[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, and today is the day if you're Donald Trump, he's facing this deadline to post his $454 billion bond in the business fraud case. They say if he fails to meet this deadline by the end of today, New York's attorney general can begin the process of collecting the debt, which apparently is going to mean foreclosing or beginning foreclosure procedures on his estate in Westchester and his golf club in Westchester. Now, Trump's lawyers tried to secure the full amount to halt collection efforts, but reportedly, he was spurned by more than 30 underwriters. Maybe they know Trump's record of not always paying back his debts.

The impending deadline poses significant financial and legal challenges for the former president, obviously, so we'll talk about that and we'll preview another impending legal woe for the 2024 presumed presidential nominee. A possible trial in the hush money case, long delayed, may finally be in the offing. There's a court date relevant to that today. We think Trump might be showing up personally at that one.

With us now, Catherine Christian, these days a partner in the law firm Liston Abramson here in New York, and an MSNBC legal analyst, and a long-time Manhattan District attorney, ADA in that office, where Ms. Christian also supervised investigations and prosecutions of financial fraud, conducted long-term wiretap investigations of multi-defendant, international criminalization and more. Ms. Christian, always good to have you on the show. Thank you so much for coming on again today.

Ms. Christian: So happy to be here, Brian. Thanks.

Brian Lehrer: So does Trump have the money?

Ms. Christian: Friday he said he had $500 million, which is a strange thing to say after your lawyers just told the appellate court that you couldn't come up with a bond company or the cash. That wasn't said under oath or in court, but he apparently does. Now, the day isn't over yet and the appellate division can still today stay the enforcement of the judgment or say, "Okay, you only have to pay $100 million, but one would think they would've done that already. Assuming he doesn't come up with the bond or the cash, the attorney general, and she basically already started the process by registering those judgments in Westchester County for those properties.

She, Attorney General James, is going to start the process, and it's a long process, of seizing his assets. That means freezing whatever the bank accounts he has and putting liens on properties that he owns.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, any questions or comments on either of these Trump in court in New York today developments in these cases, 212-433-WNYC, call or text with a comment or a question, 212-433-9692. In all your experience in the legal system, have you ever seen an order for a bond this high?

Ms. Christian: I have never, but the attorney general in their paper said it's actually happened four other times where billion-dollar bonds in California, in Virginia, and Pennsylvania were put up fully on appeal, and this involved major tech companies. In their response, when Trump's attorney says this has never happened before, they actually cited four real world cases where billion-dollar bonds were fully bonded on appeal.

Brian Lehrer: What do you expect the Trump argument would be in court to have this bond reduced and what would the state response be as far as you could tell?

Ms. Christian: It's too late. They've made that argument before the appellate division, and that's the appellate court that deals with appeals in Manhattan and the Bronx, so here in Manhattan. The appellate division hasn't responded yet. They said it should only be a $100 million bond and that's what he can afford. Then last week he said, "I can't even come up with a bond because no company wants to accept it" probably because the only collateral he could put up are buildings, which are, as we know about the trial, are not worth what he says they are, and he didn't have enough liquid assets. Not $100 million cash.

He's already made that argument. The judge who ordered this gave him 30 days with the consent of the attorney general to come up with it. It's not like this was a deadline that he wasn't aware of. 30 days ago, this judgment went into effect, but he was given this grace period of 30 days. If he doesn't come up with it, as I said, the attorney general, she's already shown that she's not going to be shy about going after these properties. It's going to take a while, but she's going to start the process.

Brian Lehrer: Listener writes, "Is this judgment amount of over 400 million reasonable?" I guess the Trump argument might be, look, this was a case about falsifying information on applications to banks for loans or financing. Nobody lost money. These are major financial institutions. They had responsibility to do their own due diligence. They do that. He paid back whatever loans he got from the banks, so there's no victim here. Trump has been arguing all the way along. If there wasn't actually a financial damage, financial loss, to any of these financial institutions, then how do they come up with $450 billion that he's got to pay to the state?

Ms. Christian: That's what his--

Brian Lehrer: $450 million, I'm sorry, I said billion. It's million, obviously.

Ms. Christian: Yes, and with interest, it's going to keep going up. That's what his attorneys argued during the trial. The judge issued a verdict against him and that's certainly will be what they're going to argue or an appeal. What the attorney general will say in response is the regular people, you and I, when we apply for mortgages or other loans, we can't inflate our income. We can't do that. He received, this is what the attorney general will argue, favorable insurance, favorable interest on loans that he would not have received if he had not claimed assets that he did not really have. That's the argument.

