Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354M, says frauds 'shock the conscience'

Clifford Robert, a lawyer for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., argued that his clients were caught in a political "fight between the attorney general and their father" and should be cleared from the fraud case, as part of the defense's motion for a directed verdict to end the trial

"The evidence is clear that my clients had no real involvement in the preparation of the statement of financial condition," Robert said in reference to the allegedly fraudulent documents that are at the center of the New York attorney general's case.

To demonstrate his point, Robert highlighted testimony from six witnesses who attested that Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were not involved in the preparation of their father's financial statements.

Trump attorney Chris Kise, arguing for a directed verdict to end the trial, said that the state relied on the testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen in an attempt to show that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to defraud lenders -- but that Cohen's inconsistent testimony doomed their effort.

Cohen testified that Trump spoke "like a mob boss" when he indirectly instructed Cohen and then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to inflate his financial statements, without explicitly saying so.

"This is not a man who speaks in code," Kise said, adding that "you will know what it is he wants" within minutes of talking to Trump.

Judge Arthur Engoron responded to Kise by mentioning what Trump called his "perfect call" in 2019 in with Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelenskiy, which became the basis for Trump's first impeachment, as an example of Trump speaking in code.

Kise said that the only other testimony that suggested there was a conspiracy to defraud lenders came from a junior Trump Organization executive who claimed Allen Weisselberg told him, "Mr. Trump wanted his net worth on the statement of financial condition to go up." Trump's lawyers have argued his testimony should be inadmissible as hearsay.

"Even if it came in, that statement alone is not proof of any agreement," Kise said.

The attorney general's office, in response to the defense's request for a directed verdict on the basis that the state failed to show that a bank or insurance company complained of fraud on the part of the Trump Organization, conceded that none of its witnesses were asked directly during the case whether they would have moved forward with a loan to the Trump Organization had they known about the fraudulent valuations alleged by the New York AG.

"Did any bank employee say, 'We would have done it different,' and if so who?" Judge Engoron asked the state attorneys.

"Mr. Haigh said that in his deposition," state attorney Kevin Wallace responded, referring to Nicholas Haigh of Deutsche Bank -- though Wallace acknowledged Haigh was not asked that during his direct examination.

Defense attorney Christopher Kise, in his argument for a directed verdict, said the state failed to present any evidence that a bank or insurance company would have dealt with the Trump Organization differently.

"There's no, even theoretical, argument that the approvals, rates or terms would have been different," Kise said. "Ultimately what matters is the decision-making process of the bank. If they would have approved it with this knowledge, then it's not material."

Kise also argued that the inclusion of the so-called "worthless" disclaimer in Trump's statements of financial condition -- which warned lenders that the valuations in the document required judgment and that they should do their own analysis -- prove that Trump had no intent to defraud.

That prompted Engoron to interject.

"You seem to be saying the fact that someone says 'Don't believe me' proves that they are not lying," Engoron said.

Former President Trump's defense team has moved for a directed verdict in the trial, arguing that New York Attorney General Letitia James has failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for the case to continue.

"The claims of the attorney general involve only successful and profitable loan transactions," defense attorney Christopher Kise argued. "There's no victim, there's no complainant, there's no injury."

Judge Arthur Engoron already determined in a pretrial partial summary judgment that Trump engaged in fraud by duping banks and insurance companies into giving him favorable loan terms based on statements of financial condition that overvalued his assets and inflated his net worth, leaving the trial to determine additional actions and what penalty, if any, the defendants should receive.

The defense is arguing that the state has failed to present evidence that a bank or insurance company complained of fraud or that Trump failed to meet his financial obligations.

"There's no intent to defraud, no defaults, no breach, no unjust profits and no victims," Kise said. "There's no record evidence that anything would have been different with the loan transactions or the insurance transactions."

Defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked Ivanka Trump during cross-examination yesterday what Deutsche Bank executives said after providing the financing for Trump's purchase and renovation of the Doral golf club in Miami.

"They were very happy," Ivanka Trump responded.

"If they believe they're being defrauded by someone, they're not doing business with them," Kise said of the banks.