Transcripts For CNN Inside Politics With Dana Bash 20240927

Manu raju begins right now breaking News Welcome to inside politics. Im Manu Raju in for Dana Bash were following major Breaking News on multiple fronts. First moments ago, new York Citys mayor indicted prosecutors, just announced five pub, Federal Public Corruption charges against eric adams, being Bribery And Wire fraud and moments from now, new York Appeals court will hear arguments in Donald Trumps push to overturn a civil Fraud Judgment that could unravel his Business Empire and cost him happen 1 1 Billion and then theres hurricane helene, 86 Million people are on alert as it rapidly intensifies and officials warn of lifethreatening Storm Surges will bring you updates from our team on the ground its better. To hear later this hour from the Fema Director at the White House but i want to start with a High Stakes appeal setting for Donald Trump former president , Fighting A 454 Million fine after Judge Arthur engoron ruled that he carried out a yearslong scheme of inflating assets trumps lawyers say the decision is agreed in unconstitutional or the new York Attorney Generals Office argues, is backed by overwhelming evidence. So im lucky to be joined by my great journalists and lawyers whove been following Donald Trumps legal problems in this case over for many years. Now, former federal prosecutor, shan shan wu, cnns Laura Coates cnns paula reid, and cnns kristen holmes. Thank you all for joining me on this busy, busy News Hour. Lets start about this case just to remind viewers about what we expect to see here in just a matter of minutes, paula and the arguments that we expect to hear from both sides, attorneys for former President Trump are undertaking appeals against several, several civil Judgements Addition to his criminal conviction in new york with this specific fraud, this was a trial before a judge, not a jury, and it was really the most personal case for the former president that weve seen over the past few years, because this was about his empire, his business, not only its business, but also his family, his two adult sons, our bolt, also involved in this case. Trump attended much of this trial at harvard at day in and day out. He also testified during this case, even though he faces many civil and criminal cases this one really i think cut cut really to the heart for him because its about his identity as a successful businessman at here, this judge found that he was committing fraud, that he was really lying about his Net Worth, about the value of some of his properties. And of course, it was expected that they would appeal unclear though, if theyll be successful, just to remind viewers about the possible consequences for trump right now about this, in this new, new york civil Fraud Trial against him up to 454 Million in fine plus interests essentially growing substantially each day and longer this goes on, the longer he gets bigger, fine, he could get hit this is not overturned in addition to all the everything else, including the Threeyear Ban on top roles in europe businesses. Kristen holmes, you cover the Trump Campaign and trump is going to speak this afternoon. Hes not expected to be here, but this afternoon, what are you hearing about his mindset . Well, first of all, i was given take whether or not he was actually going to be here. There is a lot of interests from the former president and showing up today and listening to these oral arguments, something that he wanted to do and ultimately decided not to his campaign, decided that he wouldnt, but he is going to speak at 4 30 and you can expect to hear him talk about this. We have seen this time and time again when Donald Trump has these legal cases, particularly now that theyre kind of stretched out in terms of hearings, appeals, he then goes to the cameras kristen, i got to go to the hearing right now. Were taking it live. Lets listen in the law of the Case Doctrine last Year And Trump won at 2 17, 83rd page 611 this court held that no liability could be assigned for transactions that were completed prior to february do you worry of 2016 or 2014 for mr. Sauer, your that thats premised on the fact that the statements of financial conditions cannot give rise on their own to a new violation of 63, 12, right . That is correct. Then then why didnt we say that in the earlier decision on the motion to dismiss when were reviewing the motion to dismiss, i think thats what the phrase the continuing wrong doctrine does not apply to delay or extend limitations period means because that is the continuing wrong doctrine to say that like a 2017 or 2018 statement you know, as a new discrete wrong thats distinct from the original transaction that close way back in 2012, that just is the continuing wrong guy. I think it applies to ivanka trumps arguments that the on that appeal or to the Attorney Generals now discarded theory that there was somehow a large amorphous fraud that somehow told the Statute Limitations All The Way back to 2011, isnt that statement applicable to either of those two arguments made . On the motion to dismiss appeal. Your honor, if i understand the question, the dismissal of Ms Trump strongly supports our interpretation of the prior opinion because of course, the allegations with her in the complainant virtually identical to the allegations against the other individual talents. So if you look at the complaint, you see virtually identical claims and theories as to those two and once this court held, shes not covered by the Tolling Agreement, she was completely dismissed from the case. The same should apply to anyone who is not covered by the Tolling Agreement here. And i would emphasize further though, that theres really two errors here, because even if the continuing wrong doctrine did apply, it still doesnt allow the Trial Court to do what it did, which is to go way back in time to 2011 and 2012 when a Sign Log Ability and major consequences, huge financial consequences based on analysis that never looked at a 2017 or 2015 statements said what liability flows from just that statement that comes much later in the course of conduct and weapons which closed long ago. Exactly right, your honor. Again, this court addressed this squarely in henry decision, which is cited in trump won the Cw Capital Decision, which is cited in what trump won, what henry says is, even if you apply doctrine, it only applies to allow liability for statements within the limitations period, but thats not what the Trial Court did here. Thats not what the attorney Generals Office contended they said, oh, were going to apply the continuing wrong doctrine that contradicts trump won. So that was the first error, but then the second error is once weve done that, were going to pretend theres no statute of limitations at all, and were going to go all the way back in