LISTEN HERE:
Just last week, Alina Habba, the legal representative for ex-President Donald Trump had some pointed criticisms for New York Attorney General Letitia James.
In an ongoing legal dispute, James is pursuing a significant $250 million in supposed damages from Trump and his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and is pushing for a complete prohibition preventing them from engaging in any commercial activities within New York state.
The matter was reported by The Hill, who also noted that Arthur Engoron, the judge handling the case, had previously ruled that Trump exaggerated the worth of his business enterprises and assets to secure favourable loan terms, a judgement that Trump fervently denies.
Discussing the issue with Newsmax TV, Habba did not hold back on expressing her thoughts about James, suggesting the Attorney General was not exceptionally gifted. Habba was quoted saying, ‘she’s simply not all that bright.
This, I believe, needs to be said’ and emphasized that in her view, James does not possess a strong case. She continued by expressing her own familiarity with the case and the legal representation on James’ side, concluding that they seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the issue.
Habba raised points on the common practice in loan management, commenting, ‘When any individual secures a loan, the bank granting the loan often values the loan amount as being equal to the value, they never will claim the genuine value.’
She carried on, expressing her belief that they declare only what they want to express and not a cent more, equating to the total loan value.
The lawyer for the former president then suggested that James should make an effort to increase her knowledge, calling the whole case ‘ridiculously nonsensical’.
Habba likened the proceedings to a circus, but refrained from further commenting on the absurdity she felt, suggesting that anyone with common sense could discern the case’s ludicrous nature.
Simultaneously, Andrew McCarthy, an ex-federal prosecutor, criticized James for pursuing Trump in a case lacking any financially harmed party. In a piece published by the National Review, McCarthy claimed that James was ‘fabricating losses which were never endured’ in her attempt to pin down Trump.
He backed Trump’s claim that none of his business partners, including various banks and companies over his years in business, ever experienced financial losses.
McCarthy was also in alignment with Trump’s perspective when he wrote, ‘The case formulated against the ex-president is devoid of victims, thus leading Tish James and Arthur Engoron to concoct some.’
The former prosecutor further stipulated that if Trump had indeed tricked the banks out of more than $168 million, the banks would assuredly have pursued some form of legal action against him, which they have not.
McCarthy affirmed that the absence of legal proceedings by the supposedly defrauded parties is not deterring James or Engoron, stating that, ‘Letitia James and Arthur Engoron, the state attorney general and the judge, seem determined to create a colossal fraud scheme that they insist was engineered by Trump’.
According to their theory, the banks suffered massive losses but somehow forgot to raise any objections.
McCarthy further elaborated that Engoron’s decision at the start of the case that Trump was involved in fraudulent activities has removed any incentive for the ex-president to engage in a regular legal argument. This has resulted in Trump being forced to counterattack against both the judge and the prosecutors, to highlight the partisan bias in these proceedings.
Subsequent to Engoron’s ruling, the trial that ensued mostly revolved around determining the appropriate recompense for Trump’s purported misconduct. There are additional facets to this issue, but primarily, the trial aims to ascertain whether Engoron will debar Trump and his business empire of $250 million or even more, which James alleges are unduly acquired proceeds.
Under these circumstances, the Trump defense is focussed on reducing the impending damages. Trump is vehemently denying any involvement in fraud, asserting his assets are valued far higher than the amounts claimed in the Special Function Coefficients (SFCs).
However, Engoron seems adamant to curtail Trump and his attorneys by insisting that he has conclusively judged Trump to have committed fraud, inflated his assets’ value, and cannot be protected by disclaimers in his SFCs.
This decision has left Trump questioning why a trial is even necessary if the verdict seems to have been preconcluded, as expressed by McCarthy. Whether Trump will be able to sway the ruling in his favor with these arguments, or whether James will be successful in her claims, remains to be seen.
