Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio.
Speaker 2: News, breaking news. Here the former President Trump. He has
Speaker 2: been ordered to pay three hundred and sixty four million
Speaker 2: dollars for fraud in a New York civil trial. The
Speaker 2: former president also barred from running his New York company
Speaker 2: for three years, his sons have been barred from serving
Speaker 2: as New York executives for two years, and the defendants
Speaker 2: of the case have lost on all claims in that
Speaker 2: New York civil fraud trial. Let's now bring in Bloomberg
Speaker 2: News reporter Greg Farrell, who joins us on the phone,
Speaker 2: and also Bloomberg News legal analyst June Grosso. Greg I
Speaker 2: do want to.
Speaker 3: Start with you?
Speaker 2: This was this verdict widely expected, especially that three hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty four million dollar figure in general.
Speaker 4: Yes, okay, given that the judge had found in favor
Speaker 4: of the age a couple of months ago before the
Speaker 4: actual trial, and some of the comments and observations that
Speaker 4: he made leading up to it, it was clear that
Speaker 4: who's going to hit him fairly hard?
Speaker 2: And what do you make of the like the put
Speaker 2: the scale in the of the defeat on this for us,
Speaker 2: for Trump, because as we know, the president is a
Speaker 2: former president excuse me, has moved much of his life
Speaker 2: to Florida at this point, So does it matter that
Speaker 2: the state of Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4: A the age was seeing a lifetime ban. He only
Speaker 4: got three years, so that actually went in his favor
Speaker 4: and his sons. They sought a five year ban against
Speaker 4: running or being an office for a company in New York,
Speaker 4: only two years, so that was relatively light on that front. However,
Speaker 4: the businesses, it's not just as easy as you know,
Speaker 4: carrying up the paperwork and then reconcept, you know, filing
Speaker 4: to establish the same businesses in Florida. That's something that
Speaker 4: has not been resolved yet is whether or not Trump
Speaker 4: will have to as the business cerpertificates will be canceled,
Speaker 4: whether or not these properties will have to go into liquidation.
Speaker 4: So that's not clear from today's ruling. That's that's a
Speaker 4: big you know, to be determined.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, I want to bring in Bloomberg News legal
Speaker 2: analyst June Grossa, who's got a thick stack of paper
Speaker 2: covering the keyboard right now, and she's made her way
Speaker 2: through quite a bit of it.
Speaker 3: June, what are you learning?
Speaker 1: I have not made my way through quite a bit
Speaker 1: of it. I just went to the back. I went
Speaker 1: to the back to look at what he actually what
Speaker 1: he actually ordered. What Greg said is absolutely true. What
Speaker 1: I think the worst that could have happened is what
Speaker 1: they call the corporate death penalty, which didn't happen here.
Speaker 1: So as Greg said, you know, he is not allowed
Speaker 1: to do business for three years, his sons for two.
Speaker 1: And I think I'm looking for the part that I
Speaker 1: found interesting. Now there's a there's already a judge in
Speaker 1: place as an independent monitor. That judge is going to
Speaker 1: continue as an independent monitor. And also the court is
Speaker 1: ordering an independent director of compliance be installed at the
Speaker 1: Trump organization who shall be responsible for ensuring good financial
Speaker 1: and accounting practices, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: the court mentioned that there was an appeal. Trump was
Speaker 1: making an appeal from some of his findings about the
Speaker 1: license of the company, and he said that you know
Speaker 1: I can't find it right.
Speaker 3: Now, be fair.
Speaker 2: I just want to paint the picture for everybody listening
Speaker 2: right now, literally a stack of.
Speaker 1: What jims it's ninety ninety pages, ninety eight, ninety two.
Speaker 1: Not to lie, it's only ninety two.
Speaker 2: I'm impressed with both of you have been able to
Speaker 2: come up with at this point, Emily take it away.
Speaker 5: What does this mean for the election. I'm really curious
Speaker 5: what if there's any implications on this results on question?
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I mean this unless he was
Speaker 1: going to, you know, use his own money for the election,
Speaker 1: and this will stop him from uh doing that. There
Speaker 1: really is nothing in this having to do with the election.
