Search Posts

All right, so in the left's latest Trump witch hunt, Radical New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned on going after one man, Donald Trump, one family, the Trump family, one organization, the Trump organization, is now claiming that the Trump organization, in fact, inflated the value of its assets in what is a big fraud scheme. Now, at the center of this trial is an insane ruling from a judge claiming that Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, that its real value is only $18 million. All right, let's do a quick one-on-one on Palm Beach real estate. Look at this here. We got a two-acre wooded lot on the ocean. There's no building on it at all. Five minutes away from Mar-a-Lago, listed for a whopping $150 million. You got another empty lot nearby. 2.3 acres on the ocean, listed for $200 million. Look at your screen. Mar-a-Lago is a 60,000 square foot, 58 bedroom, 33 bathroom, mansion, historical location, as such, with two clubs located on 20 acres of prime Palm Beach real estate with a unique position in that it has property on the inter-coastal side and on the ocean from side with a club associated with it. 20 acres, okay. Now, this is what the judge wants you to believe is worth, let's see, over $100 million less than a wooded lot of two acres, you gotta be kidding me. Now, remember, every contract that the Trump family was involved in with real estate and applying for loans and dealing with insurance companies, lending companies, okay, they would tell, they had language in this contract that said not to use their appraisals, but they had to use their own appraisals, that it would be their fiduciary responsibility to come up with what they believe the real value of a property happens to be. And by the way, not one bank, not one insurance company ever filed any complaint. Everyone was paid on time. Now, if this isn't hypocritical left-wing politics that is worse, I don't know what is. Here with reaction, Trump legal spokesperson, Alina Hoppe is with us, the author of the Constitution of the US and other patriotic documents, Fox News legal analyst, Greg Jarrett. Now, Alina, I don't wanna put you in a position, I understand a gag order is in place, but I do wanna talk about real estate down in Palm Beach. I know a thing or two about it. And I've talked to a lot of realtors, they're laughing at this. So the allegation is that the Trump organization was artificially inflating numbers to get more favorable loan terms and more favorable insurance rates, okay. The judge is claiming that a property, according to realtors I spoke to, is kind of close to a billion dollars and he's sticking with 18 million. Now, doesn't that make him guilty of the very thing that they're trying to claim that the Trump family did? - It does and I think that we should look at anybody that's taken a property and their tax assessed value, which is by the way, what he thinks the property is now worth. The $18 million is a tax assessed value. So if you actually were going to sell it and I know you're familiar with the property, so am I, you probably could maybe sell half of a tennis court here for $18 million given where it's located and what it's worth. The statement of financial condition for the president, for the company was undervalued tremendously. If the president had put his brand alone, the brand of Trump, which got him elected to office, that brand alone would quadruple, triple, double, whatever the number is, the statement of financial condition. This is insanity and the fact, frankly, that I can't speak freely is insanity in and of itself. So we're really in a banana republic. This is political law fair, not warfare, and I'm sitting front row for it, it's unfortunate. - So Greg Jarrett, just common sense and logic needs to prevail here. So you got 20 plus acres on the inner coastal and on the ocean side. You got a club, you got this massive building, it's historical, many, many bedrooms and bathrooms and everything in between, and it's a club on top of it. And meanwhile, a two acre parcel of ocean from property in Palm Beach is gonna go for 200 million, but that 20 plus acre property is only worth 18 million and the judge is sticking by that valuation with a straight face, you gotta be kidding me. I mean, this can't be, this really can't be happening in this country, but it is happening. What do you make of it all? - Well, it shows how biased the judge is, determined to find that Trump's liable at trial, but the good news for them is, Sean, I doubt that any of this will ever stand up on appeal because this executive law being used against them completely undermines more than a century of established common law that requires proof of intent to deceive in civil fraud cases that somebody knowingly made false statements. But this poorly conceived law simply does away with all of that and punishes somebody for making inaccurate statements with no intent to do so, sort of like prosecuting a customer for robbing a bank because the teller gave out the wrong change. This law also violates the Constitution, Sean, it penalizes inaccurate commercial speech, which the First Amendment protects. But you know, under Letitia James, anybody can have their business taken away from them by her if they happen to misstate without negligence or intent assets that are used to secure loans, even if the business owner relied entirely on professionals to do the valuations, which the Trump organization did. - I'm not sure whether Alina can answer or not, and I don't wanna put her in a bad spot here, but you do have an AG that ran on a platform to go after one man, Donald Trump, one family, the Trump family, one organization, the Trump organization. Alina, to the extent you can, you can weigh in, Greg, you can weigh in, you know, to me, there's something so fundamentally wrong about that, running on a campaign and now fulfilling a campaign promise, Alina? - That's 100% wrong. It's political interference, it's political persecution, prosecution, and it is something we've been fighting, and I'm happy to speak freely about it. Ms. James has gone outside and showed up, Sean, only on the days where it was headline days, only on the days where the president is there, where the kids were there. She wasn't there for the past few days. She thought they were mundane, evidently. But the other day, she's sitting there while the city is going to hell. And we are