Politics

(NEW YORK) — A New York appellate court has ruled that former President Donald Trump can post a lower bond to cover his $464 million civil fraud judgment.

The Appellate Division, First Department said Trump can post a bond “in the amount of $175 million” to cover the judgment.

Trump’s attorneys had argued obtaining a bond for the full amount of $464 million was a “practical impossibility.”

The panel of five judges also opted to delay enforcement of the $464 million judgment by 10 days.

The ruling comes as Trump and his sons faced a Monday deadline to pay or secure a bond, or risk New York Attorney General Letitia James beginning the process of seizing the former president’s prized assets.

“It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of staying enforcement of those portions of the Judgment (1) ordering disgorgement to the Attorney General of $464,576,230.62, conditioned on defendants-appellants posting, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, an undertaking in the amount of $175 million dollars,” the two-page order said.

Trump, addressing reporters during his appearance Monday at a hearing in his hush money criminal case, thanked the appellate court for the ruling.

“I greatly respect the decision of the Appellate Division, and I’ll post either $175 million in cash or bonds or security or whatever is necessary very quickly within the 10 days, and I thank the Appellate Division for acting quickly,” Trump said.

“We got what we wanted,” one source close to Trump told ABC News.

Thirty bond companies had declined to offer Trump a bond to cover the full $464 million judgment and were waiting for the appeals court to rule.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the New York attorney general said, “The $464 million judgment — plus interest — against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands.”

“Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud,” the statement said. “The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization.”

Trump attorney Alina Habba, in a statement, said, “We are extremely pleased with the ruling issued by the Appellate Division. This monumental holding reigns in Judge Engoron’s verdict, which is an affront to all Americans. This is the first important step in fighting back against Letitia James and her targeted witch hunt against my client which started before she ever stepped foot in office.”

“The First Department no doubt recognized the rule of law must triumph over the political agenda of the Attorney General,” said Trump attorney Christopher Kise. “President Trump looks forward to a full and fair appellate process which overturns the judgment and ends the Attorney General’s abuse of power and tyrannical pursuit of the front running candidate for President of the United States.”

In February, Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump and his sons had committed a decade of fraud by inflating their assets to obtain better business deals. Trump and his sons have denied all wrongdoing and have appealed the ruling.

The finding and $354 million penalty, plus interest, immediately presented a cash crunch for a man who successfully ran for president on his wealth and success.

“I mean I became president because of the brand, OK? I became president. I think it’s the hottest brand in the world,” Trump told the attorney general’s office during a deposition last year.

Since Judge Engoron’s order last month, Trump’s lawyers have made a concerted effort to delay the enforcement of the massive financial penalty in his civil fraud case as well as the $83.3 million judgment he was ordered to pay after a jury found him liable for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, has filed a notice of appeal in that case.

Following Trump’s fraud judgment, Trump’s lawyers first asked Judge Engoron to delay entering the judgment by 30 days “to allow for an orderly post-Judgment process, particularly given the magnitude of Judgment.”

Engoron denied that request and signed the judgment on Feb. 22; the following day, the New York Supreme Court clerk entered the judgment, effectively starting the clock for the financial penalties in the case.

“You have failed to explain, much less justify, any basis for a stay,” Engoron wrote in response to the defense’s request. “I am confident that the Appellate Division will protect your appellate rights.”

The following week, Trump’s lawyers asked New York’s Appellate Division, First Department for permission to post a $100 million bond — a fraction of the over $550 million needed to cover the full judgment. They advised the court that a bond for the complete judgment was “impossible” and that the Trump Organization might have to sell off properties.

“In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General,” defense attorneys said.

Lawyers for the New York attorney general pushed back against their request, arguing Trump might attempt to evade punishment if his appeal fails.

An appellate judge on Feb. 28 denied Trump’s request for a stay of the financial penalty, but lifted a ruling Judge Engoron handed down prohibiting Trump from running any New York company and accessing lines of credit, opening the door for Trump to ask surety companies for a bond.

But Trump’s lawyers returned to the same court last Monday, asking again for a delay because finding a bond company to sign off on a $550 million bond was a “practical impossibility,” they told the court. Because of the size of the bond and the necessity for Trump to use property as collateral, more than 30 surety companies turned down the potential bond, according to a court filing.

“Perhaps worst of all, the Attorney General argues that Defendants should be forced to dispose of iconic, multi-billion-dollar real-estate holdings in a ‘fire sale,'” a defense lawyer told the court.

Trump himself has claimed that he has almost $500 million dollars in cash, but his lawyers have argued that he can’t both pay the bond and run his companies. Despite not spending any of his own money on his presidential campaign in 2020, Trump also claimed he wanted to use the money on his current campaign.

“Billions of dollars of value, billions of dollars in properties, but they’d like to take the cash away, so I can’t use it on the campaign,” Trump said last week.

Trump’s lawyers also made a similar effort to delay the enforcement of the judgment in his $83.3 million defamation case, though the former president eventually secured a $91 million bond for the judgment plus interest by using a brokerage account as collateral.

While James won’t be putting a padlock on buildings like Trump Tower or 40 Wall Street, she took initial steps last week to potentially seize a golf course and estate that Trump owns in New York’s Westchester County by registering the judgment there.

“I’m going to assume they’re going to go to the New York properties first because that’s the easiest thing to do,” Steven Cohen, a New York attorney whose work includes enforcing judgments, told ABC News, said of a potential process to seize Trump’s assets.

