Trump: C’mon Jesse Waters, lets, in a totally heterosexual way, just get it on!
I don’t understand why Trump’s lawyers continue to argue the same defense despite it not being applicable. They argued that Trump had no intention to defraud, but the judge already found, as a matter of law, Trump did in fact commit fraud. At this point, why double down and continue to argue there was no intent to defraud? That defense literally can’t work at this point.
Ya work with what ya got. And sometimes, ya got nuttin’.
To preserve the argument for appeal? They might be trying to show that the judge’s initial error on the summary judgment has tainted their ability to make full answer and defence on all the other counts? I dunno.
The attorneys are under Trump’s spell. His MO is to keep repeating things, even when they are false, because if you repeat it enough, it becomes accepted and true. At least, that’s how it’s been working outside a courtroom.
Exactly. I had to laugh when I saw this posted elsewhere on the web, earlier today (all errors are as in the original):
“Your Honor, my client forgot that fraud was illegal.”
H/t to Steve Martin
Outside of Trumpland, it’s been toxic for years …
Are they just stating “There was no intent to defraud”, or are they actually trying to explain why there was no intent? I mean, if you make the same “mistake” in almost every case, and that mistake always benefits you at the expense of someone else, well, that looks awfully intentional. I suppose it could all be an accident, but you’d have to explain that, not just assert it.
He’s just really really lucky.
the lawyers on the various shows yest. were saying one trump lawyer was arguing for appeal, the other was doing theatr for trump.
Yeah, Trump’s lawyers are arguing something that has already been decided.
The strategy here is “I’ve totally tlost his case–they got me dead to rights. Only thing to do is to bitch in public about the biased judge, racist DA, rigged system, so when I get a ‘Guilty Of Course’ verdict, I can say ‘Told ya so.’”
It seems Trump continues to work on the child-like defense of “NO YOU!”
Former President Donald Trump continued to attack New York Attorney General Letitia James and the judge in his civil case, Arthur Engoron, as he arrived at the Manhattan courthouse Tuesday for the second day of his civil fraud trial
“Her numbers are fraudulent — she’s a fraud,” Trump said of James. “And this case should be dismissed.”
I’m not following this too closely- what’s the deal with his babbling about the statute of limitations after yesterday session?
After court adjourned yesterday, Trump took the opportunity to campaign more in front of the cameras. He claimed that he was glad that the court had agreed with the ruling that Trump had received on appeal was recognized by the court. This ruling determined that the Statute of Limitations ran out in 2014, so they were not applicable. Since that comprised 80% of the state’s case, it was a win.
I wondered about that. If true, then this could be disastrous (or not, depending on your acceptance level of corruption).
Well, Judge Engoron explained that. Per CNN reporting (on their Live Updates, so I can’t link directly)
Engoron clarified a comment he made Monday about testimony related to 2011 financial statements being a “waste of time.” He told Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for the attorney general’s office, to get to his point after three hours of testimony from a former Trump accountant.
"Mr. Wallace promised to connect the dots,” Engoron said.
An appellate court ruled that the statute of limitations applied to 2014, and Trump’s lawyers have pushed to dismiss allegations about deals that occurred before then.
Engoron, however, said that he has not changed last week’s ruling and his comments in court Monday afternoon only addressed evidence and testimony admissible at trial.
Engoron noted that the attorney general is suing Trump not on the underlying transactions but on the financial statements that referenced them, which occurred after 2014 and are included in the AG’s claims.
In short, yes, the Judge said the SOL applies to transactions prior to 2014, but the records need not be tossed. I’m guessing he is saying the SOL applies to crimes committed prior to 2014, not the records. Perhaps another appeals court would need to agree or disagree with him, but that is his ruling, so lets go on.
I was concerned because I could find nothing on whether or not Trump’s comment yesterday evening meant anything. Most news outlets didn’t even mention it, and the Nut-Job News channels were saying, “Whelp, this thing is over. The Judge has already thrown out 80% of the case! Trump is Exonerated!”
So Trump has just said he’s going to take the witness stand in this case.
Should be quite a show. Too bad for him no live cameras in the courtroom.
He’s already on the state’s witness list, so he may not have a choice.
Yes, I’m aware he is. But affirmatively stating he’s going to take the stand implies he intends to say something more than, “Fifth,” in response to every question. At least, that’s how I take it.