After trial ended on Tuesday in her case accusing former President Donald Trump and key interests around him of business fraud, New York state Attorney General Letitia James reiterated that the ex-president’s incessant bullying would not stop her case. James also expressed confidence in an eventual, more complete victory for her team following earlier findings from the judge that Trump engaged in some such fraud.
“He can call me names, he can engage in distractions, but at the end of the day… his entire empire was built on nothing but lies and on sinking sand,” James said, as relayed by ABC. James was not among the forbidden targets for public commentary named in a previous gag order from the judge that covers Trump and others — though it’s just Trump making the most noise. “He will again attempt to distract each and every one of you, attempt to raise his voice and scream,” James added. “But at the end of the day, justice will be served, and I’m confident that victory will be mine.”
Trump’s targeting of James, who he calls “Peekaboo James” for some unclear reason, is obsessive. The ex-president’s behavior amid his New York trial was among the factors referenced by authorities before the judge in his federal criminal case alleging election interference imposed a limited gag order just recently that blocks public commentary about Special Counsel Jack Smith, Smith’s staff, witnesses, and others. That other judge also pointed to Trump’s appalling suggestion that Mark Milley, a retired general who until recently was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, be executed. Milley is an established witness in the election interference case — amid which Trump keeps falsely claiming there was widespread fraud in 2020, despite zero evidence.
In the case from James, there’s been another notable feature of Trump’s comments — his insistence that his Florida property Mar-a-Lago is appropriately valued well into the billions of dollars, which would make it among the most valuable in the world. There’s no clear supporting evidence for those claims of value — which mirror the misrepresentations driving James’ very case.
