If not Hochul, who IS stalling Trump’s appeal of Tish James’ civil-fraud case?

New York Post - Apr 17th, 2025

The appeal of former President Donald Trump's civil-fraud verdict in New York has been stalled for over a year, raising suspicions and allegations of political interference. Governor Kathy Hochul has been accused of using her influence over the courts to impact the outcome, though her representatives deny any wrongdoing. The case, initiated by New York Attorney General Tish James, centers on alleged deceptive practices by the Trump Organization in its dealings with Deutsche Bank. Despite the lack of any financial harm to the bank, the trial resulted in a hefty $454 million penalty, which has since increased.

The delay in the appellate court's decision has sparked debates over potential judicial manipulation and the misuse of prosecutorial powers for political gains. Critics argue that the case against Trump is an example of 'left-leaning lawfare,' where political battles are fought in the courts rather than at the ballot box. The implications of such delays extend beyond Trump, as businesses in New York worry about the precedent it sets for litigation driven by partisan motives. As the financial penalties continue to escalate, the public and legal experts call for a swift resolution to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Donald Trump Kathy Hochul Arthur Engoron Political Influence Deutsche Bank Judicial Process Tish James New York Courts Civil Fraud Verdict

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article covers a topic of significant public interest, focusing on the delay in former President Trump's appeal in a civil-fraud case and the alleged political motivations behind it. While the article is timely and engages readers with its controversial subject matter, it suffers from a lack of balance, credible sources, and transparency. The speculative nature of the claims, particularly regarding Gov. Hochul's influence over the courts, undermines the article's accuracy and impact. Despite its clear and accessible language, the article's heavy bias and lack of evidence-based reporting limit its ability to inform and engage the public meaningfully. Overall, the article raises important questions but falls short in providing a comprehensive and reliable account of the situation.

Accuracy

The article raises several claims, particularly regarding the delay in former President Trump's appeal and the alleged political motivations behind it. However, it heavily relies on speculation, such as the influence of Gov. Kathy Hochul over the courts, without providing concrete evidence. The factual basis for these claims is weak, and the article does not provide verifiable sources or documentation to support its assertions. Statements about the judicial comments during the appeal hearing are presented, but they are not substantiated with direct quotes or official records. Furthermore, the article's framing of the case as political 'lawfare' lacks a detailed legal analysis to support this perspective. Overall, while some factual elements are mentioned, the article's accuracy is undermined by its reliance on conjecture and lack of verifiable evidence.

Balance

The article appears to have a significant bias against the legal actions taken by the New York Attorney General and the courts. It frames the situation as a politically motivated attack on Trump, using terms like 'kangaroo courtroom' and 'junk justice.' This language indicates a strong bias and a lack of balanced perspective. The article does not present the viewpoints of those supporting the legal actions or any counterarguments to the claims of political interference. By omitting these perspectives, the article fails to provide a comprehensive view of the situation, leaning heavily towards a narrative that favors Trump.

Clarity

The article is relatively clear in its language and structure, making it easy to follow the narrative. However, the tone is heavily biased and emotionally charged, using terms like 'kangaroo courtroom' and 'junk justice,' which could affect the reader's perception of neutrality. The article presents its points in a logical sequence, but the lack of balanced perspectives and supporting evidence can lead to confusion about the validity of the claims. While the writing is straightforward, the clarity is compromised by the speculative nature of the content.

Source quality

The article does not cite any credible sources or provide attribution for its claims, particularly those regarding alleged political interference by Gov. Hochul. It lacks direct quotes from official documents, legal experts, or involved parties, which diminishes its credibility. The absence of authoritative sources or evidence to back up the speculative claims about judicial motivations and political influence significantly impacts the reliability of the information presented. Without a variety of credible sources, the article's assertions remain largely unsupported.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its reporting, as it does not disclose the basis for many of its claims. There is no clear explanation of the methodology used to arrive at the conclusions about political interference or judicial delay. The article does not reveal any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may have influenced its narrative. Additionally, it fails to provide context or background information that would help readers understand the complexities of the legal proceedings and the motivations of the involved parties. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the impartiality and credibility of the article.