time and assign crippling financial liability for transactions concluded again in 2011 and 2012. So theres a direct contradiction a direct disregard of the prior this courts prior opinion. It becomes really clear, i think when you look at, for example, theres a citation of the inching Lung Decision by the Trial Court. The Trial Court says this shows this is a continuous series of wrongs each of which gives rise to its own liability when there was an opinion from this court three months earlier saying that continuing wrong doctrine does not apply, that makes it very again, shouldnt we have said or wouldnt we have said this statements of financial condition that fall within the limitations period dont give rise to 63, 12 claims. Should we just said that will say everyone a lot of time. I think its i think thats clearly what the continuing wrong doctrine means if you apply again the dismissal of miss trumps strongly supports that. But in any event, your honor, even if the court doesnt agree with that, theres still a massive violation of the continuing of the statute of limitations because again, under henry and versus bank of america, under the Cw Capital Decision the most the Trial Court could have done is looked at the 2017 statements and said what liability can i assess that . Can i oppose that . And that is not at all what happened in the Trial Court. There were just a complete disregard. A statue of limitations, and an analysis that again and again goes all the way back to 2012 even if we agree with you on the statute of limitations point that would not result in the complaint in its entirety being dismissed. It would still be several transactions that would be not not timebarred are timely so what is your response to or what is your strongest argument as to the for dismissal of those claims . Those eggs did not in timebarred clear. Therell be two of the ten that were charged in the complaint that weve identified that would only apply to those covered by the Tolling Agreement, mike, mr. Drop, if youre not covered by the toy agreement, its all gone. Essentially. But in answer to your honors question, we argue that there was a complete failure of proof on the critical element of Capacity Or Tendency to deceive, which is an element required of any 63, 12 of i can stop you there are you talking about a failure of proof at trial absolutely, your honor. As well as in Summary Judgment. So we raised okay. But cause of Action Number one, which is the fraud based claim under 63 12 liability on that was not tried. That was determined at Summary Judgment that is correct, your honor. Asked about yes. I dont believe we can look at the Trial Record to answer any questions about the sufficiency of cause of Action Number one based on fraud, dont we have to confine our review to the Summary Judgment motion record. Well, to the extent that the Trial Court in the final decision was repeatedly referring to reinforce its prior holding and Summary Judgment, yes. Now, our position, of course, is that the failure of proof is even more defined, even more clear when you look at the Summary Judgment record, for example, just a couple of citations to put this in context Summary Judgment Record Page 139, 65 of the record is a Deutsche Bank Witness uncontradicted saying if his Net Worth has been as low as 1 for example, he would have gotten exactly the same deal. It would have been exactly the same transaction thats uncontradicted. Its reinforced by the trial. But could it could the Trial Court have credited mr. Hayes statement hes also a Deutsche Bank employee, correct. And he said that if the facts were if the sfcs were incorrect then they didnt properly assess the risk on these loans nearly said that you say that in your brief, i believe he made a much more generic if you look at that particular citation, he made it much more generic contact that we want to make sure were being compensated for our risk. What is not, what is not disputed is the testimony that if the network had been as low what was 1 Billion. And again, this is the testimony of williams, if Net Worth has been as low as 1 Billion, the deal would have been exactly the same and so its astonishing if you look at, for example, page 18, 82 of the record, which is their schematic, at least nine times in their brief. They can see that President Trumps Net Worth range between on their view, 3,000,000,004. 7 billion dollars throughout this entire period, which is miles above, youre talking about. If youre talking about Summary Judgment, isnt it basic that you dont make Credibility Determinations on the motion . Absolutely. Correct, your honor. We havent repeated violation of that as we pointed out in our briefing, for example, theyre sort of astonishing Credibility Determinations to disregard unrebutted in the Summary Judgment record, Expert Testimony. So if you look at 79, 16, the Summary Judgment affidavits of bartov where he explains how all these representations, virtually everything they challenge is consistent with generally applicable Accounting Standards at their Gop Compliance statements. Thats unrebutted in the Summary Judgment it goes beyond merely being disputed and you couldnt decide it by a credibility determination. Theres really nothing to the contrary and again, these these errors are all reinforced at trials. We are challenging both of those and if you look particularly at professor bartov testimony, you have this clear explanation that all the things that they say are misleading are things that are specifically approved an asc to 70 for creating an issue of fact correct . Exactly. Right, your honor, thats exactly right, your honor. Thats just at the very least thats a disputed issue effect. It isnt just professor of our offers series. Theres professor flemings, theres a whole series of experts when you get to yes, your honour well, you finish that, but then i have a question for you about the scope of the statute. Go right ahead. Okay. Yeah. Know. So i just looking at the language of the statute, it says enacted to promote the Honesty And Integrity and commercial marketplace in new york by stopping fraud and illegal business so to accomplish this, the statute authorizes the Attorney General that whenever a Person Shell engaged in repeated fraudulent, i know that youre challenging that or illegal acts that they can bring such an action. So why isnt the language of the statute . Here referring to the repeated and fraudulent illegal acts or persistent fraud or legality. Why doesnt that just define the scope of the statute . Why do we need to go to Harm Or Threat of harm . Yes, your honor. So the standard is that this court held, for example, in General Electric, is there has to be a Capacity Or Tendency to deceive or atmosphere conducive to fraud. And what weve pointed out is that you have a situation where there were no