“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.”
deleted by creator
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.
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.
iirc, it was a state law that dictated whether or not there could be a jury in this (type of) proceeding.
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.
deleted by creator
He can say all he wants. People living in reality won’t believe it and people not living in reality already believe everything he says without question. We’re never going to get the true believers to admit they went all-in on a conman, they are in the cult for life.
deleted by creator
Then he’s an even bigger idiot because appeals to this NY state civil case are never going to be in front of the Supreme Court under any possible circumstances.
They will if he argues his constitutional rights were violated by the process.
Those three stooges seem to be operating on a “fuck you I got mine” philosophy with regards to siding with Trump, at least.
People living in reality
Let’s hope they outnumber those who don’t.
I think this is why he hasn’t seen charges for witness intimidation or perjury and the like. They want to make it as clear as possible that an impartial reading of the law condemns him.
And because I’ve gotten smacked down more than once for posting such documents “elsewhere,” I made my own place to post them, with blackjack, and hookers.
deleted by creator
This particular doc is a photocopy, and not OCR’ed on the destination.
You may be referring to, in part:
[Eli] Bartov [who was an expert witness for the defendants] is a tenured professor, but all that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say.
deleted by creator
Defendants persist in arguing that if a loan closes prior to the period during which the statute of limitations allows suit, than [sic] any required follow-up SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] made during that period is somehow sacrosanct. That contention is belied by a plain reading of Executive Law Section [] 63(12), by the law of the case doctrine, and, perhaps most importantly, by common sense. Closing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for future misstatements. All that [] 63(12) requires is a false statement used in business; the subject financial statements fit that definition “to a T.”
When sites or whatever don’t let me copy/paste I just screenshot and use Google translate’s image translation thingy to give me a copyable version. Maybe there’s an easier way but that usually takes me all of 20 seconds. Hope that helps if you’re as technologically unsavvy as I.
Can I follow you from Lemmy?
You should search for “OriginalDocuments” on your instance, which should turn it up and enable you to subscribe to it. Your subscription will trigger that content to be federated to your instance.
Thanks. Turns out, I was already subscribed, lol.
Excellent - thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain for passers-by!
Thank you for this.
Today I made and appearance downtown. I am an expert witness, because I say I am. And I said, ‘Gentleman…and I use that word loosely…I will testify for you I’m a gun for hire, I’m a saint, I’m a liar Because there are no facts, no truth, just data to be manipulated I can get you any result you like…what’s it worth to ya? Because there is no wrong, there is no right And I sleep very well at night No shame, no solution No remorse, no retribution Just people selling t-shirts just opportunity to participate in this pathetic little circus And winning, winning, winning’
