patrick.net

I realize it’s difficult to keep up with the rogue’s gallery of politically-partisan judges and prosecutors pursuing President Trump, but by now you’ve probably heard plenty about the historic $354 million-dollar criminal penalty pinned on President Trump and his New York companies on Friday. The case started last year with an equally historic premise, using a statute that had never been used this way before against anyone, never mind against a President, and relying on a logic-defying factual allegation of financial fraud even though the banks that got Trump’s allegedly fraudulent financial statements said everything looked fine to them.

There are two major prongs in civil cases: liability and damages. You need to prove both to win a civil case. It is not quite the same way in criminal cases but it’s comparable, especially where, as here, the alleged crime (fraud) has a civil analogue. Proving criminal fraud everywhere but in New York requires proof of three things: an intent to deceive, a victim’s reliance on a deliberately-false representation, and an actual injury caused by the victim’s reliance on the deceptive representation.

New York’s novel criminal statute (never used this way before) strips two of the three elements, dehydrating the age-old ‘crime’ down to a new-age essence: the mere intent to deceive. Judge Engoran — a partisan democrat from way back — had no trouble finding that Trump intended to deceive the banks. It doesn’t matter whether the bankers said they were deceived or not, that’s reliance, an antique element jettisoned from New York law after State Attorney Letitia James woke up one morning with her brain hurting on the left side.

In other words, they’ve reduced the crime to the democrats’ absolute favorite: a thought crime. The only wrinkle under the statute is that the intent to deceive must be financially-related and written down. The fact the crime is only based on Trump’s intent is democrat partisans are proud of. For example:

Next up is the damages, or the lack thereof. Under our Constitutional system of criminal justice, punishments must be proportional. That’s basic Eighth Amendment law going back to the very beginning. There can be no cruel or unusual punishment. Which includes excessive fines. That is undisputed.

Here’s what the New York Times reported about the damages back in November:




So how did Judge Engoran calculate that his $354 million fine was proportional? Proportional to what?

The judge buried that calculation in a mind-numbing array of complicated hypotheticals, such as imagining that — despite what the bankers said — Trump might have paid a higher interest rate on the loans if his financials had looked different. That got the judge part of the way, and then he imposed a massive $250-million clawback of what he decided were “unjust profits.”

All the judge’s complicated calculations elided the requirement of proportionality to the damage actually caused.

So what comes next? An appeal. Unlike the $83 million civil verdict against President Trump in the bizarre sex assault case, there is no remittitur available for a criminal fine. So Trump will proceed directly to appeal — an appeal demonically calibrated to inflict the most possible pain, since under New York law, in order to appeal Trump must first post a bond in the full amount of the fine plus interest — over $450 million dollars.

President Trump can either put up the cash or buy a bond. Appeal bond fees cost around ten percent of the total, or $45 million dollars, which Trump would never get back. If he ultimately loses, the bonder would pay the fine but keep $450 million in Trump’s collateral, which the President was required to pledge to secure the bond. If Trump wins, he pays nothing further, but the bonder still keeps the bond fee.

Trump’s appeal now must work its way through New York’s liberal court system. Ironically, the state names its courts backwards — the trial court is called the “supreme court” — but the basic idea is the same as everywhere else. Trump must appeal first to the appellate division, and from there to New York’s supreme court, and from there to the U.S. Supreme Court — but he can only appeal to the USSC on Constitutional issues, of which there are several.

Everyone wants a prediction, but the case is a unicorn, which makes it utterly unpredictable. The one predictable part has already occurred, which is that the hyper-partisan judge and prosecutor reached this result. It was inevitable, everyone knew it, the threat of this judgment was meant to dissuade Trump from running for President. Now the unpredictable appellate part begins.

It is literally unthinkable that any court of appeals would uphold this decision. The criminal statute that the judgment was based on is Constitutionally infirm because it is vague; businesspeople in New York can’t accurately predict what conduct is prohibited. The judgment itself is Constitutionally infirm because it is wildly disproportionate to any legitimate harm caused to victims, despite Judge Engoran’s best efforts to find the victims’ testimony not credible and to calculate injuries they denied having.

Trump has excellent arguments for each of the legal aspects of the case. It’s almost an understatement to say the facts favor Trump, not least that the banks testified they weren’t harmed. The case itself was always tailor-made for an appellate court, with its high profile nature, political implications, celebrity defendant, and media interest. ...

Celebrity cases like this one break the rules. There’s nothing to compare them to. But the good news is that Trump’s lawyers have everything they need to win. It might’ve been the other way, with Trump facing difficult law and hard facts. But he’s in the best possible position to win, which should be encouraging.

Lately I often hear people complain about the use of donor money to pay Trump’s litigation expenses. That seems wrong-headed to me. Trump is only facing the litigation because he’s running for President. Donald J. Trump is the one taking all the risk — risk of bankruptcy and prison. If people don’t donate, he’s a dead Donald. So his litigation costs are campaign expenses. It’s that simple.

Lately I often hear people complain about the use of donor money to pay Trump’s litigation expenses. That seems wrong-headed to me. Trump is only facing the litigation because he’s running for President. Donald J. Trump is the one taking all the risk — risk of bankruptcy and prison. If people don’t donate, he’s a dead Donald. So his litigation costs are campaign expenses. It’s that simple.

