Jeanine Pirro makes DISGUSTING move in court

You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, we have a bombshell new scandal. that's just surged into the spotlight. It includes the DOJ, Steve Bannon, Jeanine Pirro, Judge Pirro, and. bizarrely, possibly even Jeffrey. Epstein. So, can you explain what's. going on here? You know, Brian, just when you think the. DOJ leadership, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Jeanine Pirro, can't get any less. ethical, they go and surprise us. We. just had a filing in federal court. signed by Jeanine Pirro, signed by no.

actual prosecutor, just the US attorney, urging the court to dismiss the criminal. conviction of Steve Bannon that was. entered 4 years ago. Steve Bannon has. already served his prison term. This, of. course, was uh two counts that a jury. convicted him of for essentially uh. contempt of Congress. He violated a. subpoena to appear and testify. He. violated a subpoena to provide documents.

to Congress when all things, you know, Donald Trump were being investigated. He. was convicted by a jury of his peers. He. served 4 months in prison. And here we. are 4 years later when, for some unknown. reason, Jeanine Pirro just filed a. motion saying, and let me read it so I. don't misquote her. She says that the government, the. prosecution, has determined in its. prosecutorial discretion that the. dismissal of this criminal case against.

Steve Bannon is in the interests of. justice. Period. With no further. explanation. Now, to this old. prosecutor, I would need an explanation. as to why a criminal conviction that was. indicted by a grand jury, that was. pursued by, you know, legions of. prosecutors and FBI agents and witnesses. and members of Congress, and that a. trial jury found beyond a reasonable.

doubt Steve Bannon had committed these. crimes. Why is it in the interests of. justice to dismiss it four years later? You know, all I can do is engaged in. some informed speculation. What's going. on recently that I don't know might. implicate Donald Trump, might involve. the Department of Justice, and might. result in, you know, Trump and Bondi. wanting to do some favors for people? Perhaps I can I can take a take a stab.

at this one. Does it have something to. do with Ghislaine Maxwell asking for. clemency from Donald Trump himself and. and she won't offer any information. until she gets that clemency? Brian, bingo. You would make one hell of. a criminal investigator. I think there. are some slots open at the FBI. presently. But you're. >> [laughter]. >> You're exactly right. What did we just. see. um in Congress? We saw Ghislaine Maxwell. who was subpoenaed to testify about. Jeffrey Epstein and related matters. What did she do? She not only pled the.

fifth, said, "No, no, no, no, I'm not. testifying. I invoke my right against. self-incrimination." But her attorneys. helpfully added, "You know, she can. exonerate Donald Trump. She can tell. everybody that Donald Trump is pure as. the driven snow, never did anything. wrong in connection with Jeffrey. Epstein, if you'll just go ahead and. give her a get-out-of-jail-free card. Give her clemency or maybe a full. pardon." Well, first of all, anybody. gullible enough to strike that deal.

would be doing a searing injustice to. the victims of Epstein's crimes. Because. of course Maxwell is going to say. anything Donald Trump might be pleased. with if, you know, Donald Trump would. absolve her of her crimes and let her go. home. And at the same time, the very day. when that was going on in Congress, we. have Jeanine Pirro signing a motion. saying, "You know what? We want to.

dismiss Steve Bannon's prosecution, his. conviction in the interests of justice.". But you know, as you pour through the. reporting about this new development, here is the line that catches the. attention of this old prosecutor that. may help explain why DOJ would now, 4. years later, try to dismiss Steve. Bannon's case. And this is from uh. Politico, quote, uh US Attorney Pirro's. motion to dismiss Bannon's case comes. amid renewed scrutiny of Bannon's close.

association with convicted sex offender. Jeffrey Epstein, a relationship revealed. in the most recent congressionally. mandated disclosure of millions of pages. of documents from the Department of. Justice's investigation of Epstein's. purporting sex trafficking ring. So, here is what we do as investigators, here's what we do as prosecutors, and. here is what every judge in the country.

instructs jurors in criminal cases that. they can do and they should do. They get to look at the evidence that is. known, the evidence that was presented. at trial, for example, and draw. reasonable inferences about what that. evidence tends to show or tends to. prove. One of the reasonable inferences. here is that all of a sudden, Steve. Bannon is, you know, talked about a. whole bunch in the recent release of the.

