‘HOW IRONIC IS THAT?’: Attorney calls out Letitia James over Trump bond
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
📚 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.
💵 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
💡Supreme Court Bar Member
💡Bookkeeping Practices
💡Nondisclosure Agreements
💡Conflict of Interest
💡Russia Gate 2.0
💡Steele Dossier
💡County District Attorney
💡Cash Bond
💡Two-Tiered System of Justice
💡Presidential Immunity
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
I'M SITTING HERE.
THIS WILL GO ON FOR A LONG TIME.
IT IS UNFAIR.
MARIA: IT'S TRUE, JOE BIDEN IS
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND DONALD
TRUMP IS IN A COURTROOM.
JOINING ME NOW, MARK SMITH,
CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY, AND
SUPREME COURT BAR MEMBER MANY
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
ER YOUR REACTION.
>> I THINK OVERALL YESTERDAY WAS
A PRETTY GOOD DAY FOR DONALD
TRUMP IN CERTAIN RESPECTS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE OPENING
STATEMENT WHICH IS NOT
ARGUMENTATION, BUT IF YOU LOOK
AT THE OPENING STATEMENT, HE
MAKES IT CLEAR TO THE JURY THAT
THIS IS REALLY ABOUT BOOKKEEPING
PRACTICES AND THE NOTION THAT
DONALD TRUMP WAS SOMEHOW MICRO
MANAGING BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES
OCCURRING AT TRUMP TOWER WHILE
HE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS AN
ABSURD PROPOSITION.
TO ME, AS YOU KNOW MANHATTAN
QUITE WELL, THIS JURY HAS SOME
PRETTY SOPHISTICATED PEOPLE ON
IT ACCORDING TO THEIR
CREDENTIALS, YOU HAVE LAWYERS,
BANK PERS, AN ENGINEER.
THE REASON WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT,
THE WHITE COLLAR PROFESSIONALS
IN MANHATTAN ARE FAMILIAR WITH
THINGS LIKE NONDISCLOSURE
AGREEMENTS, CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENTS, SETTLEMENTS.
THE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP
ENTERED INTO A ROUTINE CONTRACT
IN NEW YORK CITY IS THE SORT OF
THING THAT WILL PROBABLY CAUSE
THE JURORS TO SAY IS THERE
ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS,
BECAUSE MY COMPANY DOES THIS
EVERY DAY.
MARIA: WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THE GUY LEADING THE PROSECUTION
AGAINST DONALD TRUMP USED TO BE
THE NUMBER THREE PERSON IN
BIDEN'S DOJ.
HE WAS THE ASSISTANT AG IN
BIDEN'S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
UNTIL HE LEFT AND BECAME AN
OFFICIAL IN ALVIN BRAGG'S
OFFICE.
I MEAN, RIGHT THERE, ISN'T THAT
A MASSIVE CONFLICT?
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S TOTALLY
CONSISTENT, MARIA, WITH THIS
ONGOING LAWFARE AGAINST
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
MY FEAR IS THIS IS GOING TO
BECOME RUSSIA GATE 2.0.
WHAT I MOON BY THAT, DONALD
TRUMP WILL BE FIND GIL HE AT
GUILTY BY
SERIOUS OF ERRONEOUS DECISIONS
BY THE JUDGE AND THE JURY
INSTRUCTIONS MAY MEAN THE JURY
HAS NO CHOICE TO CONVICT BECAUSE
OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS.
THE APPEAL WILL TAKE PLACE IN
2025.
IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR DONALD
TRUMP.
THE DAMAGE WILL HAVE BEEN DONE
TO HIS CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THEY'LL
BE ABLE TO SAY ON THE CAMPAIGN
TRAIL HE'S A CONVICTED FELON.
THAT'S MY FEAR, THAT'S WHERE IT
GOES, THIS BECOMES RUSSIA GATE
2.0 AND IT'S TOO LATE FOR DONALD
TRUMP TO DEFEND HIMSELF BEFORE
THE ELECTION IF THERE'S A
CONVICTION.
MARIA: THERE'S ANOTHER REASON
THIS IS RUSSIA 2.0.
IS THE THIS IS WHAT HILLARY
CLINTON DID.
