Trump's legal mischief
Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally at the Delaware County Fairgrounds on April 23, 2022, in Delaware, Ohio, to endorse Republican candidates ahead of the Ohio primary on May 3.
A New York judge has found former president Donald Trump in contempt of court for failing to adequately respond to a subpoena issued by the state's attorney general as part of a civil investigation into his business dealings.
Former President Trump is in contempt of court.
On April 26, New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron found that "Mr. Trump willfully disobeyed a lawful court order" mandating that he comply with a subpoena issued by New York Attorney General Leticia James. This is in connection to her investigation into whether the Trump Organization committed various acts of tax and insurance fraud.
To be clear: Not only did Trump ignore the document and testimony requests from James, but he defied a court order enforcing those requests. It's one thing to blow off a document request from another attorney - but to snub a judge's order requiring compliance is in an altogether different plane. In the legal world, this is a big deal, because if judges' orders can be flouted with impunity, the entire American system of laws becomes optional - and could ultimately fail.
The judge accordingly imposed a $10,000 per day fine on Trump until he complied. Trump already appealed the ruling.
No doubt, the back story here is just the latest in a lifetime of evasive maneuverings that Trump has used in cases he has initiated or defended over many years. Parties can "win" lawsuits in a number of ways - ideally, by having a strong case under the legal principles that govern and having rel- evant, verifiable facts on their side.
James is investigating whether Trump broke New York state's laws banning the fraudulent inflation of property values for purposes of obtaining loans, as well as the fraudulent
deflation of property values for purposes of dodging tax liability.
Trump could defeat James's theories of liability by showing that she doesn't have evidence that the Trump Organization committed fraud.
Lawyers would call this argument a lack of proof "on the merits" - i.e., that there is not a preponderance of facts showing that the Trump Organization did these things.
However, to be able to draw this conclusion, both sides must first produce the relevant documents and testimony in their possession in the first place. With rare exceptions, such as with documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, litigants don't have the legal right to just withhold information they don't want to turn over.
But of course, even that assumes that both sides are playing by the rules, and that if they don't, they will be held accountable for it. Unfortunately, plenty of lawyers are willing to push these ethical boundaries to gain an advantage.
Hence, lawyers can also "win" a case by stonewalling, driving up costs through the discovery process of exchanging evidence, or even filing a counter-lawsuit with an aim of frustrating the proceedings and exhausting or financially depleting the other side. At worst, lawyers who specialize in this strategy might be willing to ignore court orders, knowing that the other side will have to go back to court and file more papers simply to get the orders enforced.
Judges are used to people following their orders, so they tend to give lawyers the benefit of the doubt and consequences don't automatically flow from non-compliance. In general, the judge must be convinced that the "bad actor" is flouting a court order knowingly.
In this case, James served a subpoena for documents in December 2021, seeking a few broad categories of documents from Trump personally (the subpoena is not directed at the Trump Organization), including:
"Documents bearing on Trump's review or approval of statements of financial condition. According to James, "he personally certified the accuracy of the statements to financial institutions. Evidence indicates that Mr. Trump maintained personal files and used Post-It Notes - which, obviously, stick on top of documents - to communicate with his subordinates."