From: Grammar Check Robot <g-check@bot.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 12:58:45 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 8/27/25 11:38 AM, Alan wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
The banks did their own due diligence and were fine with what they
found. It changed nothing.