Trump Convicted - Now What? Expert Legal Analysis, with Aidala, Eiglarsh, Dershowitz, Geragos, Aronberg, Davis, and Holloway| Ep. 807

This episode delves into the legal repercussions and possible future scenarios following the conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 counts in New York City.

1. Trump's legal team is expected to pursue a vigorous appeal, emphasizing the argument of an unprecedented and biased application of the law.
2. There is considerable debate over the sentencing, with predictions ranging from probation to actual jail time, reflecting the unique nature of the case against a former president.
3. The panel discussed the potential impact of Trump's conviction on his future political campaigns and the broader ramifications for political and legal norms in the U.S.
4. The episode highlighted the complexity of legal strategies in high-profile cases, including potential impacts on sentencing from Trump's age and lack of prior convictions.
5. Experts expressed concern over the politicization of the legal process and the precedent it may set for future prosecutions of public figures.

1: Introduction and Overview

Megyn Kelly introduces the episode's focus on Donald Trump's conviction and the legal perspectives on what comes next. Guests for the episode are outlined. Megyn Kelly: "Today we have perhaps the most impressive legal panel ever assembled to discuss the Trump conviction."

2: Legal Analysis of the Conviction

Discussion on the details of the conviction and its implications. The panel debates the potential for Trump to face jail time and the strategies his lawyers might employ. Arthur Aidala: "His lawyers should be preparing a substantial sentencing memorandum."

3: Sentencing Scenarios and Appeals

The panel explores various sentencing scenarios and the appeals process that could potentially follow the conviction. Alan Dershowitz: "The appellate process will likely focus on claims of judicial bias and misapplication of the law."

4: Political and Legal Ramifications

An analysis of the broader political and legal ramifications of Trump's conviction, considering the current political climate in the United States. Mark Geragos: "This case will likely have significant political and legal consequences, not just for Trump but for the presidential office itself."

5: Conclusion and Reflections

The episode wraps up with reflections on the day's discussion and thoughts on the future of legal and political battles in America. Megyn Kelly: "This discussion has underscored the complexities and significant stakes involved in this high-profile case."

1. Understand the Appeals Process: For those facing legal battles, understanding the appeals process can provide critical options for challenging convictions.
2. Awareness of Political Influence in Legal Cases: Recognize how political dynamics can influence legal outcomes and stay informed on the implications for legal rights and processes.
3. Seek Professional Legal Advice: Always consult with qualified legal professionals when dealing with complex legal issues, especially in politically sensitive cases.
4. Stay Informed on Legal Developments: Keep up-to-date with legal developments, particularly those that could impact your rights or community.
5. Engage in Civic Education: Educate yourself and your community about the intersection of law and politics to better navigate potential biases and injustices in the legal system.

Megyn Kelly is joined by all-star legal experts to break down the Trump conviction and guilty verdict, with Arthur Aidala, Mark Eiglarsh, Alan Dershowitz, Mark Geragos, Dave Aronberg, Mike Davis, and Phil Holloway, to discuss what Trump's sentence might be now that he's found guilty, Judge Merchan's history of sentencing, whether Trump will get jail time or "community service," what probation would look like, Trump speaking out and unloading on the biased Judge Merchan, Elie Honig's fair coverage of the case, comparing the Trump case to the Harvey Weinstein verdict that was overturned on appeal, what Trump's appeal strategy should be, how the case could end up at the Supreme Court, whether Republicans should fight fire with fire and go after political opponents too, Judge Merchan's small donation earmarked for "resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy," whether he should have recused himself, President Biden's comments about the Trump verdict, whether Biden should have weighed in on a criminal case, his campaign out in the media calling Trump a "convicted felon" over and over again, Michael Cohen's media tour, and more.

People

Arthur Aidala, Mark Eiglarsh, Alan Dershowitz, Mark Geragos, Dave Aronberg, Phil Holloway, Mike Davis

Guest Name(s):

Arthur Aidala, Mark Eiglarsh, Alan Dershowitz, Mark Geragos, Dave Aronberg

Content Warnings:

None

Megyn Kelly
Welcome to the Megyn Kelly show live on SiriusXM channel 111 every weekday at noon east.

Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show. Former President Donald Trump found guilty on all 34 counts, as you know by now, by a New York City jury late Thursday afternoon. What does that mean for him now for the legal system and for America, meaning the rest of us? I shared some of my thoughts last night in a bonus episode, which you can find on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, and all the podcast and video platforms. Today we have perhaps the most impressive legal panel ever assembled. I'm not kidding. You're gonna hear right here from Alan Dershowitz, Mark Geragos, Mike Davis, Dave Ehrenberg and Phil Holloway.

But we begin with, with two Kelly's court all stars and originals, Martha Arthur Idala, trial attorney and managing partner for Idala Bertuna and Caymans and host of Arthur Idala Power Hour. And Mark Iglarsh, criminal defense attorney for Iglarsh Law, which you can find@speaktomark.com. dot do you owe back taxes? Pandemic relief is now over. Along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IR's has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million pay up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed.

Don't waive your rights and speak with them on your own. It's stressful and it can end very badly. Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has saved over $1 billion in back taxes for their clients. And they can help you secure the best deal possible.

Whether you owe ten grand or 10 million, they can help you whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay or if you're on a fixed income, they can help you finally resolve your tax burdens once and for all. Call 1802 four five 6000 for a private free consultation, or visit tnusa.com. megan guys, welcome back to the show. So they did it. They went ahead and did it. And now Trump is officially, as you might have heard, all over CNN and Ms, a convicted felon.

So, Arthur, let me start with you as the New York trial attorney. What's going to happen to him now?

Arthur Aidala
Well, right now, his lawyers should be preparing a substantial sentencing memorandum. I mean, I did a state sentence yesterday, like moments before this verdict, and it's a little like 25 30 with Trump, maybe a 50 page like, this is your life. Judge Mershant these are all the reasons why a disposition which we would be asking for of a conditional discharge meaning there's no jail, there's no probation, there's no community service, there's no fines. The fact that he went through this experience was punishment enough for the crime that was committed and conditional discharge. The condition is, don't get rearrested over the next five years and you'll have no further problems. If you do get rearrested in the next five years, you come back and you answer to the court and the court can adjust the sentence appropriately. We would credit the statistics from the state of New York about a felony convictions, what the median sentences. I believe you're going to find that it is a non jail sentence. If it is, it's very, very, very low. You add in that, forget about the president of the United States. You add in a 77 year old businessman, never in trouble in his life. You convince the judge that jail is ridiculous, basin is a waste of time, effort, energy and money, and that really nothing should happen simultaneously. You're filing an order of appeal and you're preparing the appeal to the appellate division, first Department. That whole process of the appeal there will take probably right around one year.

Megyn Kelly
Arthur, we did a quick search to see what we could find out about Judge Mershon and his sentencing, and here's just a couple of things that we found. Former Manhattan assistant DA Stuart Misner to Politico, Trump would likely, or merchant will likely sentence Trump to a term of incarceration. I don't think much, but I think it would be included just to show that no one's above the law. Then there's Peter Tillum, New York defense lawyer, former ADA in New York County DA's office in Manhattan.

Judge Mershon is not known as a draconian sentencer. He's not known to be the toughest sentencer in the building. I don't think he'd want to start with this particular case. And then there's Ron Kubey, a veteran New York criminal defense attorney who says Judge Marshawn is known for being a harsh sentencer when it comes to white collar crimes committed by people who have wealth and privilege and power. It's substantially likely that Marshawn will sentence Trump to jail or prison time. So this is where you practice, and this is your bread and butter, this courtroom. What do you think?

Arthur Aidala
Well, I think it's true. He does not all of the above. I don't. I think ultimately he's not going to give him jail time. He's not known as being a draconian sentencer, but he's not known in being as an easygoing guy, either.

Let's take it a step before that, though, Megan.

Alvin Bragg asks for jail here, which I'm assuming he's going to. It's going to go down as one of the most critical statements I've ever seen. This is an administration, the Bragg administration, that ran on and has functioned as the alternatives to incarceration. Everyone deserves a second chance. Anything but jail. On violent crimes, on crimes of people who are predicate felons, meaning they already have a felony conviction. All of a sudden, in this lowest level paper crime, he asks for jail. It is beyond preposterous, but I don't think, look, Rashad showed his cards a tiny little bit during the dAg order hearings where he said, I know you're the former president. I know you're the presumptive nominee. I believe he said, I don't want to put you in jail. So if he's smart, he finds a creative community service alternative where Donald Trump can use his money and his status to make New York a little bit of a better place while he hurts Donald Trump or makes a little bit of a lesson out of the exposure of it.

Megyn Kelly
This is a guy, Mark, Judge Mershon, sorry, Alvin Bragg, who, when he came to office, promised that he wasn't going to prosecute marijuana misdemeanors, prostitution, fair evasion, and instructed prosecutors in his office to avoid seeking jail time for crimes including robbery, assault and gun possession. There was such a revolt in the city after that, and two cops got killed, gunned down in the prime of their lives that he had to reverse, he had to backtrack after blowback from the NYPD on that letter. But he didn't want his Das, his ADA, seeking jail time for robbery or assault. So how is Alvin Bragg going to saunter into this courtroom and try to get jail time for the former president of the United States on the falsification of business records?

Mark Eiglarsh
I hope he doesn't. Look, the goal here in this case, and every case is justice. I love Aristotle's definition of justice. Like cases being treated alike, one would argue there's nothing like this. But the truth of the matter is you can plausibly analogize this case to the other 70 something year old first time offenders. They've never been in trouble before in the legal system. This is their first go around. This is a white collar, non violent offense.

I think that in most cases, you would find that the state would ask for probation. Everything Arthur said is accurate. I think it would be very hypocritical to come in and ask for his liberty to be stripped. And also, one other thing. I don't see how they carry that out. I mean, no one really has said exactly how that would work. But he's not going to leave his secret service guys behind, and they're not going to remain unarmed. So what, they're going to bring guns into a jail? To sit by a cell like that? Just doesn't make any sense.

Arthur Aidala
Megan. I did.

Megyn Kelly
Can we talk about probation? Yeah, go ahead, Arthur. And then I talk about probation after.

Arthur Aidala
Your point about the jail. Part of it. Because during the trial, it was a possibility, right, when he was violating the gag orders. Department of corrections, as I believe, has already, or I've been told, identified a section of the prison. If he was, believe it or not, if he was actually sent to Rikers island, you know, during the court, they'd be able to keep him in the courthouse, and there are secure facilities there where they could keep him. But after, if the judge actually sentences him to, let's say, three days in jail, which basically means he's got to do a day, they would just find or they've already identified, like, a private area where he could be. But he would be without his phone, without tv, you know, all of those things.

Mark Eiglarsh
What about secret service? Where's secret service? In the cell next to him.

Arthur Aidala
No, sitting right outside the cell, making sure no one's gonna bother him. No one's gonna. No guns.

Dave Aronberg
No.

Mark Eiglarsh
No guns. No weapons.

Arthur Aidala
It would be poured out of his mind. That would be really his punishment. Cause the last time he didn't have a tv, a phone, a newspaper, maybe they would give him a newspaper. Seriously? Or a book, and he would have to sit there for 24 hours.

Mark Eiglarsh
I don't see how that.

Megyn Kelly
Let's talk about probation.

Probation.

Now, this is. Okay.

Discussed on the daily. The New York times. I mean, the left wing press, you can actually hear the smiles through the reporting on podcasting and on radio, you can hear the smiles. They're. So go ahead and listen. I dare you to listen to NPR's up first. Today, they were giggling like a bunch of middle school girls at a pool party. I mean, it was absurd.

Here's the New York Times, the daily, saying, often people on probation have to meet with their probation officer and tell them what they are doing for work. So if he is elected as president, he will have to meet with a probation officer and explain to him, I'm president.

