Here's why Trump lawyers’ attacks on key bank fraud witness fall painfully flat

Jeffrey McConney, former controller for the Trump Organization, is among the people who has testified in the bench trial for New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud case against the company.

James alleges that former President Donald Trump and his company seriously exaggerated the value of its real estate assets — an allegation that Justice Arthur Engoron, assigned to the case, agreed with in a September 26 ruling. And McConney has offered testimony on the Trump Organization's operations.

Trump's legal team has claimed that McConney has insufficient knowledge where property valuations are concerned. But the Daily Beast's Jose Pagliery, in a report published on October 12, lays out some reasons why that claim is problematic.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

In court, Trump lawyer Jesus Suarez told Engoron, "Objection, your honor. Mr. McConney is not a valuation expert. He's not offered as a valuation expert."

But Pagliery explains, "The idea that the Trump Organization's long-time bean counter would be oblivious to the inner workings of real estate valuations seemed implausible, given that documents presented at trial showed that he was the key conduit to getting those very valuations compiled into Trump's annual statements of financial condition. That paperwork, which was signed off by outside accountants at the firm Mazars USA, was the reason that financial institutions like Deutsche Bank and Ladder Capital extended hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to Trump."

Pagliery continues, "Those funds allowed his company to seal several marquee deals, including the purchase of the Doral golf course in South Florida and the acquisition of the Old Post Office in Downtown Washington, which briefly became a Trump hotel. The inherently contradictory nature of Trump lawyers' stance on McConney underscored the sharp contrast on display at the ongoing bank fraud trial, where James is trying to bolster a case the judge has already decided has merit while Trump lawyers combat the very premise of the investigation. When investigators point to spreadsheets, the defense either shrugs, appears confused, or claims vastly inflated values are mere differences of opinion."

READ MORE:Economist Paul Krugman tears apart Trump's defenses in civil fraud case

Read the Daily Beast's full report at this link (subscription required).