When are people going to get it: no penalty will ever deter him.
Better to say, “No realistic penalty”. Any cash penalty will just be paid by his hordes of useful idiots.
A stint in actual jail would probably shut him right up, but I don’t think that’s realistically going to happen prior to an actual conviction.
If you ask the head chef of a restaurant with 3 Michelin Stars to make an entree using only half a box of breath mints, a package of stale Oreos, a ramen packet (without the seasoning), and a bottle of expired ranch dressing, it’s not going to come out looking like Beef Wellington.
Of course, a smart chef (or less greedy one) would care about their reputation and walk away as soon as they saw the challenge.
Wish I could have been there today.
Closing arguments have been scheduled for Jan 11, 2024 @ 10am.
From the Raw Story report:
Kise, drawing on testimony from witness Robert Unell, argued Trump’s favorable loan terms were part and parcel of his rank as a private wealth management client, or a wealthy whale the bank had successfully harpooned, according to the report.
And Captain Deutsche Bank gets the gold coin nailed to the mast!
Any of you accounting/legal experts hasvean opinion on Eli Bartov’s expert opinion that everything in Trump’s accounting was honky-dory? I understand that the judge has already found this is not the case but what impact could his testimony have? I find it interesting that the state has relied on his expertise as a witness for the prosecution in other cases but assume that has no bearing here, from a legal standpoint.
I think he is acting like someone who got paid $500K to testify. That’s the figure I heard on the news, anyway.
I’m neither of those things, but I’d have to see the transcripts of his actual testimony to have an opinion.
Because … I can easily imagine that the implication of his statement(s) was that the math – done by Trump Org and Mazars – was correct.
Without saying that every number that underlies that math is legitimate, valid, reasonable, and arrived at in a fair, objective, and standard way.
I don’t really know what he was testifying to, but the potential for weasel-words and lies of omission – unless the Prosecutors drilled him hard on cross-examination – is high.
TL;DR: the accounting professor, in theory, could have simply done what Mazars did: compiled the numbers they were given without validating and vetting every single line item within.
I can say that I made $5 in income and with a tax rate of 20% then I owe $1 in taxes. That math is completely correct. It doesn’t mean that I am legally in the clear.
In a not-at-all-surprising development, Trump has decided not to testify on Monday:
Why testify again when you’ve already given the perfect testimony?
Well, clearly the reason for testifying would be to drag this thing out for long enough that eventually some guy on the street will catch up with the bailiff and cut him 4 ways (long, wide, deep and repeatedly).
Making Attorneys Get Attorneys
My own feeling as to why Trump chose not to testify, is that his lawyers would not allow him to turn the proceeding into something where he could bombast and bluff.
I think his lawyers advised him that they would tailor questions so narrowly, that his only answers could be “Yes” or “No.” He would not be able to distract into “stolen election,” or “deep state,” or “weaponized FBI or DOJ,” or anything to do with Hunter Biden, BLM, or the southern border, or anything else he can think of that distracts and takes up time. His lawyers would make this about the matter at hand, while Trump thought of the proceeding as nothing more than a campaign stop. He didn’t see it as “Yes” or “No” questions, in other words; it was a time and place where he could blat out all his crapola: “Well, I’m tending towards … wait, before I say ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ we have to consider …” And then he’d go off on a rant about whatever is bothering him.
Just my opinion. Trump did not need to testify Monday, and opted not to, because he didn’t like that his lawyers told him that the other side would keep the proceedings on track if he went off-script. His own lawyers could toss him softball Yes/No questions, and as long as he answered “Yes” or “No,” everything would be fine. But he didn’t like hearing that, so he took his ball and went home.
Since it’s trump we’re talking about, I think it’s hard to know. He is unpredictable in some ways, but I personally don’t think he ever intended to testify. It’s a different look to scowl and look “badass” from the witness stand vs the desk with the attorneys. Plus he likes to take the 5th when it matters. I’m sure he’ll fund raise the money he needs to pay the fine anyway.
Yeah, I think his “deciding” not to testify was his lawyers realizing his testimony would wander off like a child walking next to a freeway, causing more risk than reward to the case, so they buttered him up with “you’ll look better and stronger by not testifying” or somesuch.
When you’re under oath, are you only under oath about the statements you make that are relevant to the trial or does it cover everything you say? That is, if he goes off script and rambles and those rambling contain things he knows to be untrue, is it still perjury?
My gut says they are, but then I also wonder why no one’s gone after him for those types of things, based on my assumption that he’s likely perjured himself in that way at some point or another.
A lot of his statements don’t have a truth value, but are just unenforceable puffery. Like, saying that something associated with him is the “best ever”. You can’t really say that it’s a lie, in any legally-enforceable sense, that “Trump Steaks are the best steaks ever”.