Missouri AG Andrew Bailey: Trump trial an ‘illicit witch hunt,' jury 'a roving commission'



Jurors in former president Donald Trump’s New York hush-money trial have deliberated on whether or not to convict him — and they did.

However, Glenn Beck believes there are some major issues.

“Four of them can say, ‘I think you know he falsified checks,’ whatever they think the crime is because it wasn’t really defined. Even if they don’t agree on the crime, if 12 of them think he committed some crime, well, then he’s guilty. I’ve never heard that before,” Glenn says.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is in agreement.

“This reeks of desperation by the prosecutor and the judge to obtain a conviction. If people were not previously convinced that this was an illicit witch hunt prosecution, they should be so now,” Bailey says. “This is insane.”

Bailey notes that this violates the Sixth Amendment as well as the former president’s Due Process rights.

“How’s he supposed to know how to offer a defense if he doesn’t even know what the target crime is?” Bailey says.

“It empowers this jury to become a roving commission, and again, that reeks of desperation.”

“That violates the basic constitutional tenets that underpin the Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial,” he says.

What has happened reminds Bailey of a story from the past.

“There was a Roman emperor who used to nail the laws to the highest point on the columns so that the Roman citizens wouldn’t be able to read them. And that’s what this is like. I mean, the judge is saying, ‘Jury, I’m going to charge you to find a crime, any crime you want, and I’m not gonna let you read the jury instructions. Trust me, you guys, just go back and pick something you want to convict him of,’” Bailey tells Glenn.

“How is the jury supposed to apply facts to the law if they can’t see the law in front of them?"


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Jury reaches verdict in Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial



A jury in Virginia on Wednesday found both actor Johnny Depp and his actress ex-wife Amber Heard guilty of defaming each other. However, the seven-member jury sided overwhelmingly in favor of Depp, awarding the "Pirates of the Caribbean" star $15 million in damages while only awarding $2 million in damages to his former spouse, the Rolling Stone reported.

The jury's decision officially brings to an end the highly publicized trial, which began when Depp filed a $50 million lawsuit against Heard, claiming she publicly defamed him by insinuating he abused her in a 2018 Washington Post op-ed.

In response, Heard filed a $100 million counterclaim, alleging that Depp ruined her reputation by claiming she was a liar for voicing allegations of sexual violence against him.

Depp, who was reportedly seen performing at a concert in the U.K. earlier this week was not present inside the courtroom when the verdict was read.

Following the decision, he issued a statement that read: "False, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the media, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content, although no charges were ever brought against me It had already traveled around the world twice within a nanosecond and it had a seismic impact on my life and my career."

"Six years later, the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled," he added.

Heard issued a statement of her own, noting, "The disappointment I feel today is beyond words."

"I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband. I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously. I believe Johnny’s attorneys succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of Freedom of Speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the UK. I’m sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American — to speak freely and openly," she said.

The trial, which quickly devolved into a media firestorm, took approximately six weeks to complete and involved dozens of witnesses, The Hill reported.

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.