Speaker 1: I mean, the case is that you have to look
Speaker 1: at for the election or more. The criminal case is
Speaker 1: one that's been set now for next month in New York,
Speaker 1: the hush money case, and of course the case in
Speaker 1: DC that now the Supreme Court is deciding whether or
Speaker 1: not to put us have a stay on that decision
Speaker 1: and so put a hold on that case while he
Speaker 1: appeals it. So, I mean, those are the ones that
Speaker 1: are really have anything to do with his And it's
Speaker 1: not so much that it would stop him from runny.
Speaker 1: It's just that people would be interested and perhaps it
Speaker 1: would matter to people if he is criminally convicted. This
Speaker 1: I don't think, you know, so much matters to be
Speaker 1: But they look at it and they think it's the
Speaker 1: Trump organization, right, you know, they look at it. It's
Speaker 1: about okay, he overstated his income, and the Attorney General said, well,
Speaker 1: you can't do that because that's a business records violation,
Speaker 1: and you know, you have to disgorge the money that
Speaker 1: you got as a result of your lies about your
Speaker 1: net worth. So I don't think people really that will
Speaker 1: affect them as much.
Speaker 2: I understand that you and and we've seen polling that
Speaker 2: that sort of shows that the criminal cases are certainly
Speaker 2: more important, Greg, Greg Farrell, I want to bring you
Speaker 2: back in her Bloomberg News reporter Greg Farrell that said
Speaker 2: everything that June said, I understand at the same time,
Speaker 2: it costs a lot of money to run for president. Yes,
Speaker 2: and it costs a lot of mone And this is
Speaker 2: a three hundred and sixty four million dollars fine. Here
Speaker 2: is this real money we're talking about, Like.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is real money.
Speaker 3: He's gonna have to pay this.
Speaker 4: I mean, like because we're so used to throwing a
Speaker 4: term billionaire around. Yeah, like everybody he has this unlimited pockets.
Speaker 4: But no, And my colleague Arett Larsington an excellent article
Speaker 4: about three weeks ago pointing out like some of the
Speaker 4: dire fiscal straits, you know, in terms of cash access
Speaker 4: to real cash that trum pass. He might have to
Speaker 4: liquidate some of these buildings just to come up with
Speaker 4: this money. It's not like he has like he's claimed
Speaker 4: that he has four hundred million in cash available. But
Speaker 4: you know, as we know, just because he claims it
Speaker 4: doesn't mean it's necessarily.
Speaker 1: So he's going to appeal this though, Greg, we have
Speaker 1: no doubt he's going to appeal it. Then he'll have
Speaker 1: to either put up the money plus five percent or
Speaker 1: get a bond, secure a bond.
Speaker 4: It's tough, like good luck to him getting a bond.
Speaker 4: It's well known in that community.
Speaker 3: So well, you talk a little bit about that, Greg,
Speaker 3: the challenge there, talk a little bit about that.
Speaker 4: Just that you know, he'd be a difficult guy to go,
Speaker 4: you know, to give a bond to. He just does
Speaker 4: not have a good reputation in that community. Yes, he
Speaker 4: can appeal it, but you can't just use an appeal
Speaker 4: as an excuse to stop, you know, making a payment,
Speaker 4: put it off for several years. So, as June pointed out,
Speaker 4: he'd have to post some of that money, you know,
Speaker 4: a good chunk of it I think upfront in escrow.
Speaker 1: And also let's not forget he is appealing the eighty
Speaker 1: three million dollar e Gene Carrol verdict, So the same
Speaker 1: thing there, Hill and the last time, the last verdict,
Speaker 1: the fifteen million dollar. I think it was the first
Speaker 1: Gene Carol verts. He put up the money himself. He
Speaker 1: put up the money himself. He put up that plus
Speaker 1: five percent June.
Speaker 2: Do we know if the former president is very good
Speaker 2: at raising money? Yes, very very good at raising money.
Speaker 2: He's in fact, he used some of his legal challenges
Speaker 2: to raise money from supporters.
Speaker 4: Is he a big boom?
Speaker 3: It has been, Yeah, thank you, Greg, it has been.
Speaker 2: Is he allowed June to actually use that money to
Speaker 2: pay these spines?
Speaker 3: Do we know?
Speaker 1: I don't think he's allowed to pay the fines with it?
