Search Posts

So does Team Trump have a strong case here. We're gonna ask Sol Weisenberg former white white water deputy independent council on a Fox News contributor So what do you think does he have a strong case here? And what does happen next in this time frame? Well, I'll put it to you this way I Understanding I'm not an expert on New York civil fraud law, but it seems to me. There's some real constitutional problems with 355 million dollar Judgment when there is no victim no financial loss of any kind I think that is a you have a ripe argument you have an argument for a substantive due process violation But the question is has this been preserved at trial? That I'm not I'm not sure of but it just seems to me to be an outrageous Amount given the judges findings that there's no there's no victim no monetary victim here His team says Sol the case quote raises serious legal and constitutional questions Regarding fraud claims findings without any actual fraud So there's a lot of discussion about the message. This is sort of sending businesses In New York or businesses that potentially want to do business in New York Steve Moore was our guest yesterday as an economist And he weighed in on that discussion over the message this lawsuit sends listen These kind of liberal rulings make it so difficult for people to do business there New York needs to restore its greatness But it's not it's not a downward slide and I don't understand why the governor and why a judge would make this decision At a time when New York has to be attracting businesses back not not repelling them Do you think there's anything to that? So all this this debate seems to be growing right now on those who think this is going to send a message to Business owners not to do business here in New York Well, I think the bigger message is it's going to send a message to certain businesses and business owners if you are a Radical conservative or if forget about what your politics are if you if you end up Offending or insulting whatever the current woke orthodoxy is what will happen to you keep in mind? There was no there was no jury here and the judge crows about this in his opinion judge Inger on he says I don't need a jury under under New York law, but that's based on a 2011 opinion that said you don't need a jury Because this is an equitable remedy that means we're not and that monetary damages are incidental, but that isn't what happened here the monetary damages were 55 million dollars so that stands that law on its head and I think that they do have again a Potential constitutional argument here a very strong one if they appropriately raised it at trial So this means more than half of Trump's New York City portfolio could be wiped out next month And that would include two golf resorts a 248 million dollar Tower at the 40 Wall Street building is penthouse at Trump Tower We put some of those up on the screen. This is obviously what's at stake It appears the ladies at the view are having a field day with this Trump civil ruling listen here Trump is going to use this judgment to say look it's a witch hunt they're trying to bankrupt me those other cases are also witch hunts Into some of the public that's gonna resonate. I do think and this is not due to any emotion towards Trump I think the punishment was excessive this Ruling to the number it has been held is slightly playing into the optics that this was political Gee well if they've lost the view on the case they're making here with this fine to Trump I mean never they lost everybody excessive says the ladies at the view Well, you know forget about the optics for a minute It's it's the substance of what was done here And the other argument you mentioned earlier is basically under this special statute That's been in existence for several years. You don't have to have any of the traditional elements of fraud To bring a fraud case such as you know a victim material Reliance so focus on the substance is what I would say and it's outrageous. There's no way you can defend this judgment Wow Really appreciate your analysis on that song great to have you on the program today. Thanks for joining us

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Hello America, I'm Mark Levine and this is Life, Liberty and Levine Sunday. You may have heard again, the Iowa caucuses start tomorrow. So that's the official kickoff of the Republican primaries leading to the general election. There's a lot of coverage of it and I'm glad there is. But one of the things that relates to our election, whether it's Iowa or the rest of our states and the general election, is the monumentally outrageous interference in this election by Joe Biden personally and by his surrogates at the Department of Justice and his party members and the judgeships and the unelected prosecutors and the would-be unelected jurors should there be trials in these Democrat cities. It is a disgrace, the likes of which we've never experienced in America. When he talks about democracy, of course he has destroyed what is a constitutional republic, which is one of the reasons this man must be defeated. All this talk about he hasn't interfered, he's interfered up and down, if you heard what I had to say on last night's program. But I want to follow that up with what's going on in the circuit court in Washington. Mark, what does that have