Staff Reports
In a recent development, former President Donald Trump finds himself embroiled in a civil fraud case against New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron. The stakes are high, with James seeking a hefty $250 million in penalties and a complete ban on Trump and his company conducting business in New York.
The crux of the matter revolves around allegations of property value inflation. James contends that Trump and the Trump Organization inflated property values to secure more favorable loan terms. Trump, now on the defensive, vehemently denies any wrongdoing, asserting that his company's financial statements were "very conservative" and, therefore, not fraudulent.
Letitia James Trying to Nail Trump for 'Losses No One Ever Suffered,' Former Fed Prosecutor Says via @WestJournalism https://t.co/5WmCPSbA0j
— J. Wesley Brown (@WesBrown8686) November 10, 2023
Trump points out that his property valuations come with a "big disclaimer clause," essentially advising potential lenders to conduct their own assessments of the assets' real worth. Following his testimony, Trump confidently declared, "There's no case here. There are no victims. The banks aren't a victim. The insurance companies aren't a victim. Everybody got paid."
However, the situation takes a contentious turn as Trump criticizes Letitia James, labeling her a "disgrace to our country and to the state of New York." He urges her to focus on addressing violent crimes and murder in New York instead of targeting someone who repaid the banks in full and ahead of schedule.
The presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, has already pre-judged the case, asserting that Trump and the Trump Organization committed fraud against lenders and insurers. Engoron is now overseeing a non-jury trial to determine the penalties for the former president and his company.
Former federal prosecutor McCarthy raises concerns about potential foul play, arguing that James and Engoron might be fabricating claims to bring down Trump, characterizing the situation as an effort to "get Trump." McCarthy questions the credibility of alleged losses and fraud, emphasizing that if Trump had truly deceived the banks, federal authorities would have swiftly taken action.
McCarthy contends that banks, equipped with expert teams, diligently assess the worth of assets and wouldn't rely solely on the debtor's word. Even if Trump's properties were inflated, McCarthy argues there's no evidence that the banks would have charged a higher interest rate. He suggests that if the banks genuinely believed they were deceived, they would have pursued legal action promptly.
The overall narrative suggests the possibility of a politically motivated trial orchestrated by elected Democrats who resent Trump's continued influence in the political arena. As Trump's legal team aggressively seeks to dismiss the case based on the presented evidence, the outcome remains uncertain, leaving observers to wonder whether Lady Justice will uphold her impartiality or abandon it altogether.
