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

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 31, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show

16:23

Gregg Jarrett - May 30th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an IHIR podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdown?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
	We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
	Normally it's 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 2, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-SEAN.
	If you want to be a part of the program, Thank you, Scott Shannon.
	We are now 11 minutes 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 uh afternoon yesterday.
	And uh I got to tell you, uh some interesting things came out of this.
	Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, and of course, best selling author joins us now.
	Uh 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.
	Um you know, the the fact is that uh paying for uh uh a story to be uh suppressed or paying for a story to be promoted, it's not a crime.
	And you know, uh the prosecution has tried to create the appearance, the illusion that somehow that's a crime, non-disclosure agreements is is a crime.
	I mean, putting Stormy Daniels on the witness stand and having to 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 he put uh a rope around and made their opportunity to present a counter uh narrative very, very limited.
	So it I I think it underscores that this is a biased judge, and you know, as you and I were talking, I uh I've tried cases, I've covered cases forty-four years, and I have never seen such a disgraceful abuse of the legal system.
	A district attorney who contorted the law beyond recognition, and a hyper biased judge who has uh 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 Lamershawn 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.
	Uh pretty amazing.
	And then we got to keep into account, you know, not only a novel legal theory.
	I mean, if you just go through the the list of uh I would argue reversible errors and conflicts and clear conflicts and the lack of recusal uh but Biden donor judge uh the issue with the daughter and the family, uh DA gets uh runs on a get Trump platform.
	Uh then we've learned from Bob Costello, oh, yeah, he gave the DA's office exculpatory information and it was help withheld from the indictury.
	He gave it to them beforehand, which by law he was supposed to share with them.
	Uh they're not gonna let you know uh Bradley testify as it relates to the former FPC sh uh chair and explain the law, uh jury instructions, you know, basically, you know, so favor the prosecution in this case, the idea not only a novel legal theory that nobody really knew about or even knows about to this day, but you can still find them guilty, and four of you can find 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 twenty twenty.
	All these jury verdicts require unanimity and to find guilt, jurors must always agree without dissent on every necessary element of the reported 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 these specific accusations against you are.
	Well they never did.
	They said well it could be three possibilities we didn't identify them in the indictment we didn't charge them but they are there if you crooked your neck and squint your eyes Judge Marchon 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 because it really is let's 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 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 talk 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 a 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're 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.
	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 thin and a shame that this kind of case can't be properly handled in the state of New York.
	Do either well let's say in the case of conviction obviously there are so many reversible errors clear conflicts of which as we have discussed ad nauseum and in 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, a 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 right material for a common law writ.
	Now, having said that, uh 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 uh to overturn Juan Mershaw.
	They're a rubber stamp.
	They're cheering on Judge Marshan 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.
	Um 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 But would they need to go to the appeals court first, or could they go directly to the Supreme Court and petition them?
	You can do both.
	You can file your normal uh appellate review in the the appellate division, which is the next uh 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 Fourteenth Amendment.
	And I, you know, I think there may well be enough justices on the pre Supreme Court to grant Cerchi Arari to be so alarmed at such egregious violations.
	I I do that there are going to be justices on the court that are watching.
	My 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 fifty states, in which we are 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.
	And by the way, you know, we can continue down our list.
	You know, the idea in closing arguments that the prosecution was allowed, you know, to tell the jury over and over and over again that the payments were campaign violations, i it just was wrong and should never have been allowed, and the judge allowed it uncontradicted.
	You know, the idea that today in explaining the to the jury this issue of of m you have to view Michael Cohn as an accomplice, doesn't that suggest uh that a crime was committed?
	Uh Uh in my mind, I think that's that's certainly not.
	That's that's pretty inflammatory language, Greg Garrett.
	Well, I I see it the other way around.
	And in fact, uh the request by jurors to, or at least one juror, to review both Pecker and Cohen's uh testimony suggests that the By the way, we're just getting this in.
	The jury will be dismissed in about ten minutes, so this is over for the day.
	Yeah, and that that also tells me just off the cuff that they're not they're nowhere close to a decision.
	If they were, they could if they were close, they would stay till six.
	But we know that juries famously come back on Friday, so Friday would be a day that you you gotta think would be the day they'd come back, but no questions at the end of today either.
	Yeah, but uh I think they are as to continuing what I was saying is they wanted to see Pecker and whether Pecker corroborated uh Michael Cohen.
	Because remember, that jury instruction you just recited, Sean.
	Um, by law Mershawn had to give it because Cohen's an accomplice, and under the law.
	Um 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.
	Uh 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 I I think there's a very legitimate real possibility that one or more jurors um are unwilling to convict on this absurd cockamami 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 re-assessing the benefits of living under the jurisdiction of New York State's criminal law if this of Kangaroo Court is going to be allowed.
	Well said.
	Thank you.
	I'm not Pollyanish.
	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.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally it's 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 podcast.

▲