Harvard law professor says Trump’s jury ‘failed its role'

.

MARIA: CONSTANTLY ON DEFENSE,

SIX YEARS LATER.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

REACTING TO THE JURY FINDING HIM

GUILTY ON 34 COUNTS IN HIS NEW

YORK CITY TRIAL.

THE BIDEN HARRIS 2024

COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, MICHAEL

TYLER, SAYING THIS.

IN NEW YORK, WE SAW THAT NO ONE

IS ABOVE THE LAW.

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO KEEP

DONALD TRUMP OUT OF THE OVAL

OFFICE AND THAT IS AT THE BALLOT

BOX.

JOINING ME IS HARVARD LAW

PROFESSOR EMERITUS THE, AUTHOR

OF GET TRUMP, THE THREAT TO

CIVIL LIBERTIES, DUE PROCESS AND

CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW, SPOT

ON EVEN BEFORE ALL OF THIS

HAPPENED.

THERE IS THE BOOK.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS HERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING

ME THIS MORNING.

YOU'VE SEEN THIS TRIAL UNFOLD

FIRSTHAND.

YOU HAD A FRONT ROW SEAT IN THAT

TRIAL.

YOUR REACTION TO THE VERDICT?

>> MY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT IS WITH

THE JURY.

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CHECK

AND BALANCE.

THIS JURY FAILED THE ROLE OF

CHECKING AND BALANCING.

OF COURSE THEY DID BECAUSE THEY

WERE HAND-PICKED BY THE JUDGE,

BY THE PROSECUTOR TO BE

ANTI-TRUMP.

THESE WERE GET TRUMP JURORS.

THESE WERE JURORS WHO VOTED

BETWEEN 85 TO 90% NOT TO ALLOW

TRUMP TO BE PRESIDENT AND THEY

WILL DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT HIM

FROM BEING THE PRESIDENT AND SO

THEIR VOTE WAS THE SECOND VOTE

ON NOVEMBER AGAINST HIM BEING

PRESIDENT.

IT WASN'T A VOTE ON THE FACTS OR

THE LAW OF THE CASE, THE FACTS

OF THE LAW OF THE CASE HERE ARE

N A ABSOLUTE JOKE.

THERE ISN'T A SERIOUS LAWYER IN

THE COUNTRY, DEMOCRAT OR

REPUBLICAN, WHO WOULD PRIVATELY

TELL YOU THIS WAS A LEGITIMATE

CASE.

I'M GETTING CALLS FROM FRIENDS

OF MINE WHO ARE DEMOCRATS AND

WHO ARE LIBERALS BUT WON'T SPEAK

OUT WHO SAY OF COURSE THIS IS

OUTRAGEOUS, OF COURSE THIS IS A

POLITICAL TRIAL, OF COURSE THERE

WAS NO BASIS FOR CONVICTING HIM

OF MISDEMEANOR BASED ON THE

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BUT WE'RE

THRILLED, WE'RE HAPPY, WE'RE

CHEERING FOR THE RESULT BECAUSE

THIS IS PART OF A WHOLE GET

TRUMP MENTALITY AND MAYBE IT

WILL BACKFIRE, MAYBE IT WON'T.

MAYBE IT WILL BE REVERSED ON

APPEAL OR MY WORRY IS THE

APPELLATE JUDGES ARE JUST LIKE

THE JURORS.

THEY'RE AFRAID OF COMING BACK

HOME AND BEING ACCUSED OF BEING

THE ONES WHO ALLOWED TRUMP TO

BECOME PRESIDENT.

I'M AFRAID THE YOU APPELLATE APS

WILL FALL INTO THE SAME GET

TRUMP TRAP AND WE'LL SEE NO

CHANGE IN OUR SYSTEM OF RULE OF

LAW.

MARIA: HOW MUCH OF THE

INFLUENCE CAME FROM THE JUDGE TO

BEGIN WITH?

I MEAN, I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE

LAST WEEK AND SHE SAID SHE SAW

ALL OF THE JURY SELECTION SHEETS

AND IT WAS ALL LIKE I HATE

TRUMP, I WANT HIM BEHIND BARS, I

MEAN, STUFF LIKE THAT.

