Trump civil fraud trial: Trump’s closing argument in doubt following heated email exchange

(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump is on trial in New York in a $250 million civil lawsuit that could alter the personal fortune and real estate empire that helped propel Trump to the White House.

Trump, his sons Eric Trump and and Donald Trump Jr., and other top Trump Organization executives are accused by New York Attorney General Letitia James of engaging in a decade-long scheme in which they used “numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation” to inflate Trump’s net worth in order get more favorable loan terms. The trial comes after the judge in the case ruled in a partial summary judgment that Trump had submitted “fraudulent valuations” for his assets, leaving the trial to determine additional actions and what penalty, if any, the defendants should receive.

The former president has denied all wrongdoing and his attorneys have argued that Trump’s alleged inflated valuations were a product of his business skill.

Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:

Jan 10, 5:51 PM
Trump still wants to present closing argument tomorrow

Donald Trump still hopes to present a portion of the closing argument at his civil fraud trial tomorrow, the former president said on social media.

Trump’s statement comes after Judge Arthur Engoron threw his plan into doubt earlier today when the judge shared an email exchange in which Trump’s lawyers declined to agree with the rules Engoron set for Trump’s closing.

Characterizing Engoron’s move as “mean & nasty,” Trump said in his social media post that he still “would like to personally do the closing argument.”

Jan 10, 1:32 PM
Trump’s closing argument in doubt after heated email exchange

Former President Donald Trump’s plan to deliver part of his closing argument Thursday, as reported yesterday by ABC News, is now in doubt after he failed to meet a deadline to agree to limitations imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron.

According an email exchange between Engonon and defense counsel that was posted to the public docket Wednesday, Engoron said that Trump would have to follow the case’s limited gag order, and that he would not be allowed to “impugn” the New York attorney general or her staff — limitations that Trump attorney Chris Kise rejected, calling them “untenable.”

“The limitations I am imposing, in my absolute discretion, are not subject to further debate. Take it or leave it,” Engoron replied on Jan. 9, according to the email thread.

When Trump’s lawyers missed the first deadline set by Engoron, the judge determined that Trump could not testify. Kise then responded that he did not see the deadline and requested that the closing arguments be postponed because of the death of Melania Trump’s mother on Tuesday.

“I am sad to advise the Court that Mrs. Trump’s mother passed away this evening. Because of the challenges presented by this deeply personal family matter, President Trump has asked that I request the Court postpone the date for closing argument,” Kise wrote yesterday.

Engoron promptly denied the request and said the closings would continue as planned.

“On balance, going forward makes the most sense. Please tell Mr. Trump that I am sorry,” Engoron wrote.

Kise informed Engoron that Trump still planned to attend the closings and speak.

“Despite the fact that his Mother-in Law, who he was very close to, passed away late last night, President Trump will be speaking tomorrow,” Kise said in an email this morning.

When Engoron asked for assurance that Trump agreed to his rules, Kise pushed back, writing, “You are not allowing President Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated Attorney General, to speak about the things that must be spoken about.”

“I won’t debate this yet again. Take it or leave it. Now or never. You have until noon, seven minutes from now. I WILL NOT GRANT ANY FURTHER EXTENSIONS,” Engoron replied at 11:54 a.m.

After Kise failed to respond, Engoron emailed him at 12:12 p.m. that he assumed Trump would not be speaking and that their email exchange would be posted to the court’s public docket.

Responding to the development, Trump’s legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, said in a statement to ABC News: “Is anyone surprised anymore?”

Jan 09, 4:22 PM
Trump intends to deliver part of closing himself, say sources

Former President Trump intends to personally deliver part of the defense’s closing argument at the conclusion of his civil fraud trial in New York on Thursday, sources familiar with the former president’s strategy tell ABC News.

The defendants in the case — Trump, his two eldest sons and two former Trump Organization executives — are represented by three primary attorneys, Christopher Kise, Clifford Robert and Alina Habba. But sources say Trump himself is determined to deliver a portion of the closing statement.