Also, putting false entries, he also has been indicted for this for a separate case, in New York, it's illegal, it's a crime to falsify your business records if it's done with the intent to defraud or the intent to commit another crime. He was civilly prosecuted for that here. He was found liable for that. He was found, and his co-defendants, were found liable for putting false information in their financial statements with the intent to defraud too. His argument, of course, is like, "No harm, no foul, no victims, no one complained, what's the issue?"

I said he lost that at trial and now he's going to, hopefully, for him, win that on appeal. The judge wrote a very, very detailed decision, which basically gave a roadmap to the appellate division of why he decided the way he did on the basis of the evidence and all of the witnesses who testified, including expert witnesses.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, for those who don't know, what's bond? What's an example of a company that could even conceivably put up a $450 million bond, and what kind of risk are they taking in doing so? How would they lose that money or not?

Ms. Christian: 400 is a big amount. Remember, Donald Trump just received bond for his loss in the Jean Carroll case of about $90 million. He found a bond company willing to do that. $90 million is very different than half a billion. A bond, you also see this in criminal cases where bail is set and it says bond or cash. You have a company who basically trusts you, takes collateral, trusts that you have the assets, so if you eventually lose an appeal, they get to grab all of that from you.

It's not surprising that one single surety bond company said, "No way am I going to trust you you're going to give me a half a billion," but the attorney general's office argued they could have found, they meaning the Trump defendant, the Trump lawyers, could have found several bond companies. "Okay, I'll give you $10 million." "I'll give you $50 million." That's the argument. Of course, the Trump lawyers in response says, "That's silly. We couldn't have done that." It's not surprising that they could not find a company willing to say, "Okay, we trust you." It also says that perhaps Mr. Trump does not have as much money as he claims that he has.

We know he has property, but the whole point of the AG's case was he overvalues that property. I'm sure the bond company said, "This property is not even worth what you're saying it's worth." Those were, I'm sure, all of the factors why he could not come up with any company willing to risk putting up their good name and their money for this bond.

Brian Lehrer: Listener asks in a text message, "Can he use personal bankruptcy to delay the AG's efforts?"

Ms. Christian: Rudy Giuliani, you may recall, when he lost the defamation case immediately filed for bankruptcy. A bankruptcy, it's not going to say you can't pay, but it actually would be legally and practically helpful to him because the bankruptcy court would move in, and then decide who the creditors are, who takes priority. He has not done that, I suspect, for political reasons because then he's admitting that he's bankrupt. That's, I think, really the reason why he's chosen not to do that. Legally and practically, that would be the advice that a normal person would get.

I mean a normal person like a regular person who's not running for office and doesn't have all these political considerations. I'm sure the political considerations has stopped him from taking that attack.

Brian Lehrer: Speaking of political considerations, I saw on the network where you are a legal analyst this morning, MSNBC, and you do legal analysis, not political analysis or financial analysis, I understand.

Catherine Christian: Strictly legal.

Brian Lehrer: One of the people was saying all this money that the RNC, the Republican National Committee is raising, and maybe the Trump campaign, I'm not sure, that small-dollar donors, regular Americans think is going to go into helping Trump get elected president is actually being funneled into his legal bills and other expenses related to these criminal and civil charges. Do you know if that's allowed? Can they use campaign money in the legal system?

Catherine Christian: It's funny, I was speaking to some good friends of mine who are also attorneys, but none of us are familiar with the federal campaign law and none of us could figure out how the heck could this actually be legal, that this could be done. I am sure if it's not, there are some federal prosecutors out there who are looking at that because it just does not smell right. Again, not knowing the nitty gritty of the federal campaign finance laws, I can't affirmatively say this is definitely illegal. If it is, as I said, or even is close to the line, I'm sure there are prosecutors who are now looking at that.

Brian Lehrer: My guest, if you're just joining us, is Catherine Christian, these days a partner in the law firm Liston Abramson here in New York, and an MSNBC legal analyst and a long time. I guess we'd say assistant district attorney, is that the right title?

Catherine Christian: Yes. For about a cumulative 30 years, I was the prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's Office.

