Trump has 'real constitutional argument' to appeal NYC case, says legal expert
Former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg reacts to the ruling in the New York civil fraud case.
Former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg joined "America Reports" Tuesday to discuss the judgment against former President Trump in the New York civil fraud case. Wisenberg laid out why he believes Trump's legal team could successfully appeal the ruling, citing "real constitutional problems" with the $355 million penalty.
TRUMP VISITS MANHATTAN COURT TO BLAST NYAG CASE, PRAISES APPELLATE RULING IN HIS FAVOR
SOL WISENBERG: Well, I'll put it to you this way. I understand I'm not an expert on New York civil fraud law, but it seems to me there's some real constitutional problems with the $355 million judgment when there is no victim, no financial loss of any kind. I think that is, you have a ripe argument. You have an argument for a substantive due process violation. But the question is, has this been preserved at trial? That I'm not sure of, but it just seems to me to be an outrageous amount, given the judge's findings, that there's no there's no victim, no monetary victim here…
NEW YORK, NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 13: Justice Arthur Engoron presides over the civil fraud trial of former President Donald Trump and his children at New York State Supreme Court on November 13, 2023 in New York City. ((Photo by Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images))
I think the bigger message is it's going to send a message to certain businesses and business owners. If you are a radical conservative or if – forget about what your politics are – if you end up offending or insulting whatever the current woke orthodoxy is, what will happen to you? Keep in mind, there was no jury here. And the judge crows about this in his opinion, Judge Engoron, he says, I don't need a jury under under New York law, but that's based on a 2011 opinion that said you don't need a jury because this is an equitable remedy. That means we're not and that monetary damages are incidental. But that isn't what happened here. The monetary damages were $355 million. So that stands that law on its head. And I think that they do have, again, a potential constitutional argument here, a very strong one, if they appropriately raised it at trial.
In a 92-page decision, New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump and the defendants were liable for "persistent and repeated fraud," "falsifying business records," "issuing false financial statements," "conspiracy to falsify false financial statements," "insurance fraud," and "conspiracy to commit insurance fraud."
Engoron took time in the ruling to criticize Trump and his participation in the trial, stating that he "rarely responded to the questions asked, and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial."
Over the course of the trial late last year, Trump and his allies repeatedly criticized Engoron — who throughout his career has exclusively donated to Democrats — over his handling of the case.
"We shouldn’t be having a case here because we have a disclaimer clause that every court holds up except this judge," Trump said in November. "They're trying to hurt me — especially her, for political reasons," Trump added in reference to James.
Fox News' Thomas Catenacci contributed to this report.
Fox News First
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.