It’s possibly one of the most laughable civil fraud cases, one of the many legal attacks the Left launched against Donald Trump to prevent him from becoming president again—all of which have failed. It never resonated with voters; many see this as a politically motivated circus. The only folks who think any of it matters are the usual Trump-deranged left-wing clowns who need to be straight-jacketed at this point. This case involved the Trump Organization supposedly defrauding banking institutions, which led to a $464 million judgment by a biased judge. If it’s upheld, Trump’s net worth and business activities will take a massive hit; he and his sons can’t operate in the Empire State for three years.
Luckily, the appeals court is skeptical of the state’s case. To be clear, no one was defrauded. Even the banks said no one lost money—it’s a civil fraud case where no one was defrauded. There are no victims, only anti-Trump clowns, Attorney General Letitia James especially, using the courts to attack their political rivals (via The Hill):
A New York appeals panel on Thursday appeared wary of the state’s civil fraud case against former President Trump that ended in a $464 million judgment against him and his business.
During arguments lasting more than an hour, the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division — New York’s midlevel appeals court — questioned whether any constraints apply to the law New York Attorney General Letitia James used against Trump.
[…]
Trump attorney D. John Sauer, who represented the former president before the Supreme Court in his presidential immunity challenge, argued before the panel that the state’s case was brought too late and that decades-old financial statements should not be the basis for such a “crippling” financial penalty.
Sauer also reiterated arguments made at trial that banks wanted to work with the Trump Organization, did their own due diligence and found no fraud.
“They did do their own due diligence,” Sauer said. “The uncontradicted testimony in the summary judgment record is ‘Everything we did was independent; we didn’t rely on the numbers.’”
New York’s Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale argued on the state’s behalf that the law gives the attorney general “broad” discretion, but two justices interrupted her opening remarks to ask whether there are any other examples of the state suing “equally sophisticated partners” in such a manner.
“Because I’ve gone through the case that you’ve cited, and all of them always involved consumer protection aspect — it involved protection of the market,” Justice David Friedman said.
“You don’t have anything like that here,” he added.
Recommended
We’ll see what happens. Like with Trump’s conviction in the equally biased and laughable hush money trial concerning Stormy Daniels, judgment will be rendered after the election.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member