Prosecutors with New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office submit a court filing asking Judge Anil Singh to make former President Donald Trump pay the full $464 million bond amount as he appeals the judgment in his financial fraud trial. Singh has already rejected Trump’s request to pay just $100 million of that amount. Here are the latest legal developments involving the Republican presidential frontrunner for 2024.
New York financial fraud
Prosecutors tell judge Trump should pay full $464 million bond
Key players: Senior Assistant Solicitor of New York Dennis Fan, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Appellate Judge Anil Singh, Judge Arthur Engoron
-
On Monday, James’s team submitted a court filing to Singh arguing that Trump should be made to pay the full $464 million bond ordered by Engoron in the New York financial fraud trial while he appeals that staggering judgment, ABC News reported.
-
Fan wrote that Trump might seek to avoid paying the full bond amount, which includes nearly $355 million in penalties and roughly $100 million in interest.
-
“That requirement applies to defendant Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants, just as it applies to any other appellant,” Fan wrote in the filing.
-
Trump’s lawyers offered to pay just $100 million of the total bond, telling Singh that he would have to sell off some real estate assets to raise the full amount.
-
Singh denied that proposal, but stayed Engoron’s ruling that prevented Trump from obtaining loans in New York to raise the full bond. Singh also gave prosecutors until yesterday to issue their response.
-
The full appeals court will weigh in on the bond amount and hear Trump’s appeal of Engoron’s ruling, but Fan, in Monday’s filing, said the chances of Trump winning were slim.
-
“Defendants are exceedingly unlikely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. Defendants engaged in brazen fraud and illegality to enrich themselves through the use of Mr. Trump’s false and misleading Statements of Financial Condition,” the filing said.
-
Trump has already secured a loan from the Federal Insurance Company, a subsidiary of the Chubb Corporation, to pay the $91.6 million bond in the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial into an escrow account as he pursues an appeal in that case.
-
Under Engoron’s order, Trump has until March 24 to post bond.
Why it matters: If Trump is compelled to pay the full bond amount in the fraud trial, he could be forced to begin selling off his New York real estate holdings. But if he refuses or is unable to secure another loan to raise that amount, James could begin to seize some of his assets.
Recommended reading
____________________
Monday, March 11
____________________
After posting a $91.6 million bond on Friday, former president Donald Trump continues to do the thing that resulted in the judgment against him: defame columnist E. Jean Carroll. Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan responds to remarks Trump made at a Georgia rally and during an interview with CNBC by noting that the statute of limitations has not expired. Trump’s attorneys file a motion to delay the March 25 start date of his hush money trial, saying the judge should allow for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in first on the question of whether presidential immunity protects him from prosecution. Here are the latest legal developments involving the Republican presidential frontrunner.
E. Jean Carroll defamation
Trump continues to call E. Jean Carroll a liar — and Carroll’s lawyer is listening
Key players: columnist E. Jean Carroll, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan, Judge Lewis Kaplan
-
Days after posting a nearly $92 million bond for defaming Carroll by denying he met or sexually assaulted her in a department store changing room in 1996, Trump continued to accuse Carroll of lying, the New York Daily News reported.
-
“I just posted a $91 million bond, $91 million on a fake story, totally made-up story,” Trump said at a rally on Saturday in Rome, Ga., “based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn’t know, never heard of, I know nothing about her.”
-
On Monday, during an interview on CNBC, Trump continued to cast doubt on Carroll, calling her “Ms. Bergdorf Goodman” and describing her as “a person I’d never met.”
-
In May a jury found that Trump had not only known Carroll, but had sexually assaulted and later defamed her, and awarded her $5 million in damages.
-
In January, a second jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million, in part due to Trump’s repeated denials and attacks.
-
Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, warned that Trump’s latest remarks could result in yet another lawsuit.
-
“The statute of limitations for defamation in most jurisdictions is between one and three years. As we said after the last jury verdict, we continue to monitor every statement that Donald Trump makes about our client, E. Jean Carroll,” Kaplan said in a statement.
-
On Friday, Trump posted notice that he would appeal the second jury’s $88.3 million judgment with the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Why it matters: Trump is betting that his appeal will be successful in knocking down the amount a jury has ordered to pay Carroll, but two juries have already ruled against him, finding there was ample evidence to disprove his claims he “never met” her.
New York hush money
Trump asks court to delay start of hush money case until Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity
Key players: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, adult film actress Stormy Daniels, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, Judge Juan Merchan, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein
-
On Monday, Trump’s lawyers filed a motion with Merchan to delay the March 25 start of his criminal trial on charges he violated New York state tax and campaign finance laws when he made payments to Daniels and McDougal in 2016 to hide extramarital affairs, Reuters reported.
-
The grounds for the delay, they wrote, was to give the Supreme Court time to decide whether presidential immunity protects Trump from being prosecuted.
-
“Without immunity from criminal prosecution based on official acts, the President’s political opponents will seek to influence and control his or her decisions via de facto extortion,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
-
The problem with that argument, however, was that Trump was not president when he arranged the payments to the two women.
-
Trump has asked the Supreme Court to find that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution in the Jan. 6 election interference case because, he claims, challenging the election results was part of his official duties as president.
-
Last year, however, Hallerstein denied a similar line of argument used by Trump’s lawyers when they unsuccessfully tried to have the hush money case moved from state to federal court.
-
“Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts,” the judge wrote.
Why it matters: Trump is hoping to delay the hush money case as long as he can, and seems to be testing the limits of the protections that presidential immunity might offer him.
