Liberal MSNBC Host Stuns Audience With Trump Defense - Bombshell Report

Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and you know they went too

far when even an MSNBC host has to give them a smackdown. 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. Now MSNBC host Katie Turr was live after the Trump verdict of a massive

close to 400 million dollar decision against Trump and his sons. That being said she looked

at it and she said you know is this fair? She talked about the fact that she's never seen

anything like this in New York. She's looked at other cases and when there's no victim coming

forward saying I was victimized you know this kind of thing is rarely brought and the punishment

never has been this severe. So is Trump getting the hey you're Trump and this is a liberal state

treatment in New York. I'll let you guys decide that. I know what I think. I think that's absolutely

what happened. I think there's a lot of people like Judge Ngorin and Letitia James that are

trying to use this case to springboard their careers. I think in his own case Alvin Bragg is

using Trump to try to springboard his career. So none of this is a surprise to me. You gotta

understand Katie was on there with people who absolutely make no secret about that they loathe

former President Trump. So they were definitely taken aback by this and well her audience was

taken aback by it. She was trending for all the wrong reasons on you know X formerly known as

Twitter yesterday after she said this. So I want you to watch this video and let me know if you

were surprised by it. Also please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe. It really

helps us out. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you

Take care everybody. Statements might not be so lucky. You know I'm looking for a little bit of reporting that the

Associated Press did regarding these sorts of decisions, these sorts of investigations

these trials. I'm just not finding it in this pile of papers that I have in front of me but

basically they said they went back over 70 years and looked at all the cases that have been tried

under this this rule 36 or 63 12 which is used here which doesn't have to show harm done. It's

not the that's not the burden. You don't have to show that anybody was hurt by your practices

There's nobody you defrauded specifically. But they went back and they looked at cases over 70

years I believe it's about 150 cases and found that there was no case where there was a ban on

doing business where there wasn't harm shown. So even though that the the threshold is harm shown

in the past it has only been used to ban someone doing business when it's been shown that somebody

was hurt. Say you're selling cosmetics that that that are poisoning you. There's somebody that was

hurt there. The cosmetics company gets banned. Is this fair to go after Donald Trump like this

in this environment is my question. Look I think what you said about the statute is absolutely true

Kristen Snell who just joined us at the table and has used I was going to introduce it but

we can introduce him now as well. Kristen Snell is here. He's used the statute. Well let's ask Kristen

You use this 63 12 in the Trump University suit. A university that was scamming people wasn't

actually giving them useful information for them to do business. And wasn't licensed and wasn't a

university etc. Yes. Yeah. So tell me is it fair. Look the thing is that the notion that 63 12 is

this sort of weird thing that shouldn't be applied and so forth and so on. This this statute and the

statute that was based on which is called the Martin Act which may be the one that people are more familiar with. The Martin Act applies to securities. These law the Martin Act was put on

the books in New York about 100 years ago. We have a lot of case law to support this. This this statute

is used by the AG's office every day against all sorts of other frauds and misdeeds. The the the

legal standard is whether there is a tendency to deceive. That's what it is. And the legislature

in New York made a public policy choice to say that that was an important weapon for the AG's

office to have to vindicate the public good in this situation. And it seems like what Judge

Angoran found was there was intention not just a tendency there was intention to deceive. Which

is even higher than they needed. It's basically if the bar is here you know there was the evidence

went way over the bar. I mean they say when confronted a trial with statements defendants

fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality and defendants failed to accept responsibility

or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences. Under 63 12 you don't need intent

but intent becomes an aggravating factor. So that's part of why we see the penalties so high

here. I know I know this feels like a lot. It's a 93 page decision. We're all trying to go through it