The sources cautioned that plans for the defense’s closing argument remain fluid.

The Manhattan courtroom where the his trial has been held is currently in use for another high-profile trial involving the New York attorney general’s case against the National Rifle Association and Wayne LaPierre, and the judge in that case told jurors the trial would temporarily move to a different courtroom this week to accommodate Trump’s civil trial.

-Aaron Katersky and John Santucci

Jan 05, 1:23 PM
NY AG seeks $370M fine, NY real estate ban against Trump

New York Attorney General Letitia James, in a written brief filed a week before the trial’s closing arguments, asked the judge in the case to fine Trump over $370 million to disgorge profits from what James says is a decade of fraudulent business conduct, and to bar Trump for life from participating in the New York real estate industry.

The request for a $370 million fine, plus 9% annual interest, is a sharp increase from James’ initial request for disgorgement totaling roughly $250 million.

The largest portion of the requested fine stems from the business loans the Trump Organization obtained using allegedly fraudulent financial statements. Based on expert testimony, James argued that Trump cost his lenders $168,040,168, which the banks would have made if Trump was given the appropriate interest rate corresponding to the actual value of his assets.

In their defense filing, Trump’s lawyers called the attorney general’s theory for disgorgement “fundamentally flawed, saying that “No lenders testified that they would have done anything differently had they known about Trump’s misstatements, and James attempted to fill that evidentiary void with expert testimony, according to Trump’s lawyers.

Trump’s lawyers added that even if the attorney general proved that some of Trump’s profits were ill-gotten, they lack the authority under New York Executive Law 63(12) to request the disgorgement.

Closing arguments in the trial are scheduled for Jan. 11.

Dec 18, 5:17 PM
In blistering ruling, judge denies Trump’s motion for directed verdict

Judge Arthur Engoron has denied Donald Trump’s most recent motion for a directed verdict to end his civil fraud trial.

In a blistering ruling, the judge not only denied the motion but also opted to explain the flaws he sees in many of Trump’s arguments at trial.

Addressing the testimony of defense accounting expert Eli Bartov, who Trump proudly and repeatedly declared found “no accounting fraud of any kind,” Engoron flatly dismissed Bartov’s findings by saying he lost credibility by “doggedly attempting to justify every misstatement.”

“Bartov is a tenured professor, but all that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say,” Engoron wrote.

The judge also rejected assertions from Trump’s lawyers that any financial misstatements are beyond the case’s statute of limitations.

“Closing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for future misstatements. All that §63(12) requires is a false statement used in business; the subject financial statements fit that definition ‘to a T,'” Engoron wrote.

Engoron also suggested he didn’t buy Trump’s argument that fining the former president for ill-gotten gains was not merited in the case because his lenders were happy with the transactions.

“That the instant lenders made millions of dollars and were happy with the transactions does not mean that they were not damaged by lending at lower interest rates than they otherwise would have,” he wrote.

Calling Trump’s claims “misstatements at best and fraud at worst,” Engoron wrote that “Valuations, as elucidated ad nauseum in this trial, can be based on different criteria analyzed in different ways. But a lie is still a lie.”

The judge ended his ruling by reminding the parties about the date for closing arguments in the case, currently set for Jan. 11.

Dec 18, 4:56 PM
Trump’s case does not age like fine wine, NY AG lawyer says

In a letter the Judge Arthur Engoron, a lawyer for the New York attorney general said Donald Trump’s most recent request for a directed verdict in the case is nothing more than a “political stunt designed to provide Mr. Trump, his co-defendants, and their counsel with sound bites for press conferences, Truth Social posts, and cable news appearances.”

Trump’s lawyers on Friday made their fifth motion for a directed verdict to end the case for lack of evidence, which Engoron earlier said he was all but certain to deny. The judge has rejected all four of Trump’s previous motions for a directed verdict.

“Unlike a fine Bordeaux, Defendants’ case for a directed verdict does not improve with age,” state attorney Andrew Amer wrote in Monday’s letter to the judge.

