Staff Reports
New York State Attorney General Letitia James and her band of anti-Trump cheerleaders were dancing in the streets after securing a whopping $464 million civil judgment against the former president. Little did they know, the party might be cut short thanks to an appeals court that seems less than impressed with James’ aggressive legal choreography. It’s almost as if those in power forgot that there are rules to the game—and the judiciary is beginning to show signs of reminding them just that.
Judges on a New York appeals court have raised eyebrows and questions concerning whether Letitia James even had the legal authority to wield such a hefty penalty against Trump. The court has expressed skepticism about whether James’ sweeping powers under state law are being wielded correctly. Is she really capable of casting her net over Trump’s businesses as she claims, or is she just casting a political fishing line in hopes of catching something big to flaunt during her next campaign?
Lawfare can backfire:
Judges press New York AG as Trump appeals his $454M fraud judgment
"You have two really sophisticated players in which no one lost any money” pic.twitter.com/wGO6f1Wu3m
— APBIOonly (@APBIOonly) September 28, 2024
The law provides that the Attorney General can step in if a business displays a pattern of fraud or illegality. However, what constitutes “persistent fraud”? Apparently, that definition is a bit murky, even for those wearing judicial robes. One has to wonder if James will need a new dictionary or a refresher course in legal boundaries, as the judges clearly questioned the legitimacy of her classification of Trump’s business dealings.
The attorney representing Trump, D. John Sauer, made a strong case that the allegations were not just a stretch but a leap into uncharted territory. He pointed out that James’ action came far too late, like trying to catch a train that left the station decades ago. It’s hard to believe that New York’s finest could think those ancient financial statements were worthy of such an extravagant penalty. Sauer’s argument highlighted the glaring fact that banks were lining up for Trump’s business—even they deemed his dealings trustworthy enough to invest in, raising serious questions about the validity of James’ claims.
Things heated up in the courtroom when Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale felt the heat of the judges’ questions regarding James’ claims. When asked if there were any similar cases of New York suing “equally sophisticated partners,” Vale stumbled through an explanation since most cases involved some element of consumer protection. What she conveniently neglected to mention is that this case appears more politically motivated than anything else. A ruling on Trump’s appeal is expected soon, but don’t expect any miracles before election day; this saga is guaranteed to stretch on longer than James’ list of grievances against the former president.
As this circus unfolds, conservatives can only sit back and chuckle, watching as the courts serve up a healthy dose of skepticism to those wielding power without the backing of sound legal reasoning. It remains to be seen how the legal drama will play out, but Trump’s team is revving up for what could be a major comeback, while James and her allies are left clutching their confetti, wondering if they should start planning for a different type of celebration.
