I'll tell you this, Latisha James is in a lot of trouble and she knows it, she knows it. Which is why at this very moment, ladies and gentlemen, she's actually looking for an off ramp

I'll tell you this, Latisha James is in a lot of trouble and she knows it, she knows it. Which is why at this very moment, ladies and gentlemen, she's actually looking for an off ramp

and apparently the off ramp is being provided. I don't know. I'm just guessing by the Democrat party. Yeah, because you see, there's a one guy that's in a little bit of trouble right now. That would be the guy you're looking at. Well, she's in trouble too, but there's another guy that's in a bit of trouble right now and that would be the mayor of New York City and the mayor of New York City, he's going down, they're all over him because, you know, he had the unfortunate

and apparently the off ramp is being provided. I don't know. I'm just guessing by the Democrat party. Yeah, because you see, there's a one guy that's in a little bit of trouble right now. That would be the guy you're looking at. Well, she's in trouble too, but there's another guy that's in a bit of trouble right now and that would be the mayor of New York City and the mayor of New York City, he's going down, they're all over him because, you know, he had the unfortunate

desire to expose the truth about this is my conjecture, the immigrant situation that is out of control in New York City and they weren't too happy about it. So next thing you know,

desire to expose the truth about this is my conjecture, the immigrant situation that is out of control in New York City and they weren't too happy about it. So next thing you know,

he's out, right, he's out and they're looking for replacements, they're looking for replacements. We're gonna get to all of that on today's edition of the Tristan show. Make sure you subscribe, share, like comment. I'm looking at your comments live. I was just saying hi to David and to Ian, some of our loyal, loyal fans here on the program and uh watching every single day is

he's out, right, he's out and they're looking for replacements, they're looking for replacements. We're gonna get to all of that on today's edition of the Tristan show. Make sure you subscribe, share, like comment. I'm looking at your comments live. I was just saying hi to David and to Ian, some of our loyal, loyal fans here on the program and uh watching every single day is

we live, we also want to get to the poly market news because this is the prediction market that uh is really a heck of a prediction market. And I gotta tell you prediction markets, they're rarely wrong. I think they've only been wrong twice since 1866 and take a look at those numbers. Would you? I mean, if I'm Kamala, I'm terrified right now. If I'm a democrat, I'm terrified right now. Camp Kamala is freaking out because

we live, we also want to get to the poly market news because this is the prediction market that uh is really a heck of a prediction market. And I gotta tell you prediction markets, they're rarely wrong. I think they've only been wrong twice since 1866 and take a look at those numbers. Would you? I mean, if I'm Kamala, I'm terrified right now. If I'm a democrat, I'm terrified right now. Camp Kamala is freaking out because

regardless of what the polls say and they say a lot of different things, right? All within the margin of error. This thing is where the money is. This thing is where it's at. So polly market, we're gonna get into all of those polls. And then I got to tell you about the latest and greatest surrounding Whoopi Goldberg and her war with Donald Trump. You're not gonna believe it. You're really not. You're also not gonna believe an edited and non editing clip that's just come in from CBS News. They have the non edited version

regardless of what the polls say and they say a lot of different things, right? All within the margin of error. This thing is where the money is. This thing is where it's at. So polly market, we're gonna get into all of those polls. And then I got to tell you about the latest and greatest surrounding Whoopi Goldberg and her war with Donald Trump. You're not gonna believe it. You're really not. You're also not gonna believe an edited and non editing clip that's just come in from CBS News. They have the non edited version

that apparently aired online and they put this out there and then they have an edited version that aired on the actual show and there are two very, very, very different things. So a lot to get to today. But I want to begin

that apparently aired online and they put this out there and then they have an edited version that aired on the actual show and there are two very, very, very different things. So a lot to get to today. But I want to begin

at this moment with breaking Latisha James is looking for an off ramp. Latisha James wants out of her job as Attorney General of New York and it's probably because Latisha James knows that the case

at this moment with breaking Latisha James is looking for an off ramp. Latisha James wants out of her job as Attorney General of New York and it's probably because Latisha James knows that the case

that made her so famous against Donald Trump that actually helped get her elected. Don't forget this is what she campaigned on. Ladies and gentlemen. Well, that case is about to get reversed and it's gonna get reversed by the appeals court there in the State of New York. I'm gonna explain why. But first know what's going down with Latisha at this moment in time.

that made her so famous against Donald Trump that actually helped get her elected. Don't forget this is what she campaigned on. Ladies and gentlemen. Well, that case is about to get reversed and it's gonna get reversed by the appeals court there in the State of New York. I'm gonna explain why. But first know what's going down with Latisha at this moment in time.

Here we are, Latisha James looking for that off ramp because you see there's this guy who's the mayor right now. Mayor Adams and uh Mayor Adams is now being indicted on five different counts including bribery wire fraud conspiracy. He did speak out pretty aggressively against the Biden administration

Here we are, Latisha James looking for that off ramp because you see there's this guy who's the mayor right now. Mayor Adams and uh Mayor Adams is now being indicted on five different counts including bribery wire fraud conspiracy. He did speak out pretty aggressively against the Biden administration

and the efforts to bring more and more migrants into the city of New York. And I don't think that necessarily ingratiated him with people. So, you know, I I'm just, this is a little bit of conjecture, but let's just say he was not on the most favorite Dem list. Latisha, however, oh, they love her. I mean, they cannot get enough of Latisha James. After all, this is a woman who campaigned on getting Trump. Remember

and the efforts to bring more and more migrants into the city of New York. And I don't think that necessarily ingratiated him with people. So, you know, I I'm just, this is a little bit of conjecture, but let's just say he was not on the most favorite Dem list. Latisha, however, oh, they love her. I mean, they cannot get enough of Latisha James. After all, this is a woman who campaigned on getting Trump. Remember

your attempt to bring Trumpism to New York City? He's called me disgraceful,

your attempt to bring Trumpism to New York City? He's called me disgraceful,

the Supreme Court.

the Supreme Court.

German president.

German president.

Illegitimate.

Illegitimate.

He's called me radical. OK. You get the picture. We can watch a little bit more later. But Latisha James is, by the way, a radical who totally took the law into her own hands and went wild, wild

