Yes, that’s what “findings of credibility about the witness” refers to: the judge, having seen and listened to the witness, is entitled to draw inferences as to the credibility of the witness’s testimony and the reliability of the witness’s testimony.
And traditionally, the trial judge’s rulings on credibility (in a bench trial) are entitled to great deference on appeal, because the trial judge had the benefit of hearing and seeing the witness during the testimony.
It is possible to try to overturn findings of credibility, but it’s a very hard hurdle to overcome. And, one of the few bases for doing so is that the trial judge was biased against the witness.
So we get back to what has been asked earlier: why isn’t the trial judge pounding Trump for his rudeness? Because the trial judge is focussed on having as clean a trial record as possible, so that whatever credibility rulings he makes in his final decision are as appeal-proof as possible.
And that desire is not because he has it in for Trump and wants to nail him, but because his goal is to protect the integrity of the trial process. All judges try their best to keep the record as clean as possible, focussed on the factual and legal issues that are being presented by the parties. That’s what the inevitable appeal should be considering, not frivolous allegations of bias.
“I would say” is a bit weaselly, although I don’t know if it’s weaselly enough to matter. The clear intent of the meaning is that everyone is responsible for identifying fraud that crops up in the course of their normal job duties: he’s not suggesting that the lobby night shift custodian is responsible for verifying that general accounting principles are applied to estimating property values on loan applications. But even if he were, I don’t think the judge could use Trump’s absurd testimony as grounds to hold that custodian legally liable.
So I’m wondering if it’s meaningful in evaluating other people or if it’s just a bunch more nonsense.
I have friends who have been appointed to the bench. I’ve heard that one of the tips older judges give to newbie judges is: “Before each day starts, write STFU on your hand where you can see it.”
His team huddled with the judge at the end of the day to see if they would get sanctioned if they did. Engoron said no. Habba then said they would be filing for mistrial ASAP.
In corporate America the correct answer is yes, everyone in the company has a responsibility to report fraud. And Trump just admitted that he knows that. So no, it’s not a flip answer. It’s a serious admission to the complicity of the senior executives of the Trump organization from the head of the company.
I don’t know about New York. I know about California. In heavily publicized trials, some lawyers are trying to score points in the Court of Public Opinion. That’s what I think is at work here – as it always is with Trump.
The fact that the defense attorneys asked the judge in advance if they would be sanctioned if they brought such a motion tells me everything I need to know about just how seriously they are taking it. Which is to say… not at all. (“Is this too frivolous for us to bring?”)
And I suppose that “pro forma” was perhaps a bit too generous. More like, “not uncommon.”
The first paragraph is what made me surprised about the “pro forma” comment. If its an ordinary thing, why would they worry about sanctions? Didn’t mean to nitpick.
This part was kind of funny. The defense is not allowed to speak ill of the Court staff or they will get sanctioned. The Defense wanted to know if they filed a motion for mistrial, on the basis of the Judge/staff doing things improperly, etc. would that motion be sanctionable as speaking ill of the Court staff (since they would be speaking ill of the staff in the motion)?
In a meta moment, the Judge consulted with his staff, then said no the motion would not be sanctionable.
(I’m paraphrasing from a NYT reporter that was there watching).
I think it’s also worth reiterating that – since Trump is gambling with other people’s (ie, the rubes’) money, and isn’t famous for actually paying his bills …
He can only win or tie.
A tie means he loses any number of cases where he was in Big Trouble wrt the facts and the law, no matter what.
But as long as he can get other people to write him checks, and attorneys of dubious quality to throw shit against the wall for him … I still don’t see how he has anything to lose by never retreating.
Stay on offense. Keep pushing forward. Never surrender (except in Fulton County, Georgia, of course).
[Even considering that his big mouth could theoretically get him jailed in even a Civil proceeding]
Everything’s a Hail Mary. When viewed through that lens, the insanity of their collective legal strategy isn’t entirely without its own detestable, emetic logic
I’d say because this is a bench trial, and to imply that the judge is so clueless that he can’t hear a case without bias is pretty insulting. I suspect they would not have asked about sanctions if it was a jury trial.
Unfortunately for the defense, the only issue that could have been tried by a jury was decided by Judge Engoron in his ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. And that… is extremely uncommon. He must be on such firm ground!
I compile a 1 page list of each day’s hrgs, with just a couple of main points to remind me of a couple of important aspects of each case. If I see an especially contentious lawyer is on the case, or the record suggests to me the client may be “challenging,” it is not at all uncommon for my notes to say, “SAY NOTHING!”
Re: responsibility for identifying fraud, the defense certainly had the opportunity to try to rehabilitate that, but they chose not to. I think it would be entirely appropriate for the judge to observe that, in addition to the statutory obligation of corporate officers to be aware of what they are signing, Trump’s flip answer supports a finding that the kiddos were not as “hands off” as they testified under oath.