to do with the election, everything? Right now they have commingled law enforcement and the Constitution and criminal statutes with the electoral process. You can no longer discuss one and not address the other because they're undermining our voting system, they're undermining our constitutional system. It wasn't supposed to be this way. This issue that's before the circuit court that was argued last week, which is amazing because the circuit court panel, three judges, two of the three decided that they wanted to have an emergency expedited hearing of the issue of presidential immunity or more specifically whether a former president has immunity from indictment for activities that took place while he was president. Very important issue, I'm going to walk us through it in plain English. But I also want to expose what's going on here. The two of the three judges on this panel are radical left wing Democrats and the worst of the bunch was appointed by Biden. The worst of the bunch was appointed by Biden. Let me tell you about her. Her name is Judge Florence Pan. With the help of a real journalist, Julie Kelly, she writes some of the information on Judge Florence Pan, one of the judges on the three judge panel hearing oral arguments on Trump's appeal of Judge Chunkins, and she's an Obama appointee, ordered denying presidential immunity in the January six case. And I will explain this immunity issue so you understand it momentarily, but let's first look at the figures who were involved in this. Pan is married to Max Steyer, a Democrat party activist and one of Brett Kavanaugh's chief antagonists. Steyer claimed that's this judge's husband. He observed Kavanaugh engaged in lewd behavior at Yale. He reported it to the FBI and Senate during Kavanaugh's hearing. And by the way, they just lied about Kavanaugh has recently featured this guy Steyer in a film about Kavanaugh that criticized the FBI's investigation to various claims, including his. A longtime Washington DC fixture, Judge Pan has friends in high places. Take this from the Washington Post in 2021 quote, in one of her first hearings, Pan took over the politically sensitive lawsuit brought by 2016 Trump campaign adviser Carter Page against the FBI. Justice Department and several former officials alleging they unlawfully surveilled and investigated him during the FBI's Russia probe, a DC veteran. Judge Pan offered to recuse herself from the case, saying she's been friends with a lawyer for defendant Lisa Page, a former FBI attorney. Judge Pan said she's known Page's attorney, former Justice Department lawyer Amy Jeffries for 27 years. See the incestuous nature of all this attended her wedding and met Page at a party. Jeffries is married to a DC circuit court judge, Chris Cooper, appointed by Obama. Merrick Garland officiated the wedding. Isn't DC cute, says Julie, although three judge panels are supposed to be randomly selected. Judge Pan oddly is seated on unusually high percentage of consequential political cases involving Trump, among others. She was on both and I repeat both panels to hear arguments on an appeal related to 1512 section of the code, obstruction of official proceeding. This is very controversial. That is the end run obstruction of those two charges brought against Trump. And they had rewritten that statute, which of course is why Jack Smith was appointed in the first place. He does that all the time. He rewrites statutes. Sometimes the judges slap him down. Sometimes they don't. Judge Pan was the decisive two to one judge in both decisions upholding the department's use of the post Enron statute. Her lead opinion, and I use that term projectively, says Julie in Fisher versus USA is now under review by the Supreme Court of the United States. And she has more to say about her. Pan has been assigned to several panels for appeals filed by January six defendants. Just last week, Pan denied the appeal of Russell Alfred, who is that he was convicted by a Washington D.C. jury of four misdemeanors and sentenced by Judge Chunkin to 12 months in prison. Wow, he must have done something horribly bad in a concurring opinion. The panel, including Pahn, agreed to the following. The trial evidence indicated that during Alfred's brief time within the Capitol, he was never violent nor destructive. Nevertheless, we affirm his convictions because a jury could rationally find that his unauthorized presence in the Capitol is part of an unruly mob, contributed to disruption of Congress's electoral certification and jeopardize public safety. He was inside there 11 minutes roaming around at absolutely nothing. That's her. Let's get to the substance. She's on the panel. There were two opinions written about the issue, whether a sitting president can be indicted. Both concluded absolutely not. One was written by the Office of Legal Counsel, the Brain Trust, the Department of Justice, under the Nixon administration. The other was written under the Clinton administration. And this first opinion, over half a century old, has been adhered to by every subsequent administration. That is, you must not and cannot indict a sitting president. Well, what did they say? Well, the 2000 opinion confirming the 1973 opinion says in part this, "The House and Senate are appropriate institutional actors to consider the competing interests favoring and opposing a