Amer also argued that Trump’s request was not merited given the evidence presented at trial, saying that “Nor does any of the testimony from the most ineffective team of experts that Defendants’ money can buy change the analysis.”

“Defendants are once again ‘whistling past the graveyard’ by relying on arguments the Court has already rejected,” Amer said, referring in part to Engoron’s pretrial partial summary judgment ruling, in which he found that Trump used fraudulent statements to conduct business.

Dec 15, 6:27 PM
Trump files 5th motion for directed verdict

Donald Trump’s lawyers made their fifth motion for a directed verdict in the former president’s fraud trial in a filing late Friday that appears destined to be rejected.

Judge Arthur Engoron all but guaranteed he would deny the request to end the trial when Trump’s lawyer Chris Kise announced his plans to file the motion earlier this week.

“There is no way I am going to grant that,” Engoron said on Tuesday. “You’d be wasting your time.”

Trump’s lawyers nevertheless filed their motion late Friday.

“In sum, there was no fraud, there were no victims, there has simply been no harm or actionable misconduct, and the Court must and should follow the law of the case regarding the scope of the claims at issue,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

In the filing, Trump’s attorneys targeted New York Attorney General Letitia James’ request to fine Trump nearly $400 million for ill-gotten gains by arguing that the state failed to demonstrate that Trump and his sons intended to defraud his lenders or that they engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud.

“Not a single defense witness supported the notion of any alleged conspiracy, and in fact such testimony refuted fully the existence of the same,” the lawyers wrote, calling Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who testified about the alleged conspiracy, a “demonstrable, perpetual, and serial liar.”

They also argued that James failed to prove that any of Trump’s alleged misrepresentations would have materially changed the loans he received from his lenders, writing that the alleged misstatements had “no actual significance” to Trump’s lenders.

All four of Trump’s previous motions for a directed verdict to end the case for lack of evidence have been rejected by Judge Engoron.

Dec 15, 5:32 PM
Trump files notice he intends to appeal gag order decision

Donald Trump wants New York’s highest court to weigh in on the limited gag order in his civil fraud trial, according to a new filing Friday afternoon.

New York’s Appellate Division shot down Trump’s earlier challenge Thursday, determining that Trump used the incorrect legal avenue to challenge the limited gag order, which bars him from commenting on Judge Arthur Engoron’s staff.

In a notice of appeal filed Friday, Trump’s lawyers said they plan to appeal the decision to the Albany-based Court of Appeals — New York’s highest court.

It’s unclear if the Court of Appeals will consider the request because Trump also lost a motion for leave to appeal the gag order.

Dec 14, 1:42 PM
Trump’s gag order appeal stuck in ‘procedural purgatory’

Donald Trump appears to be out of options to appeal the limited gag orders in his civil fraud trial, with his own lawyer describing his options as “procedural purgatory.”

In addition to Thursday morning’s appellate decision denying Trump’s appeal, a panel of appellate judges issued an additional order Thursday denying his request to elevate his appeal to New York’s highest court.

The decision forces Trump back to Step 1: asking Judge Arthur Engoron to vacate the gag orders, then appealing the judge’s likely denial.

But the timeline for that process is unlikely to work in Trump’s favor, with the evidentiary portion of the trial having concluded Wednesday and closing arguments scheduled for Jan. 11.

“We filed the petition because the ordinary appellate process is essentially pointless in this context as it cannot possibly be completed in time to reverse the ongoing harm,” Trump attorney Chris Kise told ABC News in a statement regarding the gag orders, which prohibit Trump and attorneys from commenting on the judge’s staff.

“Unfortunately, the decision denies President Trump the only path available to expedited relief and places his fundamental Constitutional rights in a procedural purgatory,” Kise said.

Dec 14, 11:22 AM
Trump loses bid to throw out limited gag orders, fines

Donald Trump has lost his appeal to throw out the limited gag orders and associated fines in his civil fraud trial.