He's called me radical. OK. You get the picture. We can watch a little bit more later. But Latisha James is, by the way, a radical who totally took the law into her own hands and went wild, wild

with one of the statutes using it in a way that frankly has never been used before. And now the Appeals Court is calling her out. So now Latisha needs a new gig. Well, lo and behold, you know, Eric Adams on his way out. So uh why not put her up as mayor? That's the latest and greatest of the New York Times and talking about putting Laticia James in as mayor with Eric Adams Future. Now in jeopardy, why not bring in Laticia? So this particular article that I'm showing you

with one of the statutes using it in a way that frankly has never been used before. And now the Appeals Court is calling her out. So now Latisha needs a new gig. Well, lo and behold, you know, Eric Adams on his way out. So uh why not put her up as mayor? That's the latest and greatest of the New York Times and talking about putting Laticia James in as mayor with Eric Adams Future. Now in jeopardy, why not bring in Laticia? So this particular article that I'm showing you

if you're watching live on youtube, thank you. Great to have you here. Make sure you subscribe, share like all that good stuff if you're listening on Apple podcast. Thank you for that Spotify podcast. Thank you for that. That's the audio version of the show. Make sure you go and rate us five stars, five stars only, please. But this, what you're looking at here is the latest

if you're watching live on youtube, thank you. Great to have you here. Make sure you subscribe, share like all that good stuff if you're listening on Apple podcast. Thank you for that Spotify podcast. Thank you for that. That's the audio version of the show. Make sure you go and rate us five stars, five stars only, please. But this, what you're looking at here is the latest

from the New York Times and they're saying that she is going to be running for mayor of New York City. So a couple things going on here, one, the woman needs an exit plan because you know what? She's gonna have egg on her face in a massive way. She already does. Wait until you see the sound I went through just out the sound that came from that appellate court

from the New York Times and they're saying that she is going to be running for mayor of New York City. So a couple things going on here, one, the woman needs an exit plan because you know what? She's gonna have egg on her face in a massive way. She already does. Wait until you see the sound I went through just out the sound that came from that appellate court

just the other day and we're gonna play, I'm gonna play for you what the judges are saying to the solicitor general who's repping Letisha there, rep, bring, repping the state of New York and they're like, whoa, this is crazy. How do we actually put guardrails in to prevent something like this from happening in the future? That's gonna come out momentarily, I would guess probably in the next 15 to 20 days. So that reversal is out there. So what does she do that?

just the other day and we're gonna play, I'm gonna play for you what the judges are saying to the solicitor general who's repping Letisha there, rep, bring, repping the state of New York and they're like, whoa, this is crazy. How do we actually put guardrails in to prevent something like this from happening in the future? That's gonna come out momentarily, I would guess probably in the next 15 to 20 days. So that reversal is out there. So what does she do that?

I mean, could she get disbarred if you get disbarred? Can you still run for office? I guess you can. Oh, wow. Ok. So Latisha is kind of in a situation here. She needs to find a new gig. And so, you know, the, the whole campaigning against Trump thing that may not have panned out how she went, she had anticipated just because of where the court is on this one

I mean, could she get disbarred if you get disbarred? Can you still run for office? I guess you can. Oh, wow. Ok. So Latisha is kind of in a situation here. She needs to find a new gig. And so, you know, the, the whole campaigning against Trump thing that may not have panned out how she went, she had anticipated just because of where the court is on this one

and the court's not with her, not with her at all. I can't, I gotta show you this sound, I gotta show you this sound. But before I do

and the court's not with her, not with her at all. I can't, I gotta show you this sound, I gotta show you this sound. But before I do

as things are so crazy right now, keep in mind there's a way to help shield yourself just a little bit from the craziness or at least from all the inflation that we see and that would be through a diversified portfolio. And for me anyway, that diversification includes gold. I actually hold gold in my portfolio because I see it as a way to balance out some of that inflation risk, balance out the crazy risk, et cetera and also balance out the risk that you know, people are diversifying away from the US. In fact, just this week, we learned that Poland now has more gold reserves

as things are so crazy right now, keep in mind there's a way to help shield yourself just a little bit from the craziness or at least from all the inflation that we see and that would be through a diversified portfolio. And for me anyway, that diversification includes gold. I actually hold gold in my portfolio because I see it as a way to balance out some of that inflation risk, balance out the crazy risk, et cetera and also balance out the risk that you know, people are diversifying away from the US. In fact, just this week, we learned that Poland now has more gold reserves

than the UK. And they're very proud of that. I think that a lot of countries around the world are moving increasingly into gold as they look at gold in the market today. It's up slightly. You can get gold to go over and see our friends, my friends over at American Heart for gold. You can text my name to get the best deal. In fact, up to $15,000

than the UK. And they're very proud of that. I think that a lot of countries around the world are moving increasingly into gold as they look at gold in the market today. It's up slightly. You can get gold to go over and see our friends, my friends over at American Heart for gold. You can text my name to get the best deal. In fact, up to $15,000

of free silver with qualifying offers. If you text Trish to 65532, text my name Trish to 65532 up to 15,000 in free silver. Call 1844495111518444951115. And how can I forget? Go to Trish loves gold. You can't forget that. Right. Trish loves gold.com. Trish loves gold.com. Anyway, here we are looking at Latisha possibly

of free silver with qualifying offers. If you text Trish to 65532, text my name Trish to 65532 up to 15,000 in free silver. Call 1844495111518444951115. And how can I forget? Go to Trish loves gold. You can't forget that. Right. Trish loves gold.com. Trish loves gold.com. Anyway, here we are looking at Latisha possibly

fleeing her job. I mean this is the report, let me share with you. Apparently five sources have told the New York Times that she's looking to position herself as the next mayor of New York.

fleeing her job. I mean this is the report, let me share with you. Apparently five sources have told the New York Times that she's looking to position herself as the next mayor of New York.

So Trump actually sort of in this case, depending on how you look at it. He could be winning again here because you know what that case is gonna get reversed momentarily and she's gonna be forced out as a G. Now she's gonna move over into the political sphere. Of course, because that's who she is. She's a political animal. She's a rabid political animal. You have only to look at all of the campaigning that she did promising to get Trump

So Trump actually sort of in this case, depending on how you look at it. He could be winning again here because you know what that case is gonna get reversed momentarily and she's gonna be forced out as a G. Now she's gonna move over into the political sphere. Of course, because that's who she is. She's a political animal. She's a rabid political animal. You have only to look at all of the campaigning that she did promising to get Trump

to really, I think,

to really, I think,

become rather alarmed because, you know, whatever happened to due process, I mean, this is pretty wild and this is what the court is concluding and this is how I know this, you know, I'm not just making it up. Of course, I thought that the case was absolutely bonkers from the start. I've been in business for my entire career. I've never seen anything like this and then I've certainly never seen anything like the nearly half a billion dollar fine that judge Arthur Erdogan put on Donald Trump. I mean, Bonker stuff, right?

become rather alarmed because, you know, whatever happened to due process, I mean, this is pretty wild and this is what the court is concluding and this is how I know this, you know, I'm not just making it up. Of course, I thought that the case was absolutely bonkers from the start. I've been in business for my entire career. I've never seen anything like this and then I've certainly never seen anything like the nearly half a billion dollar fine that judge Arthur Erdogan put on Donald Trump. I mean, Bonker stuff, right?

But this is why we have appellate courts. It's just shameful and the court knows this. It's shameful that it has to get to this ladies and gentlemen. So the court right now as we speak is preparing to reverse this case. That's gonna happen in a matter of days. It's getting closer and closer to the election, of course, would have been nice if they could have figured this all out. Way ahead of time. Right. But anyway, let me go here to the solicitor general who got up to speak. Some

But this is why we have appellate courts. It's just shameful and the court knows this. It's shameful that it has to get to this ladies and gentlemen. So the court right now as we speak is preparing to reverse this case. That's gonna happen in a matter of days. It's getting closer and closer to the election, of course, would have been nice if they could have figured this all out. Way ahead of time. Right. But anyway, let me go here to the solicitor general who got up to speak. Some

of you have seen this already. Justice David Friedman cuts her off before she even has a minute to speak at issue. Here. The state is alleging that Donald Trump inflated his assets including say the square footage at Mar a Lago or on Trump tower in order to get a better deal with lenders. But typically, if you're gonna sue here, it would be because there's some damages.

of you have seen this already. Justice David Friedman cuts her off before she even has a minute to speak at issue. Here. The state is alleging that Donald Trump inflated his assets including say the square footage at Mar a Lago or on Trump tower in order to get a better deal with lenders. But typically, if you're gonna sue here, it would be because there's some damages.

