[ad_1]
NEW YORK – A lawyer for President Trump on Thursday urged a New York judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Trump had violated charity laws, saying any mistakes made by the president's charity were too much minimal to deserve such a deal.
Judge Saliann Scarpulla appeared skeptical of their arguments, saying that the Donald J. Trump Foundation was still required to comply with all charity laws, including several that the Attorney General of New York claims to have broken.
At a court hearing in Lower Manhattan, Alan Futerfas, an attorney for Trump and his three elders, said that New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood was wrong to accuse them of "mess" at the foundation. None of the assets, he says, had ever used the money from this organization to pay for a dinner, a vacation home, or a trip.
"There are no dinners charged to the foundation. There is no movement, no cars. . . nothing like it, "said Futerfas. Later in the hearing, he resumed the theme: "Travel to Paris is wasteful, your honor. Your honor knows what waste means. "
The hearing was triggered by Trump's motion to quash the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of New York, alleging that his charity had used the funds improperly. He accuses the foundation of paying legal obligations to Trump's for-profit businesses, assisting Trump's presidential campaign, and buying works of art decorating the Trump Golf Course.
The lawsuit, following an investigation triggered by the Washington Post's reports on Trump's charity, called for the Trump Foundation to be forced to pay more than $ 2.8 million in fines and restitution , that it be closed and that Trump and his children be banned from running other charities in the state of New York.
Trump and his company officials called the lawsuit a political motive.
Scarpulla did not rule on the rejection petition on Thursday. She said she wished to wait for the next decision on a separate case before a New York Court of Appeal, on whether Trump, as President-in-Office, could be sued in front of the court. a state court.
But Scarpulla seemed to reject the argument that politics had stained the case. And she did not seem convinced by Trump's arguments, saying that even though the Trump Foundation was not buying a trip to Paris from Trump, he was still required to comply with charity laws.
Scarpulla said that, despite everything, Trump and his children – who were on the list of charity officers – apparently would not have overseen the foundation as they were supposed to do.
"The statement is that there was not a single meeting of the board. These people are administrators. Under state law, they are required to meet, "Scarpulla said. "Even if they do a spectacular job, they still have to comply with the law."
Thursday's hearing focused on an important argument about Trump's use of his charity as a political tool during Republican primary school in 2016. In January 2016, Trump ignored the GOP candidates' debate. he then counterprogrammed by organizing a television fundraiser for veterans.
Trump raised approximately $ 5.5 million, of which $ 2.8 million was donated to the Trump Foundation. After that, the records obtained by the Attorney General of New York show that the Trump campaign staff told the groups who should receive the money from the foundation and when.
In many cases, the gifts were staged during campaign events in Iowa, reinforcing Trump's image as a charitable man just before the Iowa caucuses.
Underwood argued that this violated New York state laws prohibiting charity executives from using the money from these agencies to help themselves. .
Scarpulla questioned Yael Fuchs, an official at the Attorney General's office, about this claim: "There is no check from the foundation to Donald J. Trump for the post of president, is it?"
Fuchs said that he did not need it. The foundation money was actually spent on the campaign, even though there was no check.
"The timing and manner in which the distribution was distributed were also controlled and directed by the campaign for the political benefit of Mr. Trump, the candidate," said Fuchs, "completely confusing the identity of the charity with the identity of the campaign. "
Futerfas rejected this argument. "Not a cent of that [money] went to the countryside. "
"And you say that the campaign that directs where and to whom the funds went is irrelevant?" Asked Scarpulla.
"It's a fact," said Futerfas. "But that does not satisfy the elements" of an illegal gift under the law, he said.
Futerfas also argued that under the Constitution, presidents-in-office should not be sued in a state court. Scarpulla said she would postpone the handling of this argument until a New York Court of Appeals decides on a case brought by the former "Apprentice" candidate. , Summer Zervos. Zervos says that Trump has fumbled and that he has defamed her by calling her a liar when she stepped forward.
Although this court finds that Trump can not be prosecuted, said Scarpulla, the lawsuit could continue in New York against Trump's three older children and the Trump Foundation itself.
[ad_2]
Source link
