Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354 million, says frauds 'shock the conscience'
The former president was found to have defrauded lenders.
Former President Donald Trump has been fined $354.8 million plus approximately $100 million in interest in a civil fraud lawsuit that could alter the personal fortune and real estate empire that helped propel him to the White House. In the decision, Judge Arthur Engoron excoriated Trump, saying the president's credibility was "severely compromised," that the frauds "shock the conscience" and that Trump and his co-defendants showed a "complete lack of contrition and remorse" that he said "borders on pathological."
Engoron also hit Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump with $4 million fines and barred all three from helming New York companies for years. New York Attorney General Letitia James accused Trump and his adult sons of engaging in a decade-long scheme in which they used "numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation" to inflate Trump's net worth in order get more favorable loan terms. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal.
Top headlines:
Summary of penalties
Donald Trump and his adult sons were hit with millions in fines in the civil fraud trial and barred for years from being officers in New York companies. The judge said the frauds "shock the conscience."
Donald Trump: $354 million fine + approx. $100 million in interest
+ barred for 3 years from serving as officer of NY company
Donald Trump Jr.: $4 million fine
+ barred for 2 years from serving as officer of NY company
Eric Trump: $4 million fine
+ barred for 2 years from serving as officer of NY company
Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg: $1 million fine
+ barred for 3 years from serving as officer of NY company
+ barred for life from financial management role in NY company
Former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney:
+ barred for 3 years from serving as officer of NY company
+ barred for life from financial management role in NY company
Defense teams applauds lifting of gag order
Defense attorney Alina Habba, speaking to reporters outside court, said that an appellate judge's decision to temporarily stay Judge Engoron's limited gag order on Donald Trump would allow the defense team to continue raising issues with the conduct of Engoron's clerk.
Habba also said she saw no reason to advise Trump to refrain from attacking the clerk now that the gag order has been stayed -- despite Judge Engoron's concerns about his staff facing threats.
"There is not a day that I don't get a threat. It's just part of the game," Habba said. "If I put something out on social media, and I get a threat for it, which has happened to me every single day, I don't get to cry."
"Ms. James is continuing to disparage my client," Habba said, referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed the lawsuit against Trump. "And they were grasping at straws for a reason to say that the president should be gagged. There was no reason."
James did not ask for the gag order, which was issued by Judge Engoron last month out of concern for the safety of his staff after Trump made a false post about his clerk on social media.
Responses to gag order stay due by Wednesday
New York Attorney General Letitia James and representatives for Judge Arthur Engoron have until Wednesday to file a response to the appellate judge's stay of the limited gag order imposed last month on Donald Trump by Engoron, according to the appellate judge's order.
Trump's reply is then due on Nov. 27 before the appellate court decides whether to fully lift the gag order. The civil fraud trial is expected to wrap up in mid-December.
Engoron's "gag orders entered during the non-jury trial in the underlying proceeding are unconstitutional, and sanctions imposed there under are in violation of the Judiciary Law and Rules of this court," Trump's attorneys said in arguing for the order to be lifted.
Oral arguments about the gag order were presented at a separate courthouse from the courtroom where Trump's civil trial is taking place. Engoron, who is hearing testimony from an expert witness, has not commented on the decision.
Appeals court temporarily lifts Trump gag order
A New York appeals court has temporarily lifted the limited gag order imposed on Donald Trump by Judge Arthur Engoron.
Judge David Friedman of the appellate division's first department ruled from the bench after a brief oral argument.
The judge stayed the limited gag order, citing constitutional concerns over Trump's free speech rights.
"Considering the constitutional and statutory rights at issue, an interim stay is granted," Judge Friedman said in a handwritten order.
The gag order was imposed by the Engoron last month after Trump posted about the judge's law clerk on social media.
Trump seeks emergency stay of limited gag order
Attorneys for Donald Trump have filed an emergency application for a stay of the limited gag order issued by last month Judge Engoron, asking that an appeals court annul and vacate the gag order and fines imposed against him.
Trump has been fined on two occasions, for a total of $15,000, after making statements referencing the judge's clerk, and the judge recently extended the gag order to apply to lawyers in the case.
Trump's lawyers argue that the gag order is an unconstitutional violation of Trump's freedom of speech, which they say Engoron has used as a "unfettered license to inflict public punishments on a defendant for the defendant's out-of-court statements."
"As applied to President Trump, it also prevents a presidential candidate from commenting on the public conduct and possible ethical violations of a critical member of Justice Engoron's chambers," Trump's lawyers wrote.
Engoron has said the gag order is meant to protect his staff from violence, noting that his chambers has received hundreds of threatening phone calls, messages, and packages over the course of the trial. While Trump's lawyers described Engoron's desire to protect his staff as "understandable," they argue the gag order is too broad a "curtailment of plainly protected speech in a trial playing out on a national and international stage."
An attorney for the New York attorney general responded to the filing by describing the gag order as the least restrictive means available to protect Engoron's staff.
"The First Amendment does not prohibit courts from restricting speech that threatens the safety of the court's staff or frustrates the orderly progression of a trial," the attorney general responded in a letter to the appeals court.
Exec's testimony shows 'illicit agreement or scheme,' state argues
State attorney Eric Haren has filed a letter with the court arguing that Trump Organization executive Patrick Birney's testimony yesterday about Trump's net worth should be admissible.
During his testimony, Birney claimed that CFO Allen Weisselberg told him that "Mr. Trump wanted his net worth on the statement of financial condition to go up." Trump lawyer Chris Kise immediately objected to the statement as hearsay.
Judge Engoron then asked both parties to submit two-page memos by today, regarding whether the statements from Birney are hearsay.
"Regardless of its truth, Mr. Weisselberg's statement tends to show the existence of an illicit agreement or scheme," Haren wrote in his letter to the judge.
Haren argued that since Weisselberg is alleged to be a co-conspirator who carried out his "illicit objectives" through Birney, the statement should be considered admissible.