[ad_1]
A New York Court of Appeal is weighing this issue after a judge in a separate case has authorized a defamation suit against Trump introduced by Summer Zervos, a former competitor of "The Apprentice", .
The issue is whether the president can be sued in a state court for conduct other than his official duties. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that President Bill Clinton could be the subject of a federal lawsuit for such conduct, but did not solve the problem at the federal level. States.
Judge Saliann Scarpulla said Thursday before the state Supreme Court in Manhattan that the court's decision on the Zervos case would affect the state's ability to Include Trump himself in his civil record concerning the foundation. abused his tax free status.
But Scarpulla said that a decision of the court of appeal in favor of the president would not completely cancel the case of the Attorney General; on the contrary, it would probably force the bureau to change its lawsuit in order to remove Trump himself as a defendant.
The lawsuit, filed in June, now names the foundation's defendants, Trump and his three eldest children – Eric, Donald Jr. and Ivanka – who have all served on the board of directors of the charity. They allege that they violated federal and state laws on charities with "persistent" behavior including unlawful coordination with Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
The Attorney General's Office, headed by Barbara Underwood, is seeking to dissolve the Trump Foundation and is seeking $ 2.8 million in restitution with additional penalties. The office is also seeking to ban Trump from serving on the board of directors of a New York non-profit organization for 10 years and to members of the Trump Board of Trump sit for a year.
The majority of Thursday's hearing focused on the defendants 'motion for dismissal, with Alan Futerfas' solicitor focusing on two main factors: the fact that the foundation's funds were used charitable purposes, rather there was no transaction between the foundation and Trump's presidential campaign – a factor required by law.
"There is no home in the Hamptons" or extravagant dinners in the general ledger, Futerfas said, denying that the Trumps personally benefited from the foundation. "No such thing," he added. "So where did the money go, your honor?
Futerfas answered his question by showing a larger screen displaying the logos of dozens of non-profit organizations, including the Martha Graham Dance Company and Autism Speaks.
Iowa Veterans Fundraiser
Whether a transaction between the foundation and the campaign exists, both parties seemed to recognize a central episode: a nationally televised fundraiser for veterans Trump organized in Des Moines, Iowa January 28, 2016, just before the Republican caucus vote there.
The foundation received $ 2.8 million as a result of this event and, according to the complaint, the Trump campaign staff, including its then campaign director, Corey Lewandowski, ordered the payment of these funds in the political interest of Trump.
"At the time of this fundraiser, Mr. Trump was running for president, is not it?" the judge asked Futerfas. "Yes, he was," replied Futerfas.
"And so who directed the payment of these funds from fundraising?" the judge asked. She pointed out that, in order to assess the motion to dismiss, she was obliged to accept the allegations of the lawsuit, including those concerning Lewandowski's involvement. Lewandowski is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
"For me, this seems like a very easy case of related operation," said the judge. "This is not a chance advertisement – it's a type of advertising someone running for the US presidency."
A deputy general prosecutor, however, disputed Futerfas' assertion that the office alleged Trump's "personal enrichment". Assistant Attorney General Yael Fuchs cited several examples from the lawsuit, including a payment of $ 100,000 from the charity used to settle claims against Trump's tourist complex, Mar-a- Lago.
Regarding the event in Iowa, Fuchs said the Trumps "completely associate the identity of the foundation with the identity of the campaign – by actually usurping it for the purposes of the campaign".
"They say the foundation was a passive recipient of the transactions," she said. "Using modern language is not a thing," Fuchs added, shooting laughter from the audience room.
The judge, seeking to clarify the question of whether there had been a "transaction" between the foundation and the campaign, asked: "There is no control of the foundation at Donald J. Trump for the post of president, is not it? "
"Correct," acknowledged Fuchs, stressing that the campaign controlled the foundation's transactions and realized them for Trump's explicit political benefit.
Noting email exchanges between Lewandowski and Allen Weisselberg, chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, included in the lawsuit, Fuchs pointed out that Weisselberg, who was also the treasurer of the foundation, had explicitly surrendered the disbursement control to Lewandowski.
Fuchs said: "The timing and manner in which the distribution was distributed were controlled by the campaign for the benefit of the candidate Mr. Trump."
Weisselberg, who was dismissed by the Attorney General's office as part of his trial, was also a key figure in prosecutions by federal prosecutors against Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty in August. to accusations of tax evasion. Weisselberg received immunity in this investigation, reported CNN.
Although the foundation's lawyer, Futerfas, tried in the last minutes of the hearing to argue an argument he had raised in the courts, alleging political bias in the From the Office of the Attorney General, headed for years by a Democrat, judge him quickly curbed this effort.
"I do not want to participate in this," she said. "The allegations are what they are."
Source link
