Trump revels after Hialeah rally as fraud trial lawyers prep defence case: Live

New York Attorney General counsel Andrew Amer is now arguing that the court bar four of the expert witnesses put forward by Donald Trump’s defence team as part of their case against fraud charges levelled at the former president and the Trump Organization.

As Judge Arthur Engoron made a pre-trial ruling that found the defendants liable of the headline charge of fraud — leaving the trial to proceed on the remaining claims of insurance fraud, issuing false financial statements, falsifying business records and conspiracy — the NY AG now contends that some of the expert witnesses are no longer relevant.

“The valuation and accounting issues raised in this case with respect to the preparation of the [financial statements] have already been resolved in plaintiff’s favour by the court on summary judgment,” the NY AG’s office said in a letter filed last night.

Amer tells Judge Engoron: “This trial is not their opportunity to attempt to get a do-over on the summary judgment motion.”

Trump attorney Christopher Kise is especially indignant at this notion, claiming that the NY AG doesn’t want them to argue a defence case.

Returning from the morning break, Judge Arthur Engoron tells both parties that while the defendants were long-winded and the plaintiffs were “medium-winded” he would be short in his response to their arguments for and against a directed verdict:

“Taken under advisement,” he tells them, implying the possibility of a written order on his ruling.

Trump defence attorney Christopher Kise responds to the New York Attorney General counsel’s arguments against a directed verdict by likening their whole case to throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.

Judge Engoron quips: “You have to be careful talking about spaghetti around lunchtime.”

Court then adjourned for the morning break.

The New York Attorney General’s counsel Kevin Wallace makes the case against a directed verdict before Judge Engoron.

He argues: “This is a documents case, and each of the three defendants signed documents stating that they were responsible” for the information collated in the statements of financial condition.

“That’s the graveyard the defendants keep whistling past,” he adds.

Justice Engoron asks Wallace if he does his own taxes. Wallace says he had an accountant do them when he was at a law firm, but not now that he works for the state.

“Did you rely on your accountants at the time?” the judge asks.

“The defendants here relied on their accountants, highly paid accountants [and] lawyers,” Judge Engoron says.

“If I […] gave my accountants false information, I’m liable for that” if the returns are found to be fraudulent, he replies.

Wallace emphasises that the defendants are still responsible for the accuracy of the information in the financial statements since they signed certifications attesting that everything was accurate.

“I think there’s simply no basis for a directed verdict at this point,” Wallace says.

Attorney Clifford Robert, representing Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, also makes his pitch for a directed verdict to Judge Engoron, underlining his contention that neither of his clients was involved in the creation of the statement of financial condition.

Robert says the NY AG hasn’t shown that there’s anything wrong with Eric relying on others at the company and outside accountants to assure him that the information in the statements of financial condition was accurate.

As for Don Jr, Robert says that while his client didn’t recall specifics, hr testified he would have sat with the finance team and accountants before certifying the statements of financial condition and would have asked questions about anything that stood out. He too relied on their expertise.

Christopher Kise argues against the New York Attorney General’s suggested fine of $250m for the defendants saying that there is no demonstration of any connection between the purported ill-gotten gains and the conduct of the defendants.

He also argues that any transaction before July 2014 falls outside of the statute of limitations and subsequent certifications by Trump folks of his compliance with the terms of those loans cannot support the allegations either.

Kise concludes by saying that there is no proof that the loans would not have been made if the banks had different information from the Trump Organization or if they would have been made under less favourable terms.

“This is what happens in the real world, not the world of make-believe, not the attorney general’s world,” Kise says.

As you will have seen from our post on Donald Trump’s earlier Truth Social rant about the trial (and his many before that), one of the big bones of contention from the defence team is that Michael Cohen, former Trump lawyer and fixer-turned-”star-witness”, did not offer the killer testimony that many had expected.

Essentially, Cohen testified that at no point did Trump tell him to change the statements of financial condition — rather he implied it or gave directives in code to Cohen and Weisselberg.

The defence claims that Cohen admitted to perjury in his testimony and has lied in every courtroom in which he has appeared.

Kise also contends that Trump is not a person who talks in code — though Judge Engoron questions that recalling the alleged “perfect” phone call in which the then-president tried to cajole Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating the Bidens.

(NB – Judge Engoron acknowledges that the “perfect” call was a political matter and he will only base his judgement on the evidence presented at trial).

It was after Cohen’s testimony that the defence last tried to get a directed verdict and Trump stormed out of the courtroom. Here’s our reporting from that day in court:

Donald Trump’s lead defence attorney Christopher Kise argues to Justice Arthur Engoron: “The claims involve only successful and profitable loan transactions.”

He adds that there were no late payments and the loans were all paid back — therefore there is no victim, no complainant, no injury: “All of that is established now.”

Kise also says that in any court in the country, Mr Trump would qualify as an expert on real estate.

A discussion regarding “materiality” commences: do any of the false financial statements matter to the banks and insurance companies using them for loans and coverage?

Justice Engoron calls Kise’s next point misleading — that the court stated it is “not here to hear what [Donald Trump] has to say. The judge asks if he heard what he had to say immediately after that…

The New York Attorney General’s counsel helpfully interjects that Judge Engoron went on to say that he was here to hear Mr Trump answer questions.

There is further scepticism from Judge Engoron concerning the defence’s contention that the disclaimer the Trump Organization put on its statements of financial condition undermines any claims of fraudulent intent.

Perhaps the most compelling line from the defence team is that there is no evidence to suggest that banks would not have offered the Trump Organization loans if the financial statements were accurate — no lender has testified that that was the case.

However, the disgorgement expert calculated what the interest rates and payments would be on loans had they been offered using accurate financial statements. The defendants would have paid an additional $168m in interest to lenders and the AG argues that is the basis of the fraud allegation.

The New York Attorney General’s counsel has rested the prosecution case against Donald Trump et al in the civil fraud trial playing out on the third floor of the New York State Supreme Court in Lower Manhattan.

However, before the defence gets going with its case on Monday, Judge Arthur Engoron is hearing arguments over defence motions.

Trump’s lead attorney Christopher Kise is up first to argue the defence’s motion for a directed verdict. He’s brought a slide deck of his arguments to show the court and keep everyone amused.

The defence already moved for a directed verdict in their favour back on 25 October, with Judge Engoron noting that there was “enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom” before “absolutely” denying the motion.

The former president is not present, nor are his family or codefendants.