this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
296 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19655 readers
3020 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“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.”

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Part of me actually believes Trump wanted this scathing ruling.

He knew from day one there was never a chance he was going to win this case on the merits, even on appeal. So as usual, his goal is to attack the process. He's been flinging shit at the DA, the judge, the clerk, and anyone even remotely involved with the case to see who bites at it, and the Judge may very well have taken the bait here.

The merits of the case no longer matter to Trump. So he wants the appeal to be all about the process, not the facts. He wants to show that Judge Engoron was "biased from the beginning". He's going to use Engoron's ruling on appeal to say that it's proof that the judge had it in for him from the beginning. 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. Whatever he can come up with. But the main point is that he's hoping to get his case in front of conservative judges or even up to SCOTUS in hopes that the judges will ignore the merits of the case and instead focus on perceived bias.

At the very least, he's going to use the ruling on the campaign trail to shore up support among his base and drive campaign funding because he knows his base will eat it up and throw their money at him. And as a bonus, he's probably hoping that someone actually follows through with a threat against Engoron and send a message to other judges and jurors, which has already proven to be an effective strategy for him.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pelespirit 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

iirc, it was a state law that dictated whether or not there could be a jury in this (type of) proceeding.

[–] pelespirit 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He's not appealing to "people living in reality".

He's appealing to Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and his three hand-picked stooges, because that's who this will ultimately end up in front of. His base is there to give him money, and his hand-picked judges are there to give him cover. No other opinions matter to him.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

They will if he argues his constitutional rights were violated by the process.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Those three stooges seem to be operating on a "fuck you I got mine" philosophy with regards to siding with Trump, at least.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

People living in reality

Let's hope they outnumber those who don't.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Original document

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.

[–] pelespirit 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can I follow you from Lemmy?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pelespirit 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks. Turns out, I was already subscribed, lol.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Excellent - thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain for passers-by!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Thank you for this.

[–] lingh0e 5 points 1 year ago

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'

[–] HootinNHollerin 1 points 1 year ago

Daily beast tho