I agree and the judge will probably disallow a bunch of them because of relevance and redundancy.
Isn’t part of the issue that one value was used for obtaining loans but a lower value was used for taxation?
Indeed, and that will probably bring in an accountant or three to explain how, golly, it all makes perfect sense if you squint really hard and turn the document sideways.
ETA: I’m assuming the experts will have made sure they get their fees upfront. Probably will add a Trump boost.
First, I think that putting a large number of witnesses on the list is an obfuscation technique. The witness list gives clues as to the defense strategy and putting a large number of extraneous witnesses on the list can obscure the strategy.
And in this case — and I think it may be the main reason for the long list — it makes a lot of work for the prosecution—- who now has to figure out what business dealing(s) each witness was involved with, what their role was and what they might have to say in Trump’s defense.
And I see a lot of posts talking about whether “the bank” would’ve made the loan anyway. “The bank” can’t testify, individuals within the banking organizations can. And I don’t think everyone at the bank is necessarily on the same page, there are adversarial interests in play……while loan officers are interested in closing deals and might be willing to turn a blind eye to certain things, the underwriting team usually isnt as easygoing.
However, I have trouble believing that anyone from the bank is going to testify under oath that the supporting documents they receive from loan applicants don’t matter….even if their loan officers were complicit in the cheating they aren’t going to admit it.
I’m very interested to see what kind of defense they put forth. Their public statements don’t seem to indicate that they have much of one, but I’m curious if they’ll come up with something new.
Normally I’d agree with you, but in this particular case I don’t think Trump’s team has any real defense in mind in regards to the actual trial itself. i.e. I think the Trump team realizes they’ve already lost and there’s not much they can do. I’m guessing this is an attempt by Trump to delay a verdict by wasting the court’s time with many, many witnesses and to play to the crowd’s sympathy when/if Engoron strikes testimony that’s immaterial or otherwise tries to limit what they say.
Then they need to have the highest level bank executive testify first and state that of course that the Trump financial statements matter and that everyone under his authority is clearly informed of this requirement or they will become part of the fraud. Then see if they start taking the fifth.
Or since they have no say in the order of witnesses the prosecution could remind every witness of this fact.
The trumps may hope using Ivanka will exploit people’s sexism, but I have a hard time believing that anybody ever buys anything she says. Remember all those videos of her trying to mingle and everyone ignoring her? Here’s the best-known:
Which “anybody”?
At the G20 meeting you cited, everybody there to work, with the notable exception of prez trump, was a professional politician or statesperson or aide. High performance smart people. Then there was idiot trump. In that crowd Ivanka was recognized by those people for what she is; decorative arm candy for somebody as yet unchosen. With a side order of (ongoing?) incest.
Conversely to that crowd, lots of ordinary 'Murricans love celebrity. People magazine sells well for a reason. I can see lots of rubes being very interested in what she has to say. Just 'cuz she’s a rich hottie saying it. Not all of them will be politically active rubes, but with some effort she could find herself in a similar place with a similar interested following as, say, Britney Spears of a few years ago. Paris Hilton is an even better comparator. They might even know each other in real life.
She could certainly give Kardashians a run for their money now that they’ve become a bit passé. And once she has people listening, she can decide what she wants to yak about, be that politics or parties or fashions or drugs. Or fraud or incest.
I hope this isn’t a hijack, but I had to post it because it relates to the potential penalties of this case. From The Critic, ‘The Pilot’ (1994):
Can you break it down for us?
TrumpCo has been found guilty of fraud. The trial is to determine the penalties. The penalties include a $250 million fine, and the barring of TrumpCo from doing business in New York. Trump Tower is in New York. The gag is that in 1994, The Critic foresaw a time when Trump Tower would be foreclosed upon.
In case anyone doesn’t read your link about Ivanka, this is brilliant:
Thanks.
After doing some admittedly selective searches on those names with the word Trump tacked on the end, it appears most of these folks are in real estate appraisal or have connections to Cushman Wakefield who used to handle some financial matters for DJT or are employees of the Trump Corp such as Weisselberg.
I doubt there will be many, if any, who say will anything that comes close to helping DJT’s case.
that picture is fucking hilarious
I recognise the Yalta Conference, and I see Ivanka at the G20 conference. I’m missing something, though. I’m not sure why it’s funny.
I guess because she looks all chirpy and clueless to the gravity of the situation – and/or the other attendees look like they are thinking, “what is wrong with this woman??”
At G20 she shouldn’t have been there at all, it’s totally inappropriate. It’s a reductio ad absurdum of her inserting herself into summit negotiations and acting like she’s an important part of it.
You’re right, it’s great!
That photo belongs in the “Caption Contest” thread, over in Thread Games. I’m sure that the regular contributors could come up with some doozies for it.