Former U.S. President Donald Trump attends the trial of himself, his grownup sons, the Trump Organization and others in a civil fraud case introduced by state Attorney General Letitia James, at a Manhattan courthouse, in New York City, U.S., October 3, 2023.
Shannon Stapleton | Reuters
The New York Attorney General’s Office on Tuesday rejected a requirement from Donald Trump‘s lawyer to drop the large civil enterprise fraud case that has put the president-elect on the hook for greater than $480 million in fines.
“This Office won’t stipulate to vacate the ultimate judgment already entered by Supreme Court, New York County, on this motion or in any other case search to dismiss the motion,” Deputy solicitor normal Judith Vale wrote in a letter to Trump protection lawyer John Sauer.
She was responding to a Nov. 26 letter by which Sauer urged state Attorney General Letitia James to dismiss the case “for the well being of our Republic.”
“President Trump has referred to as for our Nation’s partisan strife to finish, and for the contending factions to hitch forces for the better good of the nation,” Sauer wrote, Fox News reported.
“This name for unity extends to the authorized onslaught in opposition to him and his household that permeated the newest election cycle,” the protection lawyer wrote.
Sauer had argued that the continuation of the case, which is at the moment on enchantment, will impede the Republican from finishing up his presidential duties.
But there may be “no benefit” to that declare, Vale wrote Tuesday. And Trump’s upcoming inauguration, she wrote, “has no bearing” on the end result of the trial or his ongoing efforts to problem the judgment.
“Presidents wouldn’t have immunity from civil lawsuits arising from unofficial conduct, and such lawsuits might proceed whereas the President is in workplace,” Vale wrote within the two-page letter.
For that purpose, Vale additionally disregarded Sauer’s level that prosecutors have dropped or delayed a variety of the legal circumstances in opposition to Trump within the wake of his Nov. 5 victory over Vice President Kamala Harris.
“This civil enforcement motion shouldn’t be a legal motion, and [Manhattan] Supreme Court didn’t impose any legal sanction on Mr. Trump or some other defendant,” she wrote.
The choice by particular counsel Jack Smith to dismiss his two federal circumstances in opposition to Trump, and the transfer to indefinitely delay Trump’s legal hush cash case, “are irrelevant right here,” Vale wrote.
The civil case, introduced in 2022 by James, accused Trump, his two grownup sons, his enterprise and key executives inside it of falsely inflating Trump’s property to spice up his acknowledged web price and acquire monetary perks.
After discovering Trump responsible for fraud and holding a bench trial to find out penalties, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron in February ordered Trump to pay greater than $450 million in fines and curiosity.
Engoron’s penalty included tens of millions of {dollars} in prejudgment curiosity that may accrue by $111,983 each day till it’s paid. Based on numbers beforehand supplied by the NY AG’s workplace, Trump’s complete judgment and curiosity is now greater than $486 million.
New York Attorney General Letitia James sits within the courtroom through the civil fraud trial of former President Donald Trump and his youngsters at New York State Supreme Court on November 03, 2023 in New York City.
David Sanders | Getty Images
Trump appealed the fraud verdict in February. A New York appeals courtroom in March shrunk to $175 million the bond quantity Trump needed to put as much as pause the judgment from coming due whereas he pursued his authorized problem.
During oral arguments in late September, appellate judges questioned whether or not James had gone too far, Politico reported.
The appeals courtroom has but to concern a choice.
Sauer in his Nov. 26 letter had argued that the fraud go well with’s continued survival “raises ‘grave and uncertain constitutional questions’ … and significantly disserves the nationwide curiosity.”
Citing current precedent that forestalls legal proceedings in opposition to sitting presidents, Sauer argued, “The similar considerations come up from a civil fraud enforcement motion, like this one.”
It can be “‘perilous’ to allow such an motion to stay pending in opposition to a sitting President, as a result of doing so ‘would danger imposing … burdens that will make it unattainable for a President to successfully perform his constitutional duties,'” he wrote.
Vale rejected that argument as meritless.
“The atypical burdens of civil litigation don’t impede the President’s official duties in a method that violates the U.S. Constitution,” she wrote.
“In any occasion, Mr. Trump doesn’t face any such litigation burdens right here,” for the reason that trial is over and the enchantment has been totally argued, Vale wrote.
