Thread: Donald Trump : Former POTUS

Originally Posted by taxexile

the american legal system is as corrupt as they come, so of course in the present political climate trump will be crucified. the fact that he may have stink fingered some gold digging bimbo and massaged his tax returns is no measure of his capability as a politician. had he raped a nun whilst robbing a bank, then i might have a different opinion.

capitalism is the root of all civilisation, whilst the stifling ideology of socialism is evil but it is much easier to enforce socialism than control capitalism.

That fact that he is an inveterate crook and a fucking simpleton to boot seems to escape those of a poor intellect and education.

Sadly, they're allowed to vote in America.

• Georgia Supreme Court ruling prevents GOP-backed commission from beginning to discipline prosecutors

Georgia’s state Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to approve rules for a new commission to discipline and remove state prosecutors, meaning the commission can’t begin operating.

Some Republicans in Georgia want the new commission to discipline or remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for winning indictments of former President Donald Trump and 18 others.

Georgia’s law is one of multiple attempts nationwide by Republicans to control prosecutors they don’t like. Republicans have inveighed against progressive prosecutors after some have brought fewer drug possession cases and sought shorter prison sentences, arguing Democrats are coddling criminals.

________

Trump fraud trial: Trump to return to witness stand in December

• Trump Organization execs to return to witness stand

Two current Trump Organization executives are scheduled to return to the witness stand today as part of the defense's case as the trial resumes following the Thanksgiving holiday.

• Eric Trump asked hotel exec to revamp firm's outdated bookkeeping

Eric Trump needed help with the Trump Organization's finances after the company's chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg was removed from his role following his indictment in 2021, according to Trump Hotels executive Mark Hawthorn.

According to Hawthorn's testimony, the company relied on an outdated and inefficient approach to bookkeeping, including authorizing only three individuals -- Weisselberg, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump -- to write checks for the Trump Organization until as late as 2021.

Weisselberg signed most of the company's disbursements, leaving Eric and Don Jr. in uncharted waters once Weisselberg was removed, Hawthorn said.

"He had a stack of checks [on his desk] to sign that was very high," Hawthorn recalled regarding a summer 2021 meeting during which he said Eric Trump requested Hawthorn's help applying his experience running Trump's hotel division.

"Mark, how do you do this in the hotel division?" Eric asked, according to Hawthorn.

"We don't do it like this," Hawthorn said he replied.

• Trump's lawyers disavow threats against judge, clerk

Donald Trump's lawyers, in a court filing this morning, doubled down on their criticism of the trial's limited gag order while distancing Trump and his co-defendants from what they called the "vile and reprehensible" threats against Judge Arthur Engoron and his principal law clerk.

In a filing arguing against the limited gag order, defense lawyer Clifford Robert said that the attacks -- which he said Trump neither condoned nor directed -- do not justify the gag order's unconstitutional restraint on Trump's free speech.

• Threats against clerk are 'just part of the game,' said Trump lawyer

In their filing this morning arguing against the trial's limited gag order, Trump attorneys Clifford Robert, Chris Kise, and Alina Habba downplayed Trump's connection to the threats against Judge Engoron and his clerk, and argued that they do not justify the gag order's limit on Trump's constitutional right to free speech.

• Defense plans to call Trump Organization's independent monitor

Donald Trump's lawyers plan to call former federal Judge Barbara Jones -- who has served as the Trump Organization's independent monitor since 2022 -- as a witness for the defense case, according to defense attorney Clifford Robert.

Jones was installed as the firm's independent monitor last November at the request of New York Attorney General Letitia James.

• Judge blocks testimony from independent monitor

Judge Arthur Engoron blocked the defense team's plan to call the Trump Organization's independent monitor, describing the last-minute change to the defense's witness list as "untimely" and "inappropriate."

The judge's ruling came after defense lawyer Clifford Robert announced the plan to call former federal Judge Barbara Jones and her associate to testify for the defense.

Before Engoron issuing his ruling from the bench, attorneys from both sides appeared to privately meet with the judge in his chambers.

"I hereby preclude their testimony," Engoron said from the bench, regarding Jones and her associate.

Engoron said that he determined that Jones and her staff are effectively "arms of the court" and thus cannot be called to testify.

• Donald Trump to return to witness stand in December

Defense lawyers plan to call Donald Trump as their final witnesses in the former president's civil fraud trial.

Asked to confirm the final witnesses for the defense's case, defense attorney Chris Kise said that Trump is likely to testify on Dec. 11.

• Trump exec disputes independent monitor's findings

Trump Hotels chief operating officer Mark Hawthorn disputed an August 2023 report from the Trump Organization's independent monitor that said the company continued to provide incomplete information to lenders.

Hawthorn had earlier testified that the monitor never communicated that they "uncovered fraud or any irregularities."

State attorney Andrew Amer confronted Hawthorn with the letter from the Trump Organization's independent monitor Barbara Jones flagging inconsistencies.

"Were you aware that Judge Jones had identified such inconsistencies?" Amer asked.

"Yes," Hawthorn answered -- but said that he stood by his initial statement that the monitor never uncovered fraud, claiming that the flagged issues were consistent with accounting practices.

"Did the monitor accuse the Trump Organization of disseminating false and misleading information?" defense attorney Clifford Robert asked on redirect examination.

"No," Hawthorne said.

• Trump Organization VP returns to witness stand

Trump Organization Vice President Patrick Birney returned to the witness stand to describe his role preparing Trump's statement of financial condition between 2016 and 2021.

"Every new year, I would just copy and paste the spreadsheet from the year before," Birney said, testifying this time for the defense.

Birney largely testified about the spreadsheets of supporting data he prepared, as well as the supporting data he cited from year to year.

Court was adjourned for the day following Birney's testimony. He is set to return to the witness stand later this week after the court hears from witnesses from Deutsche Bank.

• Georgia prosecutors oppose plea deals for Trump, Meadows and Giuliani

Fulton county prosecutors do not intend to offer plea deals to Donald Trump and at least two high-level co-defendants charged in connection with their efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, according to two people familiar with the matter, preferring instead to force them to trial.

The individuals seen as ineligible include Trump, his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Aside from those three, the Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis has opened plea talks or has left open the possibility of talks with the remaining co-defendants in the hope that they ultimately decide to become cooperating witnesses against the former president, the people said.

The previously unreported decision has not been communicated formally and could still change, for instance, if prosecutors shift strategy. But it signals who prosecutors consider their main targets, and how they want to wield the power of Georgia’s racketeering statute to their advantage.

In the weeks that followed, prosecutors reached plea deals in quick succession with the former Trump lawyers Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro – who all gave “proffer” statements that were damaging to Trump to some degree – as well as the local bail bondsman Scott Hall.

_________

• Trump lawyers try kitchen sink strategy to thwart election subversion indictment

Former President Donald Trump's lawyers are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the federal prosecutors accusing him of a conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election, according to Monday night court filings that effectively amount to a long-shot bid to relitigate his election fraud claims and more.

In a pair of motions filed Monday night that listed at least 59 demands, Trump lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche asked for troves of materials from U.S. intelligence agencies and the Justice Department on whether there were any "undercover agents" or "informants" for the government at the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.

"Please provide all documents regarding informants, cooperators, undercover agents, or anyone acting in a similar capacity on behalf or at the behest of the Department of Justice or any law enforcement agency" who were within 5 miles of the Capitol that day, and information about anyone involved in the "assistance, planning or encouragement of any activities related to the protest, breach, or trespassing" at the Capitol, the attorneys wrote under "Exhibit 2" of their request.

Moreover, the filing argued Trump is entitled to all information related to "foreign influence efforts targeting the 2020 election," pointing to documented efforts by foreign actors to interfere in the 2016 election, which he won against Hillary Clinton.

Trump's team additionally asked government prosecutors to hand over communications between President Joe Biden and family members, including his son, Hunter Biden. His lawyers also want information about the DOJ's interactions with Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence.

The defense team's filings came at the Nov. 27 deadline to file any motions to compel the prosecution to produce discovery evidence relevant to the case. Smith's office can oppose those motions by Dec. 11, and the defense can file any replies in support by Dec. 18.

In regard to the request for intelligence agency information related to Jan. 6, Trump's lawyers made an effort to say they do not endorse or back the "Fedsurrection" conspiracy that purports government operatives were organizing the riot at the Capitol.

"Rather, in this case, information regarding individuals who were present in an official capacity is favorable to President Trump because it suggests that there were adequate controls in place and that the violence at issue resulted from a failure of those controls and/or failed sting operations rather than any directions from President Trump," his lawyers wrote.

Although Smith's team is required to hand over evidence it has already collected that may help Trump's defense, it is only required to turn in records available to the special counsel's team, which may not have access to the information Trump is seeking.

A separate filing more generally asks the judge to force Smith to produce discovery that has been designated as "Sensitive" under a protective order in the case. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, previously gave favor to Smith in his request to designate witness interviews and recordings as sensitive materials not accessible by the defense.

Chutkan on Monday also denied Trump's bid to subpoena lawmakers for information he alleged was missing from the Jan. 6 committee archives, rejecting his effort as a "fishing expedition."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8149.167.0.pdf

________

• Trump’s Backdoor Attempts to Delay His Trials Are Backfiring

Donald Trump’s calendar is filling up—and not with campaign events.

The former president is battling conflicting trial dates in a number of courts, and judges are now hopping on the phone to coordinate their schedules. In fact, two judges may have already double-booked him. (In March, Trump has three weeks to wrap up a D.C. federal trial that’s potentially six weeks long—before he’s due in New York for a state trial.)

But those private exchanges have caused some drama, particularly as Trump’s lawyers keep trying to push back his upcoming New York criminal trial for paying hush money to a porn star.

Over the fall, Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the Stormy Daniels case, appeared willing to consider meeting sometime in September to discuss potentially shifting deadlines, according to information received by The Daily Beast. But he ultimately rejected the idea and ordered both sides to stick to the previous plan: to meet in court just a month before the porn star cover-up trial begins in March.

But he made it a formal order after Trump’s lawyers tried to peer into his private conversation with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, according to court documents we obtained.

“No further disclosure is required,” Merchan said in a Nov. 9 order that has not been reported until now.

He also made clear that the former president’s legal troubles are so numerous, it’d be better to keep a semblance of order than add to the chaos.

“Indeed, adjourning this trial prematurely can only serve to further muddy your client's already crowded trial calendar and possibly result in even further delay,” Merchan wrote.

The New York state judge made his decision after prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office claimed in court filings that the quadruple-indicted real estate tycoon is simply delaying trial dates after overbooking his top defense lawyer across the Eastern Seaboard.

