New York’s $355 million civil fraud charge against former president Donald Trump just got MORE INSANE. The charge was already unprecedented. But Glenn and Stu reveal how New York has handled previous similar cases — including the MUCH WORSE actions taken by other companies charged under this rule. This is so obviously a targeted attack against Trump, Glenn argues: “There is no way that I would keep my business in New York. There is no rule of law now.”
TranscriptBelow is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Okay. Hello, Stu.
STU: Glenn!
You know, I was thinking about this big lawsuit.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: Against the president, former president.
First, he had the $83 million from E. Jean Carroll situation.
GLENN: Which was really caused by him.
STU: This was an interesting point.
He got, I think a totally false accusation against him.
GLENN: Yeah. Totally false.
STU: He said, this was false, this is crazy. He fought it. They went through this case. I think he totally got screwed.
And they ruled against him for a few million dollars. And they said, basically, you can't go on and talk about this anymore.
And he just did.
He was like, I don't care what you say.
GLENN: Yeah. And you know what, you have that right, to do that. If that's what you -- you know, if that's what you want.
STU: He knew what the price of that was. Yes, correct.
STU: He knew the price would be high.
And sometimes, occasionally, people made the point, that Donald Trump, you know, creates some of his own issues. Okay?
GLENN: Yes. But he also has what I like to call FU money.
STU: He has FU money. Right. Exactly.
GLENN: 85 million, it's worth it. She sucks.
STU: Sometimes people have pointed out. That when he makes some of his own problems, he will still say he's the victim of persecution.
He will kind of go to that -- that's kind of the way it goes.
And some have noticed this over time. But might I address this lawsuit, that came down, and this ruling in New York.
GLENN: $355 million. It will cost him over 400 million, when it's all said and done.
By the way, ruling yesterday, the same -- or, the same Supreme Court justice.
Said with that he of some provided a good reason, as to why he should delay the judgment from last week.
So he said, you failed to explain much less justify any basis for a stay. I'm confident that the appellate division will protect your appellate rights. So he has to cough this up.
Now, they're talking about, this is so much money, that he's going to have to put up, probably real estate and sell the -- some real estate to be able to pay for this.
Because you have to put -- you have to put that money into a bond.
And then you have a bond holder, holding it for you.
STU: Right.
GLENN: And you have to pay them an additional fee.
STU: Right. Right. And then hopefully, you win the appeal. And eventually, don't have to pay it then.
GLENN: It will still cost you about 50 million. This has it will still suck.
GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.
STU: But talking about whether he's the victim of political persecution. I believe this case, it's actually provable.
GLENN: Oh, yeah.
STU: Like it is -- but it's not just, oh, yeah.
It's not the just, oh, yeah. Well, of course.
Because I think on its face, that's how I react to this.
Right? He's running for president of the United States. They're trying to put him out of business.
Throw him in prison.
Take him off the ballots.
It's so blatantly obvious, on the surface. That that's how I translate it.
GLENN: The only thing he hasn't been hit with is, you know.
Like, here. Have some uranium pie.
STU: Right. That's true.
GLENN: The only thing, is he's not been hit with an umbrella, or the little pin at the end of it. Like the CIA.
STU: That's about it. That's it.
And so I think on its surface, it's easy to just look at this. The details of this one, in particular, are so egregious.
First of all, it's not like, a -- this number that they came up with. They just came up with like an algorithm that they built to come up with this number.
And it's like, well, we think, if he didn't defraud these banks, then the banks would have made more money.
Now, of course, the banks could have gone to have, and requested a higher interest rate. Which they didn't do.
GLENN: Because they found him a good risk. Because they've done business with him before.
STU: Before. And they all knew he had lots of money. And they all knew he had a successful business.
They all knew he would pay back the loans. They all knew this would occur.
So they went down this road. Now, of course, their case in New York. Hey, you defaulted all these banks. Screwed all these banks out of money.
You have to pay $350 million to us.
GLENN: Right.
STU: The state of New York.
GLENN: Because the banks --
STU: The banks get none of this.
GLENN: They didn't file this.
There was no complaint. None.
STU: Even if you think there was no complaint.
If you're saying, they were defrauded. You would think, they would get the money.
But no. It goes directly to the state of New York. Which is just another comical layer to this.
But listen to this breakdown of this particular rule. This law. And how it's been used, in the past.
Because as you point out. There's no victims here. No one is coming.
No bank is like, hey. By the way, he lied about this. It didn't work out for us.
GLENN: In fact, the banks testified on his behalf. Saying, there was no victim.
We knew this. We take that into account with everybody we loan.
That's why we have a whole division that goes out, and does the estimates for us.
We know. We're not stupid.
STU: Right. So this law has been around for 70 years.
And it is -- there is multiple facets of this.
There's the big fine.
Which is kind of the headline.
Also, the fact that they might take his business away.
They're saying his kids can't run the business anymore.
They're trying to turn this into essentially a death penalty for this company.
GLENN: Yes, they are.
So it is the only big business. That was threatened with a shutdown without showing obvious victims or majors losses in 70 years.
The only one. Okay?
The AP went the lie 150 cases, since New York's repeated fraud statute was passed in 1956.
And it showed that nearly every previous time, a company was taken away. Victims and losses were key factors.
You would think, right?
Customers lose money, because they bought defective products or never received services ordered. Leaving them cheated and angry.
What's more, businesses were taken over, almost always as a last resort to stop a fraud in progress, to protect potential victims.
