allegedly committed.
	My goodness.
	What he's really saying is you can agree to disagree and still convict.
	That is shocking.
	It really is.
	Let's get Horace Cooper's take on this.
	Horace, what's your take?
	Well, you know, Greg and I talked about these cases that were coming up, and I was a bit more optimistic, and I'm disappointed and saddened that I was so optimistic that even in New York, our long historic embrace of Anglo-Saxon criminal justice would be upheld in the state of New York.
	And I even said there are going to be other judges that are going to be so appalled at what was attempted that they would be concerned that they would be smeared.
	Well, here's where I was wrong.
	Even though I taught constitutional law, even though I've been watching criminal cases, it appears that in the federal system, you are going to follow the actual criminal law.
	Even if you get a bad judge like Chutkin, but the appellate court and the, in this case, the Supreme Court is actually going to see to it that you follow the law.
	Even in the state of Georgia, I am proud to say that what we see is an appeals court and an Supreme Court, state Supreme Court, that want to follow the law.
	It appears that in the state of New York, at least during the trial portion itself, the other appellate courts are just not interested in acting appropriately.
	Many other attorneys, both some who say they're pro-prosecution, some who say they are pro-defense, some more liberal, some more conservative, have said that this case, this so-called hush money case, is replete with reversible error.
	And apparently, we're going to have to have this case, if in fact, a conviction ultimately ensues, go to the United States Supreme Court.
	That, to me, is a, as we would say in Texas, a sin and a shame that this kind of case can't be properly handled in the state of New York.
	Let's say in the case of conviction, obviously there are so many reversible errors, clear conflicts, as we have discussed ad nauseum and in great detail.
	I guess the next question would be, Greg Jarrett, is there any process for an expedited appeal?
	There is.
	It's called a common law writ.
	Now, you can use a common law writ to go directly to the United States Supreme Court.
	And here, where there are such egregious violations of due process, of violation of the guarantees contained in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, unanimity, which is a bedrock constitutional principle that has now been utterly shredded by Judge Mershon.
	I mean, that is ripe material for a common law writ.
	Now, having said that, the High Court rarely grants them, but this is a rare case because of who the defendant is and the larger impact on democracy and society.
	And so I think it's a fool's errand to expect the appellate division of the trial court to overturn Juan Marshon.
	They're a rubber stamp.
	They're cheering on Judge Marshon and his corrupt view of how to preside over this case.
	I have no confidence in the highest court in New York, which is, you know, of course, backwards.
	It's called the appellate court.
	Everything is, you know, backwards through the looking glass in New York.
	So I think the only relief is the federal court system, and ultimately, as Horace says, the United— Would they need to go to the appeals court first, or could they go directly to the Supreme Court and petition them?
	Yeah.
	You can do both.
	You can file your normal appellate review in the appellate division, which is the next upper level in New York, while simultaneously seeking relief on a common law writ with the United States Supreme Court over fundamental violations of constitutional due process that is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.
	And I think there may well be enough justices on the Supreme Court to grant Certiari to be so alarmed at such egregious violations.
	I do agree that there are going to be justices on the court that are watching.
	My observation is I think many fair-minded attorneys are astonished.
	We're just astonished.
	That will include justices on the Supreme Court.
	You could see up to seven, maybe even eight justices wanting to overturn some obvious errors that have occurred in this case.
	It needn't come to that.
	We're supposed to have a state court system all in all 50 states in which we're confident that they're going to adhere to the rule of law.
	The other observation is that if you are a business or a wealthy person in the state of New York and you are watching this distortion of the law, dressing up a misdemeanor, putting it into a sort of a tuxedo and calling it now a felony and then extending the statute of limitations, what if they did that to Donald Trump?
	They did that to your company.
	It's time if the state of New York can't get its business act together, that large companies with assets need to start thinking about where they're going to locate beyond the reach of this civil and criminal justice system in this state.
	Yeah, pretty amazing times we're living in.
	And by the way, you know, we can continue down our list.
	You know, the idea in closing arguments that the prosecution was allowed to tell the jury over and over and over again that the payments were campaign violations.
	It just was wrong and should never have been allowed.
	And the judge allowed it uncontradicted.
	You know, the idea that today in explaining to the jury this issue of you have to view Michael Cohen as an accomplice, doesn't that suggest that a crime was committed?
	In my mind, I think that's certainly not.
	That's pretty inflammatory language, Greg Jarrett.
	Well, I see it the other way around, and in fact, the request by jurors to, or at least one juror, to review both Becker and Cohen's testimony suggests that...
	By the way, we're just getting this in.
	The jury will be dismissed in about 10 minutes, so this is over for the day.
	Yeah, and that also tells me, just off the cuff, that they're nowhere close to a decision if they were.
	If they were close, they would stay till 6.
	But we know that juries famously come back on Fridays, so Friday would be a day that you got to think would be the day they'd come back, but no questions at the end of today either.
	Yeah, but I think they are, as to continuing what I was saying, is they wanted to see Pecker and whether Pecker corroborated Michael Cohen.
	Because remember, that jury instruction you just recited, Sean, by law, Murshawn had to give it because Cohen's an accomplice.
	And under the law, accomplice testimony by itself is not enough to convict.
	There must be corroboration.
	So it may very well be that the jury is looking at Pecker's testimony, comparing it to Cohen, to see if any of it corroborates Cohen.
	And if it doesn't, that's not enough to convict.
	Yeah.
	Amazing testimony.
	I'm holding out for a hung jury.
	Are you, Greg, or are you, Horace?
	Yeah, I'm holding out for a hung jury.
	I think there's a very legitimate real possibility that one or more jurors are unwilling to convict on this absurd cockamame legal theory.
	Last word, Horace.
	What do you think?
	Well, I agree with that, but that's where we're likely headed.
	I still think that other entities, businesses, influential people need to start reassessing the benefit of living under the jurisdiction of New York State's criminal law if this of kangaroo court is going to be allowed.
	Well said.
	All right.
	Appreciate you both.
	Thank you.
	I'm not Pollyannish.
	Yeah, I'm holding out for a hung jury, but no verdict in this case will shock me based on the cinder blocks placed on the scales of justice by the judge and, of course, the DA.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.

▲