In the recent trial of former Trump attorney, the focus has shifted to the potential damages and penalties that may be imposed. The defendant has been accused of fraudulent activities, and while the judge has already made a ruling on the fraud, the current stage is determining the extent of the financial repercussions. The exact range of penalties being discussed, such as 240 or 360, appears to be relatively high and possibly uncollectible. However, a primary objective for the defense seems to be building a strong record for the upcoming appeal.
By engaging in actions that could potentially antagonize the judge, the defense may be attempting to provoke mistakes in the judge's decision-making process. This strategy ensures that all objections raised by the defense, including claims of a witch hunt, are well-documented for the appeal. It is critically important to present these objections during the trial, as they cannot be raised for the first time during the appeal.
The issue of actual penalties and their collectability also arises. In this case, it is speculated that the judgment could potentially result in the seizure of Trump's buildings and even the complete shutdown of his corporation. However, it remains uncertain whether the assets liquidated from such actions would be sufficient to satisfy the judgment. Many individuals who receive judgments against them often lack the necessary funds to pay the full amount.
While large damages are sometimes awarded to send a message or deter similar behavior in other cases, they are typically tied to the actual loss suffered. In this instance, some argue that the damages should be determined by the actual financial harm suffered by Deutsche Bank, the lender in question. Donald Trump asserts that there was no victim in this case and, as a result, argues for a judgment of zero. However, extraordinary numbers in judgments can sometimes serve as symbolic statements rather than accurate legal assessments.
Considering the potential appeal, the role of the attorney in charge becomes crucial. The presence of an appellate attorney suggests that the focus might be on preparing the case for the subsequent appeal rather than solely influencing the trial judge's ruling. The trial seems to lack a clear direction or a leading figure, with previous attorneys having handled it in a more appropriate manner. The absence of a well-guided strategy is further emphasized by the limited focus on persuading the trial judge or seeking a favorable ruling.
In the end, it remains to be seen how the trial will play out and what penalties will be imposed. The actions taken during the trial and the potential outcomes will likely impact future appeals and the court of public opinion. It is hoped that the trial judge's experience and professionalism will prevail, even in the face of provocative tactics, ensuring a fair and just resolution is reached.
