From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: NY appeals court slaps Judge Engoron hard
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 11:38:59 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-08-27 10:42, Grammar Check Robot wrote:
> 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.
They were harmed because they offered terms they wouldn't have offered
if they thought the risk was greater.
>
>> 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.
How so? How were you "harmed"?
>> ...is that alright with you?
>>
>> And I was using "charged" in the generic sense. I know it was a civil
>> trial, doofus.
>