license to evade the statute. the a.g. has not established any impact. it belies common sense and the a.g. relies on you. kise is saying almost the entire case put forth by the attorney general is outside of the stding at a podium directly in front of the judge using a large computer monitor for his notes and documents. he s referring to are being shown on a large tv screen to the gallery. the big monitor is right in front of the a.g. and trump is sitting up in the chair and listening pretty intently, excuse me, it s pretty cold out here. but i m actually interested to hear from barbara along with danny about the argument that s being made by chris kise in these closing arguments about how much of the case put forward by the a.g. is outside the statute of limitations and kind of what their sense is on that defense. so i think that is interesting, danny, because we
his organization vastly inflated the values of their properties, their assets in order to get loans that they maybe wouldn t otherwise have gotten or perhaps at better interest rates. important to know, the judge has already found on one of the causes of action, one of the claims here in favor of the attorney general and against donald trump. that was something the judge decided before the trial. the judge said just based on the filings i have before me, i m resum ruling in favor of the a.g. there are still six other causes of action related to submitting false documents and that kind of thing, what the attorney general is now asking for is 3 $370 million in disgorgement, we re taking away ill-gotten gains, and most importantly cancellation of the trump organization s business certificate, which you need to do business in the state. when trump s lawyers, they re arguing for the future of the business. hasn t there been some question on the latter part of what the a.g. s office is ask
here. these closing arguments are going to be less impactful because the judge is a fact finder. he doesn t need as much of the lawyers to put together the arguments for him the way you would if you had a traditional jury. i suspect he s already drafting an opinion and we ll see it come out in the next few weeks. we re going to be deprived of some of the drama that normally comes with this, you don t know when the jury s going to come back and then they stand up. can i ask why no jury? the well, the law here would say because what the remedy that the a.g. is seeking doesn t require a jury, but it s important to remember requested it. trump s team could have asked for it. there s a little bit of gray area there. they did not ask for it, and i think if they had asked for a jury, they would have had a decent chance of getting one. i always think that s an important point to make on everything. they chose this route. thanks, guys, appreciate it. after the apology that was
show how they get there, and they re going to ask for every penny. and yasmin walked us through what those specific benchmarks were where they re getting that $370 million in damages. yasmin, you have something to add? reporter: yeah, we re just getting some more from the closing arguments in which they have gun. chris kise from the defense has started his closing arguments. i just want to read a little bit to you from what we re hearing from him. he says this, not one witness over a three-year investigation, a year of litigation, 44 days of trial, not one witness said there was fraud or identified a material misstatement. not one said the loan terms or pricing would have been any different. they didn t cite witnesses, bank officers or experts. the only witness was michael cohen. this entire case is a political agenda. he also says the a.g. says the goal is to protect counterparties in the marketplace. no counterparties or anyone from the marketplace showed up to say there were pro
arguments followed by the prosecution or the a.g. s office in this case, likely to give their closing arguments this afternoon the. but there you see him in his red tie, his blue jacket looking pretty solemn and serious with his hands crossed in front of him as we get this quick pool spray before those closing arguments actually get underway. what do you see, barb, as the strongest defense here after watching and reporting out the past few months of trial? yeah, i imagine they will come back with some of the same arguments that we heard during the trial, which is that the trump properties are valued far in excess of what their ordinary market value would be because of the trump brand and brands are difficult to quantify, so when you add that, then they acted in good faith when they represented the values of these properties. i don t know that those arguments are going to carry the day, but i think those are the best arguments!