Trump conviction could be thrown out by NY Court of Appeals — No one is writing about this hearing. Everyone needs to see this video — Media coverup.

No victims, no one ruled out of losing money. It was a business transaction where both parties were happy but yet the Dems want to make it seem like there was fraud. The Dems are the fraudulent ones

— MERICA MEMED (@Mericamemed) October 14, 2024

The case that led to Trump’s $489 million civil “fraud” verdict was bogus. He took out a loan from major banks. He paid it back. They had no complaint. “No harm, no foul.”

But the local District Attorney brought a case anyway, using an obscure law that had never been applied like this. A biased judge ruled against Trump.

The NY state Appellate Court is very skeptical. Here are clips from several different justices.

–transcript–
[Justice] Underneath all these questions, the question of mission creep, has 6312 morphed into something that it was not meant to do?

[Deputy Solicitor General, Judith Vale] All the defendants repeatedly violated…

[Justice] Ms. Vale, can you identify any previous case which the attorney general sued under Executive Law 6312 to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners?

[Vale] And it was using…

[Justice] I’m sorry, but what’s being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute between private actors.

[Justice] I mean, you’ve got two really sophisticated parties in which no one lost any money. … The case that you cite involved where there was damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace. You’ve got a scheme to get unsophisticated consumers to take out home loans. You’ve got a collapse of Lehman Brothers. You don’t have anything like that here.

[Justice] And that’s something you must address, because there has to be some limitation on what the attorney general can do in interfering in these private transactions, as Justice Friedman said, that where people don’t claim harm. So what is the limiting principle?

[Justice] The immense penalty in this case is troubling. So how do you tether the amount that was assessed by Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy about how things went down?

[Justice] Historical backdrop to this law, how do we draw a line or at least put up some guardrails to know when the AG is operating well within her, admittedly, broad sphere of 6312, and when she is going into an area that wasn’t intended for her jurisdiction?

The case that led to Trump's $489 million civil "fraud" verdict was bogus. He took out a loan from major banks. He paid it back. They had no complaint. "No harm, no foul."

But the local District Attorney brought a case anyway, using an obscure law that had never been applied…

— Kamala Talk (@kamalatalk) October 13, 2024