Staff Reports
In a courtroom that felt more like a high-stakes game of Whac-A-Mole, the legal team for former President Donald Trump threw down the gauntlet in New York City, arguing that the nearly $500 million civil fraud judgment against him is as flimsy as a paper umbrella in a hurricane. Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, plowed through oral arguments, asserting that the case brought by Attorney General Letitia James didn’t just miss the deadline; it skated past it like a kid on rollerblades at a senior prom. According to Sauer, this colossal fine is not just crippling—it’s practically a death blow to the Trump Organization’s financial standing from eons ago.
The heart of the matter is the statute of limitations, and Sauer claimed it was breached with all the grace of a bull in a china shop. The judge, Justice Arthur Engoron, had previously decided that Trump inflated the value of his assets to secure favorable loans and insurance years ago. Now, the former president is left to sift through the ashes of financial documents inflated like a balloon at a birthday party, all while running for a second term. Trump himself sat out this trial circus, likely doing some metal detecting for legal loopholes elsewhere.
Calling the judgment "draconian," the lawyer argued there were no direct victims since banks were satisfied with the transactions. https://t.co/Rkgc5YG5Gf
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) September 26, 2024
In an interesting twist, during the arguments, one of the judges delved into the specifics surrounding more recent claims, which, conveniently for the prosecution, weren’t outside the statute of limitations. Naturally, Sauer scrambled to explain that there was a “critical failure of proof” during the initial trials. One gets the feeling that if Sauer had a dollar for every time something went wrong in this case, he’d have most of that $500 million already.
The backdrop of this legal drama is the personal vendetta James has had against Trump since she first mounted her office like a knight ready for battle, brandishing the sword of justice over claims he’s a “con man.” James has spent years promising to expose every shadowy deal in Trump’s real estate ventures, turning what should be a straightforward legal process into an ongoing reality show titled “As the Trump Turns.”
While presenting his case, Trump’s team brought in financial experts who argued the assets were undervalued rather than inflated. They insisted that no one was harmed, throwing a wrench in James’s claims that the public and the markets suffered at the hands of Trump’s alleged misconduct. However, in a display of courtroom theatrics, James’s office countered those assertions, pointing to a broken relationship with Deutsche Bank as evidence of wrongdoing. If only financial relationships could be mended as easily as broken contracts, but alas, that’s where the story twists like a dramatic soap opera.
Interestingly enough, the core of the dispute centers around New York Executive Law Section 63(12), which some have criticized as being broader than a liberal arts curriculum. Originally designed to combat serious fraud against the public, it has faced scrutiny for lacking the specificity necessary to uphold traditional fraud standards. But in a world where vague laws reign supreme, it appears this section gives the state attorney general enough ammunition to launch a legal assault on just about anything Trump-related.
The days ahead look murky as the appellate panel considers its ruling. With the election looming and Trump embroiled in a slew of legal distractions—including nearly $90 million owed in federal civil penalties—it remains to be seen whether he can legally emerge unscathed or if these legal hurdles will splatter his campaign aspirations all over the pavement. If the panel rules against him, it may not be curtains just yet; Trump has the option to escalate the battle to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, where legal dramas don’t just unfold—they take an entire season.
