Unusual. The new defense from trump world to avoid paying his half 1 bond. I have a former Temperature Attorney with me to try to make the case also tonight, the dnc prepares for war with Third Party Candidates and one of them, 20 tonight, im Laura Coates Live all right. Can you imagine what must be going on and donald . Trumps head tonight . I mean, hes got five. Just count them five days to come up with nearly half 1 billion and a bond, and he has civil fraud case in new york. And so far, Insurance Companies who could back that bond are sending his calls the voicemail. The last thing the field of gop nominee want the world to see is the allegedly multibilliondollar man would ever who actually might be worth going perhaps hatton hand are selling Properties Like his Namesake Trump Tower for Bargain Basement prices because make no mistake. The new york a jaylen should james, she has zero sympathy, maybe even negative 464 million worth of sympathy. But now there are rumblings in the trump world that the only numbers he wants the Appeals Court to hear and Pay Attention to is the number eight as in the Eighth Amendment, which reads feeds excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor the part you probably know best Cruel And Unusual punishments inflicted. If that phrase, the earlier one, excessive find that seems to really caught trumps attention. I mean, really, i mean, so much so that he whipped out a copy of it during a Fox Town Hall just last month i wrote this app because it was so it was so great i just looked at people call up all of your friends, the lawyers call up, they say its the most egregious punishment anybodys ever seen. Tim scott knows that he says the ancient Amendment Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor Cruel And Unusual punishment inflicted. Thats the Eighth Amendment. Excessive fines it is indeed from his mouth to trump worlds ears, because all of this, i didnt feel like everybody is talking about the Eighth Amendment there are supposed to be no excessive fines and Cruel And Unusual punishment is constitutional, right . As i understand it the Eighth Amendment says, no cruel or unusual punishment and no large fines or outright excessive fines. It is unconscionable that were even here, but i think the Eighth Amendment is certainly play maybe its time for him to go to Federal Court on this Eighth Amendment claim. So that he gets some kind of repose or something that gives them the chance to hold on for a minute. Now let me remind you of a key phrase in the amendment, Cruel And Unusual punishment. Usually you hear that part of the amendment when you think about the Death Penalty or other punishments, not only a billionaire whos been found to have engaged in fraud like schemes to trick banks into thinking. Theres assets were worth far more than they actually were. Heres what all this now forward top attorney tim parlatore, im so glad that youre with me here today because get out your Law Textbooks and refresh recollection about what it all is the excessive fines portion of it. Now, when you look at this, youve actually said that it is in play here and it does apply to civil cases talking by excessive fines. But do you think it really does apply in a case like this where the judge seems to have lined it up, not through punitive damages, but almost the compensatory line for line of these socalled in gut and gate gil gotten gains i think that it is something that you have to at least raise and the bond is kind of a separate issue, but the substantive appeal here. And i think its something that you by using a us Constitutional Amendment is something that you can bring it up to the top of new york and then over to the Us Supreme Court on this exact issue. The first question is, does it even apply to a civil case like this and generally is applied primarily to criminal cases. And so i think that that is something thats unsettled right now. And so the court could look at that and say whether it does or doesnt well, the courts have said that it can apply to civil cases for excessive fines, but they seem to be pretty clear on the parameters incentive. Is it proportional to what the person has done wrong . Correct. Who is the defendant or the person before them in terms of their means and obviously is this meant to just be punitive and punishment in nature, right and when you look at this case, you know, the victim in this case, deutsche bank, they made money, they made a profit. They said it as a defense witness. We knew what the actual evaluation was we gave them alone anyway, he paid it back. You but they made their interest and so it is something where you dont really have any victim. Nobodys out, any money and there are other cases where people are out money where you can actually tie the damages to somebody thats owed something. And lets remember here the money is not going back to the victim Letitia James has not trying to get a half 1 billion. So she could get know. Shes shes using it to bring it to the state. And so i think that because it is untethered to the victim, its something that there is a very good argument on appeal to say that it is a fine and a punishment and not some type of a compensatory damages while the judge hasnt by this is victimless at all. The judge believes that and through his findings that in fact, there are victims in the sense of this being properly brought complaint against him. But i often hear at the heard this notion of kind of alls well, that ends well, right . If im not complaining thanks. So whats the big deal but you know, prosecutors all across the country are bringing case on behalf of the jurisdiction, not on behalf of the private plaintiffs attorney in that instance but this idea of the appeal, i mean, i know i hate to get into the weeds about this, but if. He did not preserve, they say preserve it on appeal, meaning preserve it at trial to raise this Eighth Amendment below before it gets the Appellate Court. They may not even look at this. Do you know if he actually has preserved the right to breaking this particular issue . Well, i think that when it comes to that issue, thats not something that an objection would have been raised down below the end until the very end once they get the judgment from from the judge during trial, you cant really raise that. I dont think that the Eighth Amendment issue is one that really they needs to be preserved on the record down below so much thats something that you would raise an a direct appeal because youre going directly from the judgment. He raising it now, thats the question. It just kinda twitter world the next world x world. Yes, its definitely something where everybody is presupposing can be brought because the appeal has process has barted. Yeah. Theyre still at the bonds stage, so certainly they havent filed the briefs. And so i would expect that this would be one of their major points on the appeal. But we are still guessing. I mean, its i think its an educated guess. It is going to raise it, but it is still a gas. Well, you know, there is the notion of lets just say hes able to raise it the Appellate Court will look at this in some respect. Is a clear error standard meeting. Was there a miscalculation here did i add wrong as the lower court judge or are the arguments youre raising about the excessive fine going to come into play and how he applied that particular asset expect of it. But lets just say for a moment that james is able to collect that the appeals go all wrong trump is not the victor in the end how does she start to do it . Because a lot of the things that he owned in real estate are not necessarily understand singularly owed by trump right . There are other people. And so if she then in line with creditors because he had to take away his assets, he leaves his share in the assets yeah, it does become very complicated that point. And so what you oftentimes do is if you have an asset thats cold funded with somebody else, youll try to seize the asset, but then you have to work with that other party to offer them hey, do you want to buy out to own 100 . Or do you want to sell your portion of it so that we own 100 . Because i dont think any Donald TrumpsBusiness Partners want to own a building with Letitia JamesWork Together with them, but i would guess not tim, thats probably a good guess. Its complicated. Its complicated, but i still go back to proportionality aspect that because well talk about the Eighth Amendment and how its so excessive you look at what youre actually been accused of having done, right . What is that amount and then you talk you tie it to particular aspects of it and you added it all up. He is suggesting it because its been never been done before, that by virtue alone is going to make an excessive thats not going to hold enough water. You do have to have a rational basis to make these calculations. And just because a judge sat there and made calculations doesnt mean that its right. And the fact that it hasnt been done before means that theres no precedent. There is no formula that judges would normally go to. I mean, how do you figure . Youre out . What is the proper penalty in a case where the socalled victim made a profit out of it and so its evaluation part, right . Thats the issue. It is the evaluation part, but even there valuation is something that the victims said that they knew the true value of and so, you know, can you tie it to the valuation part of do you tie it to what the loss amount is i mean, in a ordinary very course, you have a fraud trial thats based on what is the actual loss to the victims and in the federal system, you have a very clear standard of its the loss of the victims. And so if the victim gets partially pay back that has to be taken off, and so you do end up with a situation if it was in Federal Court where the rule say this would have been a essentially an attempted fraud with his loss amount of zero well, tisha james begs to defer that. This is something that did not have an issue or consequence particularly when it comes to fraudulent statements and beyond, well talk more. This is not going anywhere. Hes pulling out of his pocket at the Eighth Amendment. You know, this has some kind of legs in an appeal. Well see how far again. Thank you, tim. Thank you. Now, i want to turn to congress where today is Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu address republican senators in a close door meeting, offering a rather blunt perspective on Fracturing Support for israel and issuing a warning on the war in gaza saying, quote, even if we have to go it alone, we will not stop so meeting today following Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumers calling for netanyahu is removal. So how much of an issue is that congress has split on support for one of our closest allies and this nation, i want to bring in professor at cornell west who was running as an independent president ial candidate, professor west, very good to see you as always, how are you