Letitia James Gets One Over On Trump After His Motion For A Mistrial


Facing a new motion from the defense for the declaration of a mistrial in their fraud case against Trump, the team of New York state Attorney General Letitia James clearly isn’t that fazed, based on a missive recently filed with the presiding judge, Arthur Engoron.

The document, from James’ team member Kevin Wallace, asks in the event of a briefing process related to Trump’s mistrial push for a deadline for the state’s oppositional arguments of December 8.

That’s “given the demonstrable lack of urgency,” Wallace said, certainly taking some of the rhetorical wind out of the Trump team’s sails here. Above that section, he describes precedent for an appeal of something like Engoron eventually denying the mistrial motion waiting until the trial as a whole is concluded, which could take weeks more. But even in this early stage, James’ team made their general opinions on the dispute clear, with Wallace referring even earlier in the doc to what he called the “total lack of merit to Defendants’ application for a mistrial.” It seems perhaps unlikely as a given that Engoron would rule effectively against himself and grant the Trumps’ mistrial wishes.

In the meantime, the trial as a whole has moved on to the defense’s presentation. An early witness for their side of the case was Donald Trump Jr., who’d also testified earlier, claiming at the time he didn’t possess a substantial role in disputed statements of financial condition that effectively drive the case from James.

She alleges a years-long pattern of financial corruption driven by false claims of value for various Trump assets, which set up the Trump company for unearned financial benefits like more favorable terms on loans. Trump Jr.’s later testimony for the defense veered into a laudatory recap of some of the Trump Organization’s various holdings. The ex-president himself has been claiming an astronomical value for his resort Mar-a-Lago sending it into the billions of dollars, though there’s no clearly supporting evidence.