1
00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:03,400
Speaker 1: All right, hour two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and

2
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:05,320
Speaker 1: nine four one Sean. If you want to be a

3
00:00:05,440 --> 00:00:08,600
Speaker 1: part of the program, thank you, Scott Channon. We are

4
00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:13,400
Speaker 1: now eleven minutes, eleven hours, eleven minutes into jury deliberations.

5
00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:16,920
Speaker 1: We went through what had happened earlier this morning. They

6
00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:20,239
Speaker 1: had the readback on the four questions that were handed

7
00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:25,079
Speaker 1: over late in the afternoon yesterday, and I got to

8
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:28,080
Speaker 1: tell you some interesting things came out of this. Greg

9
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:31,280
Speaker 1: Jared Fox News legal analyst and of course best selling

10
00:00:31,320 --> 00:00:34,720
Speaker 1: author joins us. Now, one of the things that really

11
00:00:34,720 --> 00:00:37,920
Speaker 1: stood out to me is the three times I don't

12
00:00:37,920 --> 00:00:41,160
Speaker 1: pay for stories. I don't pay for stories. I don't

13
00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:44,239
Speaker 1: pay for stories. That was pretty interesting in terms of readback.

14
00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:51,239
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, the fact is that paying for a

15
00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:55,720
Speaker 2: story to be suppressed or paying for a story be promoted,

16
00:00:56,240 --> 00:01:02,280
Speaker 2: it's crime. And you know, the prosecution has tried to

17
00:01:02,320 --> 00:01:07,800
Speaker 2: create the appearance, the illusion that somehow that's a crime.

18
00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:13,520
Speaker 2: Nondisclosure agreements is a crime. I mean, putting Stormy Daniels

19
00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:18,240
Speaker 2: on the witness stand and having to recount intimate details

20
00:01:18,360 --> 00:01:22,000
Speaker 2: of alleged sacks. I mean, that's not a crime. And

21
00:01:22,040 --> 00:01:26,280
Speaker 2: it's utterly irrelevant to the case. And yet not only

22
00:01:26,319 --> 00:01:30,360
Speaker 2: did Alvin Bragg's partisan das do it, the judge allowed it.

23
00:01:30,880 --> 00:01:34,120
Speaker 2: He allowed anything and everything. When it came time for

24
00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:38,520
Speaker 2: the defense, you know, he put a rope around them

25
00:01:38,800 --> 00:01:45,240
Speaker 2: and made their opportunity to present a counter narrative very,

26
00:01:45,440 --> 00:01:49,120
Speaker 2: very limited. So I think it underscores that this is

27
00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:51,800
Speaker 2: a bias judge. And you know, as you and I

28
00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:56,680
Speaker 2: were talking, I've tried cases, I've covered cases forty four years,

29
00:01:57,320 --> 00:02:02,480
Speaker 2: and I have never seen such a disgraceful abuse of

30
00:02:02,520 --> 00:02:06,760
Speaker 2: the legal system. A district attorney who contorted the law

31
00:02:06,880 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 2: beyond recognition, and a hyperbiased judge who has really disgraced

32
00:02:14,160 --> 00:02:20,160
Speaker 2: the bench with one sided, errant decisions, punitive rulings. This

33
00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:23,800
Speaker 2: legal theory is simply made up. It exists nowhere in

34
00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:27,799
Speaker 2: the law. And what is such a shame but everybody

35
00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:31,399
Speaker 2: should see it, is that Alvin Bragg and Walmershan the judge,

36
00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:36,160
Speaker 2: have been working in tandem. They're trying to wrongfully convict

37
00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:40,600
Speaker 2: somebody who is completely innocent, and they don't care that

38
00:02:40,680 --> 00:02:44,799
Speaker 2: it'll never stand up on appeal. They took non crimes,

39
00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:51,080
Speaker 2: dead misdemeanors disguised them as felonies. It's all pure fiction,

40
00:02:51,240 --> 00:02:53,480
Speaker 2: and they wrapped it up in a pretty little bow

41
00:02:53,960 --> 00:02:57,720
Speaker 2: of legal deceptions and a lying witness for the name

42
00:02:57,760 --> 00:02:58,600
Speaker 2: of Michael Cohen.

43
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:02,640
Speaker 1: Pretty amazing. And then we got to keep into account.

