“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.”

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    6·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      6·
      11 months ago

      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”

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        7·
        11 months ago

        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.”