🐷

 I’m just going to make a rude stab at this:

These causes of action are unlike that first cause of action, which Justice Engoron described as “essentially a ‘documents case.'” The remaining six counts present more nuanced questions of fact—specifically, ones relating to the defendants’ intent. 

We saw a preview on Monday of how this question of intent will loom large over the trial. In addition to doubling down on several of their previously failed defenses (for example, that the lenders to Trump and his organizations made money), Trump’s lawyers hammered the live question of intent in their opening arguments. They asserted that there was “no intent to defraud, period” and “no nefarious intent.”

I’m really not sure how much of a defense that summary of the opening statement outlines. Intent is a question in fraud, and the statute used here does apply to “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts,” so the elements of fraud have to be shown. And one of the elements of fraud is intent. Basically, you can’t negligently defraud someone; you have to do it intentionally.

But intent doesn’t have to be proven by a confession of the defendant(s), or some overt statement about “cheating this guy blind.” It can be inferred, and besides the civil standard is “a preponderance of the evidence.” I don’t mean proving intent is simple; but clear and irrefutable evidence of intent isn’t necessary, either. In fact, given the court has already ruled on one count of fraud (out of 7; the remaining 6 are doubled: one for the substantive offense, one for conspiracy), it’s not going to be that hard to convince the trial court that the other six counts didn’t happen because the defendants weren’t paying attention to what they were doing.

Indeed, the primary purpose of this trial, which will probably consume October into November (watch those billables climb!), at least, is to establish a solid factual record for the court and for the appellate courts. So much depends on what the superior courts see in the record; and the more complete the record, especially since this evidence spans 9 years of activities by multiple defendants, the better the chances the judgment withstands review. Appellate courts can’t rehear new evidence (the 7th Amendment codifies that, and all states have similar requirements in their judiciaries), but they can decide the record on appeal doesn’t support the legal reasoning, especially if there simply isn’t enough evidence.

So a jury is spared those weeks of testimony, anyway. But a record must be made, or even Engoron could decide the state has not proved its case.

This trial is largely for damages. The state has identified 188 witnesses it may call to testify, including Michael Cohen, whose testimony to Congress prompted the AG investigation that is now being tried. If the judge grants some, at least, the damages sought , Trump is in a world of hurt.

Cohen (IIRC) has said one reason Trump lied so persistently about his wealth was to get on the Forbes list of 300 wealthiest Americans. Well, Forbes has dropped him from that list; not because of this trial, but because so many of his properties have lost so much value.

Ironic, no? 

What comes at the end of this trial, besides an enormous bill from the attorneys (or is Kise still working off his retainer? Yeah, probably so.)? This (some of which I’ve said before, but let’s hear it again)

Indeed, the first two prayers for relief the judge already granted—the cancellation of business certificates and the appointment of a monitor—will most likely severely limit the Trumps from doing business in New York State. 

Moreover, this relief would also force them to pay enormous sums—ones that come on top of the significant legal fees Trump is paying for his defense in the four pending criminal trials against him, not to mention the $5 million in damages and counting that he owes to E. Jean Carroll. The grand total will significantly hinder the former president’s ability to do business period. 

On top of all that, this case also strikes a powerful blow to Trump where it hurts him most—his decades-long investment in creating a political and financial brand for himself. He is already facing the loss of some of the crown jewels of his business empire as a result of the cancelling of his business certificates in New York. He now also faces losing his ability to run or be involved whatsoever in any corporations there. His personal identity is heavily invested in these enterprises which carry his name. The civil case accordingly comes with a heavy price that is different from the pending criminal cases, and the ongoing trial will involve a lengthy, public process in which the writing appears to be on the wall.

No wonder he’s squealing like a stuck pig and bellowing about MAL. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t lose it.