With me now, the 5 co-hosts, Judge Jeanine Pirro, a former New York State judge and district attorney, a ton of experience with all of this. There's another picture of him. I should be happy to show that picture of Jeanine. It's another life.
How are you? Good to have you here today. So what's your reaction to Judge Gershon moving it? You are? I am stunned.
Look, this is a judge who at every turn
ruled against Donald Trump. This is a judge who allowed prejudicial
evidence to come in, evidence that had nothing to do with the underlying charge. And speaking of the underlying charge, most of it is expired pursuant to the statute of limitations, bootstrapped and resurrected
by another crime that the jury didn't have to really identify.
And there's a lot of hearsay, and there's some privilege information.
Then in the interim is a Supreme Court decision that came out in July that said, hey, you know, you have to separate
immunity or immunize and privilege testimony
from the underlying
essence of the crimes in this case. And now all of a sudden, Judge Mershon is saying, well, I don't want to be political here. I think it's time that we took, you know, took note of the fact that we're in a presidential election season. Are you kidding me?
This is a political decision
made by a judge who said, you know what? This is a close election.
I'm not going to give Donald Trump any kind of advantage here. That's my interpretation
based upon a judge who did everything he could. Even the verdict sheet in this case is not, you can't understand it. I've never seen anything like it. And so now suddenly the DA, Martha agrees, the DA says, we're not going to object to his sentencing. They want to throw him in jail, But they know that this is a case
that will go in Trump's favor and they don't want that to happen.
So this is Alvin Bragg. There are so many cases that we've been keeping straight, but you know, this was the hush money case. And you remember that Alvin Bragg basically took something that was beyond the statute of limitations
and extrapolated it into I think 34 counts it was in the end,
which had people outraged back then. Do you think that they are now looking at this situation
and that they got cold feet. I mean, at 1 point, Mershon did say back in the courtroom, you know, it's not lost on me that I have someone here who may be the next president of the United States. Do you think that they
just said, you know what, we don't really want this on our shoulders? Well, I think that it is inevitable that this case will be reversed.
And I think that maybe Merchant did everything he had to do, that he allowed in testimony
regarding a crime that nobody knows what it was,
and that In the end, they will be able to say that Donald Trump is a convicted felon. He's been convicted on 34 counts.
But you know what? We're going to delay the sentencing because maybe if they had this sentencing
and Donald Trump took an appeal, depending upon how quickly the appellate court wanted to rule on this. I mean, this is an important case where exigent circumstances
would require an appellate court to take it up immediately.
They don't want to be slapped down either. So I mean there are so many avenues here in this case,
But the 1 thing that is so essential to understand, Martha, is that every turn
was against Donald Trump. Now all of a sudden, we're clean, we don't want to get involved in anything political, it's a presidential election season, and we're going to just adjourn the sentencing until after election. And by the way, Jack Smith got a superseding
indictment, right? Georgia is nowhere in that case. We don't even know who the prosecutor is.
Mershon doesn't want to be hanging alone on this, where he's definitely going to be slapped. Let me ask you this, which is a purely political question about all of this, because there was clearly
a big rush in all these cases. Jack Smith wanted his cases, which were January 6th in the documents case, which got thrown out by the judge in Florida.
They wanted all this to happen before the election. Do you think that the fact that Kamala Harris is now the candidate has made them cool their heels a little bit, that they're less worried
about
a second President Trump term?
They may look at it and say, you know,
it looks tight, and
that's why I go back to the political.
That this little bit where if you put or sentence
someone running for president on house arrest or whatever confinement,
The country will go crazy.
We are
a republic. We are. This is the United States. You don't put someone running for president
in jail or house confined. What about November 26th when we'll know? I mean, either he's the next president
or he is not or he loses the election. Will there be a sentencing then? They will have to make a decision first on the immunity part of this based on the Supreme Court's decision. That will then be appealed.
And then they would probably go to a sentencing. But here's the thing, if he's president, they can't put him in jail at that point,
okay? Because he's got to run the country. You know, there's a lot
of avenues on this 1, but I've never seen them say, we don't want to be political.
No.
Yeah. You know, we're within 2 months of this election. So this obviously would have had a big bearing on it. It may have helped Trump if he was sentenced. Every single move along the way here, the more he was persecuted by the legal system, the more it helped him. But this 1 is off the table for now. Judge, always great to see you. Thank you so much for coming. We'll see you on the 5. Look forward to it.