decision, to subject the president and the nation to a Senate trial and perhaps removal. Congress is structurally designed to consider and reflect the interests of the entire nation. And individual members of Congress must ultimately account for their decisions to their constituents. By contrast, the most important decisions in the process of criminal prosecution would lie in the hands of unaccountable grand and petty jurors, deliberating in secret, perhaps influenced by regional or other concerns, you know, like in Democrat cities. Not shared by the general polity, guided by a prosecutor is only indirectly accountable to the public, not elected, that's for sure. The framers considered who should possess the extraordinary power of deciding whether to initiate a proceeding that could remove the president. Even of only two constitutional officers elected by the people in Seoul, the president and the vice president, and place that responsibility in elected officials of Congress. In other words, you cannot have an unelected prosecutor, an unelected attorney general, an unelected judge, and potentially unelected trial jurors decapitating the executive branch, which was put there by the majority of the American people. It would be inconsistent, they write, with that carefully considered judgment to admit an unelected grand jury and prosecutor effectively to remove a president by bringing criminal charges against him while he remains in office. Well, Mark, that's all well and good. But Donald Trump is not in office. He's a former president. Stick with me. Thus, they write, the constitutional concern is not merely than any particular indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president would unduly impinge upon his ability to perform his public duties, a more general concern is that permitting such criminal process against a sitting president would affect the underlying dynamics of our governmental system of profound and necessarily unpredictable ways by shifting an awesome power to unelected persons lacking an explicit constitutional role vis-a-vis the president. So given the potentially momentous political consequences to the nation at stake, there's a fundamental structural incompatibility between the ordinary application of the criminal process in the office of the president. Say, well, again, Mark, Trump's not president. Stick with me. They also write in part, "We have separately reconsidered whether if the constitutional immunity extended only to criminal prosecution and confinement, but not to indictment itself." What they're saying is, "But still, can you indict a sitting president and then hold the criminal trial process and so forth after he leaves office?" They said, "No, we believe the better view is the one advanced by the department in 1973. A sitting president is immune from indictment as well from further criminal process where the president is concerned. Only the House of Representatives has the authority to bring charges of criminal misconduct through constitutionally sanctioned process of impeachment." All right, plain English. The point is that an indicted president, indicted by unelected individuals within the criminal justice process, has an indictment hanging over his head. That indictment, of course, is problematic when he's dealing with members of Congress, when he's dealing with law enforcement, when he's dealing with foreign nations. And it can have monumental consequences, including unintended consequences. So they say, "No, he cannot have that cloud hanging over his head, okay." Now the Trump case. What about indicting a president after he leaves office for actions you claim he took while president? Well, first of all, what actions are they claiming he took as president? Not insurrection. Despite what the media say, despite what Biden says, in fact, Trump was found not guilty. He was adjudicated under the impeachment process, our constitutional process, and found not guilty. And he's not even charged with insurrection by the rogue prosecutor, Jack Smith. In fact, nobody's been charged with insurrection of anybody who's gone into the Capitol building peacefully and unpeacefully. Nobody, despite all the propaganda you hear from Biden and the others. The Biden administration has created this issue. Why? They have brought four phony charges against Donald Trump, having nothing to do with violence, nothing to do with insurrection or sedition. The Klan Act, two Enron obstruction charges, and a federal contractor's fraud charge. Preposterous, and yet they raise this to a constitutional level that can forever change the presidency. You're president of the United States, and you have to make decisions. Some of them are very difficult. Some of them are decisions of first impression. Some of them are very complex. You have to make these decisions, and many of them are unique. And at that moment, you're going to have to look over your shoulder and wonder if a future administration, particularly administration or the party opposite, is going to indict you after the fact. Presidential immunity is fine while you're president. But if you're president, you have to worry about being indicted when you leave office for your official acts. And in this case, Trump was indicted and found innocent, and in this case, Trump is charged with four charges that have nothing really to do