WHEN THE JURY WAS SELECTED.

AND THEN JUDGE MERCHAN COMES UP

AND TELLS THEM DON'T WORRY, YOU

DON'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS ON A

SECONDARY CRIME.

CHOOSE WHATEVER YOU WANT.

PICK A CRIME AND THAT'S FINE.

IN FACT, WE KNOW IT'S SUPPOSED

TO BE UNANIMOUS.

I MEAN, THEN HE SETS TRUMP'S

SENTENCING HEARING FOR

JULY 11th, DAYS BEFORE THE

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.

SO I WANT TO GET YOUR -- YOU SAY

YOU'RE DISAPPOINTED IN THE JURY.

HOW MUCH OF THE JURY'S BEHAVIOR

WAS BECAUSE OF THE JUDGE AND

WHAT HE TOLD THEM TO DO?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY A DIRECTED

VERDICT OF GUILT BY THE JUDGE,

BY GIVING THEM THE MULTIPLE

CHOICE DEFENSE, BY SAYING YOU

DON'T HAVE TO AGREE ON WHICH

CHARGES WERE THE SECONDARY

CRIMES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE

THEM BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

YOU CAN ACCEPT THE PROSECUTOR'S

ARGUMENT THAT AS A MATTER OF

FACT, THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHILE

KEEPING OUT AN EXPERT WITNESS

WHO REALLY KNOWS CAMPAIGN LAW

WHO WOULD HAVE SAID NO, THIS IS

NOT AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTION.

THE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE

DETAILED, SALACIOUS TESTIMONY OF

STORMY DANIELS, IRRELEVANT TO

THE CASE.

IT'S BEEN RULED IN THE WEINSTEIN

CASE THAT IT'S ILLEGAL.

IF THEY APPLY THE WEINSTEIN

PRECEDENT TO THE TRUMP CASE,

THEY WILL REVERSE THIS.

WILL THEY HAVE THE COURAGE TO

ALLOW DONALD TRUMP TO BE THE

NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES?

THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION.

CAN GET JUSTICE IN NEW YORK?

THIS CAN'T BE AN INVITATION TO

LOCAL PROSECUTORS AROUND THE

COUNTRY WHO ARE REPUBLICANS TO

START WEAPONIZING THE CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM AND GO AFTER

DEMOCRATS AND START BRINGING

THEM TO TRIAL IN FRONT OF JURORS

THAT ARE VERY ANTI-DEMOCRAT.

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A WAR

OF WEAPONIZATION OF THE CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM AND IT HAS LEGAL

SYSTEMS FAIL.

OUR SYSTEMS OF CHECKS AND

BALANCES WHICH IS THE GREAT

CONTRIBUTION THAT THE AMERICAN

CONSTITUTION MADE FAILED

YESTERDAY AND WE GET MORE -- ON

MY SHOW, I GIVE OUT BANANAS.

WE'RE UP TO EIGHT BANANAS OUT OF

10 ON A BANANA REPUBLIC.

WE LOST OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND

BALANCES YESTERDAY.

MARIA: I LIKE THE FACT YOU GIVE

OUT BANANAS.

IT'S SPOT-ON.

LET ME GET YOUR TAKE ON WHAT WE

HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND

THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN EARLIER THIS

WEEK BECAUSE REMEMBER WHEN WE

WERE ALL WAITING FOR A VERDICT,

THE CAMPAIGN COMES OUT AND THEY

SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE

PRESIDENT BIDEN MAKE A STATEMENT

AFTER THE VERDICT IS OUT, HE'S

GOING TO DO IT FROM THE WHITE

HOUSE SO IT DOESN'T LOOK

POLITICAL.

YEAH, RIGHT.

AND THEN THEY SAY IF HE IS

ACQUITTED, IF IT'S A HUNG JURY,

WE ARE PLANNING ATTACKS ON

PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I MEAN, WHEN I READ THAT, I WAS

SO TAKEN ABACK, I THOUGHT COULD

THIS ACTUALLY BE TRUE?

