OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Former President Donald Trump’s New York civil fraud case is unlikely to be resolved before November’s presidential election, according to a former assistant attorney general.
A Manhattan appellate court recently gave Trump a significant financial reprieve, permitting him to post a $175 million bond as he challenges a massive $454 million judgment, the amount a state judge determined to be a decade of bank fraud.
The appellate judges also gave Trump a break.
According to the judges, Trump does not need to “perfect” his appeal until the September court term, which begins on September 3, i.e., until all of the documentation is in and ready for oral arguments.
Kenneth Foard McCallion, a former New York assistant attorney general, told Business Insider that in light of that, there’s almost no way Trump’s appeals will be exhausted by Election Day.
By then, interest on the initial $454 million judgment against Trump will have totaled over $28.6 million.
By the time voters head to the polls, the total judgment against Trump and his codefendants will have increased to almost $494 million.
McCallion predicted that “it will be September or October for oral arguments.”
“We’re definitely looking at after the election” for their decision, said McCallion. “It’s really quite unprecedented,” he said of the timing.
McCallion also noted that Trump’s legal team has already suggested that they are willing to take their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We could be well into 2025” before New York Attorney General Letitia James sees any money, McCallion said.
“I do think the appellate division is shooting the attorney general in the foot by not taking this on an expedited basis and cutting him a break,” he said.
Legal expert Jonathan Turley is sounding off on AG James for her case against Trump.
During an interview on Fox News, host Sean Hannity and Turley spoke about a New York appeals court ruling to postpone the payment of Trump’s $454 million civil fraud penalty resulting from James’ lawsuit.
Instead, the former president was instructed to pay a $175 million bond, which Trump has paid.
Hannity began by saying: “I would say is, if we’re going to talk about phone evaluations, I have shown on this show empty lots, two acres on the ocean in Palm Beach, for sale for a whopping $200 million. Mar-a-Lago is 22 acres, it has the oceanside, it has the inner-coastal side, it has over 58 bedrooms, other properties or cottages on the facility, it’s got two clubs associated with it, it’s in great shape, it’s a historic property, it’s worth closer to a billion. A far more egregious evaluation error, if you will, then anything they even claim Trump did. How did that get to stand, Jonathan?”
“Well, that’s the problem, is that many of us believe that much of this cannot stand. But first he has to get in front of another judge. And the problem with the bond is that it’s being used as a punitive device. I mean, James is constantly threatening to take over these properties, like she’s going to put a lock on Trump Tower, and it’s thrilling to many people in New York,” Turley began.
“But for many of us outside New York, you look at this and you go, ‘Come on!’ I mean, you have a judge that comes up with a number that None of us can understand, and because he did that, Trump would have to sell off property in order to get someone to say that you were excessive. He could have come up with $1 billion and made it impossible to find a bond, instead of half a billion, which is almost nearly as impossible. The fact is that Trump’s business is largely in real estate,” Turley declared.
He said, “That is not good if you have to float a bond, because they want cash. And it’s just the nature of his business. Now, the judge could have recognized that. There is no — the funny thing about being in real estate is those buildings are not going anywhere. All he has to do is guarantee that he won’t leverage his interest in that property, which you can do with another device, but they are fixed assets.”
“So the judge could have said, ‘You know, we’re going to try to come up with another way of doing this so that my award is not a barrier to appeal.’ He refused. And of course, James is refusing to take any modest steps out of concern for due process. So it’s up to the New York Judiciary and the New York Bar to show the rest of the country that there is still due process here. You don’t have to like Trump to not like what’s happening in this case,” he added.
“That’s why I think this is being used by James as a form of punishment. And I think it’s being used by the judge in the same way, by coming up with his big number, knowing that his assets are in real estate,” Turley said.
” There are a lot of ways that you could fulfill the purpose of a rule. The purpose of the rule is to make sure that defendants don’t empty their accounts, flee the jurisdiction, avoid payment. His assets are fixed. You can get agreements that he can’t transfer the value, he can’t leverage these buildings,” he added.
“You can accept the $100 million offer he made, in addition to those collateral guarantees. There are lots of ways to do this, but there is not a will because people are enjoying this. When you watch the news, people are thrilled. And that has merged our legal system not just with politics, but a rather sick form of entertainment.”
