1/NY AG Letitia James civil case against the Trumps goes to trial today, or at least what’s left of it after NY Judge Engoron granted summary judgment in the AG's favor on fraud charges last Tuesday, leaving several others charges & the issue of damages to be decided at trial.
2/The trial is a bench trial—the case will be decided by the judge, not a jury. Judge Engoron is a distinguished jurist who has spent 2 decades on the bench & whose increasing frustration with Trump’s efforts to delay the proceedings was apparent last week.
3/James filed her lawsuit in September of 2022 after three-plus years of investigation was sparked by Michael Cohen’s testimony before Congress that Trump routinely misrepresented his wealth for financial gain.
4/She sued Donald Trump & his 3 adult children, alleging they used fraudulent statements of Trump Org’s financial condition to obtain millions. Senior management officials Allen Weisselberg & Jeffrey McConney as well as some Trump business entities were also named as defendants.
5/Ivanka Trump was dismissed as a defendant in June of 2023. An appellate court ruled claims against her were barred by the statute of limitations, b/c she’d stepped away from the business in 2016. Both Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump remain in the case along with their father.
6/The lawsuit was filed under New York Executive Law 63(12), which gives the Attorney General power to go after repeated fraud and illegality, and prevent companies that engage in persistent fraud from continuing to do business in the state of New York.
7/The lawsuit asks the court to remove Trump & the others from their Trump Org roles, permanently ban them from future corporate leadership roles in New York, & bar Mr. Trump & the Organization from entering into NY real estate acquisitions for 5 years
8/The AG also asked the Judge to force the Trumps to disgorge $250 million in profit the AG says they obtained thru fraud. Last week the judge decided some issues & left others for trial. For more about the remaining issues, sign up for my newsletter: joycevance.substack.com/p/the-week-ahe…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/The start of the new Supreme Court term is just around the corner—first Monday in October. I used to look forward to this with all the nerdiness of a young appellate lawyer. No more.
2/On Tuesday the Court hears a case called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. You may recall Elizabeth Warren’s tireless work before she became a senator to create a federal agency that would protect consumers ?
3/The CFPB has been in existence for just over 12 years & has done profoundly impactful work to make sure Americans are treated fairly by banks, lenders & other financial institutions. The case is an effort to end CFPB's work by challenging the constitutionality of its funding.
1/Yesterday, Judge Cannon (MAL case) partially granted Jack Smith's motion to look into possible conflicts between defendants Nauta & De Oliveira & their lawyers. In briefing the gov't asked for independent stand by counsel & to have other witnesses the lawyer rep'd present.
2/Her ruling came as an entry on PACER, the court's' electronic docketing system. You’ll find it there at the top, item #161, Order on Motion for Hearing. See all the other entries with blue underlined numbers? Those are hyperlinks to the court’s written orders.
3/What’s surprising here is that while the parties fully briefed this issue, Judge Cannon ruled in the form of a paragraph-long “minute entry” on her docket, which doesn’t explain how she views the facts or supply any legal reasoning for the course of action she decided upon.
1/This is the process Fani Willis asked for in her pleading & what @glennkirschner2 & I discussed with @Lawrence last night on #TheLastWord. Having defendants waive their right to file a speedy trial act request in exchange for getting severed from the 10/23 trial defendants...
2/...avoids a scenario where a defendant is severed, then turns around & files, a speedy trial act request, which, under Georgia law means the trial must happen before the end of next term of court. As Willis explained to the court yesterday, theoretically, that could have...
3/... resulted in a scenario where she was trying, overlapping cases, tying up the courts and the DA's office, and forcing witnesses to appear over and over in a short time period. This was never about Willis wanting to try all 19 defendants together. It has been a smart...
1/Justice Alito has refused to recuse himself from a case before SCOTUS. Senate Dems demanded he recuse b/c an atty arguing the case interviewed Alito, along with the WSJ's editorial page editor, resulting in 2 articles about Alito's work in the Wall Street Journal.
2/Alito rejected the suggestion he has a conflict: “When Mr. Rivkin participated in the interviews & co-authored the articles, he did so as a journalist, not an advocate.” “There was nothing out of the ordinary about the interviews in question.” documentcloud.org/documents/2394…
3/So, to recap, it's not a conflict for a judge to sit on a case argued by someone who has written very favorable stories about them when they are under fire. Different rules, however, would apply to Judge Tonya Chutkan if the former president gets his way. He wants her to recuse
1/Today Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee will hear argument on motions to sever by Trump Co-defendants Kenneth Chesebro & Sidney Powell, who want their cases tried separately from other defendants & at least in Chesebro's case, each other. joycevance.substack.com/p/motions-to-s…
2/Chesebro devotes lots of ink to arguing he doesn’t know Powell. She was involved in breaking into Coffee County voting machines. Chesebro's defense, “I’ve never been to Coffee County, Georgia,” would be a nice title for a country song but it’s not a very good argument to sever
3/But Georgia courts have held that defendants aren’t entitled to severance just because it might give them a better chance of getting acquitted. It’s not enough to have antagonistic defenses. A defendant must show harm to his rights if the cases aren't severed.
1/ Alabama is the poster child for why we need Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states with historical patterns of discrimination to receive pre-clearance from DOJ or a court before implementing new election laws or practices. SCOTUS gutted Sec 5 in 2013.
2/ Now, in a Section 2 case, the legislature flagrantly ignored SCOTUS's ruling last term, requiring them to draw maps for Congressional elections that create 2 Black "opportunity" districts-meaning Black voters have a chance to elect candidates of their choice, like others do.
3/As the 3-judge panel ruled today, the GOP majority in Alabama's legislature thumbed its nose at SCOTUS, and refused to follow their order. I wonder how Chief Justice Roberts feels about his ruling in 2013 that held times had changed & there was no longer a need for Sec. 5.