Mr. Hoffman is an associate editor of the New York Sun, where he covers politics and culture. He holds a PhD from Harvard University and a law degree from Stanford University.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is a podcast from wo R. Back now to
the WR Saturday Morning Show with Larry Minty. Welcome back.
Remember when US Attorney Letitia James campaigned on getting Donald
Trump and then sued him for over inflating his properties. Well,
James may now be facing criminal charges for real estate fraud.
(00:25):
Let's get the latest on this from Ary Hoffman, Associate
editor of The New York Sun. Very good to talk
to you again.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Thank you so much, Larry, It's wonderful to be back.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Let's go through what she could be charged with, because
they in this referral, they were pretty detailed.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Sure you know this is a referral that came from
the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, William Polt. Remember,
a criminal referral really can come sort of from anywhere.
It's not the same as an indictment. But what it
is is it's a recommendation to the Department of Justice
this to investigate and possibly to bring charges. So this
(01:05):
letter was addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi and her
chief deputy, Todd Blanche. People might have heard of criminal referrals,
most often in the case of contempt charges. Right, So
when Congress Will recommend that someone be held in contempt.
Congress can't file charges itself, but it asked the Department
(01:26):
of Justice to do that sort of Famously, recently, the
January sixth Committee, remember, asked the DOJ to pursue criminal
charges against Donald Trump. So these referral details misrepresentations, misrepresentations
concerning properties and mortgages. They go back all the way
(01:47):
to twenty eighteen. That the letter acknowledges that once you
start getting that far back, you might face issues with
statute of limitations, meaning that the possible charges could have expired.
But really the meat of this concerns twenty twenty three
and misrepresenting her residence at a property in Virginia, when
(02:10):
in fact he was obligated to live in New York
per New York law as New York's top law enforcement official.
What's really rich about this, Larry, and we've spoken about
this on this program before, is these misrepresentations allegedly date
to right before charges were brought against Donald Trump for
civil fraud concerning misrepresentations himself relative to his properties. So
(02:37):
it's almost, you know, an irony worthy of Shakespeare, and
a very New York irony. I would add that you know,
just as as Latissa James was putting together the final
touches on her case against Trump, which is now on appeal,
and we could talk about that more. You know, she
was allegedly, you know, doing sort of also fudging, fudging,
(03:01):
the fudging the information, and had her eye on a
property in Norfolk, Virginia, rather than than one here in
New York.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
I'll tell you what the unmitigated gall of that, if
it's true, if this referral and what she's being accused
of is true, the unmitigated gall she never stopped for
a second to say, hey, I'm accusing him of something
I'm doing right now. I guess you just thought she
would never get caught.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah, I mean, the letter alleges that she falstered bank
documents and property records to acquire government backed assistants and
loans and more favorable loan terms to purchase a residence
in Virginia. There's also an allegation that she sort of
miss misstated the size of a residence that here here
in Brooklyn for sort of more favorable tax purposes. The
(03:53):
irony of that, Larry, as you know well, is the
core of Leticia James's case against Trump that he saggerated
the size of his properties, and and that that argument
really did carry the day with Judge anger On, who
slapped a four hundred and fifty million dollar plus penalty
(04:15):
for those misrepresentations. So it's a kind of good for
the goose, good for the gander situation. Yeah, you know
what they said, maybe being hoisted on your own petard
might be there.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
There you go. Well, you know what they say about karma,
That's the one I would have used, but I don't
want to use that word. That's certain family. That's exactly right.
So let's let's talk about the appellate court that's looking
at the Donald Trump case when it comes to him
exaggerating how much his properties were worth to get a loan.
