An Attorney General’s Political Hit Job

When Letitia “Tish” James ran for New York Attorney General in 2018, she vowed to “challenge this illegitimate president,” that being Donald Trump. “I believe that this president is incompetent,” James said. “I believe that this president is ill-equipped to serve in the highest office of this land. And I believe that he is an embarrassment to all that we stand for.” She also said that “Trump should be indicted on criminal charges and charged with obstruction of justice.” During her victory speech after being elected Attorney General, James said “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of (Trump’s) real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.”

You cannot say that AG James is not true to her word. As reported by CNN in mid September, “The New York state attorney general filed a sweeping lawsuit…against former President Donald Trump, three of his adult children and the Trump Organization, alleging they were involved in an expansive fraud lasting over a decade that the former President used to enrich himself. In the more than 200-page lawsuit, Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, alleges the fraud touched all aspects of the Trump business, including its properties and golf courses. According to the lawsuit, the Trump Organization deceived lenders, insurers and tax authorities by inflating the value of his properties using misleading appraisals.”

The reactions from Trump-haters was immediate. Actor Billy Baldwin (apparently a brother to Alec Baldwin) stated “Am I alone, or should Donald Trump be CRIMINALLY charged as well?” Former Meathead Rob Reiner said “Letitia James lands the first big blow…Merrick Garland will deliver the knockout punch. A great day for the Rule of Law.” Then there is Mia Farrow, best known as Frank Sinatra and Woody Allen’s ex-wife, who said, “if any of us had committed ANY of these transgressions, we’d have been in prison long ago…they have been cheating the American people out of billions for decades…facts reveal crooks-scammers soaked in money they didn’t earn honestly. They are a crime family…”

Meanwhile, according to former US Attorney General, Bill Barr, no friend to Donald Trump, “It’s hard for me not to conclude that this is a political hit job…I’m not even sure that (James) has a good case against Trump himself, but what ultimately persuades me that this is a political hit job is that she grossly overreaches when she tries to drag the children into this…this is (Trump’s) personal financial statement, prepared by the CFO, accounting firms were involved in it…the children aren’t going to know the details of that, nor are they expected in the real world to do their own due diligence and have it reviewed independently.”

Nonetheless, a civil lawsuit must come as a devastating disappointment to Hollywood elites like Baldwin and Reiner who long to see Donald Trump in handcuffs. Incarceration, however, is a sentence which could be handed to the former President only after a criminal charge is filed by a Criminal Complaint or Grand Jury Indictment, and only after the defendant is found guilty of that charge.

In New York State Supreme Court, Civil Division, where James has filed her lawsuit, the penalties are either injunctive (ordering the defendant to do, or stop doing something), or monetary (the payment of reimbursement or damages). Thus, in People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, et. al., James seeks, among other penalties, “Barring Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from entering into any New York State commercial real estate acquisitions for a period of five years…Barring Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from applying for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York Department of Financial Services for a period of five years…Permanently barring Mr. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director in any New York corporation or similar business entity registered and/or licensed in New York State…(and)…(a)warding disgorgement of all financial benefits obtained by each Defendant from the fraudulent scheme…of an amount to be determined at trial but estimated to be $250,000,000.”

James’ complaint lists a series of financial transactions which she asserts are fraudulent involving properties owned by the Trump organization in New York, Florida, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and even Scotland, raising the immediate question of whether or not the New York State Supreme Court would even have jurisdiction over properties and transactions not located in New York State. But the allegations brought by the New York State Attorney General raise an even more serious question – does she have the legal standing to bring this litigation?

“’Standing‘ is a legal term used in connection with lawsuits and a requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. In simple terms, courts use ‘standing’ to ask, ‘Does this party have a ‘dog in this fight?’…To have standing, a party must show an ‘injury in fact’ to their own legal interests. In other words, has the party itself ‘suffered’ some sort of actual harm?”

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: NY AG L. James

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.