‘HOW IRONIC IS THAT?’: Attorney calls out Letitia James over Trump bond

Fox Business
23 Apr 202408:02

Summary

TLDRThe transcript discusses the ongoing legal situation involving Donald Trump, with a focus on the perceived political motivations behind the prosecution. Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member, argues that the case is more about bookkeeping practices and questions the prosecution's legitimacy, given the lead prosecutor's past ties to the Biden administration. Smith expresses concern that the trial could result in a conviction that would unfairly damage Trump's political campaign, likening the situation to Russia Gate. He also addresses the controversy surrounding the $175 million cash bond and the lack of apparent victims in the case. The conversation suggests a broader issue of a two-tiered justice system and the potential implications of the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's presidential immunity.

Takeaways

  • 📜 The discussion revolves around the legal situation of Donald Trump, highlighting the contrast between his current circumstances and those of Joe Biden.
  • 💼 Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member, is invited to share his insights on the case.
  • 🎓 Smith suggests that the case against Trump is primarily about bookkeeping practices and disputes the idea that Trump micro-managed these while in office.
  • 🧐 The jury is composed of sophisticated individuals, including lawyers and professionals familiar with business contracts, which could influence their perception of the case.
  • 🚨 Concerns are raised about the lead prosecutor's past position in Biden's Department of Justice, implying a potential conflict of interest.
  • 🔍 Smith expresses fears that the case could become 'Russia Gate 2.0', with a rushed process leading to a conviction that could affect Trump's campaign irreparably.
  • 📈 The comparison is made to Hillary Clinton's involvement with the Steele Dossier, suggesting a pattern of politically motivated legal actions against Trump.
  • 🏛 The focus is on the impact of the case on Trump's ability to campaign, with the possibility of a trial extending into the summer and potentially hindering his election efforts.
  • 💰 Discussion about the $175 million cash bond posted by Trump in a civil fraud case, and the controversy surrounding its acceptance.
  • 🤝 The irony is noted that while Letitia James argues against Trump doing business in New York, she criticizes a bond posted by an out-of-state company.
  • 👁️‍🗨 Public perception is touched upon, with regular people seeing through what they believe to be a politically motivated legal process and a two-tiered justice system.
  • ⚖️ Upcoming Supreme Court arguments regarding Trump's presidential immunity are anticipated, with implications for the special council's election interference investigation.

Q & A

  • What is the main issue being discussed in the transcript?

    -The main issue discussed is the legal situation involving Donald Trump, including his campaign activities, a courtroom situation, and the potential implications of the ongoing legal proceedings on his political campaign.

  • Who are the key figures mentioned in the transcript?

    -The key figures mentioned are Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Mark Smith (a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member), Maria (the host), Letitia James (New York Attorney General), and Jack Smith (Special Prosecutor).

  • What is the significance of the opening statement in the context of the transcript?

    -The opening statement is significant as it sets the tone for the trial, suggesting that the case against Donald Trump is about bookkeeping practices and not about him micromanaging these practices while in the White House.

  • How does the transcript characterize the jury in the Donald Trump case?

    -The jury is characterized as sophisticated, with members including lawyers, bank presidents, and an engineer, who are familiar with white-collar practices such as nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements.

  • What is the concern expressed about the prosecution's lead in the case against Donald Trump?

    -The concern is that the lead prosecutor used to be the third-highest-ranking person in Biden's Department of Justice, which could be perceived as a conflict of interest and indicative of an ongoing 'lawfare' against President Trump.

  • What is the fear expressed by Mark Smith regarding the outcome of the legal proceedings?

    -Mark Smith fears that the legal proceedings could become 'Russia Gate 2.0,' where Donald Trump could be found guilty due to erroneous decisions by the judge and jury, leading to a conviction that would be too late to appeal before the election, damaging his campaign.

  • How does Maria relate the current situation to the Steele dossier incident?

    -Maria relates it by pointing out that Hillary Clinton's campaign funded the Steele dossier, which was used to investigate Donald Trump and was later found to be false, implying a similar pattern of politically motivated legal actions.

  • What is the significance of the $175 million cash bond in the civil fraud case?

    -The $175 million cash bond is significant as it was posted by Donald Trump's team in the civil fraud case and upheld after new conditions were agreed upon. It also became a point of contention regarding the credibility of the bonding company and the legality of the bond itself.

  • null

    -null

  • What does Mark Smith find 'shocking' about the case?

