Judge Scolds Trump Lawyer For Not Understanding Basic Things

A state supreme court judge in New York was forced to scold one of Donald Trump's lawyers this week, as the Trump lawyer acted like he didn't understand what basic terms meant. Trump's lawyers were in court trying to fight a request from Attorney General Letitia James to have the court appoint a special monitor to look at all of the Trump Organization's financial transactions and communications with lenders for the duration of the ongoing trial. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what happened in court.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

On Thursday of this week, Donald Trump's lawyers were in court trying to beg New York State Supreme Court, Justice Arthur Eron to not grant a motion from New York Attorney General Latisha James to a point a court-ordered monitor to keep an eye on Donald Trump's financial transactions until after the fraud trial is finished. Now, during this argument, there was an argument because the judge got so annoyed with Donald Trump's lawyer that he had to scold him. When the lawyer tried to question the meaning of a very common word, the word of course was objectively. And in the filing, Latisha James, when asking for the court appointed monitor said that, you know, uh, it is objectively clear that Donald Trump committed fraud. So Trump's lawyer on Thursday comes in and says, objectively, according to whom Trump lawyer, Christopher Keis asked, to which the judge had to jump in and say objectively, doesn't mean according to anybody. Objectively means objectively.

For those who are not familiar, objectively means like succinctly, actually factually like he did this, it's objectively not subjectively. Now, if it were subjectively, then Mr. Ki would have a point like subjectively, according to whom. But you can't, you can't argue that same point with objectively, and I know it's just a silly little grammatical thing, but the judge was getting and this was the final straw. Objectively, according to whom. It's, it means objectively you dip. What do you want me to say here? Now get on with your argument ya mor on. Here's the fun part. Uh, also this week Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Latisha James for seeking the court apo, uh, appointed monitor. And she has good reason, by the way, for wanting this monitor to look at all the financial transactions of the Trump organization, the information they're sending to, to banks, to sending it to lenders, to investors. But most importantly, because Donald Trump recently set up a new trust, a new company that investigators are calling Trump Organization two. And what Latisha James is worried about is that he is going to take all the money from Trump organization. One, you know, the organization accused a tax fraud and he's just gonna move it over to Trump organization number two. So Trump sued her saying you can't ask for a monitor, which she can because I set this group up in Florida and you're only in New York, so ha ha ha, check mate. And

That's not how it works because your money is also in New York. So she does have jurisdiction over where that money in her state goes. So yeah, the monitor should be there. You've been accused of pretty significant fraud against both the banks and the US government. I don't think it's outta the realm of rationality for a financial monitor to be looking at your transactions only for the duration of the trial. Like, this isn't a thing that's gonna last forever. They're just like, Hey, we got a couple weeks of a trial here. Could we just get a monitor to make sure he is not doing anything fishy? I see no problem with that and I'm willing to bet those courts, especially after their performance this past week, are gonna agree with me on that.