Search Posts

So this was a very big day, a very revealing day. As you see, their case is totally falling apart. They have nothing on books and records and even something that should bear very little relationship to the case. It's just a disaster for the DA, to the Soros-backed DA, it's a disaster. This whole case is just a disaster. If you read the legal scholars, you'll see, because they're writing about it, they've never seen anything quite like it, and neither have I. I should be out campaigning right now. We're leading in all the polls, I'd like to be campaigning, we'll be leading by a lot more, but I just want to appreciate, I appreciate the job you're doing, it's not easy standing there all day waiting, but you're hearing the same things that we're hearing. On another matter, as you know, it's bankers that seem to be funding the - what's going on with the Palestinians, probably not Palestinians, they're agitators, they're agitators, really bad. And I think our government ought to find out who they are, where they're from, and treat them the same way as they do the J6 hostages. You've got to treat them the same way, these are agitators, they're really hurting our country, it's happening all over the country in cities. So what happened last night at the Metropolitan Museum, these are agitators, and in some of the colleges, I think it's about 20 percent student, and 80 percent others. So this is a big problem, and they've been a nip it on the butt. And it's a problem from the left, not from the right, this is a problem from the left. And I hope you're going to stress that. The economy is not doing well. We see inflation is through the roof, they're not going to be able to lower interest rates if they do, it's really political, but it'll be very bad if they do, from the standpoint of getting rid of inflation, you have to get rid of the inflation. Inflation, as you probably have heard me say, it's a country buster. It busts countries, and it has for a thousand years. You go back and you look at old-time Germany, you look at a lot of countries that went through the kind of inflation we're going through, and they're busted, they are just broken up. Broke it up in many cases into little pieces, and that's what could actually happen to us. So we have to get inflation under control, we have to get prices down so that people can breathe, people can live, so they can live. But again, this was a very revealing day in court, any honest reporter would say that. I would recommend you read Jonathan Turley and Andrew McCarthy and Alan Dershowitz, Greg Jarrett, Mark Levin, very talented people, and others, and others, there's some incredible people out there that are writing about this trial, they're calling it a disgrace, it's a disgrace. In the meantime, I'm stuck, I'm here, instead of being in Georgia, instead of being in New Hampshire, instead of being in Wisconsin, and all the different states that we wanted to be in, we're not able to be there because we're stuck in this trial which everyone knows is a hoax. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We have a long day in court, as always, but very happy about the way things are going. The fact is that we're looking outside and we're seeing all of the things that are taking place in our economy, with inflation, with the kind of numbers that are being announced. We're seeing all of the crime that's going on outside. And to be sitting in this courtroom, all of this is just ridiculous. It's election interference at the highest level. Never been done before in our country. And I should be out campaigning right now. And I want to be out campaigning like I was yesterday. We finally had a break. And I was out campaigning yesterday. Very unfair. There's never been anything like this in the history of our country. Never. So we're doing well. The polls are extremely good despite that. The polls are extremely good the best we've ever had. And it looks like we're doing very well.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-This is all about election interference. This is all Biden-run things, meaning Biden and his thugs, because I don't know if he knows he's alive. And it's a shame what's happening to our country. This is election interference. They are doing things that have never been done in this country before. We've never had anything like it, certainly not at this level, but we've really had nothing like it that I've been able to find. It does happen a lot in third-world countries, banana republics.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-The amount, but this is a very dishonest man. This is a man that's been overturned already on this case four times. But a crooked New York state judge just ruled that I have to pay a fine of $355 million for having built the perfect company. Great cash, great buildings, great everything. It affects New York. It's mostly talking about New York, where we have a totally corrupt attorney general. She campaigned on the fact that I will get Trump. I will get Trump. Everybody's seen it -- LaDisha James. They've all seen it. Well, will be appealing, but more important than that. This is Russia. This is China. This is the same game. All comes out of the DOJ. It all comes out of Biden. It's a witch hunt against his political opponent, the likes of which our country has never seen before. You see it in third-world countries. Banana republics, but you don't see it here. So, I just want to say this. You build a great company. There was no fraud. The banks all got their money, 100 percent. They love Trump. They testified that Trump is great. Great customer, one of our best customers. They testified beautifully. And the