    -Mark Smith finds it shocking that there is no line of victims asking for money back, implying that the case against Donald Trump is not about justice or making anyone whole but rather about punishing him.

  • How does the transcript suggest the public perceives the legal actions against Donald Trump?

    -The transcript suggests that regular people see through the legal actions as being politically motivated and indicative of a two-tiered system of justice with different applications of the law.

  • What is the potential legal 'nuclear bomb' mentioned in the context of the Supreme Court's decision?

    -The 'nuclear bomb' refers to the question of whether Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has the authority to indict President Trump, given that he has not been appointed by a president nor confirmed by the Senate, which could raise constitutional issues regarding the separation of powers.

  • What is the expected outcome of the Supreme Court hearing on Trump's presidential immunity case?

    -While the exact outcome is not predicted in the transcript, the discussion suggests that the Supreme Court will be making a significant decision regarding the separation of powers and whether presidential immunity applies in the context of the special council's election interference investigation.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Legal Analysis of Trump's Courtroom Situation

The first paragraph discusses the ongoing legal situation involving Donald Trump, contrasting his situation with Joe Biden's political campaign activities. Constitutional attorney Mark Smith is interviewed, providing his perspective that the case against Trump is more about bookkeeping practices than any wrongdoing. Smith emphasizes the sophistication of the Manhattan jury and suggests that Trump's routine business contracts are unlikely to be seen as problematic. He also addresses the prosecution's lead being previously involved with the Biden administration, hinting at a potential conflict of interest. Smith expresses concern that the case could become 'Russia Gate 2.0,' where a conviction could damage Trump's political campaign irreparably due to the timing of the appeal process.

05:00

💵 Trump's Financial Bond and Legal Strategy

The second paragraph focuses on the financial bond posted by Donald Trump in the civil fraud case and the subsequent legal discussions surrounding it. Mark Smith criticizes New York Attorney General Letitia James for her attempt to challenge the credibility of the bonding company and for her contradictory stance on Trump's business in New York. Smith argues that the lack of victims in the case indicates it is politically motivated. The conversation also touches on the public's perception of a two-tiered justice system and the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on Trump's presidential immunity. Smith suggests that the Supreme Court may consider the constitutionality of the appointment of the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, and the potential violation of the separation of powers.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Campaign Trail

The campaign trail refers to the period and the activities involved in which a candidate, such as Joe Biden, campaigns for an election. In the script, it is mentioned that Joe Biden is on the campaign trail, which implies he is actively seeking votes and participating in political events to gain support for his candidacy.

💡Supreme Court Bar Member

A Supreme Court Bar Member is an attorney who is admitted to practice before the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court. Mark Smith is identified as a constitutional attorney and a Supreme Court Bar Member in the script, indicating his qualifications and experience in constitutional law and his right to argue cases before the Supreme Court.

💡Bookkeeping Practices

Bookkeeping practices refer to the systematic recording of financial transactions in a company's or individual's books. In the context of the script, it is suggested that the case against Donald Trump is centered around the bookkeeping practices at Trump Tower, implying that there are allegations of financial mismanagement or irregularities.

💡Nondisclosure Agreements

Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) are legal contracts that establish a confidential relationship between parties, typically used to protect sensitive information. The script mentions that white-collar professionals in Manhattan, including the jury members, are familiar with NDAs, suggesting that such contracts might be a common business practice and may be relevant to the case discussed.

💡Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest arises when a person's professional judgment or actions could be unduly influenced by a personal or financial relationship. The script raises a concern that the lead prosecutor against Donald Trump, who previously held a high-ranking position in Biden's Department of Justice, presents a potential conflict of interest in the case.

💡Russia Gate 2.0

Russia Gate 2.0 is a term used in the script to draw a parallel between the ongoing legal and political challenges faced by Donald Trump and the previous investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, known as Russiagate. It suggests a perception of a politically motivated campaign against Trump.

💡Steele Dossier

The Steele Dossier is a document containing allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election. In the script, it is mentioned as an example of what the speakers believe to be a politically motivated attack against Trump, funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign.

💡County District Attorney

A County District Attorney is a public official who serves as the chief prosecutor in a local jurisdiction, typically at the county level. The script discusses the role of the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, in prosecuting Donald Trump, highlighting the significance of a local prosecutor's actions against a national political figure.

