Getty Images
It’s been 293 days since appellate judges heard arguments in President Donald Trump’s appeal of a $454 million fraud ruling in a civil case brought by state Attorney General Tish James.
The average time for an appellate decision from such a point is 30 days.
Signed decisions can take longer, but almost never this long.
Why the 10-fold hold-up?
That’s not 100% clear but the most likely reason is the same one that led James to file the suit in the first place — and led the judge to impose such a ludicrous fine: raw, ugly politics.
Any judge on the panel can delay the release of a decision without having to give a reason.
Court observers suspect that Presiding Justice Dianne Renwick — appointed by Gov. Hochul and a political ally — may be sitting on the decision.
Why?
Keeping the judgment on hold gives Hochul leverage over Trump on matters from federal aid to congestion-pricing to wind farms.
“Pure extortion,” as one attorney familiar with the case has remarked.
Plus, both Hochul and James are facing an election next year.
A reversal on this major case would embarrass the attorney general and strip her of her biggest victory as she gears up.
It’s also notable that Justice David Friedman, whose relentless questioning of Associate Solicitor General Judith Vine went viral, may be the swing vote in a 3-2 decision to overturn the judgment.
Since he’s set to retire at year-end, Renwick may be stalling until he leaves, hoping his replacement will side against Trump.
That would be a “scandal of epic proportions,” one critic told The Post.
Frankly, this case never should have been brought in the first place.
Judge Arthur Engoron declared that Trump defrauded Deutsche Bank by overvaluing his properties while seeking a loan, but Trump repaid the loan in full, with interest — and no one complained.
And the “fraud” only came to light after Tish James, looking to make good on her campaign promise, dug through Trump Organization files and found something she thought she could turn into a case.
That’s third-world-style prosecutorial overreach.
It’s unlikely the Appellate Division is suppressing a verdict that affirms Engoron’s ruling.
