According to a former prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, the 323-page ruling that appears to have taken Donald Trump off the hook for having to pay almost a half-billion dollars for business fraud is less than meets the eye when it comes to a final resolution.
In a column for MSNBC on Friday, attorney Jordan Rubin started off by stating that the sheer volume of pages that make up the filing is an indication that it contains something “unusual.”
What makes it unusual is the fact that it is not an actual ruling as is commonly understood, rather than multiple signed opinions from the five judges serving on the obviously divided New York appeals court.
With Trump claiming vindication, Rubin suggested he wait and see because there is much left to still litigate, based on those opinions.
With only Justice David Friedman arguing for a complete dismissal that would be a win for Trump, Rubin wrote that three of the justices concurred on throwing out the excessive penalty but left the door open that New York Attorney General Letitia James had a strong enough case that warrants her expected appeal.
“The jumble of opinions alone suggests the case could use some fine-tuning on further appeal, leading to something more closely resembling an opinion with a clear majority and everything,” he wrote before noting Justice Friedman, “... marveled at the outcome. He observed that although three of the five justices — Higgitt, Rosado and himself — ‘believe that the judgment in favor of the Attorney General should not stand ... the result of the appeal is the affirmance of the judgment, albeit as modified to eliminate the disgorgement award.’ He then made a football analogy, writing that the result ‘is as if a team is awarded a touchdown without crossing the goal line.’”
That led Rubin to conclude, “It’s certainly an odd case. But to take the sports analogy further, the game isn’t over yet.”
You can read more here.