‘Absolute gross miscarriage of justice’: Trump bond lowered by $289 million with more time

WANT TO VERY QUICKLY AND WE'LL

TALK ABOUT THE FANI WILLIS SOUND

AND MORE IN JUST A MINUTE, BUT

I'M BEING TOLD RIGHT NOW THAT

THE -- THAT BOND, THAT HALF A

BILLION DOLLARS BOND THAT HAD

BEEN SET AND THAT THE FORMER

PRESIDENT HAD TO DEAL WITH TODAY

HAS NOW BEEN REDUCED TO

$175 MILLION

$175 MILLION.

SO THAT 465 MILLION PLUS BOND

THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT OR HAS

NOW BEEN REDUCED AS OF RIGHT

NOW, WE'RE GETTING THIS BREAKING

NEWS.

THIS APPEALS COURT ALLOWING THE

FORMER PRESIDENT TO POST A

SMALLER BOND OF $175 MILLION

WITHIN TEN DAYS.

DAVID, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

>> JOSE, IT TELLS ME SOMETHING

THAT YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT

BEFORE, AND THAT IS THE PLAYBOOK

IS DIFFERENT FOR FORMER

PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE WERE LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT

THIS THE LAST TIME YOU AND I

DISCUSSED THIS CASE.

I EXPECT FOR THEM TO DO

SOMETHING FOR HIM THAT'S

DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU SEE FOR

EVERYBODY ELSE WHEN THEY GO TO

COURT.

SO HERE HE'S GIVEN MORE TIME TO

PAY LESS MONEY.

THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

>> AND TRISTAN, SO WHAT DOES

THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE IN THE

COURTROOM THERE?

>> DO WE EVEN NEED TO ASK?

HONESTLY, THIS IS SO INFURIATING

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO DO.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I CARE WHAT

THE PROCESS IS THAT THESE JUDGES

ARE ARRIVING AT.

WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S FLAWED.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT MUCH.

DAVID PUT IT WELL.

THIS IS A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR

THIS PERSON.

WE HAVE DECIDED THAT HE GETS HIS

OWN PRIVATE COURT OF JUSTICE.

HE HAS A PRIVATE PLANE.

HE HAS PRIVATE CLUBS THAT HE

LIVES IN.

HE BASICALLY HAS FASHIONED

HIMSELF HIS OWN PRIVATE MILITIA

TO TRY TO TAKE OVER THE CAPITOL.

NOW HE'S GETTING HIS OWN PRIVATE

SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.

THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY.

IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN FOR ANYBODY

ELSE, ANYBODY ELSE IT WOULD BE

LIKE, SORRY, BUDDY, YOU LOST.

PAY UP.

FOR HIM HE GETS HIS OWN SET OF

RULES.

>> LEGALLY, TRISTAN, HOW IS THAT

DONE?

>> WE JUST SAW IT.

THEY JUST DECIDED THAT THEY

JUST -- YOU KNOW, THE APPELLATE

COURT HAS NOW JUST DECIDED

THEY'RE GOING TO SWOOP IN AND

JUST CHANGE IT, AND THAT'S IT,

AND NOW THE A.G.'S OFFICE CAN

NOW TRY TO GO UP ABOVE THEM, I

BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW

WHAT THE DETAILS ARE BECAUSE YOU

JUST TOLD US.

I'M GUESSING THIS IS COMING FROM

THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, APPELLATE

DIVISION FIST DEPARTMENT, THAT'S

THE INTERMEDIATE COURT HERE IN

NEW YORK THAT WOULD BE ISSUING A

DECISION HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A REMEDY

FOR THE A.G.'S OFFICE TO GO UP

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH

IS OUR HIGH COURT HERE IN NEW

YORK AND TRY TO GET THEM TO

BASICALLY COUNTERMAND THIS

ORDER, BUT IN MY VIEW, THIS IS

WITHOUT KNOWING MORE, UNLESS

THERE'S SOME SORT OF OTHER

EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT

WE'RE GOING TO LEARN HERE, THIS

APPEARS TO BE AN ABSOLUTE GROSS

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

>> SO LET'S GO INTO IT BECAUSE

I'M GETTING RIGHT NOW AND THIS

LITERALLY IS JUST COMING ACROSS,

SO THIS IS INDEED THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, AND THERE

ARE FIVE PROTECT,ESENT, INCLUDIN

PRESIDING JUDGE DIANE RENWICK,

I'M JUST GETTING IT RIGHT NOW.

WE CAN KIND OF LEARN IT TOGETHER

AS WE SEE IT.

IT SAYS THE APPEALS HAVING BEEN

TAKEN TO THIS COURT FROM AN

ORDER THE SUPREME COURT NEW YORK

COUNTY ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 16th

AND DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS HAVING

MOVED TO CPLR 5519, THE STATE

ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER AND

ENSURING JUDGMENT, UPON READING

AND FILING THE PAPERS WITH

RESPECT TO THE MOTION AND

DELIBERATION T ISIT IS ORDERED T

THE MOTION IS GRANTED THE EXTENT

OF STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF THESE

PORTIONS OF THE JUDGMENT

ORDERING DISGORGEMENT TO THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 464 MILLION,

POSTING WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE

DATE OF THIS ORDER AN

UNDERTAKING IN THE AMOUNT OF

$175 MILLION PERMANENTLY BARRING

DEFENDANTS WEISSELBERG AND

McCONNEY FROM SERVING IN THE

FINANCIAL CONTROL, ET CETERA,

AND ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT

WE HAVE LEARNED SINCE ABOUT

WEISSELBERG AND McCONNEY NOT

BEING ABLE TO SERVE FOR THREE

YEARS.

