Search Posts

So does Team Trump have a strong case here. We're gonna ask Sol Weisenberg former white white water deputy independent council on a Fox News contributor So what do you think does he have a strong case here? And what does happen next in this time frame? Well, I'll put it to you this way I Understanding I'm not an expert on New York civil fraud law, but it seems to me. There's some real constitutional problems with 355 million dollar Judgment when there is no victim no financial loss of any kind I think that is a you have a ripe argument you have an argument for a substantive due process violation But the question is has this been preserved at trial? That I'm not I'm not sure of but it just seems to me to be an outrageous Amount given the judges findings that there's no there's no victim no monetary victim here His team says Sol the case quote raises serious legal and constitutional questions Regarding fraud claims findings without any actual fraud So there's a lot of discussion about the message. This is sort of sending businesses In New York or businesses that potentially want to do business in New York Steve Moore was our guest yesterday as an economist And he weighed in on that discussion over the message this lawsuit sends listen These kind of liberal rulings make it so difficult for people to do business there New York needs to restore its greatness But it's not it's not a downward slide and I don't understand why the governor and why a judge would make this decision At a time when New York has to be attracting businesses back not not repelling them Do you think there's anything to that? So all this this debate seems to be growing right now on those who think this is going to send a message to Business owners not to do business here in New York Well, I think the bigger message is it's going to send a message to certain businesses and business owners if you are a Radical conservative or if forget about what your politics are if you if you end up Offending or insulting whatever the current woke orthodoxy is what will happen to you keep in mind? There was no there was no jury here and the judge crows about this in his opinion judge Inger on he says I don't need a jury under under New York law, but that's based on a 2011 opinion that said you don't need a jury Because this is an equitable remedy that means we're not and that monetary damages are incidental, but that isn't what happened here the monetary damages were 55 million dollars so that stands that law on its head and I think that they do have again a Potential constitutional argument here a very strong one if they appropriately raised it at trial So this means more than half of Trump's New York City portfolio could be wiped out next month And that would include two golf resorts a 248 million dollar Tower at the 40 Wall Street building is penthouse at Trump Tower We put some of those up on the screen. This is obviously what's at stake It appears the ladies at the view are having a field day with this Trump civil ruling listen here Trump is going to use this judgment to say look it's a witch hunt they're trying to bankrupt me those other cases are also witch hunts Into some of the public that's gonna resonate. I do think and this is not due to any emotion towards Trump I think the punishment was excessive this Ruling to the number it has been held is slightly playing into the optics that this was political Gee well if they've lost the view on the case they're making here with this fine to Trump I mean never they lost everybody excessive says the ladies at the view Well, you know forget about the optics for a minute It's it's the substance of what was done here And the other argument you mentioned earlier is basically under this special statute That's been in existence for several years. You don't have to have any of the traditional elements of fraud To bring a fraud case such as you know a victim material Reliance so focus on the substance is what I would say and it's outrageous. There's no way you can defend this judgment Wow Really appreciate your analysis on that song great to have you on the program today. Thanks for joining us