ABC News’ Soo Rin Kim contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s criminal hush money case in New York ruled Monday that the trial will begin on April 15, rejecting Trump’s request for an additional delay.

The case, which was initially scheduled to begin jury selection on Monday, was adjourned for 30 days by the judge earlier this month, after defense attorneys raised issues with the late production of over 100,000 pages of potential evidence by federal prosecutors.

Judge Juan Merchan decided Monday that the Manhattan district attorney is not at fault for the late production of documents from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

“The Manhattan District Attorney’s office made diligent, good faith efforts” to retrieve appropriate material, Judge Merchan said, adding that Trump will not suffer any prejudice as a result of the late disclosure.

Asked by ABC News after the hearing if he will testify at his trial, Trump indicated he would.

“I would have no problem testifying,” he said. “I didn’t do anything wrong.”

During the hearing, the judge appeared skeptical that the case needed to be delayed or dismissed because of a dispute over potential evidence, and called the defense’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct “very disconcerting.”

“You are literally accusing the Manhattan DA’s office and the people assigned to this case of prosecutorial misconduct and to make me complicit in it, and you don’t have a single cite to support that position,” Merchan told Blanche.

“This court is of the opinion that there really are not significant questions of fact to be resolved,” Merchan said earlier about the defense’s arguments to delay or dismiss the case.

The defense accused the Manhattan district attorney’s office of “widespread misconduct” and “serious discovery violations” and argued they warranted a dismissal of the indictment, an adjournment of the trial and the prohibition on former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and Daniels from testifying.

“This is a witch hunt. This is a hoax. Thank you,” Trump told the media before entering the courtroom this morning.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo aggressively pushed back on the allegation that the District Attorney’s Office actively suppressed potential evidence from defense attorneys.

“No, we are not actively suppressing … discovery or impeachment materials,” Colangelo said, reiterating the claim that most of the documents in question are irrelevant to the case against Trump.

Blanche argued that reviewing each document takes time and merits a delay. “Every document is important,” he said. “Every single one.”

Merchan set Monday’s hearing to resolve a recent defense motion related to the potential evidence and set a final trial date for the case.

“[T]here are significant questions of fact which this Court must resolve before it may rule on Defendant’s motion,” Merchan wrote in a ruling earlier this month.

Defense attorneys have demanded a lengthier delay of the trial and limits on key testimony or the dismissal of the case based on the new materials, which they said damage the credibility of star witness and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and contain “exculpatory information that undercuts the People’s theory of the case.”

Last week, prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office pushed back on the defense’s request, arguing that the recently disclosed potential evidence is “a red herring” and part of a “strategic delay.” While the 30-day adjournment provided defense attorneys with a “reasonable amount of time for defendant to review the information,” no further delay was necessary, according to the prosecutors’ filing.

“Defendant has taken every possible step to evade accountability in this case for more than a year,” prosecutors wrote in a filing last week. “Enough is enough. These tactics by defendant and defense counsel should be stopped.”‘

Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment Cohen made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 presidential election.

Here are three things to know about the hearing.

How did defense lawyers find the new materials?

Two months after Trump was indicted last year, prosecutors turned over 3 million pages of documents, beginning the discovery process in which prosecutors share with the defense evidence obtained during their investigation.

“In the Manhattan DA’s office, they do what’s called open file discovery, which means their practice is to basically turn over every piece of paper that they get in the course of their investigation,” former federal prosecutor Josh Naftalis told ABC News.

While the DA’s office said that, in June 2023, they turned over all the materials they received from U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York — which in 2018 secured a guilty plea from Cohen on campaign finance charges related to the Stormy Daniels payment — Trump’s lawyers sent a subpoena to the federal prosecutors on Jan. 18, 2024, seeking additional materials.

In their subpoena, defense lawyers requested Cohen’s tax filings, bank records, files from his iPhone and email accounts, records memorializing statements made by Cohen, and communications with other law enforcement offices.

By Feb. 23, federal prosecutors with the SDNY agreed to disclose some of the records requested, including 10,778 pages of bank records and files from two iPhones and three email accounts, according to a defense filing. In total, federal prosecutors turned over 119,000 pages of records to Trump’s defense team, according to a filing earlier this month.

“That’s a lot of information for the defense to go through very quickly, so that kind of explains why the DA’s office agreed to at least a 30-day extension of the time,” former federal prosecutor Jarrod Schaeffer told ABC News.

What was included in SDNY’s production?

The exact breakdown of the 119,000 pages of documents remains unclear, but the DA’s office argues that most of the files are irrelevant to the case or have already been produced. In total, prosecutors said the materials contained fewer than 270 new documents, including 172 pages of new witness statements.

“[T]he People now have good reason to believe that this production contains only limited materials relevant to the subject matter of this case and that have not previously been disclosed to defendant: fewer than an estimated 270 documents, most of which are inculpatory and corroborative of existing evidence,” prosecutors with the DA’s office said.

Defense lawyers have argued that the documents are highly relevant and include materials that could be used to discredit Cohen or absolve Trump of wrongdoing.

While defense lawyers have highlighted the sheer number of pages produced by federal prosecutors, Naftalis cautioned that the documents’ contents will ultimately determine Judge Merchan’s next move.

“My guess is that 30 days is all that Trump’s going to get because the volume of documents at issue really isn’t that large in the grand scheme of things,” Naftalis said. “That doesn’t mean that these are all new documents, and there could be substantial overlap.”