Speaker 3: Okay? Sorry, go ahead, right?
Speaker 4: He had not? Those are campaign those are funds for
Speaker 4: like he could pay for his legal representation. But he
Speaker 4: cannot pay like the damage's reward. That's like off limits.
Speaker 2: What about like funding from like a super pac for example,
Speaker 2: Could that money go for this?
Speaker 1: I don't think it can. But but the thing is
Speaker 1: that it's all the super pack stuff is very hazy
Speaker 1: and things aren't enforced as much as they should be.
Speaker 1: So but I don't think you can pay from a
Speaker 1: super pack either.
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess Greg, what you can tell I'm
Speaker 2: getting at is is is Trump going to have to
Speaker 2: open up.
Speaker 3: His wallet here?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Yes, and I think so absolutely. And that's that's
Speaker 4: the real real pain here is the judge came up
Speaker 4: at the high end of what the ag asked for.
Speaker 4: I think she asked three hundred and seventy million, and
Speaker 4: he got like, yeah, as you said, three hundred and
Speaker 4: sixty four.
Speaker 5: So what's Trump's number one priority here? What is he
Speaker 5: doing in the next few hours, in the next few days.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a good question. I think he's probably going
Speaker 1: to have a press conference at Mara a Lago. I
Speaker 1: think that's already been scheduled, and he's going to talk
Speaker 1: about this. What he will say, I think is what
Speaker 1: he has been saying in the many press conferences that
Speaker 1: he held all during this New York Attorney General's trial.
Speaker 1: He's going to say that this is a witch hunt
Speaker 1: that Letitia James has been after him. Letitia James campaigned
Speaker 1: on getting Trump. And also he's going to say that
Speaker 1: the people in this case, like the Deutsche Banks, the lenders,
Speaker 1: had no complaint here, and in fact, they didn't there
Speaker 1: weren't any you know, lenders testifying, Oh, we feel really
Speaker 1: bad because we got swindled. So they said, well we
Speaker 1: might have charged more. So he's going to say everyone
Speaker 1: was very happy. Trump is a brand. It was, so
Speaker 1: it's going to be the same thing. I can't imagine anything.
Speaker 3: Different, he Gregor.
Speaker 2: I want to bring you back in here because one
Speaker 2: thing that keeps crossing my mind is the way that
Speaker 2: the former president's sons were implicated in this as well,
Speaker 2: and that they have been actually banned as well from
Speaker 2: doing certain things.
Speaker 3: What do we know.
Speaker 2: About the way that the Trump family is affected by
Speaker 2: this ruling today.
Speaker 4: Well, according to the trial and the findings of fact,
Speaker 4: you know, the sons in particular, not only unlike Ivanka,
Speaker 4: who was severed from this and is not part of
Speaker 4: this in any way, the two sons were helping to
Speaker 4: run the business for many years until Trump became president,
Speaker 4: and then in fact we're running the business on his
Speaker 4: behalf when he was president. And that's in particular where
Speaker 4: a couple of the charges involving insurance fraud came up
Speaker 4: that they signed off on and were actively involved in
Speaker 4: presenting numbers to the insurance companies that were not, you know, accurate.
Speaker 4: They were overstated.
Speaker 1: You know, here's I found the part that I it's
Speaker 1: about the prior cancelation of the business life licenses. And
Speaker 1: the judge writes that there was partial summary judgment and
Speaker 1: the Appellate Division First Department has stayed this relief the
Speaker 1: cancelation of business light licenses, penning the final disposition. He said, however,
Speaker 1: as going forward, there'll be a two tiered oversight, the
Speaker 1: independent Monitor and the Independent Director of Compliance of major
Speaker 1: activities that could lead to fraud. Cancelation of the business
Speaker 1: license is no longer necessary, so he basically took that back.
Speaker 2: Hey, I just want to take a break and remind
Speaker 2: everyone where we are right now, if you're just now
Speaker 2: joining us. The former President Donald Trump and his real
Speaker 2: estate company suffered a major defeat in New York's civil
Speaker 2: fraud suit over his inflated asset valuations. This after a
Speaker 2: judge barred the former president from running any business in
Speaker 2: the state for three years and ordered the return of
Speaker 2: three hundred and sixty four million dollars in illegal profits.
