On Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James, known for her Marxist beliefs, initiated the process to seize assets belonging to former President Donald Trump. She submitted legal filings in Westchester County, where Trump’s private estate and golf course are situated.
President Trump has until Monday to either satisfy the judgment or seek approval from the appellate court to postpone payment while his appeal is pending.
Legal expert Turley expressed skepticism about New York Attorney General Letitia James’ attempts to seize Trump’s assets and close Trump Tower. Turley argued that Trump’s properties are intricate partnerships with significant debts, making the seizure process complex and likely to face legal challenges.
“The penalty imposed is unreasonable,” Turley remarked during an interview with Fox Business host Larry Kudlow. “These properties involve partnerships and substantial debts that need to be sorted out. This isn’t a simple matter of Trump versus James. Seizing the property will entail legal battles and hurdles. While there’s excitement about the prospect of padlocking Trump Tower, it’s improbable and unlikely to last.”
Turley also raised concerns about potential damage to the property’s value due to James’ actions. Although he doubted James’ consideration of property value, Turley suggested that such concerns might influence a court’s decision.
“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,” Trump’s attorney Cliff Robert wrote.
Trump’s attorney also said Letitia James’ demand that Trump pay the judgment in full in order to appeal is “unreasonable, unjust, and unconstitutional (under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions) bond condition, which would cause irreparable harm and foreclose any review of Supreme Court’s deeply flawed decision in this case.”
