Turley: Letitia James’ Trump Asset Seizure Unlikely

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley expressed skepticism on Friday regarding the likelihood of Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James successfully seizing former President Donald Trump’s properties, reported the Daily Caller.

James recently filed judgments against Trump and others in Westchester County, New York, where Trump owns the Seven Springs private estate and the Trump National Golf Club Westchester. However, Turley cautioned that the process of seizing these properties would be much more complex than anticipated.

Turley pointed out that Trump’s properties, being partnerships with leveraged debts, would require a meticulous unraveling process. “So these aren’t just this one-to-one Trump versus James type of equation,” he said.

Turley further emphasized that the seizure of the properties would likely involve court battles and challenges, making it far from an overnight occurrence. He dismissed the notion of Trump Tower being padlocked as a celebration and stated, “It’s not likely to happen, and it’s certainly not likely to remain very long.”

Furthermore, Turley raised concerns about the potential harm James’ actions could inflict on the value of the property she intends to seize. While he acknowledged that it might not matter to James, Turley noted that such impacts would be relevant to a court’s considerations.

“I don’t think that matters to her, but it might matter to a court,” he said.

Trump’s legal team disclosed on Monday that the former president was encountering difficulties in posting a bond exceeding $450 million to cover the judgment in a civil fraud case issued by New York Judge Arthur Engoron.

However, Trump is poised to benefit significantly from the merger of Digital World Acquisition Corporation (DWAC) with the Trump Media and Technology Group, which was recently approved by DWAC shareholders and could potentially yield at least $3 billion in gains.

Turley also drew attention to the possibility of appellate courts reducing the damages.

He highlighted that there were constitutional concerns regarding the Eighth Amendment and due process, noting that this situation presents uncharted territory for the courts. Turley suggested that the eye-popping damage figures may disrupt due process and potentially prompt intervention from the Supreme Court.

“There is an issue here of the Eighth Amendment. There’s also an issue of due process in addition to that line of cases, which is rather thin, so this is going to be new ground for the courts to deal with, so this is sort of unsettled,” Turley said.

Turley concluded by emphasizing the uniqueness of New York’s approach, with confiscatory bond rules and perceived punitive actions by James and the judge involved in the case. He predicted that “viable challenges” could arise, potentially elevating the legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court.