Now, does anyone think that's actually going to happen? They go on to say, people on probation are not supposed to associate with known felons. So what's going to happen? The probation officer is going to be like, Steve Bannon can't come in here, sir. He's out. Peter Navarro out. No, you and Michael Cohen having it out, man to man out. You can't associate with no one. Felons. Sure, sure. And pointing out you have to tell probation officers your known travel plans. And so now you have, you actually have speculation in the press, Trump would be elected as president and he would not be allowed to travel as our world. This is, I'm sorry, this is left wing fantasy land.

Arthur Aidala
So you don't have to just let them know your travel plans. You have to get approval from the department of probation to.

Megyn Kelly
That's not happening.

Arthur Aidala
Travel plans. But listen, Judge Michonne, if he does sentence him to probation, he'll give him permission. He has the ability to alter all of those. All of those qualification, all of those recommendations, the standard operating things. Look, I just had a guy, and the judge said, I said, judge, he travels to New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode island for work. Okay, I'll mark the papers. He's allowed to do that without checking in. So if he did ever sentence him to probation, which is such a ridiculous idea, what a waste of time, effort, energy and money, but if he did do that, he would have to lose his mind, judge Michonne, to, to keep that travel restriction on the books. And if he did, I would pray to God that department of probation of the city and state of New York would be smart enough to say, okay, mister president, you could travel wherever you want. Just have someone on your staff let us know where you are.

Megyn Kelly
Here's what we're going to get, Mark. We're going to get a probation officer who says, mister president, this will be, you know, in July, you can travel wherever you want, except Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado.

Arthur Aidala
Right.

Mark Eiglarsh
And now that I'm done listing the states you can't go to, can I get a urine sample?

Megyn Kelly
Right, right.

Realistically, Mark, realistically, you're advising Donald Trump.

Mark Eiglarsh
About the urine sample, by the way.

Megyn Kelly
Oh my God. I mean, that's the one thing I don't think Trump does. He likes sudafed, but he doesn't do drugs.

Mark Eiglarsh
They have to go in the.

Megyn Kelly
Oh, my God.

Arthur Aidala
Yeah, yeah.

Megyn Kelly
Meanwhile, that's the one detail stormy Daniels didn't share but wanted to. The in depth description of Trump's private parts. Apparently, even Judge Marshawn had his limits.

So what would you be telling him to expect on July 11 when he actually gets sentenced?

Mark Eiglarsh
Well, expect that he finds just a little humility just for a second, because the guy that he is taking shots at every single moment is the one who can sentence him to immediate custody and make that happen. So the first thing I would do is say, look, it's been fine up till now, or not fine, but okay, we've accepted up until now. But as we go into court, this is the one opportunity where this guy's making a decision. Assuming he hasn't already made the decision months ago, let's just. Just, you know, try to be humble. Let's present the mitigation and let's see what he does.

Megyn Kelly
You're sweet. Then he'd say, mark, you're fired. Try to be humble. That's not what he's going to do. Go ahead, Arthur.

Arthur Aidala
Let's just play that out. Because I know you got all these great guests coming on, but I don't know how many of them have actually been in this exact situation. It's very unique in new York. So let's say he sentences up to three days in jail, three months, whatever it is, immediately you say to Mershant, your honor, and my client be held in the back. So he's got to leave the courtroom once the judge leaves the bench. And allow me the opportunity to go to the appellate division. This is the one and only time in the court process in the state of New York. You get to pick your judge. So if the 20 some odd judge is the appellate division, you already have a judge lined up and you say, judge, my client's being sentenced at 11:00 I would like to have a tentative appointment with you at 01:00 p.m. or 130. We come over and see you then if there's a period of incarceration, the judge says yes. You run over there with the prosecutor, you have some paperwork. You have to show the judge at the appellate division the unlikelihood of success at the appellate level. So you can't go in there with some frivolous documents. You can't say, oh, he's president. You can't do this. You have to say, judge, look at these unique circumstances, never done before. You cannot let this guy go to jail for three minutes, let alone three days, because by the time his appeal gets perfected, there's no redress. He can't get those three days back, and more likely than not, under those circumstances, because you get to pick the judge who's gonna be a reasonable judge.

The judge will stay the prison time until the appeal is over. So this jail time thing will get put on the side until the appeal is totally perfected. And if he loses the appeal at both the appellate division and the court of appeals, if they allow him to go up there, then he would have to do his three days in jail.

Mark Eiglarsh
And there'd be good.

Megyn Kelly
And could he appeal to the court of appeals right away? If the appellate division, like, let's say the appellate division judge says, you don't have to, you don't have to do the jail time. Can the prosecutor take it up to the court of appeals right away?

Arthur Aidala
No, if they get the appellate division, if the appellate, he has no redress after that, Trump does. If the appellate division denies him and says, you got to do the three days, he cannot go to the court of appeals. I don't see a way for him to go to the federal court. He's just, that's just done. But if the judge does say, you don't have to do the jail time right now until the appeal is over, there's nowhere for the prosecutor to go. And if he loses his overall appeal at the appellate division, it is not automatic that he gets to go to the court of appeals. Either a court of appeals judge has to invite him up, or if there's a lower court judge who's in the dissent, that that lower court judge can send him up.

Megyn Kelly
Speaker one. I mean, I just don't see any way this, this doesn't ultimately get resolved by an appellate court, whether it's the New York state Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court.

But none of that matters because the election will have taken place.

Mark Eiglarsh
Megan, I am not as confident as you on that issue, but let me just say, Arthur mentioned that the chances, what would be his chances of staying that sentence? I think that they're great. I think that there's more than just, he's the president, keep him out. I think all you have to do is raise that one issue about the jury instructions. They were either correct or they weren't. And that issue alone, I think, would serve as the basis to grant him a stay. And so he doesn't serve the sentence.

Arthur Aidala
And even before that, are you allowed for the first time to take a misdemeanor out of the statute of limitations and concoct this new system to figure.

Megyn Kelly
Out an underlying Frankenstein? It's a Frankenstein charge. But wait. But Mark, so what would you be telling Trump? Because I want to talk to you about this. So what is expected of him? Like an allocution? What does he, what does he need to say when he goes in for sentencing because what we all expect him to say is basically f, off. You're corrupt. This is outrageous.

Go ahead and do your thing.

Mark Eiglarsh
The truth is I just went into generic 30 years of experience mode. It doesn't apply to Trump. And it would look hollow anyway and insincere if all of a sudden in front of it. So I take it back. Truth of the matter is, you know, keep doing what you're doing, it's not going to make a difference. The judge already, I think, has decided what he's going to do. Doesn't matter. You know, how many letters of, you know, character or recommendation you get? That doesn't matter. I think this judge has decided what that is. We'll wait and see. I still think it'll be non, non jail.

Arthur Aidala
I think Mark is 100%. I think Mark's 100% correct. Under normal circumstances. You mentioned the term allocution. Allocution is only when you will plead guilty and you accept responsibility. Here he's not accepting responsibility. He's been found guilty after a trial. So he doesn't have to accept responsibility. He could stand there and say, judge, I know what the jury said and we were never say that. I know what the jury said. I'm innocent. I didn't do anything wrong. I had no intent to cook any books or do anything. I did have an intent to shut up Stormy Daniels about something that I'm telling you didn't happen. But that's that. Your sentence is going to be whatever it be. I think this whole system stinks. I don't think I had a fair chance. I think these jurors were against me from the get go. And you know what, judge? I think you were against me from the get go. But you're going to sentence to me whatever you're going to sentence me and we'll take it from there.

Megyn Kelly
That's exactly what he's going to say.

Mark Eiglarsh
Arthur, Arthur's like he's looking at his script already. That's exactly, I want to agree with.

Arthur Aidala
You on something, and I hate to say this, I hate to say this. I agree with you. It's not that easy with this appeal because, Megan, the appellate division is appointed by the last four or five governors, all the Democrats, Cuomo, Spitzer, Patterson, Hochul, they're going to have a lot of pressure on them not to reverse this. When you get to the court of appeals, they have shown a lot of courage. They've shown a lot of guts. So maybe that could happen. But in the last case I did that went to the court of appeals, it took four years from the date of conviction or the data sentence, I should say the date of reversal. So, you know, this is a long road to hold. Nothing's going to happen fast.

Mark Eiglarsh
I don't know.

Megyn Kelly
It's not going to be fast.

Mark Eiglarsh
Megan, I don't know if you really, really meant it or whether it was more like hopeful when you said, oh, this is definitely. Because I saw you say that and I went, I said out loud to my kids, I go, Megan's. Megan's not right on this one. I don't think it's going to be guaranteed to be overturned. In fact, many of the things that happened during the trial, and I've just been the victim of this many times, where you go, this is definitely going to be reversed. And then at best they'll say, yeah, it was error. The judge shouldn't have done this, but it's harmless error. We're going to let it go.

Megyn Kelly
No, it's not going to be upheld, you guys. It's not for multiple reasons. Number one, you're right, the state constitution of New York was violated. It is not okay to just incorporate by reference the entire criminal law. If he tried to falsify the business records by unlawful means, that's how we got the dead misdemeanor resurrected up to a felony because he said, they violated the New York election law, which says you can't win an election or try to win an election by unlawful means. And that unlawful means is so amorphous as to effectively incorporate by reference all federal law and all New York state law, whether it's New York state tax law, federal election law, New York state business record law, that's all the foundation of Alvin Bragg's case. So he's admitting that those two words, unlawful means, are actually an incorporation by reference of all law. That's not okay. That violates the New York state constitution, which requires specificity when, so that future defendants know what the law is and is not. It's going down, mark my words.

Mark Eiglarsh
And that's the argument. That's a great argument.

Megyn Kelly
That's one of them. That's one of them. But you're saying that the court's not likely to take it. I'm. They're going to take it and they're going to strike it down on New York state constitutional grounds in addition to the federal due process arguments.

Mark Eiglarsh
You may be right for that reason, but they also may find just the opposite, and then that becomes law.

Arthur Aidala
I don't think they find the opposite, Megan. By the way, I'm going to make this personal, Megan. You know who agrees with every word that just came out of your mouth? My father. He said, how do you defend your. He was. How do you defend yourself? He said, it's creating a false document to commit a crime. In the book, defend yourself against every single crime in the penal law.

Mark Eiglarsh
It seems so unfair. It seems so unfair. And as trial lawyers, I'd lose my mind. You mentioned the other day, Arthur, about a bill of particulars. Why couldn't they have nailed that down and found out in advance, these are the three options? And then throughout the trial, the defense could have then fought against those three and not been allegedly surprised.

Megyn Kelly
Mm hmm.

Arthur Aidala
But Bragg said at the press conference, when he was asked several times, what is the underlying crime? And he said, the constitution, the laws of the state of New York do not obligate me to tell you what they are. And that is true like it's true in a burglary, which is in the state, which. Yes, but in the burglary case, which is in the statute of limitations, which is already a felony, you don't have to be unanimous on what the underlying crime is that you went into the house for. But this is not that case. It's a misdemeanor. Out of the statute of limitations. There should be a higher standard that has to be reached. The jury should have had to be unanimous about what that underlying crime was, and we don't know if it was. 444-3293 whatever. And to me, I think Megan's right. That is a violation of state and federal.

Alan Dershowitz
So we're clear.

Mark Eiglarsh
So we're clear to minimize the hate mail. I agree with each of you, and I like that argument. I just don't have to.

Megyn Kelly
You sound like RFK Junior. He came on the show yesterday, reversed himself on every position. As soon as I pushed back on.

Mark Eiglarsh
Him, I didn't reverse it. I'm saying I don't have the confidence in the appellate court. This isn't how Mark Eichlarsh feels. I don't know that it's as certain and a slam dunk reversal as you're saying. That's all I'm saying.

