The Question Of The $48 Million Loan

As we await Judge Engoron's ruling, there's been a lot of chatter about the $48 million loan Trump did or did not take and why it matters. Here's my take for @MaddowBlog on why it likely made an impression on Engoron himself: https://t.co/X4K67i7yqK

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) January 31, 2024

Recall that the New York AG has asked Engoron not only to claw back $370 million in ill-gotten gains from Trump and the other defendants, but also to order a variety of injunctive relief that would prevent Trump and others from doing otherwise lawful acts. That relief includes bans, whether permanently for Trump or more temporarily for Eric and Don Jr., on their participation in the New York real estate industry and their service as directors and officers of New York companies. 

In requesting said relief, the attorney general’s office argued that the defendants not only have “a demonstrated history of creating and using false financial documents,” but also that their conduct is likely to recur without such measures. Why? Because, the AG’s office argues, Trump and the others’ unlawful financial conduct persisted throughout the attorney general’s investigation and even after the monitor’s appointment. That Jones has uncovered what could be even further evidence of fraud, as recently as last year, could be the cherry on top of the sundae that Engoron serves Trump.

My guess is, after 8 weeks of trial, this is just another brick in the wall. Or maybe it’s the last straw. Either way, once again, Trump’s got nuthin’. 

Let me back up a little first, because this point bears emphasizing:

What’s more, Jones’ letter implies that Trump’s present-day disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics are similarly flawed. Indeed, a review of Trump’s 2023 personal financial disclosure report, which he filed as a presidential candidate in April of last year, reflects the loan as an existing liability, not an extinguished one. If the loan never existed, that means that Trump — while under a court-appointed monitorship — was lying to the federal government and misleading the monitor. 

What could this all mean? After all, Trump’s team has rebutted Jones’ account, insisting that executives never told Jones the loan hadn’t existed and providing a recent memo — without any identifiable author — simply stating that the loan was no longer due or payable.

Like the question asked by Robbie Kaplan: “What will it take to make Trump stop?” That’s the question this puts to Engoron, if he needs it. The second point is: once again, Trump has no response. “Loan? What loan? We had a loan. It’s over. Trust us. Have we ever lied to you?”

And Trump will go to the poorhouse insisting he did nothing wrong. Which will do him as much good as denying this loan.

I think this loan is a shiny thing reporters can latch on to instead of analyzing and understanding 8 weeks of testimony. But Engoron has to do that, and can’t rest his judgement on this footnote. It’s a good story; but it’s not even a microcosm of the real story.