Photo credit: www.cnbc.com
Former U.S. President Donald Trump appeared in court for a significant civil fraud case involving allegations against him, his adult sons, and the Trump Organization. This case, instigated by New York Attorney General Letitia James, has resulted in potential fines exceeding $480 million.
On a recent Tuesday, the New York Attorney General’s Office firmly rejected a request from Trump’s legal team to dismiss the fraud case. Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale responded directly to Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, stating that her office would not agree to vacate a prior judgment made by the New York County Supreme Court.
Sauer’s request came in a letter dated November 26, wherein he urged for the dismissal of the case to serve what he called “the health of our Republic.” He referenced Trump’s calls for unity among the nation’s political factions and argued that the ongoing legal challenges faced by Trump hindered his ability to perform presidential duties effectively.
However, Vale dismissed these claims, asserting that the upcoming inauguration of Trump has no impact on the civil trial or the ongoing appellate process. She emphasized that civil lawsuits related to unofficial actions do not come with immunity, even for a sitting President. “Presidents do not have immunity from civil lawsuits arising from unofficial conduct, and such lawsuits may proceed while the President is in office,” she noted in her two-page letter.
Vale also clarified that the civil fraud case is distinct from any criminal proceedings. She pointed out that there were no criminal penalties imposed by the Supreme Court in Manhattan related to this civil action. Additionally, the dismissal of certain criminal cases against Trump, led by special counsel Jack Smith, does not hold relevance to this civil fraud situation.
The case, brought forth by Attorney General James in 2022, accuses Trump and his associates of inflating asset values to secure financial benefits. After finding Trump liable for fraud, Judge Arthur Engoron issued a ruling in February that mandated a penalty exceeding $450 million, inclusive of daily accruing prejudgment interest, resulting in a total exceeding $486 million.
Following his February appeal of the verdict, a New York appeals court reduced the bond Trump needed to post while his case was under review. Oral arguments in late September led the appellate judges to scrutinize whether James had overreached in her actions against Trump. The appeals court has yet to render a final determination.
Sauer’s arguments continued in the November letter, suggesting that the civil suit raised serious constitutional dilemmas and posed risks to Trump’s ability to execute his presidential responsibilities. Despite these assertions, Vale reiterated that the realities of civil litigation do not obstruct presidential functions in a constitutional sense. She concluded that Trump does not face any litigation burdens currently, as the trial has been resolved and the appeal submitted for consideration.
Source
www.cnbc.com