Why are Trump’s lawyers arguing for dismissal?

Defense lawyers have accused the DA’s office of misconduct in their push for a dismissal of the case, the limiting of key testimony, and a lengthier delay of the trial.

“The People have engaged in widespread misconduct as part of a desperate effort to improve their position at the potential trial on the false and unsupported charges in the Indictment,” defense attorney Todd Blanche wrote in a recent filing.

Attorneys with the Manhattan DA’s office pushed back on that motion, describing it as a inaccurate “grab-bag of meritless discovery arguments in the latest of a long series of attempts to evade responsibility for the conduct charged in the indictment.”

“Defendant’s accusations are wholly unfounded, and the circumstances here do not come close to warranting the extreme sanctions he has sought,” assistant district attorney Matthew Colangelo said in a filing last week.

If Judge Merchan does not dismiss the case, defense lawyers asked for a longer adjournment and preclusion of the testimony of Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and an expert witness.

Merchan will ultimately have to consider who, if anyone, should be culpable for the late production of evidence.

“It’s really going to come down to have the prosecutors done what they’re supposed to do — meaning, have they been diligent and made a good-faith effort to get material that they believe exists and should be turned over,” Schaeffer said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House is “disappointed” and “kind of perplexed” that Israel canceled a delegation’s planned visit to the U.S. to discuss the expected military invasion of Rafah, in southern Gaza, amid ongoing concerns from President Joe Biden, an administration spokesman said Monday.

Israel pulled its delegation after the U.S. allowed, through abstention, for the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza for the remaining days of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan — and potentially longer.

The resolution called for the unconditional release of hostages being held by Hamas terrorists, though it did not explicitly tie that with a temporary cease-fire. The resolution further urged that the humanitarian pause should then lead “to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.”

The proposal passed the council in a 14-0 vote on Monday, with the U.S. abstaining due to the lack of condemnation of Hamas, officials said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, in announcing the delegation would no longer be visiting, called the U.S. abstention a change in position — something the Biden administration rejected.

“We’re very disappointed that they won’t be coming to Washington, D.C., to allow us to have a fulsome conversation with them about viable alternatives to going in on the ground in Rafah,” White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters in a gaggle as news broke of Israel’s decision.

Netanyahu’s office also contended that the U.S. declining to block the cease-fire resolution “hurts both the war effort and the effort to release the abductees, because it gives Hamas hope that international pressure will allow them to accept a ceasefire without the release of our abductees.”

But Kirby maintained that the U.S. abstaining from the U.N. vote was not a shift in policy, saying the U.S. has been “clear and consistent” about support for a cease-fire and hostage deal and that it still had “Israel’s back.”

“The prime minister’s office seems to be indicating through public statements that we somehow changed here. We haven’t,” Kirby said later on Monday at the White House daily briefing. “And we get to decide what our policy is. It seems like the prime minister’s office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don’t need to do that.”

Kirby also expanded on why the U.S. was willing to abstain now rather than veto the resolution, as it has done to previous such proposals in the past.

“The ones we vetoed didn’t condemn Hamas,” he said from the podium. “This one didn’t condemn Hamas, which is why we couldn’t support it. But we didn’t veto it because, in general, unlike previous iterations, this one did fairly capture what has been our consistent policy which is linking a hostage deal in the release of those men and women, with of course, a temporary cease-fire.”

According to an administration official, the resolution’s wording evolved in a way that made the U.S. comfortable with abstaining.

Among the tweaks, this official said, mentions of the hostages and the cease-fire were combined while the word “permanent” was removed while describing a pause in the conflict, though other language about building a longer end to the fighting remained.

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller, like Kirby, also called the resolution consistent with the administration’s long-term position. He described Israel’s withdrawal of the delegation as “surprising” given the U.S. had been in contact with Israel’s government on this resolution.

Both Miller and Kirby repeatedly told reporters that the resolution is “non-binding” though António Guterres, the secretary-general of the U.N., wrote on X that “this resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable.”

Netanyahu didn’t call Biden about his decision to cancel the delegation’s trip, for which the U.S. was already preparing, the administration official said, and Biden has not reciprocated.

Still, Kirby at the White House briefing defended the relationship between Biden and Netanyahu amid America’s vocal position on Rafah.

“These are two leaders who have known each other for going on now four decades, and they haven’t in the past agreed on everything and they don’t agree on everything right now,” Kirby said when responding to a reporter’s question about whether this represented a “new low” for them.

“They both agree on one really important thing and that is the importance of the state of Israel, the importance of the security of the Israeli people and the importance of making sure an attack like the 7th of October doesn’t happen again,” Kirby said.

Biden had requested the Israeli delegation in a call last week with Netanyahu in light of what the White House called his “deep concerns” for civilians should Israel launch a large-scale incursion into Rafah, a city bordering Egypt, where more than 1 million civilians are thought to be sheltering as Israel continues to go after Hamas fighters in Gaza in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.

Kirby on Monday would not give insight into who would have taken part in the canceled talks between the White House and the Israelis, which the administration official said were set for Wednesday.

Kirby also noted administration officials are still meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Monday and Tuesday.

Those discussions will include “ample” discussion of Israel’s plan for Rafah, he said.

The administration has said a major ground operation in Rafah would be a “mistake” and worsen an already dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where more than 31,000 people have died since the war began, according to the Hamas-run health ministry there.