Epstein files. Could it be that Steve. Bannon has information that maybe Donald. Trump would not want to see exposed to. the light of day? And the next thing you. know, Donald Trump's DOJ says, "You know. what? We'll get rid of Steve Bannon's. old conviction, wipe it off his records. Look, it's always better to be not a. convicted criminal than to be a. convicted criminal. And if DOJ dismissed. this case, even though it's, you know, 4.

years down the road, then Steve Bannon. would not be a convicted criminal in. that federal case. I can't say if that. is what is motivating DOJ, but drawing a. reasonable inference, that is a is a. is an explanation that is certainly in. play. I'm curious about this whole process of. being able to dismiss cases that have. already resulted in conviction and. incarceration. And whether there's some similarity here. with what we saw in the Eric Adams case.

There was that corruption case in New. York where the DOJ had, you know, brought him to conviction, but then. Trump's DOJ took over and they decided. that they wanted to dangle the. indictment over his head and basically. re-bring that case if he doesn't play. nice with the DOJ with Trump's. administration. But is there some. similarity here between those two. instances? And and again, leading to the. to the first question I had is how can. you. dismiss a case that's already basically. done? Yeah, a great question. I think there. are two important historical data.

points. One is the Eric Adams case, as. you point out. The other is the Mike. Flynn case. Because in both of those. cases, DOJ was prosecuting not just suspected. crime, but indicted crime. In the Eric. Adams case, let's take them one at a. time because they tell us different. things about how prosecutors can go. about trying to dismiss cases. Eric. Adams, he had been indicted, he was. pending trial for, you know, all kinds. of public corruption crimes. And Donald.

Trump's DOJ swooped in and said, "We want to dismiss these cases." Why? Well, their stated reason, Brian, as. bizarre as this was to people who work. in the criminal justice system was, you. know, we want him to be available to. help the president in his immigration. and deportation priorities. Well, you. know what? If somebody was indicted for. committing public corruption crimes, it. is not an acceptable explanation that. prosecutors now want to dismiss the case.

so that person can help the president of. the United States do what the president. wants to do in his political interest. That is an unacceptable reason. I would. argue it's an unethical reason to. dismiss a criminal case. So, that is why. the judge in that case, I think it was. Judge Ho, appointed an outside counsel. to basically act as the prosecutor. because DOJ, as represented by Emil. Bove, who is now an appeals court judge, had basically abdicated its.

responsibility to to act on behalf of. the American people. Now, they were kind. of in the pocket of the the president of. the United States and they were trying. to bring Eric Adams on board. So, the. judge held a hearing, the judge issued a. scathing opinion saying, "Okay, I may. have no alternative but to grant the. government's motion to dismiss the Eric. Adams prosecution." Importantly, the. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure say.

that a prosecutor can file a motion to. dismiss, but it can only be dismissed, quote, with leave of court. That means. the judge has to grant the motion to. dismiss. Let me hasten to add, it's a. little bit of a hollow power because if. the judge declines to grant the. prosecution's motion to dismiss, it's. not like there's another prosecutor. other than the Department of Justice who. can be brought on and compelled to. prosecute the case. But still, the judge. has discretion and the judge can.

scrutinize the reason behind, you know, why DOJ is claiming they want to dismiss. the case. So, the judge in that case. said, "Okay, I'll grant your motion to. dismiss. I don't see any other feasible. result. However, I deny your motion to. dismiss it without prejudice, so you can. continue to dangle it over the head of. Eric Adams. So, you know, he'll be a. good little mayor and do exactly what. Donald Trump wants." He's And the judge.

said, "Instead, I will grant your motion. to dismiss. However, contrary to your. request, it will be with prejudice, so. you can hold it over Eric Adams' head as. leverage to make sure he stays in line.". Let's shift over to the Mike Flynn case. Mike Flynn got caught lying, and he lied. to FBI investigators. It's what we call. a 1001 violation, lying to a government. official. And he pleaded guilty not. once, but twice in court to those.