In a decision Thursday, New York’s Appellate Division, First Department rejected Trump’s request to annul and vacate the limited gag orders imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron that prohibit Trump and attorneys from commenting on the judge’s staff.

In November, Trump’s lawyers asked the Appellate Division to vacate the gag orders, citing a provision of New York state law to personally sue Judge Engoron. But the court said in today’s ruling that the method used to appeal the gag orders was an improper application of the law.

“To the extent there may have been appealable issues with respect to any of the procedures the court implemented in imposing the financial sanctions, the proper method of review would be to move to vacate the Contempt Orders, and then to take an appeal from the denial of those motions,” the ruling said, indicating that Trump should use the normal appellate process to pursue the vacating of the gag orders.

The court also determined that the “extraordinary remedy” requested by Trump’s lawyers did not match the minimal potential harm from barring statements about Engoron’s staff.

“Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court’s staff,” the decision said.

Dec 13, 1:34 PM EST
Trump’s lawyers denounce trial as NY AG praises it

Donald Trump’s defense attorneys ended where they started, denouncing the former president’s civil fraud trial following the conclusion of court today.

“I feel exactly like I did before, three years ago. This case was a joke. We wasted three months,” Trump’s legal spokesperson Alina Habba told reporters.

Habba, however, acknowledged Trump’s unlikely chance of success in the trial while thanking Trump’s team of lawyers.

“I think they did an amazing job in a court where we had, frankly, lost before we even got to give any bit of evidence,” Habba said, referring in part to Judge Engoron’s pretrial partial summary judgment against Trump.

Trump attorney Chris Kise said he is optimistic that Trump will be successful in an eventual appeal.

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said that the trial “revealed the full extent” of Trump’s fraud and that she looks forward to closing arguments.

“While the judge already ruled in our favor and found that Donald Trump engaged in years of significant fraud and unjustly enriched himself and his family, this trial revealed the full extent of that fraud — and the defendants’ inability to disprove it. We look forward to presenting our closing argument on January 11,” James said.

Dec 13, 1:06 PM EST
State rests its case; closing arguments set for Jan. 11

The evidentiary portion of former President Trump’s civil fraud trial concluded with a combative cross-examination of the state’s rebuttal expert.

“The People rest,” state attorney Kevin Wallace said after testimony had wrapped up.

During the cross-examination of Cornell accounting professor Eric Lewis, defense attorney Jesus Suarez questioning whether he had “any other real world experience” in accounting other than in the classroom or reviewing documents for court cases. Lewis conceded he did not.

Court will adjourn until Jan. 11, when both sides will present closing arguments after submitting written summations.

Defense attorney Christopher Kise also promised to submit a written argument for a directed verdict that will ask Judge Engoron, for a fifth time, to end the case for lack of evidence. Engoron has not promised to even read such a filing, but said that he “probably” would.

After 11 weeks of heated exchanges, Trump attorney Chris Kise ended on a conciliatory note, thanking the court, the court reporters, and others for their work.

Wallace said it may be their first point of agreement.

Judge Engoron wished everyone happy holidays as he ended the day’s proceedings.

Dec 13, 11:48 AM EST
Rebuttal witness assails Trump’s disclosures

State attorney Kevin Wallace concluded his direct examination of the New York attorney general’s second and final rebuttal witness amid frequent objections by defense lawyers.

Lewis attempted to explain how Donald Trump’s statements of financial condition failed to disclose that he did not conduct a discounted cash flow analysis, contributing to the over-valuation of some of his assets.

“There is no mention of discounting or future value in the disclosure,” Lewis said, disagreeing with testimony from defense expert Jason Flemmons — as well as former Mazars USA accountant Donald Bender, who testified as a state witness.

“Are you impeaching your own witness?” Engoron asked state attorneys regarding whether Bender’s testimony should no longer be considered credible.

“We didn’t feel the need to,” Wallace responded.

