For at least the fifth time, former President Donald Trump on Monday lost an attempt to dismiss his civil fraud case through a maneuver seeking a directed verdict in his favor.
In tossing Trump’s latest challenge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron reminded the former president that “a lie is still a lie.”
“We’re going to win. We’re going to win so much.
We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning, you’re going to come to me and go ‘Please, please, we can’t win anymore.’
You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. President, we beg you sir, we don’t want to win anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else.’” “And I’m going to say ‘I’m sorry, but we’re going to keep winning, winning, winning, We’re going to make America great again.”
How many times does he get to try this?
I mean it’s like dealing with a toddler. They said no, that means no.
It’s not going to change when you ask them again 375,000 times in a row.
If it goes up again the judge needs to grow some balls regardless of their gender and tell the lawyers that if you attempt to bring this action again to my court that you will be sanctioned and possibly disbarred.
Two of Trump’s experts in particular, Jason Flemmons and Eli Bartov, argued that valuations are inherently subjective, and Engoron sharply criticized their testimony exculpating Trump, his family members and business associates of wrongdoing.
“Bartov 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,” Engoron wrote.
A research professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, Bartov conceded that he billed nearly $877,500 to Trump for his testimony, and he said that money came from the Trump Organization and Save America PAC, the former president’s primary fundraising vehicle.
But Engoron said that Bartov “lost all credibility” by claiming Trump’s financial statements were accurate in every respect, even though a pre-trial ruling established the “numerous obvious errors” that they had.
This shit is the exact problem with our adversarial expert witness system. This should not happen in a court.
Yeah when you take the Obi Wan stance of, ‘what I told you was true, from a certain point of view’ in court, there should be some repercussions. Like we get there can be different points of view but if 9/10 people say one thing, that 1/10 person’s view probably shouldn’t count when figuring out the truth in court and is basically wasting time. Though I think this is up to the judge to decide so it was mostly a delay and seem like they have some sort of defense for his followers.
