Equal justice?
If Donald Trump had been born in a different New York City borough he may well be called a Brooklyn Dodger. Because the Queens man has received yet another reprieve from a judicial system that now ought to consider itself on trial too.
The brief ruling a panel of five New York appellate court judges reducing to $175 million the bond he is required to post to appeal the $464 million fine was a last second reprieve for a man found civilly liable for fraud in inflating and deflating the value of his properties to serve his own purposes.
Trump and his high-priced attorneys claimed they tried 30 times to find a financial institution willing to take a risk on posting the bond required if he wished to appeal, a standard practice in the legal system that ties the size of the bond to the size of the fine.
One legal observer told the Washington Post the order could presage a formal ruling in the case:
Although the appeals court gave no reasoning for its decision, Adam Pollock, an attorney who formerly served as assistant attorney general in New York, said the decision could indicate that it might consider permanently reducing the judgment against Trump on appeal.
“It’s extraordinary because the law is clear that you have to post a bond in the full amount, and it additionally suggests that there may be concern that the underlying judgment is itself excessive,” said Pollock.
The order’s vagueness left all of us open to that sort of speculation. So let’s go with that flow.
Can you imagine someone else found liable of massive fraud being able to in effect cry poor mouth when it came to posting a bond?
What would happen to someone ordered to pay a massive bail to avoid going to jail while awaiting trial on criminal charges — never mind that bail is only supposed to be used to ensure that someone doesn’t skip the country while awaiting trial?
Then there’s the question of whether someone charged criminally could avoid being fingerprinted and having a mug shot taken while being booked?
It certainly seems like being a former President of the United States has certain privileges not afforded to others in a system that proclaims that no one is above the law.
This ruling — which prevents New York Attorney General Letitia James from slapping liens on Trump bank accounts and properties — sure smells like special treatment. And not the type Trump claims to be a politically motivated witch hunt against him.
Certainly no one else could have the luxury of appearing before a judge he or she appointed in a trial on whether they committed a crime. Least of all a judge who is either ignorant of the laws surrounding the case or just simply doing a slow walk that fits with the defendant’s legal strategy.
And we certainly know no one can get favorable decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States — that includes three members that he appointed — that also fits with the defendant’s desire to prevent the American public from knowing whether the man hoping to be their 47th president committed crimes to avoid leaving office in the first place.
James is quick to point out:
“Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud,” a spokesperson for her office said. “The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization. The $464 million judgment — plus interest — against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands.”
Trump also failed in his efforts to further stall the Manhattan trial where he stands accused of election interference with his 2016 hush money payments to a porn star.
Yes, Trump may yet be forced to pay up — financially and in the criminal system — for the matters of which he currently stands accused. The New York appellate ruling is simply his latest escape.
But the record is pretty clear, both at that trial in the litany of legal entanglements topping 4,000 cases before he entered the White House, that Trump has routinely failed to escape accountability —often by declaring bankruptcy or more recently through political intimidation.
And that’s a resounding condemnation of a judicial system that, as Trump often claims, has two different standards — for the connected and for everyone else.
It really depends on who you are or who you know.