There is ‘so much wrong’ with this case: Alina Habba

♪ >> Sean: ALL RIGHT. AS WE MENTIONED AT THE TOP OF THE SHOW TONIGHT, WE HAVE MAJOR BREAKING NEWS OUT OF NEW YORK CITY WHERE, WELL, VERY ABUSIVELY BIASSED JUDGE JUAN MER SEANED ANNOUNCED THE SENTENCING OF FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. TRUMP HAS BEEN AWAITING SENTENCING FOR MONTHS AFTER GETTING CONVICTED ON THESE 34 COUNTS OF FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN WHAT WAS ONE OF THE MOST CLEAR, OBVIOUS WITCH HUNTS AT ALL TIMES AND FEATURING A CONFLICTED JUDGE, A JURY POOL DRAWN FROM ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AND, OF COURSE, A COMPLETELY MADE-UP CRIME USING A NOVEL LEGAL THEORY SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED JUST TO GET TRUMP CONVICTED. ANYWAY HERE WITH MORE IS TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR LEGAL ADVISOR AND SPOKESPERSON ALINA HABBA IS WITH A. ALINA THIS CASE IS PROBABLY THE MOST EGREGIOUS. IN NEW YORK THIS WOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR CASE. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN OUT. SO THEY COME UP WITH THIS CREATIVE NOVEL IDEA THAT THIS VERY ABUSIVELY BIAS JUDGE GOES ALONG WITH, THAT SOMEHOW TURNS IT INTO MULTIPLE FELONIES. THEY PACKED FELONY UPON FELONY, AND THEY BRING THIS CASE TO COURT UNDER A THEORY THAT HAD NEVER BEEN USED BEFORE, AND HERE WE ARE -- AND THEN WE HAVE A SUPREME COURT DECISION ON IMMUNITY, WHICH WOULD MANDATE THIS JUDGE VACATE THAT VERDICT CONSIDERING EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THAT JURY WAS FROM THE TIME WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS DOING HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AS PRESIDENT. BUT, YET, THE JUDGE IS NOT GOING TO CONSIDER THAT OR IS HE REALLY CONSIDERING IT BUT DOESN'T WANT TO TELL US UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION? >> YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE IS, SEAN. THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS, THIS CASE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, SSJ VANCE PASSED ON IT SOS DID ALVIN BRAGG BUT THEN DONALD TRUMP DECIDED TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND WE'RE HERE. JUDGE MER CHANNED'S OPINION IS STILL FLAWED BECAUSE OF ONE THING. LIKE YOU SAID, THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST COURT IN THIS COUNTRY, A COUNTRY BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION, SEPARATION OF POWERS, WE HAVE THAT IMPLACE FOR A REASON. THEY SAID THAT A PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE AND THAT'S ALL PRESIDENTS, NOT JUST PRESIDENT TRUMP, FROM THESE TYPES OF POLITICAL OR ANY FRANKLY PROSECUTION, PERSECUTION, CIVILLY OR CRIMINALLY. AND THE FACT THAT HE IS KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, WHILE IT'S APPRECIATED BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO APPEAR TO BE DOING WHAT I AND YOU HAVE CALLED ELECTION INTERFERENCE, WHICH IS WHAT IT IS, IS GREAT. HOWEVER THIS CASE SHOULD BE FRANKLY DISMISSED. THERE WAS TESTIMONY ON THIS CASE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE SITTING IN THE OVAL FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN UNDER THIS SUPREME COURT DECISION. SO HITTING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD I APPRECIATE BUT QUITE HONESTLY SEAN, THIS SHOULD BE VACATED IN ITS ENTIRETY. >> Sean: IT SHOULD BE. I MEAN, WAS THERE NOT EVIDENCE PRESENTED, FOR EXAMPLE, HOPE HICKS TESTIMONY WOULD BE ONE EXAMPLE BUT WEREN'T THERE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE JURY THAT SHOULD -- THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON IMMUNITY THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED INTO EVIDENCE, WHICH WOULD CAUSE MERCHAND TO VACATE THAT VERDICT WOULDN'T IT? >> ABSOLUTELY AND NOT ONLY MULTIPLE WITNESSES BROUGHT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF WAS SITTING AT THE OVAL IN THE RESOLUTE DESK WHILE THIS WAS HAPPENING. THE ACTS THEY CLAIM, THE PAY BACK BY AN ATTORNEY FOR AN NDA, WAS DURING THE TIME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS IN THE OVAL. THE ENTIRE CASE IS FLAWED. IT IS PAST THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. IT WAS PURELY BROUGHT FOR POLITICAL REASONS, WE KNOW THIS. AND WHEN YOU BRING DOJ OFFICIALS ONTO THE DA's OFFICE IN A STATE COURT FOR FELONIES, IT'S A JOKE. THERE'S SO MUCH WRONG WITH THIS CASE, IT SHOULD BE COMPLETELY ADMONISHED. THE JUDGE SHOULD BE ADMONISHED IN MY OPINION FOR NOT RECUSING, NUMBER ONE, FOR NOT DISMISSING AND FOR CONTINUING TO WASTE TAXPAYER DOLLARS. THIS IS A JOKE AND ATROCITY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK IS SEEING IT. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE CRIME AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE FLEEING. >> Sean: I TOTALLY AGREE. WE HAD ANOTHER COURT CASE THIS WEEK AND I WANT TO GET INTO THAT, AND THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE DC CASE AND THE SPECIAL PROSECUTE IN THIS CASE WHO, BY THE WAY, THE LEGITIMACY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THIS PROSECUTOR IS IN QUESTION AS WE SAW DOWN IN FLORIDA, THE ENTIRE CASE WAS THROWN OUT BY JUDGE EILEEN CANNON. I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE HERE. BUT THE PROSECUTOR REFILES THE CASE AND THE JUDGE THIS WEEK THEN GOES ON TO SAY, OKAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY THE CASE BEFORE THE ELECTION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TIME WITH ALL THE MOTIONS THAT WILL BE GOING FORWARD BUT THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW THIS WEAPONIZED DOJ TO PUT OUT PREJUDICIAL INFORMATION AGAINST DONALD TRUMP THAT WILL NOT BE REFUTED, IT WILL NOT BE SWORN TESTIMONY AS A MEANS AGAIN OF IMPACTING AN ELECTION WHILE THE VOTE IS GOING ON. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 60, 90 DAY RULE OF PRACTICE OF THE DOJ IN THE PAST? IS THAT DEAD, GONE AND BURIED? >> IT'S UNBELIEVABLE AND YOU'RE RIGHT JACK SMITH HAS BEEN RIDICULED AND COMPLETELY TAKEN BACK FROM HAVING ANY AUTHORITY AS WE KNOW. NOW THEY'VE APPEALED THAT BUT THERE'S NO DECISION ON THAT. AND AS YOU SAID, THIS IS THE ISSUE, SEAN. WE CAN SAY THAT TRIALS WILL GET KICKED BACK, DECISIONS ON SENTENCING GETS KICKED BACK BUT WE HAVE TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THE PEOPLE HERE INFLUENCING AN ELECTION BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS. THEY WANT TO BRING UP APPEALS, BRING UP REHASH OLD NEWS THAT IS FRANKLY FAKE NEWS AND WE HAVE TO, AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TRY AND SIFT THROUGH THAT. THAT IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE AT ITS FINEST, IT'S IMPROPER AND WE DON'T GET A CHANCE TO GO TO TRIAL AND REBUT IT AND SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT A JOKE THIS IS. BUT IT WILL COME TO NOVEMBER 5TH, I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GETTING IT THEY'RE SICK OF IT AND THE