Turley suggests that Letitia James is unlikely to seize Trump’s assets

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley expressed doubt on Friday about the feasibility of Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James successfully seizing former President Donald Trump’s properties, as reported by the Daily Caller.

James recently filed judgments against Trump and others in Westchester County, New York, where Trump owns the Seven Springs private estate and the Trump National Golf Club Westchester. Turley cautioned that the process of seizing these properties would be much more complex than anticipated.

Turley explained that Trump’s properties, which are partnerships with leveraged debts, would require a detailed unraveling process. “So these aren’t just this one-to-one Trump versus James type of equation,” he said.

Turley also emphasized that the seizure of the properties would likely involve legal battles and challenges, making it far from an immediate occurrence. He dismissed the idea of Trump Tower being locked up as a victory and said, “It’s unlikely to happen, and even if it does, it’s unlikely to last long.”

Additionally, Turley raised concerns about the potential negative impact James’ actions could have on the value of the property she intends to seize. While he acknowledged that James may not care about this, Turley noted that such consequences would be relevant in court.

Trump’s legal team disclosed on Monday that the former president was having difficulty posting a bond of over $450 million to cover the judgment in a civil fraud case issued by New York Judge Arthur Engoron.

However, Trump stands to benefit greatly from the merger of Digital World Acquisition Corporation (DWAC) with the Trump Media and Technology Group, which was recently approved by DWAC shareholders and could potentially result in at least $3 billion in gains.

Turley also highlighted the possibility of appellate courts reducing the damages.

He pointed out constitutional concerns regarding the Eighth Amendment and due process, suggesting that this situation presents uncharted territory for the courts. Turley indicated that the significant damage figures might disrupt due process and potentially prompt intervention from the Supreme Court.

“There is an issue here of the Eighth Amendment. There’s also an issue of due process in addition to that line of cases, which is rather thin, so this is going to be new ground for the courts to deal with, so this is sort of unsettled,” Turley said.

Turley concluded by emphasizing the uniqueness of New York’s approach, with confiscatory bond rules and perceived punitive actions by James and the judge involved in the case. He predicted that “viable challenges” could arise, potentially escalating the legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court.