Trump had no defenses: Ex-Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb on latest ruling

Ordered by the judge to pay $7,500Talking about a mortgage rate and the income and all of it, it’s all false. Trump had no defenses.

Trump had no defenses: Ex-Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb on latest ruling

So let’s go to Ty Cobb now, former Trump White House lawyer. You know, the tide is pretty incredible when you lay this out and you hear it. And I know this is sort of a different venue than the one in which you would have dealt with Trump. Right. But talking about a mortgage rate and the income and all of it, the lie.

All of it, it’s all false. What do you think of this decision in the New York case, then? I think the ruling is significant. I mean, it’s a very high bar to get summary judgment when you have this much at stake. But Trump had no defenses. And as the judge pointed out, I mean, his opinion is very detailed, very judicious, you know, littered with citations appropriate citations, and criticism of the defense arguments and highlighting the overwhelming evidence against him.

But he basically points out that Trump relentlessly, as you have highlighted, you know, put forth claims that simply are not true, that have no foundation that cannot be supported by the facts. Now, I will give this judge some credit, because in footnote nine, for those of us who who own this document, he essentially characterizes Trump’s approach to this defense and the way it’s presented as saying as Chico Marx playing chicken.

Leni says to Margaret Dumont, playing Mrs. Gloria Teasdale and Duck Soup Well, who are you going to believe? I am your own eyes. Yeah, I mean, is. And you point out the footnotes. You know, I have to say, in all of this I one of the things that just just to take that moment on on nine 11 that your comment on that day would have been my buildings now the tallest.

I don’t know. For some reason, there are still things that can break through all of this. And give one pause, I hope. But how is nine 11? How is nine 11 about Trump? You know, that’s just it’s just it’s just repulsive. And so sad that almost 3,000 people lost their lives. Yeah. And he’s talking about it is building now lying about how big it is? Yeah.

Ty So one of the things that some of the New York attorneys were saying is that it was highly unprecedented in this judge’s ruling to sanction Trump’s lawyers, actually sanction them. The five of them were sanctioned in the case and ordered by the judge to pay $7,500 apiece. It’s not the amount. It’s the reality that it took place. Right.

It just doesn’t happen. One of those attorneys, Chris Kyle, is also representing Trump in the federal documents case. And yet, amidst all this, Trump added two new lawyers to his legal team today. Are you at all surprised that he continues to add new lawyers when so many have gotten in trouble for working for him? Never mind these sanctions.

I mean, look at Eastman Giuliani Cesaro right now. That’s true. And I think the significance of the sanctions is it highlights yet again, you know, the extent to which Trump, you know, pushes his lawyers out there in a way that forces them to lose their own credibility. And, you know, for a judge to sanction a lawyer is not an easy act.

It doesn’t happen that often. And this just highlights, again, you know, the frivolousness of most of Trump’s positions, just as Judge Watkins ordered today highlighted the prevalence of his efforts to recuse her. And let me ask you about that ruling. He wanted the judge, Judge Chuck Enright, to be removed.

She’s overseeing the 2020 election subversion case by the DOJ in Washington. She denied that request to recuse herself, as was her right to do. Now, Trump had pointed a tie to statements that she made in a case involving another January six defendant in which she alluded to Trump saying she said that the rioters were there and fealty and loyalty to one man, not the Constitution.

Added her It’s a blind devotion to one individual, who is still at liberty today. He said that implied bias, that was his argument. Was her choice today the right one, or does it pave the way for Trump in the future? Now, this wasn’t even close call. The rule is so clear, in fact, that you cannot have a judge recused because of evidence that comes to light while he or she is sitting on the bench.

And she, as she highlighted in her ruling, Trump’s lawyers again and sadly took those comments way out of context. Suggested they were her thoughts when in fact, she was merely responding to a defendant’s argument at sentencing, which is perfectly lawful. In this review, there was never a basis to recuse.

I think you will see other attempts by Trump to attack that attacked the judge and get rid of her. I think the whole argument over the gag order is designed to ultimately try to provoke an opportunity to mandamus her and get and try to get rid of her that way. That will also fail.