crimes. And then, before he was. sentenced, the Department of Justice, Donald Trump's then dirty DOJ. leadership, Bill Barr, said, "No, we. want to dismiss Mike Flynn's. case, even though he already pleaded. guilty to the crimes, and all that is. left is to sentence him for those. crimes." The judge presiding at the time. was Judge Emmet Sullivan. I covered that. case. I was in court watching it play. out in real time. People may remember that Judge Sullivan.

at one point turned to Mike Flynn and. said, "You you you disrespected this. American flag, and and you demean the. very country and the oath that you took. to support and defend the Constitution.". I'm paraphrasing here. But, at the end of the day, Brian, Judge. Emmet Sullivan could find no way to deny. the motion to dismiss the case, even. though Mike Flynn had already pleaded. guilty, and ultimately he dismissed it. Though he fought mightily against it as.

best he could within the rules and the. law and the Constitution. Um but now. this is this is a horse of a completely. different color because we've got a. 4-year-old criminal conviction where. Bannon has served his sentence. The case. is over. It is done. And for DOJ to now. swoop in 4 years later and say, "You. know what? Uh we want to wipe that one. off his record." I will say, you know, there's one other sort of um. wild card here. Steve Bannon appealed. his conviction and it has taken a long.

time to wind its way through the system, but right now he is trying to urge the. Supreme Court to take up his case and. see whether it should be dismissed or uh. affirmed or to see whether they should. just reject review of the case. altogether, which is what they should do. because this is not really a novel. proposition of law that if you violate. congressional subpoenas, you've. committed contempt of Congress. So, you. know, it looks like maybe Trump didn't.

want to just outright pardon um uh Steve. Bannon and kind of wipe the conviction. completely off the books that way. Instead, they are going down this. hairbrained path, in my opinion, of. trying to dismiss a 4-year-old criminal. conviction. And, you know, I think this. is a further indication that any. lingering credibility or legitimacy that. you could find in Pam Bondi's Department. of Justice it is just pretty much dead. and buried now.

Last question here. What does Steve. Bannon garner? What does What does he. What does he gain from wiping this. conviction off of his record? I I I. understand that that people don't want. criminal convictions on their record, but I mean, Steve Bannon is a known. quantity at this point. And so, really. how does his life material materially. change if he is a convicted felon or if. he's not a convicted felon? Well, look, he he's not going to be applying for. jobs and be able to, you know, hold up. to his employer, "Look, I got this.

conviction wiped off my record." Because. let's remember, he was also pardoned for. a federal prosecution that had been. brought against him and was up and. running for defrauding Trump supporters. as part of this We Build the Wall. Foundation. Now, mind you, Brian, he was. also prosecuted in state court for those. same crimes that violated state law and. he pleaded guilty. And he stands. convicted in the state of New York for. those crimes. But, I don't know, to. answer your question, I think what it.

does is it probably gives him something. else to talk about on his social media. platform, his podcast, whatever it is. that he does every day. And he's going. to be able to say, "Look, you see, I got. the Department of Justice to wipe out. one of my criminal convictions. I really. am all that in a bag of chips, right?". So, you know, keep keep viewing my. podcast. That's my guess, one of the. things he can get out of this. But, beyond that, you know, I have no idea. Yeah, I think that's that's a good as.

good a guess as any. So, look, we will. obviously stay on top of this story. Again, that includes Steve Bannon, Jeanine Pirro, possibly Jeffrey Epstein, uh and of course Pam Bondi's DOJ. So, for those who are watching right now, if. you'd like to stay on top of this news. and all other legal news, the best way. to do that is to subscribe to both of. our channels. I'm going to put those. links right here on the screen and also. in the post description of this video. It's completely free, but a great way to. support our work. So, again, those links. are right here on the screen and also in. the post description. I'm Brian Tyler. Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kirschner. You're.

watching the Legal Breakdown. >> [music].