Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsMSFwBF-4SWD5msARwYkdw/join
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and it looks like Judge Juan
0:05
Mershawn just got smashed big time. Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment
0:12
share and subscribe. Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue
0:17
to grow. Now Judge Juan Mershawn, he has been a lightning rod of controversy during this trial
0:24
this alleged hush money trial about Stormy Daniels brought by Alvin Bragg. Trump has called
0:30
him tremendously compromised on a number of occasions, but Alina Haba, Trump's attorney
0:35
who's also apparently under the gag order, she was on Fox News and she said, you know
0:41
she gave actually a number of topics she was talking about, but one in particular was she
0:46
said this judge must recuse himself. This judge is a detriment to the case and he must recuse
0:54
And I tend to agree with her. I think that, you know, with his family ties to democratic
0:58
campaigns and whatnot, it doesn't, it just, the appearance of impropriety is massive here
1:05
I want you to hear what she had to say and let me know what you think. As always
1:08
please remember to like, comment, share and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America
1:14
We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody. He basically says none of that will matter in this case and so it may be necessary
1:23
may be a necessary punishment. What did you think of that? Do you think he's trying to make a point
1:28
so that the former president just stops truth socialing about these people
1:33
Oh, when you say truth socialing, let's be clear what we're talking about. We're talking about a
1:37
defendant in a criminal case who's being attacked politically. He's being attacked by his opponents
1:42
who's also being attacked by witnesses. And the witnesses in this case have no gag, have no
1:49
their free speech, their first amendment rights are completely intact. But then you have a judge
1:53
asked to recuse themselves for reasons that I can't speak to because of the gag order, as we know
1:57
And we have this all going on and on and on. And then he turns and make statements like that
2:01
That is the exact reason, Martha, that the defense team has said this judge needs to recuse. There is
2:07
a clear political bias here. We're seeing it through the comments. We're seeing it from the way
2:11
that they speak to the attorneys on the defense table. I've been there. I get it. It happens
2:16
but there is no place for it. So I think it's completely unconstitutional. I think when you're
2:20
a defendant, truthfully, these statements are the statements that you're allowed to hear from
2:24
the defense, innocent until proven guilty, especially when you've done nothing wrong
2:28
And when these are all have been coordinated, this is past the statute of limitations. And I
2:32
could go on and on. And I mean, everything you're laying out is the is all of the perfect sort of
2:38
puzzle pieces that would fit together for an appeal. But this is the first part of the process
2:42
So, I mean, it's possible that this jury could convict him. They hear all day long about Stormy
2:46
Daniels and payments and Karen McDougal and all of these things, which all of the people that we
2:51
talk to say is not a crime. It isn't a crime. But this is what they're getting. That's how
2:57
they're getting filled with all day, all day long. So, I mean, they may be persuaded by it
3:01
That's right. And that's the concern that I raised last week. And we spoke on this issue
3:06
The issue I have is not whether Donald Trump and President Trump did anything wrong. He did not
3:10
The facts are on our side. The issue we have is when we have politicized judges
3:15
and and blue juries come in and they're supposed to be impartial. But you have a judge tweaking
3:21
reprimanding, putting down counsel on the other side, being harder on one side than the other
3:25
that affects the jury. And that's not fair. It's not right now. If President Trump was given a fair
3:30
jury, a fair trial like anybody else in this country would be because his name is Trump
3:35
He doesn't. That's where my concern is, not the facts. The facts are on our side
Legal
Politics
Other
Media Critics & Watchdogs