victims, no complaints, no evidence of causation, materiality, or reliance. There were sophisticated it counterparties. You the understanding of the relevant marketplaces. This court said in the North Bank decision, understood that they would be doing their Due Diligence. They did do their own Due Diligence. The uncontradicted testimony in the Summary Judgment record is we everything we did was independent. We didnt rely on the numbers thats the williams testimony in the Summary Judgment record. Oh, that is evidence as as the for example, the Dominos Pizza decision that weve cited powerfully makes this point where all of that is lacking, all that is powerful evidence that there was no Capacity Or Tendency to see which ties into our point that every sort about the issue inches were exactly the same. Sorry, counsel, what about deterrence . In other words, The Ag would have the argument that maybe this, these deals went down fine as far as all the parties were concerned in these deals, but in the future, some deal might not go down well and someone would be harmed by that. And so we need to deter parties from im putting in fallacious statements of financial state. Good man, yes. Right. I just to answer that question, the Deterrence Interest goes entirely opposite direction where we have a situation where the Supreme Court disregarded on rebutted Expert Testimony that these are gap compliant. These are consistent with Accounting Standards which dont require perfection. Nobody. Attorney general points out that whether or not theyre consistent with gop principles, its the factual inaccuracies that are important so in other words, you might be following gaap principles, but if youre, if your data is terrible, then youre creating a fallacious Statement Respect to that completely disregards or at least misinterprets our Expert Testimony which look at what they say is factual data thats misinterpreted. For example, appraisals i mean, essentially its a pretty im the appraisal in your file. You got to rely on that. You cant rely on your own independent judgment. They say thats a factual inaccuracy. Gaps as the opposite, at least thats the unrebutted testimony. This Summary Judgment record. And i would direct the Court And Page 17916, the beginning of Professor Bartov Summary of opinions on that. I want to turn your attention to a different subject because your time Red Light is on i am trying to figure out about the valuation of mara lago i noticed that you are expert mr. Moons valued it at over 1 Billion he also said that if its present the hands of a new Owner Club memberships, 500 Cub Memberships could be sold generating 250 Million and generates revenue of over 50 Million a year in 2022 and 2023 and Supreme Court values it at 18 to 27 Million because of restrictions. You have anything to say about those restrictions taking it down in value to such an extent, those are i take two things in response to that. First, the Shubhin Affidavit directly addresses that that was improperly kind of disregard, says there are no restrictions on it he says there arent shubhin says there are no restrict. He says you have to interpret it. He says the Trial Court looks at one Document And Isolation that you have conservation. Mr. Shubhin says you got to look at all five documents included think the historical practice, there to understand what the actual policy hasnt. For example, they say he couldnt value it as a private residence, but he has been using as a private residence since 1995, continually is continuously to this day but the more fundamental point is that valuation where he relied on Tax Assessment illustrates a hazards to the marketplace as a whole here, from having the Supreme Court site, things like Chico Marx and footnote nine of the Summary Judgment decision. The i know it when i see it standard from obscenity law, from Justice Potter Stewart to decide whats a misrepresentation. These statements when you have Expert Testimony, unrebutted that says these are gap consistent. If we have a system where you can issue perfectly accounting clear, basically statements that comply with gap. And youre held well, we have another standard. I know it when i see it thats good. Thats bad. People cant do business in Real Estate so thank you. Thank you, your honor. Im sorry. Theres another question sir, are you asking us to drop draw any bright Line Rules as to the contour of the a. G. s authority under 63, 12 or are you asking us to scrutinize the evidence that was a deuced either at Summary Judgment with respect to claim number one, and then a trial with respect to two through seven the latter, your honor. Arguments on the unique facts of this case, you cannot come to the conclusion that the plain language of the statute was violated, and we argue obviously that the rice his constitutional questions as well under grasso and under the excessive fines claws, and so forth, we make all those interpretive arguments about the fundamental point is, if you look at these unique facts on this case the statute just Austin Johnson has no limitations. You have position that under the facts of this case 63, 12, didnt support the taking the action that was taken. Thats exactly right, your honor. Thank you. Ryan afternoon, your honors brian isaac, as you know, i represent the nonparty appellant attorneys my argument is not as sexy as the other arguments, but i think its a usually important argument to me as an appellate litigator i think that the new York State judicial system is the best in the world. I dont think its better. I dont think its better arithmetically. I think its better geometrically and i think most of the credit goes to you, but some of it goes to us also. You cant do your job in exemplary fashion unless we do our Job Competently and every single lawyer who practices in new york knows its not what you get at the trial level. Its what you keep in the Appellate Division it is an absolutely horrible idea in my judgment to sanction attorneys making motions for Summary Judgment in cases where they have to do it to preserve the issue, not only hear your honors dominant, Take A Chance on the appellate courts saying, are they didnt preserve the issue judges, not only here, this is a trump case. Liking dont like him, it doesnt matter. This case is a case that definitionally could go to the quarter the appeals look at 522 before one look and see alina against erie preserve. Look at the number of amicus briefs that you had. I couldnt even read them. You have to preserve these issues and there is one fact that i want to bring to your attention. I know, you know it, but we probably should have brought it out in the brief more you have interest of justice jurisdiction. You can if you want, decide on preserved issues, you almost never do it. If you dont believe me, just run my names brian j. Isaac in quotes