ARE THEY ADMITTING THAT THEY ARE

INTIMIDATING PEOPLE RIGHT NOW

EVEN BEFORE -- I MEAN, HOW MUCH

OF THAT INTIMIDATED THE JURY, DO

YOU THINK?

>> WELL, I THINK THE JURY WAS

VERY MUCH INTIMIDATED EVEN

THOUGH THEY WERE ANONYMOUS.

THE JUDGE WAS INTIMIDATED.

NOBODY WANTS TO BE DERSHOWITZ.

THAT MEANS BEING VERY POP OF

LATER IN PLACES LIKE MARTHA'S

VINEYARD AND HARVARD, THEN

DEFENDING PRESIDENT TRUMP ON

CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS AND BEING

COMPLETELY CANCELED SO NO ONE

WILL TALK TO YOU, YOUR FAMILY

MEMBERS, YOUR WIFE.

EVERY JUROR UNDERSTANDS THAT.

EVERY JUDGE UNDERSTANDS THAT.

IF YOU'RE PERCEIVED AS DOING

ANYTHING IN FAVOR OF TRUMP IN A

CITY LIKE NEW YORK, PARTICULARLY

MANHATTAN, YOUR LIFE IS OVER AND

EVERY JUROR UNDERSTOOD THAT,

EVERY JUDGE UNDERSTOOD THAT.

UNDERJUROR GOT OUT OF THE CASE

SAYING I CAN'T STAND THE IDEA

THAT I'LL BE DISCRIMINATED

AGAINST IF I VOTE FOR TRUMP.

THIS CASE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN

HELD IN M MANHATTAN, SHOULD HAVE

BEEN HELD IN STATEN ISLAND OR

ROCKLAND COUNTY, SHOULD HAVE

BEEN HELD AFTER THE ELECTION,

NOT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH THIS

CASE, EVERYTHING THAT AMERICA

STANDS FOR WAS VIOLATED BY THIS.

MARIA: THAT IS SO TERRIBLE WHAT

YOU SAID AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT

SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN SOME

PLACE LIKE STATEN ISLAND WHERE

WE KNEW THAT MAYBE WE COULD GET

A SHOT AT SOME FAIRNESS.

WILL SCHARF IS THE TRUMP

APPELLATE TEAM ATTORNEY, HE

JOINED SPECIAL REPORT LAST

NIGHT.

HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.

WATCH.

>> THIS CASE IS REPLETE WITH

REVERSIBLE ERROR, GOING BACK TO

THE VERY FIRST DAY, CONTINUING

THROUGH JURY INSTRUCTIONS, EVERY

ASPECT OF THIS CASE IS RIPE FOR

APPEAL.

WE ARE GOING TO AAPPEAL AS QUICK

CANNILY AS WE CAN.

WE WILL SEEK EXPEDITED REVIEW OF

THIS CASE AND WE'RE GOING TO

TRUST THAT THE APPELLATE COURTS

IN NEW YORK UNDERSTAND THE

DANGEROUS PANDORAS BOX THAT THIS

LAWLESS JUDGMENT HAS OPENED AND

THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE FOB

SHALE RAMIFICATIONS -- POTENTIAL

RAMIFICATION TOSS THE OUR LEGAL

SYSTEM.

MARIA: ONE QUESTION, WHAT

SHOULD THE TRUMP TEAM DO NOW?

THEY'VE GOT 30 DAYS TO APPEAL

AND ALSO WHAT ABOUT THE SUPREME

COURT?

HOW MUCH IS SCOTUS FOCUSED ON

THIS AS THEY DEBATE AND

DELIBERATE OVER THE POTENTIAL

FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY ON THE

JANUARY 6th CASE.

>> SURE.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WILL SCHARF

IS A VERY GOOD LAWYER, GLAD HE'S

STAYING ON THE TEAM.