LET'S NOT FORGET THE FACT THAT
THE FORMER DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL
NOMINEE, HILLARY CLINTON, HER
CAMPAIGN FUNDED THE STEELE
DOSSIER AND THAT STEELE DOSSIER
WAS USED TO INVESTIGATE HER
POLITICAL OPPONENT, DONALD TRUMP
AND IT WAS ALL A LIE.
IT WAS MADE UP.
SHE HAD NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
THAT AND NOW THEY MANGLE THIS
WHOLE THING AGAINST TRUMP AND
IT'S THE SAME THING.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT HE DID IT BE
SHE REALLY DID IT.
>> YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT POINT,
MARIA.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE
EXPERTS IN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
LAWS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS IS
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,
THEY LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT
BOOKKEEPING RECORDS OF DONALD
TRUMP AND THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS
NO THERE THERE AND WHAT YOU HAVE
HERE WITH ALVIN BRAGG, THIS I
THINK IS OFTEN LOST ON PEOPLE,
MANHATTAN IS A COUNTY.
THIS IS A COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF COUNTIES
THEY THE UNITED STATES.
THE FACT YOU HAVE A SINGLE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN ONE COUNTY
IN THIS COUNTRY IS REALLY
HOLDING UP PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM
BEING ABLE TO CAMPAIGN FOR THE
NEXT FOUR TO SIX WEEKS AND
HEAVEN FORBID THAT THIS JURY
GETS HUNG WHICH MEANS THEY WILL
RETRY THE CASE OVER THE SUMMER
AND NOW DONALD TRUMP WILL HAVE
TO SPEND ANOTHER FOUR TO SIX
WEEKS IN A COURTROOM IN
MANHATTAN IN THE SUMMER OF 2024
BEFORE THE ELECTION.
IT'S JUST SHOCKING.
AGAIN, THIS IS A COUNTY
PROSECUTOR GOING AFTER THE
PRIMARY CANDIDATE FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
IT'S A SHOCKING EXAMPLE OF LAW
FARE IN MY OPINION.
MARIA: ANOTHER SHOCKING EXAMPLE
OF IT -- BY THE WAY, THE
CLINTONS SAID THE STEELE DOSSIER
WAS A LEGAL EXPENSE.
THERE YOU GO.
IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
THE OTHER SHOCKING THING ABOUT
THIS WHOLE THING WAS THE OTHER
DAY WHEN WE HAD TO ACTUALLY
THINK ABOUT AND DIGEST LETITIA
JAMES' CLAIM THAT PUTTING
$175 MILLION CASH BOND WAS
ACTUALLY WRONG AND COULD NOT BE
USED.
NOW, THIS WAS A VICTORY THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD,
$175 MILLION BOND IN THE CIVIL
FRAUD CASE WAS UPHELD YESTERDAY
AFTER A HIS TEAM AGREED TO NEW
CONDITIONS SET BY THE AG'S
OFFICE.
LETITIA JAMES WENT AFTER THE
INSURANCE COMPANY'S CREDIBILITY
FOR POSTING THE BOND.
I MEAN, IT'S EQUALLY SHOCKING
HERE.
HERE'S WHAT TRUMP SAID ABOUT
THAT.
WATCH.
>> THE CASH WE PUT UP, ALL
CASH, VERY FEW PEOPLE CAN DO
THAT AND THE DEAL WAS APPROVED
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SHE JUST TRIED TO EMBARRASS
EVERYBODY AND SHE TRIED TO
EMBARRASS A VERY GOOD BONDING
COMPANY BY SAYING THEY WEREN'T
CREDIT-WORTHY.
MARIA: MARK, YOUR REACTION?
>> WELL, WHAT'S REALLY SHOCKING
HERE, AND MARIA, YOU COVERED
SOME OF THE LARGEST FINANCIAL
FRAUD CASES IN AMERICAN HISTORY,
RIGHT AND WHAT'S NOT HERE,
WHAT'S NOT HERE IS A LINE OF
VICTIMS WITH THEIR HAND OUT,
ASKING FOR MONEY BACK FROM AN
ALLEGED FRAUD SO THE FACT THAT
LETITIA JAMES IS CONCERNED ABOUT
COLLECTING THIS MONEY FOR
LITERALLY NOBODY BECAUSE THERE
ARE NO CRIME VICTIMS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE TRUMP FRAUD TRIAL, GOES
TO SHOW IT'S NOT ABOUT JUSTICE,
NOT ABOUT MAKING ANYBODY WHOLE
THAT WAS PUNISHED OR DAMAGED BY
VIRTUE OF FRAUD, THIS IS ALL
ABOUT PUNISHING ONE MAN, DONALD
TRUMP.
