If she was honorable (and I assume she was) when Jeanine Pirro was a judge if she had even the remotest financial stake in a case she would recuse herself.  When one is commenting on the news a good commentator would make a similar move, or at the very least let the reader know about the connection and explain why it doesn’t matter.  But when weighing in on the National Review anti-Trump issue Ms Pirro did not recuse herself or mention her financial connection to Donald Trump before she trashed the magazine for daring to give their opinion about the GOP front-runner.

Screen Shot 2016-01-25 at 3.39.18 PM


Appearing on the Hannity Show, Judge Jeanine Pirro said she was insulted by the National Review issue:

Judge Pirro, they are an opinion magazine, they give opinions. If you want opinions you read an opinion magazine, if you want to save 15% on your insurance  never mind!

Before I go on, since the Judge didn’t mention it allow me to point out her financial ties to Trump. New York Magazine once described her ex-husband Al Pirro as “Westchester’s most influential real-estate lawyer, a man Donald Trump keeps on retainer”

Variety said, in 2007 “Sir Pirro, a wily and wildly successful real estate attorney, has a somewhat checkered past that has played itself out quite publicly in the New York media. Indeed he has long standing professional relationships with such high profile individuals as The Donald (Trump),”

In other words, before her divorce Mr. Trump was an important part of Judge Pirro’s household income. And when she ran for New York State Attorney General, Donald Trump donated $20,000 to her campaign. 

Now I am not saying that Judge Jeanine Pirro was biased when she attacked National Review, all I am saying that because of her past financial connections she should have at the very least informed her audience of the relationship so they could decide for themselves if her opinion was tainted.  But she chose to hide the connections.

As far as what she about NRO, allow me to begin with the fact that while I happen to agree with the NRO issue, I have no financial interest in the magazine, Mr. Trump, or any of the other campaigns. Nor have I made a decision which candidate I will vote for in the NY Primary (but it won’t be Donald Trump).

As any reader/subscriber of National Review magazine would know, it is an opinion magazine. Finding brilliant writers to share their opinions is part of National Review’s mission. Another part of their mission is to expound conservative values. Therefore, if their mission includes finding brilliant writers to expound conservative values and they feel Donald Trump is not a conservative— sorry to disagree with you Judge Jeanine, but how dare they not trash the GOP frontrunner?

It is interesting that the Judge stated her objection to the fact that National Review published an anti-Trump issue, but she never mentioned what prose in particular she objected to?  Did she even read the issue?  Was it Bill Kristol’s essay? Dana Loesch’s? Perhaps it was the op-ed provided by her former Fox colleague, Glen Beck?

Judge Jeanine couldn’t have only objected to the fact that the magazine vented their opinion.  After all I am sure they teach about the First Amendment to the Constitution at Albany Law School where she got her law degree.

Allow me to suggest that before she plays protector for Donald Trump Jeanine Pirro  should let people know of her financial interest and perhaps make specific points about the prose. Not that I would stop her either way, after all she has the right to free speech just like National Review and independent bloggers.