(WASHINGTON) — A Washington, D.C., judge on Thursday set a September trial date for a case brought by the D.C. attorney general against former President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Yvonne Williams scheduled the trial to begin on Sept. 26 — a date that will fall a few weeks ahead of the pivotal 2022 midterm elections in November.

The move comes three days after Williams reversed another judge’s earlier decision removing Trump’s family business from the suit.

The D.C. Attorney General’s Office alleges that Trump’s 2017 Presidential Inaugural Committee misused nonprofit funds to pay for event space at the Trump Hotel and other expenditures. The case rests, in part, on the claim of “private inurement” — the question of whether the inaugural committee used its funds for private benefit rather than nonprofit purposes.

A superior court judge dismissed a portion of a lawsuit in November 2020, saying the AG’s office had not met the standard of proof that would allow that part of the suit to proceed. The ruling removed the Trump Organization as a named defendant in the case, yet kept the former president’s Washington hotel as a named defendant, as well as the inaugural committee itself — before Williams reinstated the Trump Organization as a defendant on Monday.

Also during Thursday’s hearing, Trump’s legal team asked the judge to not allow the D.C. attorney general to depose former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg in the inaugural committee case, claiming it would be a “broader fishing expedition.”

Judge Williams ultimately said she would “allow a limited deposition of Mr. Weisselberg.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senators narrowly avoided a government shutdown Thursday evening, passing a short-term funding bill one day before funds were set to lapse.

The bill, which continues funding at current levels, will keep the federal government operating until March 11. Congressional leaders are hopeful that by that time, negotiators will have ironed out an agreement on a yearlong package of funding bills.

Leaders on both sides of the aisle have assured the public for several days that the government would not shut down on Friday, but negotiations came down to the wire as GOP lawmakers looked to use the budget bill as an opportunity to challenge Democrats’ COVID-19 mandates.

Challenges to pandemic mandates are becoming increasingly popular among Republican lawmakers, who are looking to capitalize on growing fatigue over COVID-19 across the country.

But blocking such amendments proved challenging for Democrats, who stalled consideration of the short-term funding bill because several of their members are not currently in Washington. Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Mark Kelly of Arizona are out of town managing family emergencies. And Sen. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico is recovering from a stroke. Ultimately some Republicans — Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of Utah and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma — were also missing from the chamber, evening out the numbers and allowing Democrats to move the vote forward.

If any amendment had been successful, the funding bill would have had to be returned to the House, which is currently on recess and would not have been able to return to pass a modified version of the legislation before government funding expired Friday evening.

Neither of the two COVID-19 mandate amendments ultimately passed, but they did receive support from nearly every Republican in the chamber.

One amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would have revoked federal funds for schools that left mask mandates in place for children. The other, led by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, would have ended the federal vaccine mandate.

Another amendment, which would have required the United States to balance its budget, also failed.

Lawmakers have already passed multiple short-term funding extensions to buy key negotiators in both chambers additional time to agree on a massive bill to keep the government funded through the end of the fiscal year.

Leaders say they’re narrowing in on a deal, but no formal agreement has been announced.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump and his two eldest children must testify in the investigation by the New York state attorney general into the family’s business practices.

The argument that Trump, his eldest son Donald Jr. and his eldest daughter Ivanka put forth to try and quash subpoenas for testimony and evidence “completely misses the mark,” Judge Arthur Engoron of the New York State Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The judge gave the Trumps 21 days to sit for depositions.

The Trumps had argued that it was improper for the attorney general’s office to issue subpoenas for its civil investigation while the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is still conducting its separate criminal probe.

“This argument completely misses the mark. Neither OAG nor the Manhattan District Attorney’s office has subpoenaed the New Trump Respondents to appear before a grand jury,” Judge Engoron’s decision said. “The New Trump Respondents’ argument overlooks the salient fact that they have an absolute right to refuse to answer questions that they claim may incriminate them.”

The judge noted that when Trump’s son Eric sat for a deposition two years ago as part of the same investigation, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 500 times.

“Today, justice prevailed,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James of the decision. “Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump have been ordered by the court to comply with our lawful investigation into Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization’s financial dealings. No one will be permitted to stand in the way of the pursuit of justice, no matter how powerful they are. No one is above the law.”

Trump, in a statement, blasted the probe following the judge’s ruling.

“She is doing everything within their corrupt discretion to interfere with my business relationships, and with the political process,” he said of James. “It is a continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in history — and remember, I can’t get a fair hearing in New York because of the hatred of me by Judges and the judiciary. It is not possible!”

Alan Futerfas, an attorney for the Trump family, told ABC News that the Trumps intend to appeal the decision.

Trump argued the investigation into his business practices is overtly political and cited statements James made during and after her campaign for attorney general about her intentions to investigate the former president and his family’s real estate firm.

The judge found those statements had no bearing on the legitimacy of the subpoenas.

“Attorney General James, just like respondent Donald J. Trump, was not deprived of her First Amendment rights to free speech when she was a politician running for a public office with investigatory powers,” the decision said.

“The abhorrent statements made by Letitia leave no doubt that this is yet another politically motivated witch-hunt,” Trump attorney Alina Habba said in response to the ruling. “The court clearly had its mind made up and had no interest in engaging in impartial discourse on this critically important issue.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.