within eight, put preserved and preserved, not preserved. See how good ivan, im not offer five. Amount of ammo for three decades on that but this court can do it. The court of appeals cant. They do not have any f justice jurisdiction. They are not allowed to decide mixed questions of law and fact. They cant decide damage issues, they cant decide that the cases against a credibly to the evidence, how can a competent attorney these people are competent 20s Risk of 440 Malpractice Claim by not raising an argument thats a tenable argument. And im not going to go over my time because i dont but i i just i wanted to say something to you the Attorney General, and the Trial Judge excoriated the lawyers for making a motion for Summary Judgment on Discord Judgment at the Summary Judgment level one of the cases they rely on is people against Ernst And Young, which you know . Can i read to you what you said . This isnt brian, isaac is not Michael Ross who wrote the brief for me. This is the Appellate Division first department. Im reading it verbatim quote therefore, while the Attorney General does not allege direct injury to the public or consumers as a result of defendants alleged collusion with Lehman Brothers and cumin meeting fraud. The equitable remedy of this course is available in this action. Heres the key point and it was premature to categorically precluded at the pleading stage. Thats verbatim. That is exactly what these lawyers did. And to be sanctioned for it is just wrong and threatens the integrity of what i think is the greatest political System Weve seen. You shouldnt allow it minutes first you have ten minutes on. I dont know if its easier, your honor, since were the appellee is im happy to just take the full 15 minutes as the appellee and that okay. I think that maybe simplifies things judith fail for the new York Attorney Generals Office all of the defendants repeatedly violated. Can you identify any previous case in which the Attorney General sued under executive was 63, 12 two upset a private Business Transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners. We have to suppose victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own Due Diligence we have the suppose wrongdoer advise the supposed victim through Written Disclaim is to conduct its own Due Diligence and to draw its own conclusions where the alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses and where and when the victim never complain about any port in the transaction, louis is premier because ive gone through the cases which youve cited and all of them always involve the Consumer Protection aspect. It have involved protection of the market several and i want to add to his question and little to no impact on the public marketplace. Well, maybe ill take that Firstyear Honor and work backwards. There was absolutely a public impact and a public interest here. There are at least four different public harms from the kind of misconduct here. First of all, when deceptively hidden risks our injected into the market that does hurt the counterparties and there was harm to the counterparties here, but it also harms other Market Participants in the market as a whole because they are not understanding the risks, they are not pricing them improperly, and they are not prepared for what might happen if the true risks come to pass also, as the legislature made clear and passing 63, 12, it was concerned with harms to the honest businesspeople. The honest Business People who dont do the misconduct. And there has i suppose youre referring i suppose you referring to the fact that trump received the lower Interest Rate, then he might otherwise have received. But doesnt it didnt have having yourself conceded that the acids was sufficient to get the lower Interest Rate of the private, private Wealth Management Direction absolutely not, your honor. That is not conceded one bit. And the evidence is to the contrary, if you look at what the Deutsche Bank Witnesses testified to, hague said that the financial strength of the guarantor affects the pricing in terms of the loan thats on the record at 28167268, and it affects whether the private Wealth Management Group would be allowed to do this deal at all . Thats at 281, 50 of the record. And you have to remember something as the Net Worth statements, as the statements were coming in. The Dosha Bank was doing a Stress Test. So if without the fraud, the net Worth And Liquidity would have started much lower. Can you do the Stress Test and it takes it down much lower . It is not look like such a strong financial guarantee anymore. It does not look like an ironclad guarantee anymore. And it was absolutely a fair inference that Deutsche Bank would not have given these loans without the financial strength being inflated. That was also evident from Hague And Mccarthy testifying about the incredible doesnt understand. Hey, does mr. Hey. Testified that they were 14 factors in this was the least important factor well. Theres certainly there are multiple factors that go into the risk assessment, but both for materiality and for disgorgement, the issue is not whether theres only one factor, theres often a lot of factors that are going considered for materiality. Its whether its important to the overall total mix of information. And this was absolutely critical so 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, in order to figure out whether they would take on this risk, but also the financial statements were coming in each year and they were important critical to the loans each year because Deutsche Bank was reassessing the risk every single year and it was using shared. But whats being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute between private actors well, to go back to the first question about whether theres other examples of this. There are other examples of this in the First American case, the Attorney General brought a 63 12 case, or the transaction at issue was between a very big bank, wells fargo, and a professional appraisal firm. But it wasnt a warrant, werent wasnt a concern there that the public would ultimately be negatively impacted and affected by what those corporate actors were doing and thats the concern is here as well, because when you have hidden risks, getting injected into the market and you can hurt the 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 visit to that to point the Executive Law 63, 12. I just want to read a section of it well, not exactly, but was enacted to promote and protect Honesty And Integrity. Its the same question i asked the other side. And commercial markets hit places in new york by stopping fraudulent and illegal businesses to accomplish this purpose, the statute authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil and Foresman 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 dont