BARRING DONALD J. TRUMP AND THE

CORPORATE DEFENDANTS FROM

APPLYING FOR LOANS IN NEW YORK

FOR THREE YEARS, ET CETERA.

THIS MOTION IS OTHERWISE DENIED

INCLUDING TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS

A STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF

PORTIONS OF THE JUDGMENT.

SO IT WAS JUST DECIDED RIGHT

NOW, DAVID, AND IT WAS JUST --

HOW DO THEY COME UP WITH A

NUMBER OF 175 FROM 476,500

MILLION TO $175 MILLION?

HOW DOES -- HOW DOES THIS

HAPPEN?

>> THEY DON'T GIVE US THE

BENEFIT OF THEIR CALCULUS IN

THEIR ORDER, I WAS SITTING HERE

TRIELG

TRYING TO PROCESS THAT MYSELF.

HERE'S SOMETHING I CANNOT STRESS

ENOUGH, EVERY DAY, EVERY

COURTROOM IN AMERICA IF WE GO

THERE AND WE SIT IN THAT

COURTROOM, WE WILL FIND SOMEONE

WHOSE BACK IS REALLY UP AGAINST

A WALL BECAUSE THEY CANNOT

AFFORD TO PAY SOMETHING THAT

THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY.

AND THEY WILL GENERALLY PLEAD

WITH THE COURT TO REDUCE THE

AMOUNT THEY HAVE TO PAY, AND THE

COURT MAY GIVE THEM SOME LEEWAY,

BUT YOU DO NOT SEE IT HAPPEN

LIKE THIS.

LET'S GO BACK TO THAT FOX NEWS

CLIP.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT BEING A

LOT OF MONEY.

BUT YOU'RE ALSO SOMEONE WHO HAS

A LOT OF MONEY.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO TO

TRY TO PUT IN PERSPECTIVE WHAT

FINES MEAN IN A COURTROOM.

SOMETIMES THEY'LL SAY, YOU TAKE

THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD

AND HIT THEM WITH A $1,000 FINE.

THAT MIGHT BE CRIPPLING, THE

RENT MIGHT NOT GET PAID.

THERE MAY NOT BE ENOUGH MONEY

FOR FOOD.

IT A's HUGE

IT'S A HUGE NUMBER.

AND YOU ASK WHAT IS A THOUSAND

DOLLARS PENALTY FOR A

BILLIONAIRE OR SOMEONE WHO OWNS

PROPERTIES WITH TENS OF MILLIONS

OF DOLLARS.

IN THAT CONTEXT, THAT'S THE WAY

YOU HAVE TO INTERPRET WHAT THE

COURT HAS CHOSEN TO DO HERE.

I AGREE WITH TRISTAN, THERE'S NO

LOGIC THAT JUSTIFIES IT AND NO

MORAL AUTHORITY THAT JUSTIFIES

IT.

>> TRISTAN, I'M JUST LOOKING AT

THIS, THIS WAS FILED AT 11:06

A.M., SO WE'RE JUST TALKING

ABOUT 22, 23 MINUTES AGO THAT IT

WAS FILED, AND SO TRISTAN, IS IT

UNUSUAL THAT IT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF A DECISION TAKEN TO

STATEMENT OF A DECISION TAKEN TO

LOWER IT FROM 464-5 TO

$175 MILLION, NO EXPLANATION

GIVEN?

TRISTAN, NO EXPLANATION NORMALLY

GIVEN, TRISTAN, NO NORMAL

EXPLANATION REQUIRED?

>> AN EXPLANATION SHOULD BE

REQUIRED, BUT IT ISN'T HERE, IT

ISN'T GIVEN TO US HERE.

THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY

SURPRISE ME.

A LOT OF TIME NEW YORK COURTS

GIVE ORDERS THAT ARE SHORT AND

LIGHT ON THEIR -- SHOWING THEIR

WORK SO TO SPEAK, YOU KNOW.

WE'RE NOT REALLY SEEING WHERE

THIS COMES FROM.

A LOT OF TIMES YOU GET VERY

SHORT SUMMARY OPINIONS FROM

COURTS IN NEW YORK.

THE EXCEPTION TO THIS

WONDERFULLY, BECAUSE I THINK IT

WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US

TO SEE, WAS WHAT WE GOT OUT OF

JUDGE ENGORON, WHERE HE ISSUED

THESE LONG AND VERY CAREFULLY

THOUGHT OUT ORDERS EXPLAINING

EXACTLY WHERE HIS ANALYSIS CAME

FROM AND HOW HE ARRIVED AT THE

CONCLUSIONS HE ARRIVED AT.

AND THEN TO HAVE THAT COME FROM

HIM AND HAVE THIS OTHER SET OF

JUDGES JUST SHOW UP AND JUST

SQUISH IT.

THEY JUST DROP A BOMB ON THIS

AND THEY DON'T GIVE US ANY

EXPLANATION AT ALL, YEAH, THAT'S

ENORMOUSLY FRUSTRATING AND I

WOULD SAY IT'S WRONG.

IT JUST SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.

IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN THIS WAY.

WE DESERVE, THE PUBLIC, THE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

DESERVE BETTER THAT BE TO HAVE

THIS HAPPEN.

THIS IS -- AND WE HAVE TO

REMEMBER, THAT'S WHO THE

PLAINTIFF IS HERE.

IT'S NOT LETITIA JAMES OR HER

OFFICE OR WHATEVER.

YES, THAT'S -- THEY ARE OUR

PUBLIC SERVANTS DOING THIS ON

OUR BEHALF, BUT THE PLAINTIFF IS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW

YORK, AND WE DESERVE BETTER OUT

OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAN TO

HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN

WHERE WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY EVEN