watching something where the statement of financial condition was frankly undervalued, where there was, you know, a disclaimer on the front page with sophisticated lenders saying, you need to do your own due diligence, but nobody is paying attention to the glaring fact that you just brought up. Ms. James is doing this for political reasons. She does not care about New York. She does not care about businesses doing well. She is doing it so that she can make money, so that she can run. And you know what, frankly, it's backfiring in her face if you look at the polls. - You know, and you gotta think about, this is the state, Greg, and we only have about 20 seconds left, that has no bail loss. Not one insurance company that I've heard of or read about, not one lending institution. None of them complained. Why is this even in court? - When she ran for office on the campaign promise of "getting Trump," she was violating the ethical standard that governs prosecutors, she had no access to any evidence, any investigative files, she committed herself publicly to getting a specific individual, and then she misused the power of her office to manufacture a case against him. That's the sort of thing for which she should be disbarred. - We're now criminalizing political differences. That's a very dangerous place for any country to be.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

David's shown a lot of, in my view, very unethical conduct going down there in the Georgia case. First of all, the indictment. In Georgia, you can indict, the prosecutor can indict, or the grand jury can indict. But if you pick the grand jury, you've got to follow certain rules. So they published the indictment against Donald Trump and 18 other co-defendants in the morning before the grand jury even shows up. Then the grand jury works into the night, and they indict these 19 defendants on exactly what was in the official court clerk's computer that morning. So the question is, to me, whether that grand jury actually met as a grand jury or this was really a prosecutor using the grand jury's dressing. And since they don't have secrecy rules there, it would be very easy for any defense counsel to question some of these grand jurors as to what took place to address what took place right out of the box, no? I think there ought to be a full investigation of what happened. You know, we heard two or three different excuses on how on earth the indictment appeared and was publicly posted on the docket before the grand jury concluded their deliberations. I've never heard of that in my life. There has to be an investigation. Otherwise, the grand jury process is meaningless. It's a constitutional process, so I don't think it should be meaningless. No, it's outrageous. There's so many issues that have to be raised there. And what did we also learn? This report was released and they recommended indicting three United States senators. Yeah, well, they finally released the rest of the report. Now, remember, this report is from this investigative grand jury, an unusual phenomenon that they have in Georgia. This is the grand jury in which the four person afterwards reported how unprofessional, frankly, her conduct and the others were during the course of it. It was a circus. But in any event, the report that was released on Friday actually recommended indicting a number of other people who were indicted. And those include Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Perdue, Senator Loeffler, Boris Epstein, and others. And so a decision was made, perhaps on a political level, not to indict them. But it's outrageous. I think it speaks volumes about exactly what the agenda was. The agenda was if someone comes in and associated with the Republican party or Donald Trump, indict them. Doesn't matter what the evidence was necessarily, to suggest that Lindsey Graham, for example, you know, committed some criminal act in Georgia strikes me as outrageous. But the other United States senators too, this was a way to use, again, the ultimate weaponization of the criminal justice process for partisan political purposes. Isn't the issue here, David, shown that if you're going to criminalize politics, then you are going to be indicting senators and congressmen and governors and state legislators and anybody else you can get your hand on if you're the prosecutor of the opposite party. Because now if you're lobbying, if you're speaking, if you're claiming there's false elections, if you want a separate sect of electors sent just so you can preserve your rights when it comes to the Electoral College, which we've done throughout American history. If you're going to turn all the politics, the rough and tumble, into a crime that an elected Democrat DA in a city that is heavily Democrat can use the criminal justice system, then you're going to be indicting 20 people, maybe all the Republicans who vote. Maybe they're part of RICO too. You never know. This is a real scam, isn't it? Yeah. And it's a complete abuse of our system and it's very dangerous for the future. But I think the ultimate point that supports your thesis, and you've made this point as effectively as anybody, is the current move around several states, not coincidentally which states, use the 14th to try to use section three of the 14th amendment to bar President Trump from the ballot. That's the ultimate use of state by state, partisan by partisan abuse of our electoral system and what the court in Reynolds versus Sims says, the essence of democratic society. Well, it's pretty funny at a base level, section three of the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. The Congresses after the civil war didn't even believe in states rights after that point. They still, the North still had military presence, the army and states, unless those states capitulated to the North. And the idea that they would have said, you know what, boys, we want to allow every single state the power to keep anyone off the ballot. If according to that one person in the state or that state legislature says they committed acts of insurrection or sedition, they would never have handed power like that to the states. That's number one. Number two. We know what they meant by insurrection and sedition. They meant anyone who helped the Confederacy, period. That part of the 14th amendment died when the last Confederate died.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.