Arthur Aidala
The reason why I fear, Meg, I'm on record.

But here's the only reason why I'm pushing back about the certainty, and I'm a little scarred.

Five appellate division judges heard the Weinstein case and seven court of Appeals judges heard it. Only four agreed that it was egregious behavior by the trial judge. The appellate division, it was five. Nothing to affirm it. There was no problem with having all these other people testify. There was no problem having these crazy other things come in. If he testified, five to nothing.

Megyn Kelly
And then at the appellate division, I get it. But there's also the US Supreme Court. There's also the US Supreme Court, which is not going to see this the same way as the New York State Appellate division. They're going to understand what a frankenstein it is and how this defendant was not afforded due process under the federal constitution, or as I just pointed out, the state. They're going to see it. They're going to see it clearly. I actually think every single one of the conservatives will see it. I think it'll be a six three decision.

It doesn't matter for electoral purposes. The election comes in November. There's zero chance anything happens before then. But I'm just saying, ultimately this is going to be reversed and I have zero doubt about it. Here's Trump and what I think he's going to sound like, talking to Judge Mershon on July 11 during the sentencing. This may have been a preview. He had a presser this morning at 11:00 a.m. saat two.

Donald Trump
There's never been a more conflicted judge. Now, I'm under a gag order, which nobody's ever been under. No presidential candidate's ever been under a gag order before.

I'm under a gag order, nasty gag order, where I've had to pay thousands of dollars in penalties and fines and was threatened with jail. So I'm the leading person for president, and I'm under a gag order by a man that can't put two sentences together given by a court. And they are in total conjunction with the White House and the DOJ. Just so you understand this, as far as the trial itself, it was very unfair.

We weren't allowed, allowed to use our election expert under any circumstances.

You saw what happened to some of the witnesses that were on our side. They were literally crucified by this man who looks like an angel, but he's really a devil.

Mark Eiglarsh
Literally, literally crucified.

Arthur Aidala
They crucified. I don't know what a nasty gang order is, I'm not sure. But see, this is where Trump, like, shoots himself in the foot. Like, we don't know. Biden is involved with this judge and why the White House is involved. Like, that's where he loses credibility. He could just say that this judge is one of the only judges in the courthouse who made a donation to Joe Biden's campaign in violation of the judicial ethics rules. So you know where he stands. Everything I just said is accurate. You could just say that. And that cast on the judge.

Megyn Kelly
That's right. And there was a pretty extraordinary piece, you guys. I know we've been talking about, Arthur, how you've been going on CNN, and there is a former prosecutor there named Ellie Hoenig, CNN contributor, who was writing in New York magazine today. These are left wing media and pointing out how ridiculous these charges are and saying, prosecutors got their man, for now, at least. But they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey. And goes on to say things like, this judge donated money, a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind to a pro Biden, anti Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for, quote, resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump's radical right wing legacy. And he very fairly points out, would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple of bucks to reelect Donald Trump MAga forever?

Absolutely not. Very fair point by Eli Hoenig. This is amazing that he was allowed to stay on, that he didn't.

Mark Eiglarsh
That is the image of impropriety at a minimum. I'm surprised he didn't.

Arthur Aidala
I just want to say a word about Eli Hoenig through this whole thing and this media blitz I've been going through. He's one of the highlights of everyone I've met. I met a lot of new people. And he's a quality lawyer and he's a quality individual, and, you know, where he works and what journal he was writing for. And it takes some courage to write what he wrote, and he should be complimented for that.

Megyn Kelly
I have to say, I've enjoyed Eli Hoenig's coverage. I actually do find him to be fair, even prior to this piece, and I don't say that about most people. So kudos to him. But he went on to say, as follows, the DA's charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That's not on the jury. That's on the prosecutors who chose to bring this case and the judge who let it play out as he did. And he talks about how he inflated the charges, how he incorporated by reference these three other, um, possible crimes and so on. And he actually said, many have called this a zombie case. It's better characterized as the Frankenstein case, cobbled together with ill fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more or less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator. I hope that's true. I think Alvin Bragg has disgraced himself. That's what I think. He's disgraced himself by using the law to get a political enemy instead of to get justice. You guys are the greatest. Thanks so much for being a part of this show. Since it's dawn and even prior to Martha, you guys are the greatest. Thanks for being here.

Arthur Aidala
Real quick, ask Dershowitz or someone how this case gets the United States Supreme Court, just logistically, because I know through the New York state system, but I don't know how SCOTUS actually gets it. And one of those great guests will have the answer. And as a consumer, I'd like to know.

Megyn Kelly
He's up next. Thank you for teeing up. My next, my next panel very, very nicely. See you guys.

Arthur Aidala
Thank you so much, Meg.

Mark Eiglarsh
Bye.

Megyn Kelly
All right, up next, Dersh and Mark Garagos return.

Do you owe back taxes? Pandemic relief is now over. Along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IR's has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million pay up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed.

Don't waive your rights and speak with them on your own. It's stressful and it can end very badly. Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has saved over $1 billion in back taxes for their clients. And they can help you secure the best deal possible.

Whether you owe ten grand or 10 million, they can help you. Whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay or if you're on a fixed income, they can help you finally resolve your tax burdens once and for all. Call 1802 four five 6000 for a private free consultation, or visit tnusa.com.

Donald Trump
Megan but I'm out there, and I don't mind being out there because I'm doing something for this country and I'm doing something for our constitution. It's very important. Far beyond me.

And this can't be allowed to happen to other presidents. It should never be allowed to happen in the future. But this is far beyond me. This is bigger than Trump. This is bigger than me. This is bigger than my presidency. So we're going to be appealing this scam.

We're going to be appealing it on many different things. He wouldn't allow us to have witnesses. He wouldn't allow us to talk. He wouldn't allow us to do anything. The judge was a tyrant. So we will continue the fight.

We're going to make America great again. Very simple, because everybody saw it was a rigged deal, it was a rigged trial.

But we're going to make America great again. We're going to make it better than ever before. November 5. Remember, November 5 is the most important day in the history of our country.

Megyn Kelly
Welcome back to the Megyn Kelly show. That was Donald Trump this morning speaking out for the first time about this jury verdict in full. Joining me now, Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of Get Trump and they did. And Mark Garagos, managing partner of Garagos and Garagos and host of the reasonable Doubt podcast. Guys, welcome back to the show. So, Alan, let me pick it up where we just left off with Arthur Idala and Mark Eiglarsch, where Arthur said, would you please ask Professor Dershowitz how it is that Trump could get this case, if he needs to, to the US Supreme Court and past what will be a heavily weighted Democrat bench at both levels in immediate appellate and court of Appeals in New York.

Alan Dershowitz
He should make an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals asking him to bypass the appellate division because he's not going to get justice in the appellate division. The Appellate Division are Manhattan judges that are elected and they don't want to have to face their families and say, we're the judge who will allow Trump to become the next president of the United States. They don't want to be Dershowitz. They don't want to be treated in New York the way I have been treated in Martha's Vineyard, in Harvard and New York because I defended Donald Trump. So they should skip the appellate division, go to the New York Court of Appeals, ask for an expedited appeal. In the meantime, prepare for an expedited appeal in the United States Supreme Court and say that this was a rush to try to get this case, a verdict, a conviction before election. And the Supreme Court of the United States has an obligation to review this case before the election so that the american public knows whether or not Donald Trump is guilty or not guilty of these made up crimes. You know, this is worse than Stalin and Lavrenti Beria. Lavrenti Beria said to Stalin, show me the man and I'll find you the crime. Bragg tried to find the crime, but he couldn't because his predecessor couldn't find the crime. The US attorney couldn't find the crime. The FEC couldn't find the crime. So he did worse than what happened in the Soviet Union. He made up a crime that didn't exist and he charged a political opponent with it. This will create a terrible precedent for how local das will become involved in trying to influence not only local elections, but national elections as well.

Megyn Kelly
Let me ask you a follow up.

Our audience probably knows that you're a famous criminal defense attorney and Harvard law professor, but really, you're one of the most famous appellate lawyers in the country, and that's where we are now. So if you had to consult with team Trump on grounds for appeal, not the everything but the kitchen sink approach, which I know you take, but like your top three favorites in this case.

Alan Dershowitz
What comes to mind number one is Stormy Daniels. The New York Court of Appeals recently held that the Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein, certainly not a popular defendant, his conviction had to be reversed because the court allowed the introduction of too many salacious other accusations that really had nothing to do with the trial and also threatened to put in other material if he took the witness stand. So the first thing I would do is try to piggyback on the New York Court of Appeals reversal of the Weinstein case and talk about how he improperly admitted Stormy Daniels, particularly the details, the positions they took during sex, the kind of aftershave he used, the pajamas that he wore, and the lack of birth control.

Yeah, even more, right. Even more. If he took the witness stand, that would be number one. Number two, I think, would be the failure to give an instruction on the missing witness. The way the judge and the prosecution handled Allen Weisselberg really denied the defendant the right to a presumption that the only reason he wasn't called was because he would not have corroborated the very important testimony, lying testimony of Michael Cohen. So those would be the two things I would also focus on, change of venue and the fact that the crime was manufactured. There are so many issues that are good, even a minor technical issue. The judge closed the courtroom to the public.

I was there. I was a win. He didn't throw me out, but he threw out the media. And, you know, the 6th amendment doesn't say partially public trial. It says a completely public trial. So I would emphasize that as well, although it would be hard to show prejudice from that. But there are, there are some, this is a winnable appeal. This is an appeal that a first year law student could win if the defendant's name wasn't Donald Trump and it wasn't New York.

Phil Holloway
You know, Megan, completely.

Megyn Kelly
Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead, Mark.

Alan Dershowitz
1 second.

Mark Geragos
Because I don't know if Alan will remember, but Allen and I and Harvey actually got on a call and I won't talk about the substance of the call, but it was the Saturday, the Saturday before he got remanded. And I will tell you that when you compliment Alan as being he's far and away the appellate lawyer for the ages, but he correctly predicted what would eventually happen in that case before Harvey went into custody. He went into custody in 36 hours later, but he correctly predicted Alan's point about the Weinstein reversal. I would go one step farther because that opinion also said that and excoriated the then trial judge, who's no longer on the bench in New York.

He excoriated him for telling Harvey that if you take the stand, this Molyneux evidence is going to come in, meaning the other acts evidence, basically freezing the defendant from taking the standard. This judge in this case did the exact same thing.

Arthur Aidala
It's almost like he read the opinion.

Mark Geragos
And said, I'm going to commit the exact same error in this case with Donald Trump that just got reversed in Harvey Weinstein. It's mine.

Alan Dershowitz
And the reason he did it is because he knows the defendant in this case name is Donald Trump. And courts don't reverse convictions of Donald Trump. There's a special law for Donald Trump, which is why I named my book get Trump wasn't my title. That's the title that was devised by Bragg. He ran on that principle. They know, prosecutors and judges know the law doesn't apply to Donald Trump, because the goal is to make sure he doesn't become the next president of the United States.

Megyn Kelly
So what? Here's a little bit of Alvin Bragg, by the way. Cause now we're all looking forward.

Not like happily looking. We're looking to the date of July 11, where sentencing will happen. And prior to then, both parties are going to submit a recommendation on what they think Donald Trump should get. Obviously, the defense is going to want no jail time. And I don't know whether they're going to want any punishment at all. They'll probably say what he's been through already is punishment enough. And the DA, will he recommend jail time? Will at will this DA, who ran on a promise to get Trump, will he say, this man should be put in jail? He was asked about whether he would object to a stay of enforcement if Trump gets a jail sentence at a press conference he held, I think, last night. So in other words, they were, he was, he was asked, okay, if he gets a jail sentence, would you object to staying the jail sentence, you know, while he appeals this and runs for president? And here's as much as Bragg would say in sot 13, if a jail sentence is in the cards, it is likely that Trump and his attorneys would seek a stay on enforcement of that sentence pending appeal. If that were the scenario, would your office object to staying the sentence?

