That’s right. Letitia James, who vowed during her candidacy that she’d get Trump by hook or by crook, ended up using a seventy-year old law to ensure an over-the-top $350 million verdict against Donald Trump and the Trump organization.

BREAKING: Judge fines former President Trump more than $300 million in civil fraud trial and bars him from running businesses in New York for three years. pic.twitter.com/Bjk5jRBTGt

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 16, 2024

The case was a clown show from the start. We have Letitia James posturing before the cameras and abandoning her duties as DA to sit ringside in the courtroom. Then there’s Judge Arthur Engoron who spent half the time preening for the cameras, and declared Trump guilty before the trial even started.

NEVER FORGET: The judge who fined Donald Trump $364 million laughed, smiled and smirked for the camera in court.

This isn’t about “justice” — These people are openly celebrating what they’re doing.

Disgusting.

pic.twitter.com/HR6HpVBCHb

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 16, 2024

Which led to yesterday’s verdict:

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued a deluge of punishments, including years-long bans on Trump and his adult sons taking top jobs in companies in the state, and he did so with biting language, castigating defendants as stubbornly unwilling to admit fault or acknowledge reality.

“Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological,” Engoron, who heard the case without a jury, said in a written decision.

Judge Engoron along with New York Attorney General Letitia James, should spend some very thoughtful time gazing in the mirror. Both of them were plainly in the ‘we will find him guilty of ‘something,’ and by golly, they did it. Using a 70-year old law. 

The law, often referred to by its shorthand, 63(12), which stems from its place in New York’s rule book, is a regulatory bazooka for the state’s attorney general, Letitia James. Her office has used it to aim at a wide range of corporate giants: the oil company Exxon Mobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli.

The history of this law is interesting given it shows how broadly it was written. Like VERY broadly. Jacob Javits was a New York Attorney General in the 1950’s. He’s responsible for this NY law getting crafted and then enacted. 

In 1956, his final year in office, he urged the state legislature to pass a new law that would give his office the power to investigate and bring actions against businesses that engage in “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.” Invoking this broad statute, Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law, the attorney general’s office has brought cases ranging from accusing three bus companies of violating New York City regulations on idling to accusing ExxonMobil of misleading investors about the business risks presented by climate change. “The statute gives the attorney general authority to pursue any kind of conduct that she or he considers to be fraudulent,” Jerry H. Goldfeder, a lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, who served as special counsel for public integrity to Andrew Cuomo when he was New York attorney general, told me.

Key phrase: “considers fraudulent.” Yet, upon delving into the weeds of this law, it’s so broad that one doesn’t even have to prove that there were actual live victims in the case. Just that there “might” be victims. 

Yet this remedy is like using a Hellfire missile to annihilate a shoplifter. Deutsche Bank made money on the loans, and its valuation teams gave a “haircut” to the numbers provided by Mr. Trump. There was no real financial victim.

More troubling is that this case was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who campaigned for office promising to find Mr. Trump guilty of something. This is choosing a target and then hunting for something to charge him with, which is an abuse of the law. Mr. Trump isn’t guaranteed a jury trial here, the judge says, because of the kind of case it is. But that’s another reason voters are unlikely to hold this judgment against Mr. Trump as he campaigns for the White House.

That’s the key. Even though there was a parade of 40 or so witnesses, those who stood to supposedly lose from Trump committing some type of fraud by over-inflating numbers regarding his business and properties, not a single one claimed they lost out on any financial windfall. In fact, Deutsche Bank stated multiple times under oath that they MADE money off the Trump deals. Doesn’t sound like they were victimized, does it? 

Here’s the other problem with weaponizing the law against someone they dislike. Businesses operating in New York whether the city or the state should have BUYER BEWARE red flags waving all over the place. 

It would not surprise me one bit if companies start making exit plans. Remington already has. I’m sure smaller companies have due to the insanely onerous tax laws. But to see that a New York official will use the law against someone they dislike due to party affiliation is a bad sign no matter who you are. 

Frankly, everyone, no matter their party and no matter their chosen candidate should view this verdict as a big red flag. An obscure seventy-year old law broadly written was weaponized against President Trump, even though there were exactly ZERO victims in the case. Make no mistake, this could happen to you if you dare step out of line. 

Welcome HotAir readers!

Feature Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons