Not looking good for Lettica James

T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

Thread Killer
Seems the NY Court of Appeals isn't buying James' and Engoron's case and verdict. Looks like they're getting ready to toss her whole case and the verdict.



www.businessinsider.com

NY appellate judges voice serious doubts about Trump's $454M civil fraud verdict

Manhattan appellate judges voiced skepticism Thursday over the state AG's 'mission creep' and lack for "guardrails" in pursuing the GOP frontrunner.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Seems the NY Court of Appeals isn't buying James' and Engoron's case and verdict. Looks like they're getting ready to toss her whole case and the verdict.



www.businessinsider.com

NY appellate judges voice serious doubts about Trump's $454M civil fraud verdict

Manhattan appellate judges voiced skepticism Thursday over the state AG's 'mission creep' and lack for "guardrails" in pursuing the GOP frontrunner.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...

I've been waiting for something like this.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Seems the NY Court of Appeals isn't buying James' and Engoron's case and verdict. Looks like they're getting ready to toss her whole case and the verdict.



www.businessinsider.com

NY appellate judges voice serious doubts about Trump's $454M civil fraud verdict

Manhattan appellate judges voiced skepticism Thursday over the state AG's 'mission creep' and lack for "guardrails" in pursuing the GOP frontrunner.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
An interesting take on the story which is an interesting take on the actual court hearing.

The court asked questions of both sides. One thing missed in this is how the court didn't seem to want to ask any questions about Trump's lawyers being sanctioned for frivolous arguments which was also part of the appeal.

Asking questions doesn't mean the answer won't give them reason to uphold the penalty. One judge asked if there was double counting in calculating the penalty and was told "no." Were the questions because they are skeptical or were the questions to provide answers to rebut every claim by Trump. Only the court's ruling will tell us. I get the sense that the reporters you cited have never listened to oral arguments.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
An interesting take on the story which is an interesting take on the actual court hearing.

The court asked questions of both sides. One thing missed in this is how the court didn't seem to want to ask any questions about Trump's lawyers being sanctioned for frivolous arguments which was also part of the appeal.

Asking questions doesn't mean the answer won't give them reason to uphold the penalty. One judge asked if there was double counting in calculating the penalty and was told "no." Were the questions because they are skeptical or were the questions to provide answers to rebut every claim by Trump. Only the court's ruling will tell us. I get the sense that the reporters you cited have never listened to oral arguments.
Click to expand...
The judges repeatedly asked questions about who was harmed, and James' lawyers had no answer to that. They repeatedly asked about statute of limitations to no useful reply from James' lawyers. They asked how the size of the judgement was arrived at, to no good answer. They asked about jurisdictional conflicts to no good answer.

James' legal team had nothing for the court to justify the verdict reached or the case brought. It was clear the judges were very skeptical of the whole case and verdict.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
An interesting take on the story which is an interesting take on the actual court hearing.

The court asked questions of both sides. One thing missed in this is how the court didn't seem to want to ask any questions about Trump's lawyers being sanctioned for frivolous arguments which was also part of the appeal.

Asking questions doesn't mean the answer won't give them reason to uphold the penalty. One judge asked if there was double counting in calculating the penalty and was told "no." Were the questions because they are skeptical or were the questions to provide answers to rebut every claim by Trump. Only the court's ruling will tell us. I get the sense that the reporters you cited have never listened to oral arguments.
Click to expand...
The "penalty" is for what crime? Specifically
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Seems the NY Court of Appeals isn't buying James' and Engoron's case and verdict. Looks like they're getting ready to toss her whole case and the verdict.



www.businessinsider.com

NY appellate judges voice serious doubts about Trump's $454M civil fraud verdict

Manhattan appellate judges voiced skepticism Thursday over the state AG's 'mission creep' and lack for "guardrails" in pursuing the GOP frontrunner.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
How long do you think it will be before she bests feet out of town?
 
Yakuda said:
How long do you think it will be before she bests feet out of town?
Click to expand...
Why would she? The worst that can happen is that the appellate court throws the verdict out with prejudice. While that might tarnish James' reputation, she's already gotten what she wanted: Political hay out of running Trump through a legal wringer in lawfare.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Seems the NY Court of Appeals isn't buying James' and Engoron's case and verdict. Looks like they're getting ready to toss her whole case and the verdict.



www.businessinsider.com

NY appellate judges voice serious doubts about Trump's $454M civil fraud verdict

Manhattan appellate judges voiced skepticism Thursday over the state AG's 'mission creep' and lack for "guardrails" in pursuing the GOP frontrunner.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
She’s in Albany, NY
 
zymurgy said:
it served the purpose of keeping him off the campaign trail
Click to expand...
That was not the purpose. Short afternoons at the court were not interfering with his heavy schedule (golfing). He was not ordered by the judge to be there. He chose to because he saw his brilliant talks to the press as free campaigning. He was talking stupidly to the press. He heard great wisdom educating the people he has conned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top