The Excerpt podcast: Trump expected to argue 'no victims' in appealing New York fraud case

On Thursday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: Former President Donald Trump is expected to argue 'no victims' in appealing his New York fraud case. USA TODAY Justice Department Correspondent Bart Jansen reports. House Republicans grill President Joe Biden's brother as they continue their impeachment investigation. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent Maureen Groppe breaks down a fight over pollution rules. The Biden administration cancels more than $1 billion in student loan debt. Major League Soccer (along with star Lionel Messi) is back.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it.  This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts:  True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Thursday, February 22nd, 2024. This is The Excerpt. Today, a closer look at the expected Trump appeal in the real estate fraud decision against him. Plus, House Republicans continue their impeachment investigation into President Joe Biden. And the Supreme Court hears from states in a fight over pollution rules.

♦

Former President Donald Trump is expected to appeal the $453.5 million real estate fraud judgment against him. And legal experts anticipate that his strategy will center around highlighting the lack of traditional victims in the case. I spoke with USA Today, Justice Department correspondent Bart Jansen for more. Bart, thanks for hopping on The Excerpt today.

Bart Jansen:

Thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson:

So, Bart, Trump is expected to highlight a lack of traditional victims in this case to reduce or eliminate damages. What exactly would his argument be here?

Bart Jansen:

Well, throughout the trial, Trump has been saying, "Hey, there were no victims." No matter what you think about how much he valued his property, the values fluctuated. The government proved to the judge that he dramatically overvalued several pieces of real estate. He tripled the size of literally the measurements of his penthouse. So, he was found to have committed fraud over a number of years. But what Trump is saying is that even if there was a dispute about the values of the properties, that there are no victims because the banks that lent him money were repaid with interest. Now, the government argues that the interest rates on those loans were lower than they would've otherwise been. So, effectively the banks did suffer, but the banks themselves have not sued Trump over that dispute. So, Trump says, "Hey, there are no victims. The banks are happy. Everybody's happy. So, why is the government coming after me on this issue?" That is expected to be the thrust of his anticipated appeal in the case.

Taylor Wilson:

And do legal experts expect this will be a successful appeal strategy?

Bart Jansen:

Some legal experts have said that they expect Trump to challenge the statute that this case was brought under. Basically, arguing that the Attorney General doesn't have any business suing a business leader in the state when the people that he does business with aren't unhappy, and that the state has no entitlement to the money that they are trying to take from him. Basically, the damages in this case somewhere in the vicinity of $450 million with interest that's been accruing since the fraud occurred, would go to the State of New York as a penalty for him having committed the fraud. Experts are expecting him to appeal, saying, basically, the statute doesn't allow the Attorney General to bring that kind of lawsuit.

Now, I have heard from other experts that the statute that this was brought under was proved in 1956. It's just well settled that the Attorney General has the authority to bring a case on behalf of the people of New York, basically to keep businesses running honestly. There are some experts that say they don't expect a challenge to the law itself to be successful, but that perhaps the quibbling over the amounts that the judge found for damages. The amount that he benefited from the lower interest rates or the amount that he benefited from the sale of the old post office building hotel. That those numbers could be reduced but not the underlying statute.

Taylor Wilson:

And you know Bart, we are talking about massive sums of money here in these damages. I continue to be curious about Trump's finances during all of this. Does he have to pay anything on bond first off, while this appeals process plays out? And also, in the bankruptcy question, Bart, could he file for bankruptcy after these massive damages were handed down?

Bart Jansen:

There is already in the neighborhood of $450 million judgment against him, and that continues to accrue interest at 9% per year unless the judgment is overturned. So, in order to halt the payment for that case while the appeal is heard, he needs to ask for what's called a stay. He's going to ask the appeals court, "Listen, don't force me to pay this while you're arguing the case. I might still win this thing." The appeals court will have to decide whether to pause that enforcement. That panel has fairly broad discretion and could set a number on the bond that he needs to post in order to not have the full enforcement anywhere from zero to the full judgment. Once we get past that decision on whether to reduce the amount that he has to post while he's appealing than a full panel of the appeals court, a different panel will consider his actual appeal. And that's the kind of decision that is going to take months or years to resolve.

Some legal experts say that there is a potential for him to declare bankruptcy, to file for bankruptcy. He's done that several times in the past with his business that would give him a stay on having to repay the judgment until the appeal is heard. So, it's one path for him. But legal experts are saying that with the presidential campaign in full swing right now and him basically campaigning on his shrewdness as a business leader, that he wouldn't want to take the reputational hit of filing for bankruptcy this time around.

Taylor Wilson:

Interesting stuff. Bart Janssen covers the Justice Department for USA Today. Thank you, Bart.