DA Alvin Bragg Jr.’s team is particularly pointing the finger at New York attorney Todd Blanche, who has quickly risen through the ranks to become Trump’s preferred lawyer in his Manhattan hush money case, the federal trial in D.C. over election fraud, and the hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago in South Florida.

Blanche’s rapid ascent has irked and pushed aside some fellow defense attorneys, according to two sources familiar with internal strife in the Trump camp. A third source said Blanche has managed to earn Trump’s trust by firmly pushing back on some of the politician’s stranger ideas, standing out in a sea of “yes-men.” But now Blanche is so inundated with cases that he’s trying to slow them down—and Manhattan prosecutors are crying foul.

The unstated reality is that the anticipated March 25 trial in Manhattan is awfully inconvenient for Trump’s attempted revenge return to the White House, forcing him into a dingy courtroom during the 2024 presidential primaries in New York and Wisconsin. And if the trial goes on for a few weeks, he could spend Pennsylvania’s primary day in court, too.

The real shocker, though, was what they used to justify this request: pointing to the private telephone call the New York judge had with Judge Chutkan in Washington over the summer, saying they wanted to know what exactly was said during that chat.

Trump’s legal team formally requested that Merchan “inform the parties about the substance of Your Honor’s communications with Judge Chutkan,” claiming the conversation impacted the former president’s “constitutional and statutory rights.”

In a Nov. 2 court filing response, prosecutors expressed some degree of surprise that this is coming up now, given that Chutkan brought it up during a D.C. court hearing back in August, when she said she “did speak briefly with Judge Merchan to let him know that I was considering a date that might overlap with his trial.”

In a court filing to Merchan in New York, Williamson told the judge “it would be a poor use of the court’s resources to discuss scheduling before the dust settles on defendant’s efforts to delay his other criminal cases.”

Taken in totality, Williamson’s description appeared to portray Trump’s legal team as actively engaged in a relay-delay game, playing judges against each other to push back court dates in all of his cases—like a child playing parents against each other.

Manhattan prosecutors also specifically called out the Trump legal team’s posturing that it simply can’t handle the sudden flood of work, pointing out how Blanche willingly became the former president’s point man on three of his four upcoming criminal trials. After all, it’s not exactly like he’s working alone.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...rking?ref=home

• Attorney warned Trump 'it's going to be a crime' if he didn't comply with subpoena for classified docs: Sources

One of former president Donald Trump's current attorneys told special counsel Jack Smith's team that, within days of the Justice Department issuing a subpoena last year for all classified documents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, she "very clearly" warned Trump that if he failed to fully comply -- but then swore he did -- "it's going to be a crime," according to sources familiar with the matter.

Sources said the lawyer, Jennifer Little, told investigators Trump "absolutely" understood the warning, which came during a pivotal meeting at Mar-a-Lago with Trump and another attorney, Evan Corcoran, who had recently joined Trump's legal team.

What Little allegedly told Smith's team earlier this year may shed further light on how Smith came to accuse Trump of knowingly violating the law, saying in his June 9 indictment against Trump that the former president defied a subpoena by hiding more than 100 classified documents from the FBI and even his own legal team, and then having his legal team certify otherwise.

As ABC News reported in September, Corcoran, who was Trump's lead attorney on the matter at the time, allegedly told investigators that he also emphasized to Trump the importance of complying with the subpoena, even warning that authorities might search the Mar-a-Lago estate if he didn't comply.

As described to ABC News, Little told investigators that while meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, she wanted to explain to him that a subpoena from the Justice Department was "different from" what Trump faced over the months before, when officials with the National Archives demanded he return documents taken from the White House.

Little allegedly recalled to investigators that she tried to impress upon Trump how "serious" the matter had become, with sources quoting her as telling investigators that she warned Trump, "You've got to comply."

But the indictment filed against Trump in Florida alleges that he did not comply and failed to turn over all documents in his possession, allegedly opting to obstruct Justice Department efforts. In particular, according to the indictment, Trump tried to "conceal his continued retention of classified documents" and "caused a false certification to be submitted to the FBI" claiming that all classified documents had been returned.

As Little recounted to investigators, she told Trump that if -- after a diligent search of Mar-a-Lago -- they found more classified documents and returned all of them, he wouldn't face legal jeopardy, as it would be complying with the subpoena, the sources said.

But, she told Trump, if there are any more classified documents, failing to return all of them moving forward will be "a problem," especially because the subpoena requires a signed certification swearing full compliance, the sources said.

"Once this is signed -- if anything else is located -- it's going to be a crime," sources quoted Little as recalling she told Trump.

The sources said that when investigators asked Little if those messages to Trump "landed," she responded: "Absolutely."

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He will be convicted well before the election.

_______

From Tuesday?

Deutsche Bank made money from Trump, defense emphasizes

• Deutsche Bank executives to testify for defense

A day after Trump lawyer Chris Kise asserted that the only person who believes the former president committed fraud in his business transactions is New York Attorney General Letitia James, that claim will face a key test over the next two days as Trump's lawyers call four executives from Deutsche Bank, Trump's primary lender at the time of the alleged conduct.

• Net worth is subjective, banker says

The managing director of Deutsche Bank, which was Trump's primary lender in the 2010s, testified that it would be impossible for the bank to calculate their client's net worth with mathematical certainty.

"I don't believe that is possible," said Dave Williams, testifying for the defense. "I think an individual's net worth as reported is largely subjective, or subject to the use of estimates."

The assertion bolsters a recurring theme of the defense's case -- that determining the value of Trump's assets was less of a science than an art form.

• Trump never risked defaulting on loan covenants, banker suggests

Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams downplayed the possibility that Donald Trump could have defaulted on the net-worth covenants included in his loans.

While both parties agree that Trump never defaulted on his loans, New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that had Trump accurately reported the value of his assets, he could have risked defaulting on a loan covenant that required he maintain a net worth of $2.5 billion.

• Trump easily met Deutsche Bank loan requirements, banker says

Deutsche Bank did its own due diligence to estimate Trump's net worth, landing on a figure that differed from Trump's reported net worth by over $2 billion -- but the difference didn't concern the bank, according to testimony from managing director Dave Williams.

Trump reported a net worth of nearly $5 billion in 2013, according to documents shown at trial. The bank's own Valuation Services Group produced an estimate of only $2.6 billion, a difference that Williams described as "not unusual or atypical."

• For 3rd time, defense asks for directed verdict

Defense attorney Christopher Kise requested Judge Engoron issue a directed verdict at the conclusion of testimony from Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams -- marking the third time the defense has asked the judge to stop the proceedings and decide the case in their favor.

"Was an event of default ever declared by Deutsche Bank on the loans to the Trump Organization?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked Williams at the end of Williams' testimony.

"No," Williams replied, prompting Kise to jump up and make his request.

"This witness has again testified the bank conducted its own due diligence" and was not defrauded by Trump's statements of financial condition, Kise argued.

"This is a subjective exercise. There isn't a right answer. There isn't an 'Ah-ha, you picked the wrong number,'" Kise said. "The bank is in a relationship whose job it is to make these determinations. It's not the attorney general's job to insert herself into a private transaction ten years later."

Judge Engoron took the defense's motion under advisement but signaled he was unmoved.

"The mere fact that the lenders were happy doesn't mean the statute wasn't violated," Engoron said.

Kevin Wallace, an attorney for the state, took issue with Kise's analysis of the testimony.

"The witness did not say none of this matters. The witness said he expects clients to tell the truth," Wallace said.

• Ex-Deutsche Bank VP can't describe Trump's due diligence

Former Deutsche Bank vice president Emily Pereless, testifying for the defense, appeared reluctant to offer details about the process of reviewing Donald Trump's bank and brokerage statements between 2011 and 2014.

Pereless physically reviewed Trump's bank and brokerage statements with a colleague, according to documents shown at trial, and signed Deutsche Bank credit reports. Despite being called as a defense witness, she struggled to recall any details about the process and appeared uncooperative on the witness stand.

"I analyzed and compiled the information provided," Pereless testified about a 2014 credit report, saying could not recall the specific steps she took in detail.

• Judge appears dubious of defense's latest argument

Court was adjourned for the day following an afternoon in which Judge Engoron appeared to shoot down one of the defense's main remaining arguments following defense attorneys' request for a directed verdict.

Defense lawyer Chris Kise argued that the state failed to prove that Trump's lenders would have acted differently had they known about the fraud alleged by the New York attorney general -- but Engoron said "the mere fact that the lenders were happy doesn't mean the statute wasn't violated."

Earlier this month, during testimony from the defense's first expert witness Steven Witkoff, Trump's lawyers attempted to argue that Trump had undervalued some of his properties, which balanced out the alleged inflated properties in his statement of financial condition. Engoron, however, declined to allow testimony related to that argument, saying, "The reader of the financial statement has the right to know whether each particular number was accurate."

That same day, Trump's lawyers also presented testimony from expert witness Jason Flemmons that Trump disclosed that the values of nearly 95% of the assets in his financial statements departed from generally accepted accounting practices.

"It's effectively saying, 'User beware,'" Flemmons said.

But Engoron said Flemmons only addressed the methods used in the statements, rather than the numbers themselves, which could have been incorrect.

Defense attorneys are scheduled to call additional witnesses over the next week before Eric Trump and Donald Trump return to the stand as the defense wraps up its case in the next two weeks.

• Trump Caught Moving Money Around to Pay Massive Tax Bill

A court-ordered financial auditor has caught Donald Trump quietly moving $40 million from the Trump Organization into a personal bank account—seemingly so the former president could pay his whopping $29 million tax bill.

Trump isn’t supposed to be moving any money around without alerting Barbara S. Jones, a former federal judge in New York tasked with babysitting the Trump Organization for its relentlessly shady business practices. But on Wednesday, she notified a New York state court about some major bank transfers that were never brought to her attention by the Trumps.

Jones described the way she discovered the Trump family company once again breaking the rules during an audit of its finances in recent months. In the run-up to the ongoing bank fraud trial that threatens to vaporize the real estate company and boot the Trumps from the business world, Justice Arthur F. Engoron ordered the company to not start shifting around funds to avoid paying what’s becoming an increasingly threatening massive penalty.

That meant the Trumps had to notify Jones anytime they moved more than $5 million out of the billionaire’s massive trust. Except they didn’t.

Jones said she and her team recently spotted unusual activity when reviewing 10 months of bank statements from 12 separate accounts belonging to the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. They found that Trump had pulled out $40 million in “three cash transfers” without ever notifying her.

She asked about it and got answers.

“These transactions included a cash transfer of $29 million to Donald J. Trump, which I have confirmed was used for tax payments,” she wrote.

But the rest apparently went to cover Trump’s mounting legal costs following a searing jury verdict in May that determined he sexually assaulted the journalist E. Jean Carroll—and slapped him with a $5 million penalty.