I'm going to let our words in court speak for themselves. When we get to the sentencing matter. I'm not going to address hypotheticals. They raise arguments. We'll respond.

And I think your question really underscores an important point. This is an act of ongoing matter. Right. We have other phases of this going ahead. We will continue to do our speaking about this matter, about issues like that.

That's what he said when he asked if he would seek jail time, too. Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Dershowitz
Let me tell you what I think he's going to ask for. He's going to ask for a jail sentence, a prison sentence of two years, but suspended.

The fact that he'll impose a two year sentence will create a, a symbol and a message that this is somebody who deserves jail time. But he's going to say he has no prior convictions. So we wouldn't object to a suspended sentence.

But I don't think he's.

Megyn Kelly
Explain what that means. Explain what that looks like.

Alan Dershowitz
A suspended sentence simply means that he was sentenced to prison, but the judge suspended the sentence and said, I'm going to allow him not to be convicted. But there would be something hanging over his head. It would be like a probation, not.

Megyn Kelly
To be incarcerated, but.

Alan Dershowitz
Yeah, not be incarcerated.

But it would send the message that this is a guy who deserves to be imprisoned for this. I don't think he's going to just say, yeah, just let him go loose with a fine. He's going to do something more than that. Now the appellate courts, even the appellate division will stay the sentence.

He's not a flight risk. He's not running away anywhere. He's not a danger unless you think his election is a danger. That's not the kind of danger that I think the statute has in mind. So it would be say he's not going to prison pending the election. That I guarantee you.

Mark Geragos
It's interesting, Alan, because I hadn't thought of a suspended sentence. I had thought maybe 30, 60 or 90 and then stay it pending the appeal. The suspended sentence is interesting because then does he, if he doesn't win the election and he gets convicted in one of the other jurisdictions, would that trigger, I know there's arguments against it, but would that trigger the impossession of the sentence? And so that's almost diabolical in the way that it's executed?

Megyn Kelly
That's a good question. Well, what about all these probation restrictions that we're reading about now, one of which we didn't get to, is a convicted felon generally cannot have a security clearance and not forget whether he wins. The tradition in this country is in the last, I can't remember the period of times, is it last? Six to eight weeks prior to the election. Both parties, the sitting president, if he's running for reelection, and his challenger, both start getting security briefings and get a security clearance just to maintain a seamless transition of power, depending on who wins. And so now, is he prohibited from that? Do you guys know the answer to that?

Mark Geragos
I would suspect under.

Megyn Kelly
I would suspect no one's seen this before. Of course, this is unprecedented. Sorry, go ahead, Zachary.

Mark Geragos
I would suspect under SePA, he's not eligible. My immediate reaction is, can he not vote? Is he unable to vote for himself?

Megyn Kelly
We looked that up. We have the answer to that. So generally in Florida, convicted felons cannot vote. But if you're a citizen of another state living in Florida, you know, your driver's license, license, whatever, then they'll follow the other state's law. And we assume that Trump is a citizen of New York state.

And if that's the case, then he can vote. Cause New York, New York lets you vote even if you're a convicted felon, so long as you're not incarcerated on election day.

Alan Dershowitz
Why is he out of New York? He is now president and probably a citizen of Florida, right?

Megyn Kelly
He might have become a citizen of Florida given the tax situation, right between New York and Florida. So I don't know if he can show. I'm not sure how high the threshold is to get your foothold in New York. Maybe at this point, he'd probably prefer not to vote and say he's a Florida resident, then say he's New York and have to pay the taxes. Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Dershowitz
If I were Donald Trump's political advisor, I would say he should be prohibited from voting and he should make a speech saying, I'm being stopped from voting. You have to vote in my stead. I want everybody out there to cast a vote for me because I can't vote. I would turn that into a political advantage. I mean, his one vote doesn't matter, but he could make political hay out of it.

Mark Geragos
Look, there's also an irony, isn't there, Alan and Megan? Because part of the left movement is to let convicted felons vote. And now he could embrace that, just as he did criminal Justice Lawrence champion.

Alan Dershowitz
Saying that?

Megyn Kelly
Okay, go ahead. You're talking about Professor Lawrence tribe. Go ahead.

Alan Dershowitz
I'm saying I know him for years. He could come up with a constitutional argument that says all convicted felons should vote, but not Donald Trump. He'd find an exception in the constitution for Donald Trump because he always interprets the constitution to come out in favor of his own political views, unlike.

Megyn Kelly
So here's where we are. Here's where we are. In almost June of 2024, we have likely the republican party saying convicted felons ought to be able to vote. And we have the Democrat party saying it's wrong to charge gun crimes based on false applications for the gun in the Hunter Biden case. Everything is on its head. I can't keep up. All right, let me go to our old pal Lawrence O'Donnell and his thoughts about this prosecutor, Alvin Bragg. Satin, for reasons that will never make sense in my memoirs, I decided today to spend the day at Alvin Bragg's alma mater. When Alvin Bragg graduated from Harvard College, the school newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, ran.

Alan Dershowitz
A profile of him.

Megyn Kelly
And the title of that profile in his last week of college was the anointed one. And you finished that article, as I did a year ago, thinking, yeah, that's the right title.

That's who this guy is. The people of Manhattan who elected him, that's what they saw. They saw somebody who was dedicated to doing this job and doing it flawlessly and so profoundly modestly.

Thoughts on that? Was this a profoundly modest judge and prosecutor alike?

Alan Dershowitz
This judge, this prosecutor is one of the worst, most unethical and prosecutors I've ever seen.

Not only that, I remember him when he was at Harvard, he brought Professor Jeffreys to speak to the Black Law Students Association.

Jeffreys was a notorious anti semite. So even when he was at Harvard, he didn't have the best record in the world. He was well liked. He was somebody who thoughtfully balanced one position against the other. But his actions in bringing a criminal charge here are akin to the actions of Stalin and Beria and will create a precedent for all american prosecutors in the future that if you want to get O'Donnell and other people to praise you, just prosecute your political opponents, make up crimes, get the right jury, get the right venue, get the right judge, and you will have your political career enhanced. This is going to send the most dangerous message to every local prosecutor in the United States. It's going to change the nature of prosecution. You know, I never favored the election of prosecutors. That was Andrew Jackson's contribution to american democracy. Electing judges and electing prosecutors. It's the worst thing that ever happened to american justice. And I think that Bragg is the worst manifestation of the worst thing that happened to american justice. Elected prosecutors using partisan politics to weaponize the criminal justice system. We are now the shame of the world when it comes to how prosecutors decide which cases to prosecute. This would never happen in Germany. I'm talking about current Germany. It would never happen in England. It would never happen in most western democratic countries. It happened in the United States because.

Megyn Kelly
We can ask you a question on that. Let me ask you a follow up on that, Ellen. What should happen to Alvin Bragg? You know, I looked just this morning, just for kicks. You know how Lawrence O'Donnell just went back to Harvard to worship at the altar of Alvin Bragg? I pulled up grounds for disbarment.

What are they? How does. This is something the three of us never had to worry about.

Here's a. A felony involving moral turpitude, forgery, fraud, could get you disbarred. A history of dishonesty could get you disbarred, as well as any pattern of violation of the professional code of ethics. I look at this man who very clearly ran for office on a promise to get one man, as you pointed out. Show me the man and I'll find the crime.

And who put together this earlier? I called it a russian nesting doll of legal complaints against him. You know, you just had to keep opening and opening until you found a little one on the inside. Oh, it's a felony.

Who I think was dishonest from the start about his good faith belief that an actual felony had taken place here. And I actually would like to see Alvin Bragg lose his license to practice law. I don't think he does this profession any honor. What are your thoughts on it, Alan?

Alan Dershowitz
I don't think he should be disbarred. I think he should be investigated, and we should see whether there's more to it than this. I think. I don't want to weaponize the bar complaints to. There's an organization called the 65 Project which is trying to disbar every lawyer who ever defended Donald Trump. They even filed a charge against me in Massachusetts, and they're going after every possible lawyer. And I just don't want to see the weaponization of the disbarment process.

Megyn Kelly
I do. I disagree with you there, Mark. You're going to have to mediate this. See, I was with you.

I was with you, but I'm done now. Wait, let me just.

There's only one way to teach these rabid Democrats who have done this to trump the lesson about how terrible this is for America. And it means we're going to have to take off the gloves and we're going to have to fight UFC style. Now. It's not going to be the boxing with the proper protection. It's going to get ugly. And that's the only way they'll learn. No, you be quiet. Let Mark answer one. Go ahead, Mark.

Mark Geragos
I was going to just build on something here about the local prosecutors. Whatever I mentioned the other day when we were on that, and I saw last night Mark Levin talking and going crazy. I remember Mark Levin as one of the people who was kind of pursuing Bill Clinton during Whitewater. And I find it kind of ironic because we were complaining then, Alan included, about the Whitewater and the independent counsel and what Ken Starr was doing. And we said, wait until the shoe is on the other foot. You're going to see it. Instead of Richard Allen Skype, we now have George Soros. And instead of an independent counsel, we've got a local prosecutor. What's going to end up happening is, in my humble opinion, you're going to have, and I'll give you an illustration of what Alan's talking about, you're going to have some local county prosecutor who is going to sit in front of a grand jury and ask for Joe Biden to get indicted. You're going to have a, who's going to ask that Ali Mayorkas gets indicted and you're going to start seeing county prosecutors in red states doing the exact same thing. And we're going to have this yin and Yang pendulum swing, which, by the way, the US Supreme Court started talking about in their oral questioning, when they were talking about the absolute immunity as.

Megyn Kelly
To the only way through this morass. It's going to get worse before it gets better because it will never get better. And the Democrats will keep doing this. Look how many times they've indicted or sued Trump, just Trump alone, until they have skin in the game. Republicans have tried to say, oh, the system, no, that fails. It's on now. We have to stop pretending that we had the legal system that you two and I grew up with. It's different now. Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Dershowitz
Do constitutional wrongs, don't make a constitutional right. I think the Republicans, they do keep going, sorry, did a terrible thing by trying to impeach, by impeaching Mayorkas. Mayorkas didn't commit an impeachable offense. This was just tit for tat. Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense. They went after him. That was wrong. And then they went after mayorkas. What's wrong with tit for tat orcus pro bono? If he had asked me to in front of the Senate and I would defend any Democrat who Republicans tried to target in a tit for tat yin feng approach, my approach is no wrongs. Instead of two wrongs, we tried that.

Mark Geragos
I couldn't agree more. Because if you watch this pendulum swing, it just turns out it's inevitable that that is what's going to happen. And I guarantee you, if I can bet, I will bet you that there is going to be a county prosecutor within less than a year who's going.

Megyn Kelly
To do the exact same thing. Right on. He's going to get favorable coverage right here at the Megyn Kelly show because it's on. The norms have been broken. We can't just sit back and let them do this to Dershowitz and let them do it to Trump and sit there highbrow like, oh, we would never. They're just gonna keep on as long as Donald Trump or his descendants or MAGA remains. But even beyond, they try to convince us Mitt Romney was the devil incarnate, it's going to continue happening because now they've succeeded.

Alan Dershowitz
I agree. But you fight a lack of principle with a principal defense. You don't get down into the gutter with them and allow the pendulum.

Megyn Kelly
You know who we need? No. You know, I'm gonna utter words I never thought I would utter in my life. You know, we need Steve Bannon.