But in this case, you had two really sophisticated parties, one of which was Deutsche Bank, a very famous investment bank out of Germany that has operations in New York and they were running the whole deal there. So Trump said, oh, well, Mar a lago is worth this and they said, ok, Mar A Lago is worth that and they lent him the money using Mar a Lago and Trump tower as collateral.

But in this case, you had two really sophisticated parties, one of which was Deutsche Bank, a very famous investment bank out of Germany that has operations in New York and they were running the whole deal there. So Trump said, oh, well, Mar a lago is worth this and they said, ok, Mar A Lago is worth that and they lent him the money using Mar a Lago and Trump tower as collateral.

So Latisha is alleging that he somehow got away with murder, so to speak. He got some kind of a great deal because he inflated the value of his real estate holdings. Of course, it was up to Deutsche Bank to do its due diligence and figure out whether or not Mar A Lago was worth what he suggested it was worth. Leticia. Has it somewhere around what 14 million. 18 million. I mean, it was pretty crazy. So this starts to come out. You can hear the anger in the justices voices. I wanna play for you. As the solicitor general,

So Latisha is alleging that he somehow got away with murder, so to speak. He got some kind of a great deal because he inflated the value of his real estate holdings. Of course, it was up to Deutsche Bank to do its due diligence and figure out whether or not Mar A Lago was worth what he suggested it was worth. Leticia. Has it somewhere around what 14 million. 18 million. I mean, it was pretty crazy. So this starts to come out. You can hear the anger in the justices voices. I wanna play for you. As the solicitor general,

last name is Vail gets up to speak. She can't even get a word out and the justice is all over her.

last name is Vail gets up to speak. She can't even get a word out and the justice is all over her.

May it please? The court Judith fail for the New York Attorney General's office. All of the defendants repeatedly fail. Can you identify any previous case which the Attorney General sued under executive law 6312 to upset a private business transaction

May it please? The court Judith fail for the New York Attorney General's office. All of the defendants repeatedly fail. Can you identify any previous case which the Attorney General sued under executive law 6312 to upset a private business transaction

that was between equally sophisticated partners with the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence where the supposed wrong doer advised the supposed victim through written disclaimers to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions.

that was between equally sophisticated partners with the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence where the supposed wrong doer advised the supposed victim through written disclaimers to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions.

The alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses and where and where the victim never complained about any fraud in the transactional losses from it because I've gone through the cases which you've cited and all of them always involved the consumer protection aspect. It involved protection of the market.

The alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses and where and where the victim never complained about any fraud in the transactional losses from it because I've gone through the cases which you've cited and all of them always involved the consumer protection aspect. It involved protection of the market.

Well, several and I wanna add to his question and little to no impact on the public marketplace. Bingo. Ok. So I've gone through this as well and I've looked at some of the cases that she cited and she looks at Lehman Brothers and she looks at uh an accounting firm and all these had really broader implications, right? For the consumer as a whole. In this particular case, there were only two parties involved, it was Deutsche Bank and it was Donald Trump. So why is Latisha James getting in the middle of this?

Well, several and I wanna add to his question and little to no impact on the public marketplace. Bingo. Ok. So I've gone through this as well and I've looked at some of the cases that she cited and she looks at Lehman Brothers and she looks at uh an accounting firm and all these had really broader implications, right? For the consumer as a whole. In this particular case, there were only two parties involved, it was Deutsche Bank and it was Donald Trump. So why is Latisha James getting in the middle of this?

Why is Judge Arthur Erdogan saying, ok, I'm gonna get in the middle of it too and I'm gonna charge you half a billion dollars other than for one reason and one reason only and we know what it is. It's politics, it's just sheer politics. And again, the woman's a political animal, she's trying to use this as some kind of way to run for the mayor of New York City. So

Why is Judge Arthur Erdogan saying, ok, I'm gonna get in the middle of it too and I'm gonna charge you half a billion dollars other than for one reason and one reason only and we know what it is. It's politics, it's just sheer politics. And again, the woman's a political animal, she's trying to use this as some kind of way to run for the mayor of New York City. So

you gotta think about the motives here and you've gotta be able to protect individuals, innocent Americans against this kind of rabid political law fair. This is political law fair and the appellate court is picking up on this. She's using this opportunity, this dislike of Trump to try and bring it to her advantage. Oh, I'm gonna go get Trump, I'm gonna get Trump except she's not getting Trump. She's not getting him because it's not actually legal what she's doing.

you gotta think about the motives here and you've gotta be able to protect individuals, innocent Americans against this kind of rabid political law fair. This is political law fair and the appellate court is picking up on this. She's using this opportunity, this dislike of Trump to try and bring it to her advantage. Oh, I'm gonna go get Trump, I'm gonna get Trump except she's not getting Trump. She's not getting him because it's not actually legal what she's doing.

She's trying to insert herself, the state is trying to insert herself

She's trying to insert herself, the state is trying to insert herself

itself in between two parties that are trying to do a transaction. I'd just like to know, you know, if there's no victim, if nobody's like, hey, you know, I lost money. If everybody's happy, then where do you go with this laticia? The quick or short answer is nowhere except that she's gonna be out of a job when everybody realizes what a fraud she is. So why not turn to politics, right. Hence her going after Eric Adams job.

itself in between two parties that are trying to do a transaction. I'd just like to know, you know, if there's no victim, if nobody's like, hey, you know, I lost money. If everybody's happy, then where do you go with this laticia? The quick or short answer is nowhere except that she's gonna be out of a job when everybody realizes what a fraud she is. So why not turn to politics, right. Hence her going after Eric Adams job.

This is pretty frightening. I mean, we can't live in a world, we can't have a, a thriving business community if you have the state intervening in such crazy ways. And guess what? The appellate court knows it. The appellate court knows that this doesn't make any sense. In other words, they're like, you know, what is this really about?

This is pretty frightening. I mean, we can't live in a world, we can't have a, a thriving business community if you have the state intervening in such crazy ways. And guess what? The appellate court knows it. The appellate court knows that this doesn't make any sense. In other words, they're like, you know, what is this really about?

Ok. So she's trying to say he's getting a benefit. She's gonna, he's gonna get Donald Trump's gonna get a whole lot of money out of this because he's able to borrow at a reduced rate by telling Deutsche Bank that his properties are worth XY and Z.

Ok. So she's trying to say he's getting a benefit. She's gonna, he's gonna get Donald Trump's gonna get a whole lot of money out of this because he's able to borrow at a reduced rate by telling Deutsche Bank that his properties are worth XY and Z.

But here's the problem.

But here's the problem.