judge knows that. He's just a corrupt person. And we knew that from the beginning. We knew it right from the beginning, because he wouldn't give it to the commercial division. This judge thought Mar-a-Lago is worth $18 million, and it's worth anywhere from 50 to 100 times that amount. So, we realized that. He ruled against me before he even got the case. He ruled against me. He said, "I was guilty." He didn't know what I was guilty of before he even got the case. And Letitia James, that's another case altogether. She's a horribly corrupt attorney general, and it's all having to do with election interference. There were no victims because the banks made a lot of money. They made $100 million. And by the way, I paid approximately $300 million in taxes as the migrants come in and they take over New York. I paid, over this period of years, over $300 million in taxes, and they want me out. Oh, let's see if we can get them out. These are radical left Democrats. They're lunatics, and it's election interfering. So, I just want to thank you for being here. We'll appeal. We'll be successful, I think because, frankly, if we're not successful, New York State is gone. People are moving out of New York State. And because of this, they're going to move out at a much faster rate. They used a statute. It's a consumer fraud statute that's never been used for a thing like this before. They used it on me because I'm running for president. I'm beating Biden by a lot. We're beating not only the Republicans, we're beating Biden by a lot. The poll came out today. We're up 20 points on Biden. If I weren't running, none of this stuff would have ever happened. None of these lawsuits would have ever happened. Nothing would -- I would have had a nice life. But I enjoy this life for a different reason. We're going to make America great again. These are corrupt people. These are people that shouldn't be allowed to do the things they do. And they're using this as weaponization against a political opponent who's up a lot in the polls and always will be because I'm competing with a man who can't put two sentences together, who doesn't know what he's doing. And we're heading into a third world war because of this guy. We have to win this election. They're doing everything possible to step in a way, but we're not going to stand for it. So, thank you very much. We will get back to work. It's a ridiculous award. This is a fine of $355 million for doing a perfect job for having paid back a loan with no defaults, with no problems. The banks were totally -- you know, at the trial, they testified. We had an expert witness from the Stern School at NYU that made a statement. And I was very honored by his statement. He's one of the most respected people anywhere in the country for doing this kind of thing. Expert wisdom. He said, "This is one of the greatest financial statements I have ever witnessed before." And he talked about even the detail. So, my numbers actually were extremely conservative. They saw this, so what the judge did is he brought down certain values like Mar-a-Lago, made it ridiculous. But the expert, after having all of this, testified it's one of the best financial statements he's ever seen. And I was honored by that. But I also knew we have a corrupt judge. He's not a respected man. And again, I said before, he's been overturned on this case by the appellate division four times already. It's a record. Nobody's ever been overturned on one case four times. And I think, very importantly -- and I think, ultimately, the most important -- we've employed tens of thousands of people in New York, and we've paid taxes like few other people have ever paid in New York, and they don't care about that. They -- it's a state that's going bust. It's a state that's going bust because everybody's leaving, and it's all headed up by Biden who's destroying our country. So, this is Russia. This is China. This is what you've been reading about all your lives, and it's happening right here in our country. Thank you very much. We will stop it. We will make America great again. You have my word. Thank you very much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

and join us from our on all of this as former federal prosecutor, Andrew Derkaski. So good to have you. What about that point? He says this case never should have been brought. We have looked to see if anybody else has ever been indicted or prosecuted for this. It's hard to find anything on it. Should it have never happened? Well, I think Donald Trump has two fights that he's fighting right now. One is the fight that this should have never happened. And there aren't comparable cases. And it seems like even if you had some degree of comparable cases, the amount of punitive damages that Letitia James is going for is just astronomical. And that kind of brings the second point because there is a case to make in mitigation here. Going in today to say to the judge, there is no damage. There are no complainants. Nobody lost anything here. So whatever the punishment should be, should be extremely limited. Andrew, in the state of New York, what is the appeals process like? How would that unfold in a civil trial like this? Well, after a verdict, then you have a time window open in order to file your appeals. That goes on usually for months, could last into years. Obviously, an appellate court is going to have a lot of interest in this case, and they're going to move things more quickly. We see that happen all the time with Donald Trump. But appeals can take an exceptional amount of time. The point that Dana just made is that there's no precedent that we have found for the state of New York to put somebody