Lewis also suggested that Trump’s external accountants at Mazars had less of an obligation to highlight issues that Flemmons suggested, since they were only conducting a compilation report rather than a more intensive audit. While Mazars had an obligation to flag obvious issues, they were not responsible for ensuring Trump’s statements were compliant with generally accepted accounting principles, he testified.

“If while doing the compilation … something comes to the attention of the accounts that could be a GAAP departure, they have a responsibility to bring that issue to the client,” Lewis said regarding generally accepted accounting principles.

During the hour-long direct examination, defense lawyers objected at least 14 times, successfully interrupting the line of questions.

“I am lost,” Engoron asked at one point. “Can you put this together?”

The parade of objections visibly irritating Wallace, who voiced his displeasure.

“Petulant outbursts don’t really play well in the courtroom,” quipped Trump lawyer Chris Kise in response.

Dec 13, 10:23 AM EST
Trump dismisses possibility of settlement

In a post on social media, Donald Trump dismissed the idea that his civil fraud trial might result in a settlement.

“HE RULED THAT I WAS A FRAUD BEFORE HE EVEN SAW THE CASE, THEN TRIED TO GET ME TO SETTLE. A TOTAL HIT JOB,” Trump wrote about Judge Arthur Engoron.

Engoron has not addressed the possibility in court, but sounded sentimental this morning as he began what is likely to be the final day of the trial.

“In a strange way, I am going to miss this trial,” Engoron said. “It has been an experience.”

Dec 13, 9:14 AM EST
Accounting expert to testify in state’s rebuttal case

A day after Donald Trump’s lawyers rested their defense case that featured numerous expert witnesses, New York Attorney General Letitia James is set to call her own accounting expert as part of the state’s rebuttal case.

Cornell professor Eric Lewis was qualified as an accounting expert over the objections of Trump’s attorneys yesterday, and his direct examination is scheduled to begin this morning.

Lewis will likely address some of the findings reached by the defense’s accounting experts, Jason Flemmons and Eli Bartov, whose testimony that Trump had adequate disclaimers on his financial statements is at the center of the defense’s case.

Trump’s lawyer Chris Kise aggressively criticized Lewis’ qualifications during a lengthy voir dire session yesterday, but Judge Arthur Engoron remained convinced about Lewis’ ability to testify as an accounting expert.

Dec 12, 6:10 PM EST
Defense attorney blasts expert witness in rebuttal case

Donald Trump’s attorney Chris Kise unloaded on the second rebuttal witness called by New York Attorney General Letitia James after the defense had rested its case.

“The reason they brought this witness in here is, there is no one in the actual profession who would sustain the opinions they are asking of the witness,” Kise argued about Cornell professor of practice Eric Lewis, who Judge Engoron qualified as an expert in accounting.

Kise exasperatedly questioned Lewis during a prolonged voir dire about his qualifications, criticizing his experience while knocking Engoron in the process.

“You are a professor of practice with no practice in the field of accounting,” Kise told Lewis. “I probably have more experience in the practice of accounting than this witness.”

Engoron nevertheless deemed Lewis an expert in accounting over Kise’s objections that his expertise was “too broad” for the circumstances.

“I am not sure if anything will change a decision in this courtroom,” Kise argued.

Engoron appeared worn out by Kise’s lengthy attacks.

“Stop making speeches every time we have to discuss something,” Engoron said for the umpteenth time.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with the state’s rebuttal case set to resume on Wednesday.

Dec 12, 4:36 PM EST
Ex-CFO inflated size of Trump’s penthouse, rebuttal witness says

With the defense having rested its case, state attorneys began what they expect to be a brief rebuttal case by calling to the stand Kevin Sneddon, a managing director at Trump International Realty between 2011 and 2012.

State attorneys asked Sneddon about one of the centerpieces of the attorney general’s complaint: Trump’s penthouse apartment in Trump Tower, which Trump claimed on his statements of financial condition was 30,000 square feet in size when the actual dimensions are a third of that. The overstated size allowed Trump to inflate the value of the apartment by over $200 million, Judge Arthur Engoron decided in his partial summary judgment.

During the defense’s case, a former Trump Organization executive blamed Sneddon for the error.

“The person running Trump International Realty at the time, Kevin Sneddon, sent me an email that the triplex was 30,000 square feet,” former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney testified.

Sneddon, however, testified that he received the 30,000 square foot figure directly from Trump’s main deputy: co-defendant and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Sneddon said that he received a phone call directly Weisselberg, who requested that he value Trump’s penthouse.

“I just knew it was the penthouse. I didn’t know much about the apartment itself,” Sneddon testified.

“I asked if I could see it. He said that was not possible. I asked if there was a floor plan or any specs. He said he did not have any of that information,” Sneddon said. “He said, ‘It’s quite large. I think it’s around 30,000 square feet.'”

When McConney emailed him in September 2012 to ask for help valuing Trump’s penthouse, Sneddon said he relied on the figure Weisselberg provided him — unknowingly providing inaccurate information to McConney.

“I already valued DJT’s triplex for Allen,” Sneddon wrote in an email shown at trial. “At 30,000 sq. ft., DJT’s triplex is worth between 4K and 6K per ft – or 120MM to 180MM.”

Trump’s attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected to most of Sneddon’s brief testimony, describing the questioning as a “free for all.”

During a short cross-examination, defense attorney Clifford Robert attempted to discredit the testimony of Sneddon — who did not testify in the state’s case — by suggesting Sneddon was primed by state attorneys so his testimony would align with the state’s theory of the case.

Dec 12, 3:30 PM EST
Defense rests its case, makes 5th motion to end trial

Donald Trump’s lawyers rested their case in the former president’s civil fraud trial, as New York Attorney General Letitia James watched from the gallery.

Defense attorneys undertook several “housekeeping items” before concluding their case, including adding expert reports to the trial record “for appellate purposes.”

“You’re going to appeal,” Judge Engoron deadpanned before breaking into laughter.

Both parties were argumentative until the end, squabbling over minor issues that threatened to draw out the defense’s case.

“We don’t want additional time, we want the case to end,” said state attorney Kevin Wallace.

With all housekeeping finished, Trump attorney Chris Kise announced, “We do rest.” He then made the defense’s fifth motion for a directed verdict to end the case, saying he planned to submit a written motion on Friday.

“There is no way I am going to grant that,” Judge Engoron responded. “You’d be wasting your time.”

Wallace criticized Kise’s plan to submit a written motion as “silly” and a “colossal waste of resources.”

“We have already won on summary judgment,” Wallace said in reference to Engoron’s pretrial ruling. “I don’t know what we are pretending is happening here.”

Dec 12, 2:33 PM EST
NY AG in attendance for conclusion of defense’s case

New York Attorney General Letitia James is attending the afternoon session of Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial.

Sitting in the gallery with her staff, James briefly walked into Judge Engoron’s chambers before the trial resumed following the midday break.

Trump’s legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, was also spotted entering the judge’s chambers for a separate meeting.

Court then resumed with defense attorneys conducting their redirect examination of accounting expert Eli Bartov.

Bartov is expected to be the defense’s last witness before they rest their case, which will likely be followed by a brief rebuttal case by the state.

Dec 12, 12:37 PM EST
State highlights ‘unpersuasive’ past testimony of defense expert

In an effort to discredit the defense’s accounting expert, state attorney Louis Solomon highlighted that Eli Bartov’s testimony was rejected by a judge when he testified as an expert for the New York attorney general in her trial against Exxon Mobil in 2019.

The judge in that case wrote in his ruling that Bartov’s testimony during that trial was “unpersuasive” and was “flatly contradicted by the weight of the evidence,” according to Solomon’s reading of the ruling in court.

Bartov said he was unaware of the ruling, and defense attorney Chris Kise objected to the line of questioning as irrelevant.

Bartov largely stuck to his initial testimony during two hours of cross-examination this morning, defending his overall finding while acknowledging his analysis found that Trump’s statements included some marginal overstatements that “did not impact significantly Deutsche Bank’s decision to extend loans.”

