Lawfare against Donald Trump is approaching a new and dangerous phase

Will New York state attorney general Letitia James really try to seize a half-billion dollars in Trump's assets as punishment for a non-existent crime?

I have a confession.

I never thought the show trial over Donald Trump’s loans would go this far. I never thought New York state would seriously try to enforce the absurd $464 million judgment against Trump for his “crime” of borrowing money and paying it back.

I assumed the adults would step in once the kids had had their fun putting Trump through the wringer, because the case was so obviously politically motivated. I figured a higher court would quickly reverse Judge Arthur Engoron’s verdict, or at least that New York attorney general Letitia James would ensure Trump could appeal.

I was wrong. It turns out Trump does not have $500 million lying around to post a bond, which is a requirement for him to appeal the case. And it turns out that James is actively laying the groundwork to seize Trump’s assets. If Trump can’t post the bond by Monday, she may take them.

How do I put this politely?

Everything about this case is insane.

—

(Reporting the truth, without fear or favor. Help me, for 20 cents a day.)

—

I am trying to find an understandable analogy for the basis of the case against Trump, the crime he is supposed to have committed.

Here’s the best I can do:

You decide to replace some windows. The contractor comes, quotes you a price. You agree. He says, “Are you sure you can pay?”

You say “Yes, I have the money in my bank account.”

This is a lie. You don’t have the money in your account, but you are sure you’ll get it next week. You have a check coming.

He looks dubious but agrees.

He does the job. The money comes in as promised and you pay on time. He is satisfied.

New York state finds out that you lied about having the money in your account.

It claims you have committed fraud. And it takes your house.

—

I cannot keep emphasizing this point enough: yes, Trump overstated the value of his assets when he sought these construction loans.

But the banks that lent him the money were enormous and sophisticated institutions well aware of Trump’s penchant for exaggeration. They performed their own analysis of his assets and whether to make the loans. They made them happily.

AND TRUMP REPAID THEM.

In his own initial decision against Trump in September, Engeron himself found:

“The record is devoid of any evidence of default, breach, late payment, or any complaint of harm…”

He then blithely rejected those facts as “completely irrelevant.”

If this is civil fraud worthy of a nearly half-billion dollar penalty, then practically every business owner in New York risks losing everything for any exaggeration.

You said your bagels were the best? We’re shutting your store!

You claimed LaGuardia is a great airport these days? Too bad, we’re fining you a billion dollars and seizing your planes!

You told investors you were close to a big new contract for solar panels? Sorry, you weren’t actually close, at least not in our opinion! Your factory is ours now!

—

Meanwhile, the coverage of the case has been a case study in how hatred for Trump distorts reporting. Here is how the Associated Press reported on Engeron’s initial ruing against Trump last September:

Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, found that Trump and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing loans…

Nowhere - NOWHERE - in the story did the AP acknowledge that Trump had repaid all the loans with interest.

—

—

So here we are. The leading opposition candidate for President risks having a huge chunk of his assets seized and sold by an official who is a member of the party in power, for a “crime” which had no victims. Meanwhile the media leers.

The adults - if any are left - had better step in soon.

—

In other lawfare news: your response to my request for support for Berenson v Biden last night has been incredibly heartening. Thank you! I’ll repeat it here for those of you who missed it. We will never be close to matching Pfizer’s massive legal budget, much less the Department of Justice’s ability to put endless lawyers on the case. But the bigger our budget, the harder we can fight, and the better our odds.

So. Keep your fingers crossed.

And I hope you’ll consider making a donation to our legal fund. With the Missouri case looking like it will go against the plaintiffs, Berenson v Biden may be the best hope free speech has. And I can promise you this: as soon as the Supreme Court rules in the Missouri and NRA cases, the fight will get interesting - and expensive.

You can donate through GiveSendGo here

Or, if you happen to prefer it, GoFundMe here

Or Venmo me at Alex-Berenson-3, with the last four digits of my phone 1745.

Or send a check directly to Envisage Law at 2601 Oberlin Rd # 100, Raleigh, NC 27608. Just make sure you address it to James Lawrence and note it’s for Berenson v Biden.

Any contribution, small or large, makes a difference. After all, we’re only up against the entire federal government - and one of the world’s most powerful companies.

I like our chances.