on trial and convict them for misstating the value of the piece of property, okay? This is the first time. If it were to reach the New York State Supreme Court level, is that Republican? Is that Democrat in a blue state like New York? What is the breakdown? Well, you're largely looking at Democrat judges in the state of New York. At the end, what they're going to be looking at are two separate things, abusive discretion or plain error. Those are the standards that you're talking about in appeals courts. And so the different legal issues and factual issues at play, at each stage of appeals, the Trump team will bring those up and seek their relief. They haven't found much favor from the appellate courts yet. I want to play this for you. So we were watching the courtroom, so the president has spoken, so I don't think you're going to see him again. We'll keep an eye on that. The Tisha James is an interesting person, right? So she campaigned initially on this. She's been pushing forward. She's in the courtroom every day. She's making sure she's in that camera shot. And she had planned this for a while. Let's watch here. Call for number one. The president of the United States has complained that I'm engaging in some sort of political witch hunt, that I've got some personal vendetta against him, that I campaigned against him. That is not true. I look forward to going into the office of attorney general every day, suing him, defending your rights, and then going home. We will rise up together, and we will resist this president, and ultimately we'll bring him down. What do you make of that? She's a politician, and she's running a campaign, and she's continuing to deliver on the campaign that she ran. So what we see when we see Donald Trump in court now is her looking for astronomical damages for something that banks had an opportunity to investigate. If a real estate agent tells you your house is worth a million, you list it for 1.5, and it sells for two. What was the house worth? I mean, that's the sort of thing that Trump is looking at at the end of the day, trying to make a case that he was just doing business. He was being a businessman. And they made the case that nobody suffered damages here. The banks were fulfilled. They were happy with the loans they made, et cetera. Apparently there was an email exchange yesterday. They were trying to postpone today's hearing, in part because Melania Trump just lost her mother and the former president wouldn't go back to Florida to be with his family. I just want to put it on screen here. I don't have it on paper. And this is what lawyers said with the judge, "I won't debate this yet again. Take it or leave it. Now or never. You have until noon. Seven minutes from now, I will not grant any further extension." So that's from yesterday. It didn't happen. Is that par for the course or not? Well, it's been par for the course throughout this entire trial. I think one of the things that's most important in any trial is that a judge appears to be fair and unbiased in what they're doing. And there are serious questions about that in this case where the judge effectively ruled on a matter of fact before the trial ever took place. There's been hostility throughout. Certainly Donald Trump has had hostility towards the judge and towards the court throughout the case as well. So when the judge in the last minute continues to just all caps and that sort of message, it doesn't feel fair, I'm sure, to Donald Trump or to his supporters. Are other real estate tycoons or even investors in New York worried about the outcome of this case? I think every business person in New York should be worried about this. The idea that you are negotiating with other companies, with banks, with lending institutions, the way that that comes out and how you trust certain people in your team and what they say the value is. For example, my example about the real estate agent, it's a very difficult thing to dance through and then all of a sudden political opponents attack you. I would say just a couple more things here. Put number two up, guys. These are the properties we're talking about, primarily New York City, but also New York State. We live here. These are substantial properties. We can say that and agree on that. Absolutely. And they want to find him $370 million. What they want to do is take him and his kids out of New York State entirely and forbid them from doing business here. Yeah. Can you do that? You know, constitutionally, we talk about life and liberty. Liberty is typically this idea that you have the right to work, that you have the right to create your fortune. Donald Trump being stripped of his right to do business in the state of New York, to be stripped of these properties, that is a tremendous consequence. It is something that is just shy of going to jail. It is something that I think we should be looking at with a great degree of skepticism where he doesn't have a jury, where the judge is reaching decisions pre-trial. These are concerns for the state of New York and the people who do business here.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