Let's look back at this now, because there is one case where they try to take a company. Which is what they're threatening here, with the Trump Corporation. The Trump Corporation.
GLENN: Hang on.
Do we have that clip of -- of the AGs saying that they will take it? Here it is. Listen.
VOICE: Four days after a judge ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million for a decade of fraud.
New York attorney general, Letitia James says, she's prepared to do everything she can, to make sure the former president pays his fine. Including, she told us, seizing the businesses that have his name.
VOICE: If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek, you know, judgment enforcement mechanisms in court. And we will ask the judge to seize his assets.
STU: I love the -- she's so dramatic. It's hilarious.
GLENN: I know. I know. Think of that. You're doing business in this morning.
STU: Oh, I would get out of there. You have to get out of there.
GLENN: Get out of there. And honestly, if you live in New York, honestly, you have a house in New York, you're living in New York. You're just like, yeah. Well, we don't want to give up on New York.
Get the hell out of New York.
And I know a lot of people that say, well, I can't. Because my whole family is here.
Get out, of New York.
If they're doing this kind of stuff to him, there is no rule of law in New York.
Okay?
STU: It's always been liberal, right? This is totally different.
It's like the difference between the New York Times.
We were talking about this the other day. Where the New York Times is always liberal.
Then there was, hey, this is an op-ed written by a US senator.
And the op-ed guy gets fired for just letting it be printed.
GLENN: Right.
STU: The crazy people on the left. The AOC's have taken over, places in the media.
And places like this in New York.
This is what it is thousand. So there's been one case. One. One in the entire seven years. Where they did this.
Where they shut down a company, that had no obvious victims.
The case was 1972.
And it was a company, relatively small company, that was writing term papers, for college students. Okay.
So I want to write my paper.
GLENN: I want to break out in God bless America.
STU: Capitalism is pretty impressive. Apparently, this didn't go over that well.
What they said, there were no obvious victims here. The people bought the term papers. They didn't want to write them. They got the term papers. They said, they were defrauding the education system.
GLENN: Which they were.
STU: This is the one time. And it's a small tiny company. Let me give you the other times they've done this.
Tell me if any of these sound like, hey, I have a good interest rate, on a loan I paid back.
Number one, a breast cancer nonprofit was shut down a dozen years ago. For using nearly all its $9 million in donations to pay for director's salaries, perks, and other expenses, instead of funding free mammograms. Okay.
So they told everyone, donate money for free. Mammograms. And they just took all the money for themselves.
That's number one. Number two, a private equity timber.
Faking big investment success, was closed down after stealing millions of dollars from thousands of investors.
Okay?
You can see.
GLENN: Yeah. Got it. But on both of those so far, you have hundreds of thousands of people, you know, I'm sure. That gave -- they're all victims.
They gave their money.
STU: Yeah. And they didn't get the thing that they want.
GLENN: They didn't get the thing they were promised. You have all these people going to the AG. Saying, hey, this is a real problem here. This has to stop. Not here.
GLENN: Not here.
STU: Another one. Mental health facility, shuttered for looting $4 million from public funds, while neglecting patients.
GLENN: Okay. Kind of a big one.
STU: Pretty clear.
An auto lender that allegedly charged hidden interest rates, got to stay in business last year if it paid a fine and didn't commit fraud in the future.
So here's one they didn't shut down.
They actually let them go on.
They're going after Trump in all of this. In this one, they're like, oh. Sure, they're hidden fees.
They're not telling you about them.
GLENN: Okay.
STU: A judge requested.
A judge refused to request to shut down a river rafting company in 2011.
After a customer drowned, and the attorney general showed it was repeatedly using unlicensed guides, or none at all.
Instead, he ordered only a 50,000-dollar bond and cleanup -- for him to clean up his act.
The company is still being run today, under a different name by the same family. Someone died.
GLENN: We have thousands of victims.
And in this case, somebody who is dead.
STU: Is dead!
GLENN: Dead!
STU: They're like, you guys can stay open -- and then this one is my favorite one. A judge in 2001.
Declined to appoint a receiver, to take over a porn site, despite millions of dollars of illegal credit card charges to hundreds of customers.
Who thought they were getting a free tour.
Now, look, you're -- you want to get the free -- you want to know what you're subscribing for, Glenn. Before you just pulled the trigger on that. So you put your credit card information into a porn site, I think some of these victims need some life changes to be made here.
But they put their credit card into a porn site. Expecting a free tour.
They instead, get charged and charged and charged and charged.
In fact, once the owners of the site were caught, they attempted to move their money overseas, to avoid any penalty.
Still, the judge said, appointing a receiver was an extraordinary remedy!
That should be used sparingly, and that a preliminary injunction was good enough.
Only after all that happened, it they find out, the people running the porn site, were the Gambino crime family.
(laughter)
I kid you not. The Gambino crime family.
GLENN: And they didn't go into receivership.
STU: So there you go. Think about that.
I mean, it's so obvious, what they're doing. Latitia james talked about it when she ran.
Her goal was to take this one individual out.
And the New York -- the voters of New York, said, good.
Go do it.
And now she's doing it.
GLENN: Okay. If you are -- if you have business in in New York, if you're in New York, I'm just telling you. You have to do what you have to do.
There's no way, I would keep my business in New York.
There is no rule of law now. You know it on the streets. But there is no rule of law. If they can get away with this. They can do anything to you.