Reflecting on Ivanka Trump's repeated claims that she couldn't remember key details when she was an executive representing the Trump Organization while on the witness stand on Wednesday, one legal expert claimed prosecutors were rolling the dice hoping she would make a critical admission because she didn't know any better.
In an interview with Newsweek, attorney Paul Golden noted that, if the $250 million financial fraud trial was being presented before a jury, prosecutors working for New York Attorney General Letitia James would have concluded their cross-examination with another witness who would offer up more explosive testimony.
However, since this is a bench trial overseen by Judge Arthur Engoron, putting Donald Trump's oldest daughter — who is not part of the indictment due to a statute of limitations ruling by an appeals court -- was both prudent and a bit off a gamble when it came solidifying their case.
According to Golden, "If this was a jury trial, the plaintiff might have considered having a dramatic ending to its case – with a person who would likely testify strongly against the defendants. If this was a jury trial, the state might have been disappointed with this kind of final witness."
"Judges are much less likely to be bowled over by the order of witness presentation. This is likely part of the reason the state was willing to present Ivanka as a last witness," he added.
Having pointed that out, he said prosecutors appeared to have rolled the dice and hoped for the best.
"Perhaps the state was hoping that she would admit to at least certain details against her father or his entities. Or perhaps the state is hoping that her own ignorance or lack of memory of certain issues is to its advantage," he told Newsweek's Sean O'Driscoll.
You can read more here.