Vice President Kamala Harris, in an interview with ABC News, didn’t rule out consequences if Israel were to invade Rafah.

Netanyahu insists that going into Rafah is crucial for dismantling Hamas’ fighting capabilities to prevent future terror attacks.

“We are determined to complete the elimination of these battalions in Rafah, and there is no way to do this without a ground incursion,” he said last week.

The Israelis have also said they could move civilians from the city to “humanitarian islands,” though the U.S. remains publicly skeptical.

When pressed on Monday by ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang about how the U.S. can convince Israeli officials to change their stance on Rafah without meeting with the delegation, Kirby replied, “We’ll have to see, won’t we?”

“It’s certainly not ideal they won’t be coming to D.C. … that doesn’t mean our ability to talk to them and have conversations have been eliminated,” he said.

ABC News’ Will Gretsky contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Former President Donald Trump is expected back in court on Monday for what is likely the final hearing before his New York hush money criminal case goes to trial.

The case, which was initially scheduled to begin jury selection on Monday, was adjourned for 30 days by Judge Juan Merchan — effectively placing the new trial date at approximately April 15 — after defense attorneys raised issues with the late production of over 100,000 pages of potential evidence by federal prosecutors.

Merchan set Monday’s hearing to resolve a recent defense motion related to the potential evidence and set a final trial date for the case.

“[T]here are significant questions of fact which this Court must resolve before it may rule on Defendant’s motion,” Merchan wrote in a ruling earlier this month.

Defense attorneys have demanded a lengthier delay of the trial and limits on key testimony or the dismissal of the case based on the new materials, which they said damage the credibility of star witness and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and contain “exculpatory information that undercuts the People’s theory of the case.”

Last week, prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office pushed back on the defense’s request, arguing that the recently disclosed potential evidence is “a red herring” and part of a “strategic delay.” While the 30-day adjournment provided defense attorneys with a “reasonable amount of time for defendant to review the information,” no further delay was necessary, according to the prosecutors’ filing.

“Defendant has taken every possible step to evade accountability in this case for more than a year,” prosecutors wrote in a filing last week. “Enough is enough. These tactics by defendant and defense counsel should be stopped.”‘

Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment Cohen made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 presidential election.

Here are three things to know about the hearing.

How did defense lawyers find the new materials?

Two months after Trump was indicted last year, prosecutors turned over 3 million pages of documents, beginning the discovery process in which prosecutors share with the defense evidence obtained during their investigation.

“In the Manhattan DA’s office, they do what’s called open file discovery, which means their practice is to basically turn over every piece of paper that they get in the course of their investigation,” former federal prosecutor Josh Naftalis told ABC News.

While the DA’s office said that, in June 2023, they turned over all the materials they received from U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York — which in 2018 secured a guilty plea from Cohen on campaign finance charges related to the Stormy Daniels payment — Trump’s lawyers sent a subpoena to the federal prosecutors on Jan. 18, 2024, seeking additional materials.

In their subpoena, defense lawyers requested Cohen’s tax filings, bank records, files from his iPhone and email accounts, records memorializing statements made by Cohen, and communications with other law enforcement offices.

By Feb. 23, federal prosecutors with the SDNY agreed to disclose some of the records requested, including 10,778 pages of bank records and files from two iPhones and three email accounts, according to a defense filing. In total, federal prosecutors turned over 119,000 pages of records to Trump’s defense team, according to a filing earlier this month.

“That’s a lot of information for the defense to go through very quickly, so that kind of explains why the DA’s office agreed to at least a 30-day extension of the time,” former federal prosecutor Jarrod Schaeffer told ABC News.

What was included in SDNY’s production?

The exact breakdown of the 119,000 pages of documents remains unclear, but the DA’s office argues that most of the files are irrelevant to the case or have already been produced. In total, prosecutors said the materials contained fewer than 270 new documents, including 172 pages of new witness statements.

“[T]he People now have good reason to believe that this production contains only limited materials relevant to the subject matter of this case and that have not previously been disclosed to defendant: fewer than an estimated 270 documents, most of which are inculpatory and corroborative of existing evidence,” prosecutors with the DA’s office said.

Defense lawyers have argued that the documents are highly relevant and include materials that could be used to discredit Cohen or absolve Trump of wrongdoing.

While defense lawyers have highlighted the sheer number of pages produced by federal prosecutors, Naftalis cautioned that the documents’ contents will ultimately determine Judge Merchan’s next move.

“My guess is that 30 days is all that Trump’s going to get because the volume of documents at issue really isn’t that large in the grand scheme of things,” Naftalis said. “That doesn’t mean that these are all new documents, and there could be substantial overlap.”

Why are Trump’s lawyers arguing for dismissal?

Defense lawyers have accused the DA’s office of misconduct in their push for a dismissal of the case, the limiting of key testimony, and a lengthier delay of the trial.

“The People have engaged in widespread misconduct as part of a desperate effort to improve their position at the potential trial on the false and unsupported charges in the Indictment,” defense attorney Todd Blanche wrote in a recent filing.

Attorneys with the Manhattan DA’s office pushed back on that motion, describing it as a inaccurate “grab-bag of meritless discovery arguments in the latest of a long series of attempts to evade responsibility for the conduct charged in the indictment.”

