“A lie is still a lie”: Judge Engoron says Trump expert “lost all credibility” in scathing ruling

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s New York civil fraud trial on Monday rejected his motion to toss the case for “at least” the fifth time.

"At least five times during the recently concluded ten-and-a-half-week trial of this matter, defendants moved for a directed verdict," New York Judge Arthur Engoron wrote in a three-page ruling. "The first such time was at the close of plaintiff's case, which is when defendants normally move for such relief. This court took that motion, and most of the others, under advisement. It denied two of them on the spot."

Engoron already found Trump liable for fraud before the start of the trial after he inflated the value of his assets to secure favorable loans and deals. Trump’s latest motion for a directed verdict came after his defense team concluded their case. The defense presented multiple expert witnesses who argued that valuations may be based on different criteria without constituting fraud.

Engoron wrote that there were “fatal flaws” in the defense argument.

"Valuations, as elucidated ad nauseum in this trial, can be based on different criteria analyzed in different ways," he wrote. "But a lie is still a lie. Valuing occupied residences as if vacant, valuing restricted land as if unrestricted, valuing an apartment as if it were triple its actual size, valuing property many times the amount of concealed appraisals, valuing planned buildings as if completed and ready to rent, valuing golf courses with brand premium while claiming not to, and valuing restricted funds as cash, are not subjective differences of opinion, they are misstatements at best and fraud at worst."

One of Trump’s expert witnesses was Eli Bartov, a New York University School of Business professor who argued that valuations are inherently subjective. Bartov admitted on the stand that he was paid nearly $877,500 by the Trump Organization and the pro-Trump Save America PAC.

Bartov testified that there was “no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud.”

"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, adding that Bartov “lost all credibility” by claiming that Trump’s financial statements were completely accurate even though his pre-trial ruling found “numerous obvious errors.”

Bartov in a statement to the Associated Press argued that he never “remotely implied” at the trial that the financial statements were “accurate in every respect” and had simply argued that the errors were inadvertent and there was “no evidence of concealment or forgery.” He also argued that he billed Trump at his standard rate.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Trump fumed over the judge’s ruling on Truth Social.

“Judge Engoron challenges the highly respected Expert Witness for receiving fees, which is standard and accepted practice for Expert Witnesses,” he wrote. “The ignorant Judge did not even try to listen to the Expert Witness. This is a great insult to a man of impeccable character and qualifications. The Judge ignores the Law!”