(Photo
by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
Last
night
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James
filed
her
opposition
to
Donald
Trump’s Hail
Mary
pass
to
the
federal
judiciary
demanding
that
it
enjoin
her
investigation
and/or
force
James
to
recuse
herself
from
all
matters
Trump-related.
As
the
AG
points
out
in
the
first
paragraph,
this
issue
is
currently
being
adjudicated
by
the
New
York
Supreme
Court,
where
Justice
Arthur
Engoron
forced
Eric
Trump
to
sit
for
a
deposition
and
already
adjudicated
multiple
privilege
disputes.
In
fact,
the
Trump
Organization
has
largely
cooperated
with
the
OAG
during
the
34
months
of
the
investigation,
and
only
decided
that
it
was
illegally
tainted
by
bias
when
Trump,
Ivanka,
and
Don
Jr.
got
subpoenaed
late
last
year.
Trump
made
the
same
arguments
about
Tish
James’s
supposed
bias
at
the
state
court,
where
he
lost.
So
in
addition
to
res
judicata,
he
may
have
a
wee
tiny
abstention
doctrine
problem.
And
good
luck
arguing
that
you’ve
been
deprived
of
due
process
when
your
motion
to
quash
a
subpoena
for
testimony
is
scheduled
for
February
17.
How
much
more
process
do
these
people
think
they’re
entitled
to?
And
when
did
an
almost
three-year
investigation
become
an
emergency
requiring
judicial
intervention
—
or more
judicial
intervention,
to
be
precise?
As
for
the
supposed
harms,
the
motion
skewers
the
claim
that
the
OAG
is
somehow
chilling
the
plaintiffs’
First
Amendment
right
to
speak
since
Donald
Trump
and
his
namesake
son
literally
never
shut
up.
“[I]t
is
not
readily
apparent,
given
Mr.
Trump’s
frequent
public
statements
and
appearances,
how
Plaintiffs
could
plausibly
establish
any
such
chill,”
the
OAG
writes,
dropping
a
footnote
to
Trump’s
speech
Saturday
in
which
he
promised
riots
in
the
streets
if
he
were
ever
indicted.
The
motion
failed
to
allude
to
Jr.’s
frequent
attempts
to
hold
his
jaw
in
place
while
livestreaming
ad
hominem
attacks
on
the
current
president.
He
should
only
be
so
lucky
as
to
have
someone
who
cared
enough
to
stifle
him!
And
his
brother,
too,
since
Eric
Trump’s
public
tantrum
about
all
the
subpoenas
he
was
defying
is
what
prompted
the
OAG
to
sue
in
the
first
place,
publicly
docketing
a
motion
to
compel which
outlined
the
laughable
real
estate
valuations and
possible
undeclared
loan
forgiveness
which
formed
the
basis
of
her
investigation.
Unfortunately
this
motion
wasn’t
full
of
juicy
details
like
the
state
filings,
including
one
last
week
that
detailed
the
sweet
deal
Ivanka
Trump
got
on
her
Park
Avenue
penthouse
and
described
her
as
“the
primary
contact
for
the
Trump
Organization’s
largest
lender,
Deutsche
Bank”
from
which
position
she
caused
“misleading
financial
statements
to
be
submitted
to
Deutsche
Bank
and
the
federal
government.”
But
it
does
include
multiple
references
to
“substantial
evidence
establishing
numerous
misrepresentations
in
Mr.
Trump’s
financial
statements
provided
to
banks,
insurers,
and
the
Internal
Revenue
Service.”
So
much
for
the
claim
that
the
public
interest
favors
enjoining
the
investigation.
In
fact,
this
case
is
so
transparently
ridiculous,
that
the
OAG
concludes
by
reminding
the
court
that
there’s
a
pending
motion
to
dismiss,
so
if
Judge
Brenda
Sannes,
an
Obama
appointee,
wants
to
yeet
this
whole
stinker
off
the
federal
docket
at
once,
that
would
probably
be
the
most
efficient
use
of
time.
Of
course,
that
would
deprive
ATL
readers
of
the
pleasure
of
making
fun
of
another
batguano
insane
Trump
filing,
but
it
seems
unlikely
that
the
plaintiffs
will
point
to
that
as
a
public
interest
favoring
the
continuation
of
this
turkey
of
a
lawsuit.
Trump
v.
James
[Federal
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
People
v.
Trump
Org
[State
Docket]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.