Staff Reports
A New York appeals court has entered the chat, and it’s looking like a potential lifeline for Donald Trump, who is currently staring down the barrel of a nearly $500 million civil fraud judgment. In a recent session, judges expressed some skepticism about the enormous penalty that could be interpreted as simply another chapter in the ever-evolving saga of judicial overreach. One judge even flagged the hefty fine as “troubling,” throwing shade on whether New York’s relentless surveillance of business practices might be straying into the murky waters of overreach—otherwise known as “mission creep.”
The five-judge panel engaged with lawyers from both sides like it was a game of political ping-pong, tossing questions back and forth. Sure, they had their doubts about Trump’s arguments, but there was an unmistakable air of inquiry about whether Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat on a mission, was trying to regulate behavior that really shouldn’t be in the government’s purview at all. Trump is attempting to overturn Judge Arthur Engoron’s earlier ruling, which claimed that he had misled banks and other entities about his wealth for years, undermining the very image of the successful businessman he cultivated.
Appeals court judges appear open to reversing or reducing Trump’s ‘troubling’ civil fraud judgmenthttps://t.co/rEWofE61nM pic.twitter.com/cCymXSLPHA
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) September 27, 2024
This case isn’t just a walk in the park for Trump; it threatens a core part of his brand. After all, if the court affirms this judgment, it risks transforming the way business is conducted in real estate. Trump’s legal eagle, D. John Sauer, argued the Democrats’ lawsuit essentially took consumer protection laws and injected them into private business transactions where there was evidently no harm done. His point? The so-called victims—Trump’s lenders and insurers—were savvy players who knew how to do their homework. They weren’t just relying on his financial statements; they could pull their own figures.
Sauer did not stop there; he continued to hammer the argument that this legal action was outdated and in violation of the statute of limitations, with allegations extending back over a decade. If the court permits this judgment to stand, he warned, it could create a reality in which nobody in real estate feels safe from government scrutiny. It’s a slippery slope, folks. No one wants to wake up to find that inflated egos have become litigation fodder.
On the other side of the courtroom, the state’s deputy solicitor general, Judith Vale, pushed back hard, suggesting that the implications of Trump’s financial dealings indeed have a public impact—particularly the risks banks took on due to his alleged misrepresentations. But amidst this back-and-forth, Judge Peter H. Moulton dimmed the Democrats’ fireworks a bit, questioning if James’ office was going too far in asserting control. He observed that Engoron’s substantial punishment seemed disproportionate for the alleged offenses, opening the floor to the question of whether justice was being served or merely paraded around like a political trophy.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court was left to deliberate behind closed doors, with a decision on the horizon possibly before the impending Election Day. The outcome could either solidify this monumental judgment, cut it down to size, or outright toss it. If the appellate judges see the merit in Trump’s case, they could pave the way for an entirely different narrative—one where the courts don’t play judge, jury, and executioner for the business dealings of those they happen to politically disagree with.
