[ad_1]
After more than two months of courtroom wrangling, major roadblocks and deep dives into financial statements, both sides of former President Donald Trump’s New York Fraudulent courts have called in their last experts, and now the trial is adjourned for a long break before it takes place. closing argument.
Trump’s defense team finished his presentation on Tuesday not with Trump, as they had originally planned, but with an influential accounting professor named Eli Bartov, who introduced the case of the New York Attorney General Letitia James against Trump “ridiculous.”
And on Wednesday, James’ team called two witnesses to rebut Bartov’s testimony and other experts called by Trump’s attorneys. The proceedings were fraught with objections from Trump’s lawyers, objections that occurred in a high rate throughout the trial.
This is the day that the testimony of the witness in the government fraud trial ended, which has now been raised to a new level. On January 11, both sides will begin presenting their closing arguments, and the judge plans to issue his decision a few weeks later.
How Trump’s fraud trial unfolded
The trial was a long and tense dispute between Trump and James, who was often in the room as their legal teams argued. Right from the start, they took turns hitting each other to the media gathered outside.
DAVID DEE DELGADO / Getty Images
trumpet attend opening remarks on October 2, drove his car downtown from Trump Tower on a nearly 80 degree day to declare James and the issue “a disgrace.” He later called his comments “baseless” and his comments to the press, “a revelation.”
It was the first of nine appearances he made during the case, in which he, his two sons and their company are accused of raking in more than $250 million through in a plan designed to defraud his wealth from banks and insurance companies. All defendants have denied wrongdoing.
The next day, on October 3, Trump published on his campaign website a defamatory statement about a secretary who works for Arthur Engoron, the judge in the case.
The post that got Trump a gag order. He and his campaign violated the order twice, and he paid $15,000 in fines.
The state initially presented its case and called more than 20 witnesses, including Trump himself, his children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump, as well as anonymous protesters who were former employees of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney. Ivanka Trump was the first to be charged in the case, but the charges against her were dismissed by the appeals court due to the statute of limitations.
According to James, Trump gave banks and insurers financial statements with deliberately false plans that went against generally accepted accounting principles, known as GAAP. Trump and his sons blamed any misstatements at the feet of their accountants, while their lawyers maintained that the statements were largely consistent with a less transparent part of the financial statement is called the standard of financial statements 274, or ASC 274. The standard, described by Bartov as “the stepchild of the GAAP,” allows for wide latitude for preparers when measuring asset values.
Throughout Trump’s appearance in court, he often spoke to members of the press who pressed two pens outside the courtroom. He offered an explanation on topics ranging from the case and the judge, to Capitol Hill and his opponents for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. On October 25, however, he called Engoron “a very biased person to live with”.
The judge was very angry. His secretary, who was the subject of the social network that caused the gag order, sits right next to him throughout the proceedings. About an hour later, Engoron called Trump to the stand.
Engoron questioned Trump under oath. Trump said he was referring to the witness, his opponent and former “fixer” Michael Cohen, who was sitting about five feet away from the judge. Engoron didn’t buy it. At the beginning of the case, Trump was fined $5,000 after his campaign neglected to repeat the offending social media post. This time, Engoron fined him $10,000.
“Do it again, it will be worse,” said Engoron.
On November 6, James’ team called Trump to the stand. With the fate of his company on the line, Trump conflict with Engoron and mocked Jacob, who was sitting in the front row.
He gave lengthy answers to questions about the Trump Organization’s property values and other issues. The judge was impatient, but Christopher Kise, one of Trump’s lawyers, urged him to allow Trump to give answers in his own way.
“This testimony suggests that it is better to listen to his story and accept it,” said Kise, prompting laughter from the lawyers working for the Attorney General. Engoron was not pleased. His anger seemed to boil over, and his microphone struggled to handle the sudden change in volume as he raised his voice.
“No, I’m not here to listen to his story,” said Engoron, a line that would later be used in Trump campaign solicitations. “I have come to hear him answer questions. Sit down!”
On November 16, a New York appeals judge temporarily stayed the order against Trump, pending an appeal. Within hours, Trump and his staff again attacked the secretary, especially on social media. Before the appeal was rejected and the gag reinstated on November 30, the secretary received several threats, often threatening, according to a court security official who issued a statement. swear
Trump’s team tried again to withdraw the order, but to no avail. The case is still pending before the appeals court.
Trump was intended to testify Monday, but later, a large group of security and the national media gathered in the winter for no show. Trump announced late Sunday that he had changed his mind about running again.
On Tuesday he said it was because he was prevented from criticizing the judge’s secretary.
“I wanted to testify on Monday, despite the fact that I have already testified successfully…” he wrote on his social media website, before adding, “the Judge, Arthur Engoron, gave me a GAG ORDER, even if I testify, I will be completely deprived of my rights constitution to protect me. We appeal, but how do you want to be a witness and not be allowed to speak honestly.”