Trump Lawyers Go on Offense, Seek Mistrial in NYC Fraud Case

President Trump’s lawyers went on offense on Wednesday and asked a judge to grant a mistrial in the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the fraud case was tainted by bias.

Radical Marxist New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking $250 million in ‘damages’ when there is no victim in this fraud case and she is also seeking to ban Trump and his sons from operating any businesses in New York.

Far-left Judge Arthur Engoron has displayed bizarre behavior in the court by smiling for the cameras. He has also shown clear bias against Trump and recently expanded his gag order to Trump’s attorneys.

CNBC reported:

Donald Trump and his co-defendants asked a judge Wednesday to grant a mistrial in the $250 million civil business fraud case that threatens the former president’s business empire.

In a court filing, attorneys for Trump, his two adult sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the Trump Organization and its top executives argued that “the evidence of apparent and actual bias” in the case is “tangible and overwhelming.”

The 30-page filing in Manhattan Supreme Court targeted the presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, as well as his principal law clerk, claiming their conduct has “tainted these proceedings” and that “only the grant of a mistrial can salvage what is left of the rule of law.”

Last Friday Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY) filed a judicial ethics complaint against NY Judge Arthur Engoron over his ‘bizarre behavior’ and clear bias in Trump’s non-jury civil fraud case.

“Judge Engoron’s bizarre and biased behavior is making New York’s judicial system a laughingstock. Former Southern District of New York federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has at times criticized President Trump, recently stated that he views the “whole New York justice system” as “fraudulent.”” Stefanik wrote.

“Americans are sick and tired of the blatant corruption by radical Leftist judges in NY. All New Yorkers must speak out against the dangerous weaponized lawfare against President Trump,” Stefanik said.

Rep. Stefanik provided several examples of Judge Engoron’s clear judicial bias against Trump and overall bizarre behavior in court:

[1] At the start of the trial, Judge Engoron infamously smiled and posed for the cameras.

[2] After the defendant won an appellate ruling against Judge Engoron on the appropriate statute of limitations in this case, the judge simply ignored the ruling.

[3] Judge Engoron entered summary judgment against the defendant before the trial even began, without witnesses, other evidence, and cross-examination. This, despite the fact there’s disputed material evidence–and there’s no victim of the defendant’s supposed fraud. Indeed, as the trial evidence has made clear, the defendant paid back the sophisticated Wall Street banks, on time, in full, with interest, as agreed.

[4] No insurance company paid a penny. And these banks and insurance companies, supposedly defrauded, continue to do business with the defendant. Yet Judge Engoron decreed before trial the defendant somehow committed fraud. Now, the judge is holding a trial–with no jury–to determine how much of Tish James’ requested $250 million in damages–with no victims–he will extract from the defendant.

“How does this not violate the defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial?” Stefanik wrote.

Stefanik also said Judge Engoron illegally gagged Trump and his attorneys and quoted Engoron: “We are not here to listen to what you have to say.” He told the defendant’s counsel: “I am not here to hear what he has to say, now sit down!” And Judge Engoron even threatened the defendant’s counsel if he filed a routine motion for a directed verdict: “You better not, Chris!”

The GOP Rep. also pointed out that Judge Engoron and his staff are partisan Democrat donors.

“Judge Engoron and his staff are partisan Democrat donors. As recently as 2018, Judge Engoron donated to the Manhattan Democrats[5]–even though Section 100.5 says that judges “shall refrain” from “making a contribution to a political organization.”” she wrote.