44
00:03:02,880 --> 00:03:05,720
Speaker 1: You know, not only a novel legal theory. I mean,

45
00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:09,079
Speaker 1: if you just go through the list of I would

46
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:12,919
Speaker 1: argue reversible errors and conflicts and clear conflicts and the

47
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:17,800
Speaker 1: lack of recusal. Biden donor judge the issue with the

48
00:03:17,880 --> 00:03:21,160
Speaker 1: daughter and the family DA gets runs on a get

49
00:03:21,200 --> 00:03:25,280
Speaker 1: Trump platform. Then we've learned from Bob Costello. Oh yeah,

50
00:03:25,320 --> 00:03:28,760
Speaker 1: he gave the DA's office exculpatory information and it was

51
00:03:28,800 --> 00:03:31,920
Speaker 1: helped withheld from the indicting grand jury. He gave it

52
00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:34,760
Speaker 1: to them beforehand, which by law he was supposed to

53
00:03:34,800 --> 00:03:37,400
Speaker 1: share with them. Uh, they're not gonna let, you know,

54
00:03:38,440 --> 00:03:42,680
Speaker 1: Bradley testify as it relates to the former FBC chair

55
00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:47,840
Speaker 1: and explain the law jury instructions. You know, basically, you know,

56
00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:52,280
Speaker 1: so favor the prosecution in this case. The idea not

57
00:03:52,320 --> 00:03:56,000
Speaker 1: only a novel legal theory that nobody really knew about

58
00:03:56,080 --> 00:03:58,160
Speaker 1: or even knows about to this day, but you can

59
00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:00,240
Speaker 1: still find them guilty. And four of you can find

60
00:04:00,240 --> 00:04:02,200
Speaker 1: them guilty for this reason, and for them find you

61
00:04:02,240 --> 00:04:04,480
Speaker 1: guilty for this reason and for for the other reason.

62
00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:08,320
Speaker 1: You know, Greg, you've been pointing out Andres versus the US,

63
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:13,800
Speaker 1: Ramos versus Louisiana twenty twenty. All these jury verdicts require unanimity,

64
00:04:14,240 --> 00:04:18,480
Speaker 1: and to find guilt, jurs must always agree without descent,

65
00:04:18,640 --> 00:04:21,320
Speaker 1: on every necessary element of the reported crime. I mean,

66
00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:23,000
Speaker 1: it can't get any more corrupt than this.

67
00:04:23,640 --> 00:04:27,480
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's bad enough that the judge didn't

68
00:04:27,520 --> 00:04:35,200
Speaker 2: require the prosecution to disclose this mystical, cryptic secondary crime.

69
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:38,080
Speaker 2: Nobody knows what it is, least of all the jurors,

70
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:42,120
Speaker 2: and that is a blatant violation of the sixth Amenma.

71
00:04:42,279 --> 00:04:47,440
Speaker 2: You are entitled as a defendant to be told what

72
00:04:47,560 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 2: these specific actuusations against you are.

73
00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:51,240
Speaker 3: Well.

74
00:04:51,279 --> 00:04:52,919
Speaker 2: They never did.

75
00:04:52,960 --> 00:04:53,320
Speaker 3: Well.

76
00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 2: It could be three possibilities. We didn't identify them in

77
00:04:57,400 --> 00:05:01,440
Speaker 2: the indictment, we didn't charge them, but they are there

78
00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:06,320
Speaker 2: if you cook your neck and squint your eyes. Judge

79
00:05:06,360 --> 00:05:09,719
Speaker 2: Marsham then made it worse. She said telling the jury

80
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:13,120
Speaker 2: they don't have to agree unanimously on which of the

81
00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:19,080
Speaker 2: three possible secondary crimes that trump allegedly committed. My goodness,

82
00:05:19,320 --> 00:05:23,280
Speaker 2: what he's really saying is you can agree to disagree

83
00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:28,760
Speaker 2: and still convict. That is shocking, because it really is.

84
00:05:29,320 --> 00:05:31,880
Speaker 1: Let's get Horace Cooper's take on this. Horace, what's your take?

85
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:35,080
Speaker 3: Well, you know, Greg and I talked about these cases

86
00:05:35,080 --> 00:05:38,760
Speaker 3: that were coming up, and I was a bit more optimistic.

87
00:05:38,839 --> 00:05:42,600
Speaker 3: And I'm disappointed and saddened that I was so optimistic

88
00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:49,800
Speaker 3: that even in New York, our long historic embrace of

89
00:05:49,960 --> 00:05:56,799
Speaker 3: Anglo Saxon criminal justice would be upheld in the state

90
00:05:56,839 --> 00:05:59,279
Speaker 3: of New York. And I even said, they are going

91
00:05:59,320 --> 00:06:02,720
Speaker 3: to be there judges that are going to be so

92
00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:08,600
Speaker 3: appalled at what is attempted that they would be concerned

93
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:13,080
Speaker 3: that they would be smeared. Well, here's where I was wrong.

