MSNBC host Katy Tur recently questioned if it was "fair" that former President Trump was ordered to pay almost $355 million in damages and be barred from his business in New York by a judge Friday in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
During a segment of "MSNBC Reports" on Friday, Tur mentioned that in the 70-year existence of the legal rule Judge Arthur Engoron used on Trump, it was never used against someone who has yet to be proven of doing harm to any individual or entity with their practices.
Trump’s main defense in the case is his argument that banks and his insurers weren’t harmed by his business practices – a point Tur floated during the broadcast while probing the strength of Engoron’s decision.
ERIC TRUMP CONDEMNS NY 'SET-UP': MY FATHER BUILT NYC SKYLINE AND THIS IS HIS THANKS
She wondered if the use of the statute in the Trump case was truly fair to the former president, suggesting that if Trump’s argument was true, this was the first time the statute was used this way in 150 cases.
The host began by explaining Engoron’s decision here, noting that the statute does not require a prosecutor "to show that anybody was hurt by your practices – there’s nobody you defrauded specifically." So, Engoron was within legal scope with the ruling.
However, she went on to explain that – after looking back at how the statute was used – "there was no case where there was a ban on doing business where there wasn’t harm shown."
As part of Engoron’s ruling, Trump has been barred from running his businesses within the state for three years.
Tur continued: "So, even though the threshold is harm shown, in the past, it has only been used to ban someone doing business when it’s been shown that somebody was hurt. Say you’re selling cosmetics that are poisoning you; there’s somebody that was hurt there, the cosmetics company gets banned."
She then asked, "Is this fair to go after Donald Trump like this in this environment, is my question?"
MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin agreed that Tur’s assessment of the statute is "true" but then punted to former New York Assistant Attorney General Tristan Snell for more analysis.
Tur invited him to speak, asking once again, "So tell me, is it fair?"
Snell, who used the statute to prosecute Trump for fraud with Trump University, clarified, "The legal standard is whether there was a tendency to deceive. That’s what it is, and the legislature in New York made a public policy choice to say that that was an important weapon for the A.G.’s office to have to vindicate the public good in this situation."
Tur followed up, saying, "And it seems like what Judge Engoron found was there was intention – not just a tendency – there was intention to deceive," a point which Snell noted was more than Engoron needed to punish Trump.
MSNBC contributor Suzanne Craig attempted to bolster the case against Trump, stating, "I think, too, the interesting thing about victims is, there were victims here, and they were the banks. They’re just not the most popular victims in society."
The host countered with Trump’s defense, noting his point that the banks "don’t feel like they lost."
Still, Craig insisted, "They still did, and that’s the conclusion, and that’s where we’re at today."
