Trump Lawyers Push Compelling New Argument

On Thursday, lawyers for former President Donald Trump presented their case to a New York City appeals court, arguing that the nearly $500 million civil fraud judgment against him is based on a “clear-cut” violation of the statute of limitations. Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, emphasized that the Attorney General Letitia James’s case was not initiated in a timely manner, asserting that the significant financial penalty imposed on the Trump Organization was unwarranted and excessively punitive.

During the proceedings, which Trump did not attend, Sauer argued that there was a “critical failure of proof” in the trial, and he questioned the validity of the Attorney General’s claims, particularly those that were more recent and thus not outside the statute of limitations. One judge, Peter H. Moulton, even indicated his discomfort with the judgment, describing it as “troubling” and hinting that the case might have strayed from its original intent.

Legal experts observed that the judges appeared to lean slightly in favor of Trump, which could bode well for the former president. If the court sides with him, it might reduce the financial penalty or even order a retrial, potentially limiting the scope of the fraud claims based on the controversial New York Executive Law Section 63(12). This law, intended to combat fraud, has faced criticism for being overly broad and lacking the traditional requirements for proving intent to defraud.

The backdrop of this legal battle is James’s long-standing interest in Trump, which dates back to her campaign for attorney general in 2017. Throughout the civil fraud trial, Trump’s defense team brought forth experts who argued that his financial statements were undervalued and that there were no actual victims. The Deputy Solicitor General for New York, Judith Vale, countered this by stating that the Trump Organization’s dealings did harm the public and the market, particularly pointing to the termination of its relationship with Deutsche Bank.

As Trump navigates these legal challenges, he continues to campaign for a second presidential term. Should he receive an unfavorable ruling, he retains the option to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. With the political landscape rapidly evolving, this case could have significant implications not only for Trump but also for the upcoming election against Vice President Kamala Harris, where polls indicate a tightly contested race.