The enormous fine imposed on Trump in the Letitia James civil case is overruled
This was expected, but it’s still good to see:
An appellate court has thrown out the $500 million civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump in the high-profile case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The New York Appellate Division overturned the penalty, ruling the disgorgement was an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment. …
Trump took to Truth Social to declare a “total victory” and rail against James and the original trial judge, Arthur Engoron.
“TOTAL VICTORY in the FAKE New York State Attorney General Letitia James Case!” Trump wrote.
No, not total victory. The panel left intact the verdict, which was absurd and should also have been overturned (I’ve written many posts about it, for example this). But because the judges were split on the issue of liability itself, the Court of Appeals of New York will be hearing the case on that issue. If that doesn’t work out well for Trump, I assume it will probably go to SCOTUS.
The wheels of justice grind slow …
Although I can understand (somewhat) the call of some conservatives (or at least Trump supporters) for him to thumb his nose at the courts and go full speed ahead regardless of the negative verdicts, I think that the President has chosen the wiser course: match the Democrats on their own home court (heh) and beat them at their game.
I don’t see how this case could get to the US Supreme Court. The only (AFAIK) federal constitutional component was the 8th Amendment aspect, which is gone. I suppose if the state Court of Appeals restores that (assuming James can challenge the intermediate appellate court’s ruling), Trump could get the case into SCOTUS, but again that would likely be his only potential foot in that door.
NYC must pay intrest on the 175 mil bond required from the President, a d heads should roll.
Re: Trump not thumbing his nose at the courts
AesopFan:
I agree.
It’s not only the sensible, slow but sure, approach, but it starves the Democrats of fuel for their “Trump is Hitler” fire, which is about the only hope they have.
At least until they do some real rethinking and come up with a positive strategy.
Well, good. But why did it take so long?
Appraised values of real estate are based on expert analysis of the market. Both parties accept the appraisal when the mortgage papers are signed. If the appraisal was contested, the mortgage money would not have been lent. Appraised values are estimates of value at a point in time. What the tax assessor says the property s worth may be quite different than actual market value, which was the case in the indictment of Trump. Pretty straightforward, IMO.
That is quite different from the mortgage fraud case now pending against James. She claimed two different properties as her primary residences. Her object in doing that was to get a better interest rate, a lower down payment, and deductibility of the interest on both loans. That was a violation of federal mortgage lending laws. Every mortgage application states quite plainly that it’s a federal crime to make any untruthful statement on it.
J J. I believe some commercial real estate folks were queried as to Mar A Lago’s market value. Said it was three to five times what the court said it was. Story is that Florida has some law similar to California’s Prop 13 where the taxable value doesn’t go flying into the stratosphere, thus driving original owners out due to increased property taxes, as long so it’s with one owner. The big hit comes on the sale.
So, if this is true, Engoron’s assertion of the property’s value as an asset was fraudulent and deliberately so. Likely similar shenanigans elsewhere.
I can vouch for that in California, the estimated value of my modest little Silicon Valley bungalow on Zillow or Redfin is 4 to 5x the assessed value. Thanks to Prop 13 of course.
Your point is correct, Richard. A judge may not be a real estate law expert, but they should be able to consult one when necessary. Engoron chose not to, apparently.
We have no such law restraining
assessors’ valuations here in WA. In spite of that, the assessed value of my home is quite a bit lower than Zillow’s “Zestimate” of what it would sell for today.
If I applied for a mortgage tomorrow, the lender would not accept my idea of the value, or Zillow’s. They would hire an appraiser to do a complete market appraisal. (Which I would pay for as part of the mortgage fees. 🙂 )
I don’t know if Trump’s lenders did that. If not, it’s probably because he has a lot of assets, and a sterling credit rating. They may have felt comfortable with a handshake deal with him.
I asked why the appellate court took so long because it was really a simple case that they should have figured out quickly. On the other hand, it’s more interest in the Donald’s pocket because of the delay. So, another WIN, WIN for Trump.
@ Neo: “The wheels of justice grind slow …”
For some reason that triggered the thought that to improve “final judiciary efficiency” perhaps we really need two or three SCOTUS’s, each taking up cases in turn.
Each being as final as the current SCOTUS with regard to their respective rulings.
One problem: each could end up being very biased and then we are faced with potential SCOTUS shopping?
Another is that of course the law schools are still very very Woke/DEI.
Finally, I suppose they would also end up (trying to) overrule each others earlier rulings??
Oh well!! Consider it an early Halloween gift.
Wasn’t it only 10 and 20 years ago that Seniors were the most reliable Republican voting demographic?
What changed? Is it just the Boomers, the newest of the old?
