All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2023 - Lionel Nation
22:38
Lionel Appears on Redacted
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man underground safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Donald Trump's civil trial starts today in New York.
This is the case where the Attorney General Letitia James has accused the former president and his sons of fraud for inflating assets.
But is he getting a fair trial?
He says he's not, but let's ask a legal expert about this.
Joining me today is Lionel from Lionel Nation on YouTube.
He's a legal and media analyst.
And I want to ask you about this, not just because it's timely, but also because I have so many questions.
Questions?
Well, about a couple of things.
One, does this mean a loss of his assets?
And two, is he actually getting a fair trial?
So let's start with that.
What is your overall impression of this case?
Well, first of all, great, great, great questions.
Number one, is he getting a fair trial?
I have no idea what that means.
I've never seen...
I don't know what a fair trial means.
Let's look at it this way.
One of the things which is important is to ask yourself, how many people similarly face these types of cases?
None!
Okay.
What do you mean?
Just for cases about inflating assets, because usually that's an IRS issue?
Well, a couple of things too.
First and foremost, as anybody in business will tell you, one of the aspects of inflating assets, which is interesting, is that whenever you list something as a particular asset price, it's going to go to a...
To the financial department of either a bank or a lending institution for due diligence.
So you could say it's $20 billion.
They're going to say, no, it's not.
So it's not like you put down a billion dollars and somebody's going to act upon that, act negatively.
The issue is, does the statute require you to deliberately intend to defraud, be duplicitous?
Is that the standard?
And this is where we get into kind of the shady.
When you take into account the notion of business practices.
Let's say, for example, you're selling your show.
You're telling people about how great it is.
The number of viewers.
The popularity.
There's a degree of fudging.
And in contract law, we call it puffery.
All the time of year.
This is the best pizza in the world.
I know that's a small level.
At its worst, if Donald Trump is found to be liable, and the Trump Organization, his entire organization could go into a receivership, he could be locked out of his business, a law firm or somebody would be asked to run something they know nothing about.
One judge, in a very interesting, almost like a summary judgment or a preliminary finding, said that, oh, listen, by the way, there's fraud.
Let's just go to damages.
It's like, wait a minute.
He, and you must have heard about this, he suggested that Mar-a-Lago was worth about, I don't know, $18 million.
The front door is worth $18 million.
Rush Limbaugh's house down the street is a couple hundred million, and that's just a regular house.
So, is it fair?
I would say no.
Is it unfair enough to either cause the procedure to stop or to guarantee a reversal?
Not yet.
They're doing some interlocutory appeals, some preliminary appeals, to find out whether this even goes through.
So there is the legal part of it.
That's one thing.
How is he going to handle this?
What about his countenance?
Let me ask you a question.
Publicity.
A fair trial.
There's a great case, Mission Against Tucker.
It's a classic.
It's as a defendant.
It's entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.
I don't know what that means.
I have no idea what that means.
But what is happening, and we'll talk maybe about the political implications of this, but from the legal parts of it, it's unheard of.
The fact that this somehow could not be disposed of prior.
And when you have the Attorney General who basically said, I'm going to go after him.
So, okay, those are two interesting questions.
I want to talk about this sanctioning of his lawyers, because in the opinion that was released last week, his lawyers were fined $7,500 each for engaging in repetitive, frivolous arguments.
Now, I found that to be a little bit of a scary precedent for all litigators, because you...
Always want to appeal.
Everyone appeals, right?
And so is it that they're trying to scare lawyers away from representing Trump?
Yes!
Have you heard about the 65 Project?
No.
The 65 Project, you can go and read about this.
You go to the 65 Project by...
.com or whatever it's called.
But it's called A Bipartisan Effort to Protect Democracy from Abuse of the Legal System.
Okay, it says The65Project.com The65Project.com It's a bipartisan effort to protect democracy from these once and future abuses by holding accountable big lie lawyers who bring fraudulent and malicious lawsuits to overturn legitimate election results and And by working with bar associations to deter future abuses by establishing clear standards for conduct that punish lies about the conduct or results of elections.
So, let's say, for example, you have the audacity to pursue a case in support of Donald Trump.
You have issues you want to litigate.
The 65 Project or someone else decides...
We find this a priori to be specious.
We're going to go to your local bar association, file some type of preliminary accusation of fraud or what have you.
If you want to appear pro hoc vice, meaning in another jurisdiction, temporarily, Where you use your admission to one bar association as kind of like an entree for special limited appearance elsewhere, that can hold you up because you have pending disciplinary actions against you.
It's meant to intimidate, to scare, and one of the things which you don't do is to initially anticipate something being frivolous when nobody's heard it.
Well, that's right.
So my question is that court systems are full of frivolous crap, for lack of a better word.
But from you, let me give you an example.
But you get the chance to prove it.
We should get the chance to prove it, right?
And so is this acting as a form of legal censorship in the way that the word disinformation acts as a form of censorship and enacts punishment for wrong think?
Well, let me give you an example, just very, very quickly.
There was a case years ago of this great Florida lawyer, I'm from originally, and he was charged with fishing without a license.