“Defendant’s accusations are wholly unfounded, and the circumstances here do not come close to warranting the extreme sanctions he has sought,” assistant district attorney Matthew Colangelo said in a filing last week.

If Judge Merchan does not dismiss the case, defense lawyers asked for a longer adjournment and preclusion of the testimony of Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and an expert witness.

Merchan will ultimately have to consider who, if anyone, should be culpable for the late production of evidence.

“It’s really going to come down to have the prosecutors done what they’re supposed to do — meaning, have they been diligent and made a good-faith effort to get material that they believe exists and should be turned over,” Schaeffer said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Former President Donald Trump faces a Monday deadline to accomplish the impossible.

If Trump and his adult sons are unable to pay or secure a bond for the $464 million judgment in his civil fraud case — which their lawyers have called a “practical impossibility” — New York Attorney General Letitia James could begin the process of seizing the former president’s prized assets.

The stark possibility follows the AG’s yearslong investigation into the former president’s finances that concluded with an 11-week trial last year. In February, Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump and his sons had committed a decade of fraud by inflating their assets to obtain better business deals. Trump and his sons have denied all wrongdoing and have appealed the ruling.

The finding and $354 million penalty, plus interest, immediately presented a cash crunch for a man who successfully ran for president on his wealth and success.

“I mean I became president because of the brand, OK? I became president. I think it’s the hottest brand in the world,” Trump told the attorney general’s office during a deposition last year.

Since Judge Engoron’s order last month, Trump’s lawyers have made a concerted effort to delay the enforcement of the massive financial penalty in his civil fraud case as well as the $83.3 million judgment he was ordered to pay after a jury found him liable for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, has filed a notice of appeal in that case.

Following Trump’s fraud judgment, Trump’s lawyers first asked Judge Engoron to delay entering the judgment by 30 days “to allow for an orderly post-Judgment process, particularly given the magnitude of Judgment.”

Engoron denied that request and signed the judgment on Feb. 22; the following day, the New York Supreme Court clerk entered the judgment, effectively starting the clock for the financial penalties in the case.

“You have failed to explain, much less justify, any basis for a stay,” Engoron wrote in response to the defense’s request. “I am confident that the Appellate Division will protect your appellate rights.”

The following week, Trump’s lawyers asked New York’s Appellate Division, First Department for permission to post a $100 million bond — a fraction of the over $550 million needed to cover the full judgment. They advised the court that a bond for the complete judgment was “impossible” and that the Trump Organization might have to sell off properties.

“In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General,” defense attorneys said.

Lawyers for the New York attorney general pushed back against their request, arguing Trump might attempt to evade punishment if his appeal fails.

An appellate judge on Feb. 28 denied Trump’s request for a stay of the financial penalty, but lifted a ruling Judge Engoron handed down prohibiting Trump from running any New York company and accessing lines of credit, opening the door for Trump to ask surety companies for a bond.

But Trump’s lawyers returned to the same court last Monday, asking again for a delay because finding a bond company to sign off on a $550 million bond was a “practical impossibility,” they told the court. Because of the size of the bond and the necessity for Trump to use property as collateral, more than 30 surety companies turned down the potential bond, according to a court filing.

“Perhaps worst of all, the Attorney General argues that Defendants should be forced to dispose of iconic, multi-billion-dollar real-estate holdings in a ‘fire sale,'” a defense lawyer told the court.

Trump himself has claimed that he has almost $500 million dollars in cash, but his lawyers have argued that he can’t both pay the bond and run his companies. Despite not spending his own money on his presidential campaign in 2016, Trump also claimed he wanted to use the money on his current campaign.

“Billions of dollars of value, billions of dollars in properties, but they’d like to take the cash away, so I can’t use it on the campaign,” Trump said last week.

Trump’s lawyers also made a similar effort to delay the enforcement of the judgment in his $83.3 million defamation case, though the former president eventually secured a $91 million bond for the judgment plus interest by using a brokerage account as collateral.

It’s unclear if New York’s Appellate Division will make a ruling about Trump’s request for a delay — or his request for permission to appeal to a higher court — in time to impact the Monday deadline. If Trump does not secure a bond or pay the judgment, the New York attorney general told ABC News last month that she would ask the court to begin seizing Trump’s assets.

“If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets,” James said about the process, which she could initiate on Monday.

While James won’t be putting a padlock on buildings like Trump Tower or 40 Wall Street, she took initial steps last week to potentially seize a golf course and estate that Trump owns in New York’s Westchester County by registering the judgment there.

“I’m going to assume they’re going to go to the New York properties first because that’s the easiest thing to do,” Steven Cohen, a New York attorney whose work includes enforcing judgments, told ABC News.

James could also opt to take further steps by issuing a subpoena for Trump’s financial information including tax returns, according to judgment enforcement attorney Peter Agulnick.

Regardless of the initial steps she takes, Trump’s lawyers are likely to fight every step of the way to slow the process of the asset seizure and potential auctioning of properties.

“That’s going to be a long process, and it’s not going to happen overnight,” trial attorney Kevin O’Brien told ABC News.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Florida’s Marco Rubio, a top Senate Republican, on Sunday largely defended Donald Trump’s claims of immunity against prosecution as the former president faces multiple criminal trials heading into the 2024 election.

Rubio, who is reported to be one of the people under consideration to be Trump’s running mate this year, seemed to walk a narrow tightrope in addressing Trump and several other issues in an interview with “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl.