“I have also confirmed that the other transfers were for insurance premiums and to an attorney escrow account,” Jones wrote, referencing the Carroll case.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...ssive-tax-bill

________

• Court filing reveals Rep. Scott Perry’s vast web of contacts in bid to reverse 2020 election

DocumentCloud

_________

• Arizona voting officials charged for refusing to certify 2022 election results

Two elected officials in a rural Arizona county who stalled certifying election results have been charged by Arizona’s attorney general with conspiracy and interfering with an election officer.

Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, Republican county supervisors in Cochise county, face two felony counts for their initial refusal to certify the county’s election results in 2022. A grand jury convened earlier this month to discuss the potential charges, which were filed on Wednesday.

Crosby and Judd had to be ordered by a court to certify the November 2022 election results, passing the statewide deadline for counties to canvass results. Even after the court order, Crosby did not show up to vote on the canvass.

The indictment alleges Crosby and Judd conspired to delay Cochise county’s vote canvass and knowingly interfered with the secretary of state’s ability to complete a statewide vote canvass on time.

The two supervisors have repeatedly pushed false election claims and sought a hand count of all ballots, later deemed illegal.

Earlier this year Democratic attorney general of Arizona, Kris Mayes, vowed to prosecute over election interference issues in the swing state, which has seen all manner of election denialism since the 2020 election.

__________

Trump fraud trial: Deutsche Bank made money from Trump, defense emphasizes

• Deutsche Bank execs continue on witness stand

Former Deutsche Bank vice president Emily Pereless is scheduled to return to the witness stand for an abbreviated round of questions this morning, after being called as a witness yesterday.

Despite being a witness for the defense, Pereless reluctantly answered questions from defense attorney Jesus Suarez about her work reviewing Donald Trump's finances between 2011 and 2014.

• Defense cuts short Deutsche Bank VP testimony

Donald Trump's lawyers decided to cut short their direct examination of former Deutsche Bank vice president Emily Pereless.

• Deutsche Bank courted Trump for more business, referrals

Deutsche Bank executives courted Donald Trump to attract more business and referrals, viewing the former president as an opportunity to sell services to his family members and other high-net-worth individuals, according to the testimony of former Deutsche Bank managing director Rosemary Vrablic.

"Given the circles this family travels in, we expect to be introduced to the wealthiest people on the planet," Vrablic wrote to colleagues while courting Trump in the early 2010s, according to materials entered into evidence.

• Scrutiny over Trump's presidency prompted bank to halt relationship

Deutsche Bank decided to stop doing new business with Donald Trump due to the "increased exposure" and "scrutiny" related to his being elected president, according to testimony from Deutsche Bank managing director Rosemary Vrablic.

"It was an unprecedented situation to have a customer who was going to become president of the United States," Vrablic said.

By the time Trump was elected, the bank had made three profitable loans to Trump, making a projected $6.8 million in revenue from Trump in 2014. Vrablic confirmed that by July 2015, Trump had $31 million in cash deposits with the bank, and his associated entities stored $86 million in cash deposits.

However, the scrutiny of Trump's presidency prompted the bank to decide not to increase its exposure, including declining to offer Trump a loan for his golf course in Turnberry, Scotland.

• Bank was concerned DC hotel deal could publicize loan terms

Deutsche Bank managing director Rosemary Vrablic expressed concern about the public nature of Donald Trump's 2012 acquisition of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., fearing the deal might publicize the favorable loan terms offered by the bank, according to evidence presented at trial.

"Will our terms and conditions with you be made public? Not a credit issue, but we want to be prepared if 'other clients' see it and ask for the same deal," Vrablic wrote in a 2013 email shown at trial.

The Trump Organization won the bidding process with the federal government in 2012 for the property, and Deutsche Bank loaned the firm the money for the renovation of the decrepit building.

"We won! We're very very excited!" Ivanka Trump wrote in a 2012 email to Vrablic.

Vrablic, concerned about the loan terms being publicized, said, "We would not talk about that," regarding the importance of keeping the terms private from other high-net-worth clients.

• Deutsche Bank made money from Trump, defense emphasizes

Defense attorney Jesus Suarez, in his direct examination of Deutsche Bank managing director Rosemary Vrablic, emphasized that Deutsche Bank was eager for Trump's business and made money from the loans they offered him.

"Your family is in the top 10 revenue generating names of Asset and Wealth Management now and he is thrilled with how it's grown," Vrablic wrote in a 2014 email to Ivanka Trump, referring to Vrablic's boss at Deutsche Bank.

That same year, Vrablic estimated that the bank made more than $6.8 million in fees from the Trump Organization.

• Deutsche Bank expected Trump to value assets fairly, banker says

Former Deutsche Bank managing director Rosemary Vrablic testified on cross-examination by state attorneys that Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump Jr. secured private financing using recourse -- meaning they were personally liable for the loan.

"Sorry about the recourse issue -- a dirty word, I know -- but it is a requirement in private banking," Vrablic wrote in a 2011 introductory email to Donald Trump Jr.

Vrablic confirmed that each of the Trumps she worked with -- Donald, Ivanka, and Donald Trump Jr. -- used a personal guaranty to secure better financing terms.

"It gives the flexibility to be creative on some solutions because the person is standing behind it," Vrablic testified.

State attorney Kevin Wallace appeared to focus on the personal guaranty during the cross-examination, with the discussion bringing the focus back on the representation of the value of Trump's assets.

While Vrablic confirmed that she never personally reviewed Donald Trump's statement of financial condition, she said the bank still expected it was accurate.

"You would have had an expectation that a borrower like Mr. Trump would present their financial information fairly?" Wallace asked.

"Yes," Vrablic replied.

• Trump VP walks back testimony suggesting conspiracy

Trump Organization VP Patrick Birney, testifying for the defense, walked back testimony from earlier in the trial about receiving instructions to inflate the value of Trump's assets from the company's former CFO.

"Did Allen Weisselberg ever tell you that Mr. Trump wanted his net worth on the statement of financial condition to go up?" state attorney Eric Haren asked Birney during the state's case.

"Yes," Birney responded, describing that he received the instruction in Weisselberg's office between 2017 and 2019.

During an argument for a directed verdict earlier this month, Donald Trump's attorney Chris Kise cited that as some of the only testimony to support the New York attorney general's allegation that members of the Trump Organization conspired to inflate the former president's net worth.

Returning to the witness stand for the defense's case, Birney suggested that any changes to Trump's financial statement were based on material changes to assets.

"Were you ever directed to increase a number without there being an underlying basis to increase that valuation?" defense attorney Jennifer Hernandez asked.

"No," Birney said.

Judge Arthur Engoron adjourned court for the day after Birney completed his testimony.

"OK, class dismissed," Engoron quipped.

• Trump firm 'in compliance' but under 'enhanced monitoring'

Donald Trump agreed to "enhanced monitoring" of the Trump Organization's finances after the company's independent monitor flagged cash transfers of roughly $40 million over the last 10 months.

Former judge Barbara Jones, the independent monitor requested by the New York attorney general in the case, wrote in a letter to Judge Arthur Engoron that she had identified three separate cash transfers of more than $5 million, totaling approximately $40 million. Jones said the transfers included $29 million in tax payments and roughly $10 million for insurance premiums.

"We have discussed with Defendants why these transactions were not previously disclosed, and I have now clarified (and Defendants have agreed) that all transfers of assets out of the Trust exceeding $5 million must be reported," Jones wrote.

Jones also requested information related to an intercompany loan and flagged the delayed disclosure of tax returns for six of Trump's entities, which defendants acknowledged as their mistake.

"Defendants continue to cooperate with me and are generally in compliance with the Court's orders, and have committed to ensure that all required information, including tax information and cash transfers, are promptly disclosed to the Monitor," Jones wrote.

Addressing a report she issued in August about incomplete financial disclosures by the Trump Organization, Jones added that the Trump Organization took additional steps to remedy and disclose the issue.

"By taking these steps I believe Defendants have resolved the issues identified in the August Report, subject to ongoing monitoring," Jones wrote.

• New York court reinstates Trump’s gag orders in civil fraud case

A New York state appeals court on Thursday reinstated the gag orders issued by the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s $250 million civil fraud trial, lifting a pause on the orders that was put into effect earlier this month by one of the court’s judges.

In its two-page order, the appeals court didn’t explain its decision for reinstating the gag orders, which bar Trump and his lawyers from commenting on staff working for the trial judge, Justice Arthur Engoron.

The gag orders have been a central focus of the two-month trial, often eclipsing even the testimony. The initial gag order came just days into the trial, after Trump posted a disparaging social media message about the judge’s law clerk, Allison Greenfield, who sits alongside the judge on the bench. Engoron found that Trump subsequently violated the gag order twice, issuing him two fines totaling $15,000.

https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/...20(M-5088).pdf

__________

Trump fraud trial: Judge says he'll 'rigorously' enforce reinstated gag order

• Defense calling real estate expert to stand

Donald Trump's lawyers are calling real estate expert Robert Unell as a witness this morning.

Unell is one of several defense experts who submitted reports to the court disputing the New York attorney general's findings that Trump committed fraud in the statements of financial condition he provided to lenders.

"The financial information provided to the lenders was correct in all material respects and contrary to the Plaintiff's allegations, therefore the Defendants did not receive any financial benefits on commercial real estate loans based on the submission of any false, inflated, or misleading valuations," Unell wrote in his expert report.

Unell, in the deposition he gave to the defense, also defended Trump's use of a disclaimer -- which Trump has said is sometimes referred to as a "worthless clause" -- that warned lenders that Trump's statements might contain information that does not comply with standard accounting practices.

"I first read it in President Trump's deposition," Unell said regarding Trump's use of the "worthless clause" phrase. "And it kind of stuck. Because, quite honestly, I had never heard it called that, but it is truly what the meaning of it is."

• Trial isn't likely to conclude until January, says judge

Closing statements in the trial aren't likely to occur until January, according to an updated schedule proposed by Judge Engoron.

The trial was initially expected to wrap up in December.

• Appellate court reinstates limited gag order

A New York appellate court has upheld the limited gag order imposed by Judge Engoron in the ongoing trial.

• Judge says he'll 'rigorously' enforce limited gag order

Judge Arthur Engoron warned that he plans to "rigorously" enforce the limited gag order he handed down last month, after an appeals court reinstated it this morning.

"I want to make sure all counsel are aware, and they probably already are aware, that this morning the Appellate Division First Department issued a decision vacating the stay on the two gag orders that I imposed earlier on this case," Engoron said in court. "So I intend to enforce the gag orders rigorously and vigorously, and I want to make sure that counsel informs their clients of the fact that the stay was vacated."

"We're aware. It's a tragic day for the rule of law, but we are aware," Kise responded.

