From: Grammar Check Robot <gcheck@bot.org>
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: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 07:09:13 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 8/27/25 5:19 PM, Alan wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I did avoid it. Because it's a nonsensical stupid irrelevant
hypothetical.
> 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?