Most Brits find it very difficult to identify with any aspect of Donald Trump's behaviour, or to understand how his supporters can overlook his obvious flaws. The recent New York judgment in which Donald Trump is required to 'disgorge' $450+m illuminates those flaws in fascinating detail - and makes entertaining reading. But even the Judge seemed to find Trump's behaviour inexplicable.
I was also interested to see that one defendant was required to disgorge the money paid to him under his separation agreement. I do not know whether UK courts have similar powers.
Here are some extracts from his judgment with emphasis added. Â
[The background is that Trump's lenders and insurers based their decisions on Trump's  statements of financial condition (SFCs).  They assumed that the SFCs were broadly accurate and they would not otherwise have done business with Donald Trump. The SFCs accordingly unlocked favourable interest rates and larger loans.]
Witnesses
âIn a theatrical attempt to halt the testimony of [one witness for the plaintiff], defendants tried to impeach him ... the assertions of defendantsâ counsel ... that [the witness'] testimony amounted to such blatant perjury he should be immediately removed from the stand to consult with counsel about his Fifth Amendment rights ⊠seemed like nothing more than a performance for a non-existent jury.
âAllen Weisselberg was the CFO of the Trump Organization [until] pleading guilty to 15 criminal counts of tax fraud and falsification of business records at the Trump Organization. In that same vein, his testimony in this trial was intentionally evasive, with large gaps of âI donât remember.â He conceded that his Separation Agreement, on which he is still apparently awaiting four payments, prohibits him from voluntarily cooperating with any entity âadverseâ to the Trump Organization or its former or current employees. That alone renders his testimony highly unreliable. The Trump Organization keeps Weisselberg on a short leash, and it shows.
âMcConney denied that Weisselberg asked him to commit fraud on behalf of the Trump Organization. However, when confronted with his sworn testimony ... he further conceded, after initially denying, that even though he knew these activities were illegal at the time he was performing them, he continued to assist Weisselberg in committing fraud, as he was afraid that if he refused Weisselbergâs requests he would lose his job.
âOn March 3, 2017, Alan Garten, chief legal officer for the Trump Organization forwarded Trump, Jr. an email from Forbes that, inter alia, questioned the claimed size of Donald Trumpâs Trump Tower Triplex and cited that property records indicated it was only 10,996 square feet. Trump, Jr. acknowledged receiving the email, ... Notwithstanding, four days later ... Trump, Jr., along with Weisselberg, signed a Management Representation Letter ⊠in which they represented the value of the Triplex based on the false assumption that it was 30,000 square feet.
âAlthough Eric Trump advised McConney in August 2013 to continue to use the $161 million value for the proposed seven-mansion development at Seven Springs, emails demonstrate that Eric Trump was aware of a valuation by a professional appraiser, engaged by the Trump Organization, who valued the hypothetical development at approximately $5.5 million.
âWhen examined about the valuation of Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump ... conceded that it was valued on the SFCs as if it could be sold as a private residence. When confronted with the 2002 deed in which he signed away, in perpetuity, the right to use or develop Mar-a-Lago as anything other than as a social club, in exchange for a conservation easement tax benefit, ... Donald Trump insisted that he believed Mar-a-Lago is worth âbetween a billion and a billion fiveâ today, which would require not only valuing it as a private residence, which the deed prohibits, but as more than the most expensive private residence listed in the country by approximately 400%.
âThe SFCs for 2014-2018 valued the [Aberdeen golf course] as if the Trump Organization could build 2500 year-round private residences (when in fact, they had received permission to build only 500) ... but also as if those residences had already been built, making the hypothetical residences a reality.
âOverall, Donald Trump rarely responded to the questions asked, and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial. His refusal to answer the questions directly, or in some cases, at all, severely compromised his credibility.
Mr Trumpâs Defence
âDefendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged misrepresentations. However, the Court notes that ... there is ample documentary and testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact, rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions
âWhether viewed in relative (percentage) or absolute (numerical) terms, objectively (the governing standard) or subjectively (how the lenders viewed them), defendantsâ misstatements were material. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously, or infamously, declared that he could not define pornography, but that he knew it when he saw it. The frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience.
Disgorgement
[Donald Trump was required to disgorge profits plus interest of $450m and rising every day. Nearly half of the base penalty reflected the interest that Mr. Trump had saved by misleading lenders, while the remaining amount represented his purported profit on the recent sale of two properties.]
âThere is substantial evidence that Allen Weisselbergâs $2 million separation agreement was negotiated to compensate him for his continued non-cooperation with any entities with any legal interests âadverseâ to defendants. Moreover, as Weisselberg was a critical player in nearly every instance of fraud, it would be inequitable to allow him to profit from his actions by covering up defendantsâ misdeeds.  Accordingly, Allen Weisselberg is liable for the money he has received from this separation agreement as ill-gotten gains. Although he was promised $2 million in total, at the time of his testimony, he had received only $1 million.  Accordingly, Allen Weisselberg must disgorge the $1 million he has already received as ill-gotten gains.
Monitoring
âThe Court ... directed Judge Jones to [monitor the defendants and to] provide regular updates to the Court summarizing her findings and observations. In her final report, Judge Jones made [numerous critical] findings and observations. ... The Court did not appoint Judge Jones randomly or arbitrarily or by happenstance. Rather, she was the only one of the three candidates that both sides proposed for the position of independent monitor. However, after she issued her scathing January 26, 2024 report, quite critical of defendantsâ financial practices, defendants changed their tune. Overnight, a universally respected former judge with a stellar resume, nominated by defendants themselves, joined the ranks of all those people and institutions being unfair to defendants and out to get them.
And Finally ...
âAfter some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (âinadvertent,â of course) that [the defendants] acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not amortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a âSee no evil, hear no evil, speak no evilâ posture that the evidence belies.
Comment
Donald Trump's popularity seems to have grown in proportion to the number of court cases in which he is a defendant, to the extent that some commentators have suggested that his misdemeanours should be ignored by prosecutors and regulators.  This is surely a very dangerous suggestion if this case is at all typical of the weight of evidence against the former President. I also find it quite impossible to understand how anyone in the USA can read judgments such as these and conclude that Mr Trump is fit to take part in public life at any level. Will it mark a turning point?
One must also sympathise with any public servant minded to 'speak truth to' Mr Trump. He inevitably features in my book 'Speaking Truth to Power'. Here are three quotes:
·     Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites.
·     Mr. Trump pulls all of those present into a silent circle of assent.
·     Mr. Trump makes everyone a co-conspirator to his preferred set of facts, or delusions.
(Speaking Truth to Power: How to have people listen to your advice and act on it is currently on special offer on Amazon, if you haven't already read it.)
Excellent reading! I doubt whether many of Trump's core supporters will have read a single word of the judgement. Pity they won't read Martin's note, either.