A Manhattan judge refuses to rescind civil subpoenas and deposits to the former President Donald Trump and his children in a scathing ruling on Thursday, writing that they should not have been investigated as “blatantly gratuitous”.
“For the OAG not to investigate the original respondents, and not to subpoena new Trump respondents, would be a blatant disregard for duty (and may have broken a campaign promise). repeat). Indeed, the impetus for the investigation was not personal hatred, not race or ethnicity or other discrimination, not campaign promises, but congressional testimony by the former Trump associate Michael Cohen that respondents were ‘cooking the books,'” Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron wrote in an eight-page ruling.
Trump and his children Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. Engoron’s ruling has 21 days from the date of the removal order.
During a hearing that lasted about two hours on Thursday morning, Trump’s attorney Alina Habba tear the New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), whom she recommends should be brought before an ethics committee to investigate her client.
“She used his name to become AG,” Habba said. “She tried to use his name to become governor,” referring to her abandoned run for the office of the man she helped dethrone: former Governor of New York . Andrew Cuomo (D).
Habba commented that the following run did not “go well for [James]. ”
Rebutting such claims, Engoron wrote: “Here, new Trump respondents have not presented any evidence that the law does not apply to others in a similar position, nor have they do not submit any evidence of discrimination based on race, religion or anything else unacceptable or arbitrary. ”
When running for office, James made no secret of his intention to investigate Trump. She publicly described him as an “illegitimate president” and, his attorney said, eloquently accused Trump of a crime he was never charged with as she said. during the campaign: “We need to find out where he laundered.” There is no indication that James is investigating Trump for alleged money laundering, but she has touted her civil investigation into the Trump Organization’s financial practices since it became public in 2020. .
The investigation had gone quietly a year before, but the stakes were higher when it became clear it was working in tandem with the then Manhattan District Attorney’s criminal investigation. Cyrus Vance (D), who prosecuted the Trump Organization and its former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg on a raft of tax fraud offense. Trump’s lawyers were quick to note that James attended Weisselberg’s hearing and spoke to the press afterward. They stated that she had dropped all pretense of acting with serious civil law capacity and said that she was working “hand-to-hand” with the current DA. Alvin Bragg (D).
Noting that every prosecutor behind the civil and criminal investigations has been elected Democrat, Trump’s lawyers were quick to suggest that the investigations were politically motivated.
Justice Engoron signaled his skepticism about that argument during Thursday morning’s hearing.
“How do we know that the motive is Donald Trump’s speech and not his financial activities?” Engoron said, noting that Trump’s beliefs are not in the roughly 600 documents in the notebook.
Kevin WallaceActing Attorney General of the Office of Investor Protection, quotes former Manhattan District Attorney By Robert Morganthau line about Trump’s described mentor Roy Cohn.
“A man isn’t prosecuted just because a US attorney doesn’t like him,” Morganthau replied when Cohn complained about an alleged politician.
In addition to bringing down James, Habba also attacked Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen was “discredited”, calling his congressional testimony the basis for the attorney general’s investigation.
Calling Law & Crime shortly after the hearing, Cohen countered that Habba’s jibe was “filled with despair.”
“Trump’s financial inadequacy may be an allegation but will very soon become a reality,” he said. “The numbers don’t lie. Everyone does.”
Lawyer Alan Futerfas, argued for the president’s children, arguing that the civil investigation could put his client in criminal jeopardy. In criminal proceedings, a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination can be asserted without any adverse inference being made, but that is not the case with an investigation. civil investigation. He argued that what he described as the dual nature of James’ investigation stripped the client of that constitutional right.
Read the verdict, below:
This is an evolving story.
[Images via Drew Angerer/Getty Images, Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images]
Is there a trick we should know? email@example.com
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-refuses-to-quash-subpoenas-and-depositions-for-donald-trump-and-his-children-it-would-be-a-blatant-dereliction-of-duty-not-to-investigate/ Judge won’t issue subpoenas to Donald Trump and his children