Search Posts

Sitting in there, that judge is basically a prosecutor. He is rooting for the prosecution. He is ruling against President Trump every step of the way. I wish all Americans could see what I was able to witness as to how bad that judge was.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

- All right, Pam Bondi was Florida's Attorney General. Same job as Leticia James, except she actually did it well. Pam, good to have you back on tonight. A hundred and 75 million is still beyond excessive in a case we're talking about here, right? - Yeah, of course it is. In this case, it should have never been brought. It had never been brought in the state of New York, nothing like this. But at least the appellate report reduced it from what that horrible judge wanted in the case. So thank goodness it got reduced, but it should have never happened at all to begin with. And I am convinced on appeal, Rob, that this case will be reversed, convinced. - On appeal, yeah, if there's a conviction, it would be, I would only hope so. This is such a ridiculous case. What I wanted to ask you, you know this game so well. I mean, I personally feel like somebody like Leticia James and even this judge should face disbarment for the behavior that we've seen in this case because it is so flatly ridiculous. I doubt that happens in New York because of just how politically charged everything is. But wouldn't you think that, I mean, haven't they done enough in your opinion to lose their license, to practice law? I mean, this is an outrage. - Yeah, and you know, this judge, to go to the judge first, he's been reversed five times in the Trump case by the appellate court. And you know, he's subject to the judicial qualifying commission. So he could, they could go after him. And of course the bar could go after Leticia James. But you know, I think New Yorkers are sick and tired of it. And I think they may have gone too far this time because people are seeing it, businesses are seeing it. So many corporations are saying now, look, if they can do this to Donald Trump, they can do this to me. It was unprecedented what they did. She campaigned on going after him. And as a former AG, when you have a conflict, you get off the case. Even if it's a perception of a conflict here, she has an actual conflict because she has admitted she is out to get Donald Trump. And that was the focus of her job. You know, crime is rampant in New York, yet she was sitting in a civil trial smiling the entire time, wasting her time when people are getting robbed on subways. She could be out there helping kids who are addicted to drugs, fighting human trafficking, going after basic crime in New York, yet she was going after him. So, you know, there may be a different climate now after all this in New York, 'cause it's certainly backfiring on them in my opinion. - It certainly is, she's awful. She knows she's awful. - Horrible. - This case is trash and she knows that. - Horrible. - The fact that we could see former President Trump in a courtroom in the midst of this election, which is what we're gonna see here in just a couple of weeks, it seems, he's already the nominee and he's gonna have to sit there and be scrutinized over an alleged payment to a porn star from 20 years ago. I mean, if it wasn't bad enough, if people aren't already awakened to this, this is the guy that right now is clearly the leading candidate, doing far better than the incumbent President of the United States, and he's gonna have to sit through this in addition to this ridiculous case where there is no victim at all. - Yeah, and you know, Rod, remember, this thing's been around for years. It's a joke. The Elections Commission refused to look at it. They declined at the Southern District of New York. They declined to prosecute it, to look at it. Yet now, they've revived it all of a sudden that he is the leading candidate. You know, if he wasn't running for office, none of this would be happening. We all know this. But you know, a prosecutor, it's not the prosecutor's right to rush something to trial. The defendant has the right to speedy trial. They dubbed tens of thousands of documents on President Trump and all his defense team was asking for was a continuance. Number one, so they can review all these documents, and number two, because otherwise, it is election interference. He can't be out campaigning. He has to be sitting in that courtroom every single day, months before the presidential election. So hopefully, this will get appeal. I know they're going to appeal it. And hopefully, this case will get continued until after the election. And ultimately, this will also get dismissed. - The irony is, is that honestly, him sitting in that courtroom might be more powerful to voters than making campaign speeches. You know, politicians, they make the same campaign speech over and over and over again. This could probably be more impactful. And it just, you envision an inauguration speech where he thanks Jack Smith, Arthur Angaron, Letitia James, and all the people that did so much to help him get elected to the presidency, because that's exactly what these people are doing. And it's amazing that they're too stupid to see it at this point. I can understand that they were too stupid to see it six months ago. But the fact that they're still pushing through with this, unbelievable. Pam Bonney, thank you so much for joining us tonight. - Thanks, Rob. - Good to see you.

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.