94
00:06:13,440 --> 00:06:16,480
Speaker 3: Even though I talk constitutional law, even though I have

95
00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:20,880
Speaker 3: been watching criminal cases, it appears that in the federal

96
00:06:21,160 --> 00:06:26,160
Speaker 3: system you are going to follow the actual criminal law,

97
00:06:26,560 --> 00:06:31,039
Speaker 3: even if you get a bad judge like Chuckkins. But

98
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:35,599
Speaker 3: the appellate court, and in this case, the Supreme Court

99
00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:40,200
Speaker 3: is actually going to see to it that you follow

100
00:06:40,360 --> 00:06:44,920
Speaker 3: the law. Even in a state of Georgia. I am

101
00:06:45,640 --> 00:06:49,400
Speaker 3: proud to say that what we see is an appeals

102
00:06:49,480 --> 00:06:53,480
Speaker 3: court and in a supreme court state supreme court that

103
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:59,360
Speaker 3: want to follow the law. It appears that in the

104
00:06:59,760 --> 00:07:06,560
Speaker 3: state of New York, at least during the trial portion itself,

105
00:07:07,480 --> 00:07:14,520
Speaker 3: the other appellate courts are just not interested in acting appropriately.

106
00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:21,480
Speaker 3: Many other attorneys, both some who say they're pro prosecution,

107
00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:26,239
Speaker 3: some who say they are a pro defense, some more liberal,

108
00:07:26,640 --> 00:07:32,400
Speaker 3: some more conservatives, have said that this case, this so

109
00:07:32,520 --> 00:07:38,280
Speaker 3: called hush money case, is replete with reversible error, and

110
00:07:38,560 --> 00:07:43,920
Speaker 3: apparently we're going to have to have this case, if

111
00:07:44,040 --> 00:07:49,840
Speaker 3: in fact a conviction ultimately ensues, go to the United

112
00:07:49,920 --> 00:07:54,720
Speaker 3: States Supreme Court. That to me is, as we would

113
00:07:54,760 --> 00:07:58,800
Speaker 3: say in Texas, a sin and a shame that this

114
00:07:59,000 --> 00:08:04,520
Speaker 3: kind of case can't be properly handled in the state

115
00:08:04,800 --> 00:08:05,640
Speaker 3: of New York.

116
00:08:06,280 --> 00:08:09,880
Speaker 1: Do either, let's say, in the case of conviction. Obviously,

117
00:08:10,040 --> 00:08:13,360
Speaker 1: there are so many reversible eras clear conflicts, as we

118
00:08:13,400 --> 00:08:17,600
Speaker 1: have discussed at nauseam in great detail. I guess the

119
00:08:17,640 --> 00:08:21,480
Speaker 1: next question would be Greg Jarrett, is there any process

120
00:08:21,520 --> 00:08:22,920
Speaker 1: for an expedited appeal?

121
00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:29,160
Speaker 2: There is? It's called a common law writ. Now you

122
00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:31,480
Speaker 2: can use a common law writ to go directly to

123
00:08:31,520 --> 00:08:35,920
Speaker 2: the United States Supreme Court. And here where there are

124
00:08:36,000 --> 00:08:41,720
Speaker 2: such egregious violations of due process, of violation of the

125
00:08:41,880 --> 00:08:47,240
Speaker 2: guarantees contained in the sixth and seventh Amendments unanimity, which

126
00:08:47,280 --> 00:08:51,720
Speaker 2: is a bedrock constitutional principle that has now been utterly

127
00:08:51,800 --> 00:08:56,559
Speaker 2: shredded by Judge Marshan. I mean, that is ripe material

128
00:08:56,800 --> 00:09:01,640
Speaker 2: for a common law rit now having said that, the

129
00:09:01,720 --> 00:09:05,880
Speaker 2: High Court rarely grants them, but this is a rare

130
00:09:06,120 --> 00:09:09,960
Speaker 2: case because of who the defendant is and the larger

131
00:09:10,280 --> 00:09:16,280
Speaker 2: impact on democracy and society. And so I think it's

132
00:09:16,320 --> 00:09:20,400
Speaker 2: a fool's errand to expect the Appellate Division of the

133
00:09:20,440 --> 00:09:25,480
Speaker 2: Trial Court to overturn Juan Marshan. They're a rubber stamp.