Billionaire businessman Joe Lonsdale has blasted the draconian nine-figure fine imposed on President Donald Trump by a leftist New York judge.

Lonsdale noted that the ruling, issued in New York Attorney General Letitia James’s civil “fraud” case, is “scary” for other businesses operating in the state.

The renowned American entrepreneur declared that the ruling was “obviously” political and “not how this country is supposed to work.”

Trump was fined over $450 million in “damages” by radical Judge Arthur Engoron for “fraud,” even as the judge acknowledged there were no victims in the case.

The verdict has led to shock and alarm even among Trump’s foes, including Jeb Bush, who co-authored a Wall Street Journal article with Lonsdale defending Trump.

Lonsdale told CNN host Michael Smerconish that the verdict is “obviously” excessive and politically motivated.

Echoing Trump’s own rhetoric about the Biden “regime,” Lonsdale said he fears the government is being “weaponized” against political opponents and business will suffer.

“It’s like basically what happens in these countries when you have a regime take over that’s going after its enemies,” he said.

“You weaponize it and you penalize people in ridiculous ways.

“This is an obvious example of that.”

Lonsdale said he and his friends in business are not fans of Trump, but they find the excessive punishment “scary.”

“This is why it’s scary to my friends who do business, who don’t even like Trump because it’s a $400,000,000 fine for something where there’s no victims is obviously a weaponization of government and everyone knows on its face.”

“They know that penalizing that much in business is clearly weaponization,” he said.

Patrick says

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice inspector general on Wednesday, accusing special counsel Jack Smith of election interference by resisting attempts to delay his criminal prosecution of former President Trump.

Smith has pushed federal judges not to delay his case against Trump, which alleges that the former president attempted to overturn the 2020 election. Trump’s attorneys have invoked the Supreme Court over whether Trump can be prosecuted at all, possibly pushing back trial past the 2024 general election.

Gaetz claims Smith’s work is intended to influence the election, violating DOJ policy.

“The witch hunt against President Trump by Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith is a partisan exercise, and the American people know it,” Gaetz said in a statement. “The actions of the Special Counsel Smith to speed up the trial against President Trump violate the DOJ’s rules and the law.”

“His public comments and his office’s briefs before the Supreme Court demonstrate that he has no reason for his actions other than to unlawfully interfere in the 2024 presidential election,” he continued.

Unwritten DOJ policy generally forbids prosecutors from actions that could be seen as influencing an election within 60 days of Election Day. Gaetz argued in the letter that the logic of the rule should be extended to now because “it is indisputable that we are already in an election season.”

Gaetz’s letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz specifically claims Smith’s attempts to speed the case through courts is a “violation of law.”

“It is the core of prohibited conduct that a purpose (not the purpose) of any official action of a prosecutor be to affect any election,” Gaetz wrote. “It may be morally correct that the American people should see swift resolution of this case, perhaps with dropped charges or a Trump acquittal before the November 2024 Presidential election, but wielding Executive Branch authority in the service of this is a violation of law. Prosecutors must be held to a higher standard.”

I was speaking at the VSRF Litigation Conference in Las Vegas on March 8th. I caught up with Brook Jackson at the conference, and she has informed me that she and her attorneys have received email communication from the Department of Justice stating that they are planning to intervene in her case (again) and move to dismiss it.

This comes after, finally, the oral arguments were scheduled for April 17th, meaning the US Government is desperate to squash the case before discovery can be made possible! They cannot afford the discovery, and thus will try to get rid of the case. The DOJ has to provide the rationale for the dismissal, and it remains to be seen what that will be. ...

As I said many times before, while this development is not really a surprise and was expected by me and by Katherine Watt . We think of Brook as an American hero. By bringing this case, as early as she did, and by being steadfast in her pursuit of justice, not as plaintiff but as a relator under False Claims Act, she speaks for all of us and for all victims. This case was instrumental in identifying the Department of Defense as a key “financier” behind the mass murder and biological weapons attack masquerading as a “response” to a “public health crisis”. Pfizer was cornered and had to point to the DOD contract in their first motion to dismiss in April 2022.

The case is not over, and I pray that Brook and her attorneys persevere and ultimately true justice prevails.

President Donald Trump has raised the alarm over evidence that appears to show high-level collusion in the politically motivated classified documents case against him.

Trump revealed that he has uncovered evidence that appears to show that Special Counsel Jack Smith has been taking orders from Democrat President Joe Biden.

The 45th president argues that it proves a direct link between the White House and the prosecution cases against him.

Trump alleges that recent court filings by Jack Smith admit to the special counsel acting under directions from Biden.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/colorados-star-dna-analyst-intentionally-manipulated-data-investigation-finds-eff028ac

Paywall

"Look at the charts, the numbers don't lie," Missy proclaimed steadfastly, "It's scientifically proven to be 'two in the pink'. However, further study is required to find out 'how many in the stink'."

To prevent being reversed for unconstitutional “unusual punishment” or “excessive fines,” Judge Engoran, who looks much like an old goat, would have been better off ordering a lower penalty for Trump’s completely victimless crime. But the pallid Judge got greedy, or happy, or something, and ordered an historic, planet-sized judgment, which is now creating all sorts of legal problems.

To prevent being reversed for unconstitutional “unusual punishment” or “excessive fines,” Judge Engoran, who looks much like an old goat, would have been better off ordering a lower penalty for Trump’s completely victimless crime.