That's how I feel today. Bring it on. Get somebody who knows how to fight dirty. Calling the shots. We're losing. They're taking out our people. This is about the presidency and the future of the country. And this jerk from Harvard, the anointed one, with the help of Judge Marshawn, just started doing it. He might have done it. We don't know how independents are going to react to this convicted felon thing. Listen to this. Listen. This is the messaging they're going to hear. Hold on. My team cut some media reaction and the craziness on the convicted felon. Oh, okay. Well, here's Keith Olbermann. He's always good for a laugh.

Convicted felon Donald Trump has been found. Guilty.

And. Guilty. And. Guilty. And guilty. Guilty. Guilty. And guilty. Guilty. Guilty. And guilty. And guilty. Guilty ish. Guilty adjacent. Guilty esque. Also guilty. And ilt gay. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.

Very guilty. Repeatedly guilty. Incredibly guilty. Extra. Guilty. Extra. Large guilty. Extra crispy? Guilty. Diet guilty. Lemon scented guilty. Family size guilty. Tartar control guilty. And lastly. Not not guilty.

I nominate him for the first tax audit. It's on. That's my. That's where I am emotionally and mentally today, you guys. I don't know what can be done, but do we just sit back and try to whack a mole? All of these cases against Trump, because if they go forward, it's not gonna get any better for him from here. This was the case. He should have won.

Alan Dershowitz
We are now living in an age of left wing McCarthyism. I grew up during right wing McCarthyism, and the answer is not to become McCarthyites. The answer is to fight with principle, not whack a mole, but to try to persuade the american public that fighting this fight by imposing wrong upon wrong is not the right approach. Most Americans are decent, middle of the road people who want to vote for leaders who will not engage either in left wing or right wing McCarthyism.

Eisenhower did a great thing when he stood up against McCarthy as a Republican, and many others did the right thing.

I still have trust in principle, and I can tell you this. I'm going to live my life based on principle. I'm not going to submit to the extremes of the other side and do what they've done. I simply won't do it myself. I'm too old to change. I was brought up with principles. I live my life with principles, and I'm going to die a principled man.

Mark Geragos
I hope so.

Megyn Kelly
Annoying, Alan.

Mark Geragos
Not anytime soon.

Megyn Kelly
No, not anytime soon. Well, that's. I mean, I know that's true. I've known you for a long time. I know it's true. But it's annoying because I just. I'm so tired of this. I'm so tired of these disgusting tactics by these bare knuckle brawlers over on the left side, you know, on everything.

And they just keep succeeding at it. And the right just has its righteous indignation and all of its big losses, and I'm tired of it. All right, so last prediction. What's going to happen, Mark? Is there going to be jail time? And if there's not jail time, what, three days, whatever, could be suspended like, then what is Trump likely to get?

Mark Geragos
Even though I'm very intrigued by Allen's suspended sentence prediction, I still think you're going to see 30, 60, or 90. It's going to be stayed. And I think it's a very smart idea that you go, because I've watched both the oral arguments at the intermediate stage for Weinstein and then the court of Appeals there, which is the highest court in New York. And I thought after the intermediate stage, I don't know, Alan, if you watched it, but I thought they were going to reverse at that stage, if you had seen what they basically eviscerated the prosecution, but they ended up affirming the conviction. He had to go to the court of appeals. It was divided four to three. I think they need to just kind of leapfrog, go straight to the court of appeals and then they may get, they may get some traction if the US Supreme Court weighs in, because the US Supreme Court decision, if they don't remand it for factual findings, could sway a lot of this. There's some arguments, I can see where the court of appeals may have to weigh in.

Arthur Aidala
So I don't think he's going to jail.

Megyn Kelly
The Supreme Court. Just as a reminder, the Supreme Court held last, last June, we got to pull up the decision, take another look at it. But they held last June that you cannot have an amorphous, generalized intention to defraud against the general public in criminal statutes. They don't want that. And the judge wrote that right into his jury instructions. So that's contrary to what the US Supreme Court has held. That's just one of the many grounds. And this Supreme Court is not a bunch of hard, partisan hacks like we might see on the New York State appellate division. And if it gets there, and I believe, I happen to believe the New York state court of Appeals is still a real, legitimate, honest court, I don't think they're all partisan houses reversed.

Mark Geragos
Harvey Weinstein. That took a lot of guts.

Megyn Kelly
And it was all the women, it was all the female justices who reversed it. Go ahead.

Alan Dershowitz
Allen well, but it was a four to three decision. Four to three decisions could easily go the other way. Look, my clear prediction is that on November 5, Donald Trump will be out of prison and will be running for president without being in prison. That's my one prediction. He's not going to prison pending the election. After that, it depends so much on what Bragg seeks and whatever Bragg seeks, I think Judge Marshawn will grant. And so it'll either be a suspended sentence or a symbolic weekend sentence or a probationary sentence, but it won't just be a fine.

Megyn Kelly
Oh, that's, here's what's really terrifying, if not agreeable. If, if Trump loses the election. If Trump loses this election, there's nothing to protect him from Jack Smith or Fannie Willis Jackson.

Alan Dershowitz
And he loses the election, he's going to go around complaining again that he lost the election, and this time he may have a basis for the complaint. The last time.

Megyn Kelly
I know 100%.

Alan Dershowitz
And what I'm trying to say.

Megyn Kelly
No, but the point I'm trying to make here. The point I'm trying to make here is, is he going to do better with a jury in DC?

This trial is a reminder of what's waiting for him. And on those two federal cases, he's going to jail. If he gets convicted on one of those, he's going to jail. And that's what's really scary.

Alan Dershowitz
No, I just.

Megyn Kelly
If he loses the election, he's going to have to sit for those trials and he's going to be sent to prison. Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Dershowitz
The Florida case. The Florida case is a smoking cigarette butt. That is, it's smoking because he did waive a classified paper in front of somebody who was unauthorized, just the way President Biden waved a classified paper in front of his biographer and said, this is classified. Be careful with it. But he won't get jail time for that. But he might. Very well.

Megyn Kelly
The obstruction.

Well, there's also the obstruction charge down in the Mar a Lago case.

Alan Dershowitz
Yeah, but I don't think you'll get convicted on that obstruction.

Mark Geragos
And last time I looked, I don't even think that those are calls under the sentencing guidelines. So, yeah, the January 6 case, he will get.

Alan Dershowitz
Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that.

I agree he'll get jail time. You're saying, mark, disagreeing about something? This is getting boring.

Arthur Aidala
We're.

Megyn Kelly
Which I don't know if we would disagree with you. I'm partnering up with Steve Bannon for the next debate.

Alan Dershowitz
Okay. That's a fair fight.

Two guys is a fair fight.

Megyn Kelly
Abigail fine. And will never allow it. She's still mad about our little dust up during the Trump first run. Guys, thank you. Thanks for being here.

Mark Geragos
Thank you.

Megyn Kelly
Okay, President Biden has just spoken to the Trump conviction. We will play that next when Dave, Mike and Phil join us on this illegal smorgasbord of expertise and talent for you on this important day. Don't go away.

Do you owe back taxes? Pandemic relief is now over. Along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IR's has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million pay up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed.

Don't waive your rights and speak with them on your own. It's stressful and it can end very badly. Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has saved over $1 billion in back taxes for their clients. And they can help you secure the best deal possible.

Whether you owe ten grand or 10 million, they can help you whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay or if you're on a fixed income, they can help you finally resolve your tax burdens once and for all. Call 1802 four five 6000 for a private, free consultation or visit tnusa.com. megaN I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open honesty and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megyn Kelly show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love, great people like Doctor Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No harm required. I do it all the time. I love the Sirius XM app. It has ad free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free.

Go to siriusxm.com mk show to subscribe.

Phil Holloway
And get three months free.

Dave Aronberg
That's siriusxm.com mkshow and get three months.

Megyn Kelly
Free offer details apply.

Joining me now, Mike Davis, founder and president of the article three project Dave Ehrenberg, state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, and host of True Crime MTN on YouTube, and Phil Holloway, legal analyst and host of Inside the law. The legal all Stars continue. Thank you guys so much for being here.

Let me get your reactions first to this verdict last night. Mike Davis, I'll start with you.

Mike Davis
It was, it's an outrageous verdict, but predicted, and it was part of a partisan, corrupt and rigged process.

This criminal convict, there was a guilty verdict. This judge will convict and sentence that will get overturned on appeal. The issue is that will not get resolved before the election. And that's what this is all about. This is election interference by Joe Biden and his allies and his aides.

Dave Aronberg
Dave I know it won't surprise you, Megan, that I'll disagree with my friend Mike.

This was a predictable verdict. But I do think that it's clear that presidents do not communicate directly with state attorneys. If any White House had communicated with the state attorney, it would be me, because I oversee Mar a Lago. I can tell you, I don't even get invited to a White House holiday party.

You know, you could try to blame. No, obviously not on anyone's list, especially.

Megyn Kelly
Now that I go on you to the Megan Kelly show Christmas party this year. But keep going.

Dave Aronberg
It'll be the only one I get invited to.

Mark Eiglarsh
Meg.

Dave Aronberg
And thank you. And as far as the outcome, it was, as we discussed previously, it was pretty predictable, because I do think that Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, made a couple crucial errors. I think Trump's best defense would have been, yes, these were reimbursements of Michael Cohen. And so what? You can count them as legal fees when you reimburse a lawyer slash fixer. So there's no intent here to commit a crime. But Todd Blanche undid that in his opening statements.

Megyn Kelly
I have to say, I like that. Phil, your reaction?

Phil Holloway
Well, great to be with you again, as always. You know, they say garbage in, garbage out. The, the verdict being the garbage that came out of this trial was directly related to a number of things. For example, the judge who has his own legal reasons why he should have recused himself, notwithstanding any bias he personally might have. He should have recused himself due to the financial conflicts of interest with his daughter. But he also has his own personal bias. He should have recused himself for those reasons. He donated money, okay, to the, to the anti trump pro Biden thing before the trial. And then you had all of these ridiculous rulings that culminated with this ridiculous jury instruction that allowed the jury to be non unanimous, Megan, on one of the essential elements of the offense, the so called other crime. What was it? And we still have it in, Megan. We still do not know, because the verdict form did not lay it out in that way. So we don't yet know what exactly this jury agreed on and what it may have disagreed on. And those three possibilities for other charges were things that were never even charged in the indictment. So you have a garbage in, you have garbage out. And that's what this verdict is. It's garbage.

Megyn Kelly
You know, speaking of that donation that the judge made, you raised this the other day, Mike.

So the judge, he donated $35 in violation of this rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations. And he made it to a group. He earmarked it for, quote, resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump's radical right wing legacy. Mike and Dave, we talked about this the other day. The Democrats, right now, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin, is trying to get Samuel Alito forced to recuse himself from deciding these two cases, j six and immunity, that are up before SCOTUS right now because his wife flew a flag a flag that was on George Washington's ships saying, no, that's too much. That poses an appearance of impropriety. But this is fine for this judge, the judge to have donated money to the resist the Republican Party and Donald Trump's radical right wing legacy group. Mike?

Mike Davis
Well, that's a problem. That was clearly an illegal campaign contribution by a judge under New York law that got him reprimanded by the New York court system. We found out. We found out. We just found out he got reprimanded many months ago about this. But guess what? That didn't deter this corrupt Democrat, Juan Marshawn, whose adult daughter, Lauren Michonne, is raising millions of dollars off of this unprecedented criminal trial over which her father presided, requiring his recusal under New York statute. He didn't recuse.

Instead, he retaliated against President Trump with an illegal and constitutional gag order.

Megyn Kelly
How about that one, Dave? You didn't like the flag being flown outside of Alito's? We talked about appearance of impropriety. Does it create an appearance of impropriety for the sitting judge over the first trial of a New York former president to have donated to the resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump's radical right wing legacy group?

Dave Aronberg
Well, it was $15, but, yeah, I concede that.