134
00:09:25,920 --> 00:09:31,360
Speaker 2: They're cheering on Judge Marshan and his corrupt view of

135
00:09:31,480 --> 00:09:35,400
Speaker 2: how to preside over this case. I have no confidence

136
00:09:35,440 --> 00:09:38,200
Speaker 2: in the highest court in New York, which is you know,

137
00:09:38,280 --> 00:09:43,719
Speaker 2: of course, backwards, it's called the appellate Court. Everything is

138
00:09:43,840 --> 00:09:46,920
Speaker 2: you know, backwards through the looking glass in New York.

139
00:09:47,640 --> 00:09:53,120
Speaker 2: So I think the only relief is the federal court system.

140
00:09:53,160 --> 00:09:56,960
Speaker 2: And ultimately, as Horace says, the United would.

141
00:09:56,720 --> 00:09:59,400
Speaker 1: They need to go to the appeals court first, or

142
00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:01,960
Speaker 1: could they go to directly to the Supreme Court and petition.

143
00:10:02,120 --> 00:10:06,360
Speaker 2: Then you can do both. You can file your normal

144
00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:12,079
Speaker 2: appellate review in the Appellate Division, which is the next

145
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:17,840
Speaker 2: upper level in New York, while simultaneously seeking relief on

146
00:10:17,920 --> 00:10:21,120
Speaker 2: a common law writ with the United States Supreme Court

147
00:10:21,200 --> 00:10:29,240
Speaker 2: over fundamental violations of constitutional due process that is guaranteed

148
00:10:29,280 --> 00:10:32,080
Speaker 2: in the fourteenth Amendment. And I you know, I think

149
00:10:32,400 --> 00:10:36,040
Speaker 2: there may well be enough justices on the Supreme Court

150
00:10:36,280 --> 00:10:40,640
Speaker 2: to grant Sir shierrari to be so alarmed at such

151
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:43,000
Speaker 2: egregious violations.

152
00:10:43,480 --> 00:10:47,840
Speaker 3: No, I doge that that they're going to be justices

153
00:10:47,880 --> 00:10:52,200
Speaker 3: on the Court that are watching. My observation is I

154
00:10:52,280 --> 00:10:59,240
Speaker 3: think many fair minded attorneys are astonished. We're just astonished.

155
00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:04,880
Speaker 3: Will include justices on the Supreme Court. You could see

156
00:11:05,280 --> 00:11:11,040
Speaker 3: up to seven, maybe even eight justices wanting to overturn

157
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:17,600
Speaker 3: some obvious errors that have occurred in this case. It

158
00:11:17,880 --> 00:11:22,520
Speaker 3: needn't come to that. We're supposed to have a state

159
00:11:22,880 --> 00:11:27,760
Speaker 3: court system all in all fifty states in which we

160
00:11:27,800 --> 00:11:32,400
Speaker 3: are confident that they're going to adhere to the rule

161
00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:36,720
Speaker 3: of law. The other observation is that if you are

162
00:11:36,840 --> 00:11:40,880
Speaker 3: a business, are a wealthy person in the state of

163
00:11:41,000 --> 00:11:46,560
Speaker 3: New York and you're watching this distortion of the law,

164
00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:51,200
Speaker 3: dressing up a misdemeanor, putting it into a sort of

165
00:11:51,200 --> 00:11:55,079
Speaker 3: a tuxedo and calling it now a felony and then

166
00:11:55,200 --> 00:11:58,720
Speaker 3: extending the statute of limitations. What if they did that

167
00:11:58,840 --> 00:12:03,280
Speaker 3: to Donald Trump, they did that to your company. It's

168
00:12:03,760 --> 00:12:06,960
Speaker 3: time if the state of New York can't get its

169
00:12:07,120 --> 00:12:12,520
Speaker 3: business act together, that large companies with assets need to

170
00:12:12,600 --> 00:12:16,920
Speaker 3: start thinking about where they're going to locate beyond the

171
00:12:16,960 --> 00:12:21,000
Speaker 3: reach of this civil and criminal justice system in this state.

172
00:12:22,160 --> 00:12:25,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty amazing times we're living in. And by the way,

173
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:27,720
Speaker 1: you know, we can continue down our list. You know,

174
00:12:27,800 --> 00:12:32,240
Speaker 1: the idea in closing arguments that the prosecution was allowed,

175
00:12:32,760 --> 00:12:35,880
Speaker 1: you know, to tell the jury over and over and

176
00:12:36,040 --> 00:12:40,600
Speaker 1: over again that the payments were campaign violations. It just

177
00:12:40,800 --> 00:12:43,480
Speaker 1: was wrong and should never have been allowed, and the

178
00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:47,480
Speaker 1: judge allowed it uncontradicted. You know, the idea that today

179
00:12:47,760 --> 00:12:52,080
Speaker 1: in explaining to the jury this issue of you have

180
00:12:52,120 --> 00:12:55,040
Speaker 1: to view Michael Khona as an accomplice. Doesn't that suggest

181
00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:59,600
Speaker 1: that a crime was committed? In my mind, I think

182
00:12:59,640 --> 00:13:03,280
Speaker 1: that's that's certainly not that's pretty inflammatory language.

