An appeals court hearing Sept. 26 offered further confirmation that New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s conviction of Donald Trump in a civil fraud case last year was an egregious and politically motivated ruling.
The case was cooked up by Democrats along with several other prosecutions against the Republican presidential candidate. It’s part of a yearslong effort by the Democrats and liberal media to put him in prison and drive him out of politics.
Engoron had peremptorily ruled last September that Trump and his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, were guilty of lying about the Trump Organization’s business assets to get better loan deals. When the trial opened, the only real outstanding issue was the penalties to be imposed. Then Engoron put the presidential candidate under a gag order. Finally he levied an enormous $454 million fine, including interest which continues to grow every day, even as Trump exercises his constitutional right to appeal the case.
The charges had been brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who campaigned for election on a vow to bring Trump down. From start to finish, her case was aimed at draining Trump’s finances, dismantling his family’s real estate business and doing as much damage to his 2024 presidential campaign as possible.
A five-judge panel of New York’s Appellate Division heard Trump’s appeal. Appeals Judge David Friedman made it clear he didn’t see any crime. He asked if there had ever been a prosecution under this statute, “where the supposed victim has the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence; where the supposed wrongdoer advised the supposed victim, through written disclaimers, to conduct his own due diligence … and where the victim never complained about any fraud.”
New York Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale defended the conviction, claiming Trump had benefited by getting lower interest rates. But Friedman wasn’t impressed. He pointed out Trump would have received “exactly the same” interest rates, even if he had “a different net worth.”
Judge Peter Moulton said, “The immense penalty is troubling in this case.”
Attack on constitutional rights
The huge fine defies the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which offers all defendants an important protection. It says “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed.”
When Vale tried to explain what the alleged “fraud” was, Judge John Higgit interrupted, pointing out that “what’s being described sounds an awful lot like a commercial dispute.” Higgit then questioned whether James, the state’s prosecutor, had gone “into an area where she doesn’t have jurisdiction?”
A ruling on the appeal is expected to take some six weeks.
Democrats are trying to make their cases against Trump central to Kamala Harris’ election campaign, claiming the mountain of legal attacks they’ve launched prove he’s a “threat to democracy.”
One of these cases, brought against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith was back in court in Washington, D.C., Sept. 24. Smith was appointed by Biden’s Justice Department. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan granted a request by Smith to file a 180-page court brief reintroducing his case, seeking to find Trump responsible for the Jan. 6 melee at the Capitol. The motion was an attempt to keep their case alive after the Supreme Court ruled that all presidents — including Trump — are immune from prosecution for actions carried out in the conduct of their office.
Chutkan let Smith file his brief, despite it being four times over the normal limit. Even though the election is just six weeks away, Smith also urged the judge to release substantial amounts of the sealed document to the press and the public. Smith’s new cut-down indictment charges Trump with “conspiracy to defraud the United States,” for what he said to state officials, to Vice President Michael Pence and to a crowd at a Jan. 6, 2021, rally at the Capitol.
Regardless of whether Trump’s comments were true, they’re protected by the First Amendment. Democrats are increasingly taking aim at the constitutional right to free speech.
If “sick” people are putting out “false narratives” on public issues, they have to be stopped, former Secretary of State John Kerry told a World Economic Forum meeting in New York Sept. 25. And, he said, “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to our ability to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.”