Davin News Server

On 8/27/25 10:08 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-08-27 07:20, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:48:08 -0400, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-08-26 07:29, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 05:28:53 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-08-25 04:29, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:18:36 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-08-24 07:23, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:34:06 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-08-23 11:18, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "In New York, a court revealed that a leading citizen had 
>>>>>>>>>> cooked the
>>>>>>>>>> books by inflating questionable figures without any support in
>>>>>>>>>> reality. Moreover, his wild overvaluation was widely viewed as
>>>>>>>>>> motivated by his self-aggrandizement. The final reported 
>>>>>>>>>> figures are
>>>>>>>>>> so absurdly inflated that they were rejected in their 
>>>>>>>>>> entirety. In the
>>>>>>>>>> end, he was off by over half a billion dollars.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That man is Judge Arthur Engoron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After a New York appellate court unanimously threw out Engoron's
>>>>>>>>>> absurd half-a-billion-dollar judgment and interest against 
>>>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>>>> Donald Trump, the irony was crushing. It was Engoron who 
>>>>>>>>>> seemed, as he
>>>>>>>>>> characterized Trump witnesses, as having "simply denied 
>>>>>>>>>> reality." It
>>>>>>>>>> made his notorious reliance on an assessment of Mar-a-Lago as 
>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>> between $18 million and $27.6 million seem like good accounting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the end, he could not get a single judge to preserve a single
>>>>>>>>>> dollar of that fine.
>>>>>>>>> Did they overturn the verdict?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't expect that they would because it's New York.  That will get
>>>>>>>> addressed in future appeals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your running away from the post is noted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was a New York appellate court that threw out the award, doofus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is in......New York.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which YOU said was the reason the verdict wasn't overturned...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...so why the contradiction?
>>>>
>>>> No contradiction at all.  The award was SO outrageous that even a
>>>> liberal New York appeals court couldn't not toss it.  The verdict
>>>> itself falls within their level of "acceptable" corruption.  Look for
>>>> that to be overturned in another court at some point.
>>>
>>> Riiiiiiiiight.
>>>
>>> How about, Trump did the things with which he was charged, which was
>>> proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
>>
>> Tell us who the victim was.  Oh, and it was a civil trial not a
>> criminal trial where the standard is much lower.  If you can't get the
>> basics correct, how am I supposed to take anything you write
>> seriously?
> 
> The banks who lent him money at rates that they might not have if they'd 
> known the true value of his assets.

Incorrect. The banks involved were not harmed and were satisfied with 
their business dealings. Specifically, they made significant profits 
from their transactions with Trump, and there were no defaults, 
breaches, or complaints from the lenders. The banks conducted their own 
due diligence and would have qualified him for loans regardless of the 
financial statements provided and the terms or pricing of the loans 
would not have differed. The judge acknowledged all that and his 
reasoning went more to the harm that might come to future borrowers.

> And before you go on and on about how they weren't injured in the end, 
> let me ask you:
> 
> If I take your car while you're asleep, use it for my purposes, and 
> return it with a full tank of gas...

Faulty premise that has no bearing, or similarity, to the Trump case.
> ...is that alright with you?
> 
> And I was using "charged" in the generic sense. I know it was a civil 
> trial, doofus.