Another Accountant Who Doesn’t Understand The Law

 It’s a rich field today:

NYU accounting professor Eli Bartov was on the stand when Trump's lawyer, Jesus M. Suarez, questioned him about a disclaimer that Trump put in his financial statement documents. 

“The estimates presented herein are not necessarily predictive of the amounts that could be realized upon the disposition of the assets or the payments of the related liabilities,” one disclaimer says. 

“This statement simply ... provides another warning to the user that again they should not rely on the raw data that’s produced in this statement, but they should do their own analysis,” Bartov says. “If you want to defraud someone, you don’t give this type of warning."

This is a question of law, not of fact. And the court has already ruled on it. I mean, I’m not in this trial and I know that!

“Estimated current value is an opinion about value,” Bartov says. “Because this opinion is a prediction of the future, and no one can predict the future.” 

“If a student walked into your class and suggested these statements were prepared for the benefit of [the preparer], what would you [do]?” Suarez asks. 

“I would kick them out of my class immediately,” Bartov says. 

“Why is that?” Suarez asks. 

“Because it's absurd,” Bartov says. Bishop [sic]said that it was part of the prosecution's case that the disclaimers on Trump's statements ensure accountants preparing the financial statements would be relieved of any kind of obligation that "they'd otherwise adhere to, for say, an audit," Bishop described 

“The only criteria [under GAAP] for financial statements is what works for the user,” Bartov says. “There is no provision in GAAP that says to the preparer, use this information to protect yourself. It doesn’t exist." That's when Kevin Wallace from the attorney general's office objected to Bartov's comments that he said went beyond the scope of his expertise.

Because it’s a question of law, not fact. Again. 

Bartov became enraged, assuming it meant he didn't know what he was talking about. 

“You ought to be ashamed of yourself for making a claim like that,” Bartov shouted, pointing to Wallace. 

According to Rubin, Bartov believed that Wallace was "impugning his truthfulness." 

Judge Arthur Engoron told the men to calm down and called for a lunch break where folks could cool off.

The objection was on a point of law (what objection in court isn’t?). It was not about Bartov’s knowledge, it was about the admissibility of what he said. Even expert witnesses can’t testify about questions of law. Those are only decided by the judge, and only reviewable by a superior court. They are not, in other words, decided by a jury. There is no jury here, but the principle holds: witnesses do not opine in questions of law.

Barton didn’t do Trump any favors, and Trump just wasted a lot of other people’s money on him. No, really:

Trump's expert, Eli Bartov, is a professor of accounting at NYU. He said that he has testified 16-18 times as an expert in court cases. He had previously testified in his deposition that Trump was paying him $1,350 per hour for work on this case and had already paid him $520,000 before the trial even started.

Not because Bartov is a bad person, but because nothing he said was relevant to the case before the court. His comments on fraud were legally unsound, and the court has already ruled on the fraud issue.

Trump lost.

Trump insisted on this testimony. He truly has no idea what’s happening, or what’s coming.