Megyn Kelly
Well, $35 with 35 money. Yeah, earmark, but whatever. So what he did, it shows his bias.

Dave Aronberg
Well, the thing is, he did go to the state ethics commission to see if he needed to step down from the case. And the commission said, no, I only wish Sam Alito would do the same thing. But, oh, that's right, the Supreme Court gets make its own rules.

Megyn Kelly
Sam Alito could go to Chief Justice John Roberts tomorrow and say, what do you think? And he would say, you're good.

Mark Eiglarsh
No, no, he would say, you're good.

Dave Aronberg
You're right about that.

Mike Davis
He actually did. He checked the Supreme Court ethical guidelines and he, he cited that in his letter to the Senate, where he checked with the Supreme Court ethical guidelines. He's actually required not to recuse under the Supreme Court's ethical guidelines because there is a presumption that supreme court justices do not recuse because of the appearance of bias, because you don't want parties playing games to get justices to recuse, because there are only nine justices and you can't substitute them like you can substitute the lower court justices or judges.

Megyn Kelly
It's just amazing that we can have an appeal to heaven flag cause the left to want these justices off the Supreme Court cases, but an actual donation to a far left group that says its whole mission is to resist Donald Trump and his radical right wing legacy. No problem. Okay, go right ahead and preside over the very first trial, ever, criminal trial for a former president. All right. Speaking of presidents, our current president decided to weigh in on this from the White House. Ill advised in my view. Just stop, stop, stop. You represent us all when youre in that house and when you are the president. Stop it. Remember when we used to have presidents who didnt comment on criminal cases? Just zip it. Zip. Got a whole lot of for you. But heres what he had to say.

Alan Dershowitz
Before I begin my remarks, I just want to say a few words about what happened yesterday in New York City.

The american principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed.

Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself.

It was a state case, not a federal case.

And it was heard by a jury of twelve citizens, twelve Americans.

Twelve people like you, like millions of Americans who served on juries.

This jury is chosen the same way every jury in America has chosen.

It was a process that Donald Trump's attorney was part of.

The jury heard five weeks of evidence. Five weeks.

And after careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict.

They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts.

Now he'll be given the opportunity, as he should, to appeal that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity.

That's how the american system of justice works.

And it's reckless, it's dangerous, it's irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict.

Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years and it literally is the cornerstone of America. Our justice system.

The justice system should be respected and we should never allow anyone to tear it down.

Megyn Kelly
Yeah. And that's exactly what he did, Phil. That's exactly what he did. This president, in the federal cases through his Ag and these two state prosecutors, in your locale with Fannie Willis and up in mine with Alvin Bragg, your reaction to the president?

Phil Holloway
Yeah, guess what, Mister president? We didn't have to wait for the verdict to know it was rigged. We watched it in real time being rigged day after day after day. We watched as acting Justice Mershon repeatedly would sustain the objections of the prosecutors before the objections even got out of their mouth and without offering the other side an opportunity to weigh in. And we watched every day as Justice Marchand gave ridiculous jury instructions that did not require their unanimity on an essential element of the offense. And we watched in real time as this judge let this prosecutor take this trial all the way to the end without even naming what the so called other crime was. They were trying to hang around the neck of the defendant. This is all in violation of due process. It's all in violation of Donald Trump's constitutional rights. And this is not even to mention allowing in all of the irrelevant testimony from witnesses like Stormy Daniels. And to build a case on a convicted felonious liar such as Michael Cohen is reprehensible. It's reprehensible of Bragg. It's reprehensible for this judge. It's reprehensible for Joe Biden to stand there and tell me that I've got to take this and I've got to respect it. I don't have to respect any jury verdict when it is built upon a card of lies.

Megyn Kelly
Yes, I agree with you, Dave. What do you make of the press? Remember, do you know what I'm saying? Remember when we used to not have presidents do this? You know, the president of the United States did not feel the need to weigh in on criminal cases. And I would say, especially when it's your opponent in the presidential election, stay out of it, that you're working for us, for the entire country. Don't speak about this from the White House. Am I wrong? Am I missing something here?

Dave Aronberg
Well, I think you may be fighting the last war, Megan. I think we're way past that point. I mean, Donald Trump called for his opponent to be locked up. And as president, he tried to pressure the attorney general to do something about his opponents. So this is not new anymore. This has been going on for a while. So I don't take umbrage that Biden talked about it. I don't think he's going to spend a lot of the campaign talking about it. If he continues to do so from the White House, then I'd have more of a problem. But I don't have a problem with him just making a reaction statement the next day. We'll see how much further he goes.

Megyn Kelly
Okay. But just for the record, Trump has definitely said some outrageous things. However, I was there and I covered Barack Obama, who was the first that I know. I mean, I definitely, my tenure as a journalist began when W. Bush was president. He never did this. It was Barack Obama on the Trayvon Martin case who for the first time felt the need to weigh in on a private matter. And now we're at the point where we have Joe Biden as he's running for president, about to be elected, calling Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist for which there was no evidence and none of that panned out, no apology from him to Kyle. And now on and on it goes. It's not appropriate. I want them to stop doing this.

Now, the campaign, they're not even trying to seem highbrow about convicted felon Donald Trump. But here's how they sounded. Mitch Landrieu, he is the Biden campaign co chair, this morning on Morning Joe. Take a listen.

Phil Holloway
It's a very sober moment for the country and a very sad moment for the country, for all of the people in America. To have a president or an ex president become a convicted felon, that's nothing for anybody to have a lot of joy about. And as a consequence of that trial, Donald Trump is now a convicted felon. You can have a guy that's a convicted felon that has been found liable of defamation, sexual abuse and business fraud, and now a convicted felon who thinks about himself. And of course, every word that comes out of his mouth thinks about revenge against people who dare cross him. Or you can have Joe Biden, who wakes up every day thinking about the american people.

Megyn Kelly
Mike, it's a very sad and sober moment for a convicted felon, Donald Trump, who's a convicted felon, in case you weren't aware, he was convicted of a felony.

Mike Davis
Well, I hope these Biden Democrats, including President Biden, keep doing this and they keep celebrating their pyrrhic victory here because I don't think they understand how much they have outraged the american people. They have poked the bear. I am getting inundated with phone calls, text messages, DM's emails, donations to article three project when we're not even soliciting donations on this matter. It is overwhelming what I'm hearing from people. And these, these aren't my fellow Trump supporters. These are people who are tired of Trump. Trump. They're sick of Trump. They even don't like Trump.

Arthur Aidala
Right?

Mike Davis
But they are all in now because they see what happens with this trial in New York, that it is a corrupt, partisan, rigged process and they, they don't find it except that this is acceptable in America.

Megyn Kelly
Dave, that's the thing. To me, this feels almost like a Brett Kavanaugh moment where that moment made a lot of people, republicans, and it brought back into the fold a lot of republicans who didn't like Trump. But what they did to Kavanaugh was it activated many people. And this moment seems like it's doing the same thing. Like I am, like, Mike, I am getting the same amount of incoming. To me, people people are stopping me on the street, wanting me to know how they feel and saying nothing can stop them from voting for Donald Trump now. And then they all start with, like, I actually don't, I don't really even love the guy. Do you think that that's something that the Democrats have factored in? Right? Do you think they thought it would be this would contain any backlash?

Dave Aronberg
I don't know how much they thought about that. I can tell you this, Megan, I run into different circles and I'm experiencing the same on my side where there's a new energy that didn't exist before. Democrats were sleepwalking through this campaign. They were not enthused about Joe Biden. They were bedwetting, as we like to do, thinking we're going to lose. And then all of a sudden there's a spring in their step. They're fired up. And I wonder if this is the type of thing that light a fire under the base to bring the base home to Joe Biden. We'll see. But in the end, this is going to be decided, this election by that small number of swing voters in those few swing states. And how they will react to this is still up in the air.

Megyn Kelly
Phil. This is what Trump posted last night on his truth social. It was before he'd really spoken in earnest to it, but this was sort of his messaging and I think his mood right after this happened. Saat five, this is the final battle.

Donald Trump
With you at my side. We will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, marxists and fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all.

Megyn Kelly
It reads, join President Trump's fight for America. And he reported himself this morning, Phil, that just in the overnight he'd received over $40 million, or almost $40 million. I'm sure it's over 40 now in donations, he said, almost all of them small, small money donations. So the amount of people who would have had to have donated the website crashed. There is real enthusiasm right now, and it's not just from Cora Maga.

Phil Holloway
No, I think it's because Americans, whether they like him, even if they don't like him, Megan, they have lived vicariously now through him because they have seen that this trial was unfair from the very beginning. They've seen how it was weaponized and the criminal justice system basically pointed like a double barrel shotgun aimed directly at one specific citizen. So they've experienced that when I have handled, in my own career, cases involving people who were innocent, outright innocent, yet they were charged with very, very serious things. You know, they oftentimes would say to me, I had no idea that the system could be used like this. And now a lot of America is feeling that same feeling because they're living this through Donald Trump. They see what's going on. They recognize that it's partisan, they recognize that it's not fair. And so they've turned a lot of people who might not otherwise be on the MAGA train, so to speak, they've brought them over to where they can be. You know what? I'm going to have to support this guy, because what has happened to him is wrong. So, absolutely, it's motivating people who did not necessarily like Trump or maybe not even considered voting for him before now, but now they will.

Megyn Kelly
Mike, I feel strongly and just had a fierce debate with Alan Dershowitz and Mark Garagos about this, that it's time to fight. Let's fight the way they fight. Let's take off the gloves. Let's go UFC hardcore.

Let's start indicting their people. I'm sorry, but if this is how we're gonna do it, then we're gonna have to do it like this until we can restore sanity to the legal process. And I'll give you a suggestion, just out of nowhere, about who we could start with. Can we please run saat seven?

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anything going on today?

Yeah, that's Hillary Clinton last night in New York. What do you think?

Mike Davis
I 100% agree with you, Megan. And that's the exact approach I ran with the Kavanaugh confirmation when I was the chief counsel for nominations. I ran what I called the dead chicken strategy. And when I did my clerkship on the Supreme Court, briefly to help Gorsuch get set up, all the clerks meet with all the justices for lunch. You have, like, speed dating with the eight other justices. And our lunch with Justice Clarence Thomas was my best and most memorable. Memorable because he talks about growing, growing up on the farm in Georgia, when dogs killed chickens, you wrapped those dead chickens around those dogs necks. And as those chickens rotted around those dogs necks, those dogs lost the taste for chicken. And Republicans need to do the same thing with these Biden Democrats on this law fair, and they need to give these Biden Democrats a healthy dose of their own medicine with their own indictments and their own investigations.

And I think after maybe four years of the Trump 47 Justice Department doing that, working with republican prosecutors and republican juries and deep red republican areas, republican judges, corrupt republican judges. Hopefully that donated to President Trump, like the Democrats are doing it.

Like the Democrats are doing to Trump. Now, once Democrats get a healthy dose of their own medicine with the dead chicken strategy, I bet you they'll think long and hard before they do this again.

Megyn Kelly
I feel like you should put Clarence Thomas in touch with Christy Noem for the sake of her future chicken eating dogs. I think we could save a lot of. By the way, it's literally every other day that I say to Stradwick, you behave or you're going to the Christy Nome ranch. That's your next move. Off you go. Okay, but I wouldn't. I'm only joking. I joke because I love Phil. Where do you stand on it? Because I understand Dershowitz was saying, I'm a man of principle and I'll die a man of principle, and I'm never going to play the left's games. That's the McCarthyism. We don't beat it by becoming them. I just feel like that's a yesteryear mentality. It's on. But we've crossed a barrier that's un.

You can't undo it. We're in a new. The Rubicon has been changed, and so we have to change the way we fight or we're going to keep losing. And by we, I mean sane people who miss the real America.