Speaker 2: That verdict Friday by Justice by Justice Arthur Engron in Manhattan,
Speaker 2: is a threat to Trump's real estate empire and is
Speaker 2: the latest legal setback as he campaigns to return to
Speaker 2: the White House. We should notice two eldest sons, Donald
Speaker 2: Trump Junior and Eric Trump, were also found liable and
Speaker 2: barred from being officers of a company in New York
Speaker 2: for two years. I want to bring back Bloomberg News
Speaker 2: reporter Greg Ferrell joining us on the phone. Also, we're
Speaker 2: joined by Bloomberg News legal analyst June Grosso here in
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Interactive Broker's studio. Greg, as we take a
Speaker 2: step back and think about all of the challenges that
Speaker 2: the former president faces legally, can textualize this one for
Speaker 2: us and where this sort of falls on the uh,
Speaker 2: just just how bad this is for him and his empire?
Speaker 6: Well, it's very bad for his business empire, okay, you know,
Speaker 6: and it's more serious I think than a lot of
Speaker 6: us like presumed because criminal is worse than civil, that
Speaker 6: the real danger to him was all these criminal cases.
Speaker 6: But this is, you know, turning out to be far
Speaker 6: more damaging, I think than many of us realized, you know,
Speaker 6: both financially in terms of the public relations hit, in
Speaker 6: terms of the exposureusiness practices being laid out in such
Speaker 6: clear detail. And yes, we all knew about Donald Trump,
Speaker 6: you know, certainly by the time he became president afterwards,
Speaker 6: but this is for all the world to see factual
Speaker 6: findings about the way he operated his business for you know,
Speaker 6: it was only a decade that came under review by
Speaker 6: the ags, obvious, but exactly much longer.
Speaker 2: Greg, we heard your phone ringing. There's a lot going
Speaker 2: on back there. Yeah, we're gonna I'm gonna let you go,
Speaker 2: always ringing.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sources, sources.
Speaker 2: And not thank you enough for joining us. It's Bloomberg
Speaker 2: News reporter Greg Farrell joining us on this breaking news
Speaker 2: this Friday afternoon. Still what with us is Bloomberg News
Speaker 2: legal analyst June Grosser. We're not letting her go quite yet.
Speaker 2: We're also going to bring in Bloomberg Politics contributor Geenie Shanzeno,
Speaker 2: who joins us. Genie, I want to I want to
Speaker 2: go to you for the politics part of this. Emily
Speaker 2: asked a great question a few minutes ago about the
Speaker 2: political effects of this. Does it matter to President Trump
Speaker 2: supporters that this ruling has come down in the civil
Speaker 2: fraud trial?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think the fair answer is, we really don't
Speaker 7: know the evidence we have so far is that on
Speaker 7: all of these indictments and trials, he has been fundraising,
Speaker 7: and as we all know from looking at the polls,
Speaker 7: his support has only grown. However, we are now getting
Speaker 7: I mean, this is all unturned territory politically, but now
Speaker 7: that we are seeing these verdicts come down, it is
Speaker 7: possible that this does negatively impact him, even with his
Speaker 7: core supporters. Because we don't have any test of this
Speaker 7: kind of thing in American history, we really don't know.
Speaker 7: We do have some polls which say that if he's
Speaker 7: convicted of a crime that people will not vote for
Speaker 7: him for president, we don't know if that extends to something,
Speaker 7: you know, civil like this. So I don't really have
Speaker 7: a great answer for you on this except to say
Speaker 7: I can't imagine a world and I hope I am
Speaker 7: not being Pollyennish, in which somebody being convicted and indicted
Speaker 7: this much does have a negative impact on their chances
Speaker 7: of being elected president. So I think a fair thing
Speaker 7: to say this is not good news for him in
Speaker 7: any way, but especially politically, because it's not just this trial,
Speaker 7: but the cumulative effect of all of these trials, the
Speaker 7: criminal ones which we know are just starting in a
Speaker 7: few weeks in New York and then continuing around the
Speaker 7: country to get the four criminal ones in and of
Speaker 7: course the civil ones are just the beginning.
