Letitia James may start ‘seizing Trump’s properties’ as he sits in criminal trial: expert
As Donald Trump sits in criminal court facing 34 felony charges for purported financial records violations stemming from an attempt to bury a story about an alleged affair with an adult film actress, he may also face a separate prosecutor seizing his real estate holdings, according to a legal expert.
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner published a "Justice Matters" video on Saturday in which he covers a recent filing by New York A.G. Letitia James, who sued Trump in a civil case for business fraud based on his chronic exaggeration of assets to get better loan terms. Specifically, the ex-prosecutor noted how James recently urged state Judge Arthur Engoron to reject the $175 million bond that Trump has posted in his civil fraud case, citing trustworthiness and competency concerns with the institution that agreed to bond him.
For Kirschner, this tells us a good amount about what might happen in the future as these cases move forward.
ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances
Kirschner first covers the three reasons James gives for doubting the validity of the bond, including that the company purportedly doesn't have the financial backing to provide such a large bond, and then goes on to explain what will happen if the judge agrees with her and Trump does nothing to cure the problem.
"At this rate, it looks like there is a fair chance that while Donald Trump is in that New York courtroom being prosecuted for 34 felony crimes, Attorney General Tish James might be up the street seizing Trump's properties," he said. "And I'm OK with that."
Text messages reveal previously unknown details in Trump trial: report
Details never before made public are expected to be admissible in Donald Trump's latest New York trial — and onlookers are expecting them to be revealing.
New York Times investigative reporter Sue Craig said she was "struck" by the "new information" revealed in Monday's opening statements, which includes a series of text messages from National Enquirer reporters involved in investigating the stories of adult movie actress Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.
One of the text messages, Craig said, read: "What have we done?"
Trump's latest trial kicked off in earnest Monday as each side delivered their opening speeches over Trump's 34-count felony indictment over the hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
"We've heard about text messages that went back and forth with the National Enquirer when they went out to see Karen McDougal, one of the women who had a relationship with Donald Trump," Craig said.
"They were trying to confirm if the story was true."
Craig noted that one of the lawyers representing McDougal was involved in election night texting with somebody at the tabloid, which was previously unknown.
Read Also: A criminologist explains why Trump’s Manhattan trial is the biggest threat to his freedom
"We'll see a lot of that come through. And David Pecker was not on the stand for very long, but just hearing the details that we got, the idea that ... reporters were given about $10,000 to get that story," recalled Craig.
"And I wasn't clear if that included payment to somebody or expenses and payment, but anything above that, he would have to sign off on it. What that told me was the payments that went to Karen McDougal, that went to Stormy Daniels, were unusual. They were high."
She referenced a Trump doorman who was paid $30,000 to stay quiet about a possible Trump love child. McDougal was given $150,000, while Daniels was given $130,000.
During the second half of the show, Lawfare's Anna Bower agreed with the assessment that there was new information that dropped and there will likely be even more. There is some conversation about what will ultimately be admissible out of that information that is new.
"We heard a lot about phone records the prosecution intends to introduce," Bower said. "So, I think that we certainly will see new evidence. But the question is — there were these questions about whether it would be admissible for hearsay reasons."
See the video below or at the link here.
Hearing prosecutors read the 'Access Hollywood' words was 'cringier' than Trump's voice youtu.be
