Professor of constitutional law Jonathan Turley commented on Letitia James' most recent attempt to take control of Trump's property.
Marxist Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, started the process of seizing Trump's property on Thursday. In Westchester County, where Trump has a private estate and golf course, she filed judgments.
The deadline for President Trump to either pay the judgment or persuade the appellate court to grant him a payment delay while he files an appeal is this coming Monday.
Turley stated that because Trump's enterprises are intricate partnerships with leveraged debt, James' attempt to seize his assets and padlock Trump Tower is unlikely to succeed.
Larry Kudlow, anchor of Fox Business, heard Turley say, "The penalty handed down is absurd."
It is necessary to sort out the partnerships and leveraged loans associated with these properties. These are therefore not only this kind of one-to-one Trump vs. James calculation. She will therefore be brought before the court and face obstacles in order to have that property seized. It is not going to occur immediately. Everyone is rejoicing at the thought that she will padlock Trump Tower. It's unlikely to occur and much less likely to last for very long.
Turley went on, "The other thing is that with some of these actions, she might be damaging the value of the property that she's trying to seize." That may matter to a judge, but I don't think it matters to her.
Jonathan Turley Pours Cold Water On Letitia James' Plans To Seize Trump's Assets pic.twitter.com/94VCC5ihpe
— Illinois girl Desi (@d_ewinger) March 23, 2024
In an appeal, Trump's legal team has asked for a stay of the large $464 million verdict.
In a letter to the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division on Thursday, Trump's legal team said that Letitia James' actions were "unconstitutional."
Cliff Robert, Trump's attorney, wrote that it would be "completely illogical" and "the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking" to require the defendants to sell their properties at all, particularly through a "fire sale," in order to challenge the lawless Supreme Court judgment. This is because doing so would result in irreversible harm that would not be possible to undo even in the unlikely event that the defendants prevail on appeal.