Search Posts

Okay. Thank you very much. This gang order is not only unique, it's totally unconstitutional. I'm the Republican candidate for President of the United States. I received this honor in record time. Nobody's ever gotten faster. It's never happened. Nobody's ever gotten the numbers that we got. And I'm sitting in a courthouse all day long listening to this stuff. And everybody knows, as far as everybody is concerned, if you read the great legal scholars and experts, everybody said this is a trial that is nonsense. It should have never been brought. That's showing loud and clear. But you have a judge who's totally conflicted, totally, absolutely conflicted. That he's rushing this case through. I'll tell you what, some people -- somebody just told me they never sat for such a long period of time in a courthouse before. It's ridiculous. I'm supposed to be in Georgia. I'm supposed to be in New Hampshire. I'm supposed to be in Ohio and lots of other places. And they have me sitting here for a Biden trial. It's a Biden trial. And I never saw so many prosecutors. They're all sitting over nothing, over absolutely nothing. There's no crime. There's no anything here. And that's what these legal scholars say. How can you bring a case like this? Bragg didn't want to bring it. Bragg is the guy bringing it. And he didn't want to bring it. Went to every agency just about in law enforcement. They all turned it down as a joke. And I'm sitting here because that's exactly what they want. They don't want me on the campaign trail. But it's a real disgrace. And our world is watching. It's a disgrace to New York. And just like N. Goren is a disgrace to New York, we want that case because we're one of his statute of limitations. And he turned down the appellate division. That's another case. It's all the same. He turned down the appellate decision -- the appellate division's decision. They gave a decision that gave me mostly a win. Just about the whole thing was a win. And he turned it down. He's a corrupt judge. And this judge is terrible. And Kaplan is terrible. Gave a person -- I have no idea who she is -- $91 million. This is a corrupt system we're in. And I think the people are understanding it. If you look at the polls, the people of our country are understanding it. Thank you very much. What do you mean by people? You could figure that one out easily. Are you going to keep posting?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