oh, wheres the blessed . Lets see since the lower straight out of and stan a year, but lets just say it was number one, they believe it that way. Okay, professor, when we are asked you this question because ive an eager to talk to you about this. How how dangerous is this kind of division when it relates to israel and the approach to gaza and hamas for us interests when i think reflects just the level of not just polarization, but gangster position because we now have a political culture thats just dominated by lies and hatred and revenge. And we need some truth and some justice and some love and anytime you talk about how you relate to the plight of both jews on the one hand, theyve been terrorized, traumatized with 2,500 years and palestinians on the other who happened now to be terrorized and traumatized by the israeli state. Its a very delicate in its opened two explosive revenge, explosive eight. And so weve got to have a spiritual on the mall tone and talking about such a difficult moment we hear trumps engaging in that kind of ugly antijewish language. Vicious attacks on liberal jews and jews and the Democratic Party. Well, thats par for the course. We know hes a gangster. Hes done this before. Its an echo in some ways of the American First Committee that goes back and Robert Stewart june, he graduated from princeton 1937, was found the rub that enable Charles Lindbergh was there henry ford was there the latter two received 1938, the german eagle metal from handler henry ford is invoked in mind cough, hitlers texts in an app mobile way, hitler had a picture of henry ford and his office meaning what this is dangerous stuff. This is, this is organized hatred tie two the kind of politics that we have and we just need to be very honest about it. Schumer made a very important move, pivot to move. But even schumer, he didnt really talk about the suffering of the palestinians. It was still very much about jews reminds me to convert the Confessing Church in germany, where theyve talked about the christians in germany didnt say a mumbling word about the jews being attacked because they were concerned about the purity and the concern of just christians. Thank god for dietrich bonhoeffer, he criticized that as a christian. Most christians did not both moments, Weimar Germany america these days, whoo very, very grim, very dim as it were. And we just need some serious commitment to truth, justice, and loved are my data system. Well and love, you are writing you to be a president at the press of the United States. And when you look at the difference responses and knowing the history as you have related in particular, what is the Course Correction . I mean, one of the things that you didnt mention about schumers that he was calling to have elections new elections, not had netanyahu and control any longer. And certainly theres, there has been a history of United States calling on other nations to reconfigure their elections. But normally its not a notable democracy what did that moment mean to you well, United States has a long history of interference and other peoples government. 1953 in iran and guatemala and 64 in brazil, 65 dominican republic, weve got 075 moments where we intervene militarily and other country intervene rhetorically as schumer did, is a very different kind of thing. But you got to get to the root of the problems. What i would tell brother schumer, youre not going to get to the root of the problem unless you give it to palestinian suffering, you got the end, the occupation of course, you need seed for, of course, they the in the seat. Youve got the end, the occupation, then were never be precious jewels, safety and security predicated on occupation and domination. Youve got to have palestinian and jewish dignity, palestinian and jewish equality, palestinian and Jewish Security and safety the law. Thats a pie drink . Yes, thats right. Some of us are dreamers some of us are holding onto visions of true justice and love, no matter how and realistic it ears. But at least we got to tell the truth. Thats the crucial thing. Oh, professor speaking now, you may be talking about dreams. Others have real estate fronts in their mind and thinking about a dream of development because professor west, jared kushner, we know its trumps soninlaw and former Senior Advisor to talk about recently that the Gaza Waterfront could be quote very valuable. And he also blamed hamas for using aid meant to help them divide ammunition and build a tunnel network. When you heard those comments, what kind of message does that send to you . It was just you know, its another example of the deep spiritual dk, the callousness, the outright outright, contempt that he has for the human beings who are suffering. He got the blood of the palestinian right there. Especially the children in his thing about waterfront you say oh my god reminds me of literary giants, novel. Philip ross is not with the plot against america was very much about jewish hatred neo fascism coe, hardness means spirits course and and what, what is the response for us not to become preoccupied with it . Weve got to galvanize. Our sales and others to be a countervailing force against this kind of hatred and revenge. And lives. And thats why im convinced that both parties are in many ways beyond redemption. I know thats radical claim for a lot of people, but the Democratic Party, the biden, had his chance to get at the fascist presence of a trump. But he couldnt do it. He couldnt speak the issu