Foreverconservative said:

---

Don't forget the selective tolling of the statute of limitations with no legal precedent to justify it, and no actual victim of fraud.

---

Not sure what you mean here.

The Appellate Division applied a 6-year SoL, limiting the claims to actions after 2016 EXCEPT for the parties who/which had executed a formal tolling agreement. Most of the Defendants executed that agreement, so their cutoff date was extended back to 2014.

Ivanka was not a signatory to the tolling agreement, which is why the claims against her were dismissed. They were all barred.

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Bond has been reduced to 175 million. Just announced.

---

OK, how did they come up with this new number, which seems outrageous still?

---

Here is the Order. They do not state the basis for the ruling.

bobbranco said:

---

The banks were not gorged. No reason to disgorge Trump if you will. I stand corrected and will get with the vernacular.

---

the way I am reading it is that Trump illegally "engorged" himself monetarily by fraud and thus needs to be "disgorged"


I don't know the interest rates at the time, but how much of a discount could he have received on loans based on "inflated" valuations? How much is the banks just giving discounts due to being a good repeat client?

Isn't this just free market at work? Like your credit report, you get better deals if you pay on time and don't default? And they ask you for your info, but always do their due diligence and check what you reported?


This is all completely ridiculous.

That number is a little more fair.

MarquisHenri said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Bond has been reduced to 175 million. Just announced.

---

OK, how did they come up with this new number, which seems outrageous still?

---

Here is the Order. They do not state the basis for the ruling.

---

As expected, they've simply declined to provide any sort of reasoning at all here.

Foreverconservative said:

---

a pool reporter shouted out, "What about the appellate court ruling on the statute of limitations?" and the clown replied. "As I stated yesterday, the statute of limitations bars claims, not evidence."

---

That is exactly what the June 28 Order says. It bars the claim only. The evidence is still admissible to establish the "repeated" and "persistent" elements of 63(12).

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

---

To answer the question, one need only read 63(12). It says that any recovery should be handled under State Finance Law, Sec.4(11). link

That section provides there any such recovery will be paid into the state treasury, and cannot be retained or spent by the office of the Attorney General.

if only campaign finance laws and audits were as stringent as NYC judges.

bobbranco said:

---

If and only if the claim is paid to the banks then NYS could claim disgorgement. Bank has not asked to be paid.

---

You are conflating restitution and disgorgement.

Quote:

---

I don't know the interest rates at the time, but how much of a discount could he have received on loans based on "inflated" valuations? How much is the banks just giving discounts due to being a good repeat client?

Isn't this just free market at work? Like your credit report, you get better deals if you pay on time and don't default? And they ask you for your info, but always do their due diligence and check what you reported?

---

These were full recourse loans, meaning Trump's personal assets and his overall financial condition were part of being a guarantor on them. Hence the loan to value ratio on a particular piece of real property is a secondary concern.

It could be argued that the valuations could have affected non-recourse loans because only that property was collateral for the loan to which a lender could look to in case of default. But that was not the case here.

And this is nonsense:

Quote:

---

Engoron, in his thirty-five page judgment, which was released on Tuesday, eviscerated these arguments. He pointed out that Section 63(12) does not require the government to prove that financial losses were incurred or that the defendant acted with intention to defraud. The persistent submission of exaggerated financial statements itself satisfied the statute's definition of fraud, and the inclusion of vague, unenforceable disclaimers "cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, even vis--vis sophisticated recipients," Engoron wrote.

---

He is essentially ruling that disclaimers are never enforceable in NY. Trump's SFTs were not vague and there were a part of the loan documents, a contract that was enforceable.

For an analogous situation, in limited stock offerings, (small number of investors) there are sophisticated investor contracts that they must sign and swear that they are. Guess what? Those are enforceable and the SEC doesn't bat an eye at them.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Does calling it "disgorgement" instead of a "fine" really change the substance of what is happening? Strikes me as mere semantics.

---

As I read Engoron's ruling, he is treating disgorgement as a form of restitution. I think he is wrong, because they are distinct concepts at common law. But that does not matter under the 8th Amendment, because both are distinct from "fines."

jrdaustin said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

Who would be the recipients of the 455 million?

---

At this point, who knows?

---

Anyone who reads 63(12) "knows.". The money goes into the state treasury.

MarquisHenri said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

Who would be the recipients of the 455 million?

---

At this point, who knows?

---

Anyone who reads 63(12) "knows.". The money goes into the state treasury.