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

>> So big news for former President Trump as the Supreme Court declines to speed up the ruling on Jack Smith's immunity case against him. Trump taking the truth social to celebrate the court's decision saying in part, crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring the sham case. And now they've tried and failed to rush this witch hunt through the courts. So here to react is Fox News contributor and former counselor to President Trump, Kellyanne Conway. Good morning Kellyanne, Merry Christmas to you. Glad to have you with us. >> Good morning Will. >> I'm really fascinated to hear your analysis of this. Every time one of these indictments or one of these rushes to the courts seems to have been pushed by Democrats, it's resulted in a polling bump for Donald Trump. They seem to be banking though Kellyanne on this idea that if they can just get a conviction before election season, that'll flip the polling. Do you believe that's true if one of these four criminal cases did come back in time with a guilty verdict for Donald Trump and he was somehow convicted, set aside the likelihood. But if that did happen, would it flip the polling Kellyanne? >> It wouldn't flip the polling well and thanks for having a Merry Christmas to you and yours and your co-host. It wouldn't flip the polling. You see the Reuters poll when asked what a conviction on any of the criminal counts make you vote for against Donald Trump. A slim majority say they'd vote against him. But when you add Biden to the equation as the Wall Street Journal poll did, Trump's actually beating Biden 46 to 45 if he were to be convicted. Then they asked if Joe Biden were to be impeached, would you vote for Trump or Biden? And the Wall Street Journal poll found that Trump is beating Biden by 5 points 46 to 41. So we can't forget, none of this is in a vacuum. You don't go into the ballot box and it says Trump or not Trump. It says Trump versus Joe Biden. And just as we knew in 2016, and I said many times then I'll say again, you have to set aside everything you think about that individual. And in this case, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' manmade crisis of an administration that has created nothing but hurt and pain domestically at our border, in our communities, our big cities, in your grocery cart, at the gas pump, you name it, and abroad now. We can potentially, people know this, it's a binary choice. It is not a referendum just on Biden. It is a choice between your life with Donald Trump and your life with Joe Biden. Look, this guy, Joe Biden, was vice president for eight years, Will. He was the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I would think a half a century in Washington would at least buy us a little grace and respect around the globe. Instead, we may have one foreign policy entanglement in national security disaster per year of the Biden administration, Afghanistan 2021, Ukraine 2022, Israel 2023. And it could be Taiwan 2020, 2024. President Xi Jinping has the guts to say to Joe Biden's face, P.S., I'm going to reunify. The sin in them for that is invade Taiwan. Just telling you, Joe. So but the other thing is the Biden people have put way too much into the judicial system to try to keep Joe Biden there for a second term. I have a better idea. Why not just pass better policies? If you have a really good record as president, chances are you'll be reelected and they're just not. They can't beat him on policy. It's too late for that, though. Through the judicial system. To your point, though, it's too late. It's too late to change your policy. That's why Trump's ahead. That's why Trump's ahead. So here's what I want to ask you. So that's why. OK, if the legal if law fair doesn't work, that's that that seems to be plan number one law fair. And again, the goal is not to elect Joe Biden. It is to stop Donald Trump. I think they've made that clear. So if law fair isn't going to work in time and then the polling is, as you've laid out and we've seen that Joe Biden can't beat Donald Trump again, if the plan is to stop Donald Trump, when do they move to the option, remove Joe Biden, like find someone else who can beat Donald Trump? Well, speaking of running out of time, I think that's too little too late. They should have done that. If I were a Democrat, I would have gotten rid of Biden and Harris, rolled the dice well and said, we'll probably lose in 2024, but we'll save the party and we'll restore the party that was once known for youth and energy and the future. They had JFK and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, even Jimmy Carter was in his fifties when he in his early fifties when he was elected to the White House. Now they turn around and they get these establishment Loch Ness monster creatures of the Steve C. Swamp like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to lead the party and look where we are. But I think it's too little too late. I think some Democrats like Gavin Newsom would rather this ticket just bleed out. Well, we'll see. I think Joe Biden's bigger play is to have all these third party candidates to help him the way Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton say in 1992. So Perot got zero electoral votes, but he got 19% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton got 68.8% of the electoral votes and only 45% of the popular vote. That would be his play. The problem is he's not the challenger here. He's the incumbent and Perot really helped Bill Clinton and hurt the incumbent. And right now it looks like third party's pulled from Biden, not Trump. So they'd have to find the candidate that would pull from Trump. There you go. There you go. They need to and they haven't yet, but there are lots of billionaires out there, 1100 or so in this country. Will I read that? I mean, if somebody can say I'm worth 7 billion, why not spend one seventh without having fun in the presidential race and the consultants, you know, I call it staff infection. They'll go and take their half a billion and embarrass that person the way Bloomberg's people did. But look, I think if you're Joe Biden, you stick to plan A. Plan A is what you just said. Get Trump through the legal system, and they believe that in the 91 counts, if he's convicted on one game over, if they can send the president to jail, God forbid, for one night, that's enough for them. But it's not going to work, and it's not going to work for another reason. Joe Biden probably won't want to debate Donald Trump. We don't even know if Joe Biden can stand still at a podium for 90 minutes. We have no evidence of that, let alone being able to defend this horrible record. So I think that it's Donald Trump who's saying, look, I want to debate him. Here's what I would do to Iran. Here's what I would do with China. Here's what I would do in the Middle East. I think Joe Biden, they're counting on one of these cases being accelerated, being able to convict the president and saying to people, you don't want a president that's being convicted of a criminal charge. We've never had that in history. I just don't think it's going to be enough. People feel so desperate. Last point. We as voters, we talk about and even complain about what offends us. We vote according to what affects us, and that's really the difference here. People are going to be very self-interested, as well they should be, as voters. That's why Trump's ahead in every swing state.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Crooked Joe Biden is totally controlled by China, Ukraine, and various other countries. They know everything about him, all of his misdeeds, and there are many. He's a corrupt person. He's a compromised president who is leading our country to hell in the true sense. And I don't know if you know what this means. He is a Manchurian candidate. Trust me on that. It's not good.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.