We both talked about this. Both of us watched online
(04:49):
the entire proceedings, and it seemed like right after those proceedings,
while this case is either getting thrown out or they
are going to minimize the penalty, because they were even
talking about censuring some of the attorneys for bringing this
case in the first place. And now that was before
the election. Now have waited months. I know these things
(05:09):
take time, but what can we read into it? That
this is taking a little bit more time than most.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yeah. Absolutely, And you know, I think you and I
and as well as other observers noted the skepticism with
which the Appellate Corps treated Judge en Grond's verdict. There
was comments that, you know, this amounted to a commercial dispute,
that the fine seemed excessive, as well as the other
(05:37):
strictures on Trump's ability to operate in New York. And
I think I think one is to say that judges
are probably aware that this was a very is a
very political case, and I think that maybe explains why
they've waited, you know, since until the election and and
and maybe even the inauguration. Hard to know, hard to
(05:57):
know whether they're they're sort of weighing, you know, do
they entirely vacate the judgment order a new trial. Do
they cut down the penalty but keep the essential verdict intact?
I think there's some probably strategizing going on about how
exactly to move forward. Remember something similar happened with Judge
Jan Mershan in the Stormy Daniel's case, where he kind
(06:21):
of kept the guilty verdict but basically gave Trump, you know,
a suspended sentence. And unconditional discharge. I wonder if there's
a similar formula that could be arrived at here. I
think the difficulty for Legiter James at this point is
you could now face losses on two fronts, a reversal
of her Crown Jewel verdict and the prospect of a
(06:44):
criminal investigation of her own. One thing to look out for, though,
is if the DOJ is going to investigate it, you'd
have to find some federal hook to these alleged violations. Right,
So that's not immediately cleared. And right, it happened in Virginia.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
It happened in Virginia, right, so it cross state lines, right, that.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
That could be That could be one possibility, but it's
you know, it's just as it would be unlikely that
Pam Bondi's d J would investigate Trump. It's unlikely that
you know that Leticia James's you know, office would would
investigate her. So we would, we we would, we would
were we are looking at a New York federal government clash.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
I think, well, that was fascinating. Thanks so much, Erry Hoffman,
We'll have you back soon. Associate editor of The New
York Sun, Thanks for spending the morning with us a little.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Bit take care.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
This has been a podcast from w o R
This is a podcast from wo R. Back now to
the WR Saturday Morning Show with Larry Minty. Welcome back.
Remember when US Attorney Letitia James campaigned on getting Donald
Trump and then sued him for over inflating his properties. Well,
James may now be facing criminal charges for real estate fraud.
(00:25):
Let's get the latest on this from Ary Hoffman, Associate
editor of The New York Sun. Very good to talk
to you again.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Thank you so much, Larry, It's wonderful to be back.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Let's go through what she could be charged with, because
they in this referral, they were pretty detailed.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Sure you know this is a referral that came from
the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, William Polt. Remember,
a criminal referral really can come sort of from anywhere.
It's not the same as an indictment. But what it
is is it's a recommendation to the Department of Justice
this to investigate and possibly to bring charges. So this
(01:05):
letter was addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi and her
chief deputy, Todd Blanche. People might have heard of criminal referrals,
most often in the case of contempt charges. Right, So
when Congress Will recommend that someone be held in contempt.
Congress can't file charges itself, but it asked the Department
(01:26):
of Justice to do that sort of Famously, recently, the
January sixth Committee, remember, asked the DOJ to pursue criminal
charges against Donald Trump. So these referral details misrepresentations, misrepresentations
concerning properties and mortgages. They go back all the way
(01:47):
to twenty eighteen. That the letter acknowledges that once you
start getting that far back, you might face issues with
statute of limitations, meaning that the possible charges could have expired.
But really the meat of this concerns twenty twenty three
and misrepresenting her residence at a property in Virginia, when
(02:10):
in fact he was obligated to live in New York
per New York law as New York's top law enforcement official.
