- Former President Trump’s lawyers challenge the upcoming New York fraud trial against him, accusing the presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, of bias and overreach.
- Justice David Friedman temporarily halts the trial, pending a decision by the appellate court set for the week of Sept. 25.
- Attorney General Letitia James alleges Trump inflated his assets’ value by billions, while Trump denies any wrongdoing, asserting banks profited from their association with him.
Former President Donald J. Trump, once again, takes on the legal battleground. This time, it’s New York’s Attorney General’s fraud lawsuit against Trump that’s making headlines. But just when we thought the trial was set to proceed, Trump’s lawyers put forward a curveball, challenging the very legitimacy of the judge presiding over the case.
Judge Arthur Engoron, already having some friction with Trump’s team, was all set to lead the non-jury trial beginning Oct. 2. However, Trump’s legal maestros are crying foul, accusing Engoron of overstepping his authority, particularly by dismissing their plea for a three-week delay in the trial’s commencement.
Their discontent runs deep, alluding to previous unfavorable rulings against Trump by Engoron, which in one instance cost Trump a whopping $110,000. It seems Trump’s disdain for Engoron is mutual, with the former President previously condemning him as “vicious, biased, and mean.”
Stepping into this legal tug of war, Justice David Friedman has issued an interim stay, putting the trial on hold until the appellate court renders its verdict by the week of Sept. 25.
As Attorney General Letitia James builds her case, claiming Trump inflated the value of his assets, like skyscrapers and golf courses, by a jaw-dropping $3.6 billion, Trump vehemently defends his position. Brushing off the lawsuit’s allegations, Trump highlighted that the banks involved in the transactions in question were “fully paid” and even turned a profit from their dealings with him.
While Trump may not personally testify if the trial moves forward, recordings of his depositions might take center stage. As the countdown begins for the appellate court’s decision, it remains to be seen if the trial will proceed as planned or if the saga will take yet another unexpected turn.
We want to know what you think! Share your thoughts in the comments below.