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 WR Now the WR Saturday
Morning Show.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Here's Larry Minty.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Good morning, and welcome to Saturday Morning. On this week's show,
the bogus Donald Trump real estate case is before a
state appellate court and it's been a long time since
we got a ruling, almost a year. We'll talk with
Ariy Hoffman from The New York Sun, who has been
covering the case on the appeal of that ridiculous five
(00:28):
hundred million dollar ruling against Donald Trump brought by Attorney
General Letitia James. Good morning, Airy.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Good morning, Hey Ariy A.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
You know, the first time we talked, the first time
I'd reached out to you, was on this story. I
don't know if you remember, but it was months and
months ago, and even at that time, I was asking you,
what is the hold up? And we're talking about the
appeal of the real estate fraud case where Donald Trump
had this ridiculous penalty of half a billion dollars when
(01:02):
Letitia James brought this case, and it seemed like it
was absurd from the beginning, and yet here we are
now is went to an appell at court and we
don't have a ruling yet. What is the hold up.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Sure, absolutely, Larry, you were on this story, and the
mystery has only deepened. We're coming up now on close
to a year now without a verdict on whether the
five hundred at this point million dollars fraud verdict imposed
by Judge anger On will be overturned. You know, virtually everyone, Larry,
(01:40):
who is in that hearing reported on that appeal that
that five judge panel was deeply skeptical of Judge Angeron
and Letitia James. You know, they liked it to a
commercial dispute. They said it was a mended it was troubling.
Those are all quotes and yet radio silent, and usually
(02:02):
with these appeals they're decided about within a month, So
now we're at ten times that length. So something strange
is going on here. There's been some speculation that the
presiding judge of that court maybe is holding this up.
Maybe the judges are internally divided and sort of deadlocked.
(02:25):
But it's a very strange situation that, as you mentioned, really, Larry,
you were one of the first people on This isn't
really being covered.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Well, I just watched the hearing like you did, and
when you looked at the hearing, you were going, oh
my god, they're really going after the state Attorney General's office.
At one point, ery they thought that the ruling was
so ridiculous they were talking about sanctions that that was
one of the judges. I'm not talking for the entire panel,
but it seemed like several of the justices were upset
(02:58):
with the ruling. That's why we thought there was going
to be something before this.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
But no, Yeah, and you know, you have to remember
the stakes here. I mean this, you know, this judgment,
you know, was a product of Leticia James vowing during
her campaign to go after Trump, to shine a light
on every little looking cranny of his business dealings. It
was really a body blow to his whole career, right,
(03:23):
and so you have to imagine that a reversal on
this would not only be a huge setback for Leticia James,
but also a real boost to the president. So, you know,
if you're kind of just gaming it out here, you'd say,
you know, if they were likely to overturn the verdict,
you know, maybe there's one judge being a stick in
(03:44):
themot it doesn't want to give Trump that victory. But
I mean, at a certain point, you know, how long
can you delay justice, right, famous line. Justice delayed is
justice denied. And at some point the court has to
come back because either side is going to want to
appeal that to the New York Highest appellate Court, which
(04:06):
they call, confusingly the Court of Appeal. So this story
isn't over, but it's it's really hit a load block.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Well, and I think you're exactly right, because it was
pretty obvious, and just to fill people in and what
happened at that hearing, the judges kept asking if a
case like this has ever been filed before, and they
had to admit no. And they said, well, let let
me understand who was damaged? Who were the people of
New York City damaged? And then and the attorneys had
(04:33):
to say no. And then they said, but he paid
everything back right on time with interest, and they said yes.
And one judge finally and I know you saw this area.
One judge finally said, We've never had a case like
this in history where there's no victim, there's no damages,
(04:55):
and and the people of the of the City of
New York were never touched by this or didn't even
know about it, So why would you bring charges against
this man that's how bad it got.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Right, and you know, it also is worth you know,
reminding people this was not a case brought by the lenders, right,
This was not a case brought by the banks mostly
that Trump was doing business with, so they didn't bring
a civil complaint. This was a complaint initiated by the state, right,
initiated initiated by with FISHA. James. So I'm overwhelmingly agree
(05:32):
with you, Larry that you know, it's a five judge panel.
There are at least three judges there who I think
would be, you know, come down on this for the president.
So the question is, you know, is there being is
there a kind of you know, block or an obstruction
(05:52):
happening within the court refusing to release the decision is
a decision written? I mean, I think the people deserve
some transparency on this, right is it it has a
decision been drafted just not being released or have they
not even gone that far?
Speaker 1 (06:10):
No, it is a mystery, and you have to wonder
because the case, as you pointed out, was bizarre from
the beginning of the hearing. The court case itself was bizarre,
and person after person that he got the loan from
or got loans in the bass that you know, he's
always paid back in time. Nobody felt like a victim.
(06:32):
It was a victimless crime, and yet he was. He
had to pay half a billion hours.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yeah, not only that penalty, but you know, also the
imposition of an independent monitor in the in the heart
of the Trump organization and various bands on conducting business
in New York that's targeted not only Trump but also
you know, his two oldest sons. So this was really uh,
you know, a missile aimed at the heart of the
(07:00):
Trump enterprise. And and like you said, uh, you know,
those judges look at it's five hundred billion dollars and
just defartment and just said, you know, yeah, this is
this is unreasonable.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
No, they said that time and time again. Ery Hoffman,
Associate editor of The New York Sun. Go to the
New York Sun dot com. He's all over this story.
