Trump banks on stacked supreme court amid fraud case fallout

In a strategic move described as “every bit as crooked as you’d expect,” insiders from Donald Trump’s circle have unveiled his daring plan in the face of potential property seizures by New York Attorney General Letitia James. With a whopping $454 million at stake in a civil fraud case, Trump’s scheme hinges on a calculated gamble, banking on a Supreme Court he believes is packed with sympathetic right-wing operatives.

Sources close to Trump have disclosed that rather than proactively addressing the looming deadline, he may let James seize his bank accounts and prized properties, including the iconic Trump Tower. His intention? To reclaim everything through a prolonged appeals process that he envisions culminating in a favorable ruling from the nation’s highest court.

Trump’s unwavering confidence in the Supreme Court’s leanings underscores his belief that even a state seizure won’t deter his quest for vindication. “Even if there is a taking, it doesn’t mean he can’t take it back later,” asserted one insider to The New York Post, echoing Trump’s conviction in the court’s alignment with his interests.

However, legal experts caution that Trump’s strategy is riddled with pitfalls. Chief among them is the presumption that the properties will remain within state possession throughout the lengthy appeals, ignoring the Attorney General’s authority to liquidate assets to recoup owed funds. Should the properties be sold off, any successful appeal would only entitle Trump to monetary compensation, not the physical assets.

Trump’s audacious approach also carries broader ramifications, potentially chilling business activity in New York amid fears of similar repercussions for fraudulent practices.

“There will be severe consequences — not an insurrection,” warned a source, highlighting the ripple effects on the city’s real estate market and investor confidence.

Despite the financial magnitude of the case, Trump appears resolute, entertaining the notion of seeking financial assistance from affluent allies if necessary. Dismissing notions of seeking pity, sources portray Trump as a self-reliant figure willing to exhaust every avenue to secure his interests.

Yet, as the stakes escalate and legal options dwindle, observers question the sustainability of Trump’s high-stakes gamble. With the specter of desperate appeals and potential financial ruin looming, Trump’s predicament underscores the perils of relying on judicial favor in a legal saga fraught with uncertainty.