Speaker 1: So I just have to add to this. So he
Speaker 1: went this week to He's been going to a lot
Speaker 1: of these different court hearings. As he went when the judge,
Speaker 1: Judge Mrchahn, said that set the trial date for his
Speaker 1: New York hush money payment trial for next month. So
Speaker 1: he went to one in Florida where it was an
Speaker 1: in camera hearing, so it was just the defense team
Speaker 1: with the judge Aileen Cannon, and he decided to go
Speaker 1: and before that he alerted everybody. He said, I'm back
Speaker 1: in court again. He sent out an context, I'm back
Speaker 1: in court again. I think he's doing well being back
Speaker 1: in court. I think he's campaigning the from the courthouse steps.
Speaker 1: He's convinced his supporters that this is all a witch hunt,
Speaker 1: that for example, classified documents, Well they didn't they didn't
Speaker 1: go after Joe Biden for classified documents. Why are they
Speaker 1: going after me for classified doctors?
Speaker 3: Special Council's report last week?
Speaker 1: Yes, but you know, right, But I'm just saying I
Speaker 1: think that he does very well, because he campaigns from
Speaker 1: the courthouse and everyone picks up his the stuff that
Speaker 1: he says, where as if he was on the road
Speaker 1: at a rally, everyone's not going to pick it up.
Speaker 1: But when he comes outside the courthouse and says it's
Speaker 1: very unfair, you know, for example, when he did it
Speaker 1: this week, when Judge Merschaun set that trial date, he said,
Speaker 1: this is not fair, this is not justice. So I
Speaker 1: think he does very well. If there's a criminal verdict,
Speaker 1: I think it might be different, But a civil verdict,
Speaker 1: this is really beyond most people. I think, Oh, he
Speaker 1: lied about how much money he made. I don't think
Speaker 1: most people see that as something as bad as a
Speaker 1: criminal conviction, because it's hard to understand. First of all,
Speaker 1: it's hard to understand it's about business record.
Speaker 2: Right, and I think perhaps people might I've heard people
Speaker 2: say the same thing about the covering up the hush
Speaker 2: money paid to Stormy Daniels, for example, like that, I think,
Speaker 2: you know, I've heard the comments that some people might
Speaker 2: find that one frivolous versus the actual criminal charges, because.
Speaker 1: Also in that case those are normally misdemeanors, and Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg didn't want to bring a case with just misdemeanors,
Speaker 1: so he upped it to felonies by hooking it sort
Speaker 1: of to federal charges of election against election law. So
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the problem with that case. It's not
Speaker 1: just Michael Cohen's going to testify, because you know, the
Speaker 1: prosecutors are used to having witnesses with problems testifying, But
Speaker 1: it's because of the legal theory behind it that that's
Speaker 1: a problem. I think that case.
Speaker 2: Hey, Jennie, come on in here and weigh in on
Speaker 2: what June said. The idea that the former president is
Speaker 2: energized by campaigning in quotes on the stairs of the
Speaker 2: courthouses versus being out there on the campaign trail.
Speaker 3: Do you agree with that?
Speaker 7: You know, I think he knows he needs the money
Speaker 7: to fund all these cases, and he has been fundraising
Speaker 7: off of this. But I still go back to the
Speaker 7: fact that we are in a situation where people are
Speaker 7: going to have to make a choice if both Joe
Speaker 7: Biden and Donald Trump are the nominees. Between the two
Speaker 7: of them, neither of them are beloved, certainly, but the
Speaker 7: reality is is this race is going to be won
Speaker 7: or lost in the moderate independent middle and six or
Speaker 7: seven swing states where the Bloomberg Morning Console poll has
Speaker 7: been doing their research, and it is really difficult for
Speaker 7: me to imagine that this is a selling point that
Speaker 7: will help get Donald Trump more votes than he had
Speaker 7: in twenty twenty when he lost to Joe Biden. So
Speaker 7: you know, in the short term, yes, he's going to
Speaker 7: try to fundraise off of it. He's going to try
Speaker 7: to make the best of a situation. But by no
Speaker 7: stretch of the imagination do I believe that this is
Speaker 7: a you know, a ticket into the presidential nomination or
Speaker 7: the presidency itself. I mean, this is a man fighting
Speaker 7: for his life, his businesses, and the future of his
Speaker 7: children in courts around the country in both civil and
Speaker 7: criminal cases. And I am hard plasked to believe that
Speaker 7: the American public in the end views this as a
Speaker 7: selling point and a jumping off to the presidency. That's
Speaker 7: why we heard Nikki Haley say today, and she's been
Speaker 7: screaming from the rooftops that this man brings chaos and
Speaker 7: people didn't want it in twenty twenty, and I'm hard
Speaker 7: pressed to believe that they will want it, or more
Speaker 7: of them will want it in twenty twenty four, which
Speaker 7: will put him over the top. So does it help
Speaker 7: his base and potentially you know, get in the nomination.
