NY Times Tries to Spin the Tossed Trump Civil Fraud Case to Hurt Trump

In his response to the tossing of the civil fraud case against him, President Trump mentioned the wisdom of Judge David Friedman. Friedman said in his dissent that the most appropriate ruling would be to “reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint.”

There were no victims, and New York Attorney General Letitia James took a case that was no case at all.

The ruling was strong. “In sum, Justice Friedman finds that Supreme Court’s rulings are infirm in almost every respect and would hold that the Attorney General had no power to bring this case.”

In his dissent, Judge Friedman blasted James’s use of Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law, which gives the state attorney general broad power to pursue civil fraud claims.

Friedman wrote that it was unprecedented and political, giving James “essentially limitless power to prosecute her political enemies.”

Two of the judges said there was fraud, which wasn’t bad considering it’s New York and corrupt Democrats control the courts.

Judge Friedman also lifted the gag order, which never should have taken place. Judge David Friedman cited constitutional concerns over Trump’s free speech rights.

The corrupt New York Times spun dishonestly to favor Soviet-like AG Letitia James, writing:

A divided New York appeals court on Thursday threw out a half-billion-dollar judgment against President Trump, eliminating an enormous financial burden while preserving the fraud case against him, a remarkable turn in the battle between the president and one of his fiercest foes.

“While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state,” wrote Peter Moulton, one of the appeals judges whose lengthy and convoluted ruling reflected deep disagreement among the five-judge panel.

While the court effectively upheld the fraud ruling against the president, several of the justices raised major questions about the case. And their decision allowed Mr. Trump to move to New York’s highest court, giving him another opportunity to challenge the finding that he was a fraudster.

Despite the complexities, Thursday’s ruling handed Mr. Trump a financial victory and a modicum of legal validation. It represented a setback for New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, who is one of the president’s foremost adversaries and a target of a retribution campaign. The case had been a career-defining victory after she campaigned for office promising to bring Mr. Trump to justice.

They did not present the dissent and the actual weight of the decision. The “several” judges they mentioned were two leftists out of five. You can’t trust the New York Times. They are very far left and never give the right a fair shot. They didn’t even mention that AG James said she would get Trump, and the case was widely condemned.