on. this is a diminished this amount of money. we are talking about less than $50. and it is a mistake. it has already been decided and it's not going to go anywhere. the one thing i would say is that for those people who were in the courtroom, i'm not saying there is a transcript of everything but if you are in the courtroom, this judge was so remarkable. the idea that $35 made any difference, he was so careful and ruled in favor of donald trump on all sorts of things. >> in part, because of an awareness that this could move to an appeal. >> absolutely. to make sure was a clean trial. and i think that it is a different role. his role is to be a judge and to be impartial and to weigh what is fair to defendants. that is what his role is. i don't think that is a terribly good ground. i think there will be legal ground about the nature of the
jury. i don't blame the jury or the judge for the instructions. >> we can go into the legalities and minute by minute and both times the more sickening part here is the way the media was covering it and the way the media has been celebrating this and it's a dark day for justice and a dark day for america and no matter if you like donald trump or don't like donald trump and these are some of the same media pundits, hacks that i would call them, that don't want anybody else to go to jail. they don't want anybody else to go and have the book shown at them and throw the new book at them and thrown at donald trump and they celebrate that and i think they'll rather talk about donald trump as they always have and talk about failing joe biden and failing kamala harris and failing america under joe biden and kamala harris and this did them a favor in more ways than one, and it's really a travesty to watch them celebrate like
convicted, you would think he would give priority to discussing himself and his guilt or innocence. he started carrying on about 29,000 chinese people. the demonization of immigration has become -- in his worst moment that is what he does. >> yeah, i think what you are talking about is it's always been politically expedient to categorize immigrants as villains who steal jobs and threaten security or who are not assimilated. and that is common. even 100 years ago, as you mentioned, the interesting part to me is even those who are in favor of immigration don't have a good counterargument. they pose the victim narrative. the idea that immigrants are these poor huddled masses who need compassion and that will cost us a lot, it's the morally right thing to do. i've been researching this for 20 years and the evidence says
-- as victims of this crime. they are the people that were vilified and now they get to be in court and see what happens to donald trump as a result of this. i just want to add in, you can't under new york state law start an appeal until after sentencing the trump has to wait until july 11th if he is sentenced and the other thing that has to happen, he can start planning out his appeal in manhattan -- and then he can go to the supreme court. one thing judge merchan and prosecutors have in their favor is, a federal judge, last year upheld the prosecution of the state prosecution of donald trump and he issued 65 page ruling, laying out all parameters of why there could be a view of state authority. prosecutors have that
first presidential nominee, and the leader, leading crooked joe by a lot, that is not allowed to talk. maybe they're doing me a big favor, who knows? >> we are back with perry and christie greenberg. christie, i understand the judge will give trump an opportunity to speak before sentencing. what this sort of rhetoric in front of the judge help him, that we just heard? and he chose not to testify. do you think his lawyers would advise him to speak this time? >> so, i think it depends on what he will say. usually at sentencing, when you have a defendant who continues to maintain his innocence, it is unlikely that you're going to hear that defendant then accept responsibility and show any remorse, because they intend to still appeal their verdict, and they are saying that they are innocent. so, i would be surprised if that is something that you heard from donald trump here. and generally, a judge is not necessarily going to penalize a defendant for exercising his
civic lives. this is a choice that cannot be clearer. >> if you haven't sat and watched the whole thing and then watched again, do yourself a favor and treat yourself. as soon as we get off the air, please, do so. everything renowned historian ken burns had to say is a precious gift. that was from a commencement address on the 19th. it has exploded on mine since it was so eloquently and powerfully delivered. he explains why he sees this moment as a moment to suspend his long-standing commitment and attempt at neutrality. he implored the new graduates to remember with the most important political office is that of a private citizen. vote, he said. urging them to deliver our nation from the other route
fentanyl crisis. illegal fentanyl drugs coming through the border, not only by migrants, but citizens. this is a serious problem. so i am pleased the president is taking these steps. however, i believe it needs to be a balanced approach that includes work permits, for spouses, from mixed status families, as well as for dreamers, those who have benefited from the doctor program, so they can have protections that they need. but to ignore the problem like republicans in the house of representatives want to do, speaker johnson could have brought the senate bill to the floor, but they don't want to solve the problem. they want to have a political issue and they want to curry favor with donald trump more than solve a problem for the american people. >> they don't even talk about haiti, sedan or any of the other
number one violating the gag orders in the past, number two, speaking out against him. these are factors that don't normally come into play with your average defendant that no one has ever heard of. even if the defendant is out there on social media saying this trial is a sham. the judge may never find out about it but they sure the prosecution. it is donald trump therefore everything he says, everyone here is a and even if the judge doesn't hear it first hand, someone is telling him about it. those are factors that could weigh in favor of incarceration but i think there are more factors that weigh against incarceration. that is why i believe that donald trump should not be sentenced to incarceration when sentencing comes up. i will tell you quickly if i may. here are what i think are objective points. number one, no guns. two, no drugs. three, no violence. four, the age of the offender. he's over 70 years old. statistics show people in his age bracket are highly likely to reoffend, which kind of makes offense. and in addition he has no prior criminal history. then i'm going to get into factors i think reasonable minds disagree and i will give a pause so that you can dump on
shallow jolt was centered in the peninsula or devastating quake on january 1 killed more than 230 people. right now there is said to be no danger of a subsequent tsunami no reports of damage or injuries. again it was a major quake for lovemore information for you ase get it. what is it done such a bad job, they go to the guys urging a wonderful job to know it's also really bad? the caravans i think i came up with that name a long time ago. we formed 25, 30, 40000 people coming up and biden thanks he is doing a favor by allowing. the only reason they have the caravans is because i ended it all up a few but were not. jon: fulmer president trump touting his previous efforts to slow the surge of migrants of the southern border. while criticizing the current white house policy. meanwhile san diego now has become the epicenter of the illegal immigration crisis. let's bring in jim desmond san
i agree. we don't have a playbook for convicting former presidents. so, you have not had a defendant like him before. it stands to reason. let's go back, talking about mob movies looking for every excuse to bring them up. al capone went down for something else. how do you prevent them from harming the public that is what they did with trump. they looked for a means of prosecuting him. let's be honest with this. shouldn't there be law that prevent people from trying to influence e electrics and paying people off? to the extent there are laws on the books for that purpose, shouldn't it be enforced? what you hear legal analysts providing in favor of trump is incomplete analysis. i keep hearing about bias.