What to know
- Donald Trump testified today in New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud trial against the former president and others.
- The former president repeatedly lashed out at James and Judge Arthur Engoron, prompting the judge to call on Trump's lawyers to "control" their client.
- James has accused Trump; his eldest sons, Don Jr. and Eric; the Trump Organization and others of fraudulently inflating the values of Trump's assets for financial gain. She is seeking $250 million in penalties.
- The trial is now in its fourth week, with Don Jr. and Eric having taken the stand last week. The AG's office is expected to rest its case on Wednesday after Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump's eldest daughter, testifies.
N.Y. AG James: 'I will not be bullied. I will not be harassed."
Trump and James separately addressed the press outside the courtroom after the former president's testimony wrapped up for the day.
While Trump called for the case to be dismissed "immediately," James told reporters that "this case will go on."
"I will not be bullied," she said. "I will not be harassed. ... Justice will prevail."
Why Trump's lawyers declined to cross-examine him
After the N.Y. AG’s direct examination concluded this afternoon, Trump’s lawyers declined to cross-examine their client. Obviously, it would have been more of a cross-examination of the state’s case rather than of Trump himself — at least, that’s what they would have hoped. But at any rate, they opted not to do that. Why?
A lawyer might decline cross-examination for any number of reasons, including that they don’t think the direct examination did enough damage that needs to be rectified — or, perhaps more to the point here, that cross-examination wouldn’t sufficiently rectify the damage done.
Of course, the defense will have the opportunity to present its own case, so stay tuned. And remember, as I noted earlier, this civil case is different procedurally from a criminal trial, where the prosecution would first present its case without calling the defense to the stand, and it’s then up to the defendant whether to testify or put on any evidence at all.
There’s also the fact that this case has been proceeding in front of a judge rather than a jury. Had this been a jury trial — which, again, Trump isn’t entitled to in this sort of case — his lawyers might not have loved the idea of having jurors watch their client get pummeled by the government all day and then go home for the night without that testimony being challenged in a narrative way by opposing counsel.
Likewise, there can be a dramatic effect to foregoing cross-examination in front of a jury — as if to signal the foregoing lawyer’s view of the weakness of the case on direct examination. But given that any of the in-court theatrics here have been and will be for the benefit of Trump himself and/or his fans, there’s a different calculation at play here.
Expect Trump, Eric and Don Jr. to be called to testify again
In case you were wondering if Team Trump will present a case, the answer is absolutely. Chris Kise, Trump’s lead counsel, has just stated that he expects to begin their case in chief next Monday and conclude by Dec. 15, a week ahead of the anticipated end of the trial.
Avid court watchers can therefore expect that some of the witnesses called already in the AG’s case — notably Eric, Don Jr. and Donald Trump himself — will appear again as witnesses in the defense’s case in chief.
Team Trump foreshadows potential motion for mistrial
In the guise of housekeeping, Team Trump is foreshadowing motions they will make at the conclusion of the AG’s case, such as a motion for a mistrial or directed verdict. The lawyers are hinting that it has something to do with the subject of the existing gag order and likely concerns the judge’s principal law clerk, but not, as Trump attorney Aline Habba noted, her notes with Engoron.
Engoron instructs them that they cannot make such a motion to the extent that it would trigger the gag order.
Habba clarifies that the existence and content of the notes are not the subject of their anticipated motions. She asks if they can have an opportunity to be heard on those issues, even if they would fall within the gag order.
Engoron relents and says they may do so in writing; Habba pledges to do so “delicately.” Engoron asks them to do so through a procedural mechanism known as an order to show cause, which the judge will see but which is not filed until he signs it.
Neal Katyal: Where Trump's strategy was successful
Trump whines again about lacking a jury he isn’t entitled to
As he did yesterday — and not for the first time then — Trump complained in an afternoon rant on the witness stand about not having a jury in his civil fraud trial.
But there’s a simple reason he doesn’t have a jury: This type of case proceeding against him doesn’t use juries. Indeed, Trump’s own legal team previously pressed Judge Engoron to put on the record that this sort of case doesn’t entitle Trump to a jury, to make it clear why they didn’t ask for one.
Trump steps off the witness stand as testimony wraps up
Trump is off the stand for the day. The New York attorney general's office has completed its direct examination of the former president. Trump's legal team has elected not to cross-examine him.
Trump says what happened to Weisselberg was 'sad'
Judge Engoron says Trump sounds like a “broken record.” Trump's legal team predictably disagrees, with Trump attorney Christopher Kise insisting that it’s the AG who has been repetitive by focusing on minutia in contracts they were not entitled to enforce.
Wallace moves on and asks whether former Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg’s guilty plea to tax fraud caused him to change his opinion of the work Weisselberg did for him. Trump suggests Weisselberg was persecuted because of his association with Trump, and that what happened was “sad” because Weisselberg was simply trying to pay for the education of his grandchildren in a certain way.
Wallace asks if Trump was ever aware that Weisselberg was being compensated through an apartment paid for by the company? Trump acknowledges he knew.
Wallace then asks if he was aware that Weisselberg was reporting transactions inaccurately in the books and records of the company. Trump says he learned that only in connection with the tax fraud trial.
Asked whether he will be making changes to the internal controls of the Trump Org. based on what he’s learned from this lawsuit, Trump says, “It will depend on what the accountants say,” perhaps informed by lawyers. Trump says it’s possible that they will change and that he’s asked for a recommendation.
But when asked who he asked for such a recommendation, Habba is on her feet, strenuously instructing Trump not to answer questions about conversations that took place in the presence of counsel.
Wallace asks again, “Are you aware of any changes that will be made to the financial reporting systems of the Trump Organization?” Trump said he is expecting recommendations from accountants and lawyers and will be consulting with his son Eric.
After asking whether the Trump Org. will be hiring a chief compliance officer, to which Trump demurred and said it was recommended, the AG's office rests.
Expect this number to show up again in closing arguments
Wallace asks Trump now about the proceeds from the Old Post Office sale, which I have previously predicted could be key to the N.Y. attorney general's calculation of what profits from defendants’ fraud must be disgorged. The email reflects that Trump himself was expected to receive $126 million with each of the adult kids expected to receive roughly $4 million.
When asked how much profit he obtained from that transaction, Trump responded, “Above or around that number.” He was also asked if the total proceeds were $139 million, and again, he affirmed that the total was around or above that number.
Expect these figures to show up again in closing arguments, in briefing, or both.
Trump keeps pushing this line about his financial statements
One of Trump’s repeated themes today is that notwithstanding clear contractual language requiring the submission of his statements of financial condition and his certification that those statements were true and accurate, they were not important to the bank at all.
He has promised the bank will even testify to that effect. File that promise away for the defense’s case in chief, which is expected to begin Thursday or early next week.