So, thank you very much. We had some amazing things happen today. As you know, my son has graduated from high school, and it looks like the judge will not let me go through the graduation of my son, who's worked very, very hard. He's a great student. He's very proud of the fact that he did so well. And I was looking forward for years to have graduation with his mother and father there. And it looks like the judges are going to allow me to escape the scam. It's a scam trial. If you read all of the legal pundits, all of the legal scholars today, there's not one that I see that said this is a case that should be brought or tried. It's a scam. It's a political witch hunt. It continues. It continues forever. And we're not going to be given a fair trial. It's a very first-aid thing. In addition, as you know, next Thursday, we're before the United States Supreme Court and a very big hearing on immunity. And this is something that we've been waiting for a long time. And the judge, of course, is not going to allow us. He's a very conflicted judge. And he's not going to allow us to go to that. He won't allow me to leave here for a half a day, go to D.C. and go before the United States Supreme Court because he thinks he's superior, I guess, than the Supreme Court. And we got a real problem with this judge. We have a real problem with a lot of things having to do with this trial, including the DA, because you go right outside, and people are being mucked and killed all day long. And he's sitting here all day with 10 or 12 prosecutors, over nothing, over nothing, over what people say -- over what people say shouldn't be a trial. So I just want to thank you very much. But that I can't go to my son's graduation or that I can't go to the United States Supreme Court, that I'm not in Georgia or Florida or North Carolina campaigning like I should be, it's perfect for the radical left Democrats. That's exactly what they want. This is about election interference. That's all it's about. Thank you very much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Joining us now, David Shown, former Trump impeachment lawyer and Mike Davis, former Gorsuch clerk and president and founder of the Article III Project. Now there was scheduling news in the other Trump case in New York, but David, before we get into that, this is how Tish James responded to the bond being lowered today. In her statement, she said in part, "Donald Trump is still facing accountability for a staggering fraud, 464 million judgment plus interest against Donald Trump and the other defendants that still stands." Is the judge signaling something here? What's your got? Well, I think that the court did, took a big step in the right direction. I don't think there should have been any bond for the appeal in this case, and the court certainly had that discretion. He has the assets, you know where he is, but I think the underlying conviction is going to be reversed, certainly by the time it reaches the New York Court of Appeals, if it has to go that far. As you have said, no loss, no victims, the banks were more than happy to do what they, to make the loans, they wanted more business, he's an international brand and so on. This is a very different definition of fraud than we've ever seen before. No jury trial, there should have been a jury trial, as we've said before, 2011 case that says no jury trial says because damages are incidental to the relief generally given under this statute, this executive law 6312, these are not incidental damages. So I think the court made the right decision, should have gone further. Now, Mike, when you watch the faces, the faces always tell the story on the other networks. They were crestfallen today, I mean, they really wanted an immediate rush to Trump national golf course or any of his premier properties, and they wanted to see the padlocks being put on the door. They didn't quite know how to process this today, did they? Yeah, it's amazing, you have this New York attorney general who campaigned on the fact that she was going to get Trump, Tish James, they went to this biased Democrat Manhattan judge Arthur Inglerond, who decreed before the trial began, before any witnesses or any other evidence that Trump somehow committed fraud when he paid back sophisticated Wall Street banks in full on time as agreed with interest. And then they put this half billion dollar unconstitutionally punitive fine against Trump, and then they wanted him to put up this half billion dollars to pursue his appellate rights. This is obviously not going to fly with the American people, and this is going to backfire on November 5th, 2024. Well, when you think about this, David, the bottom line is this signals that this might go Trump's way. I would imagine it would go Trump's way. But then we have this April 15th trial date that set for this so-called hush money case, which I don't think the left thought was going to be their best shot at starting this law fair really going, but it really could be the first of the big cases. I don't count the Jean Carroll case. Thoughts about that today? That was the one saving grace, the left thought that gave them a little shit on their side. Well, politically, I mean, each one of these cases sends President Trump soaring upwards in the polls, because I think ultimately the American people are fair and reasonable, and they see these political prosecutions for what they are. There are so many problems with this case, it's hard to know where to start. This judge never should have been assigned to the case. He wasn't randomly assigned. He was assigned to the Trump organization case. He was assigned to the Bannon case. They say the chief administrative judge put him on it. It wasn't because he was qualified, in my view. I've had nothing but bad experiences with him. He's an anti-Trumper. The indictment is defective. It doesn't give notice of what's really charged in the case, but the biggest thing is they hired a special prosecutor in this case, Mark Pomerance, who came in and did a study. It's all in his book. The higher ups in that office thought this case should never be brought, just like the feds passed on the case. The feds had this evidence, and they said there should be no prosecution. You're going to see in this case Bob Costello testify, who was Michael Cohen's lawyer, and he's going to tell you that Michael Cohen told a completely different story, and Michael Cohen waved privilege. That's one of the main reasons the feds never prosecuted. Mike, your sense on this, because there were tens of, what, tens of thousands of documents that have to be gone through in this case, and I imagine they're going to ask for another continuation in this case to push it off past April 15th. Do you think that will be successful? For Alvin Bragg's sake, I hope that he better hope this gets pushed off, because this is a dog of a case. They have taken a businessman settling a nuisance claim, and tried to turn this into felony campaign finance violations that the prior Manhattan DA, the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, the Federal Election Commission, and Alvin Bragg himself passed over until Matthew Colangelo got sent from the number three office in the Biden Justice Department to resurrect this zombie case to get Trump. Yeah, well, President Trump mentioned him by name today. David, the judge was clearly annoyed by the underlying allegation that this is all just some political vendetta against Trump. He didn't much like that today. What would you advise the president as a matter of legal strategy? Forget the political PR side of it. He has to keep making the record in this case. This judge is always going to be annoyed with anything that appears to be in President Trump's favor. You have tens of thousands of documents being turned over at the last minute here that easily could have been gotten from the federal prosecutors. They worked with the federal prosecutors. As Mike said, Colangelo comes from the feds. He also comes from the New York Attorney General's Office, where he went after Trump as well. They just can't play it straight with folks who are looking for justice in this case, and this judge certainly isn't, in my opinion. He's the wrong guy for this job, but President Trump has to stay the course and keep raising all of the legal issues in this case, and wait till you see what happens when Michael Cone testifies and his own lawyer contradicts him. Oh, that is going to be juicy, David and Mike. Great to see you both. Thanks so much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

He did say that this is very different from the Mar-a-Lago boxes hopes where they found documents inside Mar-a-Lago. President Biden stated in that press conference that Mar-a-Lago is a public place. It is not. It's a secure place. It is the home, the residency of President Trump. And so if President Biden can be cleared of this, President Trump should be cleared as well. It is clearly election interference in my opinion and just another attempt to keep President Trump off the ballot and keep President Biden on the ballot.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

You see the people who say, "Oh, I'm not going to bother to register to vote because my voice doesn't make a difference." Or I'm just one person. I say one name. Donald Trump. I should motivate you. Don't be your ass and vote. Will you sue him for us? Oh, we're going to definitely sue him. We're going to be a real pain in the ass. He said, "I know my name personally." He built his wealth off the backs of New Yorkers. We need to focus on Donald Trump and his abuses. We need to follow his money. Challenge this illegitimate president when our fundamental rights are at stake.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Well, this Court just handed partisans on both sides the ultimate tool to try to shortcut elections. And it's very, very dangerous. I mean, this country is a powder keg, and this Court is just throwing matches at it. And I think that it's a real mistake. But I think that they're wrong on the law. You know, January 6th was many things, most of it not good. In my view, it was not an insurrection. It was a riot. It doesn't mean that the people responsible for that day shouldn't be held accountable. But to call this an insurrection for the purposes of disqualification would create a slippery slope for every state in the union. This is a time when we actually need democracy. We need to allow the voters to vote. We need to hear their decision. And the Court here just said, you're not going to get that. In Colorado, we're not going to let you vote for Donald Trump. And you know, you could dislike Trump. You could believe he's responsible for January 6th. But this isn't the way to do it. I mean, it is, you know, for people that say they're trying to protect democracy, this is hands down the most anti-democratic opinion I've seen in my lifetime.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