Speaker 7: You know, maybe, but let's not forget that the nomination's
Speaker 7: likely going to be wrapped up even before the trial
Speaker 7: starts in the Alvin braggcase that you and June were
Speaker 7: just talking about.
Speaker 5: What does the Republican Party make of this? What do
Speaker 5: you think how are they going to come out and
Speaker 5: react to this news?
Speaker 7: You know, if history is any guide, they will support
Speaker 7: Donald Trump. The statement we just heard from his lawyer
Speaker 7: about a witch hunt will probably be at the top
Speaker 7: of their lips.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 7: The stunning thing is, besides Nicky Haley, very few Republicans
Speaker 7: in elected office have come out and said anything about
Speaker 7: this case in particular, except that Donald Trump is being
Speaker 7: victimized by the New York courts. So I suspect that
Speaker 7: will happen. And to Tim's point, I think you echo
Speaker 7: what we all feel is that this is exhausting. Nobody
Speaker 7: quite can keep track even when you watch it daily,
Speaker 7: as to what in case we're talking about when, and
Speaker 7: you know, this is going to have an impact, a
Speaker 7: cumulative effect on him in the polls, if not in
Speaker 7: the short term, in the long term because it is
Speaker 7: utterly chaotic, in Nikki Haley's words, and exhausting for voters.
Speaker 2: Genie, I have some not so great news for you.
Speaker 2: November is still many months away at this point. Oh,
Speaker 2: don't say it, okay, Hey, really appreciate both of you
Speaker 2: joining us. That, of course is Bloomberg News Legal analyst
Speaker 2: June Grosso here in our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Also
Speaker 2: with us this afternoon, Bloomberg Politics contributor Jeanie shan Zeno.
Speaker 2: We have with us right now. One of the reporters
Speaker 2: who has been covering this trial, Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg Manhattan
Speaker 2: Federal Courthouse and Legal Enterprise reporter, joins us here in
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Pat, good to see you,
Speaker 2: Thanks for coming in. I know there's a ton of
Speaker 2: news today. This trial ended a while ago, right, It's
Speaker 2: been some time that we've been waiting for this decision.
Speaker 8: Yeah, and we also suffered through thirteen weeks of trial testimony,
Speaker 8: so it's been very long. It started in October and
Speaker 8: it went for weeks and weeks and weeks, and they
Speaker 8: finished with testimony in mid December, and then the judge
Speaker 8: camp had everyone come back after Christmas holidays for closing arguments.
Speaker 8: We expected this was going to come out earlier. And
Speaker 8: then there was a wrinkle in the case where the
Speaker 8: judge found out that one of the witnesses proffered by
Speaker 8: Donald Trump, the former Trump Organization financial officer Alan Weiselberg.
Speaker 8: He understood that their DA was actually considering prosecuting him
Speaker 8: for perjury.
Speaker 2: I just want to bring a headline forgive me, you
Speaker 2: have not seen this yet, but the Trump fraud verdict
Speaker 2: exceeds four hundred and fifty million dollars with interest, this
Speaker 2: according to the Attorney General. What's your response to that?
Speaker 8: Well, I mean, this is a penalty that's really significant
Speaker 8: for Trump. He's always apparently it's affecting him in the
Speaker 8: pocketbook where it hurts the most for him. This is
Speaker 8: a lot of money, and it's a lot of money personally,
Speaker 8: he's on the hook for more than three hundred and
Speaker 8: fifty million, as well as his sons are going to
Speaker 8: have to pay. And well, the ag, the New York
Speaker 8: Attorney General, had sought a ban from working in New
Speaker 8: York State for twenty five years for life. For him,
Speaker 8: it's three years. But the guy you know, three years
Speaker 8: is three years, so it's all very significant and with
Speaker 8: accrude penalties in all the extras added up, it's a
Speaker 8: lot of money.