Make a long story short, it was a mullet he was catching, and his lawyer looked at that and said, a fish is something that doesn't have a gizzard, and brought an ichthyologist and, make a long story short, he had the case dismissed.
What some people would call frivolous, they would say that's brilliant lawyering.
You sometimes look at something and somebody would say, I had one of my great moments of legal victory.
I represented somebody.
I don't know why.
It was a nonsense case.
But I happened to read the statue.
And it says it's unlawful to throw broken glass.
I don't know why.
It's broken.
It's going to be broken already.
She threw a bottle.
It was nothing.
But I said, I would like to try this.
They looked at me like I was on a memo.
Again, it was insane.
But I thought it was good lawyering.
I was using the language.
They have the statute.
It's their burden.
If somebody sues you for something, they've got to prove the case against you, and if you come up with a viable defense, and by the way, if you do come up with something that's specious, a non-justiciable issue, something that is clearly in bad faith, there are sanctions, but I would at least like to hear it first.
Versus, again, this a priori predetermination that what you must be saying is wrong because we all know the 2020 election was without any fraud and only some unscrupulous lawyer would have the audacity to do this and say, wait a minute!
Here's my other problem.
Not to become too fiery about this.
Where are the judges?
Where are the lawyers?
Where are the bar associations?
Where's the ACLU?
Where are my brothers and sisters of the bar?
Who would say, wait a minute, you can't do this.
But because it's Trump, something turns off.
You mentioned Trump.
And this weird, you have to say, well, what are you, some kind of a Trump apologist?
No!
It shouldn't matter.
We should equally want him to have a fair trial.
It's good for everybody for him to have a fair trial and the right to fair representation, right?
And so...
You would think that this would ripple throughout the legal community and say, oh, shoot, if we're going to be acting in a way that they don't like, we're going to lose money?
That is...
I don't know how to explain that.
There's also the chance where you're weaponizing the courts, you're doing a lot of things ahead of time that are designed or seemingly designed to do everything in their power to make him unable to stand As a candidate.
Let me throw one at you too, which is even more interesting, I think.
These are the people who come up with the idea that they're going to suggest that he, by virtue of some 14th Amendment argument, section 3 of the 14th Amendment, that he is unable to sit or to appear in a ballot because he committed insurrection.
Okay, you got that one?
Yes.
Now that is clearly...
Absolutely ridiculous.
Some people would say that under the 14th Amendment, you have to be, you cannot be an elected official, but an officer.
Okay, aside from that, let's just forget that for the moment.
If he were to turn around and say, all right, I'm going to do the same thing.
I'm going to say that under the 14th Amendment, not only did Joe Biden may not have been involved specifically in insurrection, but he gave aid and comfort to an enemy, China.
So I'm going to take his name off the ballot.
Let's assume further that for whatever it's worth, A couple of states knocked them off the ballot.
Now neither party can get the 270 electoral votes, and it goes into the House for the vote.
And each state has a vote per delegation.
If Trump gets 26 votes, he's the president!
So, do you really want to do this?
That would be phenomenal.
And so, they're doing...
Remember, this is the same president, too, where they went after him with the emoluments clause, which most people don't understand.
They impeached him twice.
They are indefatigable.
The Republican Party, the most absolutely implicit bunch of do-nothings, they're slow, and they're...
Oh, they, you know...
Ring their beads and they seem upset.
They're worthless.
Democrats, you've got to hand it to them.
They work all angles.
Yeah, that's...
Yeah, precisely.
Let's circle back around to the Attorney General because she's kind of dunking right now on Twitter or X saying, you know, we are now...
She's...
She's, yeah, I don't want to say bragging, but she's bragging about going after Trump in advance of this trial.
But she is an elected official, and so we could see this as campaigning.
We see other attorney generals sort of, you know, talking about their wins in order to continue to be elected.
So I don't know if that is a fair thing to say, that she shouldn't be dragging out her wins.
No, no, no, because what she's doing, yes, she's an elected official, but her duty is justice.
District attorneys are elected officials.
You should never say anything.
You should let the court be the official tribunal, not the Twitter space, Twitterverse, whatever it is.
In some respects, that might be subject to her own disciplinary action.
You don't want to do anything to let...
To perhaps infect...
The sanctity, you would hope, of the trial.
Let me give you another example.
Well, before you do, though, let me just, because then it just might be a war of social media, because then she's dunking on social media, and so is former President Trump.
Just hours ago, he said, I arrived at this courthouse to fight a corrupt and racist attorney general.
You know, so the judge is hating, Trump-hating judge.
So then can we say both sides are validating this?
Silence is golden.
No, because they also, Jack Smith wants to gag him.
No, I would venture to say, I'm sorry, she has a duty, a prosecutor has a duty, which I was one, a prosecutor has a duty, you represent the state of New York, the people of the United States, your job is to, I don't want to say, not sanctimonious, it's pure, it's special.
As a defendant, you should be able to use everything in your power to let people know, up to asking people to appear at the courthouse.
You are the ones on trial for that.
You should be able to speak.
You know, this idea, and it's a fascinating issue because people have always, you know, we used to years ago have this idea of change of venue.