"It is what it is," Engoron quipped.

• Closing arguments set for Jan. 11

Judge Engoron has set a date of Jan. 11 for closing arguments in the trial.

Both parties face a noon deadline on Jan. 5 to file their briefs, and closing arguments are scheduled to take place in person on Jan. 11, the judge decided after considering scheduling proposals from both the state and the defense.

• NY court official says judge's wife hasn't posted about Trump

Over the last week, Donald Trump has made multiple posts on social media about a social media account he alleges belongs to Judge Arthur Engoron's wife, accusing her of sharing multiple posts critical of the former president, including doctored images depicting Trump in prison.

"Judge Engoron's Trump Hating wife," Trump called her Wednesday on Truth Social.

A court official on Thursday denied that any of the posts referenced by Trump were made by Engoron's wife.

"Justice Engoron's wife has sent no social media posts regarding the former president. They are not hers," court spokesperson Al Baker wrote in a statement.

• Expert disputes allegation that Trump cost lenders $168M

Robert Unell, an expert in commercial real estate, disputed the analysis conducted by the state's expert, Michiel McCarty, who testified that Trump's alleged deceptions cost his lenders $168 million in lost interest.

"It is really, in my opinion, a very narrow-minded support," Unell, testifying for the defense, said about the assumptions McCarty made regarding the interest rate of the loans.

Unell said that Trump's lenders made money, faced less risk in their investments over time, and sought additional business from the former president and his family. He also criticized the allegation that Trump risked defaulting on any of his loans by offering himself as a personal guarantor of the loans.

"It means the bank got what they wanted ... they had a warm body who was going to stand behind the loan and provide credit support," Unell said about Trump's personal support of the loans.

Judge Engoron interjected at multiple points to question Unell about his findings, at one point noting that the loans would have been pricier for Trump if lenders faced more risk stemming from Trump inflating his assets.

"The more value in collateral, the less risk, the lower the interest rate," Engoron said.

• Trump attorney calls NY AG's case 'fraud with no victims'

Following the adjournment of court for the day, Trump attorney Chris Kise criticized the attorney general's case on the basis of testimony from the Deutsche Bank executives who said they were eager to do business with Trump regardless of the contents of his financial statements.

Echoing past comments, Kise described the case as a "fraud with no victims" in comments to ABC News.

Kise also slammed today's appellate court ruling reinstating Judge Engoron's limited gag orders as a "total breakdown of the rule of law."

"Now you have the front-running presidential candidate who can't even comment about why he thinks he's not getting a fair trial," Kise said about the impact of the ruling.

"I'm not sure how much more absurd it can get for President Trump," he said.

• Trump Loses Immunity Fight in Appeal Over Jan. 6 Civil Cases

Former President Donald Trump isn’t currently entitled to absolute immunity against civil lawsuits seeking to hold him responsible for the violence at the US Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack, a federal appeals court ruled.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Friday rejected Trump’s argument that because he was president at the time, he was shielded from suits over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and his comments to a rally of supporters that morning. The majority said Trump could try to claim immunity again later in the case, but not at this early stage.

The ruling is a significant setback for Trump as he fights criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election results. His defense team is arguing that he’s also entitled to executive immunity against the prosecution, teeing up a similar fight over whether the post-election activities in the indictment fell under the umbrella of his official duties as president.

The appeals court noted in Friday’s opinion that its analysis dealt with when a president could be immune against certain types of civil claims, not the issue of immunity against criminal prosecution.

DC Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote for the three-judge panel that Trump wouldn’t be entitled to immunity against the civil suits if he were acting as a candidate for reelection during the events at issue. The court rebuffed the “categorical rule” Trump’s lawyers proposed that any time a sitting president spoke on matters of public concern, that qualified as an official act.

“That is a sweeping proposition, and one that ultimately sweeps too far,” Srinivasan wrote.

Trump’s immunity bid failed at this stage because he had argued that his status as a candidate didn’t matter as long as he was also the president, the court held. But the judges said that as the case moved forward, Trump could try to revive the immunity fight by presenting evidence that the Jan. 6 rally speech and other post-election activities laid out in the lawsuits were “official actions.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re....2029465.0.pdf

history:

• Bid to hold Trump accountable for Jan. 6 violence stalls at appeals court

A federal appeals court mulling Donald Trump’s legal liability for Jan. 6 violence is approaching a conspicuous anniversary of inaction.

Nearly a year ago, the court considered three lawsuits brought by Capitol Police officers and members of Congress accusing Trump and his allies of inciting the attack that threatened their lives and the government they were sworn to protect.

• Trump is not immune from election-subversion prosecution, judge rules

Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for his attempt to subvert the 2020 election, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled Friday, concluding that his term as president does not serve as a shield against charges that he sought to defraud and disenfranchise millions of Americans.

“Defendant’s four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens,” Chutkan ruled in a 48-page opinion, sweeping aside Trump’s most intricate attempt to derail the case against him.

“A former President’s exposure to federal criminal liability is essential to fulfilling our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law,” Chutkan ruled.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...2023cr0257-171

__________


Update of trump’s fraud trial

Trump fraud trial live updates: Judge to allow testimony from Mar-a-Lago experts

• State to question defense expert on potential fine

State attorney Kevin Wallace is expected to complete his cross-examination of the defense's expert witness Robert Unell, who yesterday provided the most direct challenge to the state's analysis that found that Donald Trump's misstatements cost his lenders $168 million in lost interest.

New York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to use that lost interest analysis to justify part of the fine she wants to levy against Trump -- also known as a disgorgement -- for his allegedly ill-gotten gains.

• Judge backs argument that Trump fraudulently got better loan terms

State attorney Kevin Wallace, challenging the testimony of an expert witness for the defense, angrily argued that Trump used fraudulent means to gain access to favorable loan rates through Deutsche Bank's private wealth management division.

The exchange came during Wallace's cross-examination of defense expert Robert Unell, who disputed the state's claim that Trump's alleged misstatements cost lenders $168 million in lost interest because, Unell said, the loan rates the state used in their calculation were higher than the rates Trump was entitled to when he used a personal guarantee as a private wealth client.

"Once you are in the private bank, you are in this sort of rarified air, and you get access to these rates ... it is a flawed premise to say you have to compare it to the outside air," argued Trump attorney Chris Kise after Judge Arthur Engoron removed Unell from the courtroom so the attorneys could hash out the permissibility of Wallace's argument.

Shouting at Kise for repeatedly making lengthy objections, Wallace argued that Trump would have not qualified for the private bank rates had he not fraudulently overstated his assets.

• Trump easily qualified for private banking loans, expert says

The defense's commercial real estate expert pushed back on the state's contention that Donald Trump used fraudulent means to gain access to favorable loan rates through Deutsche Bank's private wealth management division.

Defense expert Robert Unell testified that Trump "clearly qualified" for commercial loans through the bank's private wealth group.

State attorney Kevin Wallace had argued that Trump "lied to the private wealth group to get these loans," which would support an increased fine in the case.

Unell, however, said, "I have not seen or heard any evidence that President Trump did not qualify for the private wealth management group."

• Bank and judge agreed on Trump's net worth, expert points out

Defense expert Robert Unell testified that both Judge Engoron and Deutsche Bank reached similar conclusions about Donald Trump's actual net worth -- but that Deutsche Bank officials weren't bothered by their determination.

In his partial summary judgment ruling before the trial, Engoron found that the New York attorney general provided "conclusive evidence" that Trump inflated his assets between $812 million and $2.2 billion.

"Even in the world of high finance, this Court cannot endorse a proposition that finds a misstatement of at least $812 million dollars to be 'immaterial,'" Engoron wrote.

Similarly, Deutsche Bank's valuation services group undercut Trump's net worth estimate by roughly than $2.4 billion when they evaluated his 2013 statement of financial condition. Despite that, the bank still loaned Trump millions for three of his properties.

"It would not be unusual," Unell said about the discrepancy identified by the bank.

Engoron cut him off before he could answer whether the discrepancy was within the "adjustment within the range that the court determined."

"I can do the math," Engoron said.

• Judge to allow testimony from Mar-a-Lago experts

Judge Engoron denied two motions by the New York attorney general that would have precluded testimony from two experts on the value of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago property.

In his pretrial ruling, Engoron decided that Trump inflated the value of the oceanfront property by 2,300% by listing its value at least $426 million, despite a tax appraiser determining its value at $27.6 million.

Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly criticized Engoron's finding, arguing that he misunderstood the purpose of a tax appraisal, and they planned to call two experts to support Trump's value of the property: John Shubin to testify about the deed that the state says limits the estate's value because it restricts the use of the property to a club, and Lawrence Moens, one of the top real estate brokers in Palm Beach.

State attorney Kevin Wallace argued that Shubin would offer impermissible legal opinions, and Moens could not offer a traceable process for evaluating the property.

"He is extremely different than a doctor [explaining] how he might conduct a surgery. He is providing evaluation advice," Wallace said about Moens' testimony.

Engoron denied the state's motions, allowing them both to testify -- but said he would enforce objections if they overstep their areas of expertise.

• Judge again denies request to subpoena independent monitor

Judge Engoron again denied a request from the defense to subpoena the Trump Organization's independent monitor for testimony.

Twice this week, Trump's attorneys unsuccessfully sought to call to the stand former judge Barbara Jones, the monitor appointed by Engoron to oversee the Trump Organization's finances after the New York attorney general accused the firm of fraud.

Trump attorney Chris Kise tried for a third time Friday.

"We should be entitled to the benefit of having Judge Jones here to respond to those questions about any ambiguities that might exist in her reports," Kise said.

State attorney Andrew Amer argued against the request, citing Jones' immunity as an agent of the court.

"Your request to subpoena Judge Jones is denied," Engoron said, describing the request as a "dangerous infringement on court immunity."

In her latest report issued to Engoron this week, Jones reported that the Trump Organization was "in compliance" but under "enhanced monitoring."

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day following Engoron's ruling.

It's a witch-hunt, Landreath

• Trump's attorney argues Georgia election case should be dismissed due to First Amendment

Former President Donald Trump's attorney told a Fulton County court Friday that the Georgia election interference indictment against Trump "needs to be dismissed" on the grounds that it prosecutes conduct protected by the First Amendment.

The argument came in the first of two hearings scheduled Friday in which attorneys for the former president and several of his co-defendants are seeking the dismissal of the case or a delay in the case's upcoming deadlines.

"You take the facts as alleged in the indictment ... and when you do that ... you find that it violates free speech, freedom of petitioning, all the expressions that the First Amendment is designed to protect," Trump's attorney Steve Sadow told the court.

It marked the first time Trump's team has presented arguments in the case.

"Every single count of the complaint, every single act ... relates to that political speech regarding probably the most important election in 2020 -- the presidential election," said Chris Anulewicz, an attorney for Trump co-defendant Robert Cheeley.

Anulewicz made the bulk of the First Amendment arguments before the court, telling the judge that political speech is "given the highest level of protection of any speech."

A prosecutor for the Fulton County district attorney's office pushed back on the First Amendment argument, saying the case that goes far beyond speech.

"Some of these are crimes involving expression; some of them are not," Deputy District Attorney Will Wooten said. "Conspiracy is not a crime involving expression. It's a crime involving a corrupt agreement."

"The list goes on and on," Wooten said.

Sadow also pushed back on the Aug. 5 trial date proposed by the Fulton County district attorney, citing the timing of the 2024 presidential election.

"Can you imagine the notion of the Republican nominee for president not being able to campaign for the presidency because he is in some form or fashion in a courtroom defending himself?" Sadow asked the court. "That would be the most effective election interference in the history of the United States. And I don't think anybody wants to be in that position."

"Let's be clear -- this is not election interference," responded Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade. "This is moving forward with the business of Fulton County."

case should be dismissed due to First Amendment

________

Trump fraud trial: Trump likely to attend trial Thursday

• Expert testimony leads off last full week of defense's case

Donald Trump's lawyers are scheduled to call three expert witnesses to begin the last full week of their case.

Defense lawyers first plan to call real estate valuation authority Frederick Chin, whose expert report, filed with the court, faults the New York attorney general for taking a "narrow and limited view" of the value of Trump's assets in her complaint against the former president.

Like other defense experts, Chin argues in his report that Trump fairly valued his assets and properly disclosed his valuation approach to his lenders.

After Chin testifies, Trump's lawyers plan to call two experts to testify about Trump's valuation of his Mar-a-Lago property, which has been the subject of bitter debate since the start of the trial. Judge Arthur Engoron, in his pretrial partial summary judgment, already decided that Trump overvalued the property by at least 2,300%, and the defense experts -- Lawrence Moens and John Shubin -- are expected to challenge the judge's findings.

Defense attorneys intend to complete their questioning of the three expert witnesses by Wednesday, when Eric Trump is expected to return to the witness stand.

• Trump wants to appeal gag order in his civil trial, again

Donald Trump’s lawyers are seeking to appeal last week’s decision reinstating the gag orders in the former president’s civil fraud trial.

• 'Genius factor' can boost property value by billions, expert says

A defense expert in real estate valuation suggested that a developer's vision could add over a billion dollars of value to a vacant lot.

Frederick Chin, who was qualified as an expert in real estate valuation, argued that Donald Trump used the "as if" investment value of his properties, rather than their current "as is" market value. According to Chin, the "as if" valuation perspective allows a real estate developer to consider the long-term development plans of a property when determining its value.

For example, a vacant lot in the heart of New York City might have a market value of $500 million, according to Chin. A real estate developer who envisions a hotel on the property might see its investment value closer to $2 billion.

Judge Arthur Engoron, who frequently interjected into Chin's testimony, described the approach that resulted in a $1.5 billion difference in the value of a hypothetical vacant lot as a developer's "genius factor."

• Trump likely to attend trial Thursday, say sources

Former President Donald Trump will likely attend his civil fraud trial on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the matter. He is not expected to be in attendance on Wednesday when his son Eric testifies.

• Developers have more latitude when valuing properties, expert says

Frederick Chin, a real estate valuation expert, testified that developers often have more latitude to value their properties compared to appraisers.

According to Chin, developers consider the enterprise value of their assets, meaning how different properties managed by the same company – such as Four Seasons or Ritz-Carlton hotels – increase in value as part of a collection of assets.

“The whole is worth more than the sum of its parts,” Judge Arthur Engoron said to summarize Chin’s testimony.

• Court denies Trump’s effort to expedite gag order appeal

Former President Donald Trump’s request for an expedited grant of leave to appeal the gag orders in his civil fraud trial was denied Monday afternoon.

The gag order is now likely to still be in effect on Monday when Trump takes the witness stand in his own defense.

Trump’s lawyers requested that Judge David Friedman, who initially lifted the gag order, permit them to appeal the final decision that reinstated the gag order to New York’s Court of Appeals.

“You had a decision by a panel of judges. A single judge cannot undo a panel’s decision,” Lauren Holmes, a court attorney, said during a scheduling meeting Monday afternoon at the Appellate Division First Department.

Dennis Fan, a lawyer for the New York Attorney General, also declined to consent to expediting the briefing schedule.

“You just want to let this drag out until the end of the trial,” Trump attorney Christopher Kise said. “That’s what they are doing.”

• Jack Smith wants to tell jury about Trump’s earlier attempts to sow doubt about elections

Special counsel Jack Smith wants a Washington, D.C. jury to hear about Donald Trump’s efforts to sow false doubts about the two presidential elections that preceded his failed 2020 campaign.

The special counsel’s team says Trump’s previous attempts to convince Americans that the elections of 2012 and 2016 were being stolen laid the foundation for what would become a criminal effort to overturn the 2020 election after his loss to Joe Biden.

“They demonstrate the defendant’s common plan of falsely blaming fraud for election results he does not like,” senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston wrote in a nine-page court filing.

Smith is seeking permission from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to introduce evidence that isn’t specifically charged in the criminal indictment but may be relevant to the jury’s consideration of the alleged crimes. These details, known as 404(b) evidence, are commonly introduced in criminal matters to aid the jury’s ability to consider a defendant’s intent or motive based on uncharged “bad acts.” In this case, Smith says the evidence will help jurors assess Trump’s intent during the frenzied weeks before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, as he sought to subvert the election.

The false election fraud claims from prior years aren’t the only streams of 404(b) evidence that prosecutors want to introduce. Gaston indicated that they intend to tell jurors about Trump’s repeated refusals in 2016 and 2020 to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. They want to introduce his September 2020 exhortation to the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” which became a call to action for the group’s leaders at the time and put the group on a path to becoming an integral part of the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol.

Prosecutors also say Trump engaged in a campaign of retaliation against Republican Party allies who refused to countenance his claims of election fraud — including the former legal counsel of the RNC.

Prosecutors also reiterated that they anticipate telling jurors about Trump’s efforts to align himself with Jan. 6 rioters in the years following the violence. Trump has described them as “hostages,” vowed to consider pardoning many of them, complained of the sentences doled out even to the most serious offenders and even recorded a song with some of the most violent riot defendants housed at the D.C. jail.

“This evidence shows that the rioters’ disruption of the certification proceeding is exactly what the defendant intended on January 6,” Gaston wrote.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8148.176.0.pdf

Smith using decade-old Trump tweets as "record" of "baseless" fraud claims

Special counsel Jack Smith plans to show evidence in the federal 2020 election case of former President Trump making false claims about electoral fraud since at least 2012, according to a Tuesday filing.

_________

Trump fraud trial: Expert compares ''dreamer'' Trump to MLK

• Defense focusing on value of Mar-a-Lago

Donald Trump's lawyers plan to call two experts, Lawrence Moens and John Shubin, to testify on Trump's valuation of his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida.

Moens is a well-known real estate broker in Palm Beach, and Shubin is an expert on deeds and land restrictions.

• 'No prohibition' on using Mar-a-Lago as residence, expert says

Introduced as an expert on land use, planning, entitlements and zoning, a witness for the defense immediately pushed back on New York Attorney General Letitia James' chief argument that Trump's Mar-a-Lago property was restricted to use as a social club -- a claim that Judge Engoron called the "ultimate issue on Mar-a-Lago."

"There is absolutely no prohibition on the use of Mar-a-Lago as a single-family residence," said defense witness John Shubin.

Engoron barred Shubin from testifying about legal conclusions and immediately sustained an objection from the state regarding the testimony.

"It absolutely is a legal conclusion," Engoron said, prompting defense lawyer Clifford Robert to unsuccessfully try to rephrase his question.

• Mar-a-Lago would be residence if club was abandoned, expert says

Defense expert John Shubin attempted to explain that a 1993 agreement preserved Donald Trump's right to sell his Mar-a-Lago social club as a private residence.

The testimony came after Judge Engoron prevented Shubin from sharing his own conclusion about whether Mar-a-Lago was a residence, leading Shubin to read into the record several documents involving the issue.

Shubin suggested that a 1993 agreement between Trump and the town of Palm Beach included a provision that Trump's property would revert from a social club to Trump's private residence if the club was ever abandoned, despite Trump's 2002 deed restricting the property's use to a social club.

Shubin also read into the record documents related to a 2021 Town of Palm Beach town meeting concerning whether Trump could continue to live at Mar-a-Lago as his residence.

"In sum, it is argued that Mar-a-Lago is either a private residence or a club, but cannot be both," Palm Beach Town Attorney John C. Randolph wrote in a report read by Shubin.

"If he is a bona fide employee of the Club, absent a specific restriction prohibiting former President Trump from residing at the club, it appears the Zoning Code permits him to reside at the Club," Randolph's report concluded.

According to Shubin, no action was taken by the town after the meeting, suggesting Town officials concluded that Trump had the right to use the club as a residence.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has accused Trump of valuing the property as a residence worth upwards of half a billion dollars in Trump's financial statements, while treating it as social club worth between $18 million and $28 million for tax purposes.

• Defense expert says Mar-a-Lago was worth $1.2 billion

Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club was worth more than $1.2 billion in 2021 -- roughly double the value listed in Trump's statement of financial condition -- according to defense expert Lawrence Moens.

Describing Mar-a-Lago as a castle nestled on 17.6 acres of waterfront property, Moens said he determined the value by considering nearby properties and adding the total value of the club's 500 memberships, which in 2021 cost $350,000 each.

Between 2011 and 2021, Moens' analysis found that Trump undervalued Mar-a-Lago in his statements of financial condition -- but his analysis appeared to be based on Trump being able to sell the property to an individual to use it as a private residence, which the New York attorney general says Trump is prohibited from doing based on a 2002 deed he signed that would "forever extinguish their right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use."

Judge Engoron only qualified Moens as an expert on the value of residential real estate.

Moens spoke with confidence about his ability to value real estate in Palm Beach, saying that he has sold billions of dollars of real estate since his first sale as a broker in 1982. Asked if any broker has sold more Palm Beach real estate than he has, Moens replied, "They don't exist."

"I am on the front lines everyday of selling properties, and I have a pretty good handle of what is going on currently in the market," Moens said. He later added, "My numbers are usually right."

Moens also put together a seven-minute promotional video about Mar-a-Lago, which was played during his testimony. Set to relaxing music, the video included high-resolution drone shots and dramatic panning shots of the property's amenities. After the video played, Moens highlighted details such as hand-carved stones, gold decorations that cost millions to construct, and other details that required years of work from tradesmen.

