This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A legal analyst has warned that the fraud case brought against President Donald Trump by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on a "get" Trump ideology, is a "political persecution" that violates Trump's constitutional rights.
Jarret, on "The Evening Edit," said James was "turning the law on its head" to "get" Trump.
"This executive law, Liz, was intended for consumer fraud cases impacting the general public. Here, the public wasn't impacted at all. Indeed, no party was harmed, which is normally an element of proof in fraud cases. The banks paid more than $100 million in profits from the loans to Trump," he explained.
"So, you know, this statute, as it's being used by Letitia James, is really turning the law on its head. It gives her unfettered authority to pursue Trump for fraud without actually having to prove the basic elements of fraud demanded by law. And that, as you say, deprives the defendant of a right to fairly defend himself. And it also deprives him of a right to a trial by jury, both of which are due process violations under the Fifth, the Seventh, and the 14th Amendments to the Constitution."
James boasted during her campaign for office that she would "get" Trump and speculated even back then that he should be charged with "obstruction." She was creating a case against Trump at the time without evidence.
She has claimed that Trump inflated the values of his properties, but there were no complaints from his partners, the banks, or anyone else of any loss any money on any of his transactions.
James is demanding a quarter of a billion dollars in penalties from Trump and also wants his companies dissolved, which, Jarrett noted, would hurt innocent people who have had no opportunity to defend themselves from James' claims.
Jarrett explained the order from Arthur Engoron, the judge, for that dissolution is unconstitutional.
"The judge's order of forced dissolution of any company that Trump has an interest in, well, what's that going to do? It's going to adversely impact every other business partner and entity associated with Trump that are not part of this case. They weren't even sued. They'll be harmed with no notice, and no right to defend their interests. How is that consumer protection? It's not. It's consumer punishment. This isn't equitable relief, which the statute calls for. It's a severe penalty where trial by jury rights are utterly abysmal," Jarrett said.
He also noted the judge signed off on the wild claim that Trump's Mar-a-Lago home was worth $18 million, when real estate experts have said it's worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
On the judge's guesswork, Jarrett said, "You can't buy a port-a-potty in Palm Beach for that."
The trial has gone on for a week and is scheduled to continue. Trump's lawyers already have appealed Engoron's ruling regarding Mar-a-Lago, and likely will appeal further rulings as the case progresses.