>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
However, the judges expressed doubts about James’s authority to impose such a large penalty, particularly when there were no clear victims in the case. Several members of the panel, including Justice Peter Moulton, raised concerns over the scale of the judgment and its relation to the actual harm caused. Moulton pressed the state’s Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale during the proceedings, asking, “The immense penalty, in this case, is troubling. How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?” as reported by the Daily Mail. Vale defended the judgment, explaining, “Although this is a large number, it’s a large number for a couple of reasons. One, because there was a lot of fraud and illegality.”
The legal team defending Trump, led by attorney D. John Sauer, seized the opportunity to argue that the case was filed beyond the statute of limitations. Sauer also contended that the penalty was unjust, considering there were no victims and no financial harm to any party involved. “This case involves a clear-cut violation of the statute of limitations and relevant case law,” Sauer argued, challenging the legitimacy of the charges based on financial statements from years past.
Sauer went on to emphasize that Trump’s lenders and business partners were unaffected by the alleged financial discrepancies. During the trial, it was noted that the terms of Trump’s business dealings would have remained unchanged regardless of his net worth. Sauer highlighted this point, stating, “What is not disputed is the testimony that if the net worth had been as low as one million (dollars), the deal would’ve been exactly the same.” Trump’s legal team has repeatedly pointed to the absence of complaints from lenders as evidence that no real harm was done.
Justice David Friedman further questioned Vale’s argument, asking if there was any precedent for suing over transactions between experienced business entities, particularly when neither party suffered a financial loss. “Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace. … We don’t have anything like that here,” Friedman noted, adding more pressure on the state to justify its legal actions.
TRUMP LOVES IT: Get the Presidential Blanket FREE Today! Supplies Running Out – Grab Yours NOW! 🕒👇
As the appeal progresses, it remains to be seen how the judges will rule on the case. But Thursday’s hearing clearly signaled that the panel has serious reservations about the state’s use of fraud statutes and the size of the penalties imposed on Trump. For the former president, this case is yet another hurdle in his ongoing legal battles, but one where his defense team appears to have found fertile ground to challenge the state’s claims.
