President Trump was given 5 minutes to speak.
Trump is given five minutes to speak in court.
Robert says Trump’s sons have only ‘peripheral involvement’ in financial statements
Cliff Robert’s defense argument for Trump’s sons lasts less than 15 minutes but is intense: Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. make financial statements. He claims that no witnesses have testified to anything more than “peripheral involvement.”
Robert argues that customers should not lose the ability to conduct business based on the statement of financial position, but that the statement of financial position must be accurate or contain unintentional errors that are not material. do.
Haba says AG hasn’t proven her claims
Walking through the well of the courtroom, Alina Haba said the incident began before James was elected and presented to the attorney general. Engoron cautions her to stick to her facts, which she tries to do, but she says James’ actions are part of the factual record.
Haba argued that James did not prove her case during the six-week trial, repeating the defense’s claim that Cohen lied on the stand.
She then focused on Mr. Weisselberg and Mr. McConney, who she represents, saying the attorney general was using them as “pawns” because “they can’t get close to the president.”
Weisselberg is “one of the saddest stories,” Hubba says. Naming “loyal employees” as defendants and abusing them is “all part of the plan.” She alleges that the AG tried to blackmail Mr. Weisselberg and Mr. McConey, as there are no emails to prove what the AG said.
She turns to claims of insurance fraud. Haba said that an employee at a Zurich insurance company whose testimony the AG relied on admitted that he did not understand the difference between a rating and a valuation.
Zurich also continues to issue bonds to the Trump Organization without disclosing its financial status. They wrote 7 in 2023 alone. So how did this “sophisticated” and highly regulated organization get fooled?
If Mr. McConney was “overly aggressive in valuations,” why did he independently decide to use more conservative numbers at a time when he was not being criticized?
What to watch out for when the AG’s office speaks
Cliff Roberts and Alina Haba, who represent Eric and the other Trump defendants, including Don Jr., have limited time before the attorney general’s closing arguments begin. But after lunch he hears from the AG, and for me the issues that are most important for their response are:
1 — The overall theme of Mr. Kise’s presentation was that no one, especially Deutsche Bank, was harmed by the valuation “discrepancies.” And Kise was correct in pointing out that Deutsche Bank’s witnesses here hardly complained. At best, it served to prove that by 2017 banks’ risk tolerance had changed and President Trump was no longer a candidate for big loans. Although the law for which the AG is seeking relief does not require a victim, her frequent court appearances indicate that this case does not only depend on the AG’s own diligence, but also on taxpayers. It also expends significant resources. So how does the AG’s team explain whose interests are served by disabling, or even dismantling, the Trump Corporation?
2 — The most persuasive exchange between Judge Engoron, which allowed Mr. Kise’s argument to take place almost without interruption, concerned the importance of exaggeration in financial statements. Materiality is an essential element for some of the remaining receivables, and Mr. Kise argued that the measure of materiality is what Deutsche Bank itself considers to be important enough to change its lending decision. . Mr. Engoron was furious, strongly suggesting that significance as a legal issue is defined by what the average market participant considers important. Expect the AG to push back aggressively on this issue.
3 — Finally, the Court of Appeals found that July 2014 was the start of the statute of limitations in this case, but what that actually means is less clear. Kise said the statute of limitations means that transactions completed before July 2014 cannot be considered in terms of the claim itself or in terms of the relief granted, but even if Even if there were, they argued that such proofs were meaningless during the period in question. The AG’s office still maintains that the certificates signed by Trump over the years are evidence of fraud. How would they respond? Watch this space.
court takes a break
The defense will then resume arguments.
President Trump says “I have a right to compensation” after his lawyer’s closing argument
In brief remarks to reporters outside court, Trump called the civil suit against him unfair and criticized James, saying the trial was part of his “promotion for his candidacy.”
“This is a lawsuit that should never have been filed, and I think we should be awarded damages,” he said.
Kise calls fines related to former post office lease sale ‘double dip’
Kise claims that the AG’s disgorgement request would be a “double dip” regarding the former Washington, D.C., post office. They can’t say interest rates are too low and they’re trying to recoup President Trump’s savings, but then on the back end they claim profits from the sale of leases on the same property – that’s what I came up with after reading the preliminary letter. That’s it.
The amounts in question are by no means immaterial. Trump’s profit from the sale of that rental property was about $139 million. The adult children each received about $4 million.
As for the $60 million the AG was seeking for Trump’s Ferry Point golf course, there was no matching loan at issue. The disgorgement sought is based on President Trump’s failure to submit a “no material adverse change” letter, and the contract itself specifies financial penalties.
