"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." 

"Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump demands Kamala Harris, Beyoncé, Oprah be prosecuted over 2024 campaign payouts: 'Totally illegal'" (NY Post).

What about paying them to not denounce you? Wasn't Trump prosecuted for that?

"When asked why he removed classified material on Afghanistan, Biden admitted 'I guess I wanted to hang on to it for posterity’s sake.' That is precisely..."

"... what critics on CNN and MSNBC accused Trump of doing: removing material as types of keepsakes or trophies. One president was indicted for that and one was sent along his way to a second term in office. The real indictment that comes out of these tapes is a type of political racketeering enterprise by the Washington establishment. It took a total team effort from Democratic politicians to the White House staff to the media to hide the fact that the President of the United States was mentally diminished. If there were a political RICO crime, half of Washington would be frog-marched to the nearest federal courthouse...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "'For Posterity’s Sake': Why the Biden-Hur Tapes is a Virtual Racketeering Indictment."

But there is no "political RICO crime," Turley assures us. It's a conspiracy to do politics. In short, politics. Do you agree?

"Are you admitting that the case against Trump in New York was part of the organized Democratic Party resistance?"

I can't believe it. They finally admitted it on live TV:

The prosecution of President Trump was an organized effort by the Democratic Party "resistance."

Lawfare is real. The justice system was weaponized against President Trump. pic.twitter.com/uvMKTHcA53

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) May 15, 2025

Trump has his framed mug-shot on the wall next to the door to the Oval Office.

Everyone who walks into the Oval office has to see Trump’s epic mugshot.

It’s a reminder of what they did to him and why he won. pic.twitter.com/22qJKDSgqC

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 14, 2025

"A lawyer from one of Manhattan’s most prominent law firms will lead the appeal of President Trump’s criminal conviction...."

"The participation of the lawyer, Robert Giuffra Jr., a co-chair of Sullivan & Cromwell and one of New York’s better-known appellate lawyers.... underscores how New York’s legal power players have warmed to the president. Mr. Trump was spurned by lawyers from major firms when he left office four years ago, but his second victory has brought about a sea change.... 'President Donald J. Trump’s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York’s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,' Mr. Giuffra said in a statement. 'The misuse of the criminal law by the Manhattan D.A. to target President Trump sets a dangerous precedent.'"

From "As Establishment Warms to Trump, Elite Law Firm Takes On His Appeal/The involvement of Sullivan & Cromwell in the appeal of President Trump’s criminal conviction underscored how New York’s legal power players have moved toward Mr. Trump" (NYT). Side note: I worked there, long ago.

Meanwhile: "Justice Dept. Is Said to Discuss Dropping Case Against Eric Adams/Senior officials under President Trump have talked with prosecutors in Manhattan about the possibility of abandoning the corruption case against New York City’s mayor" (NYT).

"Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report'..."

"... based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were. Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!

Writes Donald Trump at Truth Social. And then: "To show you how desperate Deranged Jack Smith is, he released his Fake findings at 1:00 A.M. in the morning. Did he say that the Unselect Committee illegally destroyed and deleted all of the evidence."

Here's the corresponding story in the NYT:

The Trump sentencing is in progress, with Trump participating remotely.

Here's a free-access link to the NYT live-blog of the sentencing.

Trump is alternating staring at the camera and glancing down as [the prosecutor Josh] Steinglass... says that the American public has the right to a presidency unencumbered by the continuing demands of any alternative sentence. But, Steinglass says, it’s important that Trump’s status as a felon be formalized, to pay due respect to the jury’s verdict....

Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer... blasts the very legitimacy of the case. He says that it was “started for what amounted to a third time” after Trump announced his intention to run for re-election, repeating Trump’s frequent accusations of election interference....

Trump begins speaking. “This has been a very terrible experience. I think it’s been a tremendous setback” for New York and its court system, he says.... Trump says that people in the country got to see the case “first-hand” and then he won [the election].... Trump again complains about the gag order that he’s been under. “I assume I’m still under a gag order,” Trump says. Then he adds, “But the fact is, I’m totally innocent.”...

“I was treated very, very unfairly, and I thank you very much,” Trump concludes.

UPDATE: "Justice Merchan, as expected, sentences Trump to an unconditional discharge. He wishes Trump 'Godspeed' as he prepares to assume his second term in office. The judge leaves the bench."