While Bartov agreed that, in the real estate business, “price gets set first, then valuation follows” he said he saw no evidence to support the attorney general’s allegation that Trump’s statements were reverse engineered to provide support for the values determined by Trump and his executives.

“Do you know if they were reverse engineered?” Solomon asked.

“I have no knowledge of that,” Bartov responded.

Present in the courtroom for Bartov’s testimony was Eric Trump, who made a surprise appearance in the gallery. Like his father, Eric Trump initially planned to take the stand during the defense’s case, but canceled his testimony.

Dec 12, 11:13 AM EST
Trump cites limited gag order for decision to not testify

In a social media post this morning, Donald Trump claimed he “wanted to testify on Monday” but blamed his decision not to testify on the trial’s limited gag order, which prohibits Trump from commenting on Judge Engoron’s staff.

When Trump on Sunday pulled out of his testimony, he touted the strength of his evidence and previous testimony as the reasons he decided not to take the stand.

“Anyway, the Judge, Arthur Engoron, put a GAG ORDER on me, even when I testify, totally taking away my constitutional right to defend myself. We are appealing, but how would you like to be a witness and not be allowed free snd [sic] honest speech,” Trump wrote today.

In a statement to ABC News on Monday, Trump attorney Chris Kise also partially blamed the limited gag order for his client’s decision not to testify.

“There is really nothing more to say to a Judge who has imposed an unconstitutional gag order and thus far appears to have ignored President Trump’s testimony and that of everyone else involved in the complex financial transactions at issue in the case,” Kise said.

In a court filing last week, Engoron’s attorney wrote that the limited gag order “does not prevent statements about Justice Engoron himself, not the Attorney General or her staff, not the substance of the claims and allegations against petitioners, not the facts or evidence or witness testimony, not the judicial process, nor any other topic concerning the underlying action.”

Dec 12, 10:41 AM EST
Trump attorney accuses state of withholding witnesses

Judge Arthur Engoron will allow the New York attorney general to call two witnesses during the state’s rebuttal case once the defense rests its case — over the objection of Trump attorney Chris Kise.

“The government has held these witnesses back,” Kise said, arguing against the decision.

While state attorney Kevin Wallace maintained that their two rebuttal witnesses — Cornell professor Eric Lewis and former Trump Organization executive Kevin Sneddon — would only address arguments already made in court, Kise argued that the witnesses would be used to backfill evidence that the defense team would not be able to address fully.

“It’s not rebuttal. It’s filling a hole,” Kise said, accusing the state of “gamesmanship” by withholding evidence.

Unconvinced by Kise’s argument, Engoron ruled that the witnesses would still be permitted to testify.

“I see no reason not to allow these two purported experts to testify,” Engoron said.

In response, Trump’s defense attorneys suggested they might attempt to present an additional witness after the state’s rebuttal case.

Dec 12, 9:36 AM EST
Trump’s defense expected to rest its case today

After presenting four weeks of testimony, Donald Trump’s lawyers are scheduled to rest their case in the former president’s civil fraud trial today.

With Trump no longer testifying as a defense witness, New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov will be Trump’s final witness.

Resuming his cross-examination this morning, Bartov is likely to face questions about inconsistencies and potential bias in his analysis of Trump’s financial statements. Paid an hourly rate of $1,350 for 650 hours of work, Bartov said last week that he received payments from both the Trump Organization and Trump’s Save America PAC.

Bartov strongly defended Trump’s statements of financial condition, the documents at the center of the New York attorney general’s case, during his testimony last week, saying that he could find “no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud.” Bartov also argued the documents were insignificant to the banks that loaned Trump money, which he said used their own analysis to make their loan decisions.

“It is impossible to argue — it is really absurd to argue — that Deutsche Bank or any bank or any lender would make lending decisions based on the statements of financial condition,” Bartov said. “This should close the book on this case.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.