BREAKING: Donald Trump wins, New York lawfare loses.

Justice at last.

A New York state appellate court has thrown out the $464 million civil penalty1 a Manhattan judge had imposed against President Trump in February 2024. The appeals judges said the fine was “excessive” and violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.

They tossed it entirely, a stunning rebuke to both New York attorney general Letitia James, who brought the case, and Judge Arthur Engoron, who ruled against Trump.

—

(Everything – okay, almost everything – you need to know. And fast. For pennies a day.)

Subscribe now

—

During a bizarre show trial, James alleged Trump had committed fraud by supposedly overstating the value of assets he used as collateral for loans. Yet Engoron himself admitted in his ruling that Trump had repaid the loans in full and that his “fraud” had not damaged anyone.

The case was pure lawfare, in other words, an effort to distract and possibly bankrupt Trump at a time when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president and by far the strongest challenger to the Dementor-in-Chief President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

As I wrote last year in trying to explain the suit and the nine-figure penalty that Engoron imposed:

I am trying to find an understandable analogy for the basis of the case against Trump, the crime he is supposed to have committed.

Here’s the best I can do:

You decide to replace some windows. The contractor comes, quotes you a price. You agree. He says, “Are you sure you can pay?”

You say “Yes, I have the money in my bank account.”

This is a lie. You don’t have the money in your account, but you are sure you’ll get it next week. You have a check coming.

He looks dubious but agrees.

He does the job. The money comes in as promised and you pay on time. He is satisfied.

New York state finds out that you lied about having the money in your account.

It claims you have committed fraud. And it takes your house.

—

Now a five-judge appellate panel has confirmed that view, tossing the penalty, with one judge going much further and arguing that James did not have the right to bring the case at all.

The legacy media is already trying to spin this verdict as something other than a catastrophic loss for James, with The New York Times referring in its headline to a “divided court.”

The truth is simpler.

Trump wins, again.

—

(Last year’s article.)