Trump's NY civil trial

[mspart]

Does anyone think it is weird that the judge passed judgement on Trump before the trial even started?   He essentially took away his business licences in NY.   An appellate court reinstated them until they can hear the case.   That is weird to me. 

Here is some more weird:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4296283-trump-chaotic-testimony-new-york-fraud-trial/

...  Before the trial even began last month, Engoron found Trump, the Trump Organization and other defendants, including some of his adult children, liable for fraud. Engoron ruled that James had proved the crux of her case that claims the Trumps falsely inflated and deflated the value of the business’ assets to receive lower taxes and better insurance coverage.

... As Trump answered questions about his 40 Wall Street property, he snidely remarked that the property’s valuation at $550 million was a “very low number” and that “all you have to do is look at a picture of the building” to know that. 

After that remark, Engoron admonished Kise again to take control of his client.

“I would think, respectfully — of all witnesses — your honor would want to hear everything this witness has to say,” Kise said.

“No, I do not want to hear everything this witness has to say,” Engoron angrily replied while Trump shook his head and smiled.

“I am not here and these people are not here to hear what he has to say; we are here to hear him answer questions,” Engoron continued. “It’s very simple. Is this an accurate number? It’s very simple.”

Unprompted, the former president replied: “This is a very unfair trial — very, very — and I hope the public is watching.”

... Trump calls judge, NY AG ‘frauds’

Perhaps the most heated moment of Trump’s testimony occurred when the former president launched a rant raging against the judge and New York attorney general, calling them “frauds” and “political hacks.”

“It’s a disgrace that a case like this is going on; all you have to do is read the legal scholars — the papers — and you’ll know,” Trump said, raising his voice. “This is a political witch hunt.”

Wallace, the state lawyer, had been questioning Trump about whether the former president believed his properties were undervalued on his statements of financial condition and attempted to veer the questioning back in that direction, but Trump ignored him and continued the rant.

“Even yesterday, she’s out there saying ‘fraud, fraud.’ The fraud is her,” Trump said, referring to James.

“He called me a fraud and he didn’t know anything about me,” Trump said of Engoron.

What judge says the court doesn't want to hear what the witness says?  I have never heard of that.  As I see it, Trump answered questions with additional pertinent information that the judge apparently did not want to hear.   Well the judge did call him a fraud before the trial so why would he want to hear him.   Get it over with so they can get the judgement brought down that has been predetermined.   This case will be appealed for sure, it has been horribly mishandled by the judge.   The judge is interrupting rather than one of the attorneys taking exception to the testimony.   Trump will lose this case because the judge already has it out for him as determined by his pre trial censure of his case by finding him liable for fraud - before the case was even litigated.   Who does that?   Yes, the judge is not impartial by any means.   But I guess he thinks he is immune because everyone must be on his side.   This is not how American jurisprudence is conducted.   I have never heard of such a thing.   If it can be done to Trump, it can be done to any of us.   This is wrong.   I'd like to hear how this is not wrong by someone that knows that judicial process.   

mspart

 

[Le duke]

Huh?

The current trial is for DAMAGES.

The previous bench trial (which Trump elected to pursue) was to determine civil liability, where he was found liable. That one ended in late September.

How are you so mistaken about this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VakAttack]

Yes, in a trial, you don't get to give speeches, you respond to questions.  Trump tried to do his Trump shtick and that's not going to fly in a court room.

 

As to "the judge passing judgment before the trial" that's now what happened.  The trial is essentially in two parts, guilt phase and penalty phase.  Trump and his attorneys elected to do a bench trial (that is, no jury), so the judge ruled after the guilt phase was over.  Now we're in the penalty portion. 

[Le duke]

Yes, in a trial, you don't get to give speeches, you respond to questions.  Trump tried to do his Trump shtick and that's not going to fly in a court room.
 
As to "the judge passing judgment before the trial" that's now what happened.  The trial is essentially in two parts, guilt phase and penalty phase.  Trump and his attorneys elected to do a bench trial (that is, no jury), so the judge ruled after the guilt phase was over.  Now we're in the penalty portion. 

For a guy so sure of his opinions, the OP got remarkably few of the facts correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

Does anyone think it is weird that the judge passed judgement on Trump before the trial even started?   

 

That Trump chose a bench trial and lost that trial has been very widely reported.

[Le duke]

That Trump chose a bench trial and lost that trial has been very widely reported.

Only by fake news organizations, such as Reuters, in…September.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-finds-trump-liable-fraud-new-york-civil-case-2023-09-26/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

13 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

That Trump chose a bench trial and lost that trial has been very widely reported.

Which means that it will be more likely to be overturned on appeal.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

Which means that it will be more likely to be overturned on appeal.  

What makes you think that?

I do not know either way. And I certainly do not know the ins and outs of the judicial process like @VakAttack, so would be interested in his experience.

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

What makes you think that?

I do not know either way. And I certainly do not know the ins and outs of the judicial process like @VakAttack, so would be interested in his experience.

There is no particular reason that a bench trial would make it more likely to be overturned on an appeal.  There are two different roles in trial, there's the finder of of law/referee (which the judge typically occupies) and the finder of fact (most commonly the jury).  People have a right to waive a jury and instead as the judge to be both the finder of law and fact.  In Florida, at least, both parties have to agree to that.  I don't know for certain that this is required in NY, but it's incontrovertible that Trump's legal team asked for the bench trial and that AG James et al. had no problem with that.

Appellate courts typically defer to the lower level courts on findings of fact, since the appellate courts aren't "in the room" so to speak, they typically will focus their rulings on legal rulings by the lower court.  They CAN go into the findings of fact, but it takes something like "no reasonable jury/finder of fact could have found this to be true" type stuff.

[Offthemat]

“At the start of the trial, Engoron noted that no parties in the case requested a jury trial and that the law mandated a “bench trial” decided by a judge.

“You have probably noticed or already read that this case has no jury,” Engoron said. “Neither side asked for one and, in any event, the remedies sought are all equitable in nature, mandating that the trial be a bench trial, one that a judge alone decides.””

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-civil-fraud-trial-11-03-23/h_fef9333c0358b61562c48578c2c0f80d
 

While it isn’t memorialized in print, it is simply more likely to find one person to have made a flawed decision than a judge and jury.  It makes an appeal more likely to be viewed with respect to finding, as well as procedure. 

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

“At the start of the trial, Engoron noted that no parties in the case requested a jury trial and that the law mandated a “bench trial” decided by a judge.

“You have probably noticed or already read that this case has no jury,” Engoron said. “Neither side asked for one and, in any event, the remedies sought are all equitable in nature, mandating that the trial be a bench trial, one that a judge alone decides.””

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-civil-fraud-trial-11-03-23/h_fef9333c0358b61562c48578c2c0f80d
 

While it isn’t memorialized in print, it is simply more likely to find one person to have made a flawed decision than a judge and jury.  It makes an appeal more likely to be viewed with respect to finding, as well as procedure. 

That is just incorrect.  Again, appellate courts are typically reviewing the judge's legal rulings anyway, not the factual findings of a judge/jury, so they're already reviewing the decision of one person.  It makes it no more likely for a successful appeal.

[Offthemat]

This might catch their eye.  
 

 

[mspart]

To be honest, I had not read anywhere where Trump was already tried in front of a judge.   If that is the case, then my argument is moot of course.    I thought the judge made the determination before the trial, which is what all the new agencies are calling the current event.   You have to admit, if this is the trial, the judge would have been wildly out of bounds which is what I thought was happening. 

Again, I have only heard of one trial, the one going on now.   I was not aware there was a bench trial to establish guilt and then a penalty trial.   I have never heard of a penalty trial.   Civil trials usually end with the penalty.   Criminal trials will sometimes have a penalty phase or hearing after the main trial. 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4299301-new-york-fraud-trial-ivanka-trump-testify/

Ivanka Trump takes the stand in New York fraud trial targeting family business: Live updates

This is from today's TheHill.com.   This says the fraud trial.   That's what I was going on.   Perhaps the news media has it wrong as well. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/trump-civil-trial-new-york-00119297

Trump goes to trial in New York before a judge who just ruled he’s a fraud

Again, Politico says similar.   They don't say penalty phase of the trial, just the fraud trial. 

So if what you folks are saying is true, then I was wrong, and apologize.   But in looking on Google, I'm not finding anything about a prior trial, just that the judge made the decision.   I welcome any links that can be provided to allow me to understand this more.

mspart

 

mspart

[VakAttack]

19 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This might catch their eye.  
 

 

Despite being the esteemed journalist responsible for founding "Loomered", nah, probably not.  They probably won't even consider it unless Trump's attorneys file something preserving the issue for an appeal. Then they would have to establish if this is actually his wife (a Google search is inconclusive on this). Even then, you then have to tie her political opinions on a criminal issue to somehow causing her husband to be biased in a civil trial, and show evidence of where that bias occurred.  Coming from the party of Clarence and Ginny Thomas, though, this is rich.

Edited November 8, 2023 by VakAttack

[WrestlingRasta]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

To be honest, I had not read anywhere where Trump was already tried in front of a judge.   

Maybe we can see this as a golden opportunity to reevaluate from where we get….and believe….our ‘news’. 

First question to ask yourself: “are they giving me the whole full story, or just what the want me to run off and repeat?”

[Offthemat]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

To be honest, I had not read anywhere where Trump was already tried in front of a judge.   If that is the case, then my argument is moot of course.    I thought the judge made the determination before the trial, which is what all the new agencies are calling the current event.   You have to admit, if this is the trial, the judge would have been wildly out of bounds which is what I thought was happening. 

Again, I have only heard of one trial, the one going on now.   I was not aware there was a bench trial to establish guilt and then a penalty trial.   I have never heard of a penalty trial.   Civil trials usually end with the penalty.   Criminal trials will sometimes have a penalty phase or hearing after the main trial. 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4299301-new-york-fraud-trial-ivanka-trump-testify/

Ivanka Trump takes the stand in New York fraud trial targeting family business: Live updates

This is from today's TheHill.com.   This says the fraud trial.   That's what I was going on.   Perhaps the news media has it wrong as well. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/trump-civil-trial-new-york-00119297

Trump goes to trial in New York before a judge who just ruled he’s a fraud

Again, Politico says similar.   They don't say penalty phase of the trial, just the fraud trial. 

So if what you folks are saying is true, then I was wrong, and apologize.   But in looking on Google, I'm not finding anything about a prior trial, just that the judge made the decision.   I welcome any links that can be provided to allow me to understand this more.

mspart

 

mspart

If my memory is correct, the two sides submitted their written arguments to the court and the judge ruled on that.  There was a court convened where he read his finding but I don’t remember how much either side interacted, if at all.  This was the point where all the hoopla started because some real estate appraiser submitted an appraisal with extremely low valuations for Trump’s properties.  Trump didn’t attend this proceeding but had plenty to say about it.  

Did a quick search and found this:

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201893212/new-york-judge-order-letitia-james-trump-fraud-case

So there wasn’t a previous trial, just part of the charges were granted summary judgement  

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Offthemat

[mspart]

21 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Maybe we can see this as a golden opportunity to reevaluate from where we get….and believe….our ‘news’. 

First question to ask yourself: “are they giving me the whole full story, or just what the want me to run off and repeat?”

So The Hill and Politico, the sources I cited are not believable?   NYT calls it a Trial going on now as well.   Everyone is.   That's all it is known by.   So yes, I try to research but when everyone says it, tough to find someone who doesn't when you have no reason to go searching.

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

18 minutes ago, mspart said:

So The Hill and Politico, the sources I cited are not believable?   NYT calls it a Trial going on now as well.   Everyone is.   That's all it is known by.   So yes, I try to research but when everyone says it, tough to find someone who doesn't when you have no reason to go searching.

mspart

So how would you explain the so many that did fully understand this part is just about damages, and the finding of guilt has already been established in the previous. I mean, I’ve read it several times, have for weeks. There is a trial going on now….for damages. There was a trial going previously….for verdict. 
 

“Everyone” is a very ultimate term.  But maybe, just maybe, the reason…’everyone’…. Is only talking about this trial, is because the previous trial is widely known, aka not news. 
 

 

[Offthemat]

41 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

So how would you explain the so many that did fully understand this part is just about damages, and the finding of guilt has already been established in the previous. I mean, I’ve read it several times, have for weeks. There is a trial going on now….for damages. There was a trial going previously….for verdict. 
 

“Everyone” is a very ultimate term.  But maybe, just maybe, the reason…’everyone’…. Is only talking about this trial, is because the previous trial is widely known, aka not news. 
 

 

It wasn’t a separate trial.  
 

“Though Judge Engoron ruled on some of the major elements of James' suit against Trump and his associates, there remain six other claims that will be argued at trial.”

again:

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201893212/new-york-judge-order-letitia-james-trump-fraud-case

[BobDole]

On 11/7/2023 at 8:04 PM, mspart said:

Does anyone think it is weird that the judge passed judgement on Trump before the trial even started?   He essentially took away his business licences in NY.   An appellate court reinstated them until they can hear the case.   That is weird to me. 

Here is some more weird:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4296283-trump-chaotic-testimony-new-york-fraud-trial/

...  Before the trial even began last month, Engoron found Trump, the Trump Organization and other defendants, including some of his adult children, liable for fraud. Engoron ruled that James had proved the crux of her case that claims the Trumps falsely inflated and deflated the value of the business’ assets to receive lower taxes and better insurance coverage.

... As Trump answered questions about his 40 Wall Street property, he snidely remarked that the property’s valuation at $550 million was a “very low number” and that “all you have to do is look at a picture of the building” to know that. 

After that remark, Engoron admonished Kise again to take control of his client.

“I would think, respectfully — of all witnesses — your honor would want to hear everything this witness has to say,” Kise said.

“No, I do not want to hear everything this witness has to say,” Engoron angrily replied while Trump shook his head and smiled.

“I am not here and these people are not here to hear what he has to say; we are here to hear him answer questions,” Engoron continued. “It’s very simple. Is this an accurate number? It’s very simple.”

Unprompted, the former president replied: “This is a very unfair trial — very, very — and I hope the public is watching.”

... Trump calls judge, NY AG ‘frauds’

Perhaps the most heated moment of Trump’s testimony occurred when the former president launched a rant raging against the judge and New York attorney general, calling them “frauds” and “political hacks.”

“It’s a disgrace that a case like this is going on; all you have to do is read the legal scholars — the papers — and you’ll know,” Trump said, raising his voice. “This is a political witch hunt.”

Wallace, the state lawyer, had been questioning Trump about whether the former president believed his properties were undervalued on his statements of financial condition and attempted to veer the questioning back in that direction, but Trump ignored him and continued the rant.

“Even yesterday, she’s out there saying ‘fraud, fraud.’ The fraud is her,” Trump said, referring to James.

“He called me a fraud and he didn’t know anything about me,” Trump said of Engoron.

What judge says the court doesn't want to hear what the witness says?  I have never heard of that.  As I see it, Trump answered questions with additional pertinent information that the judge apparently did not want to hear.   Well the judge did call him a fraud before the trial so why would he want to hear him.   Get it over with so they can get the judgement brought down that has been predetermined.   This case will be appealed for sure, it has been horribly mishandled by the judge.   The judge is interrupting rather than one of the attorneys taking exception to the testimony.   Trump will lose this case because the judge already has it out for him as determined by his pre trial censure of his case by finding him liable for fraud - before the case was even litigated.   Who does that?   Yes, the judge is not impartial by any means.   But I guess he thinks he is immune because everyone must be on his side.   This is not how American jurisprudence is conducted.   I have never heard of such a thing.   If it can be done to Trump, it can be done to any of us.   This is wrong.   I'd like to hear how this is not wrong by someone that knows that judicial process.   

mspart

 

Tell me you blindly believe everything on Fox News without tell me.

[Offthemat]

He cited The Hill, not FOX, Mensa.