With me now is former
federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin.
He's also
the host of that said
with Michael Zeldin podcast.
Michael, great to see you.
So why is the former
president's testimony so important
when he has already testified
previously in depositions?
Well, so in the depositions,
he mostly took the Fifth Amendment
and avoided
direct answers to direct questions.
So here he is on trial.
His company is on trial. For fraud.
And he is the key
to establishing
that there wasn't fraud in the company.
He is the one who was in charge
of this organization.
And he can
directly refute the allegations
of the attorney general, Letitia James.
If he chooses to do that,
it will be interesting day in court
I don't expect that he will do that
because I don't think
he has a very viable
defense in this case.
But that's why he's so critical.
He is the main defendant.
His children
or ancillary to the main proposition,
which is did he,
as the head of this organization, engage
in a pattern of fraud
against insurance companies?
Against tax services
and about against the people of New York?
So the main issue here
is whether the Trump Organization over,
you know, inflated
its assets in fraudulent
financial statements.
But both Don Junior and Erik
testified this week
that while
they signed financial documents,
they had no reason to question them
because the financial statements
were prepared
by the company's accountants.
In other words,
they put it on someone else.
The judge has already found
that they are guilty of inflating.
Now, the issue is by how much or what
the penalty would be, correct?
Yeah, exactly.
So there are a couple of things
going on in this trial,
a couple of streams.
One is the judge,
as you say,
Fred, has found
in a summary judgment motion
that they engaged
in a pattern of fraudulent activity.
And so now the judge is determining
in respect of that
what amount of damages.
In addition, though,
there are other counts
that haven't been resolved
by summary judgment
that include fraud,
and the prosecutors
are trying to establish that as well.
So there's damages
plus liability
in other parts of the case.
And the prosecutors
are going to go
after Donald Trump to say,
what did you know about this
and what was your involvement in this?
He may take the Fifth Amendment.
He did that in the deposition.
He might decide that
the judge has already ruled,
you know, that he has engaged in fraud.
So what's the point of testifying
if it's a lost cause?
So I'll just take the Fifth
and preserve my options for appeal
so that the fraud
extension, the knowingly
and intentionally,
then inflated those those assets.
So Ivanka Trump,
I mean, she is not a codefendant,
but she is expected to testify.
What will be the questions to her?
Well,
she was an executive
in the Trump Organization.
She famously was the person who ran point
on the establishment of the Trump
Hotel at the old post office
building here in Washington, D.C.,
which was really one of the
landmark properties
for the Trump Organization,
especially here in Washington,
as world diplomats and everybody came
and stayed during the Trump presidency.
She was intimately involved in that.
And so they're going to want to know
about that whole process
and the valuations that went into it.
And so she is not really a secondary
player here.
She was a key player,
perhaps as important as the two sons
that she
she stepped away from the business
when she decided
to take the job in the White House
to work with her dad.
But then she's being called
with her expiring essence
as having been an executive,
a lead in the organization
so that she was a public servant doesn't,
I guess,
recuse her from the importance here
Exactly right.
Because during the time
that this fraud was occurring,
she worked for the Trump Organization.
And so
they want to know
about that aspect of her work
that bears
on the question of valuation fraud
and the amount of damages
that attend to it. Hmm.
All right.
Michael Zeldin, good to see you.
Thanks so much.
Joining me now
from Los Angeles is Jessica Levinson,
a professor of law
at Loyola Law School
and host of the podcast Passing Judgment.
Good to have you with us.
Good to be back.
So court resumes
in the coming hours
with former President Donald Trump
expected to take the stand the first time
he will have testified under oath
in any of his legal battles.
What can we expect to come out of this
historic moment
during his New York civil fraud trial?
Well, legally,
what we're really looking at
is whether or not he can say
not if I was not the one
to prepare these financial statements.
I was not the one to direct
anybody else
to inflate property values,
because we know that
the judge in this case has already found
that there was fraud,
that it was committed by Trump
and the Trump Organization.
And so the question
legally for his testimony
is the other six counts of liability
that are still on the table
and the potential remedy in this case
and how closely the judge
will draw a line between actions
that Trump took.
And those financial statements
that he's already found to be fraudulent.
Now, of course,
what we're also looking at
is to see
how he answers the questions,
whether or not he becomes agitated.
And, of course, key is whether or not
he makes admissions that hurt him,
because we've seen him do that
in other cases, like the aging Karol case
and of course, Donald Trump's sons, Don
Junior and Eric testified last week.
His daughter, Ivanka,
is expected to be called on Wednesday.
How critical
will the testimonies
of the former president's
children likely be in the end,
do you think?
So it's all important.
Ivanka Trump,
we know, is not a defendant in this case
because a judge ruled
that the claims against her were too old
and therefore barred
by the statute of limitations
when it comes to his adult sons.
Don Jr already said you know what?
I relied on lawyers.
I relied on accountants.
I wasn't intimately involved
in the financial statements.
We'll see if the judge
thinks that's credible.
Of course, there's no jury here.
This is a bench trial.
And then we will see whether or not
Eric says the same thing,
which is essentially, you know what?
I wasn't
the one
who was intensely involved
in listing these valuations.
I defer to other people.
So how significant is this civil fraud
trial
compared to all Trump's other legal woes?
And how do you think this
and the other cases
that he faces will likely play out
to him?
Well, he obviously thinks
this case is significant.
He's attended about seven days of trial.
And I think that's
because this goes
to such a big part of his persona,
which is a successful businessman.
And if, in fact,
a judge finds know
the emperor has no clothes, essentially,
that he's just inflated his values
the property values
to the tune of almost, I believe,
$3.6 billion at times
that he engaged in insurance fraud,
that he engaged in banking fraud,
that he cannot do business
in New York anymore.
That would really cut against the Trump
brand.
Now, having said that,
the other cases are criminal cases.
So we're not talking
about having to pay money
or being barred
from doing business in New York.
What we're talking about
is potentially being incarcerated.
So just by virtue of the fact
that the Georgia state case
and the two federal cases,
the election
interference case in the Mar
a Lago case are all criminal cases
and potentially carry with them
the possibility of incarceration.
Those are more serious.
How likely, though,
do you think in the end
is it that
a former president of the United States
would end up going to prison
You know,
I have to be honest
that it's hard
for me to imagine both options,
given the charges against him
and given the evidence
that we already know
that's in the public record,
it's hard to imagine
that any person
would not face some repercussions
and I mean criminal repercussions.
By the same token,
it's hard to imagine
the former president, United States,
the current Republican nominee,
sitting in a federal prison.
And so both are difficult.
I know that's a non-answer,
but that's why this is so unprecedented.
And eventually,
of course, we'll all find out.
Jessica Levinson,
many thanks for joining us.
Appreciate your analysis.