NY Fraud Case: Judge Again Denies Trump's Mistrial Motion

Facts

• Judge Arthur Engoron has denied former Pres. Donald Trump's lawyers' fourth request for a directed verdict to end his New York civil fraud trial, following a tense exchange over whether New York Attorney General Letitia James' case lacked merit.¹
• Previously, Eli Bartov, a New York University accounting professor testifying as an expert witness for the defense, had told the Manhattan Supreme Court that the $250M case couldn't be proved as 'there is no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud.'²
• Bartov also confirmed that the Trump Organization and the political action committee Save America paid him nearly $900K as compensation, though he reportedly insisted that the money didn't affect his testimony in Trump's trial.³
• Trump, who voluntarily appeared in the courtroom on Thursday as a spectator shortly after calling the trial a 'witch hunt' on Truth Social, is set to retake the stand as the final overall witness on Monday.⁴
• The former president, two of his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization are accused of participating in a decades-long fraud scheme misrepresenting their net worth to attract favorable rates on loans and insurance. A Sept. 26 pretrial ruling has found Trump and his company liable for fraud.⁵
• Though Trump claims to have won the case in an appeals court, the appellate division has just limited the scope of the case and extended a pause on an order to cancel his business certifications. Judge Engoron is expected to issue a verdict after Jan. 11.⁶

Sources: ¹Abc news, ²New York Post, ³CNBC, ⁴The hill, ⁵CBS and ⁶Forbes.

Narratives

• Republican narrative, as provided by The new york sun. This case is an ultimate embarrassment to America's justice system, as the Democratic prosecutors have gone out of their way to try to impoverish Trump and prevent him from returning to the White House. As usual, they have nothing against him — no victim, fraud, statute violation, intent, materiality, or unlawful gains.
• Democratic narrative, as provided by New Yorker. Section 63(12) of New York's Executive Law, which was passed at the behest of Republican Attorney General Jacob Javits in the mid-1950s, doesn't require the government to prove financial losses or intention to defraud. The statute defines fraud simply as the continuous submission of exaggerated financial statements — precisely what Trump has made for decades.

Predictions