Tipsheet

CNN's Legal Analyst Did Not Mince Words Reacting to Trump's Massive Win in Civil Fraud Case

Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa  |  August 22, 2025 6:50 AM

CNN’s Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney and the network’s top legal analyst, did not shy away from the appeals court ruling and what it meant for President Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James. This case, part of the full-blown lawfare launched against Trump before the 2024 election, alleged that the president overvalued his assets to acquire loans. 

Trump was found liable and slapped with a $500 million fine. Of course, his team appealed and won. The fine was tossed yesterday, with Honig adding that this was a massive win for Trump and a devastating rebuke of Ms. James. One reason Trump’s team won is that there was no evidence of fraud, as Trump repaid the loans, leaving no victims. Honig has been from the get-go highly skeptical of this case (via WSJ): 

A New York appeals court threw out a more than $500 million penalty against President Trump and his business empire, in a sharply splintered ruling that paves the way for further proceedings before the state’s highest court.  

The decision on Thursday from a five-judge panel of the New York Appellate Division’s First Department is a significant legal boost for Trump, freeing him, for now, from a massive penalty that caused him financial headaches last year. While the court upheld the trial judge’s finding that Trump was liable for fraud, its profound legal disagreement underscores the controversial nature of the case from New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat and frequent antagonist of the Republican president.  

“While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the State,” Justice Peter Moulton wrote in one of three opinions, totaling 323 pages, none of which commanded a majority. 

While much of Thursday’s outcome was beneficial for Trump, parts of the judgment against him remain intact for now. It leaves in place restrictions on the ability of Trump and his company to do business, including a bar on two of his sons from serving as an officer of a New York company for two years. 

Four of the justices agreed that James acted within her authority in bringing the case under a broad state civil fraud statute. Because members of the appeals panel struggled to reach a consensus on many other issues in the case, they acknowledged that Thursday’s decision all but ensures New York’s top court will have to get involved. The justices said Trump could seek to continue a pause on the business restrictions while the appeal proceeds. 

Kevin O’Leary of Shark Tank was apoplectic over this case, eviscerating its core arguments last January: