John Law (8:36)
And get a've@lemonade.com pet all right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right welcomes the decision, framing it as a rebuke of Trump's politicized prosecutions. Some note the appellate judge's criticism of Judge Engoron's handling of the case. Others say Trump's claims of lawfare against him have been vindicated. The New York Post editorial board called the ruling the latest blow to Dem lawfare. The ridiculously enormous fine was meant to hamstring him as he ran for president. Though James and trial court Judge Arthur Engoron pretended it was about warning others not to imitate his supposedly fraudulent actionsactions that harmed exactly no one, the board wrote. Their decision doesn't void Engoron's finding that Trump defrauded lenders and insurers by overestimating the value of his assets, though the Court of Appeals, the state's top court, may do so. But either way, it makes the case appear even more pointless than it already was. Remember, James campaigned on promises to find something, anything to target Trump for a witch hunt, that is. That should have disqualified her. From the start, these nothing burger civil charges were the best she could find. If they wound up before a less biased judge than Engoron, they would have died long ago, the board said. As Judge Friedman suggested, Democrats thought if they couldn't stop Trump through normal democratic means, they'd get the courts to stop him to save democracy. They failed on both fronts. In Fox News, Jonathan Turley said Engoron gets the books thrown at him. In New York, a court revealed that a leading citizen had cooked the books by inflating questionable figures without any support in reality. Moreover, his wild overvaluation was widely viewed as motivated by self aggrandizement. The final reported figures are so absurdly inflated that they were rejected in their entirety. In the end, he was off by over half a billion dollars. That man is Judge Arthur Engoron, turley wrote. Judge David Friedman gave Enger on a close up. He detailed how the underlying law has never been used in the way it is being used in this case, namely to attack successful private commercial transactions negotiated at arm's length between highly sophisticated parties fully capable of monitoring and defending their own interests. Trump can now appeal the residual parts of the Engoron decision, imposing limits on the Trump family doing business in New York. Some of those limits could be moot by the time of any final judgment. Ironically, if Engoron had shown a modicum of restraint, he might have secured a victory. During the trial in New York, I said he would have been smart to impose a dollar fine and limited injunctive relief, turley said. Instead, Engoron chose to walk down the stairway into infamy. He was off by a half billion dollars, which could put him in the Bernie Madoff class of judges. In national review, Andrew C. McCarthy suggested the outcome is a significant victory for the president. Trump has not been completely vindicated, at least not yet. The Appellate Division was divided on the underlying merits of the case, but it left in place the lower court's fraud verdict. Moreover, some of the non financial injunctive penalties meted out by Judge Arthur Engoron, like James, an elected progressive Democrat, will remain in place, McCarthy said. Still, Trump could ultimately be vindicated in full. The case will now move to the Court of Appeals, the state's highest tribunal. The Appellate Division was skeptical from the outset about the astronomical penalty. The patent lack of fit between the wrong and the punishment explains why in one of its first actions in the case, the appellate court slashed the amount of the bond Trump was required to post in order to stop James from enforcing the judgment while the now president pursued his appeal, McCarthy wrote. Today is a very good day for President Trump, but he is playing with fire and seeking retribution against his tormentors by using the very same lawfare attacks. He can have a much more successful presidency if he accepts that he got his retribution by winning the election. All right, that is it for what the right is saying. Which brings us to what the left is saying. The left is mixed on the decision, with some calling it sound but arguing Trump should also heed its findings. Others highlight the non financial penalties that remain in place. Still others question why Trump would celebrate when the fraud conviction remains in place. The Washington Post editorial board wrote about Donald Trump and selective prosecution. A New York court not known for its friendliness toward Donald Trump threw out on Thursday an outrageous judgment against him. The White House will rightly celebrate this development, but it's also a good moment for the president's advisors to rethink the administration's own escalating lawfare campaign, the board said. The Thursday decision comes as the Trump administration is launching its own version of the show me the man and I'll show you the crime. Lawfare mortgage fraud seems to be the administration's weapon of choice, and it has referred James, Senator Adam Schiff and Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, for criminal investigation. Trump officials would be wise to pay attention to the warning of David Friedman, the New York judge on the appeals panel most sympathetic to Trump's arguments. Friedman argued that James case amounted to a selective enforcement of a fraud statute in retaliation for President Trump's exercise of his First Amendment right to participate in the political process, the board wrote. Courts can mitigate the destructiveness of lawfare, but if politicians keep abusing the legal system, maybe not for long. In Slate, Shirin Ali suggested the ruling was not nearly the Trump victory it's being billed as. This is how the 2:2:1 ruling shook out. Justices Peter Moulton and Diane Renwick concluded that they would only vacate Trump's financial penalty, Justices John Higgitt and Yeanette Rosado would vacate the penalty and send the case back down for a retrial, and Justice David Freeman alone would have thrown this case out in its entirety and banned New York State from retrying the president on this, ali said. Ultimately, New York's high court will decide whether the fraud verdict stands and if Trump is actually off the hook for now, it seems like the price tag for wrongdoing will shrink, but that's as much as we can say. Meanwhile, James office has promised to appeal the appellate court's decision while also reminding us that only Trump's financial penalty has been vacated. Other limitations on the Trump Organization's ability to do business in New York remain in place, including a ban on Trump serving in top level positions at his own company for three years while his sons are Donald Trump Jr. And Eric Trump are banned for at least two years, Ali wrote. Despite how the headlines read that real consequence might still arrive in this case though, even if not in the form of a half billion dollar penalty. In above the Law, Joe Patrese said most people don't consider being called a fraud a win. The good news for Donald Trump is that a New York appellate nixed the nearly half billion dollar disgorgement judgment the Trump Organization owed for consistently defrauding financial institutions. The bad news is that the fractured court still agreed with the underlying judgment and his business operations are rightly enjoined, patrice wrote. The appellate opinion struck down that award, ruling that it amounted to an unconstitutional excessive fine as opposed to a mere disengorgement of ill gotten gains. The court affirmed that Trump lied, cheated and cooked the books to inflate his wealth, and it left intact the structural injunctions effectively barring his family from running a business in New York. But pop the champagne Donnie, you won, patrice said. All but one of the justices agreed that Attorney General Letitia James was well within her rights to bring this case without any path to a three justice majority and desperately in need of getting this opinion out the door. Higgitt and Rosado conceded to join Moulton and Renwick in the decretal alone. Now the basket case of an opinion can be appealed in the New York Court of Appeals. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his.
