Donald Trump's New York civil fraud trial could wrap up
this week after the former president decided not to testify.
Today, Trump announced on social media he has,
quote, nothing more to say.
Prosecutors accused the former president,
his adult sons, and his business of a decades long
fraud scheme that centered around inflating the value of their
company.
CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levenson joins us now.
Thanks so much for chatting with us,
Jessica. We appreciate it as as always
1st. When Trump testified in early November,
he lashed out at New York's attorney general and the
judge.
What do you make of this decision not to testify
again?
And and how could it influence his legal strategy in
other cases?
So I think he decided not to testify because frankly,
I think he expects this case is already lost.
We know that this particular case,
the judge before the trial already found that Trump and
the Trump Organization were liable for fraud.
So this trial is all about damages on that count,
and whether or not the judge will find liability on
the rest of the counts.
Let's remember there's not a jury in this case to
play to.
It's just the judge who knows the facts of this
case and knows the law very well.
So why not testify? He already gave this kind of
monologue,
interrupted by questions before when the prosecution put on its
case.
If he were to testify again in the first instance,
he would be subject to friendlier questioning by his attorneys,
but then he would be subject to cross examination,
and I think that's something that he really wanted to
avoid.
So you asked what could this mean for other cases?
Let's remember this is a civil case,
but for other cases, for the criminal cases,
I'd be very surprised if the former president wants to
take the stand and subject himself to cross examination.
So this is a case that if the calculation is
that they've already lost,
don't say anything that could potentially be used against you
in another situation.
I think that's exactly right.
And or don't commit perjury because he would be subject
to a lengthy list of rapid fire yes or no
questions.
Did you do this as the head of your business?
Did the financial documents look like this,
et cetera, et cetera. And I think he would try
to give a speech as he did when he was
put on the stand by the prosecution originally,
the judge would say yes or no and he doesn't
want to put himself in that position here.
And then, as he pointed out,
potentially put himself in greater risk in another case.
Now Rudy Giuliani's trial to determine how much he owes
to former Georgia election workers is underway.
Giuliani has already been found liable over baseless claims that
they committed fraud in the 2020 election.
What will we hear from Giuliani?
Well, as you said, this is not about liability.
This is about damages. So from Giuliani,
we might still hear some arguments that frankly are better
suited to liability.
We might hear him say these statements were protected speech.
He was protected by the 1st Amendment.
These statements, he might argue,
were about the election, but in the end,
if he's really going to argue anything that matters to
the jury,
it's going to have to be that the harm wasn't
that great.
He's going to say with respect to both of these
poll workers that their reputations weren't that damaged.
And I think he's going to have to admit that
they were damaged.
But really all he's trying to do is bring the
potential award of damages down to as low as it
possibly can be.
We have to run, Jessica.
But just briefly, were you surprised that
President Trump, former President Trump,
did not testify today?
No. I think this is the smart move.
I think he said what he was going to say.
I think he had virtually nothing to gain.
And I think we'll see this strategy moving forward.
All right. Jessica Levinson, thanks so much as always.