Former President Donald Trump is facing a $454 million civil fraud debt in New York. The state attorney general, Letitia James, has ordered him to pay a penalty of $363.9 million for lying about his wealth and other financial information during the 2016 presidential campaign. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump lied for years about his wealth and ordered him to pay this civil fraud penalty in addition to interest on top of it, which brings the total debt up to $454 million. The judge also banned Trump from running a business in New York for three years as punishment.
Former President Donald Trump Faces $454 Million Civil Fraud Debt in New York
New York, United States United States of AmericaFormer President Donald Trump is facing a $454 million civil fraud debt in New York.
The state attorney general, Letitia James, has ordered him to pay a penalty of $363.9 million for lying about his wealth and other financial information during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Confidence
90%
Doubts
- It's not clear if there are any other pending legal actions against Trump in New York or elsewhere.
Sources
69%
Trump seeks delay in $354M fraud case penalties, but NY AG says 'no room for further debate'
ABC NEWS SITE NAMES Name: ABC News Site Names URL: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-officially-blames-iran_106834435 ABC News Thursday, 22 February 2024 18:59Unique Points
- Trump seeks delay in $354M fraud case penalties
- The defendants in former President Donald Trump's civil fraud case have asked the judge to delay the enforcement of penalties, including Trump's $354 million fine and temporary ban on running a business in New York.
- New York attorney general is pushing back on the request for a 30-day stay
- The Attorney General has not filed any motion on notice or moved to settle the proposed Judgment.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
Deception (50%)
The article is deceptive because it omits important information that contradicts the claims of Trump and his defense lawyer. For example, the article does not mention that Judge Engoron has already signed the judgment order and ordered Trump to pay $354 million by Feb. 23 or face a ban on running businesses in New York. The article also does not explain why Robert's request for a stay of penalties is contrary to fundamental fairness and due process, as he claims. By omitting these details, the article creates a false impression that Trump still has some room to negotiate or delay the enforcement of penalties in the case.- Defendants attempt to change the business address of six entity Defendants to Florida as the record establishes those entities are located in Trump Tower at 725 5th Avenue in New York
- The Attorney General has not filed any motion on notice, nor moved to settle the proposed Judgment
- Defendants requested such relief in their post-trial brief, which the Court declined to grant
Fallacies (70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the decision of a judge without providing any evidence or reasoning for why that decision is correct. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's fine and temporary ban on running a business in New York as 'magnitude'. Additionally, there are examples of dichotomous depiction by stating that the defendants have asked for a delay while the attorney general has pushed back on it. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's fine and temporary ban on running a business in New York as 'magnitude'.- The defendants have asked for a delay while the attorney general has pushed back.
- Trump was fined $354.8 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest.
Bias (85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts Trump as a victim who is being unfairly targeted by the New York attorney general. This portrayal may be seen as an attempt to elicit sympathy from readers rather than presenting a fair and objective account of the situation.- But in a short letter to Engoron Thursday, state attorney Andrew Amer opposed the request, arguing that Friday’s ruling left no room for further debate about the judgment.
- Lawyers for New York Attorney General Letitia James submitted a draft judgment on Tuesday, prompting criticism from Trump's defense lawyer Clifford Robert.
- The defendants in former President Donald Trump's civil fraud case have asked the judge to delay the enforcement of penalties
Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
ABC News has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump and his civil fraud case. The author is ABC News which has reported extensively on Trump in the past.Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
ABC News has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump and his civil fraud case. The author is ABC News which may have financial ties to Trump or other individuals involved in the case.
70%
Trump pushes for delay in fraud trial ruling. Letitia James says she’s prepared to seize his assets
The Independent Alex Woodward Thursday, 22 February 2024 18:39Unique Points
- Trump pushes for delay in fraud trial ruling.
- Letitia James says she's prepared to seize his assets.
Accuracy
- Trump seeks delay in $354M fraud case penalties
- The defendants in former President Donald Trump's civil fraud case have asked the judge to delay the enforcement of penalties, including Trump's $354 million fine and temporary ban on running a business in New York.
- New York attorney general is pushing back on the request for a 30-day stay
- The Attorney General has not filed any motion on notice or moved to settle the proposed Judgment.
Deception (50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's legal team is arguing that James should have consulted with his lawyers on the terms of the judgment. However, this statement is false as there was no such consultation requested by Trump's legal team.- The article falsely states that Trump’s legal team argued for a delay in the fraud trial ruling because they were not consulted on its terms.
Fallacies (85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the judge overseeing the case is not convinced and then cites a statement from Judge Engoron without providing any context or evidence for his decision. This creates a false sense of credibility for the judge's ruling, which may be misleading to readers who are unfamiliar with legal proceedings. Additionally, there are several instances where the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Mr Trump as being- The article contains several examples of informal fallacies.
- The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the judge overseeing the case is not convinced and then cites a statement from Judge Engoron without providing any context or evidence for his decision. This creates a false sense of credibility for the judge's ruling, which may be misleading to readers who are unfamiliar with legal proceedings.
