CLUELESS Trump Lawyer MAKES FOOL of Herself on LIVE TV after Subpoena
According to a report dated November 17, 2023, during the civil fraud trial of Donald Trump in New York City, an expert witness called in by the former president exhibited apparent inconsistencies in his testimony when subjected to cross-examination. In a report published on November 17th, 2023, by Raw Story, it was noted that Steve Laosa testified in court to contest the state’s interpretation of Trump’s financial statements, which he considered to be incorrect. Laosa argued that the assessment of Trump’s property valuations was inaccurately conducted. He maintained that the state’s reliance on the market value of Trump’s properties was erroneous since he asserted that their investment value would be far lower.
The crux of the issue pertains to the $250 million complaint filed by Attorney General Leticia James, wherein it is asserted that Donald Trump deliberately exaggerated the worth of his properties to mislead lenders and investors. In spite of Donald Trump’s strong denial of any misconduct, the judge has already rendered a summary judgment holding him accountable for fraudulent activities.
The current legal proceedings principally center on the assessment and quantification of the incurred losses. During the process of cross-examination, State Attorney Lewis Solomon approached Laosa with a financial document pertaining to Trump and strongly urged him to read aloud from the notes portion of the document. Laosa, purportedly surprised, was compelled to vocalize the following statement: “Assets are presented at their approximated present worth,” prompting his acknowledgment that this was his initial experience with such knowledge.
The critical juncture arose when Solomon supplied Laosa with a precise elucidation of the term “estimated current value” and raised the question of its potential equivalence to market value. Laosa had an ambiguous statement, noting, “It is a possibility,” as documented by journalist Adam Claus Feld from Messenger.
In a further development, Solomon proceeded to provide a video deposition dated July 19th, 2023, wherein Laosa had earlier given testimony asserting the interchangeability of the terms “estimated current value” and “market value.” The emergence of this development prompts inquiries regarding the coherence and dependability of Laosa’s testimony, which has the potential to weaken the defense’s endeavors to contest the assertions made by the prosecution.
The revelation of a contradiction during the process of cross-examination has the potential to raise skepticism regarding the reliability of the expert witness associated with Trump, intensifying the study of the financial transactions of the former president. As the trial progresses, there is a change in attention from the already established liability to a more in-depth examination of the delicate aspects pertaining to the damages suffered. The emergence of discrepancies in Laosa’s testimony introduces an additional level of intricacy to an already significant legal dispute, prompting both parties to seek advantageous positions within the confines of the courtroom. The trial’s outcome is expected to have substantial repercussions for Donald Trump, including leading to a re-evaluation of the narrative around his financial practices.