I WAS NOT THRILLED WITH THE

CHIEF COUNSEL IN THIS CASE BUT

WILL SCHARF IS VERY GOOD AND

THEY NEED TO BRING ON-BOARD SOME

MORE EXPERIENCED APPELLATE

LAWYERS WHO MAYBE COULD MAKE THE

BEST OF THE RECORD IN THIS CASE

AND BRING FORWARD AN APPEAL THAT

HAS SOME CHANCE OF WINNING.

IT'S UP HILL BECAUSE OF THE

JUDGESN NEW YORK, THIS IS UP

HILL.

EVENTUALLY THIS CASE WILL GET TO

THE SUPREME COURT IF THEY TAKE

IT.

IT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY REVERSE

THE CONVICTION BUT THAT MIGHT BE

AFTER THE ELECTION SO IT WILL BE

ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

THERE SHOULD BE AN EXPEDITED

APPEAL.

THEY THEY SHOULD TRY TO GET THIS

CASE UP TO THE NEW YORK COURT OF

APPEALS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND

THEN TO THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT BUT YOU NEED

EXPERIENCED APPELLATE LAWYERS,

PARTICULARLY EXPERIENCED IN NEW

YORK LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO WON

THE WEINSTEIN CASE SHOULD BE

BROUGHT ON IMMEDIATELY.

HE UNDERSTANDS THE LAW OF NEW

YORK AND HE HAS A WINNING RECORD

IN NEW YORK AND YOU ALWAYS NEED

NEW EYES AFTER A LOSS LIKE THIS.

THERE'S SOME GOOD MEMBERS OF THE

TEAM, THE TEAM OF LAWYERS, BUT

THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE --

SHOULD BE REPLACED AND I HOPE

THEY'LL DO THAT AND PUT TOGETHER

A GREAT TEAM BECAUSE IT'S VERY,

VERY IMPORTANT THAT THIS APPEAL

BE WON, NOT ONLY FOR DONALD

TRUMP, BUT FOR EVERY CITIZEN OF

THE UNITED STATES.

THIS PROSECUTION --

MARIA: THIS PROSECUTION WHAT?

>> HAS TO BE REBUKED, HAS THOSE

BE REVERSED.

-- HAS TO BE REVERSED.

FROM JUDGES TO PROSECUTORS, YOU

CAN'T BRING THESE KINDS OF

CASES, EVEN IF YOU WIN THEM IN

FRONT OF THE JURY, THE LAW IS

AGAINST YOU.

THE FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU.

JUSTICE IS AGAINST YOU.

MARIA: YEAH.

>> AND JUST BECAUSE THEY WON

DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A STRONG CASE.

WORST THING ABOUT THE CASE IS

THAT IT'S SUCH A WEAK CASE AND

IT STILL WON IN NEW YORK.

MARIA: YEAH.

WHAT ARE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT

ARE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP RIGHT

NOW?

IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT HIS

CAMPAIGN?

CAN HE TRAVEL?

CAN HE LEAVE THE STATE?

DID TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL

CONVENTION?

WHAT SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT

THE RESTRICTIONS THAT'S A

CONVICTION BRINGS?

>> I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY

RESTRICTIONSES AT THE MOMENT.

ONCE HE'S SENTENCED, THERE COULD

BE.

HE'LL MOVE TO STAY THE SENTENCE.

IF THEY DO MOVE THE CONVENTION

UP TO JULY 4th AS THE PREVIOUS

GUEST SAID, THEN WE'LL HAVE A

SENTENCE BEFORE THE CONVENTION

SO THAT'S AN IDEA WHICH IS A

MIXED BLESSING.

HE HAS TO CONTINUE WITH -- HE NO

LONGER HAS THE PRESUMPTION OF

INNOCENCE.

HE'S INNOCENT AS A MATTER OF

LAW, AS A MATTER OF FACT.

THE FACT THAT A COMPLETELY

BIASED JURY SELECT R&D BY A

COMPLETELY BIASED JUDGE

CONVICTED HIM SHOULDN'T CHANGE

THE ATTITUDE TOWARD HIM.

THE CASE SHOULD BE IGNORED.

THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE IGNORED

BY ANY REASONABLE THINKING

PERSON AND ANY THINKING

REASONABLE JUDGE SHOULD REVERSE

IT ON APPEAL.

MARIA: BY THE WAY, YOU SAID HE

NO LONGER HA HAS THE PRESUMPTION

OF INNOCENCE.

I THINK HE HAD THE PRESUMPTION

OF INNOCENCE GOING IN, OKAY.

EVEN BEFORE THE JURORS SAT DOWN

IN THEIR SEATS I DON'T THINK

THERE WAS ANY PRESUMPTION OF,

YOU KNOW, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN

GUILTY.

WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS TO

MICHAEL COHEN?

COULD HE BE CHARGED WITH PERJURY

AGAIN.

WE LEARNED HE ACTUALLY STOLE

MONEY FROM TRUMP.

$60,000 HE STOPPLE FROM TRUMP

AND -- HE STOLE FROM TRUMP AND

ADMITTED IT ON THE STAND.

>> HE'S A HERO IN NEW YORK NOW.

HE WILL BE PRAISED.

HE'LL PROBABLY GET A TELEVISION

SHOW AND HE LIED.

HE LOOKED IN THE PUBLIC --

LOOKED AT THE PUBLIC AND SAID I

HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST

INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE

CAMES HE WAS DANCING YESTERDAY,

JUMPING UP AND DOWN WITH JOY.

HE HAS TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL

INTEREST IN THE CASE.

MARIA: COULD HE BE CHARGED WITH

PERJURY AGAIN?

>> HE COULD BE CHARGED WITH

PERJURY BUT HE WON'T BE.

BECAUSE THIS IS GET TRUMP, THIS

IS NOT GET COHEN.

MARIA: THAT'S RIGHT.

>> MY BOOK GET TRUMP, IT

PREDICTED THIS OUTCOME OF THE

CASE.

AS SOON AS THE DECISIONS WAS M

MADE TO INDICT, AFTER EVERYBODY

SAID THERE WAS NO CASE HERE,

VANCE SAID THERE WAS NO CASE,

FEDS SAID THERE WAS NO CASE, AS

SOON AS BRAGG INDICTED WE KNEW

THERE WOULD BE A CONVICTION.

IT WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.

YESTERDAY'S RESULT IS NOT NEWS.

IT WAS THE END RESULT OF A

COMPLETELY PREDICTABLE INJUST IS

THE THAT WAS ENGINEERED FROM THE

VERY BEGINNING BY A POLITICIAN

WHO HAD CAMPAIGNED ON THE

PROMISE TO GET TRUMP.

THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO DANGEROUS

TO ALL AMERICANS.

TODAY IT'S GET TRUMP.

TOMORROW, IT'S GET YOU.

TOMORROW IT'S GET ME.

TOMORROW IT'S GET YOUR LOVED

ONE.

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM HAS BEEN

WEAPONIZED AGAINST POLITICAL

ENEMIES AND THAT IS A GREAT LOSS

FOR ALL AMERICANS.

MARIA: IT'S THE BEGINNING OF

LOSING THE COUNTRY.

I MEAN, WHAT CAN YOU SAY?

IT'S DISCOURAGING.

>> WE FIGHT BACK AND WE NEVER

GIVE UP AND WE DEMAND THAT THE

CONSTITUTION BE ADHERED TO AND

WE LEGALLY AND OTHERS WILL FIGHT

BACK POLITICALLY BUT WE CAN'T

GIVE UP.

TALKING AS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

NOW WHO IS NOT CONCERNED WITH

THE IMPACT ON ELECTIONS, I'M

CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON

THE RULE OF LAW.

THIS THAT'S WHAT I CARE ABOUT

DEEPLY.

MARIA: I KNOW YOU DO.

YOU'VE BEEN TOUGH.

HUH TO BE TOUGH BECAUSE YOU'VE

ALSO EFFORTS TO CANCEL YOU HAVE

BEEN UNDERWAY AS WELL.

ALAN, GREAT TO SEE YOU.

GREAT