Why Jeanine Pirro can’t get around the word ‘pedophile’ in the Cole Allen case

The incendiary description in Allen’s alleged “Apology and Explanation” letter, which the DOJ has quoted in court filings, was on a list of points under “On to why I did any of this.” Similarly, his alleged “Expected rules of engagement” in the letter said, in part, “I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and tra itor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.” (As for the reference to “targets” plural, Allen’s alleged “Expected rules of engagement” also included “Administration officials.”)

Ahead of a hearing in his case last week, Allen’s lawyers observed that the letter “makes no mention of the president by name.”

Yet, DOJ lawyers in Pirro’s office assumed the defendant was talking about Trump. They wrote, “In his own words, he viewed anyone attending the Dinner as a legitimate target because they ‘chose’ to attend the President’s speech.” Though prosecutors did not quote Allen’s “pedophile, rapist, and traitor” language in making that point, they appeared to cite the defendant’s alleged writing about people who “*chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor.” That appears to be the only part of the letter that uses the word “chose.”

Like Pirro, Trump similarly sounded offended last month when a reporter asked him if he thought Allen was talking about him. The president responded, in part, by saying he’s “not a rapist” and “not a pedophile.”  

Again, the question in Allen’s case is not whether the president is any of those things. But if the case goes to trial, then prosecutors may find themselves in the unenviable position of having to explain that to a jury, while Pirro may find herself having to explain to Trump why he keeps hearing about it.

It’s understandable that Pirro, a former Fox News host who may have her sights on becoming Trump’s next attorney general, does not want to address that language about the president on television. But she must understand that her prosecutors know it’s relevant in court, because they have raised it themselves.