this concept of lawfare, meaning using the judicial system to stop the people from getting what they want and what they support. This is, is it not playing out tonight? 100 percent, Laura. I mean, this is, as Jonathan Turley just said, really breaking democracy to save democracy according to the left. They don't want the voters to decide this. I think there's obviously this this deep fear of Donald Trump potentially winning the White House back and what he would do when he's back in office in regards to breaking apart the administrative state and the status quo.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

institution and turn into a piece of silly putty for political ends. That is classic judicial activism, is it not? It is, yes, Laura. And it is good to have the mask ripped off. You can see the fangs here, folks. These people, they don't care a bit about democracy or your right to vote for who you think is the best president. This is a raw act of judicial power by four unelected judges in the state of Colorado. It's on the question of federal law, thank goodness, so they don't have the final word on questions of federal law. That goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. And I am confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse this, because it is a lawless ruling. And politically, it may wind up benefiting Trump. Who knows? But it is not good for our country at all, Laura. now. And I hope the voters of Colorado.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I'm Laura Ingram. This is the Ingram angle on a breaking news night. Tonight, America is seeing the ultimate in election interference as four unelected state judges, all appointed by Democrat governors, have ruled that Donald Trump must be kept off next year's presidential ballot.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Nine days. That's how long Donald Trump has to respond to a new motion filed by special counsel Jack Smith earlier today. Smith is asking the Supreme Court for an expedited ruling on whether Trump has presidential immunity for his actions related to his objections to the results of the 2020 election. Of course, all the usual suspects say it's all about making sure the trains run on time. I do think it's a smart move, Jake. I think it's a necessary move, in fact, because this is, as a practical matter, the only real way Jack Smith can hold on to his current trial date, which is March 4th, 2024. It's his only chance of keeping this case on track. Now, that's a load of bunk. It's notable, right, that in his request Jack Smith says it's important to decide it quickly, but he never gives any reason as to why. The only sensible explanation is that Smith filed this request because he wants Trump tried, convicted, and sentenced before the 2024 election. Joining me now, Christopher Landau. Chris has argued before the court several times, and also clerk for Justices Thomas and Scalia. Chris, explain this for us. All right. Well, it's good to be here, Laura. The special counsel filed two motions today. One was an extraordinary motion to have the Supreme Court decide this important immunity issue before the court of appeals. I mean, the district court, we have three levels in our system, district court, court of appeals, Supreme Court. The normal path is for the case to go to the court of appeals. Jack Smith wants the Supreme Court to basically take that case before the court of appeals has even decided it. Why? Well, I think it's obvious. The mask is coming off, Laura, that this is about election interference. As you just said, this is all about the timetable that they want to get Trump convicted before the 2024 election. So you have to speed it up. This is highly unusual. Look, they brought an incredibly unprecedented case. Never before in American history has anything like this come up through the legal system. Obviously, Trump has legal defenses. Like I was president then, and there's very tricky immunity questions. Okay. Instead of having the legal process play itself out like it usually does, they're insisting that there is imperative public importance in this. Yeah. Public importance is that Biden's down in like five, six, seven swing states. Laura, it is one of the most depressing things as an American to see that we are really in a banana republic where this is again, there's no way to explain this other than election interference. They want a DC jury essentially to decide the 2024 election by having this jurisdiction where, by the way, in the last election, Biden got 92% of the votes and Trump is five. So they want to tell the rest of the country, oh no, Trump was criminally convicted in DC. Are you going to vote for a convicted felon? I mean, this is all a setup. And again, the legal system, whoever's right or wrong on some of these legal issues, we have a process. And I think it is particularly important in an election case like this to make sure that the special counsel crosses his T's and dots his eyes. Why doesn't Congress bring him to testify on Capitol Hill? Where is the accountability? Congress has a role here. Does it not? This is why Justice Scalia thought all of this was basically unconstitutional. This whole special counsel thing. They're accountable to no one. The Biden Justice Department acts. I mean, this is such a charade. Like, oh no, it's not us. It's this special counsel who's doing it. Yeah. Well, Politico just reported moments ago, Chris, that Smith has extracted data from the cell phone Trump used while he was in the White House and plans to present evidence of his findings to the DC jury to demonstrate how Trump used the phone in the weeks during which he attempted to subvert it. I mean, this is what it is now in a presidential election year. You're going to take the cell phone of the guy who's beaten the other guy by how many points? Laura, I mean, come on. You know, there was no question that January 6th, if Trump is the nominee, will be a major issue, but the Democrats don't want to fight this in the political arena. They want to say, oh no, this is a criminal case, folks. This is, you know, this is the mighty halls of justice. This is again, this motion to the Supreme Court can only be explained by their desire on timing. There's no imperative public need to have this trial in March of next year. What's the imperative public need on that? No, it's convenient politically because otherwise it's very unlikely given normal judicial, uh, procedures and processes that this won't be decided before the election. And that's the worst of all worlds for them. The voters, voters don't seem to buy into any of this. Well, you know, I mean, listen, we'll, you know, we'll see what happens. I have to say the one law that they can't manipulate is the law of unintended consequences. And so far it's not worked that well for them on this. Chris Landau, you made something complicated, really understandable. Great to to see you, as always. - Always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.