"The Supreme Court’s rejection... of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s request to be spared from being sentenced... was just a few lines long, and it made modest and practical points...."

Writes Adam Liptak, in "A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court/Two Republican appointees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, joined the court’s three liberals in ordering the president-elect to face sentencing on Friday" (NYT).

If the votes of the three liberal justices were predictable, those of the two conservative members of the court who voted with them on Thursday — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — were more surprising.

The chief justice was the author of not only the immunity decision but also of majority opinions in two other victories for Mr. Trump last term, one casting doubt on some of the federal charges against him and the other allowing him to seek another term despite
a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office.

His vote on Thursday was of a piece with the old Chief Justice Roberts.... 

Mr. Trump, for his part, has been a longtime critic of the chief justice. After the Affordable Care Act ruling, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter that “I guess @JusticeRoberts wanted to be a part of Georgetown society more than anyone knew,” citing a fake handle. During his first presidential campaign, Mr. Trump called the chief justice “an absolute disaster.”...

“I’m not happy with the Supreme Court,” he said on Jan. 6, 2021, during his speech near the White House. “They love to rule against me.”...

And Trump loves to win. He fights for every win — fight, fight, fight — even when the arguments are weak. But he's better off losing some of the time. It shows that the Supreme Court acts independently of him and undercuts those who'd like to say the Court is in his pocket. So this is one of his losses. He can handle losses. He's quite good at doing that. It leveraged his re-election.

"If the Supreme Court grants a stay of Mr. Trump’s sentencing, it might effectively scuttle the proceeding for good."

"The window to sentence Mr. Trump is rapidly closing — once he returns to the White House, Mr. Trump cannot face criminal prosecution — and he would be 82 after his second term concludes. It is unclear whether the judge overseeing the case, Justice Juan M. Merchan, would still seek to impose Mr. Trump’s sentence four years later. For now, Mr. Trump’s odds of success at the Supreme Court are unclear. It takes five justices to grant a stay. While some legal experts doubted the merits of his petition, the justices have come to his rescue before. The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling last year effectively thwarted a federal criminal case against Mr. Trump for his effort to subvert the 2020 election results...."

From "Trump Asks Supreme Court to Halt His Sentencing in N.Y. Criminal Case Prosecutors have been ordered to respond to the president-elect’s request by Thursday morning, suggesting the court could rule before Friday’s scheduled sentencing" (NYT).

Judge Merchan and Judge Cannon respond to Trump requests.

Merchan says no: "N.Y. judge denies Trump effort to block sentencing in hush money case/Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a New York judge to stop Trump’s sentencing scheduled for Friday on his convictions for falsifying business documents" (WaPo).

Cannon says yes: "Cannon temporarily blocks report on Trump classified-documents probe/Two Trump employees charged alongside him in the classified documents case separately asked Judge Aileen Cannon to block the release" (WaPo).

"The judge, Juan M. Merchan, indicated that he favored a so-called unconditional discharge of Mr. Trump’s sentence..."

"... a rare and lenient alternative to jail or probation. He set a sentencing date of Jan. 10, and ordered Mr. Trump to appear either in person or virtually. An unconditional discharge would cement Mr. Trump’s status as a felon just weeks before his inauguration.... Unlike a conditional discharge, which allows defendants to walk free if they meet certain requirements, such as maintaining employment or paying restitution, an unconditional discharge would come without strings attached...."

From "Judge Upholds Trump’s Conviction but Signals No Jail Time/The New York judge who oversaw President-elect Donald J. Trump’s hush-money trial scheduled his sentencing for Jan. 10. Mr. Trump is expected to appeal his conviction" (NYT).

"Unconditional discharge" sounds super-light, which makes use of the verb "cement" — with all its connotations of heaviness — feel like taunting.

What other "status" is "cemented"? It's demented.

"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a written opinion upholding the $5 million award that the Manhattan jury granted to E. Jean Carroll for defamation and sexual abuse...."

"Trump skipped the trial after repeatedly denying the attack ever happened. But he briefly testified at a follow-up defamation trial earlier this year that resulted in an $83.3 million award. The second trial resulted from comments then-President Trump made in 2019 after Carroll first made the accusations publicly in a memoir. In its ruling, a three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected claims by Trump’s lawyers that trial Judge Lewis A. Kaplan had made multiple decisions that spoiled the trial, including his decision to allow two other women who had accused Trump of sexually abusing them to testify. The judge also had allowed the jury to view the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape in which Trump boasted in 2005 about grabbing women’s genitals because when someone is a star, 'you can do anything.'"

