The criminal cases against former President Trump are underway. But already there’s been a major dropping of the ball.
As a Federal judge has made a critical mistake that has Trump grinning ear-to-ear.
For three years now, Donald Trump has been waiting for the inevitable arrival of criminal cases that the Democrats have been targeting him with. Now he has his chance to clear his name in the court system ahead of the 2024 general election season where he will likely have a rematch with Joe Biden.
In fact, already, his lawyers believe they have a silver bullet that could throw a wrench into the prosecution’s plans to get Trump convicted, and worst-case, thrown in prison for dubious “crimes.”
That silver bullet? A violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, his Eighth Amendment right to not be hit with “excessive” fines or “cruel and unusual punishments” by the courts or any federal government body.
Legal analysts informed Fox News Digital that one avenue Trump and his legal team might explore is demonstrating that the enormous half-billion dollar sum violates a U.S. Constitutional amendment prohibiting “excessive fines.”
Since the initial bond listing, the fine has been reduced by about 60% to around $175 million instead. Donald Trump and his lawyers have said he will be posting the bail, but it’s possible the government would be forced to return his bail cash. Not only that, but it leaves the federal government open to a counter lawsuit.
In February, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Engoron ruled against Trump, imposing what’s termed as a “disgorgement” – a legal remedy mandating individuals who profited unlawfully to return any earnings acquired during the unlawful activity.
John Malcolm, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Atlanta, expressed to Fox News Digital, “It is unheard of to seek repayment of over $464 million when there was no identifiable victim and when the entities on the other side of all of these transactions were sophisticated investors who conducted their own due diligence.”
Bank executives testified in court that they were satisfied with their business interactions with Trump and actively sought further dealings with him, considering him a highly valuable client.
While a disgorgement isn’t technically classified as a fine, legal experts argue that the judgment might essentially equate to what the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits.
“The issue of whether disgorgement is considered a fine is a complicated one,” Malcolm stated. “However, if it is deemed to be a fine, it would certainly be an ‘excessive fine’ that would violate the Eighth Amendment.”
Jim Trusty, former legal counsel for Trump and a former federal prosecutor, noted that the argument for an Eighth Amendment violation “is not absurd, because the disgorgement is thinly veiled as punitive fines.”
Mark Brnovich, a former prosecutor and the former Attorney General of Arizona, suggested that Letitia James’ case appears more driven by political motives than adhering to the standards of justice.
Brnovich emphasized, “You measure success at the end of the day is, has justice been done?”
Historically, the Eighth Amendment has primarily applied to criminal cases rather than civil cases. However, Brnovich posited that in situations where fines are essentially arbitrary and punitive, the Eighth Amendment could be applicable.
He further pointed out a trend over the last decade where the Supreme Court seems increasingly inclined to intervene when civil fines cross into excessive territory, violating the Eighth Amendment.
In 2019, the Supreme Court established for the first time that the excessive fines clause could be leveraged to contest state-court judgments. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in the majority opinion, stressed the importance of guarding against exorbitant fines as they can potentially infringe upon other constitutional liberties, even being used to suppress political speech.
“Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies,” she said.
Whether or not the Democrats like it, if one of these cases goes horribly wrong, that’s going to have a major impact on the rest of the cases. Particularly if and when a jury gets involved. It will be impossible to find jurors that aren’t at least somewhat familiar with the Trump criminal cases. The news is everywhere.
If a jury sees how Donald Trump is being specifically targeted and his constitutional rights violated, no doubt that would play a major impact on the downline decision of the said jury. Especially when the prosecution will need a unanimous decision from the jury to convict Donald Trump.
The Conservative Column will be keeping our readers updated on any major news in the Trump legal cases.
