25 posts from Monday, February 26, 2024

welcome back America professor John you these these decisions against Trump do have consequences for future presidents and ex-presidents which is my point let me ask you on the civil side the court is basically thrown open the door in many respects they've allowed people to sue Donald Trump over January 6th police officers and others who claim injury as a result of his alleged actions or lack of actions so my question to you is this the federal immigration laws are very specific about what shouldn't shouldn't be done my orcas has been impeached they've laid out a pretty strong case when you read these articles they've issued executive orders they've done all these things and people are being damaged people are dying from the drugs coming across their properties are being damaged people are being raped and brutalized and god knows what does this not at least open the door to lawyers to push the argument that wait a minute you ruled in Washington DC that a president could be sued civilly for conduct or actions that rationally follow from his decisions or lack of decisions doesn't that like spring opened thousands of doors for possible litigation and mark you still got that litigator mindset in your head I think that's exactly right if the Supreme Court is going to start undermining the principle of presidential immunity as it the lower courts are doing the DC circuit then eventually you are going to see more lawsuits not just against a Donald Trump you're gonna see them against a Barack Obama or against a Joe Biden because the whole point of immunity was to make sure the presidents could reach policy decisions without constantly having to worry about being lawsuit about by soon we want them to make the decisions that are best for the country and not just best for their personal legal liabilities but if the DC circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court I think start to question the immunity that presidents have as you say the January 6 trials by the police officers for example who were harmed in the riot then that's going to bring that doctrine and protection for presidents into doubt and there's no reason why President Biden then would be immune when Donald Trump is not one of the other things that seems to be a common thread in these cases particularly at the federal level is the rush to judgment the cutting corners on appeal the cutting corners on the right to even bring an appeal you see that at the DC circuit with the three judge panel said oh by the way you don't appeal here and you have seven days to appeal to the Supreme Court I can tell you in all my years I've never seen anything like that in my life I think it raises a serious due process question and it's almost like the New York case where they're saying oh you can appeal but cough up 400 million dollars and if you don't cough it up we're gonna steal your properties we're gonna sell them pennies on the dollar and and that's the punishment you're gonna get just because you want to appeal have you seen things like this before let alone against the former president the United States first mark this has never happened with a former president we have never allowed the legal system to harass someone like this with these kind of cases in both federal and state court I still have some waning faith in the federal court system at least in Washington DC that the Supreme Court justices are watching that and they've already rebuffed the special counsel Jack Smith a few times what worries me is what's going on in the state courts like New York you just said it mark I think in part this 350 million damages award which has a hundred million dollars of interest tacked onto it is so large not connected to any damages anybody suffered on whether Donald Trump allegedly you know inflated his asses to get better mortgage terms that amount I think is so large in part because it's designed to prevent Donald Trump from appealing because to appeal that case he has to put up 450 million dollars just to get a hearing in the appellate court to correct what I think looked like bias from the trial judge in that case that's a great point first time I've heard it so you make the penalty so high that basically effectively you're trying to prevent him from appealing I think the president's people should immediately move for stay try and get this case in the federal court and try and get it to the Supreme Court under the 8th Amendment or some other aspect because you know to keep going to Democrats who act like Democrats rather than real prosecutors and real judges becomes a problem John you I want to thank you it doesn't matter it does amaze me that you're a professor UC Berkeley law not because of your brilliance but because of your attitude in your viewpoint so so hang in there thanks we all need to have thick skins these days and I certainly have it in Berkeley yeah well God bless you my friend you're great we'll be right back

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

In other words, the case that was brought against Donald Trump should never have been brought. There shouldn't have been a sentencing hearing. There shouldn't have been fines. There shouldn't have been anything. This case against Donald Trump is a greater, more gray violation than anything we've ever seen under the excessive fines part of the Eighth Amendment and much worse than the Timbs case. The case brought against President Trump violates over 800 years of history of Western Enlightenment and the law dating back to the Magna Carta. President Trump's case is much stronger than anything before, much stronger than the Timbs case that the court ruled on. Why? The prosecutor for the state, Letitia James, campaigned for office on the platform of destroying Donald Trump. Her statements are now evidence of her intent and motivation in any appeal and central to the violations of the Eighth Amendment. Two, the state consumer fraud statute used against President Trump has never been used this way against anybody else in the history of the statute by the state of New York, ever. It's been used against him and his family. The Associated Press reviewed nearly, and I report as they report, 150 reported cases under the statute used to punish Mr. Trump and stated that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or brought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry. Actual fraud, harm, detrimental reliance. Those are the three elements of fraud. No one was defrauded here. No one was harmed. No proof of detrimental reliance. None of them exist. Also, no testimony by anybody who lost anything. No complaint filed by any bank, by any insurance company, by any lender. In fact, the testimony was to the contrary. Now, there was no trial. There was no jury. Wow. Sounds like pre-1215, if you ask me. The judge ruled on the papers and he ruled that Donald Trump was guilty. And that was that. All the back and forth, all the hearings were about the fines and the penalties. Before Donald Trump stepped into that courtroom, he was guilty, according to this Democrat elected judge. I want you to think about that. When President Trump walked into that courtroom, he was already adjudicated guilty. The judge in the case, an elected Democrat like the prosecutor, an elected Democrat, had made earlier statements in other settings, very negative about Donald Trump, that should have caused him to recuse himself. But obviously, he didn't. None of them do in any of the cases where we know that they're biased against Trump. And I'm going beyond the fact that what this judge should have ruled immediately is, Madam Attorney General, you have no case under the Timbs case. And you have no case because a case like this has never been brought. You're talking about a former president of the United States. You're talking about a candidate for president of the United States. You're talking about a man who built the skyline in New York City. And you're bringing me a cockamamie case. Next thing you know, you'll bring the Ku Klux Klan case. Oh, wait a minute. They already did that in Washington. And what does the judge do? He orders nearly half a billion dollars in fines and interest, orders President Trump and his sons to turn his business over to the state, effectively the state of New York, to be managed by another former prosecutor of his choosing. Latisha James, the state prosecutor, she's made the rounds on the Sunday shows bragging about what she accomplished, bragging about how she upheld her campaign promise. So Trump properties, she says now, if he doesn't come up with four hundred million dollars, what is effectively bond in order to have the privilege of appealing the decision by this judge and the actions by the state government. She will seize the properties and sell them from under him. Sell them from under him at pennies on the dollar. Think about this. You know what this is? From her campaign statements, from the judge's prior statements, from the use of a statute that's never been used this way against anybody else in the history of New York, the lack of a trial, the lack of a jury, a decision on the papers, and all the rest of it. This is a prima facie case of a violation of the Eighth Amendment. It's not even a close case. The state prosecuting judge had to know in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that this kind of state action was absolutely, unequivocally, unconstitutional, a violation of the Bill of Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The judge even said, "President Trump," in his statement, "I'm doing what's close to the maximum, if not the maximum, because you didn't show remorse. You didn't bend your knee. You didn't kiss the hand of the state, that is, the hand of the king. So we're stealing your property out from under you. We're stealing it, and we're going to sell it if we have to, and you'll have no recourse." No recourse? What did Ruth Bader Ginsburg say in her opinion? "Nine to zero," the Supreme Court ruled, "that other liberties are affected, other liberties are affected, when a king, when a tyrant, when a dictator, when a state, when the federal government treats citizens this way. There is absolutely no legitimate basis of any kind, legally, factually, for what was done here, except to steal the property from Donald Trump to try and bankrupt him, because he's Donald Trump, because he's a former president, because he's running for president, and they're doing the dirty work of the Democrat Party and the Biden regime, the new king." I'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.