271

In a deposition taken in July, Bartov disclosed that he was being paid $1,350 an hour to work on the case. In court, he said he had now worked about 650 hours on the case, which would total $877,500.

Questioned by lawyers for New York’s attorney general, Bartov said the money had come from the Trump Organization and the former president’s political action committee, Save America.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MrNesser@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago

Hope he got his fee upfront

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Whatever he got as retainer is all he is going to get.

[-] zcd@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 year ago

A Trump never pays his debts

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 69 points 1 year ago

When the witnesses are paid more than the lawyers to lie- we have a fucking problem.

[-] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's so common. I've watched orthopedists tell defense attorneys that having them testify will cost more than a settlement, but they go ahead. And I get it, you can't just settle every case because it's cheaper, but it's nuts to me. Fucking insurance.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago

Not a lawyer. Isn't it a crime for a PAC to pay money in a civil trial?

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 year ago

That's exactly why I pulled that part of the article, I was hoping someone could answer that.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-trump-use-political-donations-pay-legal-defense-2023-08-01/

The law is tricky. It's not explicitly against the law, as per the article.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Why would it be? PACs can do pretty much anything with their money.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 35 points 1 year ago

Experts get paid for their contributions. This is an extremely high profile case that could have big ramifications for his career. Makes sense he would be paid a lot.

The issue is that he was making up a bunch of crazy stuff that doesn't follow accepted practices at all, not that he was paid.

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Making stuff up in court sounds like a bad idea

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Also at issue: maga people who donate to Trump think experts are "dumb" so they might see this a huge waste of their money.

Fortunately, they will never hear this so their peace of mind is assured.

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's for 650 hours which is like half a year of full time work. And it's short term work which always pays more. It's "more than a lot" to normal people but not really for specialized lawyers at the top of their field.

[-] griefreeze@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That's much close to a quarter year of full time work, but I get your point

[-] MumboJumbo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Full time is 40 hours a week, 960 hours would be 24 weeks, which is pretty close to half a year.

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

This guy did as much work as Donnie's doctor when he called him the healthiest person ever elected to the presidency.

[-] MumboJumbo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Oh I have no idea what kind, if any, work he did. I'm just here for the math.

[-] griefreeze@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong but I thought the number of hours we were talking about was 650?

[-] MumboJumbo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Well there in lies the problem: you are literate and I am not. That was totally my bad.

[-] griefreeze@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It be like that sometimes lol, you're all good

[-] sxan@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

That's $1.8M a year. If you worked for an average large US company, you'd have to be a senior executive to get that. Yes, it's short term, but your executive comp would probably be at least half tied up in benefits you don't have ready access to: stock options with multi-year vesting, bonuses tied to company performance, etc. Cash salary is more valuable, almost always, regardless of how HR tries to spin it.

That's not just a lot of money, it's a shit-ton of money.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

First of all this is what he claimed. I doubt seriously he spent this much time, but for shits and giggles if he did that works out to be like $1,500 an hour. Nobody is worth that.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 12 points 1 year ago

Must be from the esteemed accounting firm of Dewy, Cheetum and Howe.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


An accounting expert who came to Donald Trump’s defense in his $250m fraud has racked up nearly $900,000 in fees for his testimony, a court heard on Friday.

New York University Stern School of Business research professor Eli Bartov testified on Thursday that he had found “no evidence here of concealment” in his review of the financial statements at the heart of the case.

In a deposition taken in July, Bartov disclosed that he was being paid $1,350 an hour to work on the case.

According to ABC News, the prosecution’s sole expert witness, Michiel McCarty, chairman and chief executive at the investment bank MM Dillon & Co, was paid about $350,000 for his testimony.

Questioned by lawyers for New York’s attorney general, Bartov said the money had come from the Trump Organization and the former president’s political action committee, Save America.

Trump, his older sons and executives at his company are charged with exaggerating the value of their assets in order to obtain more favorable loans.


The original article contains 279 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 40%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
271 points (97.5% liked)

politics

23388 readers
1958 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