The definition of to “bork” someone now is to obstruct a candidate for office “by systematically defaming or vilifying them.”
It comes from the leftists and Democrats who viciously attacked Judge Robert Bork when he was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, activists who decided they would not tolerate his conservative views.
Perhaps there soon will be a word to “engoron” someone, which would be to let a political agenda get in the way of the law, to wildly redefine evidence and the law, and deliberately target a politician for a courtroom defeat.
That’s essentially the conclusion from constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who wrote about Arthur Engoron, the New York judge who orchestrated a $500 million judgment against President Donald Trump, then saw his work canceled on a sheet of paper delivering an appeals court decision.
“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,” Turley wrote.
“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, not a single appellate judge supported Engoron.
Turley noted, “For some of us who covered that trial, the most vivid image of Engoron came at the start. He indicated that he did not want cameras in the courtroom, but when the networks showed up, Engoron took off his glasses and seemed to pose for the cameras. It was a ‘Sunset Boulevard’ moment. We only need Gloria Swanson looking into the camera to speak to ‘those wonderful people out there in the dark!’ and announcing ‘all right, [Ms. James], I’m ready for my close-up.’”
WND reported that a five-judge panel in the appellate division in New York’s court’s threw out Engoron’s judgment against Trump, created by himself without a jury.
The ruling said Engoron failed to follow the U.S. Constitution in the case.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who had campaigned for office on the promise to “get” President Trump, without citing any evidence of wrongdoing, then created “fraud” claims against him. She alleged that he was guilty over the valuation of his properties in connection with various loans.
Testimony during the trial showed that the banks that loaned Trump money were happy with the transactions, that all the loans were repaid in full, they made money from the deals and they would like to do them again.
Despite the evidence, Engoron, without a jury, claimed Trump was guilty and owed in excess of $300 million in penalties. That grew to more than half a billion dollars with interest, a threat Engoron made against the president that now has vanished.
Reports confirmed the ruling is a major loss for James, who ironically now is under investigation herself for fraud.
She’s accused of misrepresenting her residences in order to obtain preferential mortgage loan treatments, including once when she allegedly characterized her father as a “spouse” and represented a five-apartment building she owns as having four apartments because that would give her a better interest rate.
BREAKING: NY appeals court throws out $500M penalty against Trump in Letitia James civil case pic.twitter.com/QV52IskkLA
— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 21, 2025
BREAKING – HUGE TRUMP VICTORY: President Trump’s $464 million New York civil fraud penalty HAS BEEN TOSSED OUT by an appeals court.
He just defeated AG Letitia James. pic.twitter.com/lK2o8Pd8iO
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 21, 2025
The “delirium” began with James, who “injected lawfare directly into the veins of New Yorkers,” Turley wrote.
“Yet, James could not have succeeded if she had not had a judge willing to ignore reality and cook the books on the fines. She needed a partner in lawfare. She needed Engoron,” he wrote.
The appeals court found the law cited by Engoron “has never been used in the way it is being used in this case – namely, to attack successful, private, commercial transactions, negotiated at arm’s length between highly sophisticated parties fully capable of monitoring and defending their own interests.”
“Ironically, if Engoron had shown a modicum of restraint, he might have secured a victory. During the trial in New York, I said that he would have been smart to impose a dollar fine and limited injunctive relief. That, however, required a modicum of judicial restraint and judgment. Instead, Engoron chose to walk down the stairway into infamy. He was off by half a billion dollars, which could put him in the Bernie Madoff class of judges,” Turley said.
‘This is HUGE!’ Appeals court kills wild half-billion dollar penalty against President Trump
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Bob Unruh
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.wnd.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