Trump’s lawyer claims AG fine is just speculation
Kise said the attorney general’s proposed fine was based on pure speculation and insisted the bank was satisfied with Trump’s financial statements.
For this reason, Mr. Engoron countered that “it is only natural that the profits should be taken away” from the ill-gotten gains, but there is no need for proof of harm to third parties.
Kise disagreed, saying, “We need to prove some harm, that President Trump got something that he wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.”
Kise added that there was no evidence that the terms of the loan would have been different.
Importance is in the eye of the beholder, says Trump lawyer
Kise now maintains that none of the discrepancies in the ratings were significant. He said the certificates tout themselves as a fair reflection of President Trump’s financial position in “all material respects.”
But Kise argues that the AG misunderstands the importance. It should be measured by what was important to the real end user (in this case Deutsche Bank), not what the AG believes should or should not be important.
What’s important, he said, is Deutsche Bank’s credit memo, which shows that Deutsche Bank adjusted Mr. Trump’s net worth by billions of dollars, making the difference irrelevant since it lent money to Mr. Trump anyway. It shows that it must have been.
Engoron interrupts. Isn’t the standard of materiality based on the “ordinary average person” or financial institution rather than a particular end user of financial information? (Side note: Engoron correctly cites the law. )
Kise attacks Michael Cohen by calling him a serial liar
Kise went on to attack former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, calling him a serial liar who falsely pleaded guilty to Congress.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers claim that Mr. Cohen claimed that Mr. Trump asked Allen Weisselberg to change the financial statement and that Mr. Trump acknowledged that he did not instruct him to inflate the numbers. did.
Mr. Cohen’s testimony that President Trump directed Mr. Cohen and Mr. Weisselberg to inflate numbers in the financial statements was not corroborated by other witnesses or documents, even if Mr. Engoron believed it. Ta.
Kise also said that Cohen hates Trump and is making money by bashing him.
Engoron and Kise clash over irrefutable testimony
Kise reiterated this morning that specific testimony has not been refuted. Mr. Engoron paused to clarify that he was not required by law to credit the testimony, even if it was not challenged. Kise countered by arguing that without a response, how could Engoron assess the truth of the testimony or the reliability of the witness?
President Trump listens intently to his lawyer
President Trump sits in a chair and listens intently as his lawyer, Chris Kise, presents his argument. Defendant Kise was standing on a podium directly in front of the judge, taking notes using a large computer monitor. The document he is referring to is shown on a large television screen to the gallery. A large monitor is in front of the Attorney General.
President Trump’s lawyer says trial is part of ‘fabricated claims to pursue political goals’
President Trump’s lawyer Chris Kiss is delivering closing arguments. He lamented the lack of a jury. (His lawyers agreed to a courtroom trial, but it became an issue early in the process.)
Kise said no witnesses at trial testified that Trump and his company committed fraud, that the bank suffered a loss, or that the certification affected the terms of the loan.
Kise claims that the only witness cited by the James office is Michael Cohen.
Kise said this was a “fabricated claim to pursue political objectives.”
Moreover, while Kise notes the purported lack of evidence of intent, he does not even cite testimony from individual defendants or the Trump Organization. employee.
Instead, they rely primarily on the testimony of two accounting experts, Eli Bartov and Jason Flemons. They essentially testified that the valuations showed no signs of fraud and were in compliance with the specific accounting standards at issue in this case.
It is very instructive that the first argument in Mr. Kise’s closing argument is about what transactions and events are properly considered in light of previous appellate decisions regarding statutes of limitations. That’s because they know they lost and their priority is to reduce the amount of the fine. In fact, that part is so important to them that they discussed that part before discussing the lack of evidence of the defendant’s intent.
Judge jokes about ‘fear’ before news photographers arrive
As he waited for the daily parade of news photographers who arrived to take photos of the parties and judges, Engoron joked that he could see “the usual mixture of anticipation and fear” on the faces of those gathered. .
The judge’s chief law clerk is seated, as he has been throughout the trial, to the judge’s immediate right and within arm’s length.
Trump says he will hold a press conference after closing arguments
Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, President Trump repeatedly accused the civil fraud case against him of being part of an effort to sabotage his presidential campaign.
“This is election interference at the highest level,” he said, before claiming without evidence that President Joe Biden and the White House were behind the lawsuit “because we can’t win the election fairly.”
President Trump pointed out that Engoron had refused a request to speak on the grounds that “he would say something you don’t want to hear,” and said he would hold a press conference after closing arguments.
“I’d like to talk to the lawyers so they can expose all the flaws in this case,” he said.
“Let’s see if the judge will allow me to speak. He probably won’t, but I certainly would like to.”
