Trump challenges Letitia James' objection to his $175M bond

Donald Trump's lawyers argued in a new court filing that New York Attorney General Letitia James was wrong to object to his $175 million bond.

A court fined the former president $454 million in February after finding him liable for fraud after inflating the value of his properties, and Trump was required under state law to post the bond to prevent James from seizing his assets while he appealed the ruling.

But James challenged the bond, claiming the financial backing for the bond was unknown.

Trump's lawyers and attorneys for Knight Specialty Insurance Company argued the attorney general had wrongfully challenged the surety, reported Law and Crime.

“The NYAG’s exception is taken unnecessarily and should be set aside with costs," the attorneys wrote in a memo filed Monday. "Her sparse notice identifies no insufficiency other than the failure to enclose a certificate of qualification. While a certificate would be dispositive evidence of justification, it is not the only evidence of justification. KSIC was and is authorized to issue the Bond here, and the Bond is more than sufficiently collateralized in the event the Court’s judgment is affirmed.”

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how Trump is using existential fear to win the election

The attorney general had argued earlier this month that Knight Specialty Insurance Company, which put up the bond for him, was not admitted to practice in New York, but attorneys for the firm and the former president filed a large number of documents that purportedly demonstrate the firm has the financial backing to issue the bond and argued that Trump fully supported the bond with cash.

"In a series of Monday filings, including a memorandum, affirmations in support, and exhibits, Trump attorneys and KSIC lawyers jointly filed to say that James’ 'rare' exception 'should be set aside' and that her office should be on the hook for the costs 'incurred' by forcing their response," Law and Crime reported.

The lawyers argued that New York Supreme Court justice Arthur Engoron, who oversaw the fraud trial and imposed the penalty, could “justify a surety in the absence of a certificate” of qualification based on “overwhelming” evidence in court filings that the bond was collateralized in cash held in a Charles Schwab brokerage account over which KSIC has the authority to take control.

"Thus the $175 million bond is fully collateralized by $175 million in cash," the filing stated.