The idea that if something was so bad, if the publicity was so bad that there would be a change of venue.
The Sam Shepard case was an example of that.
Murph the serf years ago.
Well, now there's no place you're going to go where you're not the subject.
Trump knows how to use that.
But here is the thing.
The rules are different.
Her job is specifically to seek justice, not a conviction.
That's not why you do it.
It's to bring this, to say that the people of New York have been aggrieved.
And I'm going to use this tribunal to put on my case, best upon the ability.
I believe in this case, it's warranted.
By the way, at least this is a little bit more understandable compared to the first case that DA Alvin Bragg brought, which I still don't understand.
The misapplication of business.
So nobody gets that one.
The president, he is being bombarded.
I believe you should always err on the side of a defendant's right of publicity because, you know, many people said years ago there was a great lawyer, Ellis Rubin, who said that law schools should teach electronic advocacy, that not only do you have to do well in the courtroom, but you've got to be able to explain to people this is what's going on.
From the Scopes Monkey Trial to, name it, to the Lindbergh kidnapping, O.J. To me, there's a perfect melding, but you always err on the side of the defendant, not the state.
That's a different story completely.
And how he's able to maintain his composure.
And how he is able...
And let me ask you this.
Wait, are we saying Donald Trump has maintained his composure?
No.
I don't know what he's doing.
I don't know if he's going to be able to sit how he has...
In the E. Jean Carroll case, he wasn't there.
That's a bad message, I'm sorry.
But you have to almost spend time teaching a defendant, your client, don't roll your eyes, don't talk to me.
The jury is going to be watching every single move you make.
How do you handle this?
The jury comes out, you stand up, you sit down.
How are you going to show deference?
Some of these people might be starstruck.
Because remember, these are human beings.
These are people who've never been to anything like this.
This is a chance of a lifetime.
And sometimes Trump has gotten himself into more trouble by what he said.
When you're on charge for sexual battery, what he said about E.G. and Carroll, I'm sorry, was ridiculous.
Make fun of appearances and that sort of thing.
That's his problem.
Maybe, put it this way, if they were smart, They would say, no, Mr. Trump, please go.
By all means, go.
Make him look like a madman.
Make him look like a lunatic.
You maintain the composure.
Let him decide how to handle this.
Do you, do you, do you, can people keep track of the, by the way, foreign diamonds, what is it, 91, 92, whatever counts of this?
And isn't it amazing to you how politically this is inuring to his benefit?
Yes.
They love him.
It's, did you ever think you'd see this?
No.
No.
Don't wait so long to answer next time.
It's like it's a parallel universe.
It's like quantum mechanics.
There's this world that applies to you and me.
We'd be sunk.
But it's Nietzsche on steroids.
It doesn't make him stronger.
It makes him different.
And I'm telling you, and if we can go a little bit political, just so that you understand this.
Well, I think the point that we've made is that it's political.
Because his circumstances are different.
And irregular, and we can't explain it any other way.
Everything's political.
Everything's political.
When you have an appointed, or anybody who's running for office, yes, yes, listen, certain things are political.
There's no way around it.
I'm sorry, that's just human nature.
But the thing about it is that the courts themselves right now are under such attack.
And have been for the longest time.
Because people really don't understand how it works.
They think this is the way it's supposed to be.
Ideally, you would want to be able to have the most sedate and quiet defendant, theoretically, in real life.
Unless it's Trump!
There were people alleged to be heads of the mafia who showed up.
You never even heard of them!
And they just slipped out.
They were so quiet that when the prosecutor lost or when the prosecutor made a deal, they felt good because nobody will know about this because nobody's heard about Sam the Gugutza.
Nobody heard about it.
With Trump, he basically says, come on.
And then when he's convicted, he says, well, there you go.
See what happens?
I can't get a fair trial.
They just want me off the ballot.
And you know what?
He's right.
He's absolutely correct.
Yes.
Just today, the Attorney General James posted this timeline of the trial or the investigation saying we started in March 2019 and sued him in September of 2022.
So she's making the case, oh no, this is an appropriate timeline, has nothing to do with the election.
I don't know.
We don't know how long her investigations normally last or anything of the sort.
So the timing, yes, is a linchpin here.
So I appreciate you breaking these things down for us in such a sort of fun and lighthearted way.
It's been a pleasure to talk to you here on Redacted.
So if you want more of Lionel's...
Analysis, go to Lionel Nation on YouTube.
You can like and subscribe to his channel.
It was a pleasure talking to you.
Please come back and break this down for us more as this unfolds.
I would be honored.
Thank you so very much.
I loved Lionel.
Thank you so much, Lionel.
I get to sit here and watch the chat during that, watching the interview, and so many people say, I love this!
And someone said in the chat, if anyone understands lawyering, love this dude.
Tremble Dust says, love this dude.
If you work with lawyers, he is the prototypical old-school attorney, yes, who's thoughtful and really dives into the language of the law.
And I love that, his discussion about the broken glass.
No, no, she didn't throw broken glass.
I love that.
But anyway, I think his assessment of it is spot on.
▲
Export Selection