Phil Holloway
Well, listen, let's put it this way, Megan, I understand the point you're making. You and I probably are going to see this one a little bit differently. And that's okay. We can still be friends. But I don't believe in the, of the justice system for political purposes, not in any circumstances. It was wrong when it happens to Donald Trump. This would have been wrong if it were directed at Joe Biden or if it were Barack Obama or even Bill Clinton. And it would be wrong for people to go and find things that they can charge their political opponents with just as a way to get even. I can't support that.

Megyn Kelly
How else do we get them to stop, Phil? How else do we. We don't want that either. Mike doesn't want that and I don't want that. But the only way to make it stop is to do it temporarily to make them feel the pain so that we can get back to normal.

Phil Holloway
And what you do is you find the people that are the perpetrators of this, the Juan Mershons the Alvin Braggs, and you find the ways that they have violated not only their professional ethics, maybe they violated some criminal laws and you use those things that they have done and you punish them for it through this, through the mechanisms that exist. You've got bar assistants.

Megyn Kelly
I think it's an all in. That's an all in. I said, I think I said this on exit last night. I think Alvin Bragg should be disbarred. He should be disbarred. Any man who would do this to our justice system for political purposes to a former president and the likely nominee for the republican party has no business being in charge of people's futures and liberty. Mike, what do you make of it?

Mike Davis
I think you should be more than just barred. I think he should be behind bars. And there is a federal criminal civil rights statute. It's called 18. Well, it's 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. These deal with conspiracy by government officials to violate someone's constitutional rights. And we've seen that over and over again with Soros pundit, Manhattan da Alvin Bragg, former Obama, Obama and Biden senior political appointee Matthew Colangelo, and this Democrat, corrupt judge, Juan Marshawn. Remember, this judge just happens to be randomly picked for all of these Trump related cases. He got picked for the Trump Organization criminal trial. He got picked for Trump's trial. Now he got picked for Steve Bannon's trial. He's an acting justice on the Supreme Court. He's like the Forrest Gump of this law fair against Trump in New York. He just happens to show up at the key times. It's not random. That's like a one in 15,001 in 15,000 chance that one Rashad ends up on all three of these Trump related cases. He's obviously being selected. His daughter is raising millions of dollars off of this. She's getting very rich off of this. He is corrupt. He's violating Trump's civil rights with his illegal gag orders, with this jury instruction that he knows violates Ramos versus Louisiana, a Supreme Court decision from 2020. This rigged process, this partisan process, he should be behind bars. Alvin Bragg should be behind bars. Everyone who was involved with violating Trump's civil rights under 18 USC 241 and 242 should be behind bars.

Megyn Kelly
They better watch it.

Phil's clapping. They better watch it because Trump really could win this election. I mean, look, this is kind of a B's poll, to be honest. I have no idea. I've never heard of the Daily Mail poll. It's not the daily mails, but it's JL partners, and they polled 403 small sample size, likely voters. We do check these polls to make sure if they're legit. This has barely been rated by 538. It's got 1.6 stars out of three and only two polls analyzed. Okay? So for what it's worth, but that thing, that sort of snap poll showed that there was a slight bump for Trump in the voting public in his favor after this conviction. Now, that's, again, take it for what it's worth, but we are going to have to watch these polls in the days and weeks to come to see whether this is a Kavanaugh moment, where the republican party is galvanized and even leaners, you know, the so called independents who are leaners toward republican or toward Trump, whether they come on board or whether it's the opposite effect, you know, it's the Democrats who are enthused, as Dave just said. And leaners start leaning all the way away and back to Biden because they don't, they don't like the words convicted felon. And they actually take this seriously. We just don't know what the truth is. I will say this, and I'll give it to you, Dave. Judge Mershon is taking it on the chin by the right, but the left, including this man, could not be more laudatory. Let's play saat 17, Judge Juan Marshan, who is an absolute gentleman.

To see him on that stand is to see poetry. It's to see a masterful judge who was quick with decision making. He was absolutely judicial perfection.

And the jury had tremendous respect for him, as did I, which is what kept me off of all my social media. That and Donia, of course, the jury, jury respects Judge Mershon. And I believe a lot of the antics that went on in the courtroom, whether it was by Blanche or by Donald himself, with the eye closing, you know, the leaning back, the total disregard for the jury. I don't think he engendered any positive feelings by anyone, Amy. That, of course, was to steal a term. Convicted felon Michael Cohen on MSNBC last night. What are your thoughts, Dave, on this judge?

Dave Aronberg
Well, just to go back, we were talking about earlier about his donations. You know, it's this New York state commission on judicial conduct. They said in an advisory opinion last May that these modest political contributions made more than two years ago cannot reasonably create an impression of bias or favoritism in the case before the judge. So he did check with the commission. They gave him a clean bill of health to go forward with it. Now as far as what happened at the trial, he made rulings on both sides and Donald Trump decided he was not going to testify. He had every ability to. Costello was the one key witness and that was a mistake to put him on. And he got in a fight with the judge. That was not a good look. So there are a lot of missed opportunities for the defense. It wasn't just like you have one judge and they railroaded Donald Trump. They had a lot of evidence. The jury took 9 hours. They asked a lot of questions, and in the end, they made the decision based on the facts and the evidence. One of the jurors got their information entirely from true social and x. So it wasn't like all bunch of antifa members on the jury. Well, that was what looked that up.

Megyn Kelly
We looked that up because I thought, oh my God, is there a secret Trumper on the jury? That would be big. But no, actually what he said was that he gets his news from everywhere, including twitter. And on Twitter he sees everything, including some of Trump's truth social posts. So that is, as you know, not the same as being on truth social and actually getting your news from truth social.

I want to spend one more minute on Michael Cohen, who's probably the most gleeful man in America today. Here's what he tried to tell Rachel Maddow in sat 21 about himself.

The strategic necessity of you staying cool and having that same affect and everything. How hard was it? Not hard at all. It's the media that wants to portray me as this sort of bombastic character. It's really not nature. We've all heard bombast from you, but you've heard it from my Mea Culpa podcast or political Beatdown podcast. It's a, it's a Persona for it.

Now, I can't go with intelligence, so I have to go with bombastic, right?

It's a Persona. I mean, literally every reporter in news, left, center and right has a terrible story about Michael Cohen berating them, swearing at them, threatening them. And since he raises the Maya Culpa podcast, which now he says is all acting, it's just a Persona. Here's a bit from it in SOT 22. So I want to thank the Manhattan district attorney's office and their fearless leader, Alvin Bragg.

He is about to get a taste of what I went through. And I promise you, its not fun.

Picturing Donald Trump being led through the booking process, getting fingerprinted, having his mugshot taken fills me with delight and sadness.

Mark Geragos
All at the same time.

Megyn Kelly
Sadness, I say, because what an embarrassment it is to the office of the presidency to have a former president of the United States handcuffed and mugshotted before the entire world.

That is. That is the only man who was able to say that Donald Trump explicitly agreed to this so called scheme, this scheme, which is totally legal, by the way, but that's the only man Mike. And the jury seemed to say, yeah, you know what?

We like him. We believe him.

Mike Davis
Well, does that surprise you, Megan, when you have a jury pool that voted 87% for Joe Biden, and then this corrupt judge and partisan prosecutor, Alvin Bragg and Biden operative Matthew Colangelo, further rigged the jury selection process, where they bounced the three people in Manhattan who followed Trump on truth, but they didn't bounce people who followed Biden on social media. Remember, with Michael Cohen, he is a disbarred attorney. He's a serial perjurer. He's a convicted felon. He admitted to during this trial he embezzled $60,000 from President Trump. And this goofball was raising money on tick tock during the trial, trashing Trump. So I don't think that Rachel Maddow giving him kisses, the first guy she's kissed in her entire life, should be doing this after this guy's raising money on tick tock. Trashing Trump.

Megyn Kelly
I really like. Here's my question for you, Dave. When is Michael Cohen getting arrested again? He admitted to grand larceny on the stand. And by the way, I didn't realize this, but. So he stole that 60 grand, right? That 30,000, whatever, he was reimbursed around this redfinch payment. But he. He stole 420,000 divided by 2210,000. We're all lawyers, so I know you guys are doing the math with me. He stole 210,000 because Trump reimbursed him double these payments that he thought Michael Cohen had made and so that he could pay taxes on them and be made whole. But what I heard in the closings was he did not file his tax returns. He did not have taxes taken out of the 420. I believe, based on what I heard, he's got 420,000 sitting in a pot right now. So anyway, my point is, when is he getting arrested? Dave, he admitted to a massive felony under oath on the stand.

Dave Aronberg
Yeah, you're referring to the Red Finch, where he did some work to help Trump in a poll, and then he pocketed the money. And that was a confession to a crime. But that's to be a statute of limitations here. And I think that's what bars the prosecution of him.

Megyn Kelly
Was it done by all unlawful means that include violating the federal Election act or tax law? Because I had no way around that time. Bar problem.

Dave Aronberg
You know, I'm glad you brought that up because my friends Phil and Mike have been bringing up that jury instruction just to make it clear. They did have to find beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimously, that the defendant violated falsification of business records and it led to a second crime. And they made clear the state did, that it was that New York conspiracy to influence an election crime. That out to be unanimous. The part that was not unanimous were the two words we discussed this last time, unlawful means. What were the unlawful means? And the judge allowed the jury to have different unlawful means. And how about this? I agree with, with you. I think that that is grist for an appeal, because when you allow the jury to say, all right, we're going to lean on federal campaign finance laws, I don't know if you can do that in a state prosecution or lean on tax laws. Is it a tax violation when the state is made whole? Although what you're telling me now is that if Michael Cohen never paid the taxes, maybe there is a tax violation, but it wouldn't be Trump's tax violation because he did pay him for the taxes.

Megyn Kelly
Yeah, I mean, that's the problem. Go ahead, Phil.

Phil Holloway
Look, the grand jury never charged Donald Trump with anything related to those three statutes that the judge finally determined were the ones that they could choose from. They have to find probable cause to believe that he committed a crime. And that means each and every element of the crime. It's not how the prosecutor or how the judge interprets the indictment. Oh, I'm sure the grand jury must have meant this crime, that crime, or the other crime. No, that's not how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to have a grand jury indictment. They're supposed to say specifically what you, as the defendant, did wrong so that they can specifically put you on notice, what you specifically need to defend at trial. It's called due process. It's called the Fifth Amendment. It's called the 6th Amendment right to fair trial. And it's wrong for a judge to allow a case to go to a jury under these circumstances. And it's so far outside the norm that those of us in the legal field, most of us, were just sort of scratching our heads, wondering, are we just living in the twilight zone here? When you have a judge that's going to allow something like this to go forward, you know, it's just reprehensible you can't just have a grand jury do an indictment and leave it so vague that the, the judge and the prosecutor just sort of get to fill in the blanks later when it comes to time to charge the jury. That's not how it works.

Megyn Kelly
You literally can't. I mean, Dave, you've, you've been on this show before. We've had Andy McCarthy on here. He found this New York state constitutional provision that prohibits incorporating by reference the rest of the penal code. You're not allowed to do that. And why? Because it doesn't give the defendant due process. It doesn't give him notice of what he could be charged with when he's deciding how to behave as a citizen of New York state. He doesn't know that you could actually wind up a felon if you violate federal election law or try to. That's what they were saying here. He attempted to violate federal election law. And therefore, if you do the books wrong, you could be elevating a misdemeanor to a felony because that could be brought in by a state prosecutor against you, even though the feds have exclusive jurisdiction on federal election claims, that what appellate court is going to say, yeah, you're good, that that's fair to the defendant.