Pressed about the former president’s argument that he deserves total legal immunity for conduct while in office, Rubio conceded that Trump couldn’t “go out and basically kill one of the members of the staff overnight inside the White House” — which the senator called an “absurd” hypothetical.

But he contended that many of the prosecutions against Trump are unjust and other presidents could face similar problems.

“I do think there’s a legitimate issue here that we need to talk about writ large,” Rubio told Karl.

Trump faces 88 total charges across four criminal cases and denies all wrongdoing.

The question of his immunity will be argued before the Supreme Court in late April; federal prosecutors have challenged Trump’s sweeping claim to protection from prosecution for his actions while he was president, including his push to overturn the 2020 election results.

Rubio framed the matter differently on Sunday.

“Do we want to live in a country where basically the opponents of a president can extort them, can have leverage over them during their entire presidency and say, ‘Don’t worry, once you’re out of office, we’re going to prosecute you, we’re going to come after you, we’re gonna charge you for this crime’?” he said on “This Week.”

“We’re living in a country now where basically, if you’re president, now you have to think to yourself, I’ve got to be careful what I do as president, not even legal or illegal, even on policy,” Rubio continued.

Karl noted that “you should be careful not to break the law as president,” but Rubio pivoted by arguing that partisanship is motivating some of the cases against Trump, which prosecutors deny.

Rubio also tried to balance his remarks on the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, criticizing those who assaulted law enforcement while also suggesting that some people were being “egregiously charged” for merely entering the complex — though doing so required joining a chaotic mob scene involving police lines, broken windows and the battering of the Capitol building.

Karl asked Rubio on “This Week” about his opinion of the Jan. 6 rioters in light of Trump praising them as “patriots,” even indicating he will pardon those who have been convicted if he is elected again.

“What I do think is that people that went into the Capitol and committed crimes of violence or had zip ties and all that are different from someone who walked into an open door — I think they should have prioritized and only prosecuted the people who committed acts of violence,” Rubio said.

Pressed by Karl on reports that he is being considered for Trump’s No. 2, Rubio demurred, saying he hasn’t talked with the former president about that but would be “honored” to join him on the ticket this year.

When Karl raised the falling out between Trump and his vice president, Mike Pence, over Pence’s refusal to reject their election loss — and the fact that Pence was singled out by some participants on Jan. 6 — Rubio deflected by touting Trump’s overall record as president.

Rubio said he felt the country “was safer” and “more prosperous” compared to what he called numerous crises under President Joe Biden.

Rubio, who is the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, also sounded the alarm about the recent attack in Moscow, which has been blamed on an affiliate of the Islamic State group known as ISIS-K or Islamic State Khorasan.

ISIS-K could pose a danger in America, Rubio said, in part because of what he called Biden’s policy failures with the high number of migrants at the border.

Rubio warned, specifically, about human traffickers at the border whom federal officials have said have ties to the Islamic State group.

“They [ISIS-K] would love to do what they did in Moscow here inside the United States. And it’s something we have to be very vigilant about,” Rubio said.

The Florida lawmaker also reiterated his support for Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza: “You cannot have a country in which this threat continues to exist. They have to finish this job.”

“No one is calling for Hamas to surrender and lay down their arms. That would end the conflict,” he said.

He knocked the Biden administration for supporting Israel while increasingly criticizing how Israel fights its war amid the high death toll in Gaza.

He also hedged on Trump’s recent comments, however, that any Jew who votes for Democrats “hates their religion.”

“Your religion and being pro-Israel can be two separate things,” Rubio said. “And then there’s people that are pro-Israel but maybe don’t like [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu or what have you.”

“This is an existential battle. And anyone who doesn’t understand that is, frankly, whether they know it or not, an enemy of Israel,” he said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

In a new interview with ABC News, Vice President Kamala Harris deflected on why President Joe Biden’s campaign has a TikTok account and encourages Americans to follow it given the White House’s security concerns with the platform — and support for legislation that could lead to it being banned in the U.S. if its Chinese owner doesn’t sell.

“So, let’s start with this: We do not intend to ban TikTok,” Harris told ABC News’ Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott on “This Week.”

“That is not at all the goal or the purpose of this conversation,” Harris said. “We need to deal with the owner and we have national security concerns about the owner of TikTok, but we have no intention to ban TikTok.”

The vice president went on to say there are “very important” benefits to the platform, including serving as an income generator for many users and “allowing people to share information in a free way.”

The Biden campaign last month joined TikTok as part of an effort to get their message to reach more voters — including younger voters — and directed Americans to follow their account.

Several videos of both Biden and Harris have been posted on their TikTok account, despite the fact that the administration has repeatedly expressed concerns with the app’s China-based owner, ByteDance.

Biden previously signed legislation banning TikTok from federal government devices and expressed support for the current bill in Congress that seeks to force the sale of TikTok from its parent company.

The White House told ABC News last week that it wants ByteDance to divest.

TIkTok maintains that worries over data and other security issues are unfounded. The platform also cites the fact that U.S. user data is held on servers in America.

Harris was pressed by Scott in her ABC News interview about continuing to campaign through TikTok in light of “those national security concerns that you’re voicing.”

“Well, we’ll address that when we come to it,” Harris said. “But right now we are concerned about the owner of TikTok and the national security implications.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

In a wide-ranging new interview with ABC News, Vice President Kamala Harris suggested there could be “consequences” for Israel if it moves ahead with a planned invasion of Rafah in its pursuit of Hamas fighters.