"I invited the attorney general's office to come see it anytime. The offer still stands," Moens said. "I will make sure he is not there when you come," he said of Trump.

Engoron appeared attentive to Moen's testimony -- but once Moens left the courtroom, he indicated that he wasn't as concerned about Mar-a-Lago's specific value as he was about whether it was misrepresented.

"I see this case about the documents -- whether the defendants used false documents when transacting business," Engoron said. "I am not trying to figure out what the value is ... I don't necessarily consider it relevant."

• Eric Trump will not be called as defense witness

Defense attorney Clifford Robert said the defense team was able to "streamline" their case and cut Eric Trump from their witness list.

• Mar-a-Lago valuation expert is also Mar-a-Lago member

During a short cross-examination of the defense's real estate valuation expert, Lawrence Moens, state attorney Kevin Wallace attempted to highlight flaws in Moens' analysis that valued Mar-a-Lago at $1.2 billion in 2021.

Wallace noted that Moens' analysis added over $100 million in membership dues to the value of the property, while Trump's own statements of financial conduction didn't include the membership fees since they're refundable.

"Some get paid back, and some are nonrefundable," Moens said in response. "I don't know what their methodology is in those numbers."

Wallace also asked if Moens had a membership in the club he had been paid to value.

"Are you a member at the club?" Wallace asked.

"I am," Moens said, adding that he joined in 1995 or 1996. "I don't go too often. I don't like clubs," he said.

• Defense expert quotes John Lennon, compares Trump to MLK

Prior to his brief cross-examination, real estate valuation expert Lawrence Moens quoted John Lennon's "Imagine" and compared Donald Trump to Martin Luther King Jr. at the conclusion of his direct testimony.

"You may say I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one," Moens said, quoting the "Imagine" lyrics before comparing Trump to Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.

"He's a dreamer for sure. If you have a dream and are a great American, I don't think that's a bad thing," Moens said of Trump, whose Mar-a-Lago estate he praised as "something breathtaking" and "amazing to see."

Moens' cell phone went off during his testimony, and he briefly interrupted his direct examination to answer a call.

"I'll call you right back … love you," Moens said in a quiet tone as Judge Engoron watched in disbelief.

Moen apologized to the judge, explaining that the call was from his elderly father.

Court was adjourned for the day after Moens stepped off the witness stand.

_______

Trump compared to Voldemort during televised debate

Ida Meesenburg




He-who-must-be named.

You don't want to talk about him, he is unmentionable and feared. Lord of Darkness. Lord Voldemort, who is the antagonist of the popular Harry Potter books, written by British author J.K. Rowling.

You-Know-Who was also brought up last night when former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie compared former President Donald Trump to Voldemort during a live televised debate.

Trump was not present at the debate, just as he has not been at the three previous debates.

Christie criticized the other three contestants, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, for not distancing themselves more from Trump.

Trump is the clear frontrunner in the race to become the Republican presidential nominee.

• EXCLUSIVE: Fulton prosecutors list top Trump aides, Ga. officials as witnesses

Fulton County prosecutors could call several senior officials who served in the Trump administration and Georgia’s top elected leaders as witnesses during the trial for their election interference case, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has learned.

Among the names prosecutors have included on their almost 200-person witness list: former Vice President Mike Pence; ex-Attorney General Bill Barr; onetime Justice Department officials Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue; U.S. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania; and Steve Bannon, the conservative provocateur and former aide to former President Donald Trump.

The District Attorney’s office could also call several of Georgia’s top Republican leaders, including Gov. Brian Kemp, Attorney General Chris Carr, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan.

The names were provided to The AJC by several people who have reviewed the witness list, and confirmed by some who have been told they could be called to testify.

The large roster showcases the breadth of topics that Fulton prosecutors may broach at trial, which has yet to be scheduled. The case’s now 15 defendants, including Trump and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, have been accused of engaging in a racketeering conspiracy to overturn the results of Georgia’s 2020 election.

A spokesman for DA Fani Willis declined to comment.
__________

• Lifting the Gag Order on Trump Would Lead to a 'Risk of Violence,''Judge Warns Appeals Court

The New York judge presiding over Donald Trump's civil fraud case warned an appellate court through his attorney on Wednesday that overturning the former president's gag order would carry a "risk of violence."

"The only potential harm that exists here is the risk of violence against Justice Engoron’s staff if this Court grants a writ of prohibition," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron's attorney David Nocenti wrote in a 15-page appellate filing, in boldface text.

"Any purported harm to Mr. Trump’s (and his co-petitioners’) First Amendment rights is risible," Nocenti added.

Known as an Article 78 proceeding, Trump's ongoing appeal of his gag order amounts to a lawsuit against the judge, forcing him to respond directly to Trump's constitutional arguments. Engoron's attorney emphasized that the gag orders imposed on Trump and his attorneys are extremely narrow.

"To be clear, the gag order only prevents the parties from speaking (or posting or emailing) about Justice Engoron’s staff, NOTHING ELSE," the filing states. "It does not prevent statements about Justice Engoron himself, not the Attorney General or her staff, not the substance of the claims and allegations against petitioners, not the facts or evidence or witness testimony, not the judicial process, nor any other topic concerning the underlying action."

"It is unclear, however, how his ability to talk about Justice Engoron’s court staff is necessary for his campaign when this country faces a number of issues more worthy of debate," the filing states. "Any argument by petitioners that the gag orders have interfered with their First Amendments rights should be viewed with extreme skepticism."

The judge's lawyer noted that Trump has an "inordinate ability to draw attention, fervor, and animosity" toward the people he criticizes.

"Whether he seeks it or not, some of Mr. Trump’s followers are willing to engage in violence to show their support," the filing states.

__________

Trump fraud trial: Potential for violence justifies gag order, judge's lawyer argues

• Trump confirms he'll testify Monday

Former President Trump has confirmed he plans to testify as a defense witness on Monday.

"I will be testifying on Monday," Trump wrote on his social media platform.

Court is not in session today, but Trump is expected to be in attendance tomorrow.

• Court is off today after Eric Trump's testimony is called off

Court is not in session today after the defense yesterday called off the testimony of Eric Trump, who was scheduled to be today's lone witness.

Donald Trump's legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, said that testimony from Eric Trump was no longer needed because the court has heard sufficient testimony from defense experts and Deutsche Bank executives.

• Potential for violence justifies gag order, judge's lawyer argues

Judge Arthur Engoron's attorney argues in a new court filing that the willingness of Donald Trump's followers "to engage in violence to show their support" for Trump justifies the limited gag order in the former president's civil fraud trial.

Trump filed an Article 78 proceeding against Engoron earlier this month to remove the gag orders the judge imposed prohibiting him from commenting on the judge's staff, but a panel of judges vacated a temporary stay of the gag orders last week.

"It is undisputed that Mr. Trump has an inordinate ability to draw attention, fervor, and animosity to those he singles out for attention. Whether he seeks it or not, some of Mr. Trump's followers are willing to engage in violence to show their support," said Engoron's attorney Michael Suidzinski, an assistant deputy counsel with the New York State Office of Court Administration.

Engoron's attorney questioned Trump's need to speak about the judge's staff during the trial or his campaign, adding that the gag order still permits him to criticize Engoron, the attorney general, the case itself, witnesses, and the entire judicial process.

"It is unclear, however, how his ability to talk about Justice Engoron's court staff is necessary for his campaign when this country faces a number of issues more worthy of debate," Suidzinski wrote.

"Given the real and demonstrated likelihood of harm that could come to Justice Engoron's court staff if the gag orders were annulled, Justice Engoron's legitimate and justifiable interest in preventing such harm greatly outweighs the de minimis interference to Mr. Trump's rights," Suidzinski wrote.

Oh dear, baldy orange cunto won't be happy about this.

Former President Donald Trump was dealt a major blow by the New York Court of Appeals on Thursday in the midst of his ongoing civil fraud trial in the Empire State.

On Thursday afternoon, MSNBC legal reporter Lisa Rubin tweeted that appellate judges denied Trump's request to stay (or halt) Judge Arthur Engoron's ruling in favor of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who won a summary judgment in September in her initial claim that Trump committed "pervasive, widespread fraud in financial statements." She linked to a copy of the appellate judges' ruling in the initial post.

"What that means practically is that the provisions of the below order are enforceable and that if [independent financial monitor Judge Barbara Jones] is the agreed-upon receiver, Trump and his co-defendants owe her a bunch of information and advanced notice about their ownership structure and future activity," Rubin added in a separate tweet, which showed a screenshot of an October order from Judge Engoron.

N.Y. appeals court upholds Judge Engoron’s ruling that Trump committed 'widespread fraud' - Raw Story

Get him!

• Trump seeks halt to D.C. criminal case

Donald Trump is demanding that a judge halt all proceedings in the federal criminal case charging him with trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Trump contends that U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan no longer has power over the case while he appeals her ruling that Trump is not immune from the charges he’s facing — a process that could take weeks or months. In the meantime, he says, Chutkan must postpone all deadlines and cede her authority over the matter.

Citing “political costs to President Trump and this country” if the case were to move forward, Trump’s lawyers argued Thursday that he’s entitled to an “automatic stay” while he appeals Chutkan’s ruling last week.

If Chutkan accedes to the demand, it could jeopardize her plan to begin the trial of the former president on March 4 at a Washington courthouse just blocks from the Capitol his supporters attacked on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump is appealing Chutkan’s order denying his claim that he enjoys immunity from prosecution on the election-related charges by virtue of the fact he was serving as president at the time. The order also turned down his argument that he can’t be prosecuted because he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate for his conduct related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.

“The filing of President Trump’s notice of appeal has deprived this Court of jurisdiction over this case in its entirety pending resolution of the appeal,” Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro wrote. “Therefore, a stay of all further proceedings is mandatory and automatic.”

Trump’s attorneys indicated that even if Chutkan doesn’t grant the stay, they plan to ask the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to do so and intend to operate as if there is one in place. That could be consequential in a case that is expected to be just three months away from trial. Prospective jurors have already begun receiving initial notices from the courthouse.

The lawyers said that unless Chutkan rules otherwise, they plan to ignore upcoming deadlines in the case regarding pretrial motions, exchanges of information with prosecutors and designation of expert witnesses.

Trump’s legal team said in its 11-page filing that prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s office have indicated they plan to oppose the stay.

Trump’s lawyers noted that prosecutors have acknowledged that Trump can’t be forced to go to trial in the case while an immunity appeal is pending. But according to Trump’s lawyers, the prosecutors appeared to seek to leave the door open to pretrial proceedings such as motions, hearings and trial planning in the coming months.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...49.178.0_6.pdf

__________

Trump fraud trial live updates: '''There is no fraud here,''' accounting expert testifies

• Trump in attendance for accounting expert's testimony

Donald Trump is back in court as a spectator, marking the first time the former president has attended the proceeding in over a month.

