Fogbow

Did Weisselberg testify in this fraud trial, or is that perjury from something prior?

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:58 pm Did Weisselberg testify in this fraud trial, or is that perjury from something prior?

Yes, he testified in the civil fraud case. Going from memory (and dangling a participle) I recall that he claimed he never thought about the value of the Trump Tower apartment but Forbes magazine ran an article that said Weisselberg had discussed the apartment value with them.

What's bugging me in the current reports about this is that the plea* deal supposedly does NOT include testifying against fuckhead. Again.

ETA: He seems to be getting plea deals for the same acts, committed for the same reason, that M Cohen got 3 years for. And Cohen turned on fuckhead.

Just watched Glenn Kirchner, and he suggests that Weisselberg will not be asked to testify because he is pleading guilty to perjury, and then you fall into that Michael Cohen trap where you’ve got a witness under oath who has already lied under oath in the same matter.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 2:27 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:58 pm Did Weisselberg testify in this fraud trial, or is that perjury from something prior?

Yes, he testified in the civil fraud case. Going from memory (and dangling a participle) I recall that he claimed he never thought about the value of the Trump Tower apartment but Forbes magazine ran an article that said Weisselberg had discussed the apartment value with them.

Edit: Since this perjury deal apparently is with Manhattan DA Bragg I believe it is related to Weisselberg's testimony in the Trump Organization fraud case. However, if he admits he lied in that case it would cast doubt on the veracity of his testimony in the Trump family civil fraud case too. Why this would delay a decision in that case we can only speculate.

First segment of Deadline WH discussed this with Jennifer Rubin and Alan Weisberg. Rubin says it is related to the fraud case, but with me and memory, best to watch the episode yourself.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:21 pm Just watched Glenn Kirchner, and he suggests that Weisselberg will not be asked to testify because he is pleading guilty to perjury, and then you fall into that Michael Cohen trap where you’ve got a witness under oath who has already lied under oath in the same matter.

If I were an attorney and representing the defendant, I would all over a witness who has plead guilty to pergury testifying about the same matter. It would not matter if he was telling the truth or if I even believed him. What would matter is if I can weaken the plaintiff's case by creating doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Because of this, were I on the opposite table, I would only use the witness if absolutely necessary and I could somehow cut off the logical defense strategy. That would be a tall order.

The job is not to please the audience but to convince a jury that is not made up of a bunch of folks like me.

I don't care if he testifies or not, actually -- I just want part of the bargain* to be that he gives up fuckhead on all and every thing he knows. Any less? I can't imagine!

Bad day for tfg so far, and it's getting worse.

What is falsus in uno and what does invoking it do?

Looks like this could be the (a?) reason for the delay in final $$ determination

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:05 pm What is falsus in uno and what does invoking it do?

Looks like this could be the (a?) reason for the delay in final $$ determination

IANAL but the latin means false in one thing, false in all things.

This is bad news for tfg.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:05 pm What is falsus in uno and what does invoking it do?

Looks like this could be the (a?) reason for the delay in final $$ determination

"Basically" because he lied in one thing he lied in all things.

realist wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:08 pm

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:05 pm What is falsus in uno and what does invoking it do?

Looks like this could be the (a?) reason for the delay in final $$ determination

"Basically" because he lied in one thing he lied in all things.

Hoo boy. Yippee ki yay motherfucker! I didn't remember Weisselburg testifying in this trial, but I guess he did. They didn't have a trial per se for the guilty part of it - he issued directed verdict (or whatever it's called) and the trial was only ever about the amount - is that right? Or were there more matters regarding the "how" that goes to civil fraud that Engoron heard? Either way, I may change my guess upward, to maybe $400 million. Nice round number.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:05 pm What is falsus in uno and what does invoking it do?

Looks like this could be the (a?) reason for the delay in final $$ determination

It’s part of a latin maxim - falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - means false in one, false in all.

It means the judge may, at his discretion, deem all of Weisselberg’s testimony as non-credible.

As bad as this is for Trump, it’s way worse for his attorneys. Judge Engoron is requiring them to explicitly state whether they suborned perjury.

If they deny they knew it was false and Weisselberg later says they knew, they are FUCKED.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:13 pm

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:05 pm What is falsus in uno and what does invoking it do?