💡Cash Bond

A cash bond is a form of bail that requires the defendant to pay a specified sum of money to the court in order to be released from custody. In the script, the discussion of a $175 million cash bond posted in a civil fraud case against Trump indicates the high stakes and financial implications of the legal proceedings.

💡Two-Tiered System of Justice

A two-tiered system of justice refers to a perceived or actual disparity in how different groups or individuals are treated under the law. The script suggests that there is a perception of unfairness and a double standard in the legal system, particularly in the context of political prosecutions.

💡Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity is a legal doctrine that may protect sitting presidents from certain types of legal proceedings. The script discusses an upcoming Supreme Court hearing on Trump's presidential immunity, which is central to the theme of whether a sitting president can be prosecuted for actions unrelated to their official duties.

Highlights

Donald Trump's opening statement made it clear to the jury that the case is about bookkeeping practices, not him micromanaging them.

The Manhattan jury includes sophisticated individuals like lawyers, bank execs, and an engineer who are familiar with nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements.

Trump's attorney argues that entering a routine contract in NYC is a common business practice and unlikely to be seen as nefarious by the jury.

The lead prosecutor against Trump was previously the #3 person in Biden's DOJ, raising concerns about a conflict of interest.

Trump's attorney fears this could become Russiagate 2.0, with a conviction damaging his 2024 campaign before he can appeal.

Hillary Clinton's campaign funded the discredited Steele dossier used to investigate Trump, drawing comparisons to the current situation.

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is a county-level prosecutor going after a presidential candidate, raising concerns about the legal process.

Trump posted $175 million cash bond in the civil fraud case, which was upheld after new conditions were agreed to.

NY Attorney General Letitia James attacked the credibility of the insurance company that posted the bond, which Trump called an embarrassment.

There are no alleged victims in the Trump fraud trial, leading to accusations that the case is purely political.

Trump's attorney argues that the case is about punishing Trump, not justice or making anyone whole.

Letitia James previously argued Trump should not be allowed to do business in NY, but now complains about the out-of-state bond company.

Many Americans see the case as a two-tiered justice system and purely political in nature.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Trump's presidential immunity case this Thursday.

Trump argues that if he loses presidential immunity, so should Biden.

A key legal question is whether the special prosecutor Jack Smith has the authority to indict a sitting president.

The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on whether indicting Trump violates the separation of powers.

Transcripts

00:01

I'M SITTING HERE.

00:02

THIS WILL GO ON FOR A LONG TIME.

00:04

IT IS UNFAIR.

00:05

MARIA: IT'S TRUE, JOE BIDEN IS

00:07

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND DONALD

00:08

TRUMP IS IN A COURTROOM.

00:09

JOINING ME NOW, MARK SMITH,

00:12

CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY, AND

00:14

SUPREME COURT BAR MEMBER MANY

00:16

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

00:17

ER YOUR REACTION.

00:18

>> I THINK OVERALL YESTERDAY WAS

00:20

A PRETTY GOOD DAY FOR DONALD

00:22

TRUMP IN CERTAIN RESPECTS.

00:23

IF YOU LOOK AT THE OPENING

00:24

STATEMENT WHICH IS NOT

00:27

ARGUMENTATION, BUT IF YOU LOOK

00:28

AT THE OPENING STATEMENT, HE

00:29

MAKES IT CLEAR TO THE JURY THAT

00:31

THIS IS REALLY ABOUT BOOKKEEPING

00:33

PRACTICES AND THE NOTION THAT

00:35

DONALD TRUMP WAS SOMEHOW MICRO

00:39

MANAGING BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES

00:41

OCCURRING AT TRUMP TOWER WHILE

00:43

HE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS AN

00:46

ABSURD PROPOSITION.

00:47

TO ME, AS YOU KNOW MANHATTAN

00:49

QUITE WELL, THIS JURY HAS SOME

00:51

PRETTY SOPHISTICATED PEOPLE ON

00:53

IT ACCORDING TO THEIR

00:55

CREDENTIALS, YOU HAVE LAWYERS,

00:56

BANK PERS, AN ENGINEER.

00:57

THE REASON WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT,

00:59

THE WHITE COLLAR PROFESSIONALS

01:01

IN MANHATTAN ARE FAMILIAR WITH

01:03

THINGS LIKE NONDISCLOSURE

01:05

AGREEMENTS, CONFIDENTIALITY

01:06

AGREEMENTS, SETTLEMENTS.

