August 25, 2025 • 7 mins
527-million-dollar settlement against President Trump is tossed out by a NY appeals court. Ari gives his take on what this is going to mean next for AG Letitia James.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now let's talk to Aary Hoffman, associate editor of the
New York Sun. He is with us every Monday at
this time. Ariy, as you can imagine, I have been
dying to talk to you now that the settlement against
Donald Trump has been thrown out. Uh, take us through
the ruling, Take us through everything in the ruling. What
(00:20):
you liked, what you're disappointed by?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Absolutely, and Larry, I have to say, when this ruling
came down, you were the first person I thought about.
We've been talking about this and we've been waiting for it.
It's like it's like Christmas coming in August, you know.
But you know, the headline of the ruling is no
doubt that the five and now north of five hundred
million dollar penalty against Trump, his two adult sons, and
(00:46):
his business has been a race wiped wipe wiped from
the books. Hard to overstate that. Of course, this penalty
I think was what you know, attracted both of us
to this this case, and its continue you to grow
with interest, uh, you know, added to it. So that's
now gone. The underlying judgment, though, remains, although now it's
(01:12):
mostly symbolic without that that giant payment. This ruling I
still don't know why it took so very long, but
I have some ideas. You open up the the decision
and it's nearly three hundred and thirty pages. This is
a mass. There were five judges, Uh, there were There
(01:32):
was no majority for any one position. You know. Some
judges wanted to keep the decision. Some one judge David Friedman,
uh said this, this decision is rotten to the core.
Let's get rid of the whole thing. Uh. Some wanted
to split the baby. It was. It's really all over
the place. But the bottom line is the penalty has
(01:55):
gone Mestitia James has now vowed to appeal this to
the York's top court, which is confusingly called the New
York Court of Appeals. You know, one danger here for
Letitia James Larry is that the New York's highest court
could say, well, we think the underlying that you know,
verdicts should be thrown out too. So there is kind
(02:18):
of a downside here for Letitia James appealing. She could
lose the baby as well as the bathwater. But no
question that this is one of Donald Trump's signature legal victories.
I put it up there, right up there with the
disqualification of Jack Smith in the Mara Lago case and
the Presidential Immunity Supreme Court case on the kind of
(02:41):
Mount Rushmore of Donald Trump's legal achievements.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Absolutely, it's fascinating that you went through this ruling and
you couldn't find what the disagreement was among the judges.
They seem, as you said, to just disagree with everything.
And so we still don't have the answer as to well,
what took this long, although it does seem even though
I agree with you the I guess it's five hundred
(03:06):
and seventy three million at this point, but I guess
that the amount of money and the and the reward
is definitely the biggest story in all of this. However,
what did they disagree with? It must have been the
underlying case, right, No, exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
And one thing just to note, Larry, about that judgment
is that the court found that it was so excessive, right,
not just you know, let's trim a little off, you know,
it feels a little high. It was so excessive that
they found that it violated the Constitution's prohibition on cool
(03:48):
on excessive fines and cool unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendments,
I mean to violate the constitutional prohibition on acceptive find
is really to say that this is so out of
whack that no reasonable court could have decided this. And
we know this kind of situation between Judge Arthur and
Goron and Trump, and so that is really a rebuke
(04:13):
to Judge Angeron's judgment, and really, you know a kind
of opinion that he was acting vindictively and excessively, you know,
in terms of the underlying case. I think that's right.
