Trump’s NY Fraud Case Is “A Mammoth Scheme” Concocted by “Democrats,” Says Expert

Jo ShawNov 23, 2023

Minute Read

Trump’s legal team recently submitted a motion for a mistrial, asserting that bias was a primary reason to halt the proceedings. They referenced an article from the National Review to support their claims. However, Judge Engoron swiftly dismissed the motion, deeming it “utterly without merit” and opting not to entertain arguments, as he considered them “futile.”

Undermining Public Confidence in the Legal System

Trump and his lawyers’ motion for a mistrial started by arguing that the case damaged public confidence in the US legal system. The lengthy motion read, “Here, in an unprecedented case commanding worldwide interest and attention, it is imperative that nothing compromise that guarantee and thereby undermine public confidence in our legal system.”

Sunlight, the Best Disinfectant

In an effort to present their argument, Trump’s lawyers contended that increased transparency in the case would be more favorable for public perception. “While counsel are subject to a gag order apparently imposed to impede the issues herein presented from becoming public, it is a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence that sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Encouraging Suspicion and Contempt

The motion further argued that an “enforced silence,” referring to the gag orders, specifically aimed at “preserving the dignity of the bench,” would create “resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.”

The Public Perception of Bias

The lawyers for Trump stated that there could be “no doubt of the public perception of bias” in the trial. Trump’s lawyers further argued that “commentators who are politically opposed to President Trump have noted the biased nature of the proceedings” and “departures from ordinary standards of impartiality.”

AG and Judge Cook up a Fraud Theory

Trump lawyers pointed to an article by the National Review by Andrew C. McCarthy titled ‘Elected Dem AG and Judge Cook Up a Fraud Theory in Trump’s New York Trial’ to back up their claims of bias.

Why Did the Banks Not Sue Trump?

In the article, McCarthy began by asking an important question: “If Donald Trump had defrauded banks out of $168 million in interest payments, don’t you suppose those banks would have sued Trump?” “Of course they would have.” McCarthy wrote.

Her Cat’s Paw in a Judge’s Robe

McCarthy’s article further stated that “elected progressive Democrats Letitia James and Arthur Engoron, the state attorney general and her cat’s paw in a judge’s robe,” were “concocting a mammoth fraud scheme.” He noted the public has been led to believe “the banks lost their shirts” . . . but just forgot to complain about it.”

Manhattan Courthouse Is a Political Theater

McCarthy called the trial a “political theater.” The article further argued, “With Judge Engoron having ruled that Trump was guilty before the trial even started, the former president has no incentive to litigate as if he were in a normal legal proceeding.”

Trump’s Rabid Partisan Foes

Image Credit: Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock.

McCarthy then described Trump and his lawyers’ strategy for fighting the case as “rational in the formation but tempestuous in the implementation” and was to “deny the festivities the appearance of anything other than a game rigged by his rabid partisan foes.”

A Monstrous Statute

McCarthy then argued that Attorney General James had used “a monstrous New York statute, §63(12),” New York Statute §63(12) states that if someone consistently engages in fraudulent or illegal activities while conducting business, the New York Attorney General can seek an order from the state’s Supreme Court to stop the business, demand restitution and damages, and, if necessary, cancel certain certificates.

The First Time Section of Law Has Been Used

McCarthy highlighted in his article that “The state has never before sued under §63(12) on a theory of overvalued assets,” citing Trump’s trial was “the first ever such case” of its kind “brought against the Democrats’ archnemesis by an elected Democratic AG.”

Lawyers Fined for “No Victim” Defense

McCarthy asserted that Trump and his legal team’s defense, emphasizing the absence of victims, was a significant flaw in the case. This stance led to fines for Trump’s lawyers in the pretrial ruling, as they were penalized for repeatedly referencing a point the Judge deemed “completely irrelevant.”

Why Was There No Criminal Case?

McCarthy then asked why, if “there were proof that Trump had ripped banks off in this manner,” would there be no criminal case? In his article, he raised another question: “If a bunch of them [the banks] had been collectively bilked out of $168 million, don’t you imagine there would have been a lawsuit or ten?”

Banks Were Not Tricked

McCarthy wrote that the proof was “lacking” due to the fact that the banks are “sophisticated financial actors who do not take the debtor’s word for it when it comes to valuing assets” and further explained that the banks “were warned in this case by Trump’s SFC disclaimer to do their own due diligence.” An argument that Trump and his legal team have regularly used.

No Evidence of Higher Interest Rate Charges

In another of McCarthy’s arguments claiming the case was biased, he wrote, “There is no evidence that the banks would have charged a higher interest rate if Trump had lowered his valuations.” However, McCarthy stated that when lawyers raised this particular argument, the Judge would dismiss them, saying that “he had already decided Trump’s loans were ‘ill-gotten,’ and that the court was just ‘deciding the number.’”

Judge Is Inventing Losses

Editorial credit: mark reinstein / Shutterstock.

McCarthy concluded his article, declaring the trial was “amazing to watch” and added, “Donald Trump, front-runner in the Republican presidential nomination race, is on trial for supposedly inventing wealth that he didn’t have; and in order to nail him, elected Democrats Tish James and Arthur Engoron are inventing losses that no one ever suffered.”

Partisan Political Contributions

Editorial credit: Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock.

In the motion for mistrial, Trump’s lawyers also mentioned that Engoron’s law clerk had donated to Democrats and organizations that opposed Trump. The motion read, “…the impropriety of her [law clerk’s] participation is further magnified by the fact that she has violated a separate canon of ethics by making partisan political contributions in excess of strict limits, including to organizations actively supporting Attorney General James and opposing President Trump.”

Motion Is Utterly Without Merit

However, Trump’s arguments and the article failed to sway Judge Engoron, who stated in his ruling, “I cannot sign a proposed order to show cause that is utterly without merit, and upon which subsequent briefing would therefore be futile.”