Deutsche Bank is the one that makes that decision,

Deutsche Bank is the one that makes that decision,

not Letitia James and Deutsche Bank made the decision to lend the money

not Letitia James and Deutsche Bank made the decision to lend the money

and it turns out

and it turns out

that they have a whole bunch of different things that they look at and this particular valuation on Trump Tower and Mar a Lago, you know, she's citing square footage, she's citing rules at Mar A Lago, I'm assuming because it's a historic property, you can't just knock the whole thing down and build it back up again. She's citing these little things and saying that's enough to put them away for $500 million 489.

that they have a whole bunch of different things that they look at and this particular valuation on Trump Tower and Mar a Lago, you know, she's citing square footage, she's citing rules at Mar A Lago, I'm assuming because it's a historic property, you can't just knock the whole thing down and build it back up again. She's citing these little things and saying that's enough to put them away for $500 million 489.

And the judge is like, this is crazy. So here she gets called out. I want you to see this here, Latisha James trying to say that you know he's getting all this benefit and the the the judge is like, but wait a second,

And the judge is like, this is crazy. So here she gets called out. I want you to see this here, Latisha James trying to say that you know he's getting all this benefit and the the the judge is like, but wait a second,

you know, again, Deutsche Bank made the decision. If you look at what the Deutsche Bank witnesses testified to Haig said that the financial strength of the guarantor affects the pricing in terms of the loan and it affects whether the private wealth management group would be allowed to do this deal at all. It doesn't ha doesn't Mr Hay testify that there were 14 factors and this was the least important factor.

you know, again, Deutsche Bank made the decision. If you look at what the Deutsche Bank witnesses testified to Haig said that the financial strength of the guarantor affects the pricing in terms of the loan and it affects whether the private wealth management group would be allowed to do this deal at all. It doesn't ha doesn't Mr Hay testify that there were 14 factors and this was the least important factor.

Well, there are, there were certainly there are multiple factors that go into the risk assessment but both for materiality and for disgorgement. The issue is not whether there's only one factor, there's often a lot of factors that are being considered for materiality. It's whether it's important to the overall total mix of information and this was absolutely critical to the overall mix of information, not only because they were looking specifically at what the net worth was in order to decide the terms of the loan.

Well, there are, there were certainly there are multiple factors that go into the risk assessment but both for materiality and for disgorgement. The issue is not whether there's only one factor, there's often a lot of factors that are being considered for materiality. It's whether it's important to the overall total mix of information and this was absolutely critical to the overall mix of information, not only because they were looking specifically at what the net worth was in order to decide the terms of the loan.

Mm

Mm

ok. You keep telling yourself that dude, ok, you keep going, I get it, you, you got to carry Leticia's water and that's a lot of water to carry. All right. So the judge is like, no, wait a second, this wasn't even that big a deal. I mean, there were 14 different factors and it was the least important of all. I don't think you have a case. Girl. There is no case. And so

ok. You keep telling yourself that dude, ok, you keep going, I get it, you, you got to carry Leticia's water and that's a lot of water to carry. All right. So the judge is like, no, wait a second, this wasn't even that big a deal. I mean, there were 14 different factors and it was the least important of all. I don't think you have a case. Girl. There is no case. And so

there is bottom line. I think that the biggest problem with all this, they're, they're creating something out of nothing because Latisha knew which way the wind was blowing in terms of New York, in terms of New York City, she wants to get herself on to bigger and better things. But there's a little problem in the works in that. Yeah, there's an appellate court and the appellate court any day. Now mark my words is gonna reverse this case. I'm gonna play you some more sound from these judges because again, this is just coming in, I reviewed the entire thing

there is bottom line. I think that the biggest problem with all this, they're, they're creating something out of nothing because Latisha knew which way the wind was blowing in terms of New York, in terms of New York City, she wants to get herself on to bigger and better things. But there's a little problem in the works in that. Yeah, there's an appellate court and the appellate court any day. Now mark my words is gonna reverse this case. I'm gonna play you some more sound from these judges because again, this is just coming in, I reviewed the entire thing

and I'm like, wow, I mean, I know there's a lot going on today. We're gonna talk about the hurricane as well. I mean, it's just, just, just, and the, and the quote unquote, misinformation, disinformation campaign out of the White House that they're trying to tell everybody else. They're part of really pretty crazy stuff. But I'm just struck by all this because this is somebody who really was trying to use this kind of law fair and it, and it is right on display. She's getting called out for it here. And it's amazing to see.

and I'm like, wow, I mean, I know there's a lot going on today. We're gonna talk about the hurricane as well. I mean, it's just, just, just, and the, and the quote unquote, misinformation, disinformation campaign out of the White House that they're trying to tell everybody else. They're part of really pretty crazy stuff. But I'm just struck by all this because this is somebody who really was trying to use this kind of law fair and it, and it is right on display. She's getting called out for it here. And it's amazing to see.

So one of the issues, one of the issues that kept coming up in Latisha james' case is and, and Donald Trump was like, what's the deal? You know, you build a company, you do a good job and now they go after you for everything. Why? Because they don't like your politics. Well, the judge is saying it's kind of like a private thing, right? You got two parties, they're pretty sophisticated. Why is it that you are suddenly involving yourself?

So one of the issues, one of the issues that kept coming up in Latisha james' case is and, and Donald Trump was like, what's the deal? You know, you build a company, you do a good job and now they go after you for everything. Why? Because they don't like your politics. Well, the judge is saying it's kind of like a private thing, right? You got two parties, they're pretty sophisticated. Why is it that you are suddenly involving yourself?

State Judith fail. Representative Solicitor General for the state of New York representing effectively Latisha to try and get this thing all the way through the appeals court, Donald Trump appealed it right away.

State Judith fail. Representative Solicitor General for the state of New York representing effectively Latisha to try and get this thing all the way through the appeals court, Donald Trump appealed it right away.

A and it will get reversed and this is one of the reasons why let's go to this tape

A and it will get reversed and this is one of the reasons why let's go to this tape

it was using. But what's being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute between private actors.

it was using. But what's being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute between private actors.

Well, to go back to the first question about whether there's other examples of this. There are other examples of this. In the first American case, the attorney general brought a 6312 case where the transaction at issue was between a very big bank, Wells Fargo and a professional appraisal firm. But it wasn't the weren't, weren't, wasn't the concern there that the public would ultimately

Well, to go back to the first question about whether there's other examples of this. There are other examples of this. In the first American case, the attorney general brought a 6312 case where the transaction at issue was between a very big bank, Wells Fargo and a professional appraisal firm. But it wasn't the weren't, weren't, wasn't the concern there that the public would ultimately

be negatively impacted and affected by what those corporate actors were doing. And that's that concern is here as well because when you have hidden risks getting injected into the market. You can hurt. I'm sorry, I just have to jump in. That's really hidden, ok. That's really hidden. Two parties making a decision, one lends money to the other and

be negatively impacted and affected by what those corporate actors were doing. And that's that concern is here as well because when you have hidden risks getting injected into the market. You can hurt. I'm sorry, I just have to jump in. That's really hidden, ok. That's really hidden. Two parties making a decision, one lends money to the other and

no, it's gonna bring the whole system down. Right. Uh, I don't think so. Market and honest participants in the market and the legislature also decided contrary to what defendants think that making sure that business in New York stays honest is the way to attract and keep business at that point. The executive law 6312, I just wanna read a section of it. Um, well, not exactly but was enacted to promote and protect honesty and integrity. It's the same question I asked the other side

no, it's gonna bring the whole system down. Right. Uh, I don't think so. Market and honest participants in the market and the legislature also decided contrary to what defendants think that making sure that business in New York stays honest is the way to attract and keep business at that point. The executive law 6312, I just wanna read a section of it. Um, well, not exactly but was enacted to promote and protect honesty and integrity. It's the same question I asked the other side

in commercial marketplaces in New York by stopping fraudulent and illegal business. By the way, if you ask me this one judge is kind of on Latisha's side. If you just listen to the question, it's very interesting. It's, it's a complete contrast to the other four judges there

in commercial marketplaces in New York by stopping fraudulent and illegal business. By the way, if you ask me this one judge is kind of on Latisha's side. If you just listen to the question, it's very interesting. It's, it's a complete contrast to the other four judges there

to accomplish this purpose. The statute authorizes the attorney general to bring civil enforcement proceedings on behalf of the people. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on conducting or transacting of business.

to accomplish this purpose. The statute authorizes the attorney general to bring civil enforcement proceedings on behalf of the people. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on conducting or transacting of business.

