Watch for the Fox News story about how “Key witnesses in Trump case perjured themselves, therefore the verdict is invalid!”.
Once again I am learning more about how civil cases work. Or at least how they work in New York. Once the trial had concluded, I didn’t think it was possible for Trump’s case to be damaged any further. And yet finding out a witnessed perjured himself and there’s approximately $48 million just parked in Trump Org’s account as a loan with no documentation has made things even worse for them. I didn’t know this was something that could happen.
It’s turtles and fraud all the way down.
“I would also appreciate knowing how you think I should address the matter, if at all, including the timing of the final decision,” Engoron wrote.
That’s like when a exasperated teacher or parent says “Why don’t you sit in the corner and figure out how long I should ground you for. How long do I need to take away your nintendo before you understand that you can’t lie about your property valuations? A week? A Month? 5 to 7 years?..and all your little friends that helped, I’m calling their moms”.
The case may have been concluded but deliberations have not. I don’t know what the law is as far as Engoron considering credibility issues once arguments are over. Was his credibility impeached during testimony? If a jury somehow found out that a witness was lying while they were still deliberating and they made it known that it impacted their decisions, I’m pretty sure there would be a mistrial. In any case, this isn’t a good thing for Trump. I can’t wait for the decision and the language Engoron uses to dismantle Trump…
probably more about what he lied about.
The allegation of perjury was made while he was still on the witness stand, on his second day of testifying. Forbes magazine published an article asserting that he had lied the previous about not doing anything to claim the inflated size of Trump’s condo, and published e-mails and other docs that backed up their allegation.
Once the allegation was made, he left the witness box and didn’t come back. The judge was made aware of the allegations.
Why? If a witness is found to be lying, why can’t the jury take that into account? Declaring a mistrial would give the party who called the liar as a witness a do-over. Why should they get that benefit and evade the consequences of calling a liar as a witness?
Because it would be based on information not presented in the trial?
Sorry, i was thinking of this example, where the issue was raised at trial.
Someone help me here. Which jury is being talked about? I was under the impression this was a bench trial.
Apparently Judge Engoron sent this email on Monday to Trump’s attorneys concerning Alan Weisselberg’s pleading guilty to perjury. He’s given Team Trump until 5:00 this afternoon to respond:
What I don’t understand about Engoron’s letter is why he is asking Trump’s lawyers, who I assume are not Weisselberg’s lawyers. What relevant information are they likely to have?
Also, are the prosecutors in the Trump case the same ones prosecuting Weisselberg? If so, can they disclose the details of a plea deal being negotiated? If not, what are they likely to know?
Can Engoron ask the Weisselberg prosecutors or lawyers about the deal before it is concluded? If not, can’t he just wait until it is? Do we know when that will be?
They’re the ones who called Weisselberg to the stand to present evidence for their case. Engoron is asking them how they think he should now treat the testimony they submitted to the court.
It looks like he’s trying to remove some wiggle room from them. The hardly-sub-subtext is, “Listen, busters, if you have any knowledge about Weisselberg’s false testimony, you got two days to come clean about it. You’re going to make a statement about everything you know, and if you lie in that statement, may God have mercy on your soul.”
It seems very plausible that one or more attorney has some knowledge of Weisselberg’s false testimony, given how this gang of crooks operates.
Perhaps it’s also a subtle nudge that if they’re relying on anything specific from Weisselberg that turned out to be false, now might be a good time to disassociate themselves from it.
ETA: Or what LHD just said.
He’s also giving them a warning that he may invoke falsus in uno, or “I will consider everything your witness says to be complete bullshit.”
Remember, this is the same judge the told the Trumps the jury can draw a negative inference when they plead the 5th.
Because this is a civil prosecution, not a criminal one. And that’s the law.
A legal expert I saw interviewed brought up one meeting in which Trump allegedly instructed — in typical mob-boss fashion — the attendees to reverse-engineer figures to get the result he wanted. Michael Cohen testified that the allegations were true, Alan Weisselberg testified they were not. According to the legal expert, if falsus in uno is invoked, Cohen’s version stands as fact as far as evidence is concerned.