Trump says he doesn’t have the documents, but the contempt fight was already in motion
Donald Trump told a New York court on April 19, 2022, that he personally did not have the subpoenaed records investigators wanted in the state’s civil fraud probe. The filing was not a ruling and it did not settle anything on its own. It was Trump’s response to a contempt motion the New York attorney general had already filed on April 7, accusing him of failing to comply with a February 17 court order tied to the investigation.
In the sworn opposition papers, Trump’s lawyers argued that he had no responsive documents in his personal possession or custody and that any material within his control belonged to the Trump Organization. The filing also said his side had already conducted a search and had complied with the subpoena by referring investigators to Trump Organization documents previously produced in the case. That was the core of the dispute: the state said the response was incomplete and that Trump had not met the court’s order; Trump said he had done what was required.
The April 19 affidavit landed while the contempt fight was still pending. It did not end the case, and it did not answer whether the court would accept Trump’s claim that the documents were not in his hands personally. That question was left to Justice Arthur Engoron, who later ruled on April 25. In that order, the court found Trump in contempt and set a $10,000-a-day fine unless he satisfied conditions including additional affidavits on document searches and review by a third party. The attorney general’s office said the fine would be reinstated if those conditions were not met by May 20.
The procedural timeline matters. The state’s contempt motion came first, then Trump’s sworn response, and then the court’s ruling. Trump’s filing was part of that sequence, not a resolution of it. What it did show was the familiar fight over control, custody, and responsibility: Trump said the records were not personally his; the attorney general said that was not enough; and the court later agreed that the obligation had not been satisfied at that stage.
Comments
Threaded replies, voting, and reports are live. New users still go through screening on their first approved comments.
Log in to comment
No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.