01:07

THE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP

01:09

ENTERED INTO A ROUTINE CONTRACT

01:11

IN NEW YORK CITY IS THE SORT OF

01:12

THING THAT WILL PROBABLY CAUSE

01:13

THE JURORS TO SAY IS THERE

01:15

ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS,

01:16

BECAUSE MY COMPANY DOES THIS

01:17

EVERY DAY.

01:17

MARIA: WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT

01:20

THE GUY LEADING THE PROSECUTION

01:22

AGAINST DONALD TRUMP USED TO BE

01:23

THE NUMBER THREE PERSON IN

01:25

BIDEN'S DOJ.

01:26

HE WAS THE ASSISTANT AG IN

01:32

BIDEN'S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

01:33

UNTIL HE LEFT AND BECAME AN

01:35

OFFICIAL IN ALVIN BRAGG'S

01:36

OFFICE.

01:36

I MEAN, RIGHT THERE, ISN'T THAT

01:38

A MASSIVE CONFLICT?

01:41

>> WELL, I THINK IT'S TOTALLY

01:43

CONSISTENT, MARIA, WITH THIS

01:44

ONGOING LAWFARE AGAINST

01:49

PRESIDENT TRUMP.

01:50

MY FEAR IS THIS IS GOING TO

01:52

BECOME RUSSIA GATE 2.0.

01:54

WHAT I MOON BY THAT, DONALD

01:56

TRUMP WILL BE FIND GIL HE AT

02:00

GUILTY BY

02:02

SERIOUS OF ERRONEOUS DECISIONS

02:04

BY THE JUDGE AND THE JURY

02:07

INSTRUCTIONS MAY MEAN THE JURY

02:10

HAS NO CHOICE TO CONVICT BECAUSE

02:13

OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS.

02:14

THE APPEAL WILL TAKE PLACE IN

02:16

2025.

02:16

IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR DONALD

02:18

TRUMP.

02:18

THE DAMAGE WILL HAVE BEEN DONE

02:20

TO HIS CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THEY'LL

02:21

BE ABLE TO SAY ON THE CAMPAIGN

02:23

TRAIL HE'S A CONVICTED FELON.

02:25

THAT'S MY FEAR, THAT'S WHERE IT

02:27

GOES, THIS BECOMES RUSSIA GATE

02:29

2.0 AND IT'S TOO LATE FOR DONALD

02:31

TRUMP TO DEFEND HIMSELF BEFORE

02:33

THE ELECTION IF THERE'S A

02:34

CONVICTION.

02:35

MARIA: THERE'S ANOTHER REASON

02:36

THIS IS RUSSIA 2.0.

02:38

IS THE THIS IS WHAT HILLARY

02:39

CLINTON DID.

02:40

LET'S NOT FORGET THE FACT THAT

02:42

THE FORMER DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL

02:44

NOMINEE, HILLARY CLINTON, HER

02:47

CAMPAIGN FUNDED THE STEELE

02:49

DOSSIER AND THAT STEELE DOSSIER

02:51

WAS USED TO INVESTIGATE HER

02:52

POLITICAL OPPONENT, DONALD TRUMP

02:54

AND IT WAS ALL A LIE.

02:56

IT WAS MADE UP.

02:58

SHE HAD NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR

03:00

THAT AND NOW THEY MANGLE THIS

03:02

WHOLE THING AGAINST TRUMP AND

03:04

IT'S THE SAME THING.

03:05

THEY'RE SAYING THAT HE DID IT BE

03:08

SHE REALLY DID IT.

03:09

>> YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT POINT,

03:10

MARIA.

03:11

IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE

03:14

EXPERTS IN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN

03:16

LAWS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS IS

03:17

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE

03:18

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

03:20

THEY LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT

03:21

BOOKKEEPING RECORDS OF DONALD

03:22

TRUMP AND THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS

03:24

NO THERE THERE AND WHAT YOU HAVE

03:25

HERE WITH ALVIN BRAGG, THIS I

03:27

THINK IS OFTEN LOST ON PEOPLE,

03:29

MANHATTAN IS A COUNTY.

03:30

THIS IS A COUNTY DISTRICT

03:32

ATTORNEY.

03:33

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF COUNTIES

03:34

THEY THE UNITED STATES.

