Search Posts

University law professor Jonathan Charlie. Jonathan, your thoughts as we count down until Monday? Well, you know what's interesting, Brian, is that you would think that this monitoring would have been the entirety of the remedy. If the court was really concerned about whether Trump would be honest in future dealings, they could have just imposed a monitor. Instead, he imposes this ridiculous amount of penalty on Trump. He could have picked any figure because none of us could make sense out of this. He could have said a trillion dollars, and he just sits back and watches the defendant scramble to have to sell off properties in order to protect properties. This is going to eventually have to go to some judge who's going to say enough. This really shocks the conscience. You should not have to sell off your property at fire sale prices in order just to get anyone to look at the judgment of this one judge. So what people should understand, it gets confusing, is that this is the judge says he owes $454 million because he was not candid with banks and insurance companies. Okay, fine. But he does, "I don't trust that judgment. I want this appeal." They said, "Okay." But in the meantime, to appeal it, we're going to make you come up with $454 million in a bond, and the bond companies don't want to lend it because you need cash in order to get a bond, and he has stuff. He has real estate. Real estate can't be just collateral unless it's liquidated. So all this is an impossible scenario. So now it's up to a judge to agree with most people who are logical and say, "We've got to knock this down to something," and they're asking for $100 million. Do you think he has a shot to getting the majority of these five paneled judge to say that? I hope he does, because what's happening to the New York legal system is truly alarming. This was one of the premier systems in the world for businesses, and now people are fleeing New York. They see what's happening here. And this is a judge who could have resolved this. He could have come up with an easy solution. This is just because of Trump's portfolio being real estate. It's the nature of his business. But those are fixed assets. Trump Towers isn't going to go anywhere. He's not going to abscond with it. They could take the $100 million that he's offered and then take other agreements that he won't sell or change his interest in these fixed assets. Anyone looking at that would say, "Well, yeah, that seems fair." But that's not the profile of this case. This judge has done nothing to introduce any element of fairness through this. And so you're really between a rock and a hard place if you're Donald Trump. You've got a portfolio with real estate, and people don't take real estate in order to float a bond. And as Mark Cuban said, when you're in a zero interest rate environment, very few people keep cash around. Smart investors invest it in things, and he is not a fan of Donald Trump. So let's move on and talk about your column on foxnews.com. You looked at what was happening in the case with Hunter Biden. You saw Bob Olinsky's testimony. You saw Dan Goldman ridiculously try to engage him, get the answers he didn't want, and try to move on. You saw AOC make incredible, outrageous accusations. And Bob Olinsky knocked that down, too. And you've come to this conclusion on one of the lines that really stood out. As a lifelong Democrat from a politically active Chicago family, I can no longer recognize the party from my youth. We once stood for something other than the next election or hating others. Can you expand on that? Well, I don't know how we got to this point as the Democratic Party. This is a party that is now actively supporting censorship and blacklisting. It's a party that has supported ballot cleansing and court packing. It's a party where you've got people like former Senator McCaskill calling witnesses Putin lovers because they're appearing against the Biden administration. You have Democratic members who are saying that you are a Russian fellow traveler, if you raise questions related to the Biden corruption scandal. And at some point you have to ask, well, what have we become? I mean, what do we stand for? It's unrecognizable for many of us who have been lifelong Democrats. We used to stand for something. And now it just appears that it's about the next election or it's about hating Trump more than loving other values like free speech. And I think free speech is the thing that has caused many of us, so I guess you are of the old timers, that have really have a sense of alarm. The Democratic Party used to treat free speech as one of the defining values of the party. The Democratic Party is now an anti-free speech party. It is actively pursuing censorship, blacklisting, funding groups to go after even the revenue of sites that they don't like on the right. And so at the end of all of this, when you secure the election that you're fighting so hard to win, what exactly will you be at that point other than victorious? Very well said, even better here than you put it in your column. We'll see what happens. I know a lot of people are busy in the afternoon, but if you can go back and look at some of this testimony, I'll probably replay it on C-SPAN. You're not going to believe some of the interactions and how nobody covers Bob Olinsky. Jonathan, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.