ANALYSIS | Donald Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, Not Good, Very Bad Week in Court

(CNN) — Former President Donald Trump was defeated 0-3 in three high-profile legal battles this week, with new rulings fueling significant cases his opponents have brought against him.

Perhaps the most significant of all of Trump’s recent court defeats was a judge’s refusal on Friday to dismiss several civil lawsuits filed against him for his alleged role in the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol.

In the 112-page opinion, US District Judge Amit Mehta said Trump could face trial for his conduct surrounding last year’s insurrection.

The ruling marked the start of a week in which attorneys general in Washington and New York scored victories in their efforts to collect evidence on whether their businesses broke the law. While Trump continues to wield significant political allegiance and could well be the Republicans’ presidential nominee in 2024, the legal turmoil surrounding him shows no signs of slowing down.

Exhibition for your business

Trump’s case for his 2020 election was based on the image created around his alleged business savvy. Now his company is a major source of the legal problems facing the former president.

The week began with a Washington Superior Court judge reinstating the Trump Organization as a defendant in Washington Attorney General Karl Racine’s lawsuit that alleged funds for the 2017 inauguration were misappropriated. After overturning on Monday an earlier decision that had dismissed the company from the case, Judge Yvonne Williams also said Thursday that Racine’s office may question the company’s former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, in a limited statement.

Racine alleges that the inaugural funds were used to pay off a debt incurred by a block of hotel rooms reserved for employees of the Trump Organization. He is trying to recoup the nearly $1.1 million he says was improperly spent during the inauguration, in violation of Washington’s nonprofit law.

Ordered to testify in New York investigation

As Williams set a September trial date in the Racine case, a judge more than 200 miles away listened to Trump’s arguments on why he should drop subpoenas in the New York Attorney General Letitia James investigation. about the business practices of the Trump Organization, arguments the judge would ultimately reject.

James investigates whether Trump’s company misled insurers, lenders and others who relied on its financial statements. Hours after a contentious hearing Thursday morning, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Trump, as well as his children Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr., to testify in the civil investigation of he.

The Trumps have signaled they will appeal the order, but if those appeals fail, they could be sitting to testify in the coming weeks.

abandoned by accountant

In the run-up to Thursday’s hearing, James also revealed, via a Monday night court filing, that Trump’s accounting firm had recently told him that the last 10 years of statements could no longer be trusted. financial statements that the firm prepared for him.

The firm notified Trump that other parties who have been relying on financial materials compiled by Mazars need to know those financial statements are unreliable.

“This is the most dire thing that can happen to a company that you can imagine, other than being impeached or going bankrupt,” George Conway, a conservative lawyer and outspoken critic of Trump, told CNN’s “AC360″ program on Monday. at night.”And this could bankrupt him.”

The Trump Organization tried to misrepresent the company’s statement as a reason why the James investigation should be considered moot.

Engoron called that reasoning “bold as it is absurd.”

The responsibility of January 6

Trump is no stranger to litigation surrounding his business. But Friday’s ruling that allowed three civil lawsuits filed Jan. 6 against him to move forward said his comments before the Capitol takeover presented a “one-of-a-kind” case, the judge said, where the First Amendment It would protect you from liability.

“The president’s speech on January 6 can reasonably be seen as a call for collective action,” Mehta wrote in his 112 page reviewadding that the statements were “the essence of civil conspiracy.”

Mehta’s decision means Trump could eventually find himself at the defense table in a trial.

Mehta rejected Trump’s request that he dismiss two lawsuits brought by Democratic members of the House and a third by Capitol Police officers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for their alleged role in the violence that day.

While Mehta ruled out other defendants in the cases, he said it could be plausibly shown that Trump was involved in a conspiracy with far-right groups to violently disrupt the certification of the 2020 election results. The judge also rejected the arguments. from Trump that, as sitting president at the time, he is protected by absolute immunity.

“Denying a president immunity from civilian harm is no small step. The court well understands the seriousness of its decision. But the facts alleged in this case are unprecedented,” Mehta wrote.

Trump is expected to appeal the decision.