NY Judge Shredded Over ‘Extremely Dubious’ Fine, Ruling In Trump Fraud Case

by Jessica

The New York judge presiding over the civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump, which resulted in a staggering $355 million fine, continues to face significant criticism from legal professionals and experts in the field.

Beyond the imposing fine, Judge Arthur Engoron also imposed additional penalties, including a three-year ban on Trump running a business in the state, as well as two-year bans for his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. Each son was fined $4 million, following the judge’s ruling last fall that the Trump Organization regularly engaged in fraudulent practices by manipulating asset values to obtain more favorable loans.

Criticism of Judge Engoron’s ruling has been widespread, with former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg labeling it as “extremely dubious” and the fine as “completely out of proportion.”

“I certainly don’t see how the part of the decision that imposes a $355 million judgment is supported by the evidence because, as the judge points out in the very first paragraph of his opinion, and as you pointed out, there’s no loss from the bank,” Wisenberg told Pirro who was guest-hosting for Laura Ingraham.

Wisenberg argued on a Fox News interview with Judge Jeanine Pirro that since the loans were repaid, the severity of the penalties imposed by the judge seemed unjustified, considering there was no actual financial loss incurred by the victims.

Trump’s attorney and spokeswoman, Alina Habba, pushed back against criticism of the ruling, particularly in response to a column by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in the National Review.

McCarthy expressed skepticism about the potential success of Trump’s appeal, suggesting that while the fine might be reduced, the broader penalties would likely stand. He characterized the case as “nakedly partisan” and expressed hope for its overturning on appeal.

“I have a question for everybody, which is where were all of these people during the 35 years before Donald Trump became an announced candidate for president?” Wisenberg asked. “Why weren’t these people investigating this alleged fraud? People, if there is fraud going on, the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, the district attorney’s office in Manhattan, it doesn’t seem like they were doing their job at all, it appears there was no effort whatsoever to even look at former President Trump until he became a controversial political figure.”

“It strikes me to be constitutionally extremely dubious to basically impose a $355 million judgment in a case where there is no loss,” Wisenberg added. “That is just mind-boggling to me. I have never seen a case where that happened.”

During a segment on Fox News hosted by Martha MacCallum, Habba responded to McCarthy’s viewpoints, expressing confidence in their appeal efforts and inviting him to join the legal team if he felt he had a better grasp of the case.

She emphasized her extensive involvement in the case over the past three years and asserted that there were no factual grounds to support the judge’s decisions, a stance they intended to highlight in their appeal process.

Related Posts