Scary. Respect for rule of law is in freefall. Democrats have disparaged Supreme Court rulings. State officials try hijacking a presidential election by misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. Biden tries to imprison his opponent. Now, New York State Judge Arthur Engoron inflicts a $355 million penalty on the leading candidate for president – not a good look.
In his 92-page opinion, following a highly personalized trial, the judge makes a victimless non-crime called “business puffing” – no damages – into a crime. He declines the defendant a jury trial, holds kangaroo court, then inflicts a huge penalty.
To get this result, Americans must swallow never-before-asserted legal fictions, interpretations of law, and a politically hostile state prosecutor and judge overseeing the proceeding, despite their rank prejudice.
Almost certainly, this decision will be revised, perhaps thrown out entirely. It simply cannot stand. Why?
First, the facts are hardly damning. Loans were secured from banks with guarantees based on legal documents, clear representations, comparative values, assessing Trump’s credit, and due diligence.
The judge ignores expert witnesses who said no fraud occurred, the banks were content to lend to Trump, no entity lost money on any transaction, nor did any citizen suffer provable damage.
Despite this, the anti-defendant judge who repeatedly tried to gag Trump (reversed) and consistently insulted him – offers a conclusory view. He says Trump’s statements were “blatantly false… resulting in fraudulent financial statements.” Boom, one and done, over, next.
The whole concept that a biased state judge, abetted by a vengeful state prosecutor, is allowed to target, harass, convict, try to bankrupt, and end the campaign of a political opponent – is revolting, utterly anti-democratic. It violates a dozen principles of ethics.
Still, not a single leading Democrat has said this is wrong, political persecution, like the cases being brought by Jack Smith, a prosecutor sanctioned for a political case in 2014 (9-0, Supreme Court), and the embarrassingly unethical, unrepentant Georgia prosecutor.
What else is wrong with this fantastical $355 million dollar penalty, inflicted with apparent joy by two partisans on candidate Trump mid-campaign?
A lot. Throughout this opinion, the judge miscasts his own behavior, visible to the world, shamefully hostile to the defendant, telegraphing with his words, tone and temperament an intent to demean.
Moreover, the prosecutor and judge target the former president’s sons for punishment, making a crime of something never previously viewed as a crime, also not taught as a “crime” in law schools – including New York law schools, just “business puffing” in the subjective realm of value assessment.
The judge then pretends common law fraud is not under discussion, that his punishment is not a penalty, just a civil act of “disgorgement” – giving back money when it is plainly a debilitating punishment.
Listing elements of common law fraud – including false statement, knowledge that it is false, reliance and damages, he sidesteps the entire thing, saying this is not common law fraud.
Why? Because he cannot prove those elements “beyond a reasonable doubt,” cannot prove the statements were false, anyone relied on them, or any damages.
Instead, the judge and prosecutor create their own non-crime crime, saying the “marketplace,” which has shown no harm, is the victim – of statements never proven knowingly false, or exclusively relied upon, or for which there were any damages or complaints.
This pretzel-like approach to trapping a defendant, making up standards and victims, pretending damages exist, that they were somehow horrendous, that anyone has ever been prosecuted like this – is audacious. It is also profoundly anti-democratic, further eroding respect for prosecutors and the courts.
But, we are not done. This judge cites Executive Law 63 (12), from 1956, to shoehorn defendant’s “puffing” into a heinous criminal act, prosecuted in civil form to avoid proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” (criminal standard, versus “more probable than not” the civil standard), just another cheat.
Insufficient room exists to properly unpack this ugly, disingenuous opinion. It rambles, miscasting much of the trial, demeaning the defendant. It oozes prejudice, undisguised hostility. The words “fair administration of justice” do not pop to mind.
Last, one must look at the whole multi-act play. These two actors have knowingly interfered with an election, which is a federal crime. They take no responsibility for that, just plan to skip away scot-free.
Creating something from nothing – making “business puffing” a crime, trying it on a civil standard, imposing a monster penalty on a political candidate they hate speaks to no integrity.
Net-net, this is a judicial system gone wild. The disarray needs to stop with the next election. What a disgrace, what a sad day for America … a $355 million dollar penalty inflicted for politics. Scary.
