“For a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say,” Arthur Engoron wrote in a withering three-page ruling.

“For a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say,” Arthur Engoron wrote in a withering three-page ruling.

Donald Trump has suffered a significant setback in his attempts to have the case being brought against him by the New York state attorney general dismissed, after a judge poured scorn on the credibility of accounting experts Eli Bartov and Jason Flemmons.

Judge Arthur Engoron highlighted the potential for bias in their testimonies, given the significant financial compensation they have received. He said that assuming their testimonies were accurate would be a “glaring flaw” in view of these financial incentives.

Judge Engoron was particularly critical of Bartov, a tenured professor, stating that his testimony essentially showed only that some experts might say anything “for a million or so dollars.”

Engoron added, “By doggedly attempting to justify every misstatement, Professor Bartov lost all credibility.”

  • @Evilcoleslaw
    22•5 months ago

    He’s going to say that Engoron dismissed their testimony by implying they were paid off to commit perjury on the stand with no evidence. He’s going to say that subjective opinions cannot be lies.

    None of that is appealable. These are findings of fact. Usually a jury would be finding those things, including deciding on the credibility of witnesses. Appeals are for findings of law or abuse of discretion.

    FWIW from the outside this is a bit more muddled than usual because his attorneys were too incompetent to request a jury trial. But that’s their problem and I doubt an appeals court is going to have trouble separating the two roles the judge has, as the finder of fact and of law.

    • @[email protected]
      9•5 months ago

      The lawyers may not have wanted a jury trial and are hiding it, juries are unpredictable and ask a lot of wild questions. Also, this is a NYC pool of people, there aren’t many people that live there who like him from my understanding. IMO, they had to do the judge trial, they just didn’t tell him.

      • ares35
        2•5 months ago

        iirc, it was a state law that dictated whether or not there could be a jury in this (type of) proceeding.

        • @[email protected]
          7•5 months ago

          The judge explains it here:

          Former President Donald Trump did not request a jury for his New York civil fraud trial, but even if he had asked for one, the answer would’ve been “no,” a judge said Wednesday. Engoron said that in paperwork certifying that the case was ready for trial, James’ office checked a box suggesting it be a non-jury proceeding. Trump’s team had 15 days to oppose that, but did not, Engoron said, because there was no point in doing so.“It wo uld not have helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box,” Engoron said.

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

          Note: That article explains a lot I didn’t know.