The New York appeals court recently put the spotlight on the former president Donald Trump’s civil fraud judgment, and by all indications, it was not a great day for Letitia James. Known for her relentless anti-Trump crusade, the New York Attorney General found herself in a precarious position as the judges seemed less than impressed with the merits of her case, which alleges years of business fraud.
Even a former federal prosecutor, Joyce Vance, recognized the uphill battle facing Tish James. It was a classic case of “the scales aren’t tipping in your favor,” as she noted the appellate panel appeared poised to reverse the judgment handed down by the notoriously anti-Trump Judge Arthur Engoron. Engoron had already declared Trump guilty before the trial even got underway, slapping him with hefty penalties that have ballooned to nearly half a billion dollars, all based on what many are now questioning as shaky legal grounds.
Couldn't find that but did find this from 5 hours ago:https://t.co/ZshtzVEYm5
— 🍊🇺🇸💯ULTRA MAGA DLP🍊🇺🇸💯 (@FLMrs4MAGA) October 1, 2024
As the argument unfolded, it became clear that the judges were keen on scrutinizing the allegations. One judge initiated the conversation by querying whether the fraud statute had ever been applied in a case involving two sophisticated partners—both of whom left their transactions happy. The mere notion that the Attorney General was attempting to disrupt an agreement between what would amount to two business giants raised eyebrows, leading to queries about whether she had stepped outside her authority.
Justice Moulton echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the enormity of the penalties imposed by Engoron seemed to lack a tether to the actual harm caused. This isn’t just an academic debate; it’s a skeptical examination of whether Tish James’s fraud case was more about scoring political points than about actual victims. The judges were underwhelmed, pondering aloud whether the whole thing was more about “mission creep” than about actual legal violations. Perhaps someone should remind AG James that this isn’t the game of whack-a-mole she seems to think it is.
While the panel did not render a ruling during the session, the implication was clear: the future of this judgment hangs in the balance. With the election months away, speculation abounds about whether the panel is holding off on a ruling to avoid swaying public opinion during a politically charged period. The possibility that whatever decision they come to could face further appeal at New York’s highest court adds another layer of intrigue to this melodrama, as it appears Tish James’s efforts may soon meet their much-deserved reckoning.