The recent activities within the ongoing civil fraud case against the former president, Donald Trump, have taken quite a turn as Trump’s defense lawyers filed, for the fifth time, a motion for directed verdict. The filled motion repeats arguments that have been unsuccessful in the past two years. These include claims that Trump never lied on his financial statements, and if there were any inaccuracies, a supposed “ironclad disclaimer clause” makes him immune to prosecution.
The presiding Justice, Arthur Engoron, was unimpressed by the arguments and was quoted stating “Valuations, as elucidated ad nauseum in this trial, can be based on different criteria analyzed in different ways. But a lie is still a lie,” in reference to Trump’s representation of various properties and assets. Justice Engoron continued to point out various instances he characterized as “misstatements at best and fraud at worst.”
Two expert witnesses were called to support Trump’s case, NYU Professor Eli Bartov and former SEC accountant Jason Flemmons, but their credibility was hit hard. Bartov, who initially praised Trump’s statements, admitted to receiving almost $900,000 for his testimony. Justice Engoron went onto undermine their credibility by pointing out several inconsistencies and contradictory opinions.
The case against Trump, where the state asks for a hefty $250 million fine, continues to take up the legal spotlight. The presiding judge remarked that ill-gotten gains can call for disgorgement, challenging Trump’s claim that no one was damaged, thus making a fine inappropriate. With post-trial briefs due on January 5th and closing arguments scheduled for the 11th, we wait in anticipation for the next dramatic turn of events.