Dictator Donald will not be pleased when his lawyers tell him this one. Oh no, he will not. This will be one of the days when he brays about being “disappointed” with his “legal talent.” Trump’s version of what constitutes legal talent differs markedly from how the rest of the world defines that term. Generally speaking, “talented” lawyers win cases. In Trump world lawyers who advocate for him on right-wing media are considered talented. Unfortunately, in the real world you can look the part, sound the part and be believable in the part but if you don’t know the law and/or your case stinks to begin with, you’re not going to win.
On November 26, 2024, Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, wrote the New York Attorney General, “President Trump has called for our Nation’s partisan strife to end, and for the contending factions to join forces for the greater good of the country. This call for unity extends to the legal onslaught against him and his family that permeated the most recent election cycle.” Yesterday, James’ office replied:
On Monday, an official in James’s office, Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale, sent a letter to Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer rejecting the president-elect’s recent request for James, an elected Democrat, to toss the fraud case.
“Your letter presents no basis for this Office to seek to vacate the final judgment or to dismiss this action,” she wrote to his attorney in the letter, which was uploaded online on Tuesday.
Vale also argued that the “ordinary burdens of civil litigation do not impede the President’s official duties in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution” and that the case brought by the attorney general’s office is civil, not criminal.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in July that established presidents should be considered broadly immune from criminal prosecution for their official duties and actions does not apply in this case either, the letter said. That ruling was delivered in a criminal election case brought by a federal special counsel against Trump.
“The final judgment concerns only business conduct undertaken by entities that are part of the Trump Organization and individual defendants who were acting on behalf of the Trump Organization,” Vale said. “The judgment thus does not concern any conduct related to Mr. Trump’s first term as President.”
It also does not “implicate any conduct that Mr. Trump might undertake after his upcoming inauguration,” the letter stated, adding that presidents don’t have “immunity from civil lawsuits arising from unofficial conduct.”
Trump appealed Engoron’s ruling in July, asking a mid-level New York state court to find the judge erred in his ruling against him. They also argued in court papers at the time that the decision would further imperil New York’s business climate.
This is always the problem in Trump cases. He seeks reversible error and finds none because the facts are basically open and shut. So the $454M civil fraud judgment in James’s lawsuit against Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, still stands. The suit was brought because Trump allegedly defrauded banks, insurers, and investors by inflating his net worth and the valuation of his properties.
Can James collect on the judgment? I don’t see any reason why not although I’m sure Trump’s lawyers will make an effort to find one. Same with the $82M owed to E. Jean Carroll.
We’ve been cheated of the opportunity to see Trump stand trial for the misappropriation of classified documents, for inciting the January 6 riot and for interfering with the election in Georgia in 2020. Theoretically the Georgia case could go forward but the other two, helmed by Jack Smith, are now dead in the water.
Good for Letitia James for not backing down. I wonder if she’ll make the list of people that Joe Biden is thinking of doing a preemptive pardon on? Frankly, I think that might be a mistake on Biden’s part. I think that if Trump wants to do some kangaroo court routines, it might be a good idea to let him, just to see how bad all that looks.
I think Biden’s plan for major, prophylactic preemptive pardons is a form of anticipatory obedience, showing fear of Trump. I disagree with Biden doing it. And I absolutely vehemently disagree with Jim Clyburn’s idea that Biden should pardon Trump. I have the greatest of respect for Jim Clyburn but not in this case. Now is a time for maximum resistance. Bullies will back down when you stand up to them.
Agreed whole-heartedly that Biden should not do pre-emptive pardons. His pardon of the unjustly-persecuted Hunter was a different matter: Joe the father saved the life of his one remaining son, who would have been Epsteined in prison for sure. Make Trumpler and his loathsome lackeys come to court to seek their corrupt “retribution” in broad daylight, for all to see. Make them show us what a witch-hunt looks like. Televise the proceedings. Bring it on.
The very fact that Trump can present no coherent actionable case against them, and that he’s already said many times publicly that he is going after his enemies, i.e. simply because he considers them his enemies. Hunter Biden is different, He was convicted of something (three minor tax violations), and truly in danger of some sort of sentence totally incommensurate with the three federal violations. The others did nothing wrong, have not been charged with anything, and it’s difficult to see what they could be charged with, as they were simply carrying out their constitutional functions under their oaths of office. Evidently that rubs Trump the wrong way, but the answer to that problem, in legal terms, is “durissima fortuna” (in plain English: “too fucking bad”). The evidence they turned up nails you and your pals six ways to Sunday.
Absolute agreement. However, there is the real risk of (aptly named) trumped up chargeswhich, at the very least, would disrupt the lives and finances of those in the crosshairs.