03:34

THE FACT YOU HAVE A SINGLE

03:36

DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN ONE COUNTY

03:37

IN THIS COUNTRY IS REALLY

03:39

HOLDING UP PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM

03:41

BEING ABLE TO CAMPAIGN FOR THE

03:42

NEXT FOUR TO SIX WEEKS AND

03:44

HEAVEN FORBID THAT THIS JURY

03:46

GETS HUNG WHICH MEANS THEY WILL

03:48

RETRY THE CASE OVER THE SUMMER

03:49

AND NOW DONALD TRUMP WILL HAVE

03:50

TO SPEND ANOTHER FOUR TO SIX

03:52

WEEKS IN A COURTROOM IN

03:53

MANHATTAN IN THE SUMMER OF 2024

03:54

BEFORE THE ELECTION.

03:56

IT'S JUST SHOCKING.

03:57

AGAIN, THIS IS A COUNTY

03:59

PROSECUTOR GOING AFTER THE

04:00

PRIMARY CANDIDATE FOR THE

04:01

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

04:02

IT'S A SHOCKING EXAMPLE OF LAW

04:05

FARE IN MY OPINION.

04:06

MARIA: ANOTHER SHOCKING EXAMPLE

04:08

OF IT -- BY THE WAY, THE

04:10

CLINTONS SAID THE STEELE DOSSIER

04:11

WAS A LEGAL EXPENSE.

04:12

THERE YOU GO.

04:13

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

04:14

THE OTHER SHOCKING THING ABOUT

04:15

THIS WHOLE THING WAS THE OTHER

04:16

DAY WHEN WE HAD TO ACTUALLY

04:19

THINK ABOUT AND DIGEST LETITIA

04:22

JAMES' CLAIM THAT PUTTING

04:25

$175 MILLION CASH BOND WAS

04:28

ACTUALLY WRONG AND COULD NOT BE

04:29

USED.

04:29

NOW, THIS WAS A VICTORY THAT

04:30

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD,

04:33

$175 MILLION BOND IN THE CIVIL

04:34

FRAUD CASE WAS UPHELD YESTERDAY

04:36

AFTER A HIS TEAM AGREED TO NEW

04:38

CONDITIONS SET BY THE AG'S

04:40

OFFICE.

04:41

LETITIA JAMES WENT AFTER THE

04:42

INSURANCE COMPANY'S CREDIBILITY

04:44

FOR POSTING THE BOND.

04:45

I MEAN, IT'S EQUALLY SHOCKING

04:47

HERE.

04:47

HERE'S WHAT TRUMP SAID ABOUT

04:49

THAT.

04:50

WATCH.

04:51

>> THE CASH WE PUT UP, ALL

04:53

CASH, VERY FEW PEOPLE CAN DO

04:55

THAT AND THE DEAL WAS APPROVED

04:58

WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

05:00

SHE JUST TRIED TO EMBARRASS

05:01

EVERYBODY AND SHE TRIED TO

05:03

EMBARRASS A VERY GOOD BONDING

05:04

COMPANY BY SAYING THEY WEREN'T

05:09

CREDIT-WORTHY.

05:09

MARIA: MARK, YOUR REACTION?

05:12

>> WELL, WHAT'S REALLY SHOCKING

05:13

HERE, AND MARIA, YOU COVERED

05:15

SOME OF THE LARGEST FINANCIAL

05:16

FRAUD CASES IN AMERICAN HISTORY,

05:18

RIGHT AND WHAT'S NOT HERE,

05:20

WHAT'S NOT HERE IS A LINE OF

05:23

VICTIMS WITH THEIR HAND OUT,

05:25

ASKING FOR MONEY BACK FROM AN

05:26

ALLEGED FRAUD SO THE FACT THAT

05:28

LETITIA JAMES IS CONCERNED ABOUT

05:30

COLLECTING THIS MONEY FOR

05:32

LITERALLY NOBODY BECAUSE THERE

05:33

ARE NO CRIME VICTIMS ASSOCIATED

05:35

WITH THE TRUMP FRAUD TRIAL, GOES

05:37

TO SHOW IT'S NOT ABOUT JUSTICE,

05:39

NOT ABOUT MAKING ANYBODY WHOLE

05:41

THAT WAS PUNISHED OR DAMAGED BY

05:43

VIRTUE OF FRAUD, THIS IS ALL

05:45

ABOUT PUNISHING ONE MAN, DONALD

05:46

TRUMP.

