Search Posts

senator anything i'm saying they're constitutionally or great scholar you've argued before the supreme court alan dershowitz has said even though he disagrees with you politically you're one of the smartest debaters and students he ever had uh... am i right on the constitution john you're absolutely right what we are sitting across the board in the legal system is the weaponization in the politicization of the wet of our legal system in over two centuries of our nation's history of a president has never been indicted a former president has never been invited in in just over one year donald trump has been indicted four times bipartisan democrat prosecutors who hate his guts on top of that you have the ridiculous civil lawsuit by letitia james a partisan democrat who ran on the promise to quote get donald trump and got a four hundred and fifty million dollar judgment against him she wants to take a half billion dollars from him for an offense that injured nobody that there was no harm and that the supposed victim who made money on it were giant international banks it is absurd and and here's the most important thing to understand it is not just that democrats hate donald trump they do to be sure but the real target here is you the american voters this is an assault on democracy and democrats love to beat their chest and say we're defending democracy but the reason all of these cases are being brought is because democrats are terrified that the voters in november are going to reelect donald trump is president and they're trying to bring the entirety of the legal system to stop the voters this is the greatest assault on democracy literally in the history of our country and we're seeing it with every elected democrat quietly applauding and celebrating this assault you know uh... where's mary garland so we call the department here heads up it's called correct me if i'm wrong the department of justice i believe in equal justice under the law equal application of our laws correct me if i'm wrong in every one of those trump organization deals when they were applying for loans and applying for insurance policies there was a disclaimer in every one of them saying don't use our valuations by the way nobody led their hundreds of millions of dollars or ensuring hundreds of millions of dollars in property uh... would ever go with somebody else's valuations they have a fiduciary responsibility to do their own so you have a disclaimer in their same don't use our valuations and then if this whole case is about valuation can you explain to me how the judge to this day is still adhering to a value of mara lago at a mere eighteen million dollars when in fact you can't get it to you can buy a two acre lot on the ocean and palm beach florida that's two hundred million this has twenty two acres it has the inner coastal it has the ocean he has a historic building it's got two clubs and i might add it's in pristine condition with fifty some odd bathroom uh... bedrooms and bathrooms so you tell me senator does mary garland not have a duty does he not see what's going on uh... judges like this allowed to sit on the bench and put out half of a billion dollars in fines really is that our country of course mary garland sees what's going on but he wants this to happen mary garland is the most politicized attorney general in history this department of justice has been weaponized and and and listen i want everyone at home to think about in terms of what leticia james argued she says that trump overvalued his real estate will think about it how many of y'all have ever gotten a home mortgage if you get a whole mortgage you go to your bank and say you know what i love this house it's really pretty the backyard i love the flowers and trees i think the houses worth ten million dollars now is there a bank on earth that would say okay if it's worth ten million dollars will give you ten million dollar mortgage no they'll send an appraiser they'll look at it and they'll tell you this is what it's worth that we're giving you a penny more in this instance victim was doish bank a global multi-billion dollar company they know how to value real estate their testimony at the trial is they thought these loans were great loans they were thrilled they said donald trump was a whale they made money on them they wanted to make more loans just like it and you mentioned mara lago the idea that you and i both been to mara lago it's an incredible property the idea that it's worth eighteen million dollars you can't buy a hot dog stand in palm beach for eighteen million dollars when i last saw trumpet mara lago i told him i said i tell you what mister president i'll give you twenty million for right now i don't have twenty million but if you say yes i promise you i can raise it in sixty seconds and and of course he laughed because it is absurd it is a property that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars that's smarmy sanctimonious smiling judge is a vicious partisan who hates donald trump and he loved i'm gonna take a half billion dollars from you because i hate you rule of law be damned and did one democrat new york speak out against it and by the way who in their right mind would do business in new york because you know what first letitia james comes from donald trump but the next business owner who ticks off the democrats in power they're gonna come and take millions from you this is a catastrophic decision for the rule of law in new york senator cruz and i want people to understand that chuck schumer has made senator cruz's number one target uh... and literally tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars are going into texas to smear the senator senator uh... we need you back i'm not very happy with the number your colleagues for not being conservative uh... you have been a staunch steady uh... conservative voice in a fighter we need you back in the senate so we appreciate you being here

