Former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the New York state attorney general, which sought to stop her civil investigation into the Trump Organisation, was dismissed by a federal judge. Trump could have brought the very same claims to the state supreme court, according to Judge Brenda Sannes. Last year, Trump filed a lawsuit alleging that New York Attorney Letitia James was accused of violating his constitutionally protected rights by having a biased investigation into him.
Trump’s argument was based on statements made by James during her attorney general campaign. He requested that the investigation be halted or that James be forced to recuse himself. “The Jury included that Complainants could have brought up the claims and demanded the relief they pursue in the federal action in the New York proceeding,” Sannes wrote in dismissing the lawsuit.
Alina Habba, Trump’s lawyer, said that she could not imagine a scenario that met the bad faith exception to the law
Allowing the lawsuit to proceed, according to Sannes, would jeopardise ongoing state court proceedings, such as New York Jury Arthur Engoron’s order possessing Trump in civil contempt for failure to obey a court order for documents.
The judge wrote that the “decision to grant the relief Petitioners seek would have the real impact of interfering with the disrespect ruling in the New York proceeding and runs the risk of providing that order ‘unimportant.” Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, has said she will appeal. In a statement, Habba said that there would be no doubt that we would appeal the decision. Alina said that she could not imagine a scenario that met the bad faith exception to the law if Ms James’s outrageous conduct and harassing inquiry didn’t happen.”
James and Trump have had several courtroom wars in United States district court over subpoenas related to the civil investigation into the Trump Organisation
James and Trump have had several courtroom wars in the United States district court over subpoenas related to the civil investigation into the Trump Organisation’s financial statements. Sannes’ decision is the recent setback for Trump in his attempt to halt or stifle the investigation, which is quickly approaching its conclusion. The federal judge also stated that she found no evidence of retaliation and that anyone started acting in “bad faith” in the court action to support the subpoena enforcement. The investigation, she said, has a “valid factual predicate.” James says she will continue her investigation into the Trump Organisation “unabated.”
“The courts have repeatedly stated that Donald J. Trump’s baseless legal challenges will not prevent our lawful investigation into his and the Trump Organization’s financial dealings,” James said in a statement. A New York appeals court ruled on Thursday that as part of the attorney general’s investigation, Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump Jr. would have to answer questions under oath. Trump’s lawyer stated that the decision could be appealed as well.