read Harm Or Threat of harm in that. But the other side is saying that that is to be read into the statute either any cases where the language Harm Or Threat to harm limits the scope of the Attorney General . No, your honor. Not as to liability and not in cases like this where what the Attorney General is seeking is Injunctive Relief and disgorgement. Greenberg for the new York Court of appeals and Ernst And Young from this court made clear that reliance by a counterparty, an actual harm to a counterparty are not required for liability for any of the claims here. And remember to think about the Illegality Claims as well, because its not just fraud, its very finish the question. So for the Illegality Claims, you look to the underlying penal law provisions and for something like issuing false financial statements, theres no requirement for reliance, theres intent and Theres Materiality which was proved at trial. But if someone issues a false financial statement to their counterparty, the counterparty gets it and is not fooled, picks up the phone and calls the enforcement parties. The prime has still been committed even though the counterparty didnt rely on it at all. So you pointing to Ernst And Young, you pointing to First American, ernst in younger dealing with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, First American, youre dealing with an action brought against an appraiser Will Overvalued Pratt Properties at the Behest Linda perpetrating a scheme to induce unsophisticated consumers into taking at 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, youve got to really sophisticated bodies 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 Youve got a scheme to get and unsophisticated consumers to take at Home Loans. You got to collapse of Lehman Brothers. You dont have anything like that here. Well, first of all, your honor, the statute doesnt 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 illegalities. Whether an example of what youre talking about, i think as people versus allen isnt it . There was just a dispute among partners affect the public. I mean, at all. But i think you hear underneath all these questions, the question of Mission Creep has 63, 12 of more into something that it was not meant to do and thats, Thats Something you must address because there has to be some limitation on what the Attorney General can do in interfering in these private transactions. As Justice Friedman said, that, were people dont claim harm. So what is the limiting principle . Well ill say two things, your honor, that well, first of all, the limiting personable are whats in the law so the Illegality Claims require intent, they require materiality. Standard been talk about the standalone yes. For this 63, 12 fraud. Well, there this court has defined that rather broadly, but there are still limits. It is not falsity in the wind. First of all, it is not false city that you whisper to someone on the couch. It has to be related and relevant to the business at hand, and it does have to have a Capacity Or Tendency to deceive. It has to have a capacity youre a tendency to see and i will stress, her, honor, that this does have harm to the public and to the markets. And i think what your honor for saying is that in the other the other cases, the Ripple Effects happened to happen. It went so far that the Ripple Effects from fraud went on to hurt the market. But what the legislature wanted was 63, 12, just like for the martin act. And then about this in a short guaranteed to be prophylactic. Is that what youre about to say, counsel . Yes. Look at the ashore for Guarantee Case from the court of appeals. It talks about how a big point of these statutes, not the only point, but a big point is for the Attorney General to go in quickly to stop the Fraud And Illegality before it gets to the point that counterparties are harmed or it has those kinds of Ripple Effects in the market. I do want to though push back on idea that Deutsche Bank or never complained and wasnt harmed at all. Deutsche bank did complain when they first found out about the alleged misstatements that omissions they raised serious concerns with defendants, said that misstatements in the financial statements would be an event of default. They asked for more information and when they didnt get more information, they exited the entire relationship with the trumps. That shows that they cared about the financial statements being truthful and accurate morning, what do you is that in . That was in it was right when they first heard about the allegations. So i believe as it was 2020, your honor, although id have to check the precise hear on that and may its ours as well when mazars found out about the alleged misstatements that omissions. They also sent a letter saying these financial statements should not be relied upon anymore. So it is not true that the counterparties didnt care or never complained, even though thats not required for 63, 12 homes. So im so glad im moving off topic. So if you have a question on this, go ahead. Maybe a better topic than mine. Back to justice. Moultons point about Line Drawing, because i do think that that is very important in this case you know the history. Of this statute. Its passed under then a jeep javits. And then was really amplified by Ag Lefkowitz over the years when i went back and read the bill jack, its the common thread was always we need greater power, Eg Needs Greater Powers as the Peoples Lawyer too protect consumers civil rights, and the environment and so again, would that sort of historical backdrop to this law how do we draw a line or at least put up some guardrails to know when the Day G is operating well within her broad admittedly broad sphere of 66312 and when she is going into an area that wasnt intended for her jurisdiction. Sure, your honor. Well, i will say although there was certainly concerned about consumers, especially at the outset of 63, 12, and some of the legislative history, there were multiple bills being passed in some of them were more specifically Consumer Protection statutes, which i think explains some of the focus and the legislature wrote this statute. It doesnt say consumers in it. It wasnt focused. I mean, of course we want to protect consumers. Im and another right off, it does start off with the words to protect Honesty And Integrity in the in the commercial marketplace. So yes, your honor. And it also is folk it says quite broadly, whenever any person, whenever any person engages in Fraud Or Illegality, what that is that is meant to include businesses, larger, small, because this kind of deceptive risk does cause problems for the honest Business People who dont do it this way and dont get the illgotten gains. And it does inject risks into the market. I mean, your honor, there was probably a time when most of us didnt know what a repo