AP reports.

"Fani Willis disqualified from Trump's Georgia election interference case."

 Axios reports.

Jack Smith moves to dismiss the January 6th case against Trump.

The NYT reports:

The request by Mr. Smith was his final acknowledgment that after two years of courtroom drama, prosecutors will not be able to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his efforts to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election as he prepares to re-enter the White House.

The department’s policy that sitting presidents may not be prosecuted “is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind,” Mr. Smith wrote. “Based on the department’s interpretation of the Constitution, the government moves for dismissal without prejudice of the superseding indictment.”

"Nearly two years ago, I wrote that Democratic prosecutors’ lawfare campaign against Donald Trump would make the 2024 election the single largest jury decision in history...."

"The 2024 election will come to be viewed as one of the biggest political and cultural shifts in our history. It was the mainstream-media-versus-new media election; the Rogan-versus-Oprah election; the establishment-versus-a-disassociated-electorate election. It was also a thorough rejection of lawfare. One of the things most frustrating for Trump’s opponents was that every trial or hearing seemed to give Trump a boost in the polls.... In the end, Trump read the jury correctly. Once the lawfare was unleashed, he focused on putting his case to the public and walked away with a clear majority decision...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "Donald Trump just won the greatest jury verdict in American history" (The Hill).

"Merchan doesn’t have the stomach to imprison a former president or president-elect. Now that Trump has won, his criminal problems go away."

Said former prosecutor Neama Rahmani, quoted in "Judge in Trump’s ‘hush money’ trial considers tossing felony conviction after election win" (NY Post).

"[Jack] Smith could proactively withdraw the charges himself, or simply resign..."

"... and allow the current leaders of the Justice Department to shutter them. He could continue to pursue the cases for the next two and a half months and essentially force Trump, or his appointees, to pull the plug. Or, with Garland’s blessing, he could release a comprehensive final report detailing the evidence against Trump.... Smith also has more deeply personal concerns to consider. Trump, who has vowed to use the presidency to seek retribution against his adversaries, has repeatedly accused Smith, without any basis, of criminality. Last month, Trump said Smith should be 'thrown out of the country.' And on Wednesday, Trump’s allies signaled quickly that Smith should prepare to face consequences. 'Dear Jack Smith: Lawyer up,' said Mike Davis, a bomb-throwing Trump ally considered to be in the mix to be a top legal adviser in the incoming administration...."

From "Trump’s biggest courtroom nemesis is looking for an exit strategy/The special counsel is expected to wind down the federal criminal cases he has spent the past two years building" (WaPo).

"Deranged Jack Smith is fighting for Lyin’ Kamala. LOST BIG IN FLORIDA! Justice Department is a political weapon. Never happened in USA before! MAGA2024."

Trump reacts — on Truth Social — to a legal commentator on CNN.

The commentator is Elie Honig, who put his opinion in a New York Magazine piece, "Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot," which I blogged here, 4 days ago.

Watch the CNN interview:

🚨BREAKING:

A CNN legal analyst just DESTROYED Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan for what appears to be political motivation in releasing the 165-page brief.

A legal analyst, who has handled thousands of cases, stated that he has NEVER witnessed such an occurrence before. He also… pic.twitter.com/7a5ZHa3hmJ

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) October 7, 2024

"[Jack] Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects."

"At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis. 'But we need to know this stuff before we vote!' is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice. (It also overlooks the fact that the Justice Department bears responsibility for taking over two and a half years to indict in the first place.)..."

Writes former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig, in "Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot" (in New York Magazine).

The way motions work... is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions.... [Smith] asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first.... Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” — moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn.

Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool.... Yet Smith now uses grand-jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure — and also members of the jury pool....

The Justice Manual — DOJ’s internal bible, essentially — contains a section titled “Actions That May Have an Impact on the Election.” Now: Does Smith’s filing qualify? May it have an impact on the election? Of course. So what does the rule tell us? “Federal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”

Remember, Smith begged the judge to flip the rules on their head so he could file this document first, and quickly — “any action,” by any reasonable definition — with the election right around the corner.....