05:46

AND OF COURSE WHAT'S ALSO

05:48

IRONIC, KEEP IN MIND THAT

05:49

LETITIA JAMES' ARGUMENT WAS THAT

05:51

SHE DIDN'T WANT DONALD TRUMP OR

05:53

THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION TO DO

05:54

BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITH NEW

05:56

YORKERS SO NOW SHE'S COMPLAINING

05:58

THEY WENT OUT AND GOT A DENVER,

06:02

CALIFORNIA BASED COMPANY TO POST

06:04

THE BOND AND SHE'S COMPLAINING

06:05

THE COMPANY DOESN'T INTEREST

06:06

ENOUGH RELATIONS WITH NEW YORK

06:07

TO BE ABLE TO POST THE BOND.

06:09

SHE SAID TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE

06:10

ABLE TO DO BUSINESS WITH PEOPLE

06:12

IN NEW YORK.

06:13

HOW IRONIC IS THAT.

06:14

MARIA: REGULAR PEOPLE SEE

06:15

THROUGH ALL OF THIS.

06:16

THEY UNDERSTAND THIS IS ALL

06:17

POLITICS.

06:18

THEY SEE THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS

06:21

TWO TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE,

06:23

TWO DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF

06:24

THE LAW.

06:24

WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS ON

06:26

THURSDAY.

06:26

THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR

06:27

ARGUMENTS ON TRUMP'S

06:28

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CASE.

06:30

THAT TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS

06:31

IN FACT IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION

06:33

FROM SPECIAL COUNCIL JACK

06:35

SMITH'S ELECTION INTERFERENCE

06:36

INVESTIGATION.

06:37

TRUMP POSTED THIS ON TRUTH

06:38

SOCIAL.

06:38

IF THEY TAKE AWAY MY

06:40

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY THEY TAKE

06:41

AWAY CROOKED JOE BIDEN'S

06:46

PRESIDENTAL IMMUNITY.

06:47

HOW DO YOU THINK THIS PLAYS OUT.

06:48

>> THERE'S A LEGAL NUCLEAR BOMB

06:50

IN THIS CASE FOR THE SUPREME

06:51

COURT, THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT

06:52

JACK SMITH THE SPECIAL

06:54

PROSECUTOR HA HAS AUTHORITY TO

06:56

BRING THE INDICTMENT OR THE

06:57

INDICTMENT IN FLORIDA.

06:58

SPECIFICALLY, UNDER THE

06:59

CONSTITUTION, IF YOU ARE WHAT'S

07:01

KNOWN AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER OF

07:02

THE UNITED STATES, YOU HAVE TO

07:03

BE APPOINTED TO THAT POSITION BY

07:05

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

07:05

STATES AND YOU HAVE TO BE

07:07

CONFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES

07:09

SENATE.

07:10

JACK SMITH IS FUNCTIONING AS IF

07:11

HE'S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

07:12

UNITED STATES BUT HE'S NEVER

07:14

BEEN APPOINTED BY ANY PRESIDENT

07:15

FOR ANY JOB AND CONFIRMED BY THE

07:20

SENATE FOR ANY JOB.

07:21

WATCH FOR THE ARGUMENT ABOUT

07:22

WHETHER OR NOT JACK SMITH HAS

07:24

THE AUTHORITY TO INDICT

07:25

PRESIDENT TRUMP.

07:25

AS TO THE IMMUNITY QUESTION,

07:27

PRESIDENTS HAVE IMMUNITY FOR A

07:28

REASON.

07:29

WE HAVE A SEPARATION OF POURS

07:30

HERE.

07:31

YOU DON'T WANT ARTICLE 3 COURTS

07:33

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

07:34

OVERSEEING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE

07:36

PRESIDENT ARTICLE 2 PRESIDENCY

07:38

HERE AND THERE IS A REAL CONCERN

07:39

BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT I SUS

07:41

BE EXPECT TO MAKE SURE THE LINES

07:44

BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT BRANCHES

07:46

OF GOVERNMENT ARE NOT VIOLATED

07:47

IN SUCH A WAY THAT VIOLATES THE

07:52

SEPARATION OF POWERS.

07:53

THAT WILL BE THE BIG DECISION ON

07:56

THURSDAY.

07:56

MARIA: DO YOU THINK WE'LL GET

07:58

THE DECISION ON THURSDAY.

07:58

>> I THINK THEY'LL ISSUE YOU