It's quite evident now that Democrats' primary election strategy against Donald Trump doesn't focus on Joe Biden running a smart political campaign. Instead, they're trying to defeat Trump with a series of politically coordinated lawsuits and criminal charges, hoping to deplete his resources and tarnish his reputation. However, this strategy isn't going well for them as Biden hasn't led in the polls for six months. No paraphrase available.
There's much to be said about the questionable nature of the charges against Trump. A recent decision by a New York appeals court to reduce Trump's bond in his civil fraud trial from $454 million to $175 million shows that this case is not being supported by many of Trump's critics, both in and out of the corporate media.
Trump obtained loans over several years, as real estate moguls often do. To secure these loans, the banks assessed Trump's finances and ability to repay, and then approved the loans. Trump repaid the loans, and everyone profited.
However, the state of New York accused Trump of fraudulently inflating his assets to get better loan terms, despite no accusations from banks. This stems from the campaign promise of the current Attorney General Letitia James to convict Trump without stating the charges.
There was a peculiar and incompetent judge involved in the case. In a ruling where Trump was accused of inflating his assets, the judge valued Mar-a-Lago, Trump's historic estate, at an exceptionally low price, even drawing skepticism from CNN.No paraphrase availableNo paraphrase available
The judgment against Trump, according to former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, is a fraud case without any fraud victims. McCarthy's colleague Dan McLaughlin dismisses the theory of illegality as the basis for severe punishment. notesNo paraphrase available
This case is very clearly politically driven, and even the American media, which is seen as corrupt, cannot defend it. a loss to defend thisAn analysis by the Associated Press of almost 70 years of similar cases revealed that Trump’s case is unique: It's the only major business that faced the threat of closure without clear victims and significant losses being shown.
I have been searching for a notable journalist or commentator who is willing to write a genuine defense of Engoron’s decision against Trump for a while now. Other than a few thoughtless tweets from the #resistance group, I haven't seen any substantial response. Although I follow this issue more closely than most people, I’m not all-knowing. So I posted on X and asked if anyone had written anything substantial defending Engoron’s decision on the merits. (My question was quickly retweeted by Scott Adams, a cartoonist and unconventional political commentator, with over a million followers, which gave it wide exposure.) if anyone had written anything defending Engoron’s decision on the merits. (My question was almost immediately retweeted by Dilbert cartoonist and unorthodox political commentator Scott Adams, who has more than a million followers, giving it wide exposure.)
The closest thing I've found so far was this column at the libertarian-ish legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Berkeley law professor Orin Kerr supports the ruling, taking a strict interpretation of what the state was permitted to do in this case. However, he also has doubts about whether the case should have been pursued, openly stating that his opinion depends on the fact that he's not an expert in New York law, and concludes, “So if the opinion is wrong, and gets reversed, I certainly don’t mind that.”
On Monday, a New York appeals court concluded that Engoron’s opinion was significantly incorrect and reduced the bond Trump has to present from $454 million to $175 million. (Incredibly, New York law requires Trump to still post this exorbitant amount before he can further appeal the decision.)
Apart from reducing Trump’s bond, the appeals court also overturned Engoron’s ruling that prohibited Trump from serving as an executive or director of a New York company for three years and the order barring Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as executives and directors of New York companies for two years. The intention was clearly to impose a massive fine on Trump while also restricting his business in ways that would make it difficult to raise money to pay the penalty. and the order barring Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as officers and directors of New York companies for two years. The plan was clearly to slap Trump with an egregious fine while simultaneously hamstringing Trump’s business in ways that would make it harder to raise money to pay the penalty.
Even according to the very low standards set by the other Trump charges, what’s happening here is shocking. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado may not bar Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s provision against insurrectionists. The fact that there was a riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, does not mean we automatically get to presume it was a serious insurrection attempt, much less that Trump has been convicted in a court of law for any crime related to it.
From the beginning, this was a desperate and quixotic attempt to stop Trump from participating in a free election, as well as disenfranchise millions of voters. It was so bad it prompted a unanimous SCOTUS ruling. And yet, in the weeks and months leading up to SCOTUS’s ruling there were dozens of opinion pieces from supposedly serious and well-known commentators telling us that the decision by Colorado’s secretary of state was legally justified. Critics of Trump, such as David French and others, took a position on this case to the left of progressive Supreme Court Justices Kentanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor.
As absurd as the Colorado case was, the response to it provides a useful comparison. In the Trump civil fraud case, we have a clearly biased attorney general bringing charges and a single judge delivering a verdict so unreasonable that even commentators willing to degrade themselves to oppose Trump are choosing to steer clear of the case.
While the appeals court’s criticism of Engoron’s decision confirms the severity of the case, it was not particularly wise. The truth is that the leading presidential candidate is still being pursued by the opposing party with an excessive fine that smells like a violation of the Eighth Amendment in a case that should never have been brought. And we should probably also consider a violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process, because the idea that Trump has to pay the state $175 million to continue appealing in court is something I’m sure James Madison would tell us is exactly the kind of injustice the Bill of Rights was aiming to prevent, right before he dies a second time upon learning about the federal income tax.
Ultimately, what’s truly revealing is that while the “country over party” group won’t support this decision on its merits, they’re also not speaking out against the injustice here. They’re willing to let it happen to Trump even if it undermines the norms and concerns about “rule of law” they claim Trump threatens as president.
Well, people are noticing that this isn’t a very principled stance. And based on the polls, voters are reaching the entirely logical conclusion that Trump, despite his significant flaws, is less of a threat than an establishment that will manipulate the law to undermine an election they’re worried they can’t fairly win.
