Trump's demand to drop business fraud case rejected by New York AG.

• The New York Attorney General's Office refused to dismiss the civil business fraud case against President-elect Donald Trump, which involves fines of over $480 million.
• John Sauer, Trump's defense attorney, urged Letitia James, the state Attorney General, to dismiss the case "for the sake of our nation."
• The outcome of Trump's appeal of the fraud verdict is being awaited by both Trump and James.

On Tuesday, the New York Attorney General's Office rejected a demand from Donald Trump's lawyer to drop the massive civil business fraud case that has put the president-elect on the hook for more than $480 million in fines.

In a letter to Trump defense attorney John Sauer, Deputy solicitor general Judith Vale stated that this Office will not agree to vacate the final judgment entered by Supreme Court, New York County, in this action and will not attempt to dismiss the action.

She replied to a November 26 letter from Sauer, who urged the state Attorney General Letitia James to dismiss the case "for the sake of our Republic."

The continuation of the case, currently on appeal, will hinder the Republican from performing his presidential responsibilities, according to Sauer's argument, as reported by Fox News.

Vale wrote Tuesday that there is "no merit" to the claim that Trump's upcoming inauguration has any bearing on the outcome of the trial or his ongoing efforts to challenge the judgment.

While in office, presidents are not immune from civil lawsuits resulting from unofficial conduct, and such lawsuits may proceed, as Vale stated in a two-page letter.

Vale dismissed Sauer's argument that several criminal cases against Trump have been dropped or delayed since his November 5th victory over Vice President Kamala Harris.

"The Manhattan Supreme Court did not impose any criminal sanctions on Mr. Trump or any other defendant in this civil enforcement action, which is not a criminal action," she wrote.

Vale stated that the dismissal of federal cases against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith and the indefinite delay of Trump's criminal hush money case are not relevant to the current situation.

In 2022, James filed a civil case against Trump, his two adult sons, his business, and key executives within it, accusing them of falsely inflating Trump's assets to increase his stated net worth and obtain financial benefits.

In February, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay over $450 million in fines and interest after finding him liable for fraud in a bench trial.

The penalty imposed on Engoron included millions of dollars in prejudgment interest that will accumulate by $111,983 each day until it is settled. According to the NY AG's office, Trump's total judgment and interest now exceed $486 million.

In February, Trump challenged the fraud verdict, and in March, a New York appeals court reduced the bond amount he had to pay to $175 million to delay the judgment from being enforced while he continued his legal battle.

Politico reported that appellate judges questioned whether James had gone too far during oral arguments in late September.

The appeals court has yet to issue a decision.

In his Nov. 26 letter, Sauer contended that the fraud suit's persistence poses "grave and doubtful constitutional questions" and harms the national interest.

Sauer contended that, based on existing precedent, a civil fraud enforcement action, such as the one at hand, would raise the same concerns as criminal proceedings against a sitting president.

Allowing such an action to remain pending against a sitting President could pose a risk, as it might impose burdens that would hinder the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities, according to him.

Vale rejected that argument as meritless.

She wrote that the routine responsibilities of civil litigation do not hinder the President's official obligations in a manner that breaches the U.S. Constitution.

Since the trial has ended and the appeal has been fully argued, Mr. Trump does not face any litigation burdens here.