A former military officer running for public office brought a defamation action against an incumbent politician in federal court. The politician had alleged that the officer had abandoned his troops in the midst of a decisive battle and let them all die. The politician knew the statement was not true, but he realized it would strengthen his position among party constituents. At the close of evidence, the jury returned a verdict for the officer. Damages were awarded in the amount of $500,000, and in addition, punitive damages were awarded applying a clear and convincing standard of proof. The politician moved to set aside both the general damages award on the ground that it was excessive and the punitive damages award based on lack of sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of persuasion. When the trial court refused both demands, the politician sought federal appellate review. What standard of review should the appellate court apply to these issues