• Court affirms pausing dissolution of Trump Organization

A panel of five appellate judges has affirmed a judge's Oct. 6 decision that paused the dissolution of the Trump Organization.

Judge Peter Moulton issued a ruling during the first week of the trial pausing the immediate cancellation of Donald Trump's business certificates, as ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his partial summary judgment ruling on the eve of the trial.

Trump's attorneys argued in favor of the stay of enforcement action until the end of the trial, and the New York attorney general supported their argument.

Today's ruling formally pushes a decision on the fate of the Trump Organization into the new year, when Engoron issues his final ruling in the case.

• No merit to NY AG's complaint, defense expert says

The New York attorney general's civil fraud complaint against former President Trump lacks merit, a defense expert in accounting testified.

"My main finding is that there is no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud," New York University professor Eli Bartov said. "My analysis shows the statements of financial condition for all the years were not materially misstated."

Bartov's testimony bolstered the defense's contention that non-audited financial statements, like Trump's, are unreliable and represent only a first step in analysis.

"You cannot use the raw numbers in the statements as the basis for making decisions," Bartov said. "If you do that, you are likely to reach the wrong decision."

Judge Engoron asked Bartov whether the attorney general's complaint had no merit.

"This is absolutely my opinion," Bartov replied.

"And why is that?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez jumped in to ask.

"There is not a single reference to a specific provision of GAAP that was violated," Bartov said, referring to the generally accepted accounting principles." "If you allege there was an accounting violation, they have to tell us what provision was violated."

State attorneys objected to the relevance of Bartov's opinion, but Judge Engoron denied the objection.

• Trump penthouse misstatement was not fraud, expert says

Donald Trump's overstatement of the value of his Trump Tower penthouse apartment was a mistake, according to accounting expert Eli Bartov -- but not fraud.

"The price was inflated. There is no question about it," Bartov said about Trump more than doubling the value of his triplex apartment on his statement of financial condition, from $80 million to $180 million, between 2011 and 2012.

• Defense expert tells AG lawyer, 'You ought to be ashamed of yourself'

Donald Trump's accounting expert snapped at a lawyer for the New York attorney general after the lawyer suggested his opinion was bought by the defense team.

As accounting expert Eli Bartov was testifying about Trump's use of disclaimers in his financial statements, state attorney Kevin Wallace interjected, saying, "This is pure speculation from someone they hired to say whatever it is they want."

Still in the witness box, Bartov began yelling at Wallace about the comment as Trump sat watching a few feet away.

"You make up allegations that never existed," Bartov shouted. "I am here to tell the truth. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for talking like that."

Bartov, in his testimony, said that Trump's use of disclaimers functioned "just like the warning from the surgeon general on a box of cigarettes."

• 'Gotta lose some weight,' Trump says, examining sketch

During testimony, Donald Trump has been sitting at the defense counsel table with few items other than an unopened, Trump-branded water bottle and a stack of sticky notes.

But during breaks in testimony, he's taken a page from his son Donald Trump Jr., who chatted with court sketch artist Jane Rosenberg when he testified last month.

The former president has done the same, chatted up the court's sketch artists during two breaks in testimony.

Rosenberg said that when Trump surveyed her rendering of him, he offered a simple, "Nice."

Trump also examined a rendering by sketch artist Isabelle Brourman.

"Wow, amazing," Trump said, according to Brourman. "Gotta lose some weight."

• 'There is no fraud here,' accounting expert testifies

If Donald Trump was a student in Eli Bartov's class, his statements of financial condition would earn him an "A," the New York University professor said on the stand.

"I've never seen a statement that provides so much detail and is so transparent as these statements," Bartov said, praising the "awesome amount of information" in the financial documents that are at the center of the New York attorney general's case against Trump.

"There is no fraud here," Bartov said flatly.

Despite his effusive praise for the statements, the professor attempted to underplay the significance of the documents, emphasizing that lenders would be expected to do their own valuations to decide about lending to Trump. Deutsche Bank's credit memos -- which regularly marked down Trump's asset values by as much as 50% -- proved that the banks used additional information to independently scrutinize Trump's financial statements, according to Bartov.

"It is impossible to argue -- it is really absurd to argue -- that Deutsche Bank or any bank or any lender would make lending decisions based on the SOFC," Bartov said of Trump's statement of financial condition. "This should close the book on this case."

"Everywhere you look, you see this is simply an absurd argument," Bartov said.

• Trump credits trial for boosting his poll numbers

"It's driving up my polls because the people of our country get it," Trump said. "My poll numbers are the highest I've ever had."

Bartov is set to continue his testimony on Friday, with Trump scheduled to take the stand as the defense's final witness on Monday.

________

Just for fun.

• 6 'fake electors' for Trump are indicted in Nevada

A Nevada grand jury on Wednesday indicted six individuals who submitted documents falsely attesting that they were the state's official presidential electors and that Donald Trump won Nevada in the 2020 election.

So-called "fake electors" have now faced criminal charges in three swing states: Nevada, Michigan and Georgia. A legal settlement was also announced Wednesday regarding false electors in Wisconsin.

Nevada Republican Party Chair Michael McDonald is among those charged in the state. The other five are: Jim DeGraffenreid, Jesse Law, Durward James Hindle III, Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice. The defendants face two felony charges apiece — "Offering a False Instrument for Filing" and "Uttering a Forged Instrument" — according to a release from the state attorney general.

"We cannot allow attacks on democracy to go unchallenged," Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Kill the traitors!!!

• Appeals court largely upholds Trump’s federal gag order

A federal appeals court has largely upheld a gag order on Donald Trump, concluding that Trump’s rhetoric poses “real-time, real-world consequences” that threaten the integrity of his upcoming criminal trial over his attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Trump’s complaints about free speech and his presidential candidacy ring hollow when juxtaposed with the “imminent” threats his invective has posed to witnesses and the court proceedings themselves.

“The court had a duty to act proactively to prevent the creation of an atmosphere of fear or intimidation aimed at preventing trial participants and staff from performing their functions within the trial process,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote for the unanimous panel of three judges, all of whom are Democratic appointees.

The ruling reinstates restrictions, imposed in October by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan but suspended amid the appeal, on Trump’s ability to attack key witnesses in the case against him. Trump is also barred from attacking prosecutors in the case — other than special counsel Jack Smith — and courthouse staff, if the statements are deemed to be an effort to interfere in the proceedings.

The provisions, however, represent a notable narrowing of Chutkan’s original gag order, which the appeals court said “sweeps too broadly.” The panel ruled that Trump remains entitled to criticize various figures who played a role in the 2020 election saga as long as he does not zero in on their potential testimony at the trial, scheduled to begin March 4.

The ruling is the second time in recent days that appellate courts have upheld gag orders against Trump: Last week, a New York appeals court reinstated a more limited gag in his New York civil fraud case. The D.C. Circuit panel, however, is the first appellate court to provide extensive justification for restricting the speech of the likely GOP nominee for president.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...copn120823.pdf

Trump fraud trial: Former president to return to witness stand Monday

• Defense's accounting expert to return to witness stand

The defense's accounting expert, Eli Bartov, is scheduled to return to the witness stand for a second day of testimony in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial.

During a full day of testimony yesterday, the New York University professor offered a full-throated endorsement of Trump's statements of financial condition that are at the heart of the attorney general's case, saying, "I've never seen a statement that provides so much detail and is so transparent as these statements."

Of discrepancies like Trump overvaluing his Trump Tower penthouse by $100 million in 2012, Bartov characterized it as a mistake and not fraud.

• Judge denies defense's 4th request to end trial

The second day of testimony from the defense's expert accounting witness prompted an argument between attorneys for the two sides over the basic question of what the case is about -- leading defense lawyers to make their fourth unsuccessful request for a directed verdict to end the trial.

The arguments came toward the end of direct testimony by accounting expert defense Eli Bartov, who asserted the New York attorney general's case lacked merit because there was no evidence of any fraud on Trump's statements of financial condition, and that any errors about the values of Trump's properties were unintentional and therefore immaterial.

When the defense attempted to question Bartov about those values, state attorneys objected -- prompting defense attorney Christopher Kise to leap from his seat.

"If they don't call anyone to dispute our values, how have they proven their case?" Kise said.

Judge Arthur Engoron, in a pretrial ruling, already decided that Trump conducted a decade's worth of business using fraudulent financial statements, and state attorney Kevin Wallace suggested that Bartov's findings do not change those findings.

"You can't use false statements in business. That's what the summary judgment decision is all about. I think it is pretty much what the rest of this case is about," Engoron said in response to Kise's question.

Kise argued that if the attorney general doesn't prove what Trump's asset values should have been, the case is a "completely rudderless ship" that needs to be "moored to some sort of standard."

"You can't just say it's a misstatement because you feel like it," Kise argued.

"The standard is truth," Engoron responded.

The exchange prompted Trump's legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, to make the defense's fourth motion for a directed verdict, arguing that Engoron is "wasting our time" if he won't consider their expert testimony.

"They have not proven their case. They haven't," Habba said in her request for a directed verdict.

"Denied," Engoron said within seconds of the request, without hearing a response from lawyers for the New York attorney general.

• Defense's accounting expert was paid $877K

The defense's accounting expert, Eli Bartov, was paid approximately $877,500 for his expert analysis, the New York University professor testified.

Bartov said he was paid an hourly rate of $1,350 for 650 hours of work, receiving payments from the Trump Organization and Trump's Save America PAC.

The state's lone expert witness, Michiel McCarty, was paid roughly $350,000 for his testimony.

Bartov's testimony about his compensation followed a tense exchange in which defense attorney Alina Habba accused Judge Engoron of "wasting time and money" by ignoring expert testimony.

"Why are we wasting our time if nobody is considering the words coming out of our experts' mouths?" Habba said.

• Accounting expert to resume after Trump testifies Monday

New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov will have to return to court on Tuesday to conclude his testimony, after his direct examination ran longer than expected.

After Bartov's direct examination concluded, state attorney Louis Solomon began his cross-examination -- but the parties agreed to adjourn for the day and resume the cross-examination next week.

Donald Trump is scheduled to be the only witness on Monday.

Once Bartov concludes his testimony, New York Attorney General Letitia James plans to present a brief rebuttal case.

__________

Just in case.

• Judge prohibits Trump-era migrant family separation policy for 8 years

A federal judge on Friday banned the separation of families at the U.S. southern border to deter migrants from entering the country as part of a settlement to a Trump-era lawsuit.

