Connect with us

Politics

New York appeals court judges in Trump case routinely donated to Democrats, records show

Published

on

New York appeals court judges in Trump case routinely donated to Democrats, records show

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

The New York state court that will decide former President Trump’s appeal includes justices who have a history of donating to Democrat campaigns and were elected to lower court judgeships as Democrat candidates before their appointments to the appellate court.

State campaign records show that some of the justices, when they served as judges in the lower courts, donated to Democrat candidates and campaign committees, an apparent violation of the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics rules that prohibit partisan political activities of sitting judges.

Advertisement

The list of candidates from the justices’ history of political donations includes a wide variety of New York elected officials, from state legislature candidates to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

50 REASONS WHY $70 MILLION-PLUS IN SMALL DONATIONS POURED IN AFTER TRUMP VERDICT

A review of federal and state election contribution records reveals that at least 14 of the 21 justices gave individual donations to Democrat campaigns and committees before their appointment to the court. Fox News could find no evidence of any donations by the justices to the New York state Republican, Conservative or Liberal parties or their candidates.

Marsha Michael, Ellen Gesmer, Jeffrey Oing and Leticia James

The justices serve on the New York State Appellate Court, First Judicial Department, and will eventually hear the anticipated appeal from the former president’s lawyers of his conviction last Thursday on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Advertisement

All but one of the court’s 21 justices were appointed by a New York Democrat governor, either David Patterson, Andrew Cuomo or Kathy Hochul. The sole justice put on the bench by a Republican, New York Gov. George Pataki, is Associate Justice David Friedman, who is the longest-serving justice since his appointment 25 years ago.

Before his elevation to the court, Friedman was the Democrat, Republican and Conservative party candidate for Supreme Court justice in his judgeship election in 2011. In an appellate court’s ruling during Trump’s real estate fraud trial last year, Friedman sided with the former president.

One justice who did not side with Trump is the newest member of the appellate panel, Associate Justice Marsha D. Michael. She was appointed by Hochul last October.

On April 19, three days before opening arguments were scheduled to begin in Trump’s recently completed criminal trial in front of State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, Michael rejected a last-minute bid by Trump’s lawyers to stop the proceedings. Her ruling gave the green light for the trial that eventually convicted Trump to proceed.

In 2014, Michael ran in the Democrat primary for the New York State Assembly in the 79th District in the Bronx. She was endorsed in that race by then-New York City Public Advocate Leticia James, who went on to be elected New York attorney general four years later. Last year, James prosecuted Trump and won her successful $454 million real estate fraud case. 

Advertisement

Back when Michael was stumping for the state legislature, James appeared with her on the campaign trail.

On July 11, 2014, Michael answered questions about her candidacy from the nonpartisan good government group Citizens Union.

She was asked if she supported a “merit-based appointment system through creation of a commission for the selection of judges in all of New York’s trial courts.”

The justice did not support the idea that all judges should be chosen on the merits, writing, “I don’t think all courts should solely be merit-based.”

Michael lost the Democrat primary race despite having the backing of the Bronx Democrat organization. She remained on the ballot in the general election as the candidate of the Working Families Party. The WFP is known today for supporting members of the so-called “Squad” in Congress, backing Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others.

Advertisement

Four years after her defeat, Michael ran again as a Democrat candidate for a New York State Supreme Court seat and won in 2018. It was from that position that she was elevated to the Appellate Division eight months ago.

Appellate Court Justice Ellen Gesmer was first elected as a judge in the New York State Civil Court in 2004. In 2011, she won a Supreme Court judgeship as both the Democrat and Republican candidate. Before Gesmer was elected to the bench, records show that she had donated thousands of dollars to Democrats.

Former President Trump arrives at Trump Tower in New York City on May 30, 2024, after being found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. (Felipe Ramales for Fox News Digital)

Federal Election Commission records show that Gesmer contributed to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and various Democratic Party committees when she was a lawyer in private practice.

