Gregg Jarrett and Elizabeth MacDonald—Thank you to both! Letitia James is a corrupt politician using her office for political gain, although her run for Governor was not exactly successful—She polled at close to ZERO, and went back to the AG’s office and “Getting Trump.”
Let's bring in Fox News legal analyst. He's Greg Jarrett. Greg, this story. Greg, you have an excellent, sharp legal mind.
I'm not just saying that to blow smoke. It's true. You've looked at this New York fraud case against former President Trump. Does it violate Trump's constitutional due process rights and rights to a jury?
Oh, I think it absolutely does. This executive law, Liz, was intended for consumer fraud cases impacting the general public.
Here, the public wasn't impacted at all. Indeed, no party was harmed, which is normally an element of proof in fraud cases. The banks
made more than $100 million in profits
from the loans to Trump.
So this statute, as it's being used by Letitia James is really turning the law on its head. It gives her
unfettered authority to pursue Trump for fraud without actually
having to prove the basic elements of fraud demanded by law. And that, as you say, deprives the defendant of a right to fairly defend himself, and it also deprives him of a right to a trial by a jury,
both of which are due process violations
under the Fifth, the Seventh, and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
But let me point out 1 other argument here. It's also unconstitutional,
Liz, in a different way. The judge's order
of forced dissolution of any company that Trump has an interest in, well, what's that going to do? It's going to adversely
impact
every other business partner
and entity associated with Trump that are not part of this case. They weren't even sued. They'll be harmed
with no notice,
no right to defend their interests. How is that
consumer protection? It's not, it's consumer punishment. This isn't equitable
relief, which the statute calls for. It's a severe penalty
where trial by jury rights are utterly abandoned. You know, the New York law this case is brought under, let's show the viewer, it does not require a victim, no need to prove intent to defraud,
but the judge can force Trump to pay a quarter billion dollars and lose all his properties. You know, David Asim points out the very definition of fraud in the dictionary includes intent.
But this law is so over-broad, you know, and by the way, the attorney general campaigned on going after Trump, calling him a, quote, con man, saying, I'm gonna direct a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings. But you know, the thing is, Greg, you make important points here. Judge Engeron, he acknowledged no victim of Trump's fraud lodged a complaint or otherwise claimed damages.
Deutsche Bank didn't file for damages.
Usually a murder conviction requires that the victim's body be found. And there's also this. I got to say, in this point, it's important.
The judge's order cites that courts have ruled that a state has a quasi-sovereign
interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.
The New York Attorney General, Greg, is not the sole guardian of the marketplace. The SEC is in there, the Federal and State Bank and insurance regulators.
They've got oversight, too.
Yeah,
all excellent points. They're all quite valid that you just made, Liz. Look, this case
should never have been filed. It's a classic case of a political
persecution
under the guise
of a legitimate
prosecution.
And in my judgment, it's illegitimate
for the reasons I've stated and you've stated, Letitia James, you'll recall, ran for office on the campaign promise of quote unquote getting Trump for something, anything.
I don't have it, but I'll find it. In other words, she prejudged
a case
of which she had no knowledge. She hadn't even opened the files yet on the investigation
that was pending.
That is a terrible violation of the canons of ethics
governing prosecutors.
In my judgment, she ought to be severely sanctioned, if not disbarred. She won't be because the far-left liberal New York bar
is cheering her on
instead of doing their job.
And the judge
seems equally biased in this case. You know, he endorsed this pronouncement
that Mar-a-Lago
is worth a paltry 18 million. I mean, you can't buy a porta potty in Palm Beach for that. And the real estate experts say, are you kidding the land alone, 17
acres,
in this exclusive
sought-after
enclave is worth $500
million.
So you know this is using the reigns of government power
for political persecution
against Trump. Got it. Greg Jarrett, thanks for coming on the show. It's good to see you.