The city, on Gaza’s southern border with Egypt, is thought to currently have some 1.4 million people in it.

According to the U.N., many Palestinians fled there from elsewhere in the territory amid the ongoing war, sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack.

“We have been clear in multiple conversations and in every way that any major military operation in Rafah would be a huge mistake,” Harris told ABC News’ Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott in part of the interview that aired Sunday on “This Week.”

“Let me tell you something: I have studied the maps. There’s nowhere for those folks to go,” Harris said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this month he’d approved a plan to invade Rafah, an announcement that prompted President Joe Biden to relay what the White House called “deep concerns” about the safety of the many civilians sheltering in the city.

Tens of thousands of people have died in Gaza so far, according to the Hamas-run health ministry there.

Netanyahu has maintained that going into Rafah is necessary to dismantle Hamas in the wake of their attack; Israeli forces also insist they can move civilians out of the battlegrounds and toward “humanitarian islands” — but the U.S., which is a major supporter of Israel’s military, has sharply criticized the possibility of a large-scale incursion.

Scott on Sunday pressed the vice president, asking if America would consider “consequences” if Netanyahu went forward — something he said he was willing to do despite the opposition.

“Well, we’re going to take it one step at a time, but we’ve been very clear in terms of our perspective on whether or not that should happen,” Harris said.
Scott followed up: “Are you ruling out that there would be consequences from the United States?”

“I am ruling out nothing,” Harris replied.

In the interview, Harris was also asked about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call for new elections in Israel, which Netanyahu decried as “wholly inappropriate” meddling in his country’s politics.

Biden has not echoed Schumer’s position but did praise the senator’s overall comments as a “good speech.”

Harris told Scott on “This Week” that “I will not speak for Sen. Schumer, but we are very clear that that is on the Israeli people to make a decision about when they will have an election and who, of course, they elect to lead their government. That’s for them to say.”

Scott asked Harris if she thought Netanyahu was “an obstacle to peace,” as Schumer had said.

“I believe that we have got to continue to enforce what we know to be and should be the priorities in terms of what is happening in Gaza,” Harris said without directly answering the question. “We’ve been very clear that far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. We have been very clear that Israel and the Israeli people and Palestinians are entitled to an equal amount of security and dignity.”

Separately, addressing a domestic issue, Harris would not rule out executive action to tackle the high number of migrants at the southern border. The president has been considering tightening asylum restrictions, ABC News previously reported.

Polling shows Biden gets low marks on immigration, which is a top issue for many Americans. Republicans have continued to hammer away at the president over the border.

Though Harris maintained that Congress has the “immense power and authority and responsibility” to address it — after conservative lawmakers recently failed to agree on a bipartisan immigration deal in the Senate — she also said the Biden administration is going to do “what we can.”

“As of right now, is that executive action on the border still on the table?” Scott asked. “Can we see that?”

Harris initially pointed back to Capitol Hill, saying, “That does not absolve the fact that the real fix is going to be when Congress acts.”

When Scott pressed again, the vice president said, “Yes, for consideration.”

The interview took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the site of the Valentine’s Day mass shooting in 2018 that killed 17 students and staff.

Harris was visiting the school — which remains an active crime scene — with some of the victims’ families.

“What happened here six years ago is tragic by every measure,” Harris told Scott.

She later said it was “important” that she visited the school “to give witness to how [gun violence in America] affects real people.”

“We have to think of this as more than statistics and we certainly have to understand that we should have empathy that requires us to know this can’t be the subject of political gamesmanship,” the vice president said.

She said there were “reasonable” measures that could be taken to tackle gun violence, including so-called red flag laws that a 2022 law provided further state funding to implement.

But, as Scott noted, only six states have used that money.

“That’s why it’s been a challenge,” Harris said. “I’m gonna assume that they need a little motivation, and hopefully we’ve been able to bring it to them.”

Harris and President Biden have ramped up their travel in recent weeks ahead of an expected general election rematch with former President Donald Trump. But both of them have yet to commit to debating Trump or his future running mate.

“Who am I debating?” Harris said to Scott.

“If you’re comparing yourself to the alternative, and that is really the crux of a lot of what the Biden campaign message is, isn’t there a case to be made that the best way to do that is to get out on the debate stage?” Scott asked Harris.

“Well, we’ll get to that at some point, but you are absolutely right,” the vice president said, “this election in November is binary.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Donald Trump, in his third run for the White House, has made “retribution” central to his agenda if elected.

“For hard-working Americans, Nov. 5 will be our new Liberation Day,” Trump said as he headlined this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. “But for the liars, and cheaters, and fraudsters, and censors and imposters who have commandeered our government, it will be their Judgment Day.”

Potential targets include former Rep. Liz Cheney and other individuals critical of his efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat. He recently said Cheney and fellow members of the House committee that investigated him “should go to jail” despite the fact they’ve not been accused of any crimes.

Last year, as he complained of “weaponization” of the Justice Department after being indicted, Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after President Joe Biden and his family.

“Donald Trump’s campaign strategy has been to say that everything is chaotic, that the world is a dangerous place and the nation is falling apart, that Joe Biden is an incompetent leader and the only way to save the nation is to vote for Trump,” said Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of political rhetoric at Texas A&M University. “That’s not unusual for him. He has been saying that since 2016. But the strategy has been darker this time around.”