with January 6th, that is, concocted and rewritten statutes that have been applied to January 6th to try and get Trump. Think about the precedent that that sets. No you can't indict a sitting president, they argue. No you can't indict a sitting president and then say, well, we'll carry out the prosecution later because that cloud is still over his head. But this is even worse because it's completely unpredictable. You're a sitting president, you take actions, you believe they're legal. And after the fact, you have an attorney general appointed by the opposite party. You have a prosecutor, a rogue prosecutor like the case of Jack Smith. But you have a president like Biden who keeps urging them to charge Trump that he's committed an insurrection. If you sent that message over and over again publicly, if not otherwise, you will forever destroy the office of the presidency and make decision making almost impossible. And to underscore the point quickly, this Judge Pan, why did I mention her? Because last week she was the most aggressive in questioning Trump's lawyers, the most radical and preposterous. She posits a hypothetical. What if the president of the United States orders the Silkem 6 to assassinate his political opponent? Judges only make such clowness comments with such extreme examples if they are radical and if when it comes to the law and the Constitution, they really don't have a substantive position. That's not the case in front of this court. The case in front of this court is a former president who made decisions that he believed were legal, a former president who was impeached but found innocent, a former president who's been subjected and targeted by the existing administration at the urging of Joe Biden. Whereafter Joe Biden made those demands, both in the New York Times and otherwise, they dust off a Klan statute, an Enron statute and a federal contractor statute to charge him. That's what's before this court. Not a sitting president ordering the execution of a candidate opposite. Her hypothetical underscores the outrageousness of what's going on. And yes, this is crucially important because the January 6th charges should be put to an end.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

>> So big news for former President Trump as the Supreme Court declines to speed up the ruling on Jack Smith's immunity case against him. Trump taking the truth social to celebrate the court's decision saying in part, crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring the sham case. And now they've tried and failed to rush this witch hunt through the courts. So here to react is Fox News contributor and former counselor to President Trump, Kellyanne Conway. Good morning Kellyanne, Merry Christmas to you. Glad to have you with us. >> Good morning Will. >> I'm really fascinated to hear your analysis of this. Every time one of these indictments or one of these rushes to the courts seems to have been pushed by Democrats, it's resulted in a polling bump for Donald Trump. They seem to be banking though Kellyanne on this idea that if they can just get a conviction before election season, that'll flip the polling. Do you believe that's true if one of these four criminal cases did come back in time with a guilty verdict for Donald Trump and he was somehow convicted, set aside the likelihood. But if that did happen, would it flip the polling Kellyanne? >> It wouldn't flip the polling well and thanks for having a Merry Christmas to you and yours and your co-host. It wouldn't flip the polling. You see the Reuters poll when asked what a conviction on any of the criminal counts make you vote for against Donald Trump. A slim majority say they'd vote against him. But when you add Biden to the equation as the Wall Street Journal poll did, Trump's actually beating Biden 46 to 45 if he were to be convicted. Then they asked if Joe Biden were to be impeached, would you vote for Trump or Biden? And the Wall Street Journal poll found that Trump is beating Biden by 5 points 46 to 41. So we can't forget, none of this is in a vacuum. You don't go into the ballot box and it says Trump or not Trump. It says Trump versus Joe Biden. And just as we knew in 2016, and I said many times then I'll say again, you have to set aside everything you think about that individual. And in this case, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' manmade crisis of an administration that has created nothing but hurt and pain domestically at our border, in our communities, our big cities, in your grocery cart, at the gas pump, you name it, and abroad now. We can potentially, people know this, it's a binary choice. It is not a referendum just on Biden. It is a choice between your life with Donald Trump and your life with Joe Biden. Look, this guy, Joe Biden, was vice president for eight years, Will. He was the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I would think a half a century in Washington would at least buy us a little grace and respect around the globe. Instead, we may have one foreign policy entanglement in national security disaster per year of the Biden administration, Afghanistan 2021, Ukraine 2022, Israel 2023. And it could be Taiwan 2020, 2024. President Xi Jinping has the guts to say to Joe Biden's face, P.S., I'm going to reunify. The sin in them for that is invade Taiwan. Just telling