Brian Lehrer: Where she supervised investigations and prosecutions of financial fraud, sounds relevant, conducted long-term wiretap investigations of multi-defendant international criminalization, and more. As Trump is supposed to come up with that $454 million bond by the end of today and also faces a court proceeding this morning and the Stormy Daniels hush money case, which we'll get to, being brought by the Manhattan DA. Lisa in Essex County, New Jersey has a question. Lisa, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Lisa: Hello. Good morning. I had a question in regards to what a lien can actually uphold to the former president if we're saying that put a hold on his personal assets. Most reports have shown that a lot of his assets are tied up into, let's say, trusts that are not necessarily named to him. How would that affect this process?

Catherine Christian: That's why when I say it's going to be a long process, it's going to be a long process. If you've ever sold or bought property, you know that there's a title search, and when there's a lien on property, when you try to sell that property, the title search will reveal to the buyer, in this case, there's a $0.5 billion judgment. Stay away. That's how you will mess up his ability when you put liens on all of these properties. Now, when the attorney general is seeking to freeze his bank accounts or put these liens on properties, we may see people come in and say, "Wait a minute, I'm also a part owner of this."

If he tries to, for instance, put a lien on or seizes Mar-a-Lago, which is in Florida, Florida is very friendly to homeowners. Particularly, if it's his primary residence, she probably will not be able to get that property because there's a homestead exemption in the State of Florida. It's going to be a very meticulous review that the attorney general's Office is going to look at. Now, they should know all of his properties. That's the subject of his trials. They may not know where all of his liquid assets are, and so they're going to look at that. He will have a right.

He'll have his attorneys to make that very argument you just made, "This is a trust, you're not entitled for that." This is going to go on for months assuming that he does not come up with the bond or the money today.

Brian Lehrer: Related question kind of and a text message, a listen writes, "Why does the attorney general think getting his Seven Springs estate, one of his homes in Westchester, and a Westchester golf course would be sufficient if he doesn't come up with a bond? From what I've seen," writes this person, "the estate and the golf course combined would probably be under $200 million."

Catherine Christian: She doesn't think it's sufficient. She just happened to last week file, they actually call it register, the judgment there. That was already done in Manhattan. His property is in Manhattan. That judgment has already been registered. Believe me, it's not going to just be the Westchester County properties that she has said jokingly, but seriously that she can see 40 Wall Street from her window. Clearly, that's also going to be one of the buildings that the attorney general is going to seek to put a lien on.

Brian Lehrer: What happens if she actually takes those steps or how does that actually work? Does the State of New York become the landlord, let's say, at 40 Wall Street, and do the businesses that have offices there pay rent to the State of New York all of a sudden? You tell me.

Catherine Christian: Yes, I'll say there you go. When you seize assets, again, liens, freeze bank accounts, you also seize all sources of income and revenue. That means the rent, any royalties that he received. That's what happens. It's like, "No, don't give that money to Donald Trump. That money now goes here now." The reality is I don't foresee sales of building because he will have an appeal pending and he could be successful in his appeal, but until all of his appeals are over, these liens will stay in place. There's also a monitor that has been in place by Judge Engoron and former federal judge, Barbara Jones. He just last week expanded her duties.

Any financial transactions or financial maneuvers that the Trump organization intends to take, they have to go through her. Then just in the interest of full disclosure, I know Judge Jones very well, she's been a mentor of mine for many years. That monitor's also going to have a say and we'll look at the financial maneuvers and transactions that the Trump organization takes. Yes, they can seize all sources of the revenue that goes to Donald Trump, and that would include rent.

Brian Lehrer: In that scenario, they don't only just get the rent, they then have to manage the building. They have to provide the heat, they have to take out the trash, everything, right?

Catherine Christian: That's be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. No one's getting fired. There are people who are already doing that, who are, I would hope, in these buildings, in these places. As I said, it's a very long process. I think people were thinking, "On Monday, all of his buildings are gone." No, that's not how it works. It takes a while. Just when people think about this, you should know that every day in this state and in this country, there are people who have judgments enforced against them. They're getting their bank accounts frozen because they're in debt and they owe money and they haven't paid. They have liens that are being put on their property.

