Former President Donald Trump recently received favorable news in one of his ongoing legal battles, this time in New York, where he is contending with a $250 million civil fraud lawsuit that threatens his business empire.
The Appellate Division, First Department, ruled in favor of Trump, allowing him to delay dissolving his New York-based businesses while the courts review their status, as reported by the Western Journal. Despite this, the appellate court did not stop the civil fraud trial against Trump from proceeding.
The Messenger reported that Trump hailed the ruling as “very good,” expressing his belief that the country appreciates this development. His attorney, Christopher Kise, echoed these sentiments, noting that the decision facilitates a careful examination of errors made by the trial court.
Trump, speaking to the media, highlighted the significance of the ruling, saying, “I think it’s a great thing for the country.”
The Western Journal also reported on the testimony of defense expert witness Eli Bartov, a New York University accounting professor. Bartov, after reviewing Trump’s financial records, testified that there was no evidence of accounting fraud and that Trump’s financial statements were not materially misstated.
However, this testimony was met with criticism from a lawyer in Attorney General Letitia James’ office, who dismissed it as speculative. Bartov defended his testimony vigorously, asserting his commitment to truth-telling, as reported by NBC News.
“I think it’s a great thing for the country,” Trump told reporters.
“Trump and his legal team also celebrated the testimony of a defense expert witness, New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov, who said he reviewed Trump’s financial information and found that Trump and his people did nothing wrong,” the Western Journal continued.
“My main finding is that there is no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud,” Bartov testified. Trump’s financial statements “were not materially misstated,” he said.
A lawyer from Attorney General Letitia James’ office ripped Bartov’s testimony and claimed it was “pure speculation from someone they hired to say what they want.”
Amidst these developments, Trump is simultaneously navigating legal challenges in several states aimed at preventing him from running in the 2024 election. These efforts, citing the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection” clause, have so far been unsuccessful. Trump has neither been charged with nor convicted of insurrection.
Recently, a state court of appeals in Michigan ruled against a motion to keep Trump off the ballot, citing the principle that candidacy decisions are determined by political parties and individual candidates, according to The Associated Press. The three-judge panel emphasized that decisions on presidential ballot eligibility are not within the purview of the Judicial Branch.
The AP also noted that the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, seldom used since the post-Civil War era, may eventually lead one of the lawsuits against Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet ruled on this specific clause.
