Davin News Server

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.
So it's alright to lie to lenders for you as an ordinary consumer.

Got it.