“Estimated Current Value is Not an Exact Science”: Chaos Unravels in Court as Trump’s Expert Witness Fumbles

Gabriel RomanNov 23, 2023

Minute Read

In a recent New York civil fraud trial involving former President Donald Trump, the focus turned to the testimonies of key defense witnesses, particularly regarding their consultancy fees. This development unfolds amid allegations that Trump significantly overstated his net worth in financial statements to banks, insurers, and tax authorities. Here’s the lowdown.

Expert Witness Stumped by Simple Question

Jason Flemmons is an experienced forensic accountant, as well as a senior managing director at Ankura. However, he was at a loss when asked about his consultancy fees. This query, posed after Flemmons had already provided two days of detailed testimony, caught him off guard.

Judge Probes for Clarity on Consultancy Fees

Seeking transparency, Justice Arthur Engoron of the New York Supreme Court directly questioned Flemmons about Ankura’s financial involvement in the case. The judge’s inquiry was designed to unravel the specifics of the consultancy’s compensation. This detail is crucial to understanding the broader context of the trial’s financial underpinnings.

Accountant’s Uncertain Response

Representing Ankura, Flemmons’ response to questions about his firm’s fees was uncertain. “My firm is being paid,” he stated, indicating a disconnect between his role as a key defense witness and his awareness of the firm’s financial transactions. This gap in knowledge highlighted a potential oversight in the witness’s preparation.

The Challenge of Estimating Total Fees

When Justice Engoron probed further, asking about the total amount billed versus unpaid, Flemmons struggled to provide a definitive answer. “It’s hard to say,” he admitted. His difficulty in quantifying the total consultancy fees raised questions about transparency in legal financial arrangements.

Specifics of Hourly Billing Revealed

Exploring the details of the consultancy’s charges, Flemmons disclosed that Ankura bills at a rate of $925 per hour. This figure sheds light on the premium costs associated with legal consulting in high-profile cases. This illustrates the hefty financial investments required in complex legal battles.

Inquiry into Time Commitment

Kevin Wallace, representing Attorney General Letitia James, asked about the duration of Ankura’s involvement in the case. Flemmons’ inability to provide a clear time estimate added another layer of complexity to understanding Ankura’s role and investment in the defense strategy. To some, it shows the often intricate nature of legal consultancy work.

Contrast in Witness Responses

Steven Collins, another consultant from Ankura, showed readiness to answer similar questions about his compensation. Estimating a 40 to 60-hour commitment, Collins’ response highlighted a notable discrepancy in preparedness and transparency between the two consultants. This demonstrates the varied approaches witnesses take in high-stakes legal scenarios.

Context of Flemmons’ Earlier Testimony

Editorial credit: Consolidated News Photos / Shutterstock.

Previously, Flemmons had provided extensive testimony on behalf of Trump. He discussed the range of methodologies used in property and asset valuation. His detailed insights were pivotal to the defense’s argument, emphasizing the subjectivity and complexity inherent in financial estimations.

Allegations Against Trump’s Financial Statements

Central to the trial are allegations from James that Trump grossly inflated his net worth in official statements. This accusation carries significant weight. It could potentially impact Trump’s business dealings in New York. It also shows the importance of accurate financial reporting in corporate governance.

Judge’s Pretrial Findings and Orders

In a pretrial decision, Justice Engoron found indications of fraud in Trump’s net-worth statements. This finding led to a consequential order affecting the Trump Organization’s future in New York. To some, this shows the serious implications of financial misrepresentation at corporate levels.

Methodologies in Estimating Net Worth

Flemmons’ testimony on the various methodologies for financial estimations illustrated the diverse approaches to valuing assets and properties. His expert insights provided a window into the complexities and subjectivity of calculating net worth. This is a key element in the trial and the case overall.

Witness Admits to Glaring Problems in Statements

Editorial credit: mark reinstein / Shutterstock.

On the witness stand, Flemmons acknowledged significant issues in approximately 10 years’ worth of Trump’s financial statements. Despite pointing to the accountants for ultimate responsibility, his admission underscored the severity of the discrepancies in these statements. However, others have criticized his statements.

Questioning the “Orders of Magnitude” Comment

Wallace challenged Flemmons on his previous comment about the variability in property valuations, probing the reliability of these estimates. Flemmons explained, “Estimated current value is not an exact science.” This shows the uncertainty and complexity of property valuation, a central issue in the trial.

Continued Testimony in Trump’s Defense

Editorial credit: lev radin/Shutterstock.

The trial is set to proceed with additional testimony in defense of Trump. These ongoing proceedings are crucial in shaping the narrative and outcome of the fraud allegations. This demonstrates the trial’s significance in legal and political spheres, for now and for America’s future.

Public Outcry Over Accountant’s Evasive Testimony

Many people criticized Trump’s accountant’s testimony. Some labeled this as “bribery at its finest,” pointing out the irony of an allegedly highly paid accountant unable to answer simple accounting questions. Accusations flew, with some suggesting the accountant received millions to defend a criminal.

Responsibility for Financial Misstatements Questioned

Some commentators questioned who should bear the responsibility for the alleged financial misstatements. One user argued that “Trump, his sons, and the company bear ultimate responsibility for the lies used to create the statements of worth.” It is clear there is a question over who is responsible for the accuracy of the financial data businesspeople provide.

Skepticism Over Payment and Credibility

Skepticism about the payments made to Trump’s consultants was rampant. One user said, “Let me put it to you this way, sir; if you see a solitary dime from this grifter, you should consider yourself lucky.” Critics challenged the defense team to “choose which lie they want to die with,” highlighting the apparent contradictions in their arguments.

Public Dismay at Defense Strategy

The public’s reaction to the defense team’s strategy was predominantly negative. One user said, “This guy is a witness for Trump, and he just shot down the defense. His lawyers are idiots.” This sentiment was coupled with mockery towards the expert witness, whose confusing testimony led to jokes about not wanting such an accountant for their taxes.