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 17:19:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-08-27 12:58, Grammar Check Robot wrote:
> 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.
You've avoided the question.
How are you harmed if I take your car (let's say I've cloned access via
the car's app) and drive it and return it undamaged and with the same
amount of gas in the tank.
What's changed?