In a court filing, lawyers for former President Donald Trump say it is “impossible” for their client to raise the full $454 million bond set by Judge Arthur Engoron as they appeal the judge’s ruling, and propose paying just $100 million instead. In response, New York Attorney General Letitia James argues that there is “no merit” to that request and that Trump should be forced to pay the full amount. Here are the latest legal developments involving the billionaire hoping to be reelected to the White House in 2024.

New York financial fraud

Trump asks to pay $100 million bond as fraud case is appealed

Key players: Trump lawyers Clifford Robert and , New York Attorney General , Judge, Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division

• In a court filing Wednesday, Robert and Habba proposed that as he awaits his appeal to be heard by a New York appellate court, Trump should be allowed to pay a $100 million bond instead of the $454 mandated by Engoron, .

• In a letter to the appeals court, the lawyers said that because Engoron’s verdict prevented him from doing business in New York for three years, including borrowing money from state banks, he was unable to raise the full bond amount.

• “The exorbitant and punitive amount of the Judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond,” the lawyers wrote.

• Instead, the lawyers continued, Trump planned to post a different amount. “Appellants nonetheless plan to secure and post a bond in the amount of $100 million,” they wrote.

• James, who has said she will look to seize Trump’s real estate assets if he fails to post bond, dismissed the request in her own filing.

• “There is no merit to defendants’ contention that a full bond or deposit is unnecessary because they are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount,” James wrote. “Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment; defendants would need ‘to raise capital’ to do so.”

• Engoron’s ruling that Trump be prohibited from obtaining loans from New York-based banks was warranted, James continued, as it was the central issue of the fraud trial.

• “These are precisely the circumstances for which a full bond or deposit is necessary, where defendants’ approach would leave OAG with substantial shortfalls once this Court affirms the judgment,” James wrote.

• The appellate court will likely make a ruling on the bond amount in the coming weeks.

Why it matters: If the appellate court sticks with the full bond amount, Trump could be forced to sell off assets. But the court could also opt for a lesser amount held in an escrow account as it hears Trump’s appeal.

Recommended reading

____________________

Tuesday, February 28

____________________

Nathan Wade’s former business partner Terrence Bradley again takes the witness stand at a hearing to decide whether Wade’s romantic relationship with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should disqualify both from prosecuting the case against former President Donald Trump and 18 others. But in a setback for the defense, Bradley testifies that he had no direct knowledge of when that relationship began. Here are the latest legal developments for the former president looking to win reelection to the White House in 2024.

Georgia election interference

‘Star witness’ at hearing at Wade and Willis dismissal hearing denies knowing when their relationship began

Key players: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, lead prosecutor Nathan Wade, Wade’s former business partner Terrence Bradley, Judge Scott McAfee, Trump co-defendant Mike Roman, Wade’s attorney Ashleigh Merchant, Trump attorney Steve Sadow

• During his second appearance on the witness stand, Bradley repeatedly stated on Tuesday that he did not know when the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade began.

• “I do not have knowledge … of when it started,” Bradley said.

• That testimony appeared to contradict text messages sent between Merchant and Bradley in the lead-up to the hearing seeking to dismiss Willis and Wade over a romantic relationship that, the defendants in the case claim, represents a conflict of interest.

• That left the defense lawyers in the position of scrambling to try to establish that the testimony of their most important witness was not credible.

• Merchant revisited the email correspondence, but Bradley contended that the meaning of his answers were different than what Merchant contended, and that he had merely speculated to Merchant about when Wade and Willis had started their relationship.

• McAfee, who compelled Bradley to retake the stand after meeting with him for a private interview on Monday, pushed Merchant to try to cover new ground.

• “You’re making the point that he had made some comments to you along the way that led you to believe he had more knowledge than today he is testifying that he had,” McAfee, who had earlier referred to Bradley as a “star witness” for the defense, said at one point. “And so, if you’ve hit the high points of that, then I don’t know what else we can actually cover that moves the needle.”

• Sadow also questioned Bradley about why he initially speculated to Merchant that Wade and Willis began their romantic relationship prior to Willis hiring him to prosecute the Georgia case.

• “You do, in fact, know when it started and you don’t want to testify to that in court,” Sadow said. “That’s the true explanation, but you don’t want to admit it in court, correct?”

• “No, I have no direct knowledge of when the relationship started,” Bradley answered.

