Trump's Lawyers Challenge Letitia James on Evidence in Civil Suit

<p>President Donald Trump’s legal team is seeking clarification regarding evidence in the civil suit that could result in a $464 million penalty. In a letter submitted to the New York Supreme Court on Thursday, Trump's attorneys argue that New York Attorney General Letitia James has not complied with a court order to present details about "the preservation practices" and "its preservation efforts." This demand is part of their ongoing objections to the case, which is currently under reconsideration.</p><p>Trump’s lawyers suspect that James may possess crucial evidence that has not been disclosed, specifically communications with Michael Cohen, a former attorney for Trump.</p><p>According to a court filing, "In seeking the discovery, defendants rely on a January 16, 2026 article by Cohen, published on the online platform Substack in which he asserted that, in meetings with lawyers from [James’s] office, he had ‘felt pressured and coerced to only provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgement and convictions against President Trump.'"</p><p>Cohen was a key witness in the civil suit, which alleges that Trump misrepresented the value of his properties and provided inflated net-worth figures to meet. Although the judge denied the request for additional discovery, he mandated that James provide details on how her office has maintained and preserved relevant information.</p><p>Trump’s attorneys assert that James has not adequately fulfilled this requirement. They noted that the New York Attorney General’s Office has not confirmed whether any requested materials exist or if they are being preserved, stating, "Instead of actually complying with the Order, NYAG has simply recited in general terms that her ‘standard litigation hold procedures’ have been in place since the investigation phase of this matter."</p><p>This exchange is the latest development in the civil suit initiated by James in 2022, which accuses Trump of routinely inflating property values. After being found liable, Trump was ordered to pay $355 million plus interest and was prohibited from applying for loans from any New York financial institution for three years, as well as from serving as an officer or director of any New York company for two years. Although an appeals court later vacated the monetary penalties, James has appealed to reinstate them. Trump contends that the case is fundamentally flawed and should be dismissed entirely.</p><p>Earlier this month, Trump’s lawyers identified five significant weaknesses in the case. They argue that Attorney General James lacked the authority to bring the suit, as it pertains to private commercial transactions rather than public harm. They also claim that Trump's valuations were subjective estimates independently evaluated by lenders, rather than fraudulent misrepresentations. The appeal states, "The only supposed 'victims' here are a handful of ultra-sophisticated banks and insurers that have never claimed to be injured, were eager to do business with President Trump and his family, and made over $100 million from these transactions."</p><p>Furthermore, they argue that the prosecution's premise of overvaluation is based on the incorrect assumption that real estate has a single objective value and that deviations from that value constitute fraud. Trump's attorneys assert that this broad theory allows the New York Attorney General to second-guess any business transaction in the state on nearly any imagined grounds. They also contend that the $450 million disgorgement penalty is excessive, unlawful, and unconstitutional. Lastly, they argue that the politically charged nature of the case should have been sufficient to halt its consideration, noting that the NYAG cannot cite a single enforcement action against similarly situated developers based on practices comparable to those alleged.</p><p>In response to inquiries from Fox News Digital, James’ office stated that it has fulfilled its disclosure obligations. The letter from her office reads, "Insofar as Defendants have sought or are seeking more information about OAG’s specific preservation efforts, OAG objects to the demand for this extrajudicial discovery. Moreover, OAG has completely satisfied its obligations under the Court’s Order for OAG to identify the preservation practices that existed and applied and continue to exist and apply."</p>