The latest ruling in former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case was found wanting by a legal analyst over its “gross unfairness.”
“That’s the reason, and it’s rather obvious.”
(Video: Fox News)
New York Judge Arthur Engoron didn’t only expect the former president to fork over the more than $350 million from his ruling in the civil fraud trial, he expected it without delay. While the jurist brushed aside the request after arguing attorneys “failed to explain, much less justify” their reasoning, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley described the claim as “funny.”
“It was funny…the judge’s quote, because the explanation is in the figure,” Turley told Fox News host Bill Hemmer on “America’s Newsroom” Friday. “He just imposed a $355 million judgment with a law that has never been used in this way. That’s the reason, and it’s rather obvious.”
As had been reported, the judge had tersely responded to Trump’s attorney seeking a 30-day delay in judgment enforcement by stating, “You have failed to explain, much less justify, any basis for a stay. I am confident that the Appellate Division will protect your appellate rights.”
Continuing his tear against the justice system in the Empire State, Turley took aim at New York Attorney General Letitia James as well and her actions appeared to support the notion of a political persecution against Trump aimed at unmaking his business successes.
“But you also have people like James, who have never built a thing, other than their political careers, who are now treating these buildings as if they’re theirs,” the Fox News contributor said Friday. “I mean, she said that she’s eyeballing a couple of properties that she might want to seize, like this is a fire sale.”
“And the fact is that the judge showed absolutely no sense of equity in any of this…his decision is the decision of a single jurist and this party wants to have a review. But in order to do that, he has to pony up what is about a half a billion dollars. And that has a gross unfairness to it when you combine the use of the law and the size of his judgment and then this requirement for a deposit,” continued Turley. “But, he just simply brushed those aside and his tone almost bordered on the mocking.”
In addition to his remarks on the air, the legal scholar had expanded on his position in his own blog where he wrote, “Under New York law, Trump cannot appeal this ruling without depositing the full amount, including interest, in a court account. Even for Trump, $455 million is hard to come by. Likewise, a bond would require a company to guarantee payment for a defendant who has been barred from doing business in New York and is facing the need to liquidate much of his portfolio.”
“Nothing succeeds like excess for judges like Engoron,” added Turley. “By imposing this astronomical figure, he can make it difficult or impossible for a defendant to appeal, absent declaring bankruptcy or selling off assets at distress prices.”
Native of Brooklyn, NY, Kevin Haggerty is a graduate of Hunter College where he studied Cultural Anthropology and Geography. An avid reader and truth seeker, he currently resides in Texas with his wife and their dog and, when he isn't researching current events and their impacts, you'll find him spending time with friends and family or working on his next novel.
- Starbucks execs say Seattle is a keeper, but their real estate search in Tennessee says another - March 18, 2026
- Chief Justice Roberts takes shot at Trump after nuclear hot blast at SCOTUS, judges - March 18, 2026
- Democrat hack cuts CNBC clip out of context and the spin is shameless, as usual - March 18, 2026
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.