183
00:13:03,280 --> 00:13:06,080
Speaker 2: Greg Jarrett, Well, I see it the other way around,

184
00:13:06,080 --> 00:13:10,440
Speaker 2: and in fact, the request by jurors to or at

185
00:13:10,559 --> 00:13:16,600
Speaker 2: least one juror to review both Pecker and Cohen's testimony.

186
00:13:16,040 --> 00:13:18,920
Speaker 1: Suggests by the way we're just getting this in, the

187
00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:21,640
Speaker 1: jury will be dismissed in about ten minutes. So this

188
00:13:21,679 --> 00:13:22,600
Speaker 1: is over for the day.

189
00:13:23,080 --> 00:13:26,080
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that also tells me, just off the cuff

190
00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:30,920
Speaker 2: that they're neverwork close to a decision. If they were, if.

191
00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:33,600
Speaker 1: They were closed, they would stay till six. But we

192
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:37,800
Speaker 1: know that jury's famously come back on Fridays, so Friday

193
00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:39,840
Speaker 1: would be a day that you got to think would

194
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:41,800
Speaker 1: be the day they'd come back. But no questions at

195
00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:42,680
Speaker 1: the end of today either.

196
00:13:43,200 --> 00:13:47,360
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think they are as continuing what I was

197
00:13:47,400 --> 00:13:51,559
Speaker 2: saying is they wanted to see Pecker and whether Pecker

198
00:13:52,440 --> 00:13:57,880
Speaker 2: corroborated Michael Cohen, because remember that jury instruction you just recited,

199
00:13:57,920 --> 00:14:02,920
Speaker 2: Sean by law, Mrshawn had to give it because Cohen's

200
00:14:02,960 --> 00:14:08,160
Speaker 2: an accomplice, and under the law, compless testimony by itself

201
00:14:08,240 --> 00:14:11,800
Speaker 2: is not enough to convict. There must be corroboration. So

202
00:14:11,920 --> 00:14:15,319
Speaker 2: it may very well be that the jury is looking

203
00:14:15,360 --> 00:14:18,120
Speaker 2: at Pecker's testimony comparing it to Cohen to see if

204
00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:22,040
Speaker 2: any of the corroborates Cohen, and if it doesn't, that's

205
00:14:22,200 --> 00:14:23,480
Speaker 2: not enough to convict.

206
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:28,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, amazing testimony. I'm holding out for a hung jury,

207
00:14:28,600 --> 00:14:29,960
Speaker 1: are you, Greg? Are you Horace?

208
00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:33,400
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm holding out for a hung jury. I think

209
00:14:33,440 --> 00:14:37,200
Speaker 2: there's a very legitimate, real possibility that one or more

210
00:14:37,320 --> 00:14:44,080
Speaker 2: jurors are unwilling to convict on this absurd Kakamani legal theory.

211
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:46,520
Speaker 1: Last word, Horace, what do you think?

212
00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:49,600
Speaker 3: Well? I agree with that, but that's where we're likely headed.

213
00:14:50,080 --> 00:14:55,640
Speaker 3: I still think that other entities, businesses, influential people need

214
00:14:55,680 --> 00:15:01,240
Speaker 3: to start reaffesting the benefit of under the jurisdiction of

215
00:15:01,320 --> 00:15:06,200
Speaker 3: New York State's criminal law. Is this of kangaroo court

216
00:15:06,400 --> 00:15:07,280
Speaker 3: is going to be allowed?

217
00:15:08,240 --> 00:15:10,560
Speaker 1: Well said? All right, I appreciate you both. Thank you.

218
00:15:10,640 --> 00:15:13,400
Speaker 1: I'm not Pollyannis. Yeah, I'm holding out for a hung jury.

219
00:15:13,440 --> 00:15:16,520
Speaker 1: But no verdict in this case will shock me based

220
00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:19,160
Speaker 1: on the cinder blocks placed on the scales of justice

221
00:15:19,200 --> 00:15:20,840
Speaker 1: by the judge and of course the DA