Trump gives a speech during the final statements in his trial for fraud in New York, ignoring any restrictions.

Trump gives a speech during the final statements in his trial for fraud in New York, ignoring any restrictions.

Former President Donald Trump refused to acknowledge or consider.restrictions

During his civil fraud trial in New York, the judge imposed strict regulations which the defendant addressed in his closing statements on Thursday. He expressed anger towards the state’s attorney general and the judge, speaking for several minutes.

The previous day, Judge Arthur Engoron informed Trump’s lawyers that he would only permit them to speak if they stuck to “pertinent, significant information that has been presented, and the use of appropriate laws to support those facts.” However, his legal team did not consent to this restriction.

During the court proceedings, Trump’s lawyer Christopher Kise brought up the matter once more. The judge inquired if the former president would adhere to the restrictions, to which Engoron permitted him to proceed with his statement.

Looking for $370 million to be allocated to the state and imposing a permanent prohibition on Trump from engaging in New York real estate, along with additional penalties.

Attorneys representing the state started their concluding arguments in the afternoon, following Trump’s departure from the courthouse. The judge has stated that he will not make an immediate ruling, but rather intends to take several weeks to decide on the unresolved matters in the case.

Trump’s closing argument

Former President Donald Trump sits in a New York courtroom before closing arguments in his civil fraud trial on Jan. 11, 2024.

On January 11, 2024, ex-President Donald Trump is seen in a New York courtroom waiting for the final arguments in his trial for civil fraud.


After summarizing the argument of Trump’s team, Kise reiterated his plea for his client to have the opportunity to address the court. Engoron inquired if Trump could comply with the limitations set forth and stick to discussing the evidence of the case. Trump stated he would not, but proceeded to speak regardless.

“I believe, your honor, that this case extends beyond the facts. The financial records were flawless, the banks have been repaid and are content,” stated Trump.

Trump stated that when someone says not to exceed certain limitations, it creates a scenario where he, an innocent individual, has been targeted by a political candidate. He believes that it is necessary to surpass these boundaries, referencing James.

He stated that the attorney general had utilized a law intended for addressing consumer deception.

“I have been defrauded. Sir, what has occurred here is a fraud against me,” stated Trump, followed by his suggestion that the state should be obligated to compensate him for damages as retribution for pursuing the case.

Prior to running for office, Trump claimed he had never encountered issues and shifted his anger towards the judge.

“You have your personal schedule, you are unable to listen for longer than a minute, this has been a form of harassment,” he informed Engoron, who interrupted and advised Kise to “manage your client.”

Engoron then added, “You mentioned that you have never encountered an issue. Have you ever faced legal action before?”

Trump refused. “Your honor, I am innocent. They owe me compensation for the difficulties we faced,” he stated.

An artist's sketch of former President Donald Trump speaking in court during closing arguments in his New York fraud trial on Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024.

A drawing by an artist depicting ex-President Donald Trump delivering his final arguments in his fraud trial in New York on January 11, 2024.

Jane Rosenberg

Trump’s angry outburst occurred after his defense team gave their closing arguments, which lasted for almost three hours. During this time, Kise argued that the state could not refute the testimony given by the defense’s expert witnesses and questioned the credibility of one of the state’s key witnesses. He emphasized that Judge Engoron must take into account the unchallenged testimony when making his decision. However, Engoron interrupted Kise to express disagreement.

Engoron clarified that he is not making a decision on the validity of your statement being unchallenged, but he is not obligated to accept unchallenged testimony if he does not find it believable. In a ruling on Dec. 18, the judge stated that he did not find one specific witness for Trump, accounting professor Eli Bartov, to be credible as he had praised Trump’s financial statements.

“At the time, Engoron stated that his testimony only demonstrates that experts can be persuaded to say whatever you desire for a large sum of money.”Bartov charged for the work that went into his testimony, which totaled at least $877,500.

Trump listened intently as Kise discussed his estimated net worth and the testimony of his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who was his rival.

Kise focused on Cohen’s October statement, in which Cohen claimed that the ex-president gave direct approval for the deceitful inflation of his financial status and property values.

The lawyer presented a slide labeled, “Michael Cohen – Sole Witness for AG is a Repeated Deceiver.” Cohen confessed during his testimony that he had previously committed perjury on multiple occasions. Kise stated that Cohen was the only witness for the state who spoke about the defendants’ “intent” in creating fraudulent financial documents.

Kise stated that Michael Cohen is their sole witness and they do not have anyone else. The judge is being pressured into finding Cohen a trustworthy witness, putting them in a difficult position.