one, five was, which is what brought down lehman are what rmbs was. And maybe, you know, in an ideal world, the Attorney General or somebody else would have gone in and stop that Fraud Or Illegality. What it was its still just among the sophisticated counterparties. And before it had the enormous harms and Ripple Effects that it ended up having let me just ask you, you mentioned about the Ripple Effect going on if the threat of harm or whatever the Ripple Effect is so remote, does the conduct falls still . I mean, how remote does it have to be . So same question with regard to this Line Drawing in order for The Ag to follow through i mean, i think the remote village outside of the scope of the statute, as in torrance. I mean, i think at least for 63 12 fraud standing alone. Think the limit does come in through the Capacity Or Tendency to deceive requirement. I dont think that the legislature wanted to have this kind of like evaluation about the precise harm out of a specific transaction. I mean, thats why harm is not. I mean, harm is an issue that might be for restitution, but thats not at issue here. But there is a limit and it comes from the Tendency Or Capacity to deceive standard that this court has put on that does incorporate a materiality like standard. I think when we say materially, materiality is not required were talking about the reasonable investor that that materiality is not required. Its just which objective person youre looking to. Theres still an objective standard. There are thats a good point in which objective person are we looking to here, given that it is . The nature of the transaction that it is, i dont want to belabor the tobacco. I mean, it doesnt this court has said that the standard for 63 12 fraud standing alone is the objective, reasonable, ordinary, and even im thinking person. But in this case, the court could use the higher standard and it would be fine because these i noticed he say the ordinary standard on page 55 of your brief, you say these deceptive strategies had a capacity, a tendency to deceive because they would have been relevant to unlikely to mislead an ordinary person involved in the business dealings. And you cite to general General Electric isnt the test here whether they will likely to mislead jh a Bank Or Lead Ladder Capital of the city of new york, awarding a Golf License or zurich on a Surety Bond Program wherever its national Insurance Company on a directors and offices policies, the defendants statements were not meant for ordinary people. They were directed at some of the most sufficient the catered individuals and entities and business if the court wants to use the standard of a objectively reasonable counterparties sophisticated counterparty, 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 but were extremely important and that any reasonable counterparty would want to know any sophisticated reasonable counterparty would want to know that the defendants were valuing an apartment based on 20,000 square feet more than it really was based on pretending that rent regulations on certain departments didnt exist based on pretending that the maralago restrictions didnt exist, your honor, asked about that. The Trial Court was very clear that it was not coming up with a magical valuation for itself. The problem with the Maralago Valuation is similar to what happened with the rent regulated apartments, the restrictions in the deed are there. They are objective fact. They are very restrictive and even defendants own x at Summary Judgment. This is at 16502 of the record, agreed that the restrictions would decrease the value of maralago, but defendants valued it as if those restrictions didnt exist at all. Counsel, i want to ask my question because youre Red Light is on. Your honor, hadnt pjs for the Disk Disjoint Disgorgement calculations when it have been more appropriate to calculate them by calculating the difference in valuation of the property versus the valuation provided to the banks to get the loans no, your honor. Just worsen the calculation what we needed was the reasonable approximation. What is the reasonable approximation of what Defendants Fraud gained them Defendants Theory is that the guarantee and the financial statements each year were worth nothing but the point of the guarantee and the financial statements each year was to get the extremely favorable Interest Rates and we were not speculating about the difference in Interest Rates. We had the counteroffer that Deutsche Bank, their own lenders provided them for a loan without the guarantee and the financial statements. I do touch very briefly on the statute limitations, your honor, we have you have another question. Other questions similar. Out as actually, which is the immense penalty in this case is troubling. So how do you tether 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 game away from the wrongdoer and although this is a large number, its a large number for a couple of 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 she worked to get enormously favorable Interest Rate savings to the defendants. It was a different a difference of approximately four to eight percentage points, 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 real at least successful. So we should get some of the money. Was there a double counting the damages assessed for the old Post Office and the very point, no, there was not there was not double count in, your honor, to two points on this. First of all, the Interest Rate savings and the sale profits are separate pots of money the defendants got the Interest Rates, savings off the top theres no suggestion that they invested that savings into the into the opo. They were using the loan. And so they got the Interest Rate off the top. That was the savings that they got each year, each year within this actual limitations, they were getting a savings by get by doing the fraud over and over again. Melody. And then the cell profits are separate and the sale profits, its not the proceeds. The proceeds of the loan or over of the Sail Worth around 370 million. The Trial Court took out the repayment of the Deutsche Bank loan, and i think defendants themselves had taken out already the taxes and mr. Trump testified that the number for him not around 126 Million in profits, was his prophet. That was his profit or more i mean, id happy to talk about the statute limitations quickly, although i see that my Red Light is on. So what ill give you more time toward sure, your honor. On the statue of of limitations so much. Ill give you three minutes. Thank you, your honor. On the statute of limitations each use of a misleading statement in business and each issuance most by been watching lawyers for Donald Trump in the new York Attorney Generals Office. Facing off in manhattan. The former president trying to get a disappears