Donald Trump Wants to Negotiate With Judge Engoron

Donald Trump's attorney requested to propose a new judgment on Wednesday in the former president's civil fraud trial ruling, in which Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump will be fined roughly $355 million. Context: In a lawsuit filed in September 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James accused Trump, his two adult sons Donald Jr. and Eric, The Trump Organization and two firm executives, Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney, of fraudulently overvaluing assets to secure more favorable bank loans and taxation deals. On Friday, Engoron ruled that Trump will be fined roughly $355 million and barred from doing business in New York for three years after a monthslong civil trial from late last year into early January. The trial was to decide the damages Trump would face after Engoron found that he committed fraud by inflating the value of his assets. The other defendants in the case have also faced financial penalties and been barred from doing business in New York for periods of time. Trump, the current GOP frontrunner in the 2024 presidential election, has maintained his innocence in the case and claimed it was politically motivated. What We Know: On Wednesday, Clifford Robert filed a letter in the New York City civil court addressed to Engoron which argues Trump was "deprived" of the chance to speak out against the ruling before it was filed. According to court records, Roberts requested the chance to propose a "counter-judgment" to Engoron's ruling, adding that it would be "contrary to fundamental fairness" if not allowed to submit a counter-judgment. "Defendants therefore request that the Court set a return date for the Proposed Judgment that affords Defendants sufficient time to submit a proposed counter-judgment. To deprive Defendants of the opportunity to submit a proposed counter-judgment would be contrary to fundamental fairness and due process." Newsweek has reached out to Trump's spokesperson via email for comment. Views: Since the judgment, some have pointed out that there are some arguments in the ruling Trump's team could use. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, former Whitewater lawyer Sol Wisenberg said there were constitutional problems with the ruling. "It seems to me there's some real constitutional problems with the $355 million judgment when there is no victim, no financial loss of any kind," Wisenberg said. "You have an argument for a substantive due process violation," he continued and said the decision might send a message to certain businesses that if you upset the orthodoxy they could face similar action. "I think that they do have again, a potential constitutional argument here, a very strong one here if they appropriately raised it at trial," Wisenberg added. However, others disagreed, Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark S. Zaid, previously told Newsweek: "Unless the state law itself is struck down, this argument will go nowhere. Many white-collar criminal cases do not have a traditional victim. Many criminal drug offenses do not have a traditional victim. Many licensing and registration offenses do not have a traditional victim. The victim is the public that was defrauded." In addition, Carlton Fields attorney Gene Rossi also previously told Newsweek: "The Trump family and organization received loans when they should not have. You cannot lie to get money. Moreover, if the banks had known of the real assets and liabilities, then they would have required more unfavorable terms for Trump World. That is a crime no matter how you look at it. Substantive due process violation because of no victims? I think not." What's Next? This comes after Trump's lawyer, Christopher Kise, said that the former president will appeal the judge's ruling, telling Newsweek on Friday that Trump "remains confident the Appellate Division will ultimately correct the innumerable and catastrophic errors made by a trial court untethered to the law or to reality." Meanwhile, James called the judge's ruling "a massive victory" in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday. She added in a statement: "No matter how big, how rich, or how powerful you are, no one is above the law. Not even Donald Trump."