Donald Trump has feasted on controversy during this election cycle, and it appears he is very close to seeing more.
As Trump's deadline approaches (he had to pay his bond by the end of today), experts now believe that if Trump cannot post the bond and James starts seizing his properties, it will put Trump back in the White House.
Talking Points…
- Trump is running out of time
- Experts comment on possible outcomes
- Analysis
As I write this, Donald Trump only has a handful of hours remaining before he must post bond for the New York fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump says he has the money, but as of Monday morning, he had not paid the judgment. If Trump does not have the money, his options are virtually non-existent. He does, however, still have an appeal in the works regarding the payment of the judgment by today's deadline.
It is far too late for Trump to start selling properties to pay the judgment, as there is no way the transactions would be completed before the deadline. If Trump had the money, I imagine it would have left his liquid assets virtually dry. If he does not pay the bond, James has already been putting things in place to seize Trump's properties to satisfy the judgment.
The other negative for Trump, if he cannot satisfy the judgment, is that he will lose his right to appeal the case. Once that deadline passes, assuming the court has not stepped in with a stay, Trump will have no hope of getting those properties back on appeal. This is literally everything for Trump, who stands to lose a significant portion of his portfolio if James starts seizing properties.
The ruling handed down by Judge Engoron, and James' eagerness to seize Trump's properties have both been heavily criticized. Given the size of this judgment, even the pundits who do not like Trump believe James was not being reasonable by not agreeing to have the judgment stayed until Trump could exhaust the appeals process.
Constitutional expert and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley slammed the ruling last week, stating:
"If the court was really concerned about whether Trump would be honest in future dealings, they could have just imposed a monitor. Instead he imposes this ridiculous amount of penalty on Trump. He could have picked any figure because none of us could make sense out of this.
"He could have said a trillion dollars and he just sits back and watches the defendant scramble to have to sell off properties in order to protect properties. And, you know, this is going to eventually have to go to some judge who is going to say enough. I mean, this really shocks the conscience."
Pollster Frank Luntz has also been critical of the decision, believing that if James follows through with her threat to seize Trump assets, she might as well hand him the keys to the White House. Lutz stated:
"I want you to remember this moment, and don't forget it. If the New York attorney general starts to take his homes away, starts to seize his assets, it's all going to be on camera…. You're going to create the greatest victimhood of 2024, and you're going to elect Donald Trump.
"If they take his stuff, he's going to say that this is proof that the federal government and the establishment and the swamp in Washington…that this is a conspiracy to deny him the presidency. He's going to go up in the polls just like he went up every single time they indicted him."
Donald Trump's attorneys have also been slamming James in the media, saying it makes no sense to make someone sell off assets to satisfy a judgment when the appeals process has not yet happened. Attorney Clifford S. Robert stated:
"It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a 'fire sale,' in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal."
I have been critical of this case from the start, believing the penalty sought by James was excessive. This type of case usually winds up with a fine, significant enough to sting but not enough to put up the "out of business" signs on the doors. With Trump's history of going upward in polls after an indictment, I have to agree with Luntz that if James starts taking Trump properties, she will more than likely have handed Trump the keys to the White House. Trump could possibly get a boost from this, even if the courts lower the penalty or stay the judgment, as Trump can work from the angle that James and Engoron were clearly biased, which the appeals court corrected.
Something tells me that a last-minute solution will take place, either through a stay issued by the appeals court or Trump somehow getting his hands on this money. Regardless of how all this plays out, James is surely hurting her state by showing how the government can be weaponized against a business owner that those in power just do not like. If she can do this to Trump, she can do it to anyone, so you better believe business owners are taking note and likely seeking to set up their businesses in other states.
UPDATE: Just in… an appeals court has slashed Trump's bond requirement down to $175 million and given him an additional 10 days to pay the judgment. This is a new development, and details are still coming in.