I mean, I how I read this opinion is that
I think there was some back room haggling here maybe
(04:34):
why it took so long. You know, if you zoom out,
you say, okay, well we'll keep the judgment, but we'll
get rid of the punishment. It reminds me a little
bit of Judge Murshawan in the Stormy Daniel's case Larry,
where he said, okay, I'll keep the conviction that I'm
not gonna give Trump any punishment. Right. It's a way
to sort of chart a kind of middle course, and judges,
(04:58):
by their nature are pretty risk averse.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
You know.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
So I think this was a way to kind of
have a cake and eat it and eat it too.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Can Letitia James be sanctioned. Can she be? I guess
that's what saves her right is the fact that they
still say the underlying case should hold. That's what saves
her from possible prosecution or from being sanctioned.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
It's a good it's a good question. I think here
the scrutiny would have to turn to Judge anger On,
because he was the one who who instituted the punishment. Remember,
without a jury trial, just from the bench. You know,
I think that if you look at James, you know
where she has to worry about is, as you know,
(05:46):
is the growing investigations into her for mortgage fraud and
for possibly and here's where I think the circle closes
Larry violating Trump's civil rights with this very fraud lawsuit.
So I wonder if the kind of throwing out of
a judgment here could be used to say, hey, this
(06:07):
case was kind of without merit and was vindictive as
it was apply to the president.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
And probably explains the second half of the ruling on
the underlying case in that they also some of the
judges may have wanted to protect her from that.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
I think that's right, and you know, kind of offer
an outcome where both sides could credibly claim, although James
less so. But both sides could sort of could sort
of claim claim victory. Although you have to say, you know,
if let's say, you know, a kid does something and
and and they're you found out, but no punishment is given,
(06:47):
you'd say, well, is that really a serious, you know,
a serious violation. It's a little strains to say, well,
we we uphold the finding of persistent fraud, but you
know we we're not We're not going to pose any
penalty whatsoever. Remember, they could have cut this penalty right,
but they decided it was so excessive, so unconstitutional, so unlawful,
(07:10):
that the only remedy was to throw it out entirely.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Yeah, it's it's bizarre and it's suspicious as well. Ari Hoffman,
associate editor of the New York Sun with us every Monday.
By the way, you said you wanted to talk to
me about this, because that really started our relationship and
talking about this. I couldn't wait to talk to you too.
So I'm glad we got this out. We'll talk about
the Alvin braggcase next week. Thanks so much, Harry Hoffman.
(07:36):
Talk to you then, same time at nine oh five
Now let's talk to Aary Hoffman, associate editor of the
New York Sun. He is with us every Monday at
this time. Ariy, as you can imagine, I have been
dying to talk to you now that the settlement against
Donald Trump has been thrown out. Uh, take us through
the ruling, Take us through everything in the ruling. What
(00:20):
you liked, what you're disappointed by?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Absolutely, and Larry, I have to say, when this ruling
came down, you were the first person I thought about.
We've been talking about this and we've been waiting for it.
It's like it's like Christmas coming in August, you know.
But you know, the headline of the ruling is no
doubt that the five and now north of five hundred
million dollar penalty against Trump, his two adult sons, and
(00:46):
his business has been a race wiped wipe wiped from
the books. Hard to overstate that. Of course, this penalty
I think was what you know, attracted both of us
to this this case, and its continue you to grow
with interest, uh, you know, added to it. So that's
now gone. The underlying judgment, though, remains, although now it's
(01:12):
mostly symbolic without that that giant payment. This ruling I
still don't know why it took so very long, but
I have some ideas. You open up the the decision
and it's nearly three hundred and thirty pages. This is
a mass. There were five judges, Uh, there were There
(01:32):
was no majority for any one position. You know. Some
judges wanted to keep the decision. Some one judge David Friedman,
uh said this, this decision is rotten to the core.
Let's get rid of the whole thing. Uh. Some wanted
to split the baby. It was. It's really all over
the place. But the bottom line is the penalty has
(01:55):
gone Mestitia James has now vowed to appeal this to
the York's top court, which is confusingly called the New
York Court of Appeals. You know, one danger here for
Letitia James Larry is that the New York's highest court
could say, well, we think the underlying that you know,
verdicts should be thrown out too. So there is kind
(02:18):
of a downside here for Letitia James appealing. She could
lose the baby as well as the bathwater. But no
question that this is one of Donald Trump's signature legal victories.