Looks like this could be the (a?) reason for the delay in final $$ determination

It’s part of a latin maxim - falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - means false in one, false in all.

It means the judge may, at his discretion, deem all of Weisselberg’s testimony as non-credible.

I'm trying to figure out how this is bad news for Biden, but I'm coming up empty! Woot!

as bad as this is for Trump, it’s way worse for his attorneys. Judge Engeron is requiring them to state whether or not they suborned perjury. if they deny that they know about it, and Weisselberg later, says that they did know, they are fucked.

Falsus in uno is a common law maxim, which means that it's a kind of generalized rule derived from human experience that's useful in moderation. The categorical application of this particular maxim has been discredited for a long time.

Mary McCarthy once remarked to Dick Cavett about Lillian Hellman's memoirs: "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'."

That's a great putdown, but to take it literally would be silly. Similarly in court cases; for Judge Engeron to find as a fact the opposite of everything that Weisselberg said would be foolish indeed. However, he could presumably substantially disregard Weisselberg's testimony as to material issues where that testimony was not confirmed by other credible evidence.

It's a somewhat odd kind of letter for a judge to write. On the other hand, I don't see how he could ignore the reported imminent guilty plea of perjury in this very trial.

However, I don't know how big a deal it will turn out to be. I can't recall what issues Weisselberg's testimony was relevant to, apart from lying about the size of Trump's apartment.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:27 pm as bad as this is for Trump, it’s way worse for his attorneys. Judge Engeron is requiring them to state whether or not they suborned perjury. if they deny that they know about it, and Weisselberg later, says that they did know, they are fucked.

Based on Weisselberg's history so far, I would be surprised if he implicates the attorneys.

However,

as I understand it, the New York pattern jury instructions do provide for false in Uno, so, if this had been a jury trial, that would potentially be an instruction. I don’t know what either side has to show in order for the instruction to be given. But as a general rule, the jury is always the arbiter of credibility, and there’s nothing stopping any jury from deciding, well, if he lied about this, he’s lying about everything, so we’re going to disregard it all. So I think of falses in Uno instruction is unnecessary in most cases and is potentially misleading unless it applies universally to all of the witnesses’ testimony

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:12 pm

realist wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:08 pm

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:05 pm What is falsus in uno and what does invoking it do?

Looks like this could be the (a?) reason for the delay in final $$ determination

"Basically" because he lied in one thing he lied in all things.

Hoo boy. Yippee ki yay motherfucker! I didn't remember Weisselburg testifying in this trial, but I guess he did. They didn't have a trial per se for the guilty part of it - he issued directed verdict (or whatever it's called) and the trial was only ever about the amount - is that right? Or were there more matters regarding the "how" that goes to civil fraud that Engoron heard? Either way, I may change my guess upward, to maybe $400 million. Nice round number.

Not quite. There were a number of counts--I think 7--and the directed verdict was only for count 1. So this trial was counts 2 to 7 on the merits, and then judgement for all 7.

Where we lie one, we lie all.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:23 pm

Not quite. There were a number of counts--I think 7--and the directed verdict was only for count 1. So this trial was counts 2 to 7 on the merits, and then judgement for all 7.

Thanks. It's been a while since I thought about the first part of that case. Plus it's confusing because Weisselberg also testified in the Trump Org trial, which is the one for which he went to jail. I'm not sure of the difference between that Trump Org trial and this one in front of Engoron, but I know they're two different things.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:24 pm Where we lie one, we lie all.

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:33 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:27 pm as bad as this is for Trump, it’s way worse for his attorneys. Judge Engeron is requiring them to state whether or not they suborned perjury. if they deny that they know about it, and Weisselberg later, says that they did know, they are fucked.

Based on Weisselberg's history so far, I would be surprised if he implicates the attorneys.

However,

I think he'd rather implicate them than implicate TFG.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 6:27 pm I think he'd [Weisselberg] rather implicate them than implicate TFG.

There is the issue for any defendant of how rationally they will make decisions when under the pressure and stress of court cases and possible incarceration. And how accurately their warped minds perceive reality: do Weisselberg and others think fondly of Trump (their employer for many years) or badly (the b****** threw me under the bus or didn't work hard to defend me).

We shall see, but I guess if Weisselberg turns on the lawyers, they'll defend themselves vigorously.