I don't read harm or threat of harm in that. But the other side is saying that that is to be read into the statute. Are there any cases where the language harm or threat to harm,

I don't read harm or threat of harm in that. But the other side is saying that that is to be read into the statute. Are there any cases where the language harm or threat to harm,

limits the scope of the attorney general. So what she's like, no, so what they're getting at here and what this judge is getting at is how broad this law is 6312, this particular statute that enables the A G and apparently this has quite a history in the state of New York because A GS have fought to expand, expand, expand 6312 because of course they want the political wherewithal to go after any of their enemies or any of their

limits the scope of the attorney general. So what she's like, no, so what they're getting at here and what this judge is getting at is how broad this law is 6312, this particular statute that enables the A G and apparently this has quite a history in the state of New York because A GS have fought to expand, expand, expand 6312 because of course they want the political wherewithal to go after any of their enemies or any of their

donors, enemies, shall we say? So that's part of the reason for that. And they keep expanding this and now the court's saying, but it's gone

donors, enemies, shall we say? So that's part of the reason for that. And they keep expanding this and now the court's saying, but it's gone

too far.

too far.

And what can we do to rein it in?

And what can we do to rein it in?

How do we protect innocent Americans

How do we protect innocent Americans

from being targeted by the likes of Latisha James or frankly anybody else who comes along and, and this shouldn't be partisan because you know what it works both ways. So depending on who's in charge, the other side is then

from being targeted by the likes of Latisha James or frankly anybody else who comes along and, and this shouldn't be partisan because you know what it works both ways. So depending on who's in charge, the other side is then

possibly the victim. I mean, this is, this is scary stuff and it doesn't even have to be side by side. It could also just be somebody who's in the public profile or somebody who, that they wanna make an example out of because you get some politically hungry

possibly the victim. I mean, this is, this is scary stuff and it doesn't even have to be side by side. It could also just be somebody who's in the public profile or somebody who, that they wanna make an example out of because you get some politically hungry

attorney general that's trying to prove her stripes or earn her stripes. So that one day she can run for mayor of New York City. Right. That's what this is really all about. She wants a bigger political career and of course, at this moment in time, she knows

attorney general that's trying to prove her stripes or earn her stripes. So that one day she can run for mayor of New York City. Right. That's what this is really all about. She wants a bigger political career and of course, at this moment in time, she knows

that her future is very limited certainly as attorney general because this is gonna be kind of embarrassing

that her future is very limited certainly as attorney general because this is gonna be kind of embarrassing

when it's realized and it's decided that she was all wrong in this. In fact, I would not be surprised if we see her disbarred

when it's realized and it's decided that she was all wrong in this. In fact, I would not be surprised if we see her disbarred

Elise Stefanik, the representative from New York, who I would just say you don't want to mess with Claudine Gay found that out president of Harvard University.

Elise Stefanik, the representative from New York, who I would just say you don't want to mess with Claudine Gay found that out president of Harvard University.

When Elise Stefanik who also incidentally went to Harvard was questioning her on Capitol Hill. Elise Stefanik wrote a 65 page letter

When Elise Stefanik who also incidentally went to Harvard was questioning her on Capitol Hill. Elise Stefanik wrote a 65 page letter

to the professional committee in New York demanding that this woman be disbarred. So when this case gets reversed,

to the professional committee in New York demanding that this woman be disbarred. So when this case gets reversed,

there's gonna be a lot of pressure on the professional committee to disbar Latisha James because they're gonna say she went wild. She had too much power.

there's gonna be a lot of pressure on the professional committee to disbar Latisha James because they're gonna say she went wild. She had too much power.

And when these attorney generals have too much power or, you know, the IRS has too much power

And when these attorney generals have too much power or, you know, the IRS has too much power

FBI or the CIA or any anything else, right? When government has too much power, it becomes really dangerous.

FBI or the CIA or any anything else, right? When government has too much power, it becomes really dangerous.

And that's the fear right now. And this is sort of what you see the theme of the Trump campaign being that they need to, you know, fight back against these institutions, institutions which control the narrative and control. I mean, thank goodness we have this right. Just a reminder to subscribe and to share and to like and to make a comment, whether you're watching live or whether you, you wanna make a comment in all the comments below, every little bit helps because this is a very different and very challenging time really for the country

And that's the fear right now. And this is sort of what you see the theme of the Trump campaign being that they need to, you know, fight back against these institutions, institutions which control the narrative and control. I mean, thank goodness we have this right. Just a reminder to subscribe and to share and to like and to make a comment, whether you're watching live or whether you, you wanna make a comment in all the comments below, every little bit helps because this is a very different and very challenging time really for the country

and for conservatives and for those of us that believe in the first Amendment II, I mean, this, this entire thing could be shut down because somehow somebody decides this is misinformation, disinformation. You're not supposed to say the things or air the things that I'm airing like this next sound bite. I wanna play you from that hearing

and for conservatives and for those of us that believe in the first Amendment II, I mean, this, this entire thing could be shut down because somehow somebody decides this is misinformation, disinformation. You're not supposed to say the things or air the things that I'm airing like this next sound bite. I wanna play you from that hearing

it. It tells you what the judges are thinking. I mean,

it. It tells you what the judges are thinking. I mean,

Latisha James brings this case saying, oh, somehow he's a pub, he's a threat to the public. He's gonna take down the entire financial system in New York City because you know, he made one loan with Deutsche Bank and inflated the value of his property and they gave him a better term as a result. Of course, everybody's a big boy, Deutsche Bank can do their own due diligence. But now Leticia James thinks she's smarter than the bankers at Deutsche Bank. So there you go. Here's one of the judges saying, you know what

