"A federal judge dismissed the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday."

"The judge found that the appointment of interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan in Alexandria, Virginia, was invalid. Trump handpicked Halligan for the role amid increasing pressure to bring criminal cases against his political enemies, including Comey and James...."

CNN reports.

"James Indictment Mirrors Her Civil Case Against Trump in Miniature."

NYT headline.

It's "miniature" because the alleged fraud is over a much smaller amount, $18,933 as opposed to "millions."

"For 10 years, I’ve been hearing that we needed to fight fire with fire, to oppose Trump by becoming him, to protect our supposedly sacred liberal institutions by taking some shortcut..."

"... that carved a destructive path straight through them: cracking down on speech, abandoning the norms of journalistic objectivity, making unprecedented use of prosecutorial power. These were bad ideas in their own right, and they did absolutely nothing to stop Trump."

Writes Megan McArdle, in "When the rule of law becomes rule of lawfare/Friday’s Bolton raid and the rebuke of Trump’s $500M fine show what happens when justice is not impartial" (WaPo).

Bad ideas... and they did absolutely nothing to stop Trump. But what if they had stopped Trump? That was the biggest of the ideas, and it might have worked. McArdle asserts that now — now that Trump is back with a vengeance — now we should see that neutral principles are best. If only the lawfare hadn't backfired, it would have been delightful to go on ignoring them.

Delightful for whom? Who are we talking about? Not McArdle herself. She's reporting on what she'd "been hearing" for 10 years. She also says "it was depressing watching so many people on the left thrill to this abusive lawfare." Well, "so many people on the left" think a lot of awful things, including that the so-called "rule of law" is a con.

Did the ordinary liberals of America buy into the fight-fire-with-fire approach? Let them take responsibility, not merely gesture at the "many people on the left." But it's not as though admitting you were wrong now will carry any weight. You played a game of tit for tat and now you're sad that the game continues.

ADDED: Trump plays openly, on Truth Social, just yesterday:

"Divided Court Eliminates Trump’s Half-Billion-Dollar Fine in Fraud Case/New York appeals judges said that the judgment was excessive, but agreed to uphold the case so the appeal could continue."

The NYT reports (gift link).

“While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state,” wrote Peter Moulton, one of the appeals judges whose lengthy and convoluted ruling reflected significant disagreement among the five-judge panel.

This is the intermediate appellate court. 

The president’s appeal will now most likely move to New York’s highest court, providing him another opportunity to challenge the finding that he was a fraudster....

The finding that he was a fraudster! They only write like that for Trump. For anyone else, I suspect, they'd name the crime — "that he committed fraud" — and not portray the verdict as labeling the person as a member of category of people who commit this sort of crime. Especially with the jocose "-ster" ending — "fraudster." 

"Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration."

"If prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth, we are ready and waiting with facts and the law."

Said Abbe Lowell, lawyer for Letitia James, quoted in "Justice Department Subpoenas Office of Letitia James, a Trump Nemesis/Ms. James, New York’s attorney general, won a civil fraud case against President Trump that is on appeal. One of the two subpoenas is related to that case" (NYT).

Department of Poetic Justice.

"The Trump administration has begun to scrutinize the real estate transactions of New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, in what could be the opening move..."

"... of President Trump’s first investigation into one of his foremost adversaries. The head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency sent a criminal referral letter to the Department of Justice this week, saying that Ms. James 'appeared to have falsified records' related to properties she owns in Virginia and New York in order to receive favorable loan terms.... When purchasing the Virginia residence, Ms. James signed notarized paperwork attesting that she would use it as a principal residence.... The referral letter also accused Ms. James of misrepresenting the number of units in a Brooklyn home she purchased in 2001, possibly in order to receive better interest rates.....The month before Ms. James’s lawsuit against Mr. Trump went to trial, anonymous complainants began to file documents with New York City’s Department of Buildings, several of them related to the number of units in the home.... One of the complaints, in October 2024, asked why Ms. James was 'NOT being prosecuted for fraud and filling false documents when other people have been persecuted for far less crimes,' then added a pointed question: 'a Double Standard???'"

From "Trump Official Scrutinizes N.Y.’s Attorney General Over Real Estate/The head of a U.S. housing agency told prosecutors that Letitia James appeared to have falsified real estate records, a move that could be the start of an investigation of a key Trump adversary" (NYT).

Andrew Cuomo "blames the leftists in the State Legislature, who never liked him no matter how many left-wing priorities he passed..."

"... gay marriage, a $15 minimum wage, paid family leave, a fracking ban, free state-college tuition, legal marijuana, and stricter gun laws—and who were lying in wait to take him down. The allegations [of sexual harassment] were just a pretext, in his view, especially at a moment when the progressive wing of the party had the upper hand in the Democratic coalition."