Dave Aronberg
I think there's a real chance this could be overturned on appeal for the reasons you say. But make it clear, they did make it obvious in the indictment that this was about falsification of business records. They mentioned other potential crimes. But I will grant Phil's point that I think they should have, for the sake of transparency, specifically mentioned what the second crime was. What we found out later was that it was that state law, that obscure state law that said you cannot conspire using unlawful means to influence an election. And that was the second statute. And under New York law, it's my understanding you don't have to set that out in the indictment. You can just reveal it later on. Which they did. But the part that I think is able to be appealed, that I think they have a good appeal on, is the two words, unlawful means. What were the unlawful means? And the judge did give three options for the jury. And I'm not sure that's going to fly with the high court in New York.

Megyn Kelly
No, because, Mike, how could the jury in any world understand federal election law when almost no one understands it? Antonin Scalia is on record as saying, I have no idea. It's too confusing. And the feds, the Federal Election Commission, has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce those claims for this very reason. And yet they didn't hear from an expert. They heard Michael Cohen backdoor the fact that he settled a. That he was found guilty, pleaded guilty to such a claim. David Pecker, non prosecution agreement on such a claim. And no one explained federal election law to them except for the judge in a one liner, which was wrong, which misstated the law on campaign finance.

Mike Davis
Yeah, and the Federal Election Commission, along with the Manhattan US attorney and the prior Manhattan DA, Cy Vance, and even Bragg himself, declined to bring these charges before TeleAngelo went to Bragg's office from the Biden Justice Department. And I would say this, I think Dave, my good friend Dave, makes our point for us that even a Democrat elected district attorney is saying that this case has a very strong chance of getting reversed on appeal because of that due process problem where they didn't allege the seconds crime. Well, I would say if a Democrat elected district attorney thinks that, why the hell would anyone bring this novel charge against a former president who happens to be the leading presidential candidate unless it is a rock solid case?

Megyn Kelly
If.

Mike Davis
If President Trump had a dead person bleeding in his trunk, I can understand why you would bring criminal charges in that case. You don't bring criminal charges on novel, untested legal theories like they've done here with Alvin Bragg and Matthew Colangelo and this corrupt judge, Juan Mershon, whose daughter's making a lot of money off of this case.

Megyn Kelly
That's the thing. I just can't get by. Yeah, go ahead, Dave.

Dave Aronberg
Sure. Just to set the record straight with my friend Mike, I don't necessarily think it's a strong chance on appeal. I think it's a decent chance on appeal. I would change the adjective there, but also, I still don't have an issue with the fact that they did not specify the second crime in the indictment. I don't think they need to. My issue is that by unlawful means, they allow the jury to adopt campaign finance laws at the federal level, a tax violation which may not even exist. I think that's the best chance on appeal. I wouldn't say it's strong, but I think it's pretty decent.

Megyn Kelly
Mm. I just do not believe this is true.

I think the instruction on federal election law was very clearly wrong. And once again, they got into the subjective thought that was in the defendant's head. There was evidence allowed on that over and over. You know, what was the reason for these payments? Was it, you know, more to help him win the election, or was it more to keep this a secret from stormy? And that was ultimately reflected in its own way, in the jury instructions. And I go back to Brad Smith, find me a smarter election lawyer than Brad Smith, and I will listen. I await that person. And him saying, brad's got the election law totally wrong, former chairman of the FEC who's been out there, appointed by Bill Clinton, saying the following. And I, you know, we've played his soundbite, but I'll give you more, Brad Smith, because he's a very interesting guy. No one's freaking rebutting him. I mean, like, great, show me how wrong he is.

I google it all the time, as this audience knows. Here's what he said in a piece that was posted in the, I think it was posted in the Washington examiner. That's where I read it. And it's entitled, Brad Smith, what I would have told the Trump jury. You know, he was banned from speaking.

Ultimately, the judge said, okay, you can put him on, but he can only define a couple of terms. Team Trump said, what's the point of that? Okay, so, no, but he wanted to tell the jury, and he says, as follows, we would have liked to flag, okay, this is whatever. He's picking up an other thought. We would have talked about what this phrase means for the purpose of influencing an election and explain to the jury, this is not a subjective test, like, what was my intention? It is an objective test. So hiring campaign staff is for the purpose of influencing an election, renting space for your campaign office, buying ads, maybe doing polling, printing up bumper stickers, travel to campaign rallies, renting venues for campaign rallies. All of these things exist only because you are running for office. But under the personal use rules of campaign finance laws, a lot of things candidates do running for office are not considered campaign expenditures, which is what the government was arguing. These hush money payments to stormy and Karen McDougal were campaign expenditures that needed to comply with the limitations under law, he says. So a lot of these things that candidates do running for office are not considered campaign expenditures. Things like paying for a weight loss program or a gym membership, nicer clothes, teeth whitening, all that sort of thing. It may be true that you do those things in part to help yourself get elected. You might not do them otherwise, but they are not obligations that exist simply because you are running for office.

Lots of people do these things. This notion of personal use, and I would have talked about this and the idea that what a campaign expense is, is an objective test, not a subjective one, Phil, it's just to me. So it's a tragedy that the jury didn't know any of this. And this is why I don't really hold this jury responsible for this. I hold Judge Mershon and Alvin Bragg responsible for this.

Dave Aronberg
Yeah, Megan. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, Phil.

Phil Holloway
No, I. Look, Merchant and Bragg are the two people that are responsible for this. And to our point of our discussion earlier, when I said we shouldn't necessarily retaliate by having now republicans go after Democrat politicians and indict them for political reasons. But we can do is we can police the people who are responsible for things like this. We can find out how it is that Justice Marshawn has all of the cases that are related to Trump. Some kind of funny business is going on there that can be investigated, that can be rooted out. And if people need to be punished, then things can, things can happen to punish them. You've got ethics violations by prosecutors, you've got ethics violations by judges. Those things can be aggressively gone after. And absolutely, if the people that are responsible for creating these situations in the first place, they are the ones who need to pay the price. And if they violated some kind of federal law in doing it, then so be it. They can, they can have a federal indictment to stand for what they've done. But, but I don't think we can go around and retaliate necessarily for political purposes. But when it comes to how you have a trial that is run the way MErShon ran this trial, it absolutely rose to the point early on that it was so unfair that the entirety of the way he ran his court, I think, was a violation of procedural due process. And I certainly hope that the courts of appeal that look at this will see it for what it is. Unfortunately, that may take several years.

Megyn Kelly
Can I just say, Megan, I think neither Mike nor I are suggesting that we just invent crimes. But I think, you know, Stalin, like, show me the person and I'll show you the crime. I bet all four of us have committed some sort of a violation. You know, I was joking the other day that what this has been reduced to for Trump is he pulled the tag off the mattress. I mean, I've done it. I'm not gonna lie. I pulled that tag right off. It's annoying. And so you could come after me. Yeah. You know, if you really wanted to. I'm saying, if this is, if this is where we are, where we're just going to pick the most threatening person from the other side's party and try to find some crime to wrap around them, then this is the gutter we're going to have to live in temporarily in order to save the country. Go ahead, Dave.

Yeah.

Dave Aronberg
Megan, the expert that you cited, as you remember, I was on with him, and to counter him, I said, well, what about the John Edwards prosecution? And his response was, well, yes, that is the exception. And I think the judge got it wrong in allowing that to go forward. So even if he was allowed to testify, there's. It's not foolproof. You know, there's at least one court that found the opposite and allowed the John Edwards prosecution to go forward. So that's why I think that. Look, bottom line is, if Donald Trump didn't want this to happen, he should have either adopted a different defense or should never have paid off the. His lawyer to pay off the adult film star.

Megyn Kelly
That's crazy talk. You were right on the first point about he should have tried the case differently. But it's not true. And it's so unfair to say so. Dave, under this theory. I had a big debate with Dan Abrams about this last night on news Nation. So under this theory, if you're running for president and some loser comes out of the woodwork and says, I'm gonna tell everybody I had an affair. All right, let's say it's not true. Let's say it's just some money grab. I'm gonna tell everyone we had an affair. You cheated on your family, your wife, whatever. And you. So you cannot pay her off in advance of an election because you're now required to air all of your dirty laundry in front of the public, or you've committed a crime.

Dave Aronberg
Well, you can't have someone else pay her off. That would be an unlawful contribution to your campaign.

You could perhaps do it yourself, but you can't have someone else do it. And that's the problem here.

Megyn Kelly
Why not?

Dave Aronberg
There's a campaign violation.

Megyn Kelly
Why not?

No, it's not. Because hush money payments, objectively, under the objective standard, not the subjective one that is wrongly used here, are paid all the time. Raise your hand if you've ever signed an NDA. We've all signed NDAs. We've all. I mean, everybody. Everybody's signed one. Everybody's had one signed. Everybody's gotten sued. If you have two minutes in the professional sphere as a lawyer, as a successful business executive, you're either gonna get sued or you're gonna sue somebody. And NDAs happen in hush money, whatever you wanna call it, it's a contract where it's like, shut the hell up about your weird allegations, and I'll give you some nuisance value to go away.

Dave Aronberg
Well, the campaign finance limit at the time was $2,800. That's the problem. When Michael Cohen gave Stormy Daniels $130,000.

Megyn Kelly
We're talking around each other. Talking around each other. A campaign donation, whether it's a campaign contribution, is determined by Brad Smith, by his objective test. And you, your only answer to that is John Edwards. Which means one federal district court, we talked about this, found the opposite. And in a case in which John Edwards was not convicted and no one else, and yet you discard the actual experts testimony and testimonial everywhere, Dave, that this is the law and that that judge got it wrong.

Dave Aronberg
Well, the appellate court determined whether it's a law. That's Mister Smith's opinion. Because when I confronted him with John Edwards, he was like, well, they got it wrong. So. And the law is not that clear. And when the law says if it's meant to influence an election, then it's a violation.

Megyn Kelly
It's clear. It's clear. All right. You know, I have a friend, Dave, from law school. Her name is Donna. She listens to the show every day. And at the end of the show every day, she's a Democrat.

She sends me a note and she says, almost every time you're on, Dave is a good sport. And I feel the same.

You are a good sport. Thank you for coming on and giving us the alternate view, taking all the arguments when you're kind of one man.

Dave Aronberg
Thank you, Donna.

Megyn Kelly
Three today. Yes. She's a big fan, as I know our Mike and Phil. You guys, we appreciate it today and every day.

Mike Davis
So I'm with Dave on everything, just about everything to deal with Israel, but just not on this stuff.

Phil Holloway
He may be part of my.

I need to move to Florida and get a prosecutor job part time.

Gotta be nice.

Megyn Kelly
Look at this. See, we're all coming together in the end. Lots of love, guys. Thanks for coming on. We'll see you soon.

Mike Davis
Thank you.

Megyn Kelly
And thanks to all of you for joining me today and all week. What a week. My God. Please tell me how you feel. Are you feeling the Kavanaugh way, right, like hot coals to get to the polls now on November 5? Or are you one of those leaners? I mean, I know my audience is kind of an interesting polling sample because I know I have a lot of, like, deep MAga who absolutely love Trump. And no matter what they're voting for, I know I have a lot of democrats, too, who are not hard left, but soft left.

And I wonder if you were thinking about voting for Trump. Does this matter to you. Email me. Okay. Email Megan. Megyn Dashelly.com and while I have, you should go to our website which is Megan kelly.com and you'll see some of the great content that's been on fire for us this week making the rounds including that contentious interview I mentioned with Dan Abrams who's also a pal and of the left. He says he's a centrist. I think he's of the left.

Anyway, thanks to all of you. We appreciate it. And we're back on Monday with the EJ's love them and for the first time ever, the three of us will be in person. I've actually never have I met Emily Jasinski in person. I don't think I have. I've seen Eliana. We did that debate together. Anyway, that's what's happening this Monday. Hope you tune in. Have a great weekend.

Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly show. No bs, no agenda and no fear.