In a recent turn of events, State Attorney General Letitia James has once again set her sights on former President Donald Trump. This time, she is targeting the bond that Trump posted on a $454 million civil-fraud judgment against him. The bond, a necessary step for Trump to appeal the ruling, was provided by Knight Specialty Insurance Co. However, James is not satisfied with this and has demanded proof of the bond’s sufficiency within 10 days.
James’ actions have raised questions about her true intentions. Is she solely focused on attacking Donald Trump? It seems that way, as she has been relentless in her pursuit of him ever since winning the civil-fraud judgment in February. Her desire to snatch up Trump Tower and other assets has been evident, and she shows no signs of backing down.
This latest move by James does nothing but complicate the appeals process and force Trump to jump through more legal hoops. It is important to remember that this is a civil case with no victims. The allegations against Trump revolve around whether he overvalued assets to acquire loans, which he ultimately paid back in full. These were loans from competent bankers who were well aware of the need for due diligence before lending any money.
While James may claim to be confident in the failure of Trump’s appeal, her actions suggest otherwise. She seems worried that a competent appellate court will expose her prosecution for what it truly is – a contrived attempt to “get Trump” by dragging lawfare into the gutter.
The comparison between James and Wile E. Coyote is not far off. She has continuously set up harebrained traps and decoys to sabotage the former president, all while making the legal system in New York look like a joke. If this verdict stands, it sends a dangerous message to anyone considering doing business in the Empire State. They must now take into account the risk that politicians can manipulate the law to destroy them. This uncertainty is sure to drive investment elsewhere, leaving every New Yorker to bear the consequences of James’ headline-hunting ambition.
In conclusion, Letitia James’ relentless pursuit of Donald Trump raises concerns about her true intentions and the potential consequences for New York’s legal system. Her demand for proof of the bond’s sufficiency only serves to complicate the appeals process and further burden Trump. If her prosecution is revealed for what it truly is, it could have far-reaching implications for future business in the Empire State. New Yorkers may ultimately pay the price for James’ ambitious pursuit of headlines.