In 1998, she donated a total of $2,000 to Schumer’s election bid, a total of $1,725 to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 New York state Senate race, $1,700 to the New York State Democratic Committee and the Democratic National Committee, and in 2003, she chipped in $250 to support Dean’s presidential campaign.

Advertisement

Appellate Justice Jeffrey K. Oing gave $900 to the New York State Democratic Committee in three payments in 2003, according to FEC records, one year before he was elected to the New York City Civil Court.

The records from the New York State Board of Elections, which detail contributions to state-level races, reveal the extent of political donations made by judges during their election campaigns.

The range of donations includes contributions to Democrat New York state Senate and Assembly candidates, party committees and local Democrat clubhouses, even as some of the judges served on the bench.

The state’s judicial ethics rules state: “Neither a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity” that does not directly involve their own candidacy. The rules prohibit judges from “engaging in any partisan political activity” or “participating in any political campaign.”

REP JORDAN URGES CONGRESS TO ‘DEFUND LAWFARE ACTIVITIES’ OF TRUMP PROSECUTORS

Advertisement

Trump has accused Merchan of being “conflicted” because he donated $15 to President Biden’s 2016 election campaign and $10 to a group called Stop Republicans. In addition, Merchan’s daughter works for a political campaign consulting firm whose clients include many prominent Democrats, including Biden’s campaign.

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct found that Merchan had no conflict of interest but did reportedly give him a warning over his contributions.

In the murky political landscape that can be New York politics, several of the appellate judges were even endorsed by competing political parties in their contests for a seat on the lower courts.

Appellate Justice Troy Webber first won her race for Supreme Court justice in 2002 as both the Democrat and Republican candidate. In 2016, she was on the ballot as the Democrat candidate, according to New York state election records. Justice Barbara Kapnick won in 2001 as the Democrat, Republican and Liberal party candidate. By 2015, she carried the banner for just the Democrats.

Former President Trump headlines a Republican National Committee spring donor retreat in Palm Beach, Florida, on May 4, 2024. (Donald Trump 2024 campaign)

Advertisement

Despite some of the justices’ past Democrat support, Trump has scored some wins before the appellate court in his recent appeals.

Last year, a panel of five of the justices reduced the amount of the bond that was imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron in Trump’s real estate civil fraud trial from $454 million to $175 million.

Friedman temporarily blocked Engoron’s gag order on Trump, and Justice Anil Singh granted a stay that temporarily lifted Engoron’s ruling that barred Trump and his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, from doing business in New York.

Court observers note that there is no evidence that the personal political views of the jurists have influenced their rulings, but critics contend that the appearance of a possible conflict of interest is troubling.

Advertisement

Fox News asked the appellate court for comment but no one has responded.

Fox News’ Courtney De George contributed to this report.

Politics

Supreme Court Expands Presidential Powers to Fire Independent Regulators

Published

on

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump could fire independent regulators for any reason. But the justices carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, preventing the immediate removal of Lisa D. Cook, a Federal Reserve governor.

Continue Reading

Politics

Emotion and feelings: How Democratic Socialists’ congressional insurgency could come back to bite them

Published

on

Emotion and feelings: How Democratic Socialists’ congressional insurgency could come back to bite them

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democratic Socialists of America are on the charge, running hot off their wins in the New York Democratic primaries last week. Their victories in multiple Congressional seats – felling both Reps. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., and Dan Goldman, D-N.Y. – signals that the party is ready to move on from the same old, same old.

Espaillat chaired the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Goldman was a key House staffer during the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.

“Even Dan Goldman’s not good enough for them,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Fox. “That is how radical it’s become.”

Some moderate Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the left.

Advertisement

MAMDANI-BACKED SOCIALISTS LOOK TO TAKE NEW YORK PLAYBOOK NATIONWIDE AFTER PRIMARY VICTORIES

The left flank of the Democratic Party has surged to the top of the nation’s most hotly-contested primaries. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

“That’s not the same brand of politics that we have. We’re not those type of Democrats,” said Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., who represents a battleground district.

“There’s a new group of Democratic Socialists who are socialists who are not commonsense Democrats. Who are not interested in getting things done. They’re interested in throwing bombs. Not actually solving problems,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J.

