During the civil fraud trial involving former President Donald Trump, the presiding judge, Justice Arthur Engoron, publicly discredited the testimony of expert witness Eli Bartov, a New York University accounting professor, on Monday. Bartov, who was compensated nearly $1 million by the Trump Organization, faced scrutiny as he persistently defended Trump’s business records, as reported by Reuters.
The trial, centered around allegations by the New York state’s attorney general, claims that Trump’s family real estate company manipulated financial records to exaggerate property values for securing favorable loan and insurance terms.
Eli Bartov took the stand on December 7, asserting that after dedicating 650 hours to the case at a rate of $1,350 per hour, he found no evidence of fraud in Trump’s financial statements.
More Read
However, Justice Engoron’s written remarks not only cast doubt on Bartov’s testimony but also raised concerns about the potential bias of expert witnesses in high-stakes legal proceedings. The judge expressed skepticism, stating, “All that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say.”
Engoron’s criticism comes amid revelations that Bartov’s invoices were settled by both the Trump Organization and Save America, a political action committee supporting Trump’s potential 2024 election campaign. The substantial compensation and Bartov’s extensive involvement in the case have ignited discussions about the role and impartiality of expert witnesses.
The judge’s rebuke of Bartov’s testimony serves as a significant setback for Trump’s defense, adding a layer of skepticism to the efforts to refute the fraud claims. The case delves not only into specific allegations of fraud but also exposes the tactics employed in legal battles, particularly regarding the selection and compensation of expert witnesses.
The judge’s strong words underscore the importance of maintaining credibility in the pursuit of justice, especially when significant sums of money are involved. This development not only impacts the current trial but also highlights broader issues surrounding transparency and independence in legal processes, resonating as a cautionary tale in the realm of high-profile legal proceedings.