• Watching the proceedings, reporter Michael Isikoff, co-author of the book “Find Me the Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rogue President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election,” posted a courtroom observation.

• “There will be a lot of time to dissect the lawyering but at a minimum Merchant should have tried to get an affidavit from Bradley back in January,” Isikoff wrote on X. “Who knows what he might have said then but now she and Sadow have nothing — from him.”

• McAfee will hold a final hearing on Friday, March 1, on the question of whether to remove Willis and Wade from the case.

Why it matters: Ultimately it will be up to McAfee to decide whether the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade represents a conflict of interest serious enough to remove both from their roles in prosecuting the case against Trump and his co-defendants. Without the sworn testimony of their “star witness” to bolster the claim that Willis hired Wade so as to financially benefit from their relationship, that may be a harder point to prove.

Recommended reading

____________________

Monday, February 27

____________________

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump ask Judge Scott McAffee to allow cellphone records to be used in his decision on whether to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Wilis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade from the Georgia election interference case. Trump’s lawyers also appeal New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s $454 million judgment in the financial fraud case. Here are the latest developments in the legal cases against the man seeking to be reelected to the White House in 2024.

Georgia election interference

Trump lawyers seek to admit cellphone records obtained by private investigator

Key players: Trump lawyers Steven Sadow and Jennifer Little, Judge Scott McAfee, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, lead prosecutor Nathan Wade, private investigator Charles Mittelstadt

• On Monday, Sadow and Little filed a motion with McAfee, asking the judge to admit cellphone records for Wade that they say show he and Willis lied in court about when their romantic relationship began, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

• Lawyers for Trump and other defendants have argued that Willis should be removed from handling the case because, they allege, she benefited financially from her relationship with Wade, who paid for vacations with Willis, who hired him. Willis and Wade testified earlier this month that they split expenses on those trips and that their relationship does not represent a conflict of interest.

• Willis and Wade also both testified that they did not begin their sexual relationship until 2022, after Willis had hired Wade to lead the prosecution of Trump and 18 others charged with crimes stemming from their efforts to overturn the presidential election results in Georgia.

• Trump’s lawyers hired Mittlestadt, who used online analytics tools to track Wade’s cellphone activity. In an affidavit, Mittlestat said the data he obtained showed that Wade visited Willis’s neighborhood multiple times in 2011, that the two talked on the phone more than 2,000 times in the first 11 months of 2021 and that they exchanged almost 11,000 text messages.

• The Fulton County prosecutors countered that the cellphone records do not show proof that Willis or Wade lied about their relationship.

• McAfee has stated that in order for him to disqualify Willis or Wade, the defense needs to show that the two lawyers brought their prosecution of Trump in order to financially benefit from the case, USA Today reported.

• The judge has scheduled another hearing on Friday, March 1, on whether to remove Wade and Willis.

Why it matters: If McAfee decides to remove Willis or Wade from prosecuting Trump and his co-defendants, that could deal a potentially fatal blow to what many legal observers consider the strongest criminal case the former president faces and would almost certainly delay it until after the 2024 election.

New York financial fraud

Trump appeals $454 million fraud judgment

Key players: Judge Arthur Engoron, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump lawyer Alina Habba

• On Monday, Trump appealed Engoron’s ruling that he must pay $454 million in penalties and interest for years of fraudulent business practices in New York, CBS News reported.

• Trump asked an intermediate-level state appellate court to overturn Engoron’s ruling, which gives the former president, his adult sons and members of the Trump Organization 30 days to begin paying.

• In order to qualify for a stay of Engoron’s decision during the appeal, however, Trump will be obliged to pony up the entire amount of the judgment as a bond. So far, Trump has yet to do so, according to a spokesperson for James.

• If Trump were to fork over the $454 million as his appeal played out, the money would go into an escrow account and would be returned to Trump if the appeals court ruled the massive fines were an overreach by Engoron.

• Every day that Trump does not pay the full amount of the judgment, he accrues more than $100,000 in interest.

• “We trust that the Appellate Division will overturn this egregious fine and take the necessary steps to restore the public faith in New York’s legal system,” Habba told CBS News in a statement.

• James’s office did not offer any comment on Trump’s appeal.

Why it matters: While Trump’s appeal contends that Engoron “committed errors of law” in his decision to wallop Trump, his adult sons and members of the Trump Organization with hefty fines, simply filing the appeal does not get them off the hook from paying it in the short term.