Amy Berman Jackson, Roger Stone discussed on Sean Hannity



Back in court today and the judge in this case the same judge in the mana fort case arm is saying things that just are shocking to me and don't seem particularly true judges name is Amy Berman Jackson anyway so this judge saying she would be placing limitations on public access to the proceedings surrounding Roger stone's effort to secure a new trial now what we know in this particular case we know that Roger stone that the jury foreperson had tweeted out things up against the president and against Roger stone prior to being seated on this jury our constitution we do have a six the moment it's supposed to allow us to have an impartial jury it's pretty clear it's not that hard to figure out speedy trial and impartial jury you would think if you have a fair and free and open just the system that that would be basic and fundamental but is this is not an America where you have equal justice and equal application of our laws anyway some reading from talking points memo's and they're covering the story today about about Roger stone and anyway the judge adding that the risk of intimidation a highly publicized case that a highly politicized political environment climate and the president himself has shown the spotlight on the jury through his Twitter platform well that was another outrage why did they silence Roger stone during the entire case that never made any sense to me I don't think that was particularly fair Roger stone once the pro plan his innocence in the case and put out evidence for the public to see why you wouldn't have the right to do that although we had freedom of speech in America but for her to claim that the president's comments were false and incendiary that that's not true either and yeah it is a highly publicized case it is a polarized political climate I'm not disagreeing with any of that that's fine the judge adds that the risk of harassment or intimidation is high for the juror will stows request for new trial was filed under seal other documents related to the request also shielded from the public and the judge now is imposing more restrictions on the new trial request proceedings you know just after so you know Roger stone's facing you know forty months in prison for lying where all these other people that we've had that applied I have a whole list of them James you can bring it in if you're listening and stone and filed the request you know under seal as the judge asked the really doesn't have much of a choice I think we need a a a share of the changing judges in this particular case anyway all the love the reason that juror spoke out was because she didn't like the fact the Attorney General looked at the nine year recommended jail time sentence and said this is ridiculous you know rapists that are convicted on average median time in jail as for years two months lying you know okay nobody gets nine years for lying in jail but that's how over zealous these prosecutors are in this particular case anyway I would think stone has this is a slam dunk case considering this juror had preconceived notions and political views that were stated that were hostile to Roger stone specifically on the president specifically and I think this is pretty how race ran for Congress transcriptomic selection process indicating stones the panties team was on so I was aware of our congressional bid but they were not aware our of her comments on social media now I guess an argument could be made that they should have known that I think the bigger argument is the juror should have disclosed that why wouldn't that be brought up your honor I just need you to know I'm going to sit on the jury but I had tweeted out about this case what is any judge what is said dismissed I know everybody that works for me when they get called for jury duty they just mention that work for me and the next thing that happens is dismissed what is that how many of you in there as that happened to that happens Linda never happen here right they give it to me for my own good route for me they don't even need to mention you know we have people outside our room that I won't even begin to mention they just say yeah I work on not Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's radio show goes rushes New York studios next to our studio anyway while the details of stones allegation remain undisclosed at the end that there should be a slam dunk there should be a slam dunk and at the hearing on sealing the proceedings the judge brings up the president's tweets and you know going after juror why shouldn't he now he's the top law enforcement officer she noted claims by Tucker Carlson in Osage is an anti trump zealot sitting on the jury she says that's incendiary and false information about the jury at center instead warned individuals angry about stone's conviction may choose to take it out on members of the jury personally attempts to invade the privacy of the juror Linda my not my mistake in here the juror not out herself on social media Facebook if I'm not mistaken that's a hundred percent correction it's another project right and she was on Facebook okay so now the question is why would we not have that information out there why not you know I I tweeted out for example I had interviewed Julian Assange back in what was that January of twenty seven September twenty sixteen in January of twenty seventeen January twenty January third twenty seventeen now shockingly The New York Times in may of last year put out an editorial and I think it probably is due to the Pentagon papers case Juliana songes indictment aims at the heart of the first amendment and if the trump administration and wants to use the espionage act is that these are prosecutors I don't think the president knows a thing about any of this stuff but anyway to redefine what journalists can or cannot publish and and you know