Speaker 5: Where does it stand to in the context of other
Speaker 5: cases and other fines, like can you put this into context?
Speaker 5: How much money? You know, four hundred and fifty million
Speaker 5: dollars with interest the other three hundred and sixty four
Speaker 5: million dollars. How does that compare to other cases throughout history.
Speaker 8: Well, we just it's a pretty huge rulane for a
Speaker 8: family company, that is, you know, the guy prides himself
Speaker 8: as being this great billionaire who's been a successful businessman,
Speaker 8: who boasted when he was testified that he has four
Speaker 8: hundred million dollars in cash. Now, I don't know whether
Speaker 8: that number was in the judge's mind when he when
Speaker 8: he was trying to factor how much money to penalize Trump.
Speaker 8: It's obviously significant as well if you think that this
Speaker 8: comes on the heels. Just a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 8: we have the verdict against Donald Trump. He's been ordered
Speaker 8: by a Manhattan federal jury to pay eighty three point
Speaker 8: three million in the Egen Carol sexual assault case and
Speaker 8: defamation case. This is all adding up and it's a
Speaker 8: and Trump obviously was very concerned about this case because
Speaker 8: he attended it a lot.
Speaker 2: Okay, a question that I'm getting over and over again
Speaker 2: from people who are watching, people who are listening, is
Speaker 2: they hear about big figures in cases all the time
Speaker 2: that end up not ultimately being paid because they go
Speaker 2: on appeal. We just had David Weston on with us,
Speaker 2: who who said that, well, in New York is unique
Speaker 2: in the sense that he actually does have to put
Speaker 2: up this money even if he appeals this. Talk to
Speaker 2: me about what happens moving forward and when the or
Speaker 2: a president will actually have to pony up this what
Speaker 2: more than four hundred million dollars at.
Speaker 8: This point, Well, what will happen in a process by
Speaker 8: appeal he'll have to put up He'll have to get
Speaker 8: a bond. It's almost like a bail bond thing, but
Speaker 8: it's a bond to basically ensure that the money gets
Speaker 8: put like in an escrow account, so it'll get paid
Speaker 8: and it won't get furthered away. But what's interesting, but
Speaker 8: some of those other verdicts that get reduced is those
Speaker 8: are damages verdicts. You know, you think a jury says
Speaker 8: this person's gotten injured by two hundred million dollars in
Speaker 8: a car accident, and it gets reduced down to maybe
Speaker 8: thirty million or twenty million. This is different because this
Speaker 8: is disgorgement. This is penel financial binds. The judges found
Speaker 8: that he improperly profited. So if you think about it,
Speaker 8: he sold that Fairy Point golf course in the Bronx
Speaker 8: made a substantial sum of money, hundreds of millions of
Speaker 8: dollars in profit, so that was one of the things
Speaker 8: they cited. He sold the old post office in Washington
Speaker 8: and made a substantial profit. The ages argue that had
Speaker 8: he not gotten these great terms and lied about his finances,
Speaker 8: he would have never gotten these great find lending terms
Speaker 8: from lenders like Deutsche Bank, and then he would have
Speaker 8: never been able to buy it, let alone be able
Speaker 8: to flip it over and make it into a luxury
Speaker 8: you know, like the hotel industry. And that's what this
Speaker 8: is different about. It's not like a damage is where
Speaker 8: a jury verdict gets reduced. This is a judge finding
Speaker 8: this is improper profits.
Speaker 5: To what extent is the ruling of victory for New
Speaker 5: York Attorney General Leticia James.
Speaker 8: It's a huge victory because I mean having attended the trial,
Speaker 8: he was very angry with her, and every day he
Speaker 8: would come out that he attended the trial, he'd have
Speaker 8: a little mini press conference where he'd denounce her. He
Speaker 8: would say that she should be looking for migrants and
Speaker 8: not prosecuting bringing this lawsuit, and there were lots of
Speaker 8: mean exchanges and there was no love lost. Apparently it
Speaker 8: is a victory for someone who who says that she
Speaker 8: wants to hold Trump responsible for what the fraud he
Speaker 8: did on the lenders and insurers.