Latisha James brings this case saying, oh, somehow he's a pub, he's a threat to the public. He's gonna take down the entire financial system in New York City because you know, he made one loan with Deutsche Bank and inflated the value of his property and they gave him a better term as a result. Of course, everybody's a big boy, Deutsche Bank can do their own due diligence. But now Leticia James thinks she's smarter than the bankers at Deutsche Bank. So there you go. Here's one of the judges saying, you know what

the public wasn't hurt. You keep citing all these cases, lady where vast amounts of people were hurt, but this is just a particular defined case. I want to play it for you,

the public wasn't hurt. You keep citing all these cases, lady where vast amounts of people were hurt, but this is just a particular defined case. I want to play it for you,

you're pointing to Ernst and Young, you're pointing to First American Ernst and Young. You're dealing with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. First American. You're dealing with an action brought against an appraiser who overvalued properties at the behest of a lender perpetrating a scheme to induce unsophisticated consumers into taking out home loans that they could not afford. It hardly seems that that justifies bringing an action to protect

you're pointing to Ernst and Young, you're pointing to First American Ernst and Young. You're dealing with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. First American. You're dealing with an action brought against an appraiser who overvalued properties at the behest of a lender perpetrating a scheme to induce unsophisticated consumers into taking out home loans that they could not afford. It hardly seems that that justifies bringing an action to protect

against President Trump, which is what you have here. I mean, you've got two really sophisticated parties in which no one lost any money. And that was the point of my initial question. Every case that you cite involved where there was damage to consumers, damage to the market price.

against President Trump, which is what you have here. I mean, you've got two really sophisticated parties in which no one lost any money. And that was the point of my initial question. Every case that you cite involved where there was damage to consumers, damage to the market price.

You've got a scheme to get unsophisticated consumers to take out home loans. You got a collapse of Lehman Brothers. You don't have anything like that here. Well, first of all, your honor, the statute doesn't require that whatsoever for liability. And the statute is written broadly because the legislature wants the attorney general to go in and stop fraud and illegality. I think you hear underneath all these questions, the question of mission creep has 6312 morphed into something that it was not meant to do.

You've got a scheme to get unsophisticated consumers to take out home loans. You got a collapse of Lehman Brothers. You don't have anything like that here. Well, first of all, your honor, the statute doesn't require that whatsoever for liability. And the statute is written broadly because the legislature wants the attorney general to go in and stop fraud and illegality. I think you hear underneath all these questions, the question of mission creep has 6312 morphed into something that it was not meant to do.

And that's, that's something you must address because there has to be some limitation on what the attorney general can do in inter interfering in these private uh transactions. As Justice Friedman said that where people don't claim harm. So what is the limiting principle?

And that's, that's something you must address because there has to be some limitation on what the attorney general can do in inter interfering in these private uh transactions. As Justice Friedman said that where people don't claim harm. So what is the limiting principle?

Apparently there is no, it is your politics. That's what limits you so they can go after anybody. They want the 6312, as they said, has been creeping and getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And now it's like monster level and it's met its monster match with Letitia James at the helm ready to go after anyone and everyone. I mean, you, you guys know the drill, right? Remember her what she was, what she was

Apparently there is no, it is your politics. That's what limits you so they can go after anybody. They want the 6312, as they said, has been creeping and getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And now it's like monster level and it's met its monster match with Letitia James at the helm ready to go after anyone and everyone. I mean, you, you guys know the drill, right? Remember her what she was, what she was

saying, how she wanted to go after him, how she campaigned on this. This was her entire stick. He's called me venomous. We will fight back to your attempt to bring Trumpism to New York City. He's called me disgraceful

saying, how she wanted to go after him, how she campaigned on this. This was her entire stick. He's called me venomous. We will fight back to your attempt to bring Trumpism to New York City. He's called me disgraceful

all the Supreme courts

all the Supreme courts

and the German president

and the German president

illegitimate number

illegitimate number

state Supreme Court. He's called me radical. Listens. We know he's crazy.

state Supreme Court. He's called me radical. Listens. We know he's crazy.

He

He

mine,

mine,

he's out of control.

he's out of control.

No, it,

No, it,

he's called me a racist. We've got to stand up to an an administration which is too male, too pale and too stale.

he's called me a racist. We've got to stand up to an an administration which is too male, too pale and too stale.

Two male, too pale and too stale, two male, too pale and too stale.

Two male, too pale and too stale, two male, too pale and too stale.

Ok? You get it.

Ok? You get it.

You understand how actually this is becoming quite alarming and quite scary. And so when they say whoa like where are the guardrails for 6312?

You understand how actually this is becoming quite alarming and quite scary. And so when they say whoa like where are the guardrails for 6312?

That statute, maybe we need to put some in because we can't have the likes of Latisha James or whoever her successor might be out there doing crazy stuff going after people for no reason. Meanwhile, what about the judge? Because he needs to be disbarred too. He's coming up with a wild 468 489. Forgive me a million. This is just call it 500 million. Ok. It's like nearly half a billion dollars that he wants to find Trump. He did, by the way, they had to come out with the,

That statute, maybe we need to put some in because we can't have the likes of Latisha James or whoever her successor might be out there doing crazy stuff going after people for no reason. Meanwhile, what about the judge? Because he needs to be disbarred too. He's coming up with a wild 468 489. Forgive me a million. This is just call it 500 million. Ok. It's like nearly half a billion dollars that he wants to find Trump. He did, by the way, they had to come out with the,

the loan belt, right? I mean, this bonkers who the heck would ever want to do business in New York City or America for that matter.

the loan belt, right? I mean, this bonkers who the heck would ever want to do business in New York City or America for that matter.

I mean, look what they're watching on the international stage. Don't kid yourself. This is pathetic, pathetic stuff. And so the judge knows that she's getting too much power and we gotta do something, we gotta do something about Letisha. Well, what do you do about Latisha? She's been going crazy with this 6312 thing. I think you dis Bar.

I mean, look what they're watching on the international stage. Don't kid yourself. This is pathetic, pathetic stuff. And so the judge knows that she's getting too much power and we gotta do something, we gotta do something about Letisha. Well, what do you do about Latisha? She's been going crazy with this 6312 thing. I think you dis Bar.

I think that's the answer here because there's no responsibility. She's completely out over her skis. It's what representative Stefanik is asking for with the professional committee. And when this thing comes down and it gets badly reversed,

I think that's the answer here because there's no responsibility. She's completely out over her skis. It's what representative Stefanik is asking for with the professional committee. And when this thing comes down and it gets badly reversed,

you wanna know what's gonna happen? Everybody's gonna be asking for who her to be disbarred. And I think there's a good chance it's gonna happen. But let's go to the judge who's saying, ok, we need some protections. We need something. This woman's is, is kind of to to justice Moulton's point about line drawing because I, I do think that that is very important in this case,

you wanna know what's gonna happen? Everybody's gonna be asking for who her to be disbarred. And I think there's a good chance it's gonna happen. But let's go to the judge who's saying, ok, we need some protections. We need something. This woman's is, is kind of to to justice Moulton's point about line drawing because I, I do think that that is very important in this case,

you know, the history of this statute, it, it's passed under then A G uh Javitz and then was really amplified by A G Lefkowitz over the years. And when I went back and read the bill jackets, the common thread was always, we need greater PAG needs greater powers as the people's lawyer to protect consumers, civil rights and the environment.

you know, the history of this statute, it, it's passed under then A G uh Javitz and then was really amplified by A G Lefkowitz over the years. And when I went back and read the bill jackets, the common thread was always, we need greater PAG needs greater powers as the people's lawyer to protect consumers, civil rights and the environment.

And so again, with, with that sort of historical backdrop to this law, how do we draw a line or at least put up some guard rails to know when the A G is operating well within her broad, admittedly broad sphere of 6 63 12. And when she is, is going into an area that wasn't intended for her jurisdiction.