From "The (Partial) Reinvention of Andrew Cuomo/He says he’s grown and learned. His brute-force takeover of the mayor’s race, at least, looks familiar" (NY Magazine).

"Cuomo... maintains that much of the whole affair was concocted by [state attorney general Letitia] James, whom Cuomo endorsed for the position and who, in a kind of gubernatorial attempted coup, ran for the job herself after he resigned.... 'That women’s issue was so electric that once somebody lights that fuse, you can’t stop it in that environment. Politicians were like dominoes—boop, boop, boop, boop,' he said, mimicking with his fingers the tumbling of the play tiles...."

At the Al Smith charity dinner — Trump was there, and Kamala Harris was not.

There were far more Democrats than Trump fans there, but Harris stayed away, though they let her appear as a pre-recorded video (in which she off-loaded the comedy to Molly Shannon, who deployed her old SNL Catholic schoolgirl character, and I couldn't hear any laughter in the room). 

Trump sat there — between Melania and the Cardinal — and laughed at gibes from Jim Gaffigan, who plays Tim Walz on SNL. Gaffigan is funny — and Catholic — and he handled his task well. Scroll to 2:25 to see him step up to speak as the camera pans to Donald Trump, who knows he's going to get kicked around and is sitting facing the audience, with only the Cardinal and Chuck Schumer between him and Gaffigan. But he knows he's not the one who chickened out and he knows he's going to get the last word.

Here is my selection and ranking of Jim Gaffigan's Top 7 jokes:

7.  "This room is is undeniably impressive... the prestige, the wealth, the allegations. I mean, wow, and don't feel bad if you don't have any allegations yet, okay, which reminds me Letitia James is here. She had a great year. She's just back there watching all of you. She's watching."

6. "This event has been referred to as the Catholic Met Gala. 22% of Americans identify as Catholic. Catholics will be a key demographic in every battleground state. I'm sorry: Why is Vice President Harris not here?... This is a layup for the Democratic nominee. I mean, in her defense I mean she did find time to appear on 'The View,' Howard Stern, and the long-time staple of campaigning the 'Call Her Daddy' podcast."

5. "You have to admit the Democrats have done an amazing job rebranding Vice President Harris.... The term 'Joyful Warrior' was used so many times at the Democratic Convention. I felt like I was at a yoga retreat. Let's start off in a Joyful Warrior pose and then go straight into Downward-Facing Doug."

4. "I watch that [video appearance of Kamala Harris]... I couldn't help but think of: Now I know how my kids felt when... I FaceTimed into a piano recital."

3. "I don't know if you've heard about these people who publicly say they would never vote for Trump, but then when they go in the voting booth, they do. It's a small group. They're called the Biden family."

2. "Joe Biden was our second Catholic President, right after JFK. President Biden couldn't be here tonight. The DNC made sure of that."

1. "The Democrats have been telling us Trump's reelection is a threat to democracy. In fact, they were so concerned of this threat, they staged a coup, outed their democratically elected incumbent and installed Kamala Harris."

AND NOW: Here is my selection and ranking of Donald Trump's Top 7 jokes comedic riffs:

7. "A major issue in this race is child care, and Kamala has put forward a concept of a plan.... The only piece of advice I would have for her in the event that she wins would be not to let her husband Doug anywhere near the nannies. Just keep them away. That's a nasty one. That's nasty. I told these idiots that gave me this stuff, that's too tough."

6. "When I heard that Kamala was skipping the Al Smith Dinner, I'd really hoped that she would come because we can't get enough of hearing her beautiful laugh. She laughs like crazy. We would recognize it anyplace — in this room."

5. "You can't do what I just saw on that screen, but my opponent feels like she does not have to be here, which is deeply disrespectful to the event and in particular to our great Catholic Community.... The last Democrat not to attend this important event was Walter Mondale, and it did not go very well for him.... Shows you there is a God.... I understand the real reason that she's not here is she's hunting with her running mate — spending a lot of time hunting...."

4. "It's a true pleasure to be with you this evening — amazing pleasure... really a pleasure to be anywhere in New York without a subpoena.... Anytime I don't get a subpoena, I'm very happy. They've gone after me. Mr. Mayor, you're peanuts compared to what they've done to me. And you're going to be okay."

3. "All polls are indicating I'm leading big with a Catholic vote. As I should be. But I don't think Kamala has given up yet.... Instead of attending tonight she's in Michigan receiving communion from Gretchen Whitmer."

2. "If Democrats really wanted to have someone not be with us this evening they would have just sent Joe Biden."

