Letitia James' Donald Trump victory under threat of complete reversal – lawyer

New York Attorney General Letitia James' victory in former President Donald Trump's civil fraud case could be completely reversed, according to a former federal prosecutor.

Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama, commented CAFE Insiders Podcast that she co-hosts with Preet Bharara, another former U.S. attorney.

Trump's lawyers on Thursday asked a New York appeals court to vacate or reduce the nearly $500 million penalty in the case, which stems from a lawsuit filed by Democrat James. Some of the court's judges were receptive, with one describing the “immensely high” sentence in the case as “disturbing.”

Asked by Bharara if she was trying to predict the likelihood of a “full reversal versus a reduction,” Vance said: “My crystal ball is never very good in appeals courts. It sounds like a complete reversal, doesn’t it, as opposed to a reduction.”

She added: “Whether they will ultimately argue amongst themselves and divide the baby in some way remains to be seen. This was not a good day in court for Tish James.”

Newsweek has contacted Vance for further comment.

James' lawsuit led Judge Arthur Engoron to rule in February that Trump had lied for years about his assets in documents provided to banks, insurance companies and others to conduct business and secure loans. The judge ordered the former president and the other defendants to pay more than $350 million in penalties – a sum that, with interest, has now risen to more than $489 million.

Trump lawyer John Sauer said at Thursday's argument that the punishment in the case was “draconian” and that there were no direct victims because the banks involved in the transactions were satisfied.

He argued that if the ruling stands, “no real estate transactions can be conducted” without fear that they will face similar scrutiny.

New York Assistant Attorney General Judith Vale argued the penalty was significant because “there was a lot of fraud and illegality.”

To CAFE InsidersVance said that when appellate judges review a case, they are “very respectful of the expert's perspective.”

“In this case, it is Judge Engoron who is reviewing the facts and making these decisions, and they will be left to decide what the true facts are. But that’s not what this case is about.”

“It appears that these concerns are about legal theories and the way laws have been interpreted, and the appellate courts will be taking another look at these issues and forming their own opinion as to whether they believe the The trial judge acted rightly or wrongly. “So this is a verdict that, based on what we heard at the hearing, is really in jeopardy.”