court to reverse a lower Court Ruling handing down that 454 and million civil Fraud Judgment against him. Well see if hes successful in doing that. That judgment came down back in february. Laura coates youve been listening to these arguments to the judges seem more skeptical of trumps attorneys or of the states attorneys on this issue is a bit of a divide. Were seeing right now, which is often what happens when you have an appellate review and a panel who are related talking to the witness, to the attorneys, but really talking to each this all comes down to no harm, no foul. We heard this initially, if there were no victims, so to speak, then why has Tish James even brought this case . Thats the argument of trumps attorneys. Its now the argument of this pellet but attorneys questioning what the parameters of the law should have been, there essentially saying, look, the were sophisticated parties who knew what they were doing, assume the risks of the actual negotiation. Therefore, No One should be involved now of course, the judges are saying, well, thats not the actual statute. Harm is not explicitly required here. Should this have been enough and then trumps team says that it was unconstitutional this the scope of this judgment handed down against him, right. And really thats such a dangerous argument for the Public Good but to actually rule here that the Attorney Generals Jurisdiction Or Authority is limited. Really, you carry this notion out, no harm, no foul. Its like, oh, private, Rich Business this man can do anything they want. They can play with the numbers to enrich themselves. And the Ag Cant do anything. So thats a very far reaching argument. If they go that way. And just a reminder that what trump was found liable for over 200 false and misleading claims valuations intended to secure a better terms for loans and insurance. Some properties are valued hundreds of million dollars over reasonable estimates. And of course at 454 Million fine plus interest thats adding up. How did you see what just happened in court . I actually thought this was great for solar plug, for having cameras in courtrooms so that people can see how this works. I think this was extremely fair because there were questions about why trump was charged. Can you point to any other times when youve brought a case like this and really she could not find an apples for apples comparison. But then there were also questions about, well, is there really any policy . Our on the Attorney General doing this and the answer seemed to be no. So i think it was great for people to see this process, see how fair this was but its unlikely were going to actually get this decision before the election and were very quickly no reaction from trump yet, none at all, but i do expect to watched clips of this and assess how he thinks Jonathan Sauer dead because its one of the things hes been doing lately as watching all of his lawyers and giving them feedback. Sometimes in real time monitor that and theres a lot more to come in thats very busy News Hour on quitting Fema Administrator at the white House Briefing about that Month Sir Storm about to hit florida ive been saying publicly more people say and turns out i have enough money. I could just shut off saturday, October 5th on cnn. Ive never once had to wait for insurance to approve a test or approved medication, you didnt have to worry about any of those things to the donations and our family is forever grateful because its completely changed our lives. He told us who he was should abortion be punished if it has to be some form of punishment, then he showed us for 54 years, they were trying to get roe v. Wade terminated and i did it and im proud to have done it now, Donald Trump wants to go further with plans to restrict birth control, Ban Abortion nationwide, even monitor womens pregnancies. We know who Donald Trump is. Hell take control. Well pay the price. Im Kamala Harris and i approve this message ive always been an active person biking running, but yoga, its really special to me. Its definitely a big part of who i am and i love the way it makes me feel but there was a time not long ago when i felt i had to accept the idea of hanging up this old yoga mat. You see, i have symptomatic Obstructive Hcm, which left me so short of breath. I just couldnt get out here, making me feel like a bystander in my own life. So i talked to my cardiologist and he told me about camps is he said Camps Ios works by targeting whats causing my Obstructive Hcm. So he prescribed and im so thankful he did kims ios is used to treat adults with symptomatic Obstructive Hcm kim xylose may improve your symptoms. Andrew, ability to be active, kims Ios May cause serious side effects, including Heart Failure that can lead to Death Or Risk thats increased if you develop a serious infection or irregular killer heartbeat, or when taking certain other medicines. So do not stop, start or change medicines or the dose without telling your health care provider, you must have echocardiograms before and during treatment, seek help if you variants new or worsening symptoms of Heart Failure because of this risk, Cams Ios has only available through a restricted program before taking camps. Ios, tell your doctor about all of your medical conditions including current or planned pregnancy with cams is reducing my symptoms. Ive gone from sitting on the sidelines to being back in the game. My name is stephanie and this is my Cams Ios moment call your Cardiologist Today and see if a Camps Ios moment maybe in near future to way to network. They switched it junipers, ai needed network. And ever briefing simpler. So they can take their game to a whole new level Breaking News this hour as part of the White House with Fema Administrator Deanna Criswell Theme as i told him, we have been preparing for this storm for a number of days and we began moving resources into florida on monday i just want everybody to know that this is going to be a multistate events with the potential for significant impacts from Florida All The Way to tennessee and the president wants to make sure that everyone is paying attention to the potential lifethreatening impacts that the storm may bring. And he has directed me to travel there tomorrow to assess the impacts the entire state of florida is under some type of warning, right . Now, whether thats a Hurricane Warning or a tropical Storm Warning and we expect lifethreatening Flash Flooding in the states north as the storm continues to move north, and so i need everybody to pay attention to their local officials. Theyre going to have the best information on the specific risks where you are at were already seeing impacts in florida in the forecast indicates that we could see up to 20 feet of Storm Surge just think back to fears ago to hurricane ian, the peak Storm Surge from that was 14 feet