“He really wants to avenge his loss in 2020,” she added, “and he is very good at using language as a weapon.”

But how far could Trump go, if elected, in carrying out such a vision? Or how much is it just designed to rile up his supporters, many of whom appear eager to embrace his message.

“The answer is, it depends,” said Bruce Green, a Fordham Law ethics expert who examined this exact issue back in 2018.

At the very least, a retribution campaign as Trump has described would require a significant reshaping of the modern-day Justice Department, which has a tradition of independence dating back to the post-Watergate era.

Internal policies enacted at the department after the Richard Nixon Watergate scandal sought to separate politics from law enforcement, and presidents of both parties have since abided by that construct — until Trump, according to Green.

But those policies aren’t codified by law, Green noted, and if Trump were to appoint an attorney general who embraced his theory of sweeping presidential power and discretion, investigations could be launched into perceived enemies.

Even then, there are still backstops in place to deter Trump’s more pointed threats. DOJ officials and prosecutors who are not politically appointed could threaten revolt, as has happened in the past. Evidence of wrongdoing would still need to be presented, and courts could reject politically-motivated cases that lack sufficient proof of a crime.

“So, you’d have whatever the traditional limitations are created by our judicial process, including the Constitution and statutes, but you wouldn’t have the gatekeeping function that we’ve counted on the Justice Department to exercise,” Green said.

It’s also worth noting Trump tried to target his political foes during his last administration and faced resistance.

He fumed at Jeff Sessions, his first attorney general, when Sessions recused himself from the DOJ’s investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 election. In various social media posts, he named people Sessions should go after, including then-FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

After firing Sessions, Trump found what many believed to be a friendlier ally in Bill Barr. Barr framed special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report in what many said were more favorable terms for Trump than the findings warranted. He also drew scrutiny for intervening in the government’s case against Trump’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn and for suggesting a lighter sentence for longtime Trump ally Roger Stone. The actions led many Democrats and former DOJ officials to decry the politicization of the department under Barr’s leadership.

But when Trump urged Barr and the Department of Justice to push a narrative of election fraud after his loss to Biden in November 2020, the attorney general and others declined to fall in line. Then-Vice President Mike Pence, a loyalist to Trump, also resisted his demands to unilaterally reject the election results during the certification on Jan. 6, 2021.

Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said she believed Trump would be stopped again if he tried to use his office to go after enemies or other acts of retribution.

“The Founding Fathers anticipated a Donald Trump,” Kamarck said. “They built a system of checks and balances, and it’s working so far. If Donald Trump won, what would it take to dismantle that checks and balances? It would take a clean sweep of the Congress — 60 senators in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives — and the courts to start the dismantling. And I don’t see that happening at this time and I don’t see it happening within the four years that he has to do it.”

“In other words,” Kamarck said, “we’re not a banana republic yet even if he’d like to make us one.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung, in response to expert comments that retribution would require never-before-seen politicization of the DOJ, told ABC News, “As President Trump has repeatedly said, the best retribution is the overall success of the American people.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House passed a $1.2 trillion government funding package, the first in a series of steps that need to be taken to avert a partial government shutdown before a deadline at midnight Friday.

The bills passed in a 286-134 vote despite pushback from far-right members of the Republican caucus. More Democrats backed the bill than Republicans as more than 100 GOP lawmakers voted against it.

The funding package now heads to the Senate. It’s not clear when a vote would happen in the chamber, though Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has asked senators to remain flexible and ready to act.

Any delay on the vote could mean that some agencies could feel a shutdown, albeit a short one.

The $1.2 trillion package — considered a major bipartisan effort in the highly divided House — provides funding for six bills including Defense, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Labor and Health and Human Services and Education, Legislative Branch and State and Foreign Operations.

If the package is passed by both chambers, the government will be funded through the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. It will also put an end to the continuing resolution cycle that has led to Congress nearly shutting the government down, at least partially, five times since October.

The government funding package was introduced in the House under suspension of the rules, which required a two-thirds majority vote for passage. That meant, yet again, House Speaker Mike Johnson needed to rely on Democrats to get the bills across the finish line — a move that landed his predecessor Kevin McCarthy in hot water and led to his ouster as speaker last year.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., took to the floor during an hour of debate to urge lawmakers to vote yes.

“This is a good result for the American people in terms of standing up for their health, their safety, their education, their national security protection and, of course, above all else, their economic wellbeing,” Jeffries said.

“A bipartisan process, leading to a bipartisan result that will hopefully lay a foundation for us to continue to do the work of the American people together. Now, we’ve said from the very beginning of this Congress as Democrats that we will find bipartisan common ground whenever and wherever possible as long as it will make life better for the American people,” he continued. “That’s exactly what House Democrats continue to do. At the same time, we say we will push back against extremism whenever necessary.”

In a news conference lambasting the government funding package Friday morning, the House Freedom Caucus members expressed frustration that not enough is being done to secure the southern border and end the release of migrants into the United States — a hang-up that was part of the Department of Homeland Security funding negotiations.

“No border, no budget,” said Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., who isn’t a House Freedom Caucus member, but said he joined in on the news conference to express his displeasure with the funding package.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good, R-Va., said “we don’t need 72 hours to vote against a bad bill,” alluding to a House has a rule requiring 72 hours for members to review legislation before voting.

Many spoke directly to Johnson about their frustrations.

“Mr. Speaker, do the right thing,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. “Pull this bill.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.