Thank you so much, Eric. This has been a podcast
from w o R
This is a podcast from WR Now the WR Saturday
Morning Show.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Here's Larry Minty.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Good morning, and welcome to Saturday Morning. On this week's show,
the bogus Donald Trump real estate case is before a
state appellate court and it's been a long time since
we got a ruling, almost a year. We'll talk with
Ariy Hoffman from The New York Sun, who has been
covering the case on the appeal of that ridiculous five
(00:28):
hundred million dollar ruling against Donald Trump brought by Attorney
General Letitia James. Good morning, Airy.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Good morning, Hey Ariy A.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
You know, the first time we talked, the first time
I'd reached out to you, was on this story. I
don't know if you remember, but it was months and
months ago, and even at that time, I was asking you,
what is the hold up? And we're talking about the
appeal of the real estate fraud case where Donald Trump
had this ridiculous penalty of half a billion dollars when
(01:02):
Letitia James brought this case, and it seemed like it
was absurd from the beginning, and yet here we are
now is went to an appell at court and we
don't have a ruling yet. What is the hold up.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Sure, absolutely, Larry, you were on this story, and the
mystery has only deepened. We're coming up now on close
to a year now without a verdict on whether the
five hundred at this point million dollars fraud verdict imposed
by Judge anger On will be overturned. You know, virtually everyone, Larry,
(01:40):
who is in that hearing reported on that appeal that
that five judge panel was deeply skeptical of Judge Angeron
and Letitia James. You know, they liked it to a
commercial dispute. They said it was a mended it was troubling.
Those are all quotes and yet radio silent, and usually
(02:02):
with these appeals they're decided about within a month, So
now we're at ten times that length. So something strange
is going on here. There's been some speculation that the
presiding judge of that court maybe is holding this up.
Maybe the judges are internally divided and sort of deadlocked.
(02:25):
But it's a very strange situation that, as you mentioned, really, Larry,
you were one of the first people on This isn't
really being covered.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Well, I just watched the hearing like you did, and
when you looked at the hearing, you were going, oh
my god, they're really going after the state Attorney General's office.
At one point, ery they thought that the ruling was
so ridiculous they were talking about sanctions that that was
one of the judges. I'm not talking for the entire panel,
but it seemed like several of the justices were upset
(02:58):
with the ruling. That's why we thought there was going
to be something before this.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
But no, Yeah, and you know, you have to remember
the stakes here. I mean this, you know, this judgment,
you know, was a product of Leticia James vowing during
her campaign to go after Trump, to shine a light
on every little looking cranny of his business dealings. It
was really a body blow to his whole career, right,
(03:23):
and so you have to imagine that a reversal on
this would not only be a huge setback for Leticia James,
but also a real boost to the president. So, you know,
if you're kind of just gaming it out here, you'd say,
you know, if they were likely to overturn the verdict,
you know, maybe there's one judge being a stick in
(03:44):
themot it doesn't want to give Trump that victory. But
I mean, at a certain point, you know, how long
can you delay justice, right, famous line. Justice delayed is
justice denied. And at some point the court has to
come back because either side is going to want to
appeal that to the New York Highest appellate Court, which
(04:06):
they call, confusingly the Court of Appeal. So this story
isn't over, but it's it's really hit a load block.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Well, and I think you're exactly right, because it was
pretty obvious, and just to fill people in and what
happened at that hearing, the judges kept asking if a
case like this has ever been filed before, and they
had to admit no. And they said, well, let let
me understand who was damaged? Who were the people of
New York City damaged? And then and the attorneys had
(04:33):
to say no. And then they said, but he paid
everything back right on time with interest, and they said yes.
And one judge finally and I know you saw this area.
One judge finally said, We've never had a case like
this in history where there's no victim, there's no damages,
(04:55):
and and the people of the of the City of
New York were never touched by this or didn't even
know about it, So why would you bring charges against
this man that's how bad it got.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Right, and you know, it also is worth you know,
reminding people this was not a case brought by the lenders, right,
This was not a case brought by the banks mostly
that Trump was doing business with, so they didn't bring
a civil complaint. This was a complaint initiated by the state, right,
initiated initiated by with FISHA. James. So I'm overwhelmingly agree
(05:32):
with you, Larry that you know, it's a five judge panel.
There are at least three judges there who I think
would be, you know, come down on this for the president.
So the question is, you know, is there being is
there a kind of you know, block or an obstruction
(05:52):
happening within the court refusing to release the decision is
a decision written? I mean, I think the people deserve
some transparency on this, right is it it has a
decision been drafted just not being released or have they
not even gone that far?
Speaker 1 (06:10):
No, it is a mystery, and you have to wonder
because the case, as you pointed out, was bizarre from
the beginning of the hearing. The court case itself was bizarre,
and person after person that he got the loan from
or got loans in the bass that you know, he's
always paid back in time. Nobody felt like a victim.
(06:32):
It was a victimless crime, and yet he was. He
had to pay half a billion hours.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yeah, not only that penalty, but you know, also the
imposition of an independent monitor in the in the heart
of the Trump organization and various bands on conducting business
in New York that's targeted not only Trump but also
you know, his two oldest sons. So this was really uh,
you know, a missile aimed at the heart of the
(07:00):
Trump enterprise. And and like you said, uh, you know,
those judges look at it's five hundred billion dollars and
just defartment and just said, you know, yeah, this is
this is unreasonable.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
No, they said that time and time again. Ery Hoffman,
Associate editor of The New York Sun. Go to the
New York Sun dot com. He's all over this story.
Thank you so much, Eric. This has been a podcast
from w o R
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.