And now Saul Weisenberg, former deputy independent counsel, Fox News contributor, as well as David Schoen, former Trump impeachment lawyer. Saul, you know, the judge did say, look, the president has broad discretion to talk about what he wants, but you can't, you can't, basically you can't criticize Smith and his staff. What about this? Well, I haven't seen the order yet as we went to the air. I hadn't seen a written order yet, so that's all. She hasn't released it yet. I know you always do your homework. So I know, you know, you would never show up unprepared. David definitely wouldn't. But no, she hasn't released it yet. We're going to get into that in a moment. But those are the broad strokes of what she said. Yeah. And I think she's got to be very careful because there is a assuming that Trump can find a vehicle to appeal, an interlocutory appeal, or even challenging it with an injunction. If she does this too broadly, it's going to be overturned at a higher level. And also it will delay the trial, which she definitely doesn't want to do. And President Trump does want to do. I mean, David, the judge, again, this was this was orally. The written order is going to come out later, warned Trump against launching what she called a pretrial smear campaign against those who might testify against him, saying the First Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses. And she said she would consider sanctions, David, if she sees any violations, but then went on to say she'd elaborate on what those would be in her written order, which hasn't come out yet. So, David, there's a lot there. I think she's absolutely wrong. I think for a number of reasons, I think it's a frontal attack on the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. I think that part of her justification, she said, well, he's a criminal defendant. Criminal defendants can't say what they want. Who says so? He's a citizen of the United States. Criminal defendant is entitled to presumption of innocence under in-rae winship. That means he's not guilty of anything. He's entitled to challenge the process and the substance publicly. And quite frankly, the Supreme Court said in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, the process doesn't begin inside the courtroom. And a defendant is entitled to present his public image as he wishes. I believe he's perfectly entitled to say Jack Smith is a thug. He's entitled to question Jack Smith's character, his judgment in bringing past cases that shouldn't have been brought. I have a sanctions motion against two of the members of Jack Smith's team right now. Their behavior is thuggish, JP Cooney and Molly Gaston. They lied to a federal judge. It's in the motion papers, indisputable. And so I think he's entitled to say it. I think what she has done is an affront to our fundamental core values of free speech. Saul, to the point that David just raised, Trump's lawyer and Judge Chutkin traded barbs back and forth in the courtroom. Chutkin read aloud a series of statements from Trump repeatedly raising concerns that his remarks could inspire violence. If you call certain people thugs enough times, doesn't that suggest Mr. Laro that someone should get them off the streets? She asked at one point, "Saul, wow. That's kind of a ... She's really trying to prognosticate violence." Which leads me to say, "What else could the order be applied?" If violence could happen, that's a pretty broad statement. I absolutely agree with David's analysis. You treat a prosecutor who's a big boy and should put his big boy pants on differently than you treat a potential witness. Everybody knows you can't threaten or try to intimidate a potential witness. The prosecutor, he produced a speaking indictment. He went to the grand jury and got a ham sandwich speaking indictment that was very prejudicial to former President Trump. He does that indictment. He holds a press conference and says, "Nobody is above the law. We treat everybody equally," and then Trump isn't allowed to criticize him. I think it is outrageous if the mere criticism of the prosecution team is to be prohibited. It is third world. Very different though when you're talking about a witness. Yeah. This is third world. He's campaigning in part, is he not, David, on the fact that the system itself has become so corrupted with political bias that we can't trust this system. That's part of his argument in his campaign, so now he can't actually campaign on the arguments he wants to campaign on. That's wild. That's wild. Beyond that, even in the criminal justice process, the public has an independent right to access, and that full access means getting all of the information. As Saul said, and he's absolutely right, there's this speaking indictment out there with detailed allegations, unproven allegations, memorialized. Everyone can pull them off their computer any time, any day, but Trump can't respond to that by challenging the process and the nature of the people who put him in that position. And Saul, on the media, corporate media today, they were saying, "Well, they were salivating. The fact that the judge could put Trump in jail down the road if she believes that he's violating this gag order, purposely violating the gag order, and vilifying Jack Smith and his merry band of prosecutors." Well, is she going to provide separate sleeping quarters for the Secret Service, Laura? I mean, she's not going to do that. She's going to do everything possible to avoid that. David made another point about the leading Supreme Court decision on this case, which is about 30 or 40 years old, and it's a terrible opinion with three or four different opinions by the Supreme Court, but it limited the right of lawyers, the lawyers in the case, to say certain things to the press, not the criminal defendant, and that's an important distinction. It's much more serious to limit the rights of the criminal defendant. As David points out, he's presumed innocent under our system. The one thing he can't do is intimidate potential witnesses. I've never seen anything like this in all my years, law, politics, this is the wildest thing. Saul, David, great to see you both. Thanks.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.