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

<p>President Donald Trump’s legal team has filed a letter with the New York Supreme Court, questioning New York Attorney General Letitia James' compliance with a court order regarding evidence in a civil suit that could cost Trump $464 million.</p><p>Trump's attorneys argue that James has not provided necessary details about her office's evidence preservation practices. They suggest that she may possess key evidence, including communications with Michael Cohen, a former attorney for Trump.</p><p>The court filing references a January 16, 2026 article by Cohen, in which he claimed he felt pressured during meetings with James’ office to provide information that would support the case against Trump.</p><p>Cohen testified during the trial, stating that Trump had misrepresented the value of his properties and provided target net-worth figures for him to meet.</p><p>While the judge denied a request for additional discovery, he required James to outline the processes used to maintain and preserve information related to the case. Trump's attorneys assert that James has not adequately fulfilled this requirement.</p><p>They noted that the New York Attorney General’s Office has not confirmed whether any requested materials exist or if they are being preserved, instead providing vague statements about standard litigation hold procedures.</p><p>This dispute is part of a civil suit filed by James in 2022, accusing Trump of inflating property values fraudulently. Following a ruling against Trump, he was ordered to pay $355 million plus interest and was barred from applying for loans from New York financial institutions for three years, as well as serving as an officer or director of any New York company for two years.</p><p>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 outlined five key weaknesses in the case, arguing that James lacked authority to pursue it, as it involves private transactions rather than public harm. They also claimed that Trump's property valuations were subjective and independently evaluated by lenders.</p><p>Trump's legal team stated, "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>They further argued that the prosecution's premise of overvaluation is based on a flawed understanding of real estate value and that the penalties imposed are excessive and unconstitutional.</p><p>Additionally, Trump's attorneys asserted that the politically charged nature of the case should have warranted its dismissal, noting that James could not cite similar enforcement actions against other developers.</p><p>In response to inquiries, James’ office stated that it has met its disclosure obligations and objected to the demand for further extrajudicial discovery.</p><p>James' letter stated, "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>