By Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich and William K. Rashbaum

NEW YORK – Donald Trump declined to answer questions from the New York state attorney general’s office on Wednesday (10), a surprising gamble in a high-stakes legal interview that likely will determine the course of a civil investigation into his company’s business practices.

Shortly after questioning began on Wednesday morning, Trump’s office released a statement saying he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, explaining that he “declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution.”

Two sources with knowledge of the matter confirmed that he was refusing to answer questions, citing the Fifth Amendment.

Since March 2019, Attorney General Letitia James’ office has investigated whether Trump and his company improperly inflated the value of his hotels, golf clubs and other assets. Trump has long dismissed the inquiry from James, a Democrat, as a partisan “witch hunt”.

In his statement on Wednesday, he cast it as part of a grander conspiracy against him, linking it to the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago, his home and private club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday (8).

“I once asked, ‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’” he said in the statement. “Now I know the answer to that question.” He said that he was being targeted by lawyers, prosecutors and the news media, and that left him with “no choice.”

But there are other reasons Trump may have decided not to answer questions. While James’ inquiry is civil, and she cannot file criminal charges against the former president, the Manhattan district attorney’s office has been conducting a parallel criminal investigation into whether Trump fraudulently inflated valuations of his properties. Any misstep from the former president in his deposition could have breathed new life into that inquiry.

Trump had not been expected to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination. He has long considered himself his best spokesman, and those who had questioned him in the past, as well as some of his own advisers, believed he was unlikely to stay quiet.

His decision could have a significant impact on any trial if James’ investigation leads to a lawsuit. Jurors in civil matters can draw a negative inference when a defendant invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, unlike in criminal cases, where exercising the right against self-incrimination cannot be held against the defendant.

Staying silent could also hurt Trump politically at a time when he is hinting that he will join the 2024 presidential race; it could raise questions about what he might be trying to hide.

In the past, Trump has ridiculed witnesses for invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, once remarking at a rally that, “You see the mob takes the Fifth,” and, “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

But if he continues to decline questions throughout the day — as appears to be his plan — there is less chance that he will unwittingly aid the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation, which was nearing an indictment of the former president this year before losing momentum.

The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, had developed concerns about proving a case against Trump, but he has said that he is monitoring James’ investigation and planned to scrutinize Trump’s responses on Wednesday. The former president’s decision not to answer those questions may forestall new avenues in that investigation.

Trump is also contending with a litany of other inquiries. Along with the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago, federal prosecutors are questioning witnesses about his involvement in efforts to reverse his election loss; a House select committee held a series of hearings tying him more closely to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol; and a district attorney in Georgia is investigating potential election interference on the part of Trump and his allies.

James’ inquiry could wrap up sooner than those investigations. Rather than file a lawsuit that would take years to resolve, she could first pursue settlement negotiations with the former president’s lawyers to obtain a swifter financial payout. But if she ultimately sues Trump — and if James prevails at trial — a judge could impose steep financial penalties on Trump and restrict his business operations in New York.

In seeking to fend off a lawsuit from James, Trump’s lawyers are likely to argue that valuing real estate is a subjective process, and that his company simply estimated the value of his properties, without intending to artificially inflate them. While James has contended in court papers that the Trump Organization provided bogus valuations to banks to secure favourable loans, Trump’s lawyers might argue that those were sophisticated financial institutions that turned a hefty profit from their dealings with Trump.

The depositions represent the culmination of months of legal wrangling. In January, Trump asked a judge in New York to strike down a subpoena from James seeking his testimony and personal documents. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, sided with James and ordered the Trumps to testify, a ruling that an appellate court upheld.

And at James’ request, Engoron held Trump in contempt of court, finding that he had failed to comply with the terms of James’ subpoena seeking his documents. It was an embarrassing two-week episode that compelled Trump to pay a $110,000 penalty.

At an April court hearing for the contempt order, one of James’ lawyers, Kevin Wallace, indicated that the investigation was nearing its conclusion. James’ office, he said, would need to bring an “enforcement action” in the “near future.”

The lawsuit — or a settlement agreement — would be likely to accuse Trump and his company of fraudulently inflating the value of his golf clubs, hotels and other properties on his annual financial statements. Trump’s company provided the statements to banks in hopes of obtaining loans.

James revealed in a court filing this year that Trump’s longtime accounting firm, which compiled these statements, had cut ties with him. The firm, Mazars, essentially retracted nearly a decade’s worth of Trump’s financial statements.

-New York Times