Search Posts

34 felonies and Trump was given no jail time, no fine. It's like it never happened. The president zoomed in and had the last word. - With all that's happening in our country today with a city that's burning to the ground, one of our largest, most important cities burning to the ground with wars that are uncontrollably going on with all of the problems of inflation and attacks on countries and all of the horrible things that are going on, I got indicted over calling a legal expense a legal expense. It was called a legal expense. I just want to say, I think it's an embarrassment to New York and New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment. - These criminal cases were cooked up to kill Trump's campaign, but the law fair withered and died on the vine. And now Trump's more powerful than ever. Don't tell that to Joe though. He still thinks he could have won.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

and here with analysis. Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley. All right, there's a lot to unwrap here legally. I'll let you choose where you want to begin. But I would look at this as a big win for Donald Trump today in terms of the half a billion dollar plus, but I would like an answer. I would like somebody to be held accountable for the phone evaluation that Judge Angoran now holds till to this day of Mar-a-Lago being only worth between 18 and what, 20 some odd million dollars when I've shown empty lots, two acres going for 200 million. Well, the interesting thing about the vapors that you were witnessing from various pundits is that this is simply to allow another judge to review what Angoran did. So what they're complaining about is that Trump didn't have to do a fire sale on his property just to be able to get other judges to look at this ruling. And the ruling is ludicrous. That is, the ruling is based on really speculative numbers by the court. You drill down, there's nothing really there. And then the problem, of course, is that, you know, the penalty in this case should have been a dollar because no one lost a dollar. The people that were the supposed victims, these companies, these banks wanted more business from Trump. Now, what the judge ordered in New York was supervision, and you could have stopped there, right? If you think that there's undervaluing and overvaluing, then sure, order supervision. But that's not what this judge wanted to do. This judge picked an arbitrary number that made it almost impossible for Trump to secure an appeal to protect his businesses unless he was willing to sell off some of his businesses. Let me run some poll numbers by you. John McLaughlin and associates, 67% say politics played a role in the indictment of Donald Trump. That's over two thirds, Jonathan. 58% say Biden played a role in the indictments of Donald Trump. Only 30% say it's not true that Biden is trying to jail Trump. Wow. I think the American people, you know, you lay out facts for them in spite of a media that I think is abusively biased, they kind of get it. They do get it. And I think that they recognize for it for what it is. It's not that they necessarily like Trump, but they don't like what they're seeing, particularly in New York. They've created this inescapable political vortex that used to be a legal system. And it's damaging, not just the courts, it's damaging the city. Who wants to go to a city where they try to get you to sell off your property just to get an appeal to look at what a judge did? And so the damage there has been below the waterline. It's going to have to be repaired. But now the New York Court of Appeals could restore some integrity to their system and look at these, at this number. There's two issues here. You know, whether he overvalued and undervalued, that's something very common in the real estate area. But the other major issue is, does this violate the constitution? Almost half a billion dollars in penalty when no one lost a single cent. Let me ask you about the Bragg case now scheduled to begin on April the 15th. Andy McCarthy had a pretty interesting analysis of this. I think you share this view. He said that Bragg was falsifying his prosecution. And he said, knowing that a plain spoken admission that he was trying to enforce federal law, he goes on to say, and a federal statute that the state prosecutor had no authority to enforce that the feds themselves passed on and their lead witness, well, I wouldn't say he's the most credible human being on the face of the earth. How does that play out? Well, Andy, spot on. Many of us have been writing from the beginning of this case that it is a sort of a Frankenstein monster of a case. It's composed of different parts of the federal and state codes. What he basically did is he took a misdemeanor where the time has already run out from the prosecute and bootstrapped the federal crime so that he could extend the statute of limitations. But the Department of Justice rejected that crime. That's the same type of theory they use against John Edwards. It collapsed in a really abysmal failure by the Justice Department. And so they declined to do it. And so you created this bizarre filing. I'm surprised that it has not been dismissed, but Trump may have to face a trial in order to get serious review of the underlying theory. But now we're going to have the spectacle of a disbarred lawyer, Michael Cohen, who just recently was denounced by a judge who said that he was a serial perjurer, that he was still gaming the system. And that's going to be your star witness. It's going to be another blow, I think, to the integrity of the New York legal system. But we'll see if the New York jury buys us. I think that what Bragg is betting on is that the jury won't get past the name on the caption of the criminal complaint and that they will spend very little time looking at either the law or the evidence and focus on who's behind the defense table. All right, Jonathan, Charlie, as always, thank you. We appreciate you being with us.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.