- The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Mr Trump as being 'eager to appeal'
Bias (85%)
The author of the article is Alex Woodward and he has a history of being biased towards Donald Trump. The article discusses the ongoing legal battle between Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James over a fraud case that was brought against him in 2016. The author uses language such as 'Trump pushes for delay' which implies that Trump is trying to avoid paying his debt, when it is not clear from the article whether this is true or not. Additionally, the author quotes Clifford Robert, an attorney who represents Trump and has a history of being biased towards him. The author also uses language such as 'Trump’s legal team' which implies that all attorneys representing Trump are part of his legal team when it is not clear from the article whether this is true or not.- The author quotes Clifford Robert, an attorney who represents Trump and has a history of being biased towards him.
- The author uses language such as 'Trump pushes for delay' which implies that Trump is trying to avoid paying his debt, when it is not clear from the article whether this is true or not.
- The author uses language such as 'Trump’s legal team' which implies that all attorneys representing Trump are part of his legal team when it is not clear from the article whether this is true or not.
Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
Alex Woodward has a financial interest in Donald Trump as he is the author of several books about him. He also has personal relationships with Letitia James and Clifford Robert who are involved in the fraud trial against Mr. Trump.Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
Alex Woodward has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and fraud trial as he is reporting for The Independent which has previously published articles critical of President Donald Trump.
70%
Grant Cardone to Team: "Immediately Discontinue All Underwriting on New York City Real Estate"
Yahoo Finance Joey Solitro Thursday, 22 February 2024 19:00Unique Points
- Grant Cardone is less than pleased with the ruling against former President Donald Trump
- Trump seeks delay in $354M fraud case penalties
- The New York Attorney General, Letitia James, has announced that she will seize some of Donald Trump's assets if he cannot pay his $454 million civil fraud debt.
Accuracy
- Letitia James says she's prepared to seize some of Donald Trump's assets.
Deception (50%)
Grant Cardone is attempting to deceive his readers by stating that the risk of investing in New York City real estate outweighs the opportunities. This statement is false as it ignores other factors such as economic growth and job creation potential. Additionally, Cardone's call for immediate discontinuation of underwriting on New York City real estate is a form of fear-mongering that attempts to manipulate his readers into making irrational decisions based on political events.- Grant Cardone stated, "Dear Cardone Capital team, Immediately discontinue ALL underwriting on New York City real estate. The risk outweigh the opportunities at this time."
- This statement is false as it ignores other factors such as economic growth and job creation potential.
Fallacies (85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the ruling against former President Donald Trump and stating that it is unjust. This statement implies that the decision made by a legal body should be taken as fact without question or evidence presented to support this claim.- Grant Cardone's comments echo what Kevin O'Leary said in a recent interview, calling the decision to fine Trump 'unjust,' 'appalling,' and 'Un-American.'
- New York Governor Kathy Hochul has tried to calm the fear that has come from the ruling, insisting that law-abiding, rule-following New Yorkers who are businesspeople have nothing to worry about because they're very different from Donald Trump and his behavior.
Bias (85%)
Grant Cardone is expressing a political bias by stating that the ruling against former President Donald Trump will deteriorate price and benefit states that don't have these challenges. He also suggests focusing on Texas & Florida instead of New York City real estate.- ]Dear Cardone Capital team, Immediately discontinue ALL underwriting on New York City real estate. The risk outweigh the opportunities at this time.
Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
Joey Solitro has a conflict of interest on the topic of New York City real estate as they are affiliated with Marcus & Millichap which is involved in commercial real estate.Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
Joey Solitro has a conflict of interest on the topics of Grant Cardone and New York City real estate. He is an employee of Marcus & Millichap which is mentioned in the article as being involved with commercial real estate platforms.
94%
New York AG says she’ll seize Donald Trump’s property if he can’t pay $454 million civil fraud debt
The Associated Press News Site (USA) Thursday, 22 February 2024 05:05Unique Points
- Trump owes the state nearly $454 million in interest on top of the original penalty amount.
- Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump lied for years about his wealth and ordered him to pay a civil fraud penalty of $363.9 million in 2014, which includes interest.
Accuracy
- Trump owes the state nearly $454 million in interest on top of the original penalty amount.
- The New York Attorney General, Letitia James, has announced that she will seize some of Donald Trump's assets if he cannot pay his $454 million civil fraud debt.
- Trump was fined $354.8 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest last week after Engoron determined that he inflated his net worth to get more favorable loan terms.
Deception (90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Trump could be at risk of losing some of his prized properties if he can't pay the $454 million civil fraud penalty. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Trump has a choice to pay or not pay and will lose his assets regardless of whether he pays or not. In reality, if Trump cannot afford to cover the judgment from Judge Arthur Engoron's Feb 16 ruling, then the state could seize some of his assets as per legal procedures.- The article states that Trump could be at risk of losing some of his prized properties. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Trump has a choice to pay or not pay and will lose his assets regardless of whether he pays or not. In reality, if Trump cannot afford to cover the judgment from Judge Arthur Engoron's Feb 16 ruling, then the state could seize some of his assets as per legal procedures.
- The article states that Trump has about $400 million in cash reserves that would get eaten up by his court penalties. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that all of Trump's net worth will be used to pay off the judgment and mounting interest. In reality, only a portion of his assets may be seized if he cannot afford to cover the penalty.
- The article states that Engoron concluded that Trump lied for years about his wealth as he built the real estate empire that vaulted him to stardom and the White House. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Trump's lies were proven in court. In reality, a jury ordered him to pay $83.3 million for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll but there was no verdict on his fraud claims.
Fallacies (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Bias (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
None Found At Time Of Publication