I put it up there, right up there with the
disqualification of Jack Smith in the Mara Lago case and
the Presidential Immunity Supreme Court case on the kind of
(02:41):
Mount Rushmore of Donald Trump's legal achievements.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Absolutely, it's fascinating that you went through this ruling and
you couldn't find what the disagreement was among the judges.
They seem, as you said, to just disagree with everything.
And so we still don't have the answer as to well,
what took this long, although it does seem even though
I agree with you the I guess it's five hundred
(03:06):
and seventy three million at this point, but I guess
that the amount of money and the and the reward
is definitely the biggest story in all of this. However,
what did they disagree with? It must have been the
underlying case, right, No, exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
And one thing just to note, Larry, about that judgment
is that the court found that it was so excessive, right,
not just you know, let's trim a little off, you know,
it feels a little high. It was so excessive that
they found that it violated the Constitution's prohibition on cool
(03:48):
on excessive fines and cool unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendments,
I mean to violate the constitutional prohibition on acceptive find
is really to say that this is so out of
whack that no reasonable court could have decided this. And
we know this kind of situation between Judge Arthur and
Goron and Trump, and so that is really a rebuke
(04:13):
to Judge Angeron's judgment, and really, you know a kind
of opinion that he was acting vindictively and excessively, you know,
in terms of the underlying case. I think that's right.
I mean, I how I read this opinion is that
I think there was some back room haggling here maybe
(04:34):
why it took so long. You know, if you zoom out,
you say, okay, well we'll keep the judgment, but we'll
get rid of the punishment. It reminds me a little
bit of Judge Murshawan in the Stormy Daniel's case Larry,
where he said, okay, I'll keep the conviction that I'm
not gonna give Trump any punishment. Right. It's a way
to sort of chart a kind of middle course, and judges,
(04:58):
by their nature are pretty risk averse.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
You know.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
So I think this was a way to kind of
have a cake and eat it and eat it too.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Can Letitia James be sanctioned. Can she be? I guess
that's what saves her right is the fact that they
still say the underlying case should hold. That's what saves
her from possible prosecution or from being sanctioned.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
It's a good it's a good question. I think here
the scrutiny would have to turn to Judge anger On,
because he was the one who who instituted the punishment. Remember,
without a jury trial, just from the bench. You know,
I think that if you look at James, you know
where she has to worry about is, as you know,
(05:46):
is the growing investigations into her for mortgage fraud and
for possibly and here's where I think the circle closes
Larry violating Trump's civil rights with this very fraud lawsuit.
So I wonder if the kind of throwing out of
a judgment here could be used to say, hey, this
(06:07):
case was kind of without merit and was vindictive as
it was apply to the president.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
And probably explains the second half of the ruling on
the underlying case in that they also some of the
judges may have wanted to protect her from that.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
I think that's right, and you know, kind of offer
an outcome where both sides could credibly claim, although James
less so. But both sides could sort of could sort
of claim claim victory. Although you have to say, you know,
if let's say, you know, a kid does something and
and and they're you found out, but no punishment is given,
(06:47):
you'd say, well, is that really a serious, you know,
a serious violation. It's a little strains to say, well,
we we uphold the finding of persistent fraud, but you
know we we're not We're not going to pose any
penalty whatsoever. Remember, they could have cut this penalty right,
but they decided it was so excessive, so unconstitutional, so unlawful,
(07:10):
that the only remedy was to throw it out entirely.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Yeah, it's it's bizarre and it's suspicious as well. Ari Hoffman,
associate editor of the New York Sun with us every Monday.
By the way, you said you wanted to talk to
me about this, because that really started our relationship and
talking about this. I couldn't wait to talk to you too.
So I'm glad we got this out. We'll talk about
the Alvin braggcase next week. Thanks so much, Harry Hoffman.
(07:36):
Talk to you then, same time at nine oh five
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.