---

And there it is, theft by the judge.

MarquisHenri said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Does calling it "disgorgement" instead of a "fine" really change the substance of what is happening? Strikes me as mere semantics.

---

As I read Engoron's ruling, he is treating disgorgement as a form of restitution. I think he is wrong, because they are distinct concepts at common law. But that does not matter under the 8th Amendment, because both are distinct from "fines."

---

Meh. Disgorgement is really, probably a kind of restitution. At least that's what the Supreme Court has said and what the Restatement would tell you. Its really all semantics.

But you're definitely right in that disgorgement is an equitable remedy which is generally a distinct thing from a "fine."

Ok, so the headline news for today is that in the 11th hour the most experienced litigant of all time manages to get his bond requirement cut by more than half, and the appeals court declines to provide any explanation whatsoever.

Can some smart person explain what happened here?

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement.

---

Disgorgement of what?

---

Apparently of what the judge considered to be unearned and unjustified profits resulting from his representations of the value of his wealth resulting in lower interest rates.

Look, the whole thing seems rather suspicious. I would be surprised if the judge didn't make some errors there. However, it is in the court system and there are rules that must be followed. It doesn't matter how much everyone whines about it, the rules of the court system govern this.

It wouldn't be very surprising if the appeals court vacated the judgment and remanded it to the lower court for a do-over. The point is that being in the court system, Trump cannot magically kick it out of there.

This case strikes me as quite possibly the weakest of the cases against Trump. I can't say that Trump isn't reaping what he has spent his entire life sowing, though.

---

Again, if you were truly conservative, conservative philosophy and the rule of law - Especially equal protection - would govern your thinking. You would be outraged at this judicial malfeasance.

Yet you allow your own personal hatred of a man to outweigh your judgement.

Disgorgement of profits? How in your world would it ever be possible that 1/2 of the value of a multigenerational family business with world wide holdings be considered the profit from overstatement of value on a single loan application?

Do you even realize what you're saying?

---

There are people every day who find it onerous to post a bond or the money in escrow to forestall seizures during an appeal. Trump is just a better known case. Other than that, the same rules that would apply to you or me in a similar case should also apply to him.

Yes, there are people who find it onerous to post bond every day. But that is not a purpose of the bond. A bond is not supposed to inflict hardship as an integral part of its design. We have a case here where we have an arbitrary judgement has no relationship to the "crime", and the resulting bond as a function of the arbitrary, excessive judgement. As far as I'm aware, the only "rules" here are that anything goes as long as it's Trump.

Was this about a single loan application? My impression is that it is about many loan applications and other statements of his wealth.

Isn't that the funny part about all of this. The allegations are that he overinflated the value of Mara Lago and other assets, and to be sure, I checked, and yes it was on more than one loan. But valuations of real estate are not hard and fast. It's a judgement call. The valuations included a disclaimer indicated that the valuations were estimates and that the information was subject to review - which was done in EVERY case.

The judge disagreed with the valuations, and then egregiously fined Trump because HIS OPINION was different as to the value. To be sure, many have come back and said the Ergeron's valuations were grossly UNDERVALUED.

But that doesn't matter to you, does it?

And I don't actually hate Trump. I don't trust him at all and wish he would just go away and behave as if he were an honest citizen. If he did that, I probably wouldn't think of him any more often than I do Obama, Bill, or Hillary. I would never vote for any of them, but I don't hate them. I just wish they would go away like I wash Trump would go away.

Annnd, we're back to the conservative thing. You don't trust him, and you'd rather see him railroaded out of the election and us have 4 more years of Biden's policies rather than suffer the narcissism of Trump coupled with good policy.

---

There is so much wrong with this one post, Eric. Let's break it down...

I've said it before. Trump was not my first choice either. But he's the one we have. Him, or Biden.

Your posting continues to strongly indicate that you prefer Biden. And you're willing to look beyond an obvious manipulation of our justice system in order to get him. But you do you.

---

You would think that people posting here would learn how to post instead of mixing their responses inside the quote with what they are responding to.

But you are right. The bond is not supposed to create a hardship, but the appeals bond is supposed to insure that if the appeals fail, the defendant has not had the opportunity to hide assets to keep from paying the plaintiff for their damages.

That said, it is up to the judicial process what happens. If we observe and learn from what they are doing, it can be educational. If we just whine about it, particularly if it is entirely based on progress, then it doesn't do anything for us.