and we saw the amount of destruction and 100 150 people lost their lives the majority of them from drowning. So please take this threat from never response might be needed. And so let me just say more time before i take any questions. Take the storm seriously . People in hurricane helenes path you need to listen to your local officials if they tell you to evacuate, please do so. And if they tell you to shelter in place and thats what you should do. Theyre going give you the best information that you can do for your specific situation. Those decisions can save lives with that, ill take questions so this is likely to be the 20 Billion Dollar Weather or climate disaster this year. So does have the resources to ban responding to disaster after disaster like this we have absolutely enough resources to continue to support the lifesaving response that we need to for this event. I think everybody is aware that we went into immediate Needs Funding as our disaster relief fund, the funding was running low. But the reason we do that is to make sure we havent enough money for an event just like this. And i want everybody to know that we have exactly what we need and there are no limitations to our ability to support the response for this disaster as we continue to go through the recovery though for all of these disasters that also takes personnel. And were going to continue to work through with our robust plan and they have really aggressive targets to try to get the majority of people i i forget what the exact percentages i think it was 85 or 90 within 48 Hours Backup and they have several thousand resources that have been prepositioned to come in and then support Florida Power and light or the other utilities to help them get the power back on as we expect widespread Power Outages from this, when we think about tallahassee, its got a lot of Tree Canopy those trees are going to come down an impact. Those Power Lines and debris and the ability to detain goal the debris from the Power Lines is what could take a long time the Power Restoration teams, they do a couple of things from the army corps. One, they can help us Put Generators in on critical facilities to help make sure that those facilities have power but they can also make assessments and how to prioritize some of the work. We know where we need to put our efforts to help the private Sector Utility companies get the power for restored as quickly as possible talk a little bit about how the response has changed based on the severity of the storms. I think were seeing in can you sing storms with increasing severity. So how does that change the response for you . I mean, i know its more manpower, but what what else how else . Does it i think the biggest thing is that we want to get things in place early. This is why weve been moving resources into the area since monday in having me know theres a large population thats really vulnerable in florida. And so thats why we have so many Search And Rescue teams that are able to come in and augment the really impressive amount of teams that florida already has within the state, right . So this is on top of what they already have so for us, its making sure that we are sending more than we think that will need. And if i dont need them, i can send them home. What i dont want to do is be short. I want to make sure that i have enough that can support whatever the states my request you said that you who are headed down there tomorrow, did you discuss with the president on whether it might be possible for him to make the trip down in the coming days and secondly, is there a single piece . So that buys or warning that you wish in these kinds of situations, people would he more seriously that you might want the size of my setting the purpose of my visit is to assess the impacts and ill be briefing him on what those impacts are. Ill leave it to careen to talk with him about what actions he might take. But i think the message is take this serious i mean, we look at the cone and the cone is the wind, but the water is what kills people in. So we need to really look at where this storm im surge is going to be in florida but georgia, south carolina, north carolina, and those appalachians, theyre going to have up to 20 inches of rain an area that can have significant Flash Flooding. And that is really life threatening him. It comes so much faster than what we see from a Storm Surge, right . Theyre going to have unless warning once the rain starts there. So they need to know what theyre going to do. Now, put those plans, plans in Place Today for where theyre going to go, how theyre going to contact their family and their friends, what theyre going to need to take with them, like medicine or powered devices for medical reasons its not too late. They should be able to put those plans together today so they can take the actions that their local officials tell them to do talking about the need to follow Evacuation Orders officials, given that we now from past storms that people dont always see that not being, they dont want to, but because they cant afford to leave the area, dont have anywhere to go down. Her Family Members to help them doing anything to work on that particular issue, given what youre talking about with water and the danger that can come from if people stayed part of the Prelandfall Emergency Declaration is specifically to reimburse states and local jurisdictions for any of the costs that they incur her to do sheltering in evacuation because we want them to have the resources to put in place whatever measures that they need i think the important thing on the evacuation to remember for as if youre told to evacuate, especially from the Storm Surge area, doesnt mean you have to go to a whole other state and i think we often think of those picks, pictures of contraflow blinds, and then backed up traffic. But you really sometimes only need to go a few miles to get out of Harms Way and so the local officials should be able to tell you where theres low Well Evacuation Centers that you can go to until the threat of the storm has passed then when we get to the point yeah, theres a number of programs that are available for fema. We specifically made some changes into our Disaster Declaration of the Stafford Act recently which allows people that work from actually get compensated for some of their Business Losses if they work from home, like if they had a computer or other equipment that they needed to do their personal if there are photography referring, they lost their cameras im so we just made that change recently in march to be able to compensate Small Business owners that work from Home Sba can speak he specifically about their programs and but theyve also made some really amazing changes this year, which increases the Dollar Amount that people can borrow from the sba. It extends the time where