Speaker 2: Okay, pat contextualize this for me, because as of a
Speaker 2: few weeks ago, the president, the former president, excuse me,
Speaker 2: faced ninety one felony.
Speaker 3: Charges in four separate cases.
Speaker 2: They range from conspiring to defraud the US and his
Speaker 2: efforts to overturn the twenty twenty election, this one to
Speaker 2: falsify business records, and then also to cover up hush
Speaker 2: money paid to an adult film actress. So that's sort
Speaker 2: of the boiler plate, right, Contextualize this one for us
Speaker 2: and where that kind of falls in the other legal
Speaker 2: challenges that he faces.
Speaker 8: Well, many legal experts I've spoken to is you know,
Speaker 8: if you think about Donald Trump and who he says,
Speaker 8: he is his whole foundation of his being and his
Speaker 8: resume is based as this basically five star New York
Speaker 8: City developer who brings you these luxury as his son
Speaker 8: called them, sexy buildings. Do you know Trump Tower and
Speaker 8: forty Wall Street, these marquee properties that are you know,
Speaker 8: he is the consummate New York real estate baron. And
Speaker 8: now he's had this huge, basically take down by the
Speaker 8: New York Attorney General. But yesterday he's ordered to go
Speaker 8: to trial in March in five weeks on those thirty
Speaker 8: four accounts of falsifying business records. And you know, it's
Speaker 8: not been a particularly good week. And you can think
Speaker 8: of it that way. Many people who told me it
Speaker 8: says what Donald Trump really cares about is what's his
Speaker 8: bank account and what's in his wallet, and this is
Speaker 8: hitting him in the wallet.
Speaker 5: We talked a lot about what this means reputationally for
Speaker 5: Trump in terms of will he be able to, you know,
Speaker 5: win the election with all of this news. But I'm curious,
Speaker 5: from your perspective, legally, what does this mean. Is there
Speaker 5: any sort of ruling that would legally bar him from
Speaker 5: actually running for president and actually taking office because all
Speaker 5: of these headlines, they don't seem to actually be like
Speaker 5: preventing him from running and potentially winning an election and
Speaker 5: then joining office.
Speaker 8: One thing you have to remember is as if he
Speaker 8: gets wins reelection, he could potentially pardon himself and basically
Speaker 8: dismiss those indictments, the federal indictments, So the three federal cases,
Speaker 8: the DC federal case, the Washington in Washington.
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 8: Florida case, so he could dismiss those cases. The Manhattan
Speaker 8: DA's case that was the hush money case. He couldn't
Speaker 8: do that. So that still affects his freedom and his
Speaker 8: peril of possibly being convicted. And if he goes to trial,
Speaker 8: this trial could take about apparently could bring us a
Speaker 8: verdict in mid May. And if you think about that,
Speaker 8: and he could get convicted. Some people said to me
Speaker 8: that he'd be a first time offender. And what a
Speaker 8: judge sent in hims to prison. It's like one in
Speaker 8: a third to four years for each count, depending on
Speaker 8: what the judge hears. And then you know, possibly Georgia,
Speaker 8: whatever happens in there in the Fulton County Georgia case.
Speaker 8: But this is one of those cases. He could never
Speaker 8: pardon himself. Because a state charges, you cannot there's no
Speaker 8: federal oversight.
Speaker 2: Pat we have about twenty seconds. What's the next thing
Speaker 2: that you're watching?
Speaker 8: Well, and next thing, I'm getting ready for the Trump
Speaker 8: hush money case. So and we will expect an appeal
Speaker 8: out of this ruling today.
Speaker 2: Okay, And what would dollar figures look like for the
Speaker 2: hush money case.
Speaker 8: It's not a penalty. It would be he could be
Speaker 8: convicted and go to prison.
Speaker 3: And that's a New York state, that's.
Speaker 8: Inhattan State Supreme Okay, you guys might call it for
Speaker 8: jury duty.
Speaker 2: That's a good point. And you were going to be
Speaker 2: busy too, so we really appreciate your time. That is,
Speaker 2: of course. Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg, Manhattan Federal Courthouse and Legal
Speaker 2: Enterprise reporter, joining us here.