Judge Rips Credibility of Trump’s Well Paid Expert Witnesses
Judge Rips Credibility of Trump’s Well Paid Expert Witnesses
“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.”
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Hahaha holy shit this judge ripped them to shreds. I wish I could copy and paste for the original doc on my phone but there is some gold in there.
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.
The part where he calls bullshit based on a "plain reading" of the law in question "and common sense". Haha. The judicial equivalent of ,"if you just read the fucking law or had half a brain cell"
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.