What's really rich about this, Larry, and we've spoken about
this on this program before, is these misrepresentations allegedly date
to right before charges were brought against Donald Trump for
civil fraud concerning misrepresentations himself relative to his properties. So
(02:37):
it's almost, you know, an irony worthy of Shakespeare, and
a very New York irony. I would add that you know,
just as as Latissa James was putting together the final
touches on her case against Trump, which is now on appeal,
and we could talk about that more. You know, she
was allegedly, you know, doing sort of also fudging, fudging,
(03:01):
the fudging the information, and had her eye on a
property in Norfolk, Virginia, rather than than one here in
New York.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
I'll tell you what the unmitigated gall of that, if
it's true, if this referral and what she's being accused
of is true, the unmitigated gall she never stopped for
a second to say, hey, I'm accusing him of something
I'm doing right now. I guess you just thought she
would never get caught.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah, I mean, the letter alleges that she falstered bank
documents and property records to acquire government backed assistants and
loans and more favorable loan terms to purchase a residence
in Virginia. There's also an allegation that she sort of
miss misstated the size of a residence that here here
in Brooklyn for sort of more favorable tax purposes. The
(03:53):
irony of that, Larry, as you know well, is the
core of Leticia James's case against Trump that he saggerated
the size of his properties, and and that that argument
really did carry the day with Judge anger On, who
slapped a four hundred and fifty million dollar plus penalty
(04:15):
for those misrepresentations. So it's a kind of good for
the goose, good for the gander situation. Yeah, you know
what they said, maybe being hoisted on your own petard
might be there.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
There you go. Well, you know what they say about karma,
That's the one I would have used, but I don't
want to use that word. That's certain family. That's exactly right.
So let's let's talk about the appellate court that's looking
at the Donald Trump case when it comes to him
exaggerating how much his properties were worth to get a loan.
We both talked about this. Both of us watched online
(04:49):
the entire proceedings, and it seemed like right after those proceedings,
while this case is either getting thrown out or they
are going to minimize the penalty, because they were even
talking about censuring some of the attorneys for bringing this
case in the first place. And now that was before
the election. Now have waited months. I know these things
(05:09):
take time, but what can we read into it? That
this is taking a little bit more time than most.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yeah. Absolutely, And you know, I think you and I
and as well as other observers noted the skepticism with
which the Appellate Corps treated Judge en Grond's verdict. There
was comments that, you know, this amounted to a commercial dispute,
that the fine seemed excessive, as well as the other
(05:37):
strictures on Trump's ability to operate in New York. And
I think I think one is to say that judges
are probably aware that this was a very is a
very political case, and I think that maybe explains why
they've waited, you know, since until the election and and
and maybe even the inauguration. Hard to know, hard to
(05:57):
know whether they're they're sort of weighing, you know, do
they entirely vacate the judgment order a new trial. Do
they cut down the penalty but keep the essential verdict intact?
I think there's some probably strategizing going on about how
exactly to move forward. Remember something similar happened with Judge
Jan Mershan in the Stormy Daniel's case, where he kind
(06:21):
of kept the guilty verdict but basically gave Trump, you know,
a suspended sentence. And unconditional discharge. I wonder if there's
a similar formula that could be arrived at here. I
think the difficulty for Legiter James at this point is
you could now face losses on two fronts, a reversal
of her Crown Jewel verdict and the prospect of a
(06:44):
criminal investigation of her own. One thing to look out for, though,
is if the DOJ is going to investigate it, you'd
have to find some federal hook to these alleged violations. Right,
So that's not immediately cleared. And right, it happened in Virginia.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
It happened in Virginia, right, so it cross state lines, right, that.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
That could be That could be one possibility, but it's
you know, it's just as it would be unlikely that
Pam Bondi's d J would investigate Trump. It's unlikely that
you know that Leticia James's you know, office would would
investigate her. So we would, we we would, we would
were we are looking at a New York federal government clash.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
I think, well, that was fascinating. Thanks so much, Erry Hoffman,
We'll have you back soon. Associate editor of The New
York Sun, Thanks for spending the morning with us a little.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Bit take care.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
This has been a podcast from w o R
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.