New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is doubling down on her pursuit of a nearly $500 million civil fraud judgment ($486 million to be precise) against President-elect Donald Trump, signaling that presidential immunity won’t deter her. James’ office insists that Trump’s status as a former and future president doesn’t place him above legal accountability—a bold move that raises questions about the balance between justice and executive privilege.
In a letter to Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, Judith Vale, the deputy solicitor general for the New York Attorney General’s office, argued that the lawsuit would not interfere with Trump’s responsibilities in the White House. Vale stated, “The ordinary burdens of civil litigation do not impede the president’s official duties in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution.”
Trump’s legal team has sought to have the case dismissed for “the good of the country,” pointing to the legal and political ramifications.
However, James remains defiant, as explained by The Washington Times:
Mr. Trump and his adult sons were found liable for fraud in February in a lawsuit brought by Ms. James and overseen by Judge Arthur Engoron. The judge ruled that they had inflated Mr. Trump’s worth to get better loan deals. Mr. Trump was ordered to pay $454 million plus growing interest.
He has appealed the decision.
“The judgment thus does not concern any conduct related to Mr. Trump’s first term as President. Nor does it implicate any conduct that Mr. Trump might undertake after his upcoming inauguration,” Ms. Vale’s letter reads. “Presidents do not have immunity from civil lawsuits arising from unofficial conduct, and such lawsuits may proceed while the President is in office.”
She wrote that there “no merit to your claim that the pendency of defendants’ own appeal will impede Mr. Trump’s official duties as President.”
James previously emphasized that she would not abandon the civil fraud judgment despite Trump’s decisive victory in last month’s election. She vowed to do “everything in my power to ensure our state and nation do not go backwards” during a second Trump administration.
READ NEXT: From Bad To Worse: Liberal Journalist Just Lost Their Second Gig This Year
What a fat pile of ignorant guts James is! There is no victim means there is no crime! Third world court system is the crime, what are the appellate courts waiting on?
I’m a real estate broker and consultant in California, and in working with Freddie Mac I was peripherally exposed to exaggerated property valuations where it was clear that property owners had obtained inflated valuations so that they could refinance properties, suck out equity and more, milk rent until the lender foreclosed, and disappear. Some of these cases went to court and the defense was that an independent valuation is an opinion of value, not a guarantee and that defense was successful more than half the time. Trump did not offer the “opinion of value” defense, and I wonder why since he had skilled legal support. Clearly, what he did submit was an opinion of value although he (so I have read) was supported by appraisals (if this is true). .Yet, in Trump’s example, Letitia James argued the opposite.
She has an exaggerated and frivolous judgement and has made this a career maker out of this trial. She won reelection so it appears that New Yorkers support her in her quest against Trump.
Cant read the Memo
no injured/damaged parties, all loans repaid. hmmm! and other business people claiming these are typical business practices. this, IMO, is why the democrats lost so big. They fight for the wrong “stuff!”
witch hunt 2.0 begins…..
Disbar this Pierre Boulle character.
Leticia needs ALL OUT LAWFARE used against her since she wants to be so “petty”. We’ll see how squeaky cleans she’s been when the FBI turns on her. I’ll bet there is more staggering dirt on her than Trump (if any).
What we need to do is put a $500 Million Judgement against AG Letitia James and then have her ‘disbarred’ for her hateful actions against Trump. Which is the only reason that she has this judgement against her. It is a personal judgement.