Holly wrote:He's disputing that, hence the appeal, we just have to wait and see.
But the outcome was a given before the trial even started.
What chance did he have in New York with a far left judge and prosecutor who were out to get him no matter what?
And once again Holly you're reciting the Trump talking point and not the facts.
There were multiple cases and the first - that of persistent fraud - went uncontested by the Trump organisation.
Persistent fraud required no intent, it's simply a finding that an individual or company did not take adequate care to prepare their records, we not sufficiently dilligent in maintaining them and did not have proper processes or competent leaders in place to oversee or direct compliance with generally accepted accounting principles.
That was a case decided on documents to which both sides stipulated and led to a summary judgement.
There were other elements that did require intent or willful negligence and it was on these that the Civil Fraud trial was brought - and whilst it could be, with at least some vestige of credibility, argued Trump lost so badly because his lawyers were utterly incompetent it's also a fact that Trump compromised his own defence on the stand.
At the same time one of the witnesses for Trump - Allen Weisselberg - who offered some testimony to defend Trump has entered into a plea deal for perjury during this trial. Again there's an argument to be made that Trump's lawyers made a bad situation worse or him by failing to understand that if they didn't share knowledge of what Weisselberg had said on the stand was false the judge would have no choice but to dismiss all of the testimony and assume anything said that would benefit Trump was not true.
The judge has no choice in those instances, those are the rules surrounding perjury.
Trump's talking points are not facts.