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Joining us now, Chris Landau, former law clerk for Justices Thomas and Scalia, former ambassador to Mexico. Chris, what are your thoughts on the integrity of this Georgia prosecution, given what we know about what she's done? Laura, obviously, these allegations against Fannie Willis are extremely serious, and this just shows if you are going to break all historical norms and go after it for the first time in American history, a former president and a current leading candidate for the presidency on criminal charges, you better have your ducks in a row. You better cross all your T's and dot all your I's. So what kind of judgment does this person have who's doing this? This is the person who made this momentous decision to charge the former president, and this person is allegedly hiring their secret lover and then going off on vacations funded by taxpayer dollars. Well, she didn't disclose any of this. I mean, not that that even would have mattered, but at least she would have disclosed it. She didn't disclose any of it, and then she goes to this church and she says she's not playing the race card, but of course, that's exactly what she's doing. No one cares about the color of the skin of her lover, but we do care about the fact that he's being sent to the White House either to deliver a message or get counsel and then get paid for it handsomely. Laura, we're now in the kind of silly phase of this thing, like when the academics a few weeks ago were defending plagiarism and saying it's no big deal when Claudine Gaye was accused of plagiarism, now we're going to see some of our alleged legal experts saying, oh, well, hiring your secret lover to be a special prosecutor and going off and having that person perhaps coordinate with the White House. I think that's one of the most serious allegations. We don't know to this day, I mean, there's kind of a very general statement on the billing record of why he was there, but it doesn't reveal anything. It's kind of an odd thing for him to just show up at the White House on two different occasions in 2020. I mean, in a state criminal prosecution, it raises very serious questions. Coordination. Again, talk about collusion, right? We heard that word an awful lot in the last administration. Is there collusion between the White House and these state prosecutions in New York and Georgia? I don't know, but I mean, you'd think these people would have the judgment if you were going to go out there and undertake this moment to pass. Unimpeachable judgment. Unimpeachable, you would think so, right? And so, again, I just think, scratch your head. This is backfiring on these people, though. And by the way, it's alleged that Nathan Wade billed 24 hours of work in one day. Now, you and I are used to having billed, you still bill hours, but I used to remember doing the six-minute increment bills at Skadden Arps. I hated billing, the billing records, all that. I hated doing billing. But 24 hours in a day, is that possible, Chris? Again, listen, Laura, that is certainly questionable, and I think that's one of the things that have to get looked at, and certainly, this is going to have to be resolved before these cases can go forward. I mean, you can't go with this cloud over the prosecutor. So, you know, again, if this is their A-team that they're bringing, that just makes you -- it raises a lot of questions. And Jack Smith, in his prosecution, he's supposedly the much more professional, seasoned prosecutor. What's new in that case? Well, you know, one of the really important things on that front is that, you know, again, he did not charge President Trump with insurrection. There's a federal crime called insurrection. A lot of people in this country think that's what the January 6 case is about. It is not. There is no charge of insurrection in that statute. That's why the Colorado and Maine things are insane. But more important, he actually charged them with this novel, untested legal theory that's now in the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, if you're going to go after the president, the former president, the leading candidate, you better be pretty darn sure that you have a solid legal ground. This is not the case to be testing the outer boundaries of the law. And today we know that the Chevron case, which is another big administrative law case, is being considered at the Supreme Court for, I mean, perhaps, you know, a complete reversal. For people who aren't law geeks, tell us why that's so important. It's very important because, as we've seen in the last several decades, the administrative state, the deep state in Washington is just growing and growing. And FCC, EPA, FDA, all those three letter agencies have just started expanding their power massively. And there's this doctrine in the law. Again, it sounds boring, but it's very important to the way Americans live that courts have been deferring to agencies on question of agency power. And now that is being reconsidered as to is that really appropriate? Because these bureaucrats have massively expanded their power. And they're unaccountable. For the most part, unaccountable, once they do something, they're going to get rid of the independent contract. 100%. And, you know, our basic separation of powers and our democracy, our Republican principles have broken down because now Congress has delegated to these agencies all this legislative power. Well, I was encouraged in hearing parts of these oral arguments, they released the audio on that. Chris, great to see you. Always a pleasure. We've got a grab bag of legal topics.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.