'Pathetic': Letitia James slammed for questioning financial strength of company behind Trump's $175M bond

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: New York Attorney General Letitia James has questioned the qualifications of the California-based company that covered former President Donald Trump's $175 million bond in the civil fraud verdict, The Hill reported.

The Los Angeles-based Knight Insurance Group's Knight Specialty Insurance in Wilmington, Delaware, helped Trump to post the massive bond on April 1 after the court reduced the amount from $464 million, which the ex-president failed to secure.

James' office, in a brief court notice on Thursday, April 4, demanded further information on the bond's bonafide, stating they take "exception to the sufficiency of the surety," secured from the California-based insurance firm.

NY Judge Arthur Engoron in February ordered Trump to pay a $464 million penalty plus interest for fraudulently inflating the net worth of his properties for tax and bank loan benefits.

NY AG demands to know financial capability of insurance company

According to the notice filed by the state attorney general's office, either Trump or the Knight Specialty Insurance Company should demonstrate the firm's financial capability to pay the full bond amount if the former loses the appeal and the bond serves as collateral.

"Defendants or (Knight) shall file a motion to justify the surety within ten days of the service of this notice, failing which the Bond shall be without effect, except that the surety shall remain liable on the Bond until a new undertaking is given and allowed," the filing read according to which the former president would be required to disclose more details about the collateral.

Judge Engoron has set the hearing for April 22.

Trump allies defend bond

Don Hankey, the Chairman of Knight Insurance Group, said to the Associated Press that the collateral for Trump's $175 million bond was put up in cash and bonds. In addition, he is a supporter of the real estate mogul, as per his recent conversation with ABC News.

The ex-president's son, Eric Trump, claimed on a social media post that it was fully backed by cash.

"The fact that the New York Attorney General is objecting to a bond that is 100% backed entirely by CASH is just another example of the absurdity and foolishness that have been the underlying theme throughout this circus of a case," he wrote on X.

In addition, Trump attorney Christopher Kise called out the state attorney general's demand as a “baseless public quarrel in a desperate effort to regain relevance,” labeling it “Yet another witch hunt!”

Posting the bond temporarily prevented James from seizing Trump's properties despite her initiating steps for the same when the defendant was unable to secure the initial $464 million.

Internet blasts Letitia James

James was hit with intense backlash from furious social media users who considered her latest demand "politically motivated".

One user wrote, "This is malicious."

Another remarked, "She clearly doesn't want the lawsuit to be paid in anyway other than seizing his assets."

"Stalinist show trial. What a disgrace," a third user added.

A fourth response read, "Good lord these people are pathetic and disgusting."

Someone else called NY AG's move "Politically motivated and WRONG."

While an individual claimed, "The circus continues," and another outraged user said, "They just can't help themselves. Pathetic."

"This lady in New York is just overkill and her motives stink to high heaven. If this treatment is what the average person could face this is a miscarriage of justice. Why doesn’t she go after criminals in New York with the same zeal she goes after Trump!" read a remark.

A person fumed, saying, "This is ridiculous. She is looking for any possible way to Get Trump. And the judge as well. She should removed from office," and another added, "At this point she’s clearly operating in bad faith."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.