"PHILLIP: But, Scott, I mean, wasn't the argument about that case, that civil case that she brought, that there were no victims to the alleged wrongdoing? Wasn't that the argument? So, then wouldn't if you were to apply that to this situation, how do you justify then charging her over $18,000, which allegedly which, by the way, again, like those are allegations. We don't know if there were communications between her and the mortgage company about a change of status for the property or anything like that. We don't know about that. But do you think that this is more of a victim a crime with a victim than the one against Trump?"
"JENNINGS: I can only read back to you her own words. When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of hardworking people. That's what James said. The standard she applied to Trump."
"PHILLIP: So, you think that applies to Trump then? JENNINGS: I mean, she thought it did. PHILLIP: So, Scott, hold on, do you think that applies to Trump? If you think it applies to her, fine. JENNINGS: I'm giving you her justification for prosecution was that I don't know why they wouldn't want it."
New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on mortgage fraud charges after previously winning a half-billion-dollar civil judgment against Donald Trump that was later set aside as excessive. CNN aired an exchange questioning whether the standards used to pursue Trump’s civil case—particularly claims about the absence of victims—apply consistently to the criminal charges against James involving roughly $18,000 in alleged mortgage misstatements. The conversation referenced uncertainties about alleged communications with the mortgage company and invoked James’ own justification that powerful people cheating for better loans harms hardworking people. The segment framed a debate over proportionality and precedent.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]