Dem
47
GOP
53
Well, now we know why it took so long. After 11 months of deliberating, a five-judge panel on the New York State appeals court finally issued a ruling in the fraud case against Donald Trump and his businesses. Actually, the judges wrote three separate opinions, ultimately affirming the trial court's finding of liability that Trump and his associates had committed fraud, upholding the injunction prohibiting Trump executives from serving as corporate officers or directors in New York for 3 years (2 years for Don Jr. and Eric), but throwing out the $464 million in damages.
It's clear that there was a stalemate for quite a long time, with two of the judges wanting a new trial and two agreeing to vacate the financial penalty, while upholding the fraud claim and the injunction. What broke the logjam was an agreement by the two judges who wanted a new trial to side with the other two in upholding the finding of fraud and the injunction to have some finality, so that the parties could appeal to New York's highest court (which is called the New York Court of Appeals). A fifth judge, David Friedman (Trump's contemporary at 75), would have reversed the trial court's findings and dismissed the case altogether. Friedman could have created a 3-judge majority in favor of vacating the judgment and ordering a new trial, but he worried (not unreasonably) about the disruption to a sitting president that such a trial would cause. Thus, we have this brokered outcome that gives each party a partial victory and the finality to bring an appeal.
Each opinion is over 100 pages. The main opinion reminds readers of the oranges... er, origins, of this investigation: Michael Cohen's testimony before a Congressional subcommittee that laid out how the Trump Organization would routinely inflate assets when applying for loans and devalue them for tax purposes. This is compelling evidence of fraud, and the New York Attorney General opened an investigation as a result.
In overturning the financial penalty, the judges found that because the award went to the state and wasn't to compensate any victims, it was a fine that could be analyzed under the excessive fine provision of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They concluded it was excessive and did violate both the state and federal constitutions. And they vacated the entire award rather than reducing it, because they held that profits from legitimate activity could not be separated out from the ill-gotten gains, so no disgorgement was appropriate at all. New York AG Letitia James has already vowed to appeal and she's got a good shot. Generally, on these types of factual issues, appeals courts defer to the findings of the lower court. It seems that this appellate panel decided to substitute its judgment for the lower court's. Such a big award may be reduced but it shouldn't be too hard to assign a percentage of the profits that were the result of the fraud.
Trump has already started crowing about "total victory," conveniently ignoring that the substance of the claims against his company were upheld, as well as severe penalties, including requiring a monitor for his New York companies. This will only embolden Trump's personal hatchetwoman Pam Bondi to continue her harassment of James, especially given the irresponsible rhetoric from Friedman. In his separate opinion, the Judge complained that the case should not have been brought because: (1) everyone does it; (2) if the super-rich want to rip each other off that's their business; and (3) Trump paid back all the money, so what's the big deal? He actually quoted someone he called a "well-known business executive" as saying: "[Y]ou might as well find guilty every real estate developer on Earth." Don't try that at home, kids—it doesn't work for us regular rubes. Based on his belief that this was much ado about nothing, Friedman concluded that James must have acted for partisan political purposes. Openly accusing an Attorney General of abusing her office because the judge disagrees with the trial results is unheard of, and demeans both his position and hers.
Oh, and Trump's defense attorney at trial—who is still listed on the caption as his attorney—was (is?) Alina Habba, currently serving as the Acting U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. More on her below. (L)