LURCHING LEFT: MAMDANI-BACKED CANDIDATES OUST ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS

Advertisement

Some Democrats are worried how far left candidates command more attention than those in the middle. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., worries that the outsized attention garnered by the left sends the wrong impression to voters.

“What they don’t want is divisiveness. They don’t want screaming and yelling,” said McDonald Rivet.

Mainstream Democrats feel trapped in the middle as the left – specifically the New York City left – wields an outsized media and political megaphone.

“Those candidates would not have won in Virginia where I live,” said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va.

Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., is among the moderate Democrats trying to distance themselves from the party’s insurgent wing. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Republicans believe they are primed to nationalize the midterms. Republicans can do that by highlighting the extreme views of Democratic Socialists who captured primary victories in New York City. The GOP wants to portray their opponents as veering left.

“These are board-certified communists, right?” asked Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. “They want no police. They want no private property.”

President Trump capitalized on the Democratic outcomes in his home city.

“The Democrat party is in big trouble because this isn’t stopping with New York,” he forecast.

VICTORIES BY MAMDANI-BACKED CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES SPOTLIGHTS GROWING RIFT IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Advertisement

This shakeup has progressive leaders demanding transformation at the top.

“You’re going to see, I think, people voting for new leadership and to change their representation,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

The Democratic Party tapped Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., to deliver their official response to President Trump’s 2025 State of the Union speech. Slotkin is a moderate who won in a battleground race in 2024 – even as the President prevailed in the Wolverine State. But during an appearance on SiriusXM, Slotkin insists on a Democratic Party management switch.

“If people can’t understand that the game has fundamentally changed and they can’t adapt, then they need to let others,” said Slotkin. “The old models do not work for people.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is perceived by Republicans as vulnerable after his preferred candidates failed in their congressional primaries. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Republicans believe House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is vulnerable after the DSA elected their candidates over his preferred picks in New York City.

“I think Hakeem Jeffries’ friends and neighbors gave him a big middle finger,” said House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky. “If you lose three elections in your hometown, that’s a pretty big slap in the face.”

He added that Democrats “are going further and further to the left to the point where they are full-blown, card-carrying socialists.”

And then there is the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and in some cases, antisemitic take by some of these candidates. Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, is a moderate Democrat from a swing district. He’s Jewish and one of the most pro-Israel Democrats in the House.

“There are some on the left who use Israel the way that some on the right use immigrants or trans kids as a way to divide. And I think it’s terrible. It’s also just not what voters want us talking about,” said Landsman.

Advertisement

HOUSE DEMOCRAT LASHES OUT WHEN GRILLED ON WHETHER SOCIALIST VICTORIES WOULD THREATEN DEM UNITY

Yours truly tangled with Rep. John Larson, D-Conn. – who once chaired the House Democratic Caucus. I pressed him about what the party would do about some candidates “who are too far to the left.”

“What does that mean? That’s your statement. Did the people of New York vote?” queried Larson.

I assured him that they did.

“Is that democracy?” asked Larson.

Advertisement

“But if some of them are antisemitic,” I countered.

“Is that a democracy?” continued Larson.

“Will you stand by people if they have antisemitic views?” I followed up.

Larson finally addressed my inquiry. His answer crystallized the schism the Democratic Party now faces.

“I’m against antisemitism, if that’s your question,” Larson declared.

Advertisement

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., got into a heated exchange with Fox News’ Chad Pergram over the views of some likely members of his party’s next freshman class. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

The fact that Democrats are now facing this debate robs them of valuable time on economic issues.

Landsman argued that voters would prefer candidates to stick to groceries and the price of gas.

Gottheimer echoed Landsman on kitchen table subjects.

“We should be focused on ways to actually solve problems like that. Not coming in here and using tea party tactics and trying to divide up the country and pray to socialist ideals,” said Gottheimer.

Advertisement

So what is the party to do?

DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB

“They’re our nominees. We’re going to support them. We’re going to welcome them. They’re going to be part of our caucus and we’re going to unite behind Leader Jeffries,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Oversight panel.