And so again, with, with that sort of historical backdrop to this law, how do we draw a line or at least put up some guard rails to know when the A G is operating well within her broad, admittedly broad sphere of 6 63 12. And when she is, is going into an area that wasn't intended for her jurisdiction.

In other words, she's in an area

In other words, she's in an area

that was not intended for her jurisdiction,

that was not intended for her jurisdiction,

right? Because remember, remember what the judge was saying in the very, very beginning before Judith could go so much as a word, the court fail for the New York Attorney General's office. All of the defendants repeatedly violated. Oops, wait, let's play it again because this is important. This is important. I want you to hear it please. The court for the ok. He cut off by any previous case which the attorney general sued under executive law 6312 to upset a private business transaction

right? Because remember, remember what the judge was saying in the very, very beginning before Judith could go so much as a word, the court fail for the New York Attorney General's office. All of the defendants repeatedly violated. Oops, wait, let's play it again because this is important. This is important. I want you to hear it please. The court for the ok. He cut off by any previous case which the attorney general sued under executive law 6312 to upset a private business transaction

that was between equally sophisticated partners with the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence where the supposed wrong doer advised the supposed victim through written disclaimers to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions.

that was between equally sophisticated partners with the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence where the supposed wrong doer advised the supposed victim through written disclaimers to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions.

The alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses and where and where the victim never complained about any fraud in the transactional losses from it. Because I've gone through the cases which you've cited and all of them always involved the consumer protection aspect, it involved protection of the market.

The alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses and where and where the victim never complained about any fraud in the transactional losses from it. Because I've gone through the cases which you've cited and all of them always involved the consumer protection aspect, it involved protection of the market.

Well, several and I wanna add to his question and little to no impact on the public marketplace. In other words, we know what this is about. Again, they're two sophisticated parties, they're doing a deal, ok? They make the decision, what the it's really worth and they make the decision whether they're willing to land at a certain rate, ok? Latisha is not supposed to be involved in this at all. So when they're using this monstrous statute, 6312, the judges are saying we need guard rails, we need to protect

Well, several and I wanna add to his question and little to no impact on the public marketplace. In other words, we know what this is about. Again, they're two sophisticated parties, they're doing a deal, ok? They make the decision, what the it's really worth and they make the decision whether they're willing to land at a certain rate, ok? Latisha is not supposed to be involved in this at all. So when they're using this monstrous statute, 6312, the judges are saying we need guard rails, we need to protect

against this kind of rabid political A G like Latisha James, I actually call her right out. That's how, you know, this thing is getting reversed. It's going to get reversed. She is going to be in jeopardy of being disbarred. I believe she should be disbarred. I believe she will be, I I've seen a lot of similarities, very different cases, obviously,

against this kind of rabid political A G like Latisha James, I actually call her right out. That's how, you know, this thing is getting reversed. It's going to get reversed. She is going to be in jeopardy of being disbarred. I believe she should be disbarred. I believe she will be, I I've seen a lot of similarities, very different cases, obviously,

but I remember being six weeks on the ground covering the Duke Lacrosse story. Remember that? And what happened that D A got disbarred because he was way out, you know, making stuff up effectively all to kind of have it fit with his narrative. I mean, she's kind of making stuff up here trying to have it fit with her narrative. She thinks that somehow she's responsible for Deutsche Bank and an individual loan that they're making. So we need guard rails, that's for sure.

but I remember being six weeks on the ground covering the Duke Lacrosse story. Remember that? And what happened that D A got disbarred because he was way out, you know, making stuff up effectively all to kind of have it fit with his narrative. I mean, she's kind of making stuff up here trying to have it fit with her narrative. She thinks that somehow she's responsible for Deutsche Bank and an individual loan that they're making. So we need guard rails, that's for sure.

I'd also say, what about putting in place some guard rails against the judges that are doing crazy stuff like this. Arthur Judge Arthur Erwin, who, who's putting in place a 489 nearly $500 million fine, civil fraud fine against Donald Trump. I mean, he needs to get all that back with interest and then some

I'd also say, what about putting in place some guard rails against the judges that are doing crazy stuff like this. Arthur Judge Arthur Erwin, who, who's putting in place a 489 nearly $500 million fine, civil fraud fine against Donald Trump. I mean, he needs to get all that back with interest and then some

because these people were so blatantly irresponsible. Remember when Latisha was on all this telling ABC news, I'm gonna get everything. I'm gonna get it all. I'm gonna get it all. I'm gonna go after all his assets if he doesn't have 500 mil hanging around. Huh? How dare he not have? Nobody has 500 mil especially if you're a Bill

because these people were so blatantly irresponsible. Remember when Latisha was on all this telling ABC news, I'm gonna get everything. I'm gonna get it all. I'm gonna get it all. I'm gonna go after all his assets if he doesn't have 500 mil hanging around. Huh? How dare he not have? Nobody has 500 mil especially if you're a Bill

Leonor. Thank you very much. You tie it up so you can make some interest on things put in a treasury for goodness sake. You don't have it just hanging out in your bank account. Latisha. That's how naive she is. This woman doesn't understand anything about business yet. Inserting herself in there. Take a listen to what she was telling ABC news about how she was gonna take it all.

Leonor. Thank you very much. You tie it up so you can make some interest on things put in a treasury for goodness sake. You don't have it just hanging out in your bank account. Latisha. That's how naive she is. This woman doesn't understand anything about business yet. Inserting herself in there. Take a listen to what she was telling ABC news about how she was gonna take it all.

Four days after a judge ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million for a decade of fraud. New York Attorney General, Letitia James says she's prepared to do everything she can to make sure the former president pays his fine, including she told us seizing the buildings that bear his name if he does not have funds to pay off the judgment and then we will seek, you know, judgment enforcement mechanisms in court

Four days after a judge ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million for a decade of fraud. New York Attorney General, Letitia James says she's prepared to do everything she can to make sure the former president pays his fine, including she told us seizing the buildings that bear his name if he does not have funds to pay off the judgment and then we will seek, you know, judgment enforcement mechanisms in court

and we will ask the judge to seize his assets. Oh, that's what she was hoping for. Remember she actually went to one of his golf courses and they were starting to prowl around like the day before he finally got the money and this is wild. Ok, guys like this can't be happening. It shouldn't be happening. It's really, really gross stuff to see

and we will ask the judge to seize his assets. Oh, that's what she was hoping for. Remember she actually went to one of his golf courses and they were starting to prowl around like the day before he finally got the money and this is wild. Ok, guys like this can't be happening. It shouldn't be happening. It's really, really gross stuff to see

the judges know that again. This is why this case is about to be reversed any day. Now, I want you to understand the backdrop to this. I wanna play for you another excerpt from the courtroom where the judge is like,

the judges know that again. This is why this case is about to be reversed any day. Now, I want you to understand the backdrop to this. I wanna play for you another excerpt from the courtroom where the judge is like,

but hang on.

but hang on.

These are smart, sophisticated people,

These are smart, sophisticated people,

they're smart, sophisticated people. And what are you doing going after him for everything, defendants statements were not meant for ordinary people. They were directed at some of the most sophisticated individuals and entities in business. Well, if the court wants to use the standard of a s objectively reasonable counter party, sophisticated counter party fine, they had a capacity or tendency to deceive that sophistic, this is sophisticated party as well because these misstatements and omissions were about

they're smart, sophisticated people. And what are you doing going after him for everything, defendants statements were not meant for ordinary people. They were directed at some of the most sophisticated individuals and entities in business. Well, if the court wants to use the standard of a s objectively reasonable counter party, sophisticated counter party fine, they had a capacity or tendency to deceive that sophistic, this is sophisticated party as well because these misstatements and omissions were about

objective facts that were extremely important and that any reasonable counter party would want to know any sophisticated reasonable counter party would want to know that the defendants were valuing an apartment based on 20,000 square feet more than it really was. Ok. Let me just emphasize one thing, a sophisticated party is going to do its own due diligence. I mean, think of it, let, let's, let's use a non sophisticated party. Suppose, you know, Joe Schmo down the street wants to get

objective facts that were extremely important and that any reasonable counter party would want to know any sophisticated reasonable counter party would want to know that the defendants were valuing an apartment based on 20,000 square feet more than it really was. Ok. Let me just emphasize one thing, a sophisticated party is going to do its own due diligence. I mean, think of it, let, let's, let's use a non sophisticated party. Suppose, you know, Joe Schmo down the street wants to get

a home equity line of credit on his house

a home equity line of credit on his house

and he goes to the bank and he says, I want the home equity line of credit and they say, ok, well, it's gotta actually meet appraisal. So they send an appraiser out and they decide whether or not the home is actually worth as much as Joe wants to borrow for it. And they make a decision

and he goes to the bank and he says, I want the home equity line of credit and they say, ok, well, it's gotta actually meet appraisal. So they send an appraiser out and they decide whether or not the home is actually worth as much as Joe wants to borrow for it. And they make a decision

and they are taking on that risk themselves, of course, but they're relying on the appraiser that it, it, it's kind, I mean, this is different but it's not entirely different. I mean, the bank is making a decision that it believes Donald Trump's property is worth what he put down on paper it was worth.

and they are taking on that risk themselves, of course, but they're relying on the appraiser that it, it, it's kind, I mean, this is different but it's not entirely different. I mean, the bank is making a decision that it believes Donald Trump's property is worth what he put down on paper it was worth.

And he had a lot of qualifiers there because it's subjective. You heard one of the judges say it's subjective. I mean, he was totally subjective until you actually sell the property. You have no idea what it's worth because it's worth one thing to one person and something else to someone else and valuing real estate for that reason can be very subjective and very tough. So I'm certainly not gonna let some

And he had a lot of qualifiers there because it's subjective. You heard one of the judges say it's subjective. I mean, he was totally subjective until you actually sell the property. You have no idea what it's worth because it's worth one thing to one person and something else to someone else and valuing real estate for that reason can be very subjective and very tough. So I'm certainly not gonna let some

politically rabid a g start managing all that. And that's what these guys know on top of that. I mean, a half a billion dollars, let's call it a half a billion. It is nearly a half a billion judge Erwin saying we're gonna slap you with a nearly $500 million penalty. But the letitia wasn't even asking for that much. She wanted 250 then she upped it a little bit and then he came through with the big bonanza.

politically rabid a g start managing all that. And that's what these guys know on top of that. I mean, a half a billion dollars, let's call it a half a billion. It is nearly a half a billion judge Erwin saying we're gonna slap you with a nearly $500 million penalty. But the letitia wasn't even asking for that much. She wanted 250 then she upped it a little bit and then he came through with the big bonanza.

I mean, somebody's gonna look at this guy too and say, how the heck did you get to this? And this is kind of nutty and really frankly, pretty dangerous. This is something that one of the, they had five judges on this appellate court and all, but one of them seems quite

I mean, somebody's gonna look at this guy too and say, how the heck did you get to this? And this is kind of nutty and really frankly, pretty dangerous. This is something that one of the, they had five judges on this appellate court and all, but one of them seems quite

taken back by this bizarre case as all of them frankly should be.

taken back by this bizarre case as all of them frankly should be.

Uh, we're gonna pull that one for you from right over here because this is important for you guys to see very, very important. So that the judge is like, I, I don't get it. Like, how do you come up? How do you come up with a half a billion dollars? I mean, I couldn't believe that. I remember I was like, with the kids skiing,

Uh, we're gonna pull that one for you from right over here because this is important for you guys to see very, very important. So that the judge is like, I, I don't get it. Like, how do you come up? How do you come up with a half a billion dollars? I mean, I couldn't believe that. I remember I was like, with the kids skiing,

uh, in Vermont when that news broke, I actually went on somehow I managed to get on live or maybe we had to tape it because I couldn't get a signal out. It was really tricky, but I, I wound up covering that story for you guys. I was just dismayed. I mean, that was the one case that I was like, there's no way, there's just no way. I mean, they're all crazy but this one is just especially, especially crazy. And then whenever they came through with this, ok, we're gonna get you for nearly half a billion dollars. I mean, this is wacky, wacky stuff.

uh, in Vermont when that news broke, I actually went on somehow I managed to get on live or maybe we had to tape it because I couldn't get a signal out. It was really tricky, but I, I wound up covering that story for you guys. I was just dismayed. I mean, that was the one case that I was like, there's no way, there's just no way. I mean, they're all crazy but this one is just especially, especially crazy. And then whenever they came through with this, ok, we're gonna get you for nearly half a billion dollars. I mean, this is wacky, wacky stuff.

The immense penalty in this case is troubling. So how do you tether? Um The amount that was assessed by Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy about how things went down.

The immense penalty in this case is troubling. So how do you tether? Um The amount that was assessed by Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy about how things went down.

Well, disgorgement, your honor looks at taking the gain away from the wrongdoer and although this is a large number, it's a large number for a couple reasons. One because there was a lot of fraud. This went on and illegality. It went on for seven years during the statute of limitations period. Another reason is because the guarantee and the financial statements each year worked to get

Well, disgorgement, your honor looks at taking the gain away from the wrongdoer and although this is a large number, it's a large number for a couple reasons. One because there was a lot of fraud. This went on and illegality. It went on for seven years during the statute of limitations period. Another reason is because the guarantee and the financial statements each year worked to get

enormously favorable interest rate savings to the defendants. It was a different, a difference of approximately 4 to 8% points, um obviously varied by year. That is an enormous benefit that they got from the misconduct. And it is not an excuse to say, well, our fraud was really successful so we should get some of the money. But you see where this is going, right? The justices are like, this is bizarre. This is like, first of all, you shouldn't have been there.

enormously favorable interest rate savings to the defendants. It was a different, a difference of approximately 4 to 8% points, um obviously varied by year. That is an enormous benefit that they got from the misconduct. And it is not an excuse to say, well, our fraud was really successful so we should get some of the money. But you see where this is going, right? The justices are like, this is bizarre. This is like, first of all, you shouldn't have been there.

I shouldn't have been involved in this anyway, in any way, shape or form. You're saying that 6312 allows you to, we're not so sure it does. But if it's that broad in its scope, then we got a problem here. We're gonna put some guard rails in against the likes of Latisha James or any other future A G that might try and do this and then on top of it all, what the heck is the judge doing? What is she doing? How are they coming up with this astronomical number?