Bart Jansen:

Thanks for having me.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

James Biden, President Joe Biden's brother sat down with house investigators yesterday for a closed-door interview. As Republicans continue their impeachment investigation into the president. GOP lawmakers alleged the president financially benefited from his family's foreign business dealings, but they've yet to bring evidence directly implicating him. James Biden and his prepared opening statement obtained by USA Today denied allegations that his brother was directly involved with his business ventures. He also said he had nothing to hide and that he hoped lawmakers would have, "The information to conclude that the negative and destructive assumptions about me and my relationship with my brother Joe are wrong." Republican House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan was skeptical about whether James Biden was telling the truth yesterday. Jordan told reporters that he said things that, "Make you wonder if he's maybe conveniently forgetting something." GOP lawmakers are set to question the president's son, Hunter Biden in a deposition next Wednesday.

♦

The Supreme Court yesterday heard from states on both sides of a major air pollution debate. I caught up with USA TODAY Supreme Court correspondent Maureen Groppe to learn more. Maureen, thanks for making the time.

Maureen Groppe:

Happy to be here.

Taylor Wilson:

So, let's start here, Maureen. What is this controversial so-called Good Neighbor Plan from the Biden administration.

Maureen Groppe:

Well, in short, it's a plan to address the smog forming pollutants that are created in one state but end up in another state. States are supposed to address that themselves, but if they don't, the federal government can step in, which is what the Biden administration did last year. They imposed this plan on large industrial polluters in 23 states after they rejected those states' proposals as ineffective or non-existent.

Taylor Wilson:

And justices are considering a request from several states to stop enforcement of restrictions on cross-state emissions. Maureen, what exactly is that issue here?

Maureen Groppe:

So, three of the states that have to reduce their emissions, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia. They want to put this plan on hold while they challenge its legality. And there are nine states that are on the receiving end of the pollution, which opposed that.

Taylor Wilson:

And so, what did we actually hear in court yesterday?

Maureen Groppe:

One thing we heard is a lot of questions from the justices about why the challenging states consider this an emergency. That's because the court is being asked to take the step before the lower courts have had a chance to review the plan itself. A lot of the requirements don't even kick in until 2026, but the challenging state said they already have to spend money to get ready for that. But there are still questions about how major an impact from a regulation has to be before enforcement can be halted while it's reviewed.

Taylor Wilson:

And so, what effect could a court decision here have on really unhealthy ozone levels for millions of Americans?

Maureen Groppe:

Yeah. You're right that more than 100 million Americans live in counties with repeated instances of unhelpful ozone levels and that's according to the latest figures from the American Lung Association. States that are on the receiving end of pollution from elsewhere. They're still going to have to meet federal rules for how much ozone can be in their areas, but they argue that they're going to have to bear an unfair share of the cost of doing so. If the states that are sending some of their pollution their way aren't also cutting down on that pollution.

Taylor Wilson:

And going forward, Maureen. What's next for this fight around the Good Neighbor Plan?

Maureen Groppe:

Well, first we wait to see if the Supreme Court agrees with Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia and puts this plan on hold temporarily. And then we have to see what happens to the underlying challenge, whether those states in the affected industries which are also going after this plan, whether they can successfully argue that it should be scrapped altogether.

Taylor Wilson:

All right. Maureen Groppe covers the Supreme Court for USA TODAY. Thanks so much, Maureen.

Maureen Groppe:

Happy to be here.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

The Biden administration has canceled another $1.2 billion in student debt for more than 150,000 borrowers.

President Joe Biden:

By freeing millions of Americans from the crushing debt of student loan programs, it means they can finally get on with their lives instead of getting their lives being put on hold.

Taylor Wilson:

The latest loan forgiveness announced yesterday by the education department targets a specific group of longtime borrowers enrolled in the administration's repayment plan, which adjusts monthly bills based on people's incomes. The move brings the total amount of debt cancellation approved by Biden to $138 billion for around 4 million Americans. And the news came just a day before a group of federal negotiators is set to discuss broader plans for even more student debt relief.

♦

The 2024 Major League Soccer season kicked off last night as Argentinian superstar Lionel Messi's Inter Miami took down Real Salt Lake by a score of two goals to nil. Messi didn't score but assisted the first goal as he kicks off his second season in the league. MLS is hoping the star will continue bringing more and more attention to the growing league. That includes for partner Apple TV, which has seen a significant increase in MLS Season Pass subscribers thanks to Messi. Next up for Messi and Miami. A trip to Los Angeles to play the Galaxy on Sunday night. And the rest of the league's teams will begin their season this weekend. You can follow along with USA Today Sports.

♦

Be sure to stay tuned to The Excerpt later today when my colleague Dana Taylor looks at the state of journalism in 2024. She'll sit down with Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University and editor and owner of the blog PressThink. You can find the episode right here on this feed beginning at 4:00 PM Eastern Time. Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio, and if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: The Excerpt: Trump expected to argue 'no victims' in NY fraud case