The Trump Case in New York, Fast & Simple

"There was no crime. The crime is against me."

The media, such as it is, often does a very poor or at least limited job of explaining situations, such as the trial going on right now in New York against Donald Trump. Using a consumer protection statute 63(12) of New York, Attorney General Letitia James filed a suit against Donald Trump. The goal is to confiscate his business licenses in New York and put some of his properties there in receivership (meaning he would no longer control them). There are a few things wrong with this case.

1.      There is no victim or aggrieved party in this case. Donald Trump borrowed money using some of his real estate holdings as collateral. The bank accepted the terms. The loan was granted. Trump paid it back in full with interest. The bank did not complain. Instead, the city of New York has intervened and complained but do they have standing? If I lend you money and you pay me back, can the municipal government come along years later and say the terms of that loan were unfair? The consumer protection law they are twisting into a pretzel to make this case has never been used before in this way. By never I mean not ever, not once, for no one else in the history of the world.

2.      And speaking of “later,” 80% of the charges AG Letitia James filed are expired under the statute of limitations. That seems a colossal waste of taxpayer money, filing charges that you know are going to get thrown out. Of course, with rampant crime, homelessness, drug addiction, and swarms of illegal immigrants, New York obviously has the money to file crazy charges as long as those charges hurt Trump. I think lawyers call this malicious prosecution.

3.      And speaking of malicious, this is interfering with Trump’s ability to run a campaign for election as President. Many of these alleged “cases” date back to 2011 and the statute of limitations ran out in 2014. So why did AG Letitia James wait till Trump was in the middle of his campaign to bring them up? Could the timing of Trump’s campaign have played a role? If Trump had bowed out of politics in 2020 and simply retired to play golf, would AG Letitia James even bothered with this case?

4.      Trump did not commit fraud. Actually, I can’t make that blanket statement but what I will say is that according to the charges in this case, he did not commit fraud. When loans are made using real estate as collateral, the property has to be stated and the potential lender has the right to inspect it. Usually, they use the services of an appraiser, a professional who has expertise in providing a fair market value for real estate holdings. You or I may say our house is worth $500,000 but the bank is not obliged to accept our word—in fact, they almost certainly would not take our word for it. It would not be prudent business. Instead, they bank will appraise the property, usually using a professional service, and work with that value. So it is actually quite difficult to “defraud” a lender in this way. The property is inspected, appraised, and both parties decide if they want to move forward or not. If one or the other party is not happy with the appraised valuation of the collateral, they can renegotiate with a new appraiser or the borrower might just have to go to another lender.

5.      The banks are not involved in this lawsuit. One would think that if Trump defrauded a bank, in this case, Deutsche Bank, then the bank would protest. Besides, it is pretty hard to “con” a major world bank like Deutsche Bank out of serious money based on the value of real estate. Real estate is a great asset because it’s real. You can see it. You can visit it. You can compare values of property X with similar properties in the same area. In fact, Deutsche Bank actually valued Trump’s collateral at $2 billion less than he did, but still granted him the loan. Such business practices (bank loans using real estate as collateral with fluctuating valuations) are quite normal and not criminal.

6.      AG Letitia James has openly expressed animus toward Trump, calling him a “con man” and a “carnival barker.” Letitia James took office in 2019 and by her own admission began a one-woman campaign against Trump. She even brought this lawsuit making headlines with her play on words, “The Art of the Steal.” (So what did Trump steal exactly when he borrowed money and paid it back with interest?) Equal justice under the law means that cases are treated fairly and with balance. An attorney general “with a mission” to get one particular political figure is not a credit to our legal system at all.

7.      AG Letitia James is using a consumer protection law in a way it has never been used before to prosecute a citizen in a way that no one else has ever been prosecuted before. Is James going to go after anyone else who borrowed money from a bank in order to do business in New York? Is she going to file suit against other businesses that borrowed money and paid it back? Is every real estate mogul or business man or banker who ever took out a loan for his business going to have their license revoked if AG Letitia James thinks collateral appraisals (10 years later) were not correct.

It is hard to imagine how anyone with a sense of fairness would not see this trial as the sham it is, but there are those who believe all is fair if it hurts Trump. I do not see any left-leaning media outlets coming to Trump’s aid.

I know that many media outlets are filled with “journalists” who do not like Trump, but that is not the point. The point is equal justice under the law. All American journalists should be screaming at the gross overreach by AG Letitia James because they want to defend our judicial system and the integrity of our elections.

Here's a way to make the case personal—and you can see how egregious this lawfare is and how it is election interference. Imagine you want to borrow $100,000 from me. Let’s say I run a bank and I am in a position to lend that money to you. I state the terms—payment timeline, interest—but I also want some collateral. As collateral, you offer your home. Your house is paid for and you tell me it is worth $350,000. I hire an appraiser and he says, no, the property is actually worth $375,000. I accept that and my bank makes the loan. I lend you the money, you pay it back with interest, and everyone is happy.

By the way, this happened 10 years ago. Nobody ever complained. Everyone honored their terms of the deal and it benefited all parties.

Now the city you live in files criminal charges against you, stating that your house was not worth $375,000, in fact, the city says your house was only worth $50,000 at that time. Never mind it was appraised. Never mind that value aligned with the value of similar properties in the area. Never mind that the bank accepted that valuation. The fact is the new attorney general does not like you, so she is going back 10 years and declaring, no, your shabby little house wasn’t worth nearly what your appraiser said it was and so you are guilty of fraud.

And imagine that the city attorney general waited until you were being considered for a big new promotion at your job. On the days you should be traveling to interviews and polishing up your resume, you have to be in court. This does not look good to your prospective new bosses who do not take the time to look into the nuances of the case. They just know you’re the kind of person who is in trouble with the law.

Would you say that’s fair?

That is what is going on in New York in an effort to take Trump’s business license. Now I know many people do not like Trump, and that is fair. However, not liking a person does not give you permission to persecute them. I personally do not like late-night scold Stephen Colbert but I would never sic an angry district attorney after him on bogus charges. I would not demand that a phony charge be used to divest Colbert of his home or other real estate holdings.

There are many people do not want Trump to be President again. Also fair. But it is not fair to launch a phony-baloney consumer protection “case” against him in mid-campaign on expired victimless crimes. (Many of the charges date back to 2011 and the statute of limitations ran out in 2014… that’s how old they are!) That is not only election interference, it is banana republic stuff. If you don’t want Trump to be President again, we have a remedy for that. It’s called fair elections. If you don’t want Trump back in the White House, run a better candidate.

For those in favor of this sort of persecution by the court system during an election campaign—be careful what you allow, because one day, it could be allowed against you.