'The View' Panel Gets Heated as One Co-Host Said Donald Trump's $355M Ruling Was 'Excessive'
In his New York civil fraud trial, former president Donald Trump was found guilty of misrepresenting his assets to obtain loans from multiple banks, and as a result, he was sentenced to pay out $355 million. The 'hot topic' naturally became a subject of heated discussion on the popular talk show The View, where co-host Sara Haines ruffled the other hosts with her subtle stand for Trump.
Haines believed that the sum was 'excessive' and 'slightly supported' Trump's claim that the case was brought forward for political reasons. “Although I always agree with someone being accountable and held to task and in a little bias, I love seeing Trump held to task because he rarely has been — I do think and this is not due to any emotion towards Trump, I think the punishment was excessive,” she said.
TRUMP, HIS COMPANIES FINED $355M IN CIVIL FRAUD CASE: #TheView co-hosts weigh in on the verdict and the former president hawking gold branded shoes the day after the ruling against him. https://t.co/cVclFZQmjA pic.twitter.com/mEUTAEJMPc
— The View (@TheView) February 20, 2024
“My criticism of this is not because I feel any sorrow for Donald Trump. But I do think that he is an instigator of sowing distrust in institutions,” Haines explained. “It’s his one thing. ‘Everyone’s completely kind of against him. It’s a political witch hunt. It’s personal.’ This ruling, to the number it has been held, is slightly playing into the optics that this was political and personal.”
Trump's appeal of the NY civil fraud ruling is doomed
— Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads) (@NormEisen) February 20, 2024
The law is clear: you just can't say your home is 30k square ft when it's 10k
Plus, the judge reversed the most vulnerable element of his ruling--solidifying it against appeal
I discussed @CNNSitRoom w @wolfblitzer pic.twitter.com/un7GE2hkL7
As per Mediaite, Haines described the case as 'all legal,' but she also pointed out that there weren't any direct victims, as in a case involving a pharmaceutical business being sued for a product or even in the former Trump University case. Haines mentioned that a $25 million settlement was paid to the victims of that 'scam.'
View this post on Instagram
“But the number was proven by evidence. There’s a paper trail,” co-host Sunny Hostin said in retaliation for Haines' viewpoint. “It didn’t come out of nowhere,” moderator Whoopi Goldberg added. Given that there were no 'lingering' debts, Haines maintained that the figure was still disproportionate.“I just think the number is excessive to prove the point and hold him accountable,” she said.
“Not if you say that you have a billion dollars,” Hostin added. She earlier questioned Trump’s finances and predicted his wealth would likely be revealed when he needs to cover at least a portion of the $350 million (he’d also need to show he has more than that amount to get a loan for a percentage of it to put down). “Either we say we want people to go to trial and get their comeuppance or we don’t,” Goldberg said while concluding the discussion.
A note to Alyssa Farah griffin. AG Letitia James case is not “victimless”. It’s a VERY important and serious case against Trump. According to the NYS law, violating financial laws (including inflating capital and taxes), you can be sued, fined and jailed for years. #TheView
— The Chanteezy Is Real ♉️ (@iamchanteezy) February 20, 2024
As per The Wrap, Judge Arthur Engoron noted during the ruling that “They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. The defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff.” He continued, “Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ posture that the evidence belies. This Court finds that defendants are likely to continue their fraudulent ways unless the Court grants significant injunctive relief.”