Former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Greensburg, Pa., May 6. A federal judge on Friday dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James, allowing a civil investigation of his business to continue.
Gene J. Puskar / AP
hide captions
switch captions
Gene J. Puskar / AP
Former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Greensburg, Pa., May 6. A federal judge on Friday dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James, allowing a civil investigation of his business to continue.
Gene J. Puskar / AP
NEW YORK – A federal judge on Friday was fired Donald Trump’s lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia Jamesdenied the former president’s claim that she targeted him out of political hatred and allowed her civil investigation into his business practices to continue.
In a 43-page ruling, US District Judge Brenda Sannes wrote that case law prohibits federal judges from interfering with state investigations, with some limited exceptions, and that there is no evidence. Support for Republicans’ opinion that James, a Democrat, is proceeding in bad faith because of their different political views.
Sannes, who was appointed in 2014 by former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said James had legitimate grounds to investigate Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, and that Trump did not allow it. found that recent court proceedings were seeking to enforce a subpoena against him. “started with retaliation.”
James’ public statements about Trump “make it clear that she disagrees vehemently with Mr. Trump’s political views,” Sannes wrote, but Trump and his lawyers failed to prove any connection. between her opinion and how the investigation went.
“The fact that (James’) public statements reflect personal and/or political hatred towards (Trump), in itself is not enough,” Sannes wrote.
Trump has been ordered to testify in the James investigation
James heralded Friday’s ruling as a “major victory” over a “frivolous” lawsuit. Sannes’ decision came a day after the New York court of appeals ruled that Trump must answer questions under oath in James’ investigation, upheld a lower court ruling requiring him to sit for impeachment.
“Time and time again, the courts have made clear that Donald J. Trump’s unfounded legal challenges cannot prevent our lawful investigation of his financial dealings and The Trump Organization,” James said in a written statement. “No one in this country can choose and choose how the law applies to them, and Donald Trump is no exception. As we’ve said before, we will continue this investigation undaunted.” “
Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, questioned Sannes’ reasoning for dismissing the case – pointing to, by name, the legal precedent in question – and said they would take the matter to the Court of Appeals No. 2 of the United States.
“There is no doubt that we will appeal this decision,” Habba said. “If the investigation into Ms James’ aggravated conduct and harassment does not meet the bad faith exception to the Young Child abstention doctrine, then I cannot imagine a scenario that would. “
Trump sued James in December, using a familiar but rarely successful litigation strategy in an attempt to end a three-year investigation, which James said uncovered evidence Trump’s company had disclosed. misreport assets like skyscrapers and golf courses on financial statements for more than a decade.
Trump filed the lawsuit shortly after James issued subpoenas to him and his two eldest children, Ivanka and Donald Jr., to testify about the demotion in James’ investigation.
Trump has sought an injunction banning James from investigating him and preventing her from participating in any “civil or criminal” investigations into him and his company, such as a criminal investigation. parallel crime led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Although the civil investigation was separate, James’s office was involved in both. Trump also wants a judge to declare that James violated free speech and due process rights.
“We’re sitting with our hands tied. We’re simply dodging subpoenas at this point,” Habba said at a May 13 hearing.
Trump has long claimed the investigation is politically motivated
Trump has long suggested that the New York investigations are part of a politically motivated “witch hunt”. In the lawsuit, his attorneys allege that James violated his constitutional rights in a “publicly concealed attempt to publicize malice against Trump and his associates.”
The lawsuit describes James as having a “personal disdain” for Trump, pointing to many of the statements she made about him, including her bragging that her office sued the administration. 76 times and tweeted during her 2018 campaign that she had “eyes on Trump Tower” and that Trump was “out of date”.
James’s office responded that the lawsuit was a “collateral attack” on her investigation and a “pure face” after Trump previously agreed to file a 2014 income tax return. -2019 for her office and his company provided more than 900,000 documents and testimonies from more than a dozen current and former employees.
Trump and his company never challenged the underlying legal basis for the investigation or the attorney general’s office’s legal authority to conduct it until her office subpoenaed her testimony. Mr. James’s office said.
James’s office began investigating Trump in 2019 after his former personal attorney Michael Cohen told Congress that Trump had a history of lying about property values to obtain favorable loan terms and benefits. about tax.
At a May 13 hearing that prompted Sannes’ ruling on Friday, an attorney for James’ office said the investigation was closing and evidence from it could support legal action against the former president, his company, or both.
The attorney, Andrew Amer, said “apparently a substantial amount of evidence has been obtained that could support the filing of an enforcement proceeding”, although the final decision on filing such an action has not yet been released.
All of which, Amer said, “really closes the door to any argument” by Trump’s attorneys that James’s office is proceeding in a bad faith.
