Trump Reacts to Attorney General Ruling Like a Man Who’s Committed All Manner of Fraud

Are you currently, or think you might be in the future, the subject of a fraud investigation by a state attorney general? If said attorney general subpoenaed you to sit for a deposition, do you expect you’d try to dodge that subpoena, and ask a judge to throw it out? If the judge ruled against you, do you have a vague idea as to how you might react, or the statement you might offer in response? If you haven’t given much thought to that last question, a small piece of advice: Consider a simple “we respectfully disagree with this decision,” rather than a basically incomprehensible screed against the prosecutor containing numerous factual inaccuracies, at least five different conspiracy theories, and an all-caps declaration that “THERE IS NO CASE!” Because it doesn’t really make you sound innocent!

Yes, in response to the news that he, Don Jr., and Ivanka Trump have 21 days to answer questions under oath as part of New York attorney general Letitia James’s investigation into the Trump Organization, Donald Trump had this to say to the poor staffer who was forced to write it all down and then put it on “Save America” letterhead:

Twitter content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

For those of you wondering what Hillary Clinton has to do with this, congratulations on having successfully avoided the latest right-wing conspiracy theory. (For those of you who unfortunately do know why Trump is bringing her up, note that he’s now upgraded his claims of her having run surveillance on him to her physically breaking into his apartment and the White House.) As for the “Fringe Benefits” matter, what the ex-president is referring to here are the multiple felonies that his company and former CFO were charged with last summer (they’ve pleaded not guilty to all charges), and we do continue to appreciate the claim by various Trump family members that people dodge taxes all the time and it’s not a big deal. As for the suggestion that James cannot probe his financial practices because she mentioned her intention to do so while running for office, that’s an argument that the judge literally shot down yesterday, saying that, in fact, the Office of the Attorney General had provided “thousands of documents” demonstrating “a sufficient basis for continuing its investigation, which undercuts the notion that this ongoing investigation is based on personal animus, not facts and law.” In fact, he added, for James not to subpoena the ex-president and his two eldest children, it would have been “a blatant dereliction of duty.” As for there supposedly being some kind of bias at work here? “If Ms. James has an opinion against him,” the judge said, it’s that “he’s just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of this state.”

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair       

— A First Look at Amazon’s Billion-Dollar TV Series
Joe Rogan Drama Exposes the Drift of Spotify’s Other Mega Deals
— Inside Prince Andrew’s Misguided Bid to Explain Away Jeffrey Epstein
— Trump Lashes Out at Prosecutors Like a Man Soon to Be Held Accountable
— Is Chris Cuomo Behind Jeff Zucker’s Abrupt CNN Departure?
— Silicon Valley Is Ready for Robots to Kill Us All
Lindsey Graham Spent Six Years With His Head Up Trump’s Ass for Nothing
— From the Archive: The 30-Year Odyssey of a Counterfeit Saudi Prince
— Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.