It is up to the court system to figure it out. Too many people don't want to wait for the court system and instead just want to destroy everything. There is nothing Conservative about wanting to destroy. That is radicalism, not Conservatism.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Ok, so the headline news for today is that in the 11th hour the most experienced litigant of all time manages to get his bond requirement cut by more than half, and the appeals court declines to provide any explanation whatsoever.

Can some smart person explain what happened here?

---

speculation? The appellate division looked at the fact that there was a financial monitor in place, injunctive relief to protect the assets, and if there were significant real estate assets, as to which an abstract of judgment could be filed, and simply thought that the $455mm figure was inequitable. They didn't want to have to defend that on appeal, so they just picked a random, lesser number from thin air.

Rockdoc said:

---

Sorry for your and Antoninus' loss. Get used to it.

---

You haven't learned a damned thing, have you?

It's not my loss. I am perfectly willing to let the judicial system work it out. That is their job, not yours and not mine.

I am perfectly fine with the reduction in the bond requirement. I think it is a weak case and it seems quite reasonable to think that the appeals court might even vacate the opinion entirely and remand it for a new trial.

bobbranco said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Per Investopedia, "Disgorgement is the legally mandated repayment of ill-gotten gains imposed on wrongdoers by the courts. Funds that were received through illegal or unethical business transactions are disgorged, or paid back, often with interest and/or penalties to those affected by the action."

So to answer your question, Trump is the individual that the judgement is attempting to have disgorged of "ill gotten profits". ie. profits gotten and business done due to the existence of loans received due to valuations of property that the court disagreed with - even though it is entirely likely and has been stated by lenders that those valuations were not instrumental in the securing of any loans.

But since the loans were paid back and there are no victims, the State is alleging that "everyone" is a victim, and therefore, the State of New York is to receive the funds.

Funny how that is working, isn't it?

---

Well...

I was hoping eric would have answered when I posed the question.

The only party that could have been disgorged were the banks. The banks testified they made a deal, such a good deal that they made money. Therefore the banks were not disgorged.

A complete kangaroo court.

---

Some of us don't sit around the computer all day looking to see if someone posted something to which to respond.

As for the disgorgement, that is for the courts to decide. It would seem to me that the banks would have been "made whole", but it seems clear that whatever they might have lost to the scheme was far less than the judgment.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

the statute of limitations bars claims, not evidence.

---

Except in the 30-year old case of E Jean Caroll where the sol doesn't bar claims or evidence.

You see, in New York the statute of limitations is fluid depending on the political persuasion of the victim and the defendant.

Non binary / SOL fluid is the term they use in NY.

---

My understanding is that the statute of limitations is a limit on how long they have to charge the crimes, not on the age of evidence to prove or disprove the case.

And the statute of limitations is the result of a legislative proceeding. They can change the statute of limitations if they wish. That is what happened in the E Jean Carroll case. Anyone who thinks that is improper should take it up with the New York legislature, not the court system.

Quote:

---

The Court of Appeals may have felt that they can't prejudge the evidence, and so to reduce the bond further would have been heavy-handed. I actually think they could have reduced this bond to virtually nothing, because the amount set by Engoron was absurd... There were no victims. There was no money lost. You had people that loaned this money and wanted more business, and so this figure seemed to be just snatched out of the air. He connected it to a few properties, but it was very speculative by reducing the amount…

I think that this restores some element of restraint to the New York legal system. So I think that the true sunk costs of this controversy has been borne by those who really wanted this thrill-kill moment... This has not played well with the public. I don't think it's played well with companies, who were legitimately alarmed to see that the New York legal system turned into this inescapable political vortex, and I think that the reduction will help assure people that there are still some adults in the room.

Jonathan Turley

---

eric76 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Sorry for your and Antoninus' loss. Get used to it.

---

You haven't learned a damned thing, have you?

It's not my loss. I am perfectly willing to let the judicial system work it out. That is their job, not yours and not mine.

I am perfectly fine with the reduction in the bond requirement. I think it is a weak case and it seems quite reasonable to think that the appeals court might even vacate the opinion entirely and remand it for a new trial.

---

Glad you pulled yourself back together. As I said. Get used to it.

Reality Check said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

---

She does get credit for not calling Engoron over for 1 a.m. booty calls, and subsequently not having to lie her ass off about it in court, though. Surpassing the high bar established by Team DEI in Atlanta.

---

Do we know that for a fact yet?

aggiejayrod said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement.

---

Disgorgement of what?

---

Apparently of what the judge considered to be unearned and unjustified profits resulting from his representations of the value of his wealth resulting in lower interest rates.

Look, the whole thing seems rather suspicious. I would be surprised if the judge didn't make some errors there. However, it is in the court system and there are rules that must be followed. It doesn't matter how much everyone whines about it, the rules of the court system govern this.

It wouldn't be very surprising if the appeals court vacated the judgment and remanded it to the lower court for a do-over. The point is that being in the court system, Trump cannot magically kick it out of there.

This case strikes me as quite possibly the weakest of the cases against Trump. I can't say that Trump isn't reaping what he has spent his entire life sowing, though.

---

Again, if you were truly conservative, conservative philosophy and the rule of law - Especially equal protection - would govern your thinking. You would be outraged at this judicial malfeasance.

Yet you allow your own personal hatred of a man to outweigh your judgement.

Disgorgement of profits? How in your world would it ever be possible that 1/2 of the value of a multigenerational family business with world wide holdings be considered the profit from overstatement of value on a single loan application?

Do you even realize what you're saying?

---

FWIW Eric has always claimed to be a classic liberal. So he's not really claiming to be conservative.

---

I'm something of a mixture of both.

Conservatism is fundamentally a result of the way you look at life. It involves a healthy respect for the major institutions of life -- including church, family, business, and country -- and not wanting to destroy them. Those policies that we call conservative are largely the result of wanting to preserve and improve those major institutions.

Classical Liberalism is more of applying the extraordinarily successful concepts of Capitalism and Free Market into the political arena leading to a push for greater freedom.

I don't know which of the two is stronger in me, but it is the Classical Liberalism but with a strong Conservative respect for our great institutions and the desire to preserve them.

Quote:

---

My understanding is that the statute of limitations is a limit on how long they have to charge the crimes, not on the age of evidence to prove or disprove the case.

And the statute of limitations is the result of a legislative proceeding. They can change the statute of limitations if they wish. That is what happened in the E Jean Carroll case. Anyone who thinks that is improper should take it up with the New York legislature, not the court system.

---

They cannot change SOL on crimes and render a prosecution otherisw time barred to be reinstated. That's ex post facto. In certain crimes there is no SOL, for instance murder.

They can change SOL on civil matters but that law is still subject to court review as is any piece of legislation.

GeorgiAg said:

---

That number is a little more fair.

---

It should be 0.

No crime, no victims.

This is insane.

annie88 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

That number is a little more fair.

---

It should be 0.

No crime, no victims.

This is insane.

---

It will be 0 when this is over.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

---

She does get credit for not calling Engoron over for 1 a.m. booty calls, and subsequently not having to lie her ass off about it in court, though. Surpassing the high bar established by Team DEI in Atlanta.

---

Do we know that for a fact yet?

---

More likely Engeron was banging his clerk, as she sat right next to him and reportedly was seen passing him notes throughout the trial. if he got confused, she told him what to say.

Rockdoc said:

---

annie88 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

That ($175mm bond) number is a little more fair.

---

It should be 0.

---

It will be 0 when this is over.

---

You think that an appellate court will eventually relieve Trump and the other judgment debtors of any bond requirement at all during the pendency of the appeal?

That is vanishingly-unlikely.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

No, there are mostly the big time business people who screamed like scalded cats over that judgment.. Am surprised that there was some sanity at the appellate division though.

Having said, there is a slim possibilty they don't accept Trump's appeal or James tries to appeal the reduction in bond amounts (which woould go nowehere in my view.) Courts order bond reductions quite often, in fact.

One thing that struck me is by how much they reduced it. They are already looking at the factual findings to reach that decision.

---

I thought the same thing. I still can't seen how any of this withstands an 8th Amendment challenge though.

---

Does calling it "disgorgement" instead of a "fine" really change the substance of what is happening? Strikes me as mere semantics.

---

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that fines are a penalty intended to make people not want to commit whatever infraction led to the penalty and that disgorgements are the state taking back the money that was gained by illegal activities. So really, two different things, not just mere semantics.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

---

She does get credit for not calling Engoron over for 1 a.m. booty calls, and subsequently not having to lie her ass off about it in court, though. Surpassing the high bar established by Team DEI in Atlanta.

---

Do we know that for a fact yet?

---

More likely Engeron was banging his clerk, as she sat right next to him and reportedly was seen passing him notes throughout the trial. if he got confused, she told him what to say.

---

I didn't watch the show trial, but I'm sure from seeing his picture I probably don't want to see her's?