AND OF COURSE WHAT'S ALSO
IRONIC, KEEP IN MIND THAT
LETITIA JAMES' ARGUMENT WAS THAT
SHE DIDN'T WANT DONALD TRUMP OR
THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION TO DO
BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITH NEW
YORKERS SO NOW SHE'S COMPLAINING
THEY WENT OUT AND GOT A DENVER,
CALIFORNIA BASED COMPANY TO POST
THE BOND AND SHE'S COMPLAINING
THE COMPANY DOESN'T INTEREST
ENOUGH RELATIONS WITH NEW YORK
TO BE ABLE TO POST THE BOND.
SHE SAID TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO DO BUSINESS WITH PEOPLE
IN NEW YORK.
HOW IRONIC IS THAT.
MARIA: REGULAR PEOPLE SEE
THROUGH ALL OF THIS.
THEY UNDERSTAND THIS IS ALL
POLITICS.
THEY SEE THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS
TWO TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE,
TWO DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF
THE LAW.
WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS ON
THURSDAY.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR
ARGUMENTS ON TRUMP'S
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CASE.
THAT TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS
IN FACT IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION
FROM SPECIAL COUNCIL JACK
SMITH'S ELECTION INTERFERENCE
INVESTIGATION.
TRUMP POSTED THIS ON TRUTH
SOCIAL.
IF THEY TAKE AWAY MY
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY THEY TAKE
AWAY CROOKED JOE BIDEN'S
PRESIDENTAL IMMUNITY.
HOW DO YOU THINK THIS PLAYS OUT.
>> THERE'S A LEGAL NUCLEAR BOMB
IN THIS CASE FOR THE SUPREME
COURT, THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT
JACK SMITH THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR HA HAS AUTHORITY TO
BRING THE INDICTMENT OR THE
INDICTMENT IN FLORIDA.
SPECIFICALLY, UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, IF YOU ARE WHAT'S
KNOWN AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER OF
THE UNITED STATES, YOU HAVE TO
BE APPOINTED TO THAT POSITION BY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND YOU HAVE TO BE
CONFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES
SENATE.
JACK SMITH IS FUNCTIONING AS IF
HE'S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES BUT HE'S NEVER
BEEN APPOINTED BY ANY PRESIDENT
FOR ANY JOB AND CONFIRMED BY THE
SENATE FOR ANY JOB.
WATCH FOR THE ARGUMENT ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT JACK SMITH HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO INDICT
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AS TO THE IMMUNITY QUESTION,
PRESIDENTS HAVE IMMUNITY FOR A
REASON.
WE HAVE A SEPARATION OF POURS
HERE.
YOU DON'T WANT ARTICLE 3 COURTS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OVERSEEING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE
PRESIDENT ARTICLE 2 PRESIDENCY
HERE AND THERE IS A REAL CONCERN
BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT I SUS
BE EXPECT TO MAKE SURE THE LINES
BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT BRANCHES
OF GOVERNMENT ARE NOT VIOLATED
IN SUCH A WAY THAT VIOLATES THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS.
THAT WILL BE THE BIG DECISION ON
THURSDAY.
MARIA: DO YOU THINK WE'LL GET
THE DECISION ON THURSDAY.
>> I THINK THEY'LL ISSUE YOU
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
Judge Luttig: The Supreme Court just handed a ‘very difficult decision’ to Jack Smith
Judge denies Letitia James' effort to reject Trump's $175M bond
Speaker Johnson makes bold prediction after Trump conviction
Jack Smith STRIKES BACK at Supreme Court with BIG Announcement
George Conway Explains: SCOTUS order could be BAD NEWS for Trump | George Conway Explains It All
Alert: Trump’s ‘license to kill or coup’ hits SCOTUS - See Ari Melber’s critical breakdown