'Ominous sign' for Trump in judge's 'blunt' ruling: former prosecutor

According to former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner, former president Donald Trump will likely not get a court to side with him in his efforts to avoid testifying in a Manhattan courtroom based upon his reading of the 8-page ruling issued by New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron.

On Thursday, New York Supreme Court judge ruled that Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr. and daughter Ivanka Trump must each comply with legal orders issued to them in December from NY AG Letitia James with the Engoron writing there was "copious evidence of possible financial fraud" involving the Trump family and their company.

Speaking with host Chris Jansing, who called the 8-page document "scathing," Kirschner admitted he was stunned by how "direct" the judge was in his criticism.

"After what was a pretty heated two-hour hearing the judge turns around an eight-page blistering ruling" host Jansing began. "Reading it and knowing the case as you do, do you think that the Trumps have any strong grounds for an appeal?"

WATCH: Timeline of Trump’s horrible week shows why former president should ‘be concerned’

"No," the former federal prosecutor quickly shot back. "This is a really ominous sign. Chris, you've used the words scathing and blistering to describe this eight-page ruling. I will say, in my 30 years of prosecuting, I've seen lots of judges' rulings, rarely have I seen one so blunt and direct."

"There were two passages in particular when the judge said he reviewed thousands of pages of documents that had been subpoenaed by Attorney General James and, after absorbing all of that information, here's what he said," Kirshner elaborated. "He said when a state attorney general commences an investigation and uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, she has a clear right to question under oath the organization's namesake; that's Donald Trump. The second thing I found really interesting is the judge observed that if the attorney general's office had not investigated or subpoenaed the Trump respondents, that would have been a dereliction of duty."

"That's dramatic, because it's a judge, not just saying that Attorney General James had the discretion to take these investigative steps, based on the judge's assessment, she had the obligation," the legal expert explained. "It would have been a dereliction of duty had she not taken these investigative steps. This is ominous, this spells real trouble for Trump and company."

Watch below:

MSNBC 02 18 2022 09 15 43youtu.be