but there is, this is something, some of the stuff is off the charge. 1100 percent is not normal. no. do you feel, so, when we are talking about this lawsuit, it is centrally about donald trump. but what makes this different, and perhaps more damning for trump at large is that it also implicates his children. right? right. we are talking about generational fraud. he is naming ivanka, he is naming eric, he is naming donald trump junior. and for donald trump, that seems meaningful. now, bill barr earlier today was suggesting that, quote dragging the children into this was an unsavory thing for the attorney general to do. but from what you have read, does it sound like they played meaningful roles and all of this? two things, i want to take you to an example, i think they are powerful. the trump organization is not fortune 500 company where there is thousands of people. there are small groups of people, donald trump has, by his decision to whittle it down, top executives are l
even go to the supreme court. but this is such a loser, such a losing issue. i have to imagine even those decisions would be done very swiftly because of the recognized harm to national security that occurs every day, every minute that goes by the justice department does not have the ability to investigate the disclosure of these documents. you know, trump clearly was willing to roll the dice here, elise s legal representatives were. they got a very favorable ruling initially from aileen cannon, the 11th circuit, six of the 11 judges seated on that court are trump appointees. perhaps i thought the mouth was in their favor. but as the documents show us, being a trump appointee did not seem to matter here. two of the judges who ruled on this for trump pointy s. when he was an obama appointee. this was a pro curium order, which means no particular judge takes credit for this. that is meaningful, do you think, barb? in terms of showing traditional solidarity as it were? i don t know, i
and is a business. after all, that office already essentially sat down trump s sham university, his victory. james can t criminally indict trump and she can t explicitly seek to dissolve the organization the way the university and the charity were. but she is seeking to borrow trump and his children from ever running a business in new york again. to bar them from getting loans or acquiring real estate in new york for five years. and to recover 200 and $50 million in alleged legal gotten gains. that is no small sign. but all that together, this lawsuit has the potential to put the trumps out of business in the state of new york. joining us once again is barbara made, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. carved, expecting with me. what do you make of the what do you strength of the make the strength of the ag s case? here what ag s case, we have? she cites ten years? she cites ten years of trump s stance on his
from that game to charity. years later, huffpost did some digging and found out that surprise, there is no evidence that trump never did such a thing. back in 1989, the nation had yet to learn the extent of donald trump s huckster-ism, his propensity for shameless lies and endless self promotion. but in his hometown of new york, trump was already well known as a charlatan. and perhaps no one knew that better than the good folks at spy magazine, the irreverent and statistical magazine made it their mission to poke and mock and expose trump at every turn. the same year that trump the game came out, spy magazine ran an article titled the art of the art of the deal, dedicated to exposing trump s many lies about his wealth. it was perhaps the very first investigation into trump s inflated assets. by 1991, they had dug even deeper into trump s financial chicane horry was an article titled all the, people all the time. how donald trump fooled the media, use the media to fool the banks, use th
the second super bowl. how demoralizing it was for the then oakland raiders that they could not stop this play that would be run over and over and over again. this is how republican philosophy and republican strategy works. particularly in the trump era. we all know what trump will do. there are no secrets as to what play trump will run next. the issue that we have as democrats, as people who care about democracy, is how do we stop it? and i think what steve bannon was saying, what peter navarro was saying, what newt gingrich was saying, that what we want to do is telegraph all our moves ahead of time and then watch as our opponents become demoralized with their inability to stop it. we re seeing this with voting rights across the country where governors and republican state legislatures are doing everything they can to make sure that the next election goes their way. the trump loyalists are in place