One of the things that lawyers do to drive themselves nuts is to try to discern from appellate judges’ statements during oral argument how those judges will ultimately rule. Today, a panel of New York Appellate Court judges expressed skepticism about February’s $464 million fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Still, it’s irresistible to read the tea leaves, and they indicate that the judges understand that the judgment is irredeemably flawed and must be reversed.

Because the lawfare against Trump has been so overwhelming, let me refresh your recollection about which case is being appealed right now.

New York’s Attorney General Letitia James had a one-item platform: I will destroy Donald Trump. To achieve that goal, she filed a civil suit against Trump, alleging that he had defrauded banks by lying about the value of his assets to obtain loans. Judge Engoron, a bizarre man and a Democrat party hack, ate it up and ruled against Trump. To achieve the end, he had to do a few things.

Image: YouTube screen grab.

First, he had to pretend that Mar-a-Lago, a vast property with a dual beachfront (east and west) in a region where smaller properties are routinely valued at over $100 million, was worth only $18 million. Engoron is either very stupid or very biased. There is no third option.

Second, Engoron had to ignore that the banks did due diligence, so they didn’t rely on Trump’s valuations; Trump repaid the loans in a timely fashion after having properly paid interest on them; and the banks were happy with Trump’s business, and wanted more of it. Additionally, outside of the happy banks, not a single New York citizen was harmed by the ruling. The opposite was true. The ruling, if upheld, is a signal for big money to flee New York state, something that harms the state’s economy.

Third, there was the little problem of the lawsuit being time-barred since Trump had applied for many of the loans more than a decade before James filed suit. (Frankly, it’s hard to tell from the decision when Trump applied for the loans, which suggests that Engoron tried to bury that information in the 92 single-spaced pages. The statute of limitations on fraud claims in New York ranges from six years from when the fraud was committed or two years from when the plaintiff discovered it, whichever is longer.

Ignoring these factual and legal matters, Engoron was an enthusiastic partner in James’s “get Trump” game. However, the New York Appellate Court may not be quite so enthusiastic about the original $464 million, which has now mushroomed to more than $489 million, thanks to the interest that accrues at a rate of about $1 million every week-and-a-half:

“How do we draw a line, or at least put up some guardrails, to know when the AG [attorney general] is operating well within her broad – admittedly broad sphere … and when she is going into an area that wasn’t intended for her jurisdiction?” Justice John Higgitt asked.

[snip]

Many of the panel's questions were also related to the law that state Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, used to bring the action against Trump and his business, CNN also reports.

Justice David Friedman, for instance, questioned her authority given that Deutsche Bank is not saying they were harmed by Trump’s actions.

“It hardly seems to justify bringing an action to protect Deutsche Bank against President Trump which is what you have here,” Friedman said. “You have two really sophisticated players in which no one lost any money.”

In other words, where’s the fraud when you have knowledgeable players and no damages (and fraud claims always require damages)?  And if there’s no fraud and the appellate court doesn’t act, what’s to keep a hyper-partisan AG and judge from doing again exactly what James did here?

In the Bible, the foundational moral book of Western civilization, Jethro, father-in-law to Moses, recognized that Moses was being overwhelmed by the task of managing the Israelites during their exile. He said Moses should continue as the people’s moral arbiter, but he advised Moses to appoint judges to rule on the people’s disputes. These judges, said Jethro, must be “men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe...”

That was good advice 3,000 years ago, and it’s good advice now. Thankfully, it looks as if the New York Appellate Judges, whether atheists or religious, are recognizing that Jethro was right: A society functions best when its arbiters are honest people, not dishonest partisans.