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
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.
Trump attorney jokes about football coach
In a moment of levity during a break between witnesses, Judge Arthur Engoron noted that Trump attorney Chris Kise has not yet led the questioning of any witnesses.
"How come you don't get the pleasure of questioning people?" Engoron asked.
"There's still time left," Kise responded, saying that he prefers to coach his team from the sideline like famed New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick or Jimbo Fisher.
Fisher received a record buyout after being fired as coach of Texas A&M this week.
"I'd like to be fired from my job and collecting $77 million," Kise quipped.
"I'll see if I can arrange that," Engoron joked.
Trial is a 'documents case,' state lawyer says
State attorney Kevin Wallace, arguing against the defense's motion for a directed verdict to end the trial early, reiterated that the state's case relies on documents that they say incriminate Donald Trump and his adult sons.
"This is a documents case," Wallace said. "Each of the three defendants signed documents saying they were responsible for the fair presentation of the statements."
While the defendants all testified that they relied on accountants, Wallace said by way of analogy that it's like the defense saying that using an accountant absolves an individual of filing false tax returns.
"I am liable for that fraudulence," Wallace said. "I am not relieved of my responsibility because I handed off to an accountant."