Donald J. Trump will face questioning under oath from the New York attorney general’s office on Wednesday, a crucial turning point in a long-running civil investigation into his business practices.
The stakes for Mr. Trump are unusually high. Although he has taken part in numerous depositions over the years, he fought for months to avoid testifying this week, which could shape the outcome of the investigation into the former president and his family real estate business, the Trump Organization. .
The statement comes at a legally perilous time for Mr. Trump. Two days ago, while he was at his golf club in New Jersey, the FBI searched his Florida home as part of an investigation into sensitive material Mr Trump took when he left the White House.
He has denied wrongdoing and criticized the FBI’s search as “an assault” that “could only take place in broken Third World countries.” He has also called the investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James a politically motivated witch hunt.
He repeated his criticisms on his Truth Social account. “In New York City tonight. We will see the racist New York Attorney General tomorrow, for a continuation of the greatest witch hunt in American history! He wrote. “My great company, and I same thing, we’re being attacked from all sides. Banana Republic!”
Since March 2019, the lawyers of Ms. James, gathering an encyclopedic understanding of Trump’s business, have examined whether Mr. Trump and his company improperly inflated the value of their hotels, golf clubs and other assets.
Earlier this year, Ms. James said in a court filing that the company’s business practices were “fraudulent or deceptive,” but added that her office needed to question Mr. Trump and two of his sons adults to determine who was responsible for this behavior.
Mr. Trump’s statement — which comes days after the attorney general’s office questioned Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. — represents the final stage of the investigation into Ms. James.
Because her investigation is civil, Ms. James can sue Mr. Trump but cannot press criminal charges. Still, the specter of criminal charges hangs over the deposition: The Manhattan district attorney’s office had been conducting a parallel criminal investigation into whether Mr. Trump fraudulently inflated the valuations of his properties.
And depending on Mr. Trump’s answers to Ms. James’ questions on Wednesday, her testimony could breathe new life into that investigation, which lost momentum earlier this year. If Mr. Trump stumbles — or incriminates himself — Ms. James’s office could alert the district attorney’s office, which has said it will closely monitor the interview.
Mr. Trump is also grappling with a litany of other criminal investigations. Along with the FBI’s search this week of Mar-a-Lago, his home and private club in Palm Beach, Florida, federal prosecutors are questioning witnesses about his involvement in efforts to reverse his electoral loss; a House committee held a series of hearings tying him more closely to the January 6 attack on the Capitol; and a Georgia district attorney is investigating possible election interference by Mr. Trump and his allies.
Ms. James’s investigation could end before those investigations. Instead of filing a lawsuit that would take years to resolve, he could first continue to negotiate a settlement with the former president’s lawyers for a faster financial payout. But if Mr. Trump ultimately sues, and if Ms. James prevails at trial, a judge could impose severe financial penalties on Mr. Trump and restrict his business operations in New York.
What we consider before using anonymous sources. How do sources know the information? What is your motivation for telling us? Have they proven reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with those questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.
In seeking to defend a lawsuit by Ms. James, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are likely to argue that real estate valuation is a subjective process and that his company simply estimated the value of his properties, with no intention of inflating them. – them artificially. Although Ms. James has claimed in court documents that the Trump Organization provided false appraisals to banks to secure favorable loans, Mr. Trump could argue that they were sophisticated financial institutions that profited greatly from their dealings with Mr. trump
It is not clear whether Mr. Trump will raise this argument at his deposition.
He might refuse to answer some of Ms.’s questions. James and invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination. While neither Ivanka Trump nor Donald Trump Jr. exercised their Fifth Amendment rights when questioned in recent days, said a person with knowledge of the matter, another of Mr. Trump, Eric Trump, refused to answer hundreds of questions when Ms. James’ researchers interviewed him in the fall of 2020.
But Mr Trump is seen as his best spokesman, and people familiar with his approach to legal battles have said he is unlikely to remain silent. Instead, Mr. Trump could claim that he was not deeply involved in the valuation of his properties and that he delegated that process to his employees.
In civil matters, juries can draw a negative inference from a defendant’s refusal to answer questions, unlike in criminal cases, where the exercise of the right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked. And given the vast knowledge of the Trump Organization that the office of Ms. James, his lawyers, in the course of a trial, could probably focus on certain unanswered questions.
Keeping quiet could also hurt Trump politically at a time when he is hinting that he will join the 2024 presidential race; it might raise questions about what he might be trying to hide. As Trump himself once remarked, “If you’re innocent, why do you accept the Fifth Amendment?”
The statements represent the culmination of months of legal wrangling. In January, Mr. Trump asked a New York judge to quash a subpoena from Ms. James seeking her testimony and personal documents. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, sided with Ms. James and ordered the Trumps to testify, a ruling that an appeals court upheld.
And at the request of Ms. James, Justice Engoron held that Mr. Trump was in contempt of court, and considered that he had breached the terms of the subpoena for Ms. James to ask for his documents. It was an embarrassing two-week episode that forced Mr. Trump to pay a $110,000 fine.
At an April court hearing for the contempt order, one of Ms. James, Kevin Wallace, indicated that the investigation was nearing conclusion. Ms James’ office, she said, should take “enforcement action” in the “near future”.
The lawsuit — or a settlement agreement — would likely accuse Mr. Trump and his company of fraudulently inflating the value of his golf clubs, hotels and other properties in their annual accounts. The company of Mr. Trump provided the statements to banks in hopes of getting loans.
Ms. James disclosed in a court filing this year that the accounting firm of Mr. Trump, who compiled those statements, had cut ties with him. The firm, Mazars, essentially retracted nearly a decade of Mr. trump