For at least the fifth time, former President Donald Trump on Monday lost an attempt to dismiss his civil fraud case through a maneuver seeking a directed verdict in his favor.
In tossing Trump’s latest challenge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron reminded the former president that “a lie is still a lie.”
“Expert witness” has forever been deemed a useless title to me after watching the Derek Chauvin trial. They had a medical professional, I forget his qualifications exactly, but I believe coroner adjacent, professor, and some medical board member of some sort. Anyway, he testified, under oath, that is was possible, even probable, that Floyd did not die from asphyxiation due to the officers knee and weight on his neck and back, but from carbon monoxide poisoning because he was prone near a running cars exhaust, outdoors.
You could absolutely tell this guy was lying through his teeth the entire time. He quoted misleading lab statistics, like o2 levels in blood, like it was conclusive evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning, yet reluctantly confirmed under cross examination that those were expected levels for someone who had been given CPR.
It felt filthy just listening to someone with zero integrity completely misrepresent basic medical fact so grossly, under oath, as a professor and some hospital medical group board member. Someone who you should be able to trust implicitly, who seemingly has been responsible for dictating hospital medical policy in some form.
After that, I understood that you can pay some asshole in any position to testify whatever the fuck you want to in court. To out right lie.
That kind of egregious lying should lead to an investigation of professional misconduct.
If there’s any counter-incentive to lying on the stand for money, if you’re able to allege that it’s your “opinion” as an expert.
John Yoo, Bush’s torture memo lawyer who gave the administrative legal advice backing every illegal thing they did, holds a chaired position at Berkeley, ffs.
Criminal misconduct like perjury?
Problem is that the burden of proof to prove that they don’t actually believe their testimony is basically impossible. You’d practically need a direct quote saying they intended to lie for their testimony. Even quotes of them saying the exact opposite before and after the trial, can easily be defended by simply saying “I changed my mind. My testimony was what I believed at the time”