I'm sitting there and I'm watching all this unfold and I'm I'm thinking to myself okay this is pretty interesting because I ask in that interview of Julian assigns repeatedly he's been on my radio show I asked the Russia question what seven different ways about right any well go over the transcripts of it and you know but what yet in America we already know Hillary Clinton that she funneled money into a law firm called Perkins Kui campaign finance violation right off the top and that money was then spent to hire fusion GPS Robert Muller when he testified didn't know fusion GPS's anyway just like you didn't know who Jeannie radius which is shocking then the money they use that to hire Christopher Steele thank Christopher Steele creates what's known as a series of documents the become the the dirty Russian dossier now we know it was never verifiable because when he was in an interrogatory Great Britain we know that he was questioned under the threat of perjury under oath and he said I have no idea if any of it's true that makes it unverifiable the top of the FISA application we had Carter page on earlier says verified Ovitz on verifiable can be verified can and now it's been debunked so you had four separate FISA court warrant applications that were filled out and signed by people like call me and went to a and and Sally Yates and rod Rosenstein they all signed it says verified but none of it was even verify a bull that's a problem so Hillary Clinton paid for dirty Russian dossier polo lies about Donald Trump she paid for it they leak some of it to the press because some of it got out before the election and they did it to impact the twenty sixteen election she's out there today lecturing everybody brush is going to try to interfere in twenty twenty again and I'm like well when is she going to be cold extradited mean I'm joking but charged when is she because even the new York times finally concluded that our reporting was correct as it relates to the dirty dossier that she paid for that she was warned everybody was warned don't trust still don't trust the dossier Hillary paid for it don't trust the information is not verified that was before the first prize what application Kathleen Kadlec war number in the state department after she met with Christopher Steele she won the DOJ top officials Bruce or the fourth highest ranking member of the DOJ's wife worked on the dossier said don't trust the dossier anyway so she paid for Russian disinformation even The New York Times acknowledges it art that's Russian interference and ironically it's Russian interference and she's warning us about twenty twenty when nobody listened to Devin Nunez back in twenty fourteen when he warned the Russians would do this anyway so when I'm interviewing Julian a son Gee you know this was right in the beginning when they started talking about this claim that the Russian government directly tried to were tied to the twenty sixteen election hacking weeks ago Bubba bomb all right so I go I go when I say I get the interview everybody was trying for we got it with Julia Sandra wikileaks and I think I asked all the right questions like that let me start with the American elections do you feel that wikileaks had I a rolled how big a role do you feel wikileaks said the outcome of the election you didn't think Donald Trump is going to win he said I didn't think Donald Trump when I bought the establishment for want of a better word would see Hillary Clinton losing and then would pile a bunch of money more energy various TV networks on her side and make sure she won a actually said I think that analysis is still correct anyways I get right to the heart of the matter and I start saying post election wikileaks the U. S. government is accusing wikileaks of receiving materials from Russia and Russia cyber criminals with political agenda influencing elections talking about that and the best emails so I ask him the DNC emails but in other ways I asked you before I'll ask you again today I was asking him eyeball to eyeball did Russia give you this information or anybody associated with Russia any states okay bye polls will be a little squirrelly in the beginning our source is not a state party so the answer for our interactions meeting his mine is now but if you look at the more recent statement by the U. S. government whatever we had five different branches of government presenting their accusations the underpass underpin Obama's throwing out of thirty five Russian diplomats etcetera etcetera my interpretation is theirs you know he goes on to give it and then I what I do I didn't let go of it that's what I do okay he says so there's no evidence that but the main focus for most Americans they're being told by Hillary's campaign by the president of United States and department of homeland security etcetera the office of director of national intelligence that in fact it was wikileaks was working with the Russian government to influence the election is that true in any way shape manner or form Julian Assange's answer that is absolutely false and if you read their statements carefully goes on to give a more detailed as I put this up on Twitter if you want to watch the whole interview and then I go back again can you say to the American people unequivocally you didn't get this information about the DNC Podesta's emails can you tell the American people a thousand percent he did not get it from Russia yes meeting go to Russia or anybody associated with Russia answer we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government is not a state party and I I went back even more times asking Linda how many times I go back on this thing I went back again and again and again now here's my point okay they want to go after Juliana signage for the espionage act I might all hello Hillary is top secret classified our information on her secret server.

Coming up next