Connect with us

Business

Trump to retake stand in New York fraud trial on December 10, 2023 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

on

Donald Trump will give the final word in his defense against claims his business engaged in a decade of fraud as the New York trial threatening his business empire nears its end. 

The former president is expected to take the witness stand for a third time Monday, this time under questioning from his own legal team.  

In testimony last month during the state’s case, Trump defended his business practices by downplaying key financial documents and declaring the trial corrupt. His fiery testimony often grew political, more akin to a stump speech than a direct examination as he railed against the judge and New York attorney general whom he decried as “frauds” and “political hacks.” 

“It’s a disgrace that a case like this is going on; all you have to do is read the legal scholars — the papers — and you’ll know,” Trump testified in November, raising his voice. “This is a political witch hunt.” 

Advertisement

But with Trump’s counsel steering the questioning this time, the former president will have significantly more latitude to set the narrative and espouse his side of the story. 

Throughout the defense case, which began in mid-November, several witnesses reprised previous testimony while offering up their own spin. 

The first time Donald Trump Jr. testified in the New York attorney general’s case, he distanced himself from documents at the heart of the case – his father’s statements of financial condition, which detail the value of the Trump Organization’s various assets and were sent to banks and insurers to secure loans and deals. New York Attorney General Letitia James’s (D) lawsuit claims the Trump Organization falsely adjusted the value of its assets to receive tax and insurance benefits. 

A defendant in the case, Donald Trump Jr. said he did sign off on Trump’s financial statements while his father was president. However, he said he counted on the work of accountants and executives like then-Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg to be correct. 

Advertisement

“As a trustee, I have an obligation to listen [to] those who are expert — who have an expertise of these things,” Donald Trump Jr. testified. 

But when he testified again in the defense case, the key financial statements were hardly the focus of his testimony. Instead, Donald Trump Jr. walked Judge Arthur Engoron through a glossy slideshow titled “The Trump Story” — a flashy narration of the Trump Organization’s origin story, complete with sleek photographs of the company’s luxury golf courses and hotels. Notably glossed over were the valuations of those properties. 

Jeff McConney, the Trump Organization’s ex-corporate controller and another defendant in the case, had similarly variant testimonies when called as a state versus defense witness.  

McConney’s testimony was used as a vehicle for state lawyers to show evidence that Trump’s statements of financial condition were integral to some loan deals. He also said he believed Trump reviewed those documents before they were finalized, linking Trump to the skewed documents.  

Advertisement

But McConney’s testimony for the defense focused far less on logistics. Nearly in tears, he testified to the exhaustion caused by the Trump Organization’s barrage of legal issues, which ultimately led the 36-year veteran of the company to retire in February. 

“I’m very proud of the work that I did,” McConney said before detailing all the investigations and legal proceedings he’s been pulled into.  

“I just wanted to relax and stop being accused of misrepresenting assets for the company that I loved working for,” he said. 

When Trump retakes the stand, arguments he attempted to make while testifying for the state could be bolstered and reframed after other defense witness testimony backed him up. 

Advertisement

Several Deutsche Bank executives, for example, affirmed defense arguments including that the bank wanted to work with the Trump Organization, did its own due diligence and found no fraud. Trump made those points in his own testimony. 

“Banks check the work,” Trump testified, arguing that his statements of financial condition weren’t just taken at face value by the bankers with which Trump Organization executives worked.  

Deutsche Bank Managing Director David Williams’s testified last month for the defense that bankers viewed their clients’ statements of financial condition as “subjective or subject to estimates” — and, that the bank took its own look at reports of net worth. 

“I think we expect clients’ provided information to be accurate,” Williams said. “At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited.” 

Advertisement

“They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” he added, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.” 

It’s all-but inevitable that Trump’s inflammatory political rhetoric will surface again, as well. 

In the month since he testified, Trump and his counsel have been locked in a battle with the trial judge, whom they claim has been biased against them from the start. The dispute began after Engoron imposed a gag order on Trump and his lawyers barring them from publicly discussing the judge’s staff. 

The order doesn’t prevent Trump’s team from criticizing the judge himself or James, the state’s top prosecutor. Nonetheless, that contention has placed Engoron directly in Trump’s line of fire on social media and in person. During his testimony last month, Trump lambasted the judge as “Trump hating” and questioned his impartiality. 

Advertisement

The former president’s legal team attempted to delay his testimony until after their appeal of the gag order plays out, but the judge forcefully denied that effort. 

“He is not capable of fully testifying because he is subject to the gag order,” Trump attorney Chris Kise argued, according to ABC News

“Absolutely not. No way. No how. It’s a nonstarter,” Engoron said. 

Trump’s third round of testimony – following a judge-ordered stint on the witness stand over a violation of the gag order and his examination by the state – could also give insight into how he’ll behave as his criminal trials get underway in the new year. 

Advertisement

The former president faces a combined 91 charges across four criminal cases, the first of which is expected to head to trial in Washington on March 4.  

The Associated Press contributed.

​Business, Court Battles, News, New York, Trump civil fraud trial, Trump Organization Donald Trump will give the final word in his defense against claims his business engaged in a decade of fraud as the New York trial threatening his business empire nears its end. The former president is expected to take the witness stand for a third time Monday, this time under questioning from his own legal…  

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

on

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

  • Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
  • Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
  • Metals: Up 43%.
  • Leather products: Up 39%.
  • Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
  • Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
  • Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

  • GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
  • Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

on

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

  • Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
  • No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
  • Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
  • Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

  • Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
  • Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
  • Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

  • Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
    • Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
    • Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
    • Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
  • Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
  • Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

  • Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
  • U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
  • Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Continue Reading

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

on

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

Credit: Heute.at

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

  • Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
  • Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
  • Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Credit: Heute.at

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

  • The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
  • The decline of Instagram and Twitter
  • Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Advertisement

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Credit: Heute.at

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.

Continue Reading

Trending