But that doesn’t address the fissures. It doesn’t address how voters may perceive the party. And it doesn’t establish if these new Democratic nominees will work on behalf of the party to raise money and advocate for Democrats across the board. Or, will they become professional bomb throwers – ala what the right has endured for a while.

“It’s going to be a lot harder to get things done when you get more and more extreme candidates who are here because they’re interested in political celebrity. They are interested in fighting. They’re interested in making points,” asserted Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D.

Advertisement

Republicans have had an abysmal week themselves – President Donald Trump and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., for instance, got into a shouting match over Iran. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images)

Republicans suffered through an absolutely abysmal week. House GOP leaders had to yank multiple bills off the floor and send lawmakers home early because of internal disputes. President Trump and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., got into a shouting match about Iran. And the president even threatened to veto a bipartisan housing bill. President Trump then refused to sign the bill at the Capitol, despite his aides touting the bill and House Republicans tricking out Statuary Hall for a signing ceremony.

The President characterized the housing bill as “a yawn.”

But the Democrats’ internal fractures may have superseded any internecine fighting among Republicans.

“While it’s not been a great week for Republicans, I think it’s been a much worse week for Democrats because of these primary elections,” observed Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Democrats will certainly run on economic issues and capitalize on statements by the President about basic issues like housing. But will a genuine policy debate outweigh fears about progressives nationwide?

Emotion and feelings rule in politics. And it could be a problem for Democrats if Republicans appropriate what happened in New York and Xerox it onto battleground districts across the country.

Continue Reading

Politics

Anthropic partners with California to expand AI use by government workers

Published

on

Anthropic partners with California to expand AI use by government workers

Anthropic teamed up with California to get more state workers to use its artificial intelligence assistant Claude as part of an effort to leverage technology to make the government more efficient.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who announced the partnership on Monday, said state agencies will be able to access Claude at a 50% discount. Free training and other assistance will also be available to the workers. California’s local governments will also get the same discount under the agreement.

Government workers can use Claude to draft and summarize documents, analyze information and do other tasks.

Anthropic, an AI company based in San Francisco, has a version of its AI assistant for government clients that provides more security than what it provides other consumers.

The new partnership shows how AI is playing a bigger role at work as tech companies market their tools as ways to complete tasks more quickly. Last year, San Francisco made Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat, which is powered by OpenAI’s model, available to nearly 30,000 city employees.

Advertisement

Still, the rise of automation at work has heightened concerns that people will lose their jobs. There are also worries that there are not yet adequate guardrails in place to mitigate data privacy and security risks.

Anthropic and the governor said that they’re focused on the responsible use of AI.

“AI should not replace the human work of government; it should help our workers move faster, solve problems more effectively, and deliver better results for Californians,” Newsom said in a statement.

The remarks didn’t appear to comfort union leaders.

“Wow. Look local government, the Gov is giving you a 50% off coupon to give up your residents’ private data, outsource your jobs to big tech. Isn’t that cool? Because California basically invented AI slop!” said Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, in a post on X.

Advertisement

Anthropic has faced political hurdles as it pushes to get more companies and government agencies to use its products.

Most notable, it’s sparred publicly with the Trump administration, which ordered the company to cut off foreign access to its most powerful AI systems this month.

The Trump administration cited potential national security risks, but Anthropic disagreed with the findings. Last week, tensions decreased after the U.S. government gave Anthropic permission to restore access to its AI model Mythos to certain clients.

Valued at nearly $1 trillion, Anthropic has also signaled it plans to become a publicly traded company.

California has already started using Claude more in state government to develop tools to get the public to engage more in AI policy discussions and assist state workers, the governor’s office said in its news release.

Advertisement

State agencies, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, are also using AI to reduce wait times and improve customer service.

“As state employees, our goal is to provide our fellow Californians with the best possible service,” Government Operations Agency Secretary Nick Maduros said in a statement. “To do that, we need to make sure our teams have access to the best modern tools, including Claude and other emerging technologies.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending