Live Breaking News & Updates on Statute of european society
Stay updated with breaking news from Statute of european society. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
license to evade the statute. the a.g. has not established any impact. it belies common sense and the a.g. relies on you. kise is saying almost the entire case put forth by the attorney general is outside of the stding at a podium directly in front of the judge using a large computer monitor for his notes and documents. he's referring to are being shown on a large tv screen to the gallery. the big monitor is right in front of the a.g. and trump is sitting up in the chair and listening pretty intently, excuse me, it's pretty cold out here. but i'm actually interested to hear from barbara along with danny about the argument that's being made by chris kise in these closing arguments about how much of the case put forward by the a.g. is outside the statute of limitations and kind of what their sense is on that defense. >> so i think that is interesting, danny, because we
unconstitutional witch hunt. it's election interference at the highest level. it's a disgrace. in coordination with the white house and joe biden because he can't run a campaign fairly. we're going through it. it's indeed a terrible witch hunt. we'll have a news conference later on. as you know, i want to speak. i want to make the summation. at this moment the judge isn't letting me make the summation because i'll bring up things he doesn't want to hear. it's a very unfair trial. i don't think anyone's ever seen anything like this. we have a situation where a statute was used that doesn't give me a jury. i have no jury. i have no rights and nobody thinks it's constitutional. legal scholars are writing about it. it's something they've never seen before. it's interference. it's political interference. it's something that shouldn't be allowed. i am hoping to speak and to help
indeed a terrible witch hunt. we'll have a news conference a little later on. as you know i want to speak and want to make is submission. the judge is not letting me make the summation. i will bring up things he doesn't want to hear. a very unfair trial. nobody has seen anything like this. i don't think they've ever seen anything like this. we have a situation where a statute was used that doesn't give me a jury, i have no jury. i have no rights in this. nobody thinks it is constitutional. legal scholars are writing about it like it is something they've never seen before. so it's interference. political interference and something that shouldn't be allowed. so i am hoping to speak and to reveal all of the defects of
not science. i think there was two important arguments that haven't been as discussed to date that i want to talk about. one was right at the top. chris kise, who is a lawyer for donald trump, he said that -- this is an argument directed right at the appeals court that most of the behavior here is outside of the statute of limitations. after we finish here today, there's going to be some sort of verdict. there's going to be a fine. then it will go and be fought in the appeals court. they are -- we saw team trump laying the groundwork for that. the second thing that came up -- i think the word of the morning was unrebutted. chris kise kept saying a lot of the evidence was unrebutted. the attorney general never came back with anything to say, hey, that's the evidence that team
here but they would have wanted one. the reason i find that so striking is donald trump's papers did not ask for a jury. that point is factually incorrect. it was simply not sought by donald trump. why do you think he would be leading with that argument? it feels so much more like a campaign talking point that he was somehow denied a jury here when, in fact, donald trump never asked for it. i thought that was an odd way to start off. it does suggest that they don't think the judge is going to rule for them, because that's such -- that is such a leading with your chin in terms of your opening argument. >> an argument on the statute of limitations can be take ton the appellate courts. arguing when they were owed a
written by the appellate review. this case was motivated to hurt president trump's chances to win the election in 2024. you have an attorney general who campaigned back in 2017, 2018. she was out to get trump. those are facts. she has a motivation to go after trump. this statute has never been applied like this before. there are no victims. so and then to show you the hostility toward -- by this judge, president trump's team wanted a bereavement leave because his mother-in-law passed away. the judge denied it. i've been a lawyer for 30 years. that's an automatic grant. you grant that. he said no because of a tight schedule. what's the tight schedule? this case has been going on for months. i would submit to you this case will be appealed. the final chapter hasn't been written that but anyone who does
know from pretty much the beginning of this trial, trump's team has been saying they're going to appeal, right? because, again, the judge already found fraud, so they know that there will be damages here that trump will be ordered to pay at the end of the day. this is a case that began years ago when trump was still president when we learned of this investigation and the charges themselves were brought in 2021. this argument that it's all tied to the statute of limitations, what say you? >> they're still maintaining this argument. this is something that trump talked about in one of his conference when is he came out of the courthouse many weeks, if not months, ago. they're arguing that some of the claims the a.g. didn't bring them within the applicable statute of limitations. now, there are all kinds of rules to get around the statute of limitations. it can be an ongoing course of conduct. there are many exceptions to a hard rule that after a certain date you can no longer bring the claim. they've repeatedly made those arguments. it's not a surprise to see them in closing as well.
he talked this morning. >> i want to speak and make a summation. at this moment the judge is not letting me make a summation. i will bring up things he doesn't want to hear. it's a very unfair trial. nobody has seen anything like this. i don't think they've ever seen anything like this. we have a situation where a statute was used that doesn't give me a jury, so i have no jury. i have no rights. >> harris: we don't know exactly how long this is going to take. those pictures that you are seeing on the left from inside the courtroom were from a few minutes ago before the media had to leave. the closing arguments the last chance for trump's attorneys to convince the judge to spare their client and his businesses from hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and save trump's ability to do business in new york. the new york attorney general leticia james claims trump inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to insure loans and insurance. she is seeking $370 million in
for attorneys as well when they're offer the closing armes. let me read some of them for you as judge engoron laid them out saying this, trump would be weto speak only about evidence and application of the releva law to those facts. helso said he will notow a campaign speech or to attack the court, his staff, the judge or the attorney general letitia james as well. whether or not the former president is still going to try and speak today, that is still in question. let me talk quickly, jose, while i can, but what we're hearing from chris kise inside the courtroom, when it comes to the closing arguments. closing arguments will last for two hours from the defense, and then prosecution two hours following those closing arguments. here is part of what chris kise is talking about now. he's making the argument about the fact that this is beyond the statute of limitations. we heard this before. he's talking about the expert witnesses. in december, when we were wrapping before going to break for the holidays, ellie bartoff,
of them. he might have to sell them to pay a fine. what are the very real world stakes here? >> yeah, it is kind of confusing, chris, and part of the reason it's confusing is because this is a bespoke remedy that the judge and the ag in her request is coming up with. because it's a very unique, really statute under which she can prosecute the organization. engoron has made findings, involving the business certificates, you'll recall, however, the implementation of those findings has been stayed. remember, he has already found that the trump org committed decades long financial fraud with respect to inflation of assets for the purposes of painting better business loans, and so, yes, you know, now we're seeing what the dollar amount in terms of disgorgement will be, and that could play into whether