Search Posts

Let's bring in Fox News contributor George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley. So Jonathan, it's not a surprise. He said he could post it and he did post it. Do we have a timing of when the appeal will take place, when the arguments will dig in? No, we don't have a clear idea, but this clears the way for the court to finally look at what many of us use an obscene judgment. I mean, this number was pulled out of nowhere. When you drill down on the order, there's really nothing there. I mean, the court basically makes a series of assumptions, my view, speculations about how much he might have saved. But there were no victims here. There wasn't a single penny that was lost by anyone. The banks involved testified that they wanted more business from Trump. So to come up with this astronomical figure really shocks the conscience. Now on appeal, he's going to have trouble with this New York law. It is unique. It doesn't require victims. It doesn't require losses, but they still have to justify the amount. And that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Yeah. So you're saying the judge will have to justify why he was posting a bond or asking for a bond to $454 million? Right. I mean, there's no justification in my view in the order. So that's going to go up and these judges are going to have to look at it. And quite frankly, I think the integrity of the New York legal system is at stake here. You can't just have a special criminal or in this case, civil code for Trump. It has to be consistent. And when you're the leading business law jurisdiction in the world, this has really put a shell below the waterline. I mean, a lot of people are looking at this and saying, but for the grace of God go I, am I going to be the next person that gets tagged by someone like James? Right. Let's switch gears for just a second, Jonathan, and talk a little bit about what happened yesterday on the West coast. Hunter Biden back in the news again, Abby Lowell, apparently pled with the judge out there for three hours. It sounds like he talked where he was trying to convince the judge to throw out the tax charges against Hunter Biden, who by the way, was at the white house Easter egg roll yesterday. In the end, essentially, it sounds like, Nope, the judge is saying full steam ahead. There's going to be a trial. Well, this is really stinging. I mean, the court said, you didn't give me anything. I was looking for something called evidence. And instead you gave me a series of press clippings and said that I should toss this whole thing out. He said, I don't do that. I'm a court. You know, you've got to show me something that is legally credible. You did it. And so have a good time. You're on your way to trial. So Jonathan, do you get the sense and this is what the judge said in that motion. The motion is remarkable that it fails to include a single decoration, exhibit or request for judicial notice instead defend the site's portions of various internet news sources, social media posts, and legal blogs. These citations, however, are not evident. So I guess my question is, do you get the sense that there was no preparation because they thought that they were going to get the sweetheart deal. And when the federal judge said, is it really any precedent looks over to the prosecution as well as looks over the defense. And both of them said, no, then they have to actually come up with a legal strategy. Well, there is an element of improvisation that you see in these filings, which is quite disturbing. There was no way that this was getting thrown out. And the argument of selective prosecution has a lot of people sort of chuckling because all the way up to that indictment, this was special treatment. They allowed statute of limitations to run and they've never explained why. Even after this plea agreement fell apart, the U.S. attorney, the Department of Justice said we were trying to resurrect it. It was the Hunter Biden people that were not playing ball. So this has been a case of special treatment, not a selective prosecution in my view. Jonathan, lastly, just on the massive gag order put on the former president of the United States in the Alvin Bragg case, because they don't want him talking about prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, and they don't want him talking about the judge's daughter. But Matthew Colangelo was in the Justice Department with Joe Biden. That is outrageous to President Trump. Also, the fact is the judge's daughter, what is a activist who works for Kamala Harris? And there was some dispute on whether she did have a picture up on a website with Donald Trump behind bars. That to me is something that, if I'm Donald Trump, I'm a little concerned about that the judge has a daughter who feels this way. Yeah, I've actually been opposed to gag orders for years, particularly efforts to gag you, Brian. That's been widespread and well known. Yeah, it's coming from your colleagues, but no, but you're absolutely right. This is a really controversial order and I think it's wrong. You've got Michael Cohen, who is going on the air every night attacking Trump, basically campaigning against him. He's not allowed to respond. Now, I would prefer that Trump leave these attacks or issues raised with the judge's family to his counsel. I think that's always the better approach. But in this case, you would prosecutors pushing this trial right before an election, the judge is assisting in that, and then they want to gag the president from talking about the main issue in the election, whether they like it or not. This election is likely to turn on this question of the weaponization of the legal system. And so I think that these courts have to acknowledge that. You've got a DC judge that says, I'm not going to take any acknowledgement or accommodation for the fact you're running for president. Really? Because you're insisting on trying him all the way up to and possibly through the election. Yeah, I was watching another network this morning and they were the news anchor in the copy. She was reading from a teleprompter said these false claims that Donald Trump is making about the judge's daughter. All right. Thank you so much, Jonathan.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.