'There Are Problems' - Devastating News For NY Judge After Trump Verdict

Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and we are just about 24 hours

removed from a massive over close to 400 million dollar verdict against former president Donald

Trump and his sons and well there are problems with it. Before we get started please make sure

you like, comment, share and subscribe. Those little things really help us out and they help

our channel continue to grow. There are a lot of problems in my opinion and in the opinion of

several legal experts with the verdict by Judge Ngorin against Donald Trump in the Letitia James

brought case for fraud in New York. Nobody's saying that he didn't inflate the value of his

properties and deflate them for tax purposes. It's a common business practice. They're making

it sound like it's some rare thing that only trumped to very common business practice. Everybody

knows about it and it's never been used in New York in quite this way without a victim coming

forward saying I was victimized by this. But is that really the reason for this case or is the

reason for this case Letitia James wants to be governor of New York? I'll let you decide that

I know what I think. Jonathan Turley who's actually a pretty liberal guy he was on Fox

News and he tore this decision to shreds. He said look this is you know beyond the pale

of what could be expected and I believe and I think he believes that Trump will have a successful

appeal of this because it's so outrageous. I want you to hear what he has to say and then I'd like

you to like, comment, share, and subscribe. Again it really helps us out. I'm Carmine Sabia for

Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you. Take care everybody. Being overturned on appeal

Jonathan. Well this court really proved Oscar Wilde's rule that the only way to be rid of

temptation is to yield to it because the court has done everything short of ordering that Trump

be thrown into a woodchipper. I mean he he's imposed almost the maximum amount that James

requested. He's barring him from doing business in the city where he's an iconic business figure

barring him from getting loans. That last part is particularly ironic because the banks not only

said they were not victims and did not complain about the alleged fraud but they said they wanted

to do more business with Trump. That they described him as a whale client and so this

is all being done essentially in their name as victims even though no one lost any money. None

of us could find a case like this and yet the first one you have this fortune that is being

demanded by the court to be turned over. I think there are real problems here. I think that this

is going to have the same impact on some appellate judges. There have to be some limits including

constitutional limits on the size of penalties. This is confiscatory and in my view just excessive

You know so I think there's a major appeal obviously that's going to come. I was hoping

that the court would defy its critics and show a more moderate response to show that yes there

were assets were undervalued and overvalued but to impose a more reasonable fine. You know many of us

believed that there were cases of valuation problems but those are ubiquitous in this field

of real estate. This is extremely common for businesses to undervalue property to try to lower

tax costs and to overvalue in securing loans. Often you look at the victims themselves to see

if those practices produced the type of injury that warrants this relatively rare action and

the victims are in court saying we're not victims. That is we didn't really take these numbers on

their face. Yeah it you know one thing I want to ask you Jonathan is how do they arrive at this

number? I'm going through some of the casework here and Eric Sean's gonna gonna read some of it

to us that's relevant for people to help understand but I'm not sure how you arrive at these damages

when you don't have anyone who's claiming that they were financially damaged. Yeah the court

seems to have compounded the highest figures in most areas of how much could have been claimed

and might have impacted loans or taxes and then imposed those costs. The New York law is an

odd one because it does not require that anyone actually lose money and so James was able to come

in here with this figure and she kept on going up and of course that pleased a lot of people

in New York and the question I think is whether at some point this shocks the conscience. You know

you have Bragg who is prosecuting the president in a case that many of us view is just a raw

political exercise. You have James who promised to bag this president for some undefined reason

when she ran for office and now you have this confiscatory extreme and abusive penalty. At some

point New Yorkers have to wonder is this really what we want from a legal system. It is raw and

it's political. I am not saying that there was not a basis to impose a fine but when you're imposing

fines larger than the budget of some countries you really have to wonder whether you've allowed

to run away with your judgment. Yeah you know I mean Ari your thoughts on the fact that that the

family has been