you, Joe. So but the other thing is the Biden people have put way too much into the judicial system to try to keep Joe Biden there for a second term. I have a better idea. Why not just pass better policies? If you have a really good record as president, chances are you'll be reelected and they're just not. They can't beat him on policy. It's too late for that, though. Through the judicial system. To your point, though, it's too late. It's too late to change your policy. That's why Trump's ahead. That's why Trump's ahead. So here's what I want to ask you. So that's why. OK, if the legal if law fair doesn't work, that's that that seems to be plan number one law fair. And again, the goal is not to elect Joe Biden. It is to stop Donald Trump. I think they've made that clear. So if law fair isn't going to work in time and then the polling is, as you've laid out and we've seen that Joe Biden can't beat Donald Trump again, if the plan is to stop Donald Trump, when do they move to the option, remove Joe Biden, like find someone else who can beat Donald Trump? Well, speaking of running out of time, I think that's too little too late. They should have done that. If I were a Democrat, I would have gotten rid of Biden and Harris, rolled the dice well and said, we'll probably lose in 2024, but we'll save the party and we'll restore the party that was once known for youth and energy and the future. They had JFK and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, even Jimmy Carter was in his fifties when he in his early fifties when he was elected to the White House. Now they turn around and they get these establishment Loch Ness monster creatures of the Steve C. Swamp like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to lead the party and look where we are. But I think it's too little too late. I think some Democrats like Gavin Newsom would rather this ticket just bleed out. Well, we'll see. I think Joe Biden's bigger play is to have all these third party candidates to help him the way Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton say in 1992. So Perot got zero electoral votes, but he got 19% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton got 68.8% of the electoral votes and only 45% of the popular vote. That would be his play. The problem is he's not the challenger here. He's the incumbent and Perot really helped Bill Clinton and hurt the incumbent. And right now it looks like third party's pulled from Biden, not Trump. So they'd have to find the candidate that would pull from Trump. There you go. There you go. They need to and they haven't yet, but there are lots of billionaires out there, 1100 or so in this country. Will I read that? I mean, if somebody can say I'm worth 7 billion, why not spend one seventh without having fun in the presidential race and the consultants, you know, I call it staff infection. They'll go and take their half a billion and embarrass that person the way Bloomberg's people did. But look, I think if you're Joe Biden, you stick to plan A. Plan A is what you just said. Get Trump through the legal system, and they believe that in the 91 counts, if he's convicted on one game over, if they can send the president to jail, God forbid, for one night, that's enough for them. But it's not going to work, and it's not going to work for another reason. Joe Biden probably won't want to debate Donald Trump. We don't even know if Joe Biden can stand still at a podium for 90 minutes. We have no evidence of that, let alone being able to defend this horrible record. So I think that it's Donald Trump who's saying, look, I want to debate him. Here's what I would do to Iran. Here's what I would do with China. Here's what I would do in the Middle East. I think Joe Biden, they're counting on one of these cases being accelerated, being able to convict the president and saying to people, you don't want a president that's being convicted of a criminal charge. We've never had that in history. I just don't think it's going to be enough. People feel so desperate. Last point. We as voters, we talk about and even complain about what offends us. We vote according to what affects us, and that's really the difference here. People are going to be very self-interested, as well they should be, as voters. That's why Trump's ahead in every swing state.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

The president of the United States has complained that I'm engaging in some sort of political witch hunt. That I've got some personal vendetta against him. That I campaigned against him. That is not true. This illegitimate president who sits in the White House. That president, because he's not my president, he's an illegitimate president. His days are numbered. His days are numbered. We've got to get ready to mobilize and we've got to get ready to agitate and irritate until victory is won, but more importantly, until Trump is defeated. We will all rise up and resist this man. And ultimately, we'll bring him down. This illegitimate president, I'm going to give you the same level of respect that you gave to President Obama. And that is absolutely no respect at all. Donald Trump has got to go, hey, hey! Donald Trump has got to go, hey, hey! Donald Trump has got to go, hey, hey! Donald Trump has got to go, hey, hey! That is not true.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.