1. "A good job tradition holds that I'm supposed to tell a few self-deprecating jokes this evening, so here it goes. Nope, I've got nothing I've got nothing. There's nothing to say. I guess I just don't see the point of taking shots at myself when other people have been shooting at me for a hell of a long time. They shoot, right? You know, they say about presidents, they say that Andrew Jackson was the President that was the most meanly treated. His wife died, she died of heartache. She was heartbroken at the way they treated him. And they say that second was Abraham Lincoln, but he was in charge of the Civil War, you know, so but those were the two... up until me. Now, they say it's not even close. There's never been a president that's been treated so badly as me. And now, people aren't happy about it, but I was treated a little bit rough, but I don't mind it somehow, and I think it's just part of the game."

How would this tactic play out? Is it a trick?

 

 Link.

I've been thinking about this. Trump could let the March 25th deadline arrive and force James to act. Let her seize Trump Tower. How will that look? How can she manage the place? What will people think? Is he calling her bluff?

The 91 felony indictments helped Trump in the polls. His popularity could skyrocket if James confiscates his tower. The political value might exceed the half a billion dollars in wealth it will cost.

In any case, it would be chaotic. One "insider" said:

Jawbone.

"One day Sampson was walking alone/He looked down on the ground and he saw an old jawbone/He lifted up that jawbone and he swung it over his head/And when he got to moving ten thousand was dead" — Peter, Paul & Mary.

"Oh, Jawbone, when did you first go wrong? Oh, Jawbone, where is it you belong?" — The Band.

From "Moral Suasion" (Wikipedia):

"Jawboning"... is the use of authority to persuade various entities to act in certain ways, which is sometimes underpinned by the implicit threat of future government regulation. In the United States, during the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, officials tried to deal with the mounting inflationary pressures by direct government influence or jawboning.... 

From an amicus brief in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, one of 2 free-speech cases up for oral argument in the Supreme Court today:

"Donald J. Trump’s... impassioned defense during closing arguments... attacked both the New York attorney general who brought the case and the judge overseeing it...."

"[He] cast[] himself as a victim of what he claimed was their partisan crusade against him.... He took the microphone, said that he did not see how he could stick to the facts and the law when the case went beyond them and then monologued for five minutes. He attacked the judge, saying, 'You have your own agenda.' He went after Ms. James, accusing her of perpetrating 'a fraud on me.' Perhaps the most surprising feature of Mr. Trump’s closing argument was that he stopped willingly after five minutes. When the lunch break arrived, Justice Engoron asked him to finish, and Mr. Trump obliged...."

From "What to Know After Closing Arguments in Trump’s Civil Fraud Trial/A judge’s decision lies ahead, and appeals are highly likely. But this case could end Mr. Trump’s decades-long role in the New York real-estate business" (NYT).

The NYT writers find it "surprising" that Trump — who disrespects the Attorney General and the judge — respects lunchtime.

This part of the article makes me think it's clear what the judge is going to do:

Where are all the articles saying Trump's trial testimony was a disaster?

I feel rather sure that headlines like that would be everywhere if it was at all possible to spin it that way, so I'm going to assume he did — at least — reasonably well.

The testimony isn't even the top story at the NYT. Israel is the top story....

Thanksgiving food is getting more promotion — not to mention home elevators and a "male-killing virus" in insects.

If I go to the next screenful of NYT homepage, there is some Trump, but it's not about his trial testimony. It's about the election:

"But Mr. Trump and his allies are clearly hoping they can deflect whatever political fallout Ms. James’s lawsuit inspires by drawing on past legal battles..."

"... all of which, so far, the longtime real estate baron has survived with the agility of an alley cat."

Writes Blake Hounshell with the zeal of a pizza rat.

I'm reading "The Political Backdrop of Letitia James’s Lawsuit Against Trump" (NYT).

I thought the "alley cat" was silly and gratuitous, but I care about the political dimension of the civil suit brought by Letitia James, the New York attorney general. How to make us believe it's all about the rule of law?

"Letitia James, a Democrat, has made no secret that she intends to use her powers as New York’s attorney general to pursue possible legal action against President Trump."

"She calls him an 'illegitimate president.' She says her decision to run for attorney general was largely 'about that man in the White House who can’t go a day without threatening our fundamental rights.'... Her strident attacks on the president could potentially threaten the legal standing of cases that her office brings against Mr. Trump, his family members or their business interests, legal experts said.... In an interview, Ms. James defended her remarks about the president, adding that she believed that her race and gender were shaping what she characterized as assumptions and misconceptions about how she would perform as attorney general. Ms. James is the first woman in New York to be elected as attorney general, the first African-American woman to be elected to statewide office, and the first African-American to serve as attorney general. Before winning election, she was the New York City public advocate. 'This is similar to when I was about to take office as public advocate, and individuals expressed concerns,' Ms. James said. 'What I have done repeatedly throughout my life is I have been underestimated and have continued to perform.'"

From "N.Y.’s New Attorney General Is Targeting Trump. Will Judges See a ‘Political Vendetta?’" (NYT)