Why it matters: The judge's approval of the settlement may preemptively prevent the controversial policy from resuming during a second Trump presidency, should voters elect him president next year.

• Under the settlement, a policy similar to the one the Trump administration implemented will be banned until December 2031.
• The policy resulted in thousands of children being separated from their families and saw even fellow Republicans criticize Trump.
• Per recent data, the federal government could not confirm whether more than 1,000 children had been reunited with their parents.

The big picture: Trump has again made illegal immigration a central campaign issue and repeatedly used dehumanizing language in reference to immigrants. His aides have reportedly proposed extreme measures to curb illegal immigration, including massive, nation-wide operations.

• Former President Trump and his aides have not said if they would attempt to resume separating migrant children from their parents, according to the New York Times.
• Trump, however, defended it in an interview last month, saying it "stopped people from coming by the hundreds of thousands."

Catch up quick: Friday's prohibition stemmed from a 2018 American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of thousands of children and parents.

• The lawsuit achieved a nationwide injunction against the policy.

• Also 2018, Trump ended the policy through an executive order. His administration was ordered to reunite the children with their parents within 30 days, which it failed to do because of lack of organized records.

Details: Per the settlement, agencies can still separate children from their parents under extraordinary circumstances, such as if the child is believed to have been abused, though that had been the case for years before the Trump administration's separation policy.

• Families affected by the policy will receive non-monetary assistance, such as health care, housing and legal needs, as well as access to an expedited asylum process and the ability to receive three years of humanitarian parole.

Of note: After President Biden took office, he created a task force to reunite separated families.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...settlement.pdf

• Jack Smith reveals sweeping scope of bid to debunk Trump election machine claims

Special counsel Jack Smith on Saturday sharply rejected Donald Trump’s contention that foreign governments may have changed votes in the 2020 election, laying bare new details about his team’s extensive probe of the matter and its access to a vast array of senior intelligence officials in Trump’s administration.

In a 45-page filing, Smith’s team describes interviewing more than a dozen of the top intelligence officials in Trump’s administration — from his director of national intelligence to the administrator of the NSA to Trump’s personal intelligence briefer — about any evidence that foreign governments had penetrated systems that counted votes in 2020.

“The answer from every single official was no,” senior assistant special counsel Thomas Windom writes in the filing.

The filing was part of the special counsel’s opposition to a bid by Trump to access a broad swath of classified intelligence as part of his defense against charges that he conspired to subvert the 2020 election and disenfranchise millions of voters, culminating in the violent Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Trump has argued that foreign governments fueled his supporters’ concerns about election integrity and that some classified evidence revealed potential meddling that justified his own professed fears about fraud.

But prosecutors say Trump’s new legal effort is just an extension of his election lies — and that, in fact, intelligence officials unanimously rejected the idea that foreign governments penetrated any systems that counted votes or could have altered the election tally itself. Rather, they said, intel officials documented some breaches of state voter registration databases that permitted various influence campaigns but were not capable of causing the vote-stealing scheme of which Trump has long sought to convince his followers.

Trump, Windom writes, tries to create a “false impression” and “manufacture confusion” by citing these “irrelevant network breaches” and conflating them with potential changes to the vote total.

To rebut these claims, Windom indicates that prosecutors asked Trump’s “former DNI, former acting secretary of DHS, former acting deputy secretary of DHS, former CISA director, former acting CISA director, former CISA senior cyber counsel, former national security adviser, former deputy NSA, former chief of staff to the National Security Council, former chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, presidential intelligence briefer, former secretary of Defense and former DOJ leadership” for any evidence of that foreign or domestic actors flipped a single vote from a voting machine in 2020.

They offered none, he says.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8148.181.0.pdf

_________

• New York AG suggests Trump experts helped push her fraud case forward

New York Attorney General Letitia James said that experts called for former President Trump’s defense this week actually helped her legal case alleging Trump and his company falsified business records.

“Donald Trump can continue to try to distract from reality. You can continue to call me names,” she said in a video message Friday. “But as the judge said today, ‘the standard is truth.’ And the truth is on our side.”

With a smile on her face, James recapped the testimonies of three expert witnesses called for Trump’s defense and explained how each one actually helped prove her case that Trump and his company committed fraud.

James’ case specifically alleges that Trump and his company knowingly falsified financial statements, inflating and deflating the values of assets to get better insurance and loan terms.

“Over the past few days, we continue to hear testimony from the defendants’ many expert witnesses,” she said. “And one of these experts admitted that the valuations of some of the properties on Donald Trump’s statement of financial condition were neither ‘proper,’ nor ‘reasonable.’”

Another witness, James said, was asked by Trump personally to help his case at his Mar-a-Lago club, a conflict of interest. A third had their fees paid by Trump’s political action committee.

“He testified that the value of Donald Trump’s triplex was inflated. That we can agree,” she said of the third witness. “But he also had a lot to say about Donald Trump’s statements of financial condition, even though he has not prepared a financial statement since the 1980s.”

Trump himself is expected to testify in court on Monday, the second time he takes the stand in the case. He will take questions from his attorneys as part of his defense.

^ So what does that mean for the United Cult Of America? How will they get rid of this whole Maga thing?

^Not much will ever change their minds and the cult will be here for a bit longer. In the meantime, we get to see him and them suffer.

_______

Trump will no longer testify in his own defense in N.Y. civil fraud case

Former President Trump is no longer planning to testify in his ongoing New York civil fraud trial on Monday, he said in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

Why it matters: Trump, who took the stand in November, was expected to testify Monday as the final and star witness in his own defense in the case.

• The $250 million case — which is in its final stages — is putting his net worth on trial and threatening to block him from doing business in his native state.

Driving the news: "I have already testified to everything & have nothing more to say other than that this is a complete & total election interference (Biden campaign!) witch hunt," he wrote in an all-caps post on Truth Social.

• "I will not be testifying on Monday," he wrote in the multi-part post.

The big picture: Trump, who is currently fighting four criminal cases, voluntarily attended court proceedings multiple times throughout the trial, which started in October.

• Trump frequently lambasted New York Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing the trial and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed the suit against him, his adult children and his business last year.
• Trump, who lost a bid for a mistrial in the case, voluntarily showed up at the Manhattan courthouse last week as a spectator, when he derided the case as a "witch hunt" and slammed it as a "very corrupt trial."
• Just before the civil trial started, Engoron found that Trump had committed fraud by exaggerating his net worth on financial records.

What they're saying: James responded to Trump's announcement in a post to X, which noted he had already testified the case.

• "Whether or not he testifies again tomorrow, we have already proven that he committed years of financial fraud and unjustly enriched himself. No matter how much he tries to distract from reality, the facts don't lie."

Zoom in: During his first testimony in November, which lasted nearly four hours, Trump clashed with Engoron and acknowledged having some input on the financial statements at the center of the lawsuit.

• Trump was also called briefly to the stand earlier in the trial to answer questions about a possible violation of his gag order, but he was not asked about the fraud charges.

Three of Trump's children, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump, have all testified on their involvement in preparing financial statements for the family business.

• Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are both named as defendants in the lawsuit, while Ivanka has been dismissed.

Between the lines: Trump is under a limited gag order in the case, which Engoron imposed after the former president made a post on his Truth Social account about the judge's principle law clerk.

• He has been fined twice, totaling $15,000, for alleged violations of the gag order.

What's next: This week is expected to be the final week of testimony.

• After the testimonies conclude, the trial is scheduled to go on break until early January, after which closing arguments will be made and the case will be in the judge's hands to issue a final ruling.

• Giuliani to face Georgia poll workers as defamation case heads to trial

While counting the results of Georgia’s 2020 election, Fulton County poll worker Ruby Freeman passed her daughter, another poll worker named Shaye Moss, a ginger mint.

But longtime Trump ally Rudy Giuliani claimed a video of that interaction showed evidence of election fraud against former President Trump — proof of the mother-daughter pair passing a USB drive between them to scan ballots hidden in suitcases under tables at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena, according to a report by Georgia’s State Election Board.

On Monday, Freeman and Moss will come face-to-face in court with Giuliani, as a trial over his false claims against them gets underway in Washington, D.C., federal court. Giuliani and the two poll workers are required to attend the trial, which is expected to last about a week in full. A jury of eight Washington residents will decide the case.

The two election workers sued Giuliani in December 2021 on claims of “defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage.”

“Defendant Rudy Giuliani bears substantial and outsized responsibility for the campaign of partisan character assassination of Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss,” the Georgia election workers wrote in a May 2022 amended complaint.

They further accused Giuliani of orchestrating a “sustained smear campaign” against them by repeatedly accusing them of partaking in the purported “crime of the century.”

A series of probes led by three law enforcement agencies found that the claims against Freeman and Moss “were false and unsubstantiated.” Giuliani later wrote in court filings he will “not contest” that his statements were “false” and “carry meaning that is defamatory,” but he maintained that they were “constitutionally protected.”

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell already found the former New York City mayor civilly liable for those claims; the trial will determine how much money he owes them as a result.

The trial is likely just the beginning of court battles between Giuliani and the poll workers.

Giuliani spread lies about Georgia election workers. A jury will decide what he owes them

_________

• Federal prosecutors urge judge to keep March 4 trial in Trump election case

Prosecutors urged a judge in former President Trump's 2020 election interference federal case on Sunday to deny his request to pause proceedings while he appeals her ruling rejecting that he has presidential immunity.

Why it matters: Appeal proceedings could delay Trump's trial, which is due to begin the day before Super Tuesday, and its outcome could impact this and the other three criminal cases that the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner faces.

Driving the news: "During the pendency of the appeal, any number of matters could arise in this case that are not involved in the appeal; the Court should not enter an order preventing it from handling them," wrote the prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith's team in the court filing seeking to keep the trial start date on March 4.

• "[I]n light of the public's strong interest in a prompt trial, the Government will seek to ensure that trial proceeds as scheduled," added senior assistant special counsels Molly Gaston and Thomas Windom in the filing to D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Of note: Lawyers for Trump, who has pleaded not guilty in all four of his criminal cases, have argued that he should "not be required to endure 'the burdens of litigation'" as president and while his appeal is pending.

• Gaston and Windom wrote in their Sunday filing: "The Government will continue to shoulder its own burden" by meeting every pretrial deadline, "and more." This would include, "depending on the length of the appellate process, the Government's exhibit list" and any motions before the trial begins.

• "Any filings the Government makes according to this Court's schedule while the appeal is pending can then be promptly litigated if the Court's order is affirmed and the mandate is returned."

Rudy Giuliani case is ‘about names that have been disgraced’, says lawyer for claimants – live

The jury (8 jurors) have been seated in a Washington DC defamation case to determine how much in damages Rudy Giuliani should pay to two Atlanta election workers he defamed after the 2020 election.