Alina Habba, another lawyer representing Trump and the other defendants, primarily discussed Cohen in her brief comments. Cohen’s testimony before Congress in 2019 regarding Trump served as the catalyst for the state’s investigation.

“Your honor, you are not easily swayed, but he believed you were. He sat here, he was deceitful, and he caused all of this,” stated Habba.

Both she and Kise accused the accountants employed by Trump and the company, claiming that they trusted an external firm to protect them.

Habba questioned the actions of the supposed fraudsters, who had enlisted the services of a major accounting firm in New York. This decision seemed illogical to him.

The defendants’ lawyers consistently argued that the state was attempting to penalize Trump and his associates for their “errors.”

Clifford Robert, the lawyer for Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, stated that ten years ago, they possibly witnessed something and had a small role in it. Now, they are being pursued for the maximum punishment in their professional careers.

Kise concluded his presentation by reviewing a list of Trump’s properties and attempted to demonstrate that James’ team was unable to provide evidence that Trump and his company benefited from fraudulent activity, let alone the $370 million that the state is seeking.

The lawyer for Trump claimed that a witness, who spoke on behalf of James and testified about the effects of fraud on the loans, failed to consider the defense’s argument that Trump could have still been eligible for exceptionally favorable terms even with a significantly lower net worth.

According to Kise, if Trump loses, it could establish a negative precedent and cause businesses to leave New York.

Kise stated that it is unacceptable for the attorney general to pursue a fraud without a victim and impose the death penalty on a corporation.

He also warned Engoron: “Consider the impact of your actions. This sets a precedent.”

in the Trump fraud probe

The final arguments presented by the New York Attorney General in the investigation of fraud by Trump.

The attorneys representing James contended in their final statement that the Trump Organization had been heavily reliant on fraudulent practices for an extended period of time.

According to Kevin Wallace, a lawyer at James’ firm, Trump and his company deceived lenders about his wealth and property values, putting them at greater risk. Wallace stated that the accused parties knowingly planned to commit fraud for a period of ten years.

Wallace honed in on the defendants’ utilization of previously dismissed arguments before the trial commenced. These included claims that a disclaimer in Trump’s financial documents cleared him of any accountability, and that his accountants bore the responsibility. Wallace described these attempts as “zombie arguments.”

Wallace dismissed the statements of professionals hired by Trump’s group as “meaningless.” He claimed that the experts were brought in as a diversion from the defense’s failure to provide concrete evidence to support their argument.

Wallace stated that it is not permissible to use expert testimony to introduce new information that was not previously included in the record. Engoron confirmed his agreement with this statement.

Wallace added, “The experts did not assist in the court’s fact-finding process. That is their designated role.”

Wallace jokingly referred to the experts as a “Murderers’ Row,” in reference to the 1927 New York Yankees. Kise, who hails from Florida, objected to the comparison. Wallace clarified that it was a joke and elaborated on the reference, earning a nod of understanding from the New York judge.

Andrew Amer, another attorney from James’ firm, emphasized the inaccurate portrayals of the Trump Organization’s available funds during different years. The state alleges that the company falsely claimed to have hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, which was actually designated for a joint project by a partner company.

According to Amer, insurance companies were deceived by a misleading representation of available funds, wrongly assuming that the money belonged to the Trump Organization.

Amer was interrupted by Engoron while accusing Jeffrey McConney, a former executive at the Trump Organization, of intentionally inflating the value of a building by disregarding the fact that some of its apartments were under rent stabilization. Engoron inquired how Amer was certain that McConney had neglected this information.

Amer responded, “He is not foolish.”

The Trump fraud trial

The trial, which began Oct. 2

The focus of the event was on small and technical details related to accounting, and the proceedings consisted of lengthy and uninteresting statements, with occasional outbursts and confrontations in the courtroom. Trump was penalized on two occasions for his behavior.

Breaking a court-ordered restriction on discussing or revealing information.

After publishing a negative post about Engoron’s law clerk, measures were implemented.

The office of James accused Trump, Eric Trump, and Donald Trump Jr., along with their company and two executives, of engaging in a lengthy plan to manipulate valuations in order to secure favorable terms for bank and insurance transactions.


The court found the defendants responsible for committing fraud.

The pretrial ruling made in September was put on hold during the ongoing trial, which focuses on charges of insurance fraud, falsifying business records, and conspiracy.

Trump and his fellow defendants have refuted any claims made against them. The Republican, who is seeking reelection, has vehemently criticized the lawsuit, accusing Democrats of seeking revenge.