Emily Compagno and Trey Gowdy must not have gotten the memo that Trump had already backed out of testifying in his civil fraud trial in New York when she predicted he was going to give some "explosive" testimony the following day. Trump put out a statement on his "Truth Social" network hours before this aired Sunday evening on Gowdy's show on Fox.

GOWDY: Here to break down Trump's upcoming testimony and all things legal is outnumbered cohost an attorney Emily Compagno. Welcome. Emily, the former president probably would do well in front of juries, certainly jurors. He's got testimony coming up. This is a bench trial, so how do you expect them to do in front of the judge that he spent like the last 12 month criticizing.

COMPAGNO: Well, I think we will see it look a lot like his testimony on November 6th, where there was a lot of back-and-forth. Remember the judge admonished his attorney to “control him.” He said this was not a “political rally.”

So certainly in terms of the bombastic statements, a lot of them frankly came from the judge, but what this will illustrate Trey, in my opinion, that animosity, the feeling here that no one in that courtroom feels that former president Trump is getting a fair shot.

And it will give him an opportunity on the stand to be able to say so, to underline what he's been saving in front of cameras every day in front of the courthouse when he says this isn't fair.

Now he's been riding a high as he felt after Thursday's testimony from an expert witness, where that expert witness laid out essentially, I find no fault here. In fact, I can't even find the substance of an underlying charge from the Attorney General here. From everything that I have reviewed, I see this as totally fine finances, totally fine operations on the part of Trump's businesses.

To which the opposing counsel and prosecutor said look, he's been paid to say this. But what I argue is that that's sort of an unfair character-ism, because obviously every expert is being paid. The whole point you pay expert to analyze and to provide a truthful analysis based on their expertise.

Here, a quite prolific expert finance, former professor, has said, look I let I've read everything. I don't see it there there. So it remains to be seen what happens Monday, but I'm sure nothing less than explosive.

So no testimony from Trump, and it was never going to be "explosive" other than Trump looking like his head is about to explode with rage, which is pretty much a daily occurrence with him. She didn't bother to explain just how much this so-called "expert" was paid and who paid him, or what he said in court. The man she was talking about is Eli Bartov. Here's more on his testimony:

Eli Bartov, an accounting professor at New York University, told the court: “My main finding is that there is no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud.”

Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, has accused Trump, his adult sons and other company executives of manipulating the value of the company’s assets to obtain more favorable loans from banks.

In one instance, the value of Trump’s Manhattan triplex apartment was nearly tripled from $80m to $180m in one year. Bartov said his reading of the documents suggested this was an error and not an attempt to mislead. “There is no evidence here of concealment,” Bartov said. “It’s true this is an error. But it is no fraud.”

Bartov argued that the Trump organization’s outside auditors had a duty to spot the errors, adding: “My analysis shows the statements of financial condition for all the years were not materially misstated.”

Asked if he thought the case had no merit, Bartov replied: “This is absolutely my opinion.”

State lawyer Kevin Wallace complained that Bartov’s opinions strayed beyond his expertise, calling him “someone who’s hired to say whatever they want in this case”.

And, as formerSouthern District of New York prosecutor Kristy Greenberg explained, what he was paid absolutely undermines his credibility:

Speaking to MSNBC's Alex Witt, Greenberg suggested that the money Bartov was paid would "100 percent" make it easier for Engoron to consider that the accounting expert's testimony lacks any real credibility.

"He says he spent 650 hours on this and you wonder what he's actually looking at over that time," Greenberg said, while noting that the prosecution's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, chairman and CEO at the investment bank M.M. Dillon & Co, was paid about $350,000 for his testimony, according to ABC News.

"And clearly [Trump] was getting what he paid for, because he's somebody who's going to come out and say there's no fraud."

Greenberg went on to suggest that Engoron may not take Bartov's testimony into account too much when considering the facts of the case.

"The judge gets what happened here, that he was paid a handsome sum and he said the things that Trump wanted him to say," Greenberg said.

"Pointing to so many different examples and saying, 'Well, there's no such thing as an objective valuation. This is art, not science.' No, it's math.

And, as NBC reported, he's being paid by Trump's PAC:

An expert witness in the $250 million civil fraud trial against Donald Trump said in court Friday that the former president’s political action committee has paid for a portion of his fees to testify on behalf of the defense.Eli Bartov, an accounting professor at New York University, said that his $900,000 in compensation was split between the Trump Organization and Trump’s Save America PAC.

While it’s not unusual for a defendant in a trial to pay expert witness fees — in this case, the Trump Organization — the use of campaign-oriented funds underscores the large amount of money being spent by Trump’s PAC on his legal battles.

Save America spent more than $20 million on legal fees in the first six months of the year, according to campaign finance reports filed in July with the Federal Election Commission. The legal expenditures accounted for two-thirds of the political operation’s total spending in the first half of the year.

A review of FEC records shows a single payment from the Save America PAC to Bartov in April, when he was first retained as an expert, for $40,500.

No credibility, and the only people in that courtroom that believe "Trump isn't getting a fair shot" are his lawyers. Despite that, we can always count on Fox to work the refs for Trump with his lemmings that watch their network.