The only explanation that’s solid is the elders fast info dependence on the legacy propaganda media that hates Trump.
One standard check I need to do is get a look at the issue by issue polling broken by age cohort. It can get around labeling bias.
Meanwhile, since last weekend found us sharing other online news sources.
I use a small noncommercial ind news aggregator based in Omaha. http://www.newsammo.com
It posts five daily long headlines from roughly 30 rightside web sites. Thus, its very comprehensive. But nothing graphical or flashy.
I scan most headlines for content and note my (dis)interests and then pick two or so links to read. Newsammo only gets 60,000 unique views in a month, and 2,000 per day.
CHECK IT OUT.
@ Richard and FOAF:
In FL the program is called “save our homes”, restricting yearly property tax increases to the rate of inflation or 3%, which ever is less. As indicated, intended to reduce excessive taxes on seniors on fixed incomes and long residencies.
We have lived in our place for over 30 years, and recently for grins I checked the public records of my taxes vs. those of my nearby neighbors, several of whom have bought much more recently. For approx. comparable value, my taxes are 1/2 to 1/4 of what they pay, related to length of ownership to some degree.
Also we have rural property out of state, so I called the local county assessor to see what he could say about its current value (before I spend money to actually hire a professional appraisal), and he said he sometimes has to rely on volunteered information from the sellers for “similar sales”. Thus another cause of assessed values being lower than real market values because they don’t really have a clear picture in regard to all local sales.
More wins for Trump’s “let the courts sort it out” strategy:
https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/08/21/shocker-ninth-circuit-squashes-unhinged-ranting-opinion-by-leftist-judge-n2193086
In addition:
https://redstate.com/katie-jerkovich/2025/08/21/trump-chalks-up-another-victory-in-the-supreme-court-over-ending-dei-gender-insanity-n2193084
For years, starting with Roberts’ inexplicable ruling in the Obamacare case, I have tried to persuade myself that he is really a conservative despite the frequency with which he joins the Democrats in either the majority or minority, but I think I’m done giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, Mr. Justice, there ARE “Obama and Trump” judges, but they are not necessarily in tune with the incumbent who nominated them; it’s a matter of personal ideology more than voter registration.
https://www.aei.org/articles/chief-justice-roberts-is-wrong-we-do-have-obama-judges-and-trump-judges/
I was actually surprised to find Marc Thiessen’s post at AEI on the first page of search hits; all of the rest were from the established Regime Media, except for one sort of neutral post that was more wishful thinking than factual reporting, especially looking at developments since it was written in 2019.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/roberts-we-dont-have-obama-judges-or-trump-judges/
Get rid of award(make conservatives happy) keep the conviction ( make liberals happy) in the end no one will be happy.
@ TJ > “Wasn’t it only 10 and 20 years ago that Seniors were the most reliable Republican voting demographic?
What changed? Is it just the Boomers, the newest of the old?”
You are correct.
The people who were “Seniors” 20 years ago are all dead by now.
Age-based groupings are not the same people over time, which is why you can’t make general statements like “all old people are conservative” or “all young people are radical” or whatever.*
The constituents of each group change as people age, although not necessarily their ideologies or political preferences.
For instance, there is some truth to the observation that most people who were young hippies in the sixties are old hippies today.
There are some people whose views change as they age, of course. 😉
*Although those might have some general basis, according to the anonymous** maxim: “If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain”
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/
**Anonymous means it has been attributed to everyone in any age who was a political thinker*** and not proven to be from any of them.
***As opposed to the witticisms usually attributed to Mark Twain.
In another lawsuit, this one civil rather than criminal, the Trump win of a settlement may have serious implications. Rather than go to trial to dispute Trump’s claims about an unethically edited interview of Kamala Harris during the campaign, Paramount settled.
One possibility is that they did NOT want to go through discovery and risk the uncovering of another edited interview with even worse ramifications.
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2025/08/19/new-insight-on-why-paramount-settled-trumps-lawsuit-n3805959
Of course, now we know about it anyway, but at the time the Democrats were still running with the “Biden’s fine” narrative.
Jonathan Turley posted about a different topic, but the commenters began arguing about this trial, and one commenter mentioned some details I wasn’t clear about; although I don’t know if it’s accurate, it sounds more promising for Trump:
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/08/21/i-have-no-idea-justice-department-official-raised-objections-to-ill-defined-biden-pardons/comment-page-3/#comment-2545815
I don’t know why those judges wanted an appeal instead of a dismissal, or what legal brambles are involved.
Despite my being married to a lawyer, the maneuverings of courts have always escaped me; Byzantine politics is sometimes more straightforward.
Aesop,
They’re trying to thread the needle.
Now do Alex Jones.