Internet trolls Trump as his lawyers call Letitia James' attempt to seize properties 'unconstitutional'

MANHATTAN, NEW YORK: Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have denounced the 'unconstitutional' efforts by New York Attorney General Letitia James to thwart the 77-year-old GOP nominee's appeal to his fraud trial verdict and compel a property sale, as the deadline for posting $464M bond in the case approaches.

In their appeal, Trump and his legal team have asked for the $464 million in penalties to be stayed, according to Fox News.

On Monday, his lawyers stated that "ongoing diligent efforts have proven that a bond in the judgment's full amount is a 'practical impossibility'," despite attempts to approach over 30 insurance companies.

The lawyers asserted that the "enormous magnitude" of the bond requirement, which necessitates cash reserves approaching $1 billion, is "unprecedented for a private company."

Attorney General James retaliated, calling Trump's request for a stay "extraordinary" and "improper."

According to AG James, the former POTUS ought to be able to pledge his real estate assets as collateral or utilize several insurance firms to guarantee the full amount.

What did Trump’s legal counsel present in filings to appeals court?

In a letter to the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division on Thursday, March 21, Trump's legal representative Clifford S Robert claimed New York Attorney General Letitia James' actions were "unconstitutional."

"It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale’, in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal," Robert argued.

Robert further contended that James and the Supreme Court of New York had "sought to impose a patently unreasonable, unjust, and unconstitutional (under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions) bond condition, which would cause irreparable harm and foreclose any review of Supreme Court's deeply flawed decision in this case," by requiring Donald Trump to post the substantial bond in the full amount to appeal the ruling.

"In short, while attempting to cynically and wrongfully tar the Defendants’ witnesses as ‘unreliable,’ the Attorney General does not actually dispute the truth of a single one of their specific claims," the former president's attorney added. "This is unsurprising because these claims are undeniable to those with knowledge of real estate and sureties." 

Currently, Donald Trump and his legal team have "all options on the table."

According to a source who shared the information with the aforementioned outlet, the MAGA strongman and his team of lawyers intend "to exhaust all options."

The source stated, "The Trump team is continuing to look at every conceivable option," in addition to "hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst."

A significant reduction in the judgment bond may occur if the Trump team's appeal is approved. However, it is not apparent whether the court will rule on his appeal.

Internet mocks Donald Trump as he has until Monday to secure $464M bond

People on X ridiculed the former POTUS as he faces down the barrel of an impending seizure of his properties next week.

One X user remarked: "Karma baby....Elon watching."

Another user asked: "Why didn't they argue that in Courts when they had the chance. They knew what the consequences were."

"Maybe MAGA can donate more for him. C’mon guys, help him out and give everything you have" another user suggested sarcastically.

One user said: "If his legal team doesn’t know how all this works then that sounds like a him problem"

Another X user quipped: "Trump needs a new team! A more corrupt team, to fight corruption…"

Finally, this user tweeted: "There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this whatsoever."

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.