Now, if you're a modest-income person, a $50,000 lien is like $0.5 billion. It is not unusual for judgments to be enforced against people. It's just in this case, because it involves Donald Trump and it's $0.5 billion and he owns all of these properties, it seems like this has never happened before. On this scale, yes, but as I said, this is not something that's foreign to people who, unfortunately, have liens on their property or have had their bank accounts suddenly frozen.

Brian Lehrer: A few more minutes with Catherine Christian, these days a partner in the law firm Liston Abramson here in New York, and an MSNBC legal analyst, former longtime Manhattan assistant district attorney. Let's turn in our last few minutes to the case that the Manhattan DA's office has brought. Today was supposed to be the start of Trump's first criminal trial in that case related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and covering up those payments in a way that defrauded the election system because they were basically campaign contributions to himself. Instead, as CNN framed it today, the former president's lawyers have a chance to ask for a lengthy postponement. Where does this stand as you see it?

Catherine Christian: First of all, in terms of the law, when the prosecutor gives material that the defense is entitled to, it's called discovery material, late, the court has to give the defendant a reasonable time to prepare and respond to that new material. The judge, with or without the consent of Manhattan DA's office, had to adjourn this case, so there was no way that the trial was going to start today after the defendant received 50,000 documents. Now, what the judge said the purpose of today's hearing was is just limited to who is at fault for this late production? Was there any prejudice and should there be a sanction?

Now, under the law, the defendant has to show that he was prejudiced by this late disclosure, and the Manhattan DA's response is, there's no prejudice because only 270 pages, 270 documents really relate to the subject matter of the case. Most of the documents relate to Michael Cohen, who was the lead witness, and of course, has impeachment baggage, but the Manhattan DA's office says they already had that, and that the 30-day that the judge gave is reasonable. Now, a caveat, just because the DA's office says, "Trust me, only 270 pages of the 50,000 are relevant," that does not make it gospel.

What is gospel, I believe, is that no prejudice has been shown. The trial didn't start. It's not like the trial started, Michael Cohen testified, was cross-examined, off the stand, and then suddenly, boom, here are these documents. Even in that case, the sanction would not be to dismiss the case. What the judge would do is say, "Okay, witness takes the stand again, now you get to cross-examine again in light of this new disclosure." I know because this particular defendant is Trump, we should never make bad law for future defendants because we want to stick it to a particular defendant.

If you imagine Jane Doe a week and a half before trial gets 50,000 documents, we would all be saying, "That's an outrage. Of course, it has to be a long adjournment for her to review it." The same thing here. I don't, but I think I know that this indictment is not going to be dismissed. That's the most extreme sanction and that involves gross misconduct on behalf of the prosecutor. If you're going to blame a prosecutor here, it would be the Southern District. It would not be Manhattan because they did make a diligent and good-faith effort, which the law requires, to obtain this material from the Southern District.

If you believe them, they asked for it, they ask for it again, they ask for it again, and so the information has been received. The question is, is 30 days reasonable? The defense has requested 90 days. Perhaps maybe it should be 45 days or 60 days because it is a lot of documents, and as I said, just because the DA's office says, "Trust me, it's only 270," you have to think about, really, a competent defense attorney is going to want to go through all of those documents. Because human beings look at these documents, human beings in the Manhattan DA's office, maybe they missed a couple. The judge really has to give Donald Trump and his defense attorneys a reasonable amount of time to review what was disclosed very late.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, on the amount of the bond in the other case, I know I accidentally said billion and corrected it to million in one case. Listener writes, "Brian keeps saying billion instead of million." Joe, just to not leave misimpression, it's 454--

Catherine Christian: It's almost a half a billion. Not quite a billion.

Brian Lehrer: Exactly. Not $454 billion. That would be a lot even for a case involving Donald Trump and all his business fraud and properties. I know you got to go in one minute. Can you give us your best sense, I won't call it a prediction, of whether any of the criminal trials with defendant Donald Trump will begin before election day?

Catherine Christian: The only one is the one that fell under the radar screen; this Manhattan DA's office hush money case, falsifying business record case. That will be the one, unless, as you know, things happen, last minute things happen. Assuming no last-minute thing like another 50,000 documents are dropped, I do believe this trial will start before the election, and quite frankly, before the end of summer, way before the end of summer.

Brian Lehrer: Catherine Christian from Liston Abramson, MSNBC legal analyst, former ADA in Manhattan. Thank you so much for all your insight. Really, really appreciate it.

Catherine Christian: Thank you, Brian.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.