It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: whywhynot
Those students would have never won the case against Trump in court. Trump didn't force them to go to Trump university. They did it on their own volition. Trump was being kind hearted to compensate them.
Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap.
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: introvert
I agree. Trump university was a major fu. It was the worst Trump brand business ever. Maybe Michael Sexton was a Dem operative who was hired by DNC to sabotage Trump? Who knows?
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: whywhynot
Those students would have never won the case against Trump in court. Trump didn't force them to go to Trump university. They did it on their own volition. Trump was being kind hearted to compensate them.
Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap.
I cannot disagree. But, likewise, I think it also makes the Plaintiff-Class look like they had a weak case and didn't want to prosecute it. They just wanted money and felt they could strong arm Trump into settling just before Congress counted the Electoral College vote.
A civil fraud verdict is serious enough to have warranted objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote, in Congress, and probably enough to open impeachment proceedings if the verdict came after inauguration.
The Plaintiffs must not have believed Trump was fraud enough to keep from serving as POTUS. Or they were weak and had a weak case. Take your pick.
They didn't have to agree to a settlement.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: whywhynot
Those students would have never won the case against Trump in court. Trump didn't force them to go to Trump university. They did it on their own volition. Trump was being kind hearted to compensate them.
Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap.
I cannot disagree. But, likewise, I think it also makes the Plaintiff-Class look like they had a weak case and didn't want to prosecute it. They just wanted money and felt they could strong arm Trump into settling just before Congress counted the Electoral College vote.
A civil fraud verdict is serious enough to have warranted objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote, in Congress, and probably enough to open impeachment proceedings if the verdict came after inauguration.
The Plaintiffs must not have believed Trump was fraud enough to keep from serving as POTUS. Or they were weak and had a weak case. Take your pick.
They didn't have to agree to a settlement.
Neither did Trump
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: whywhynot
Those students would have never won the case against Trump in court. Trump didn't force them to go to Trump university. They did it on their own volition. Trump was being kind hearted to compensate them.
Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap.
I cannot disagree. But, likewise, I think it also makes the Plaintiff-Class look like they had a weak case and didn't want to prosecute it. They just wanted money and felt they could strong arm Trump into settling just before Congress counted the Electoral College vote.
A civil fraud verdict is serious enough to have warranted objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote, in Congress, and probably enough to open impeachment proceedings if the verdict came after inauguration.
The Plaintiffs must not have believed Trump was fraud enough to keep from serving as POTUS. Or they were weak and had a weak case. Take your pick.
They didn't have to agree to a settlement.
Neither did Trump
Correct. And that is why I started my comment with "I cannot disagree," in response to a comment that said,"Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap."
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: whywhynot
Those students would have never won the case against Trump in court. Trump didn't force them to go to Trump university. They did it on their own volition. Trump was being kind hearted to compensate them.
Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap.
I cannot disagree. But, likewise, I think it also makes the Plaintiff-Class look like they had a weak case and didn't want to prosecute it. They just wanted money and felt they could strong arm Trump into settling just before Congress counted the Electoral College vote.
A civil fraud verdict is serious enough to have warranted objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote, in Congress, and probably enough to open impeachment proceedings if the verdict came after inauguration.
The Plaintiffs must not have believed Trump was fraud enough to keep from serving as POTUS. Or they were weak and had a weak case. Take your pick.
They didn't have to agree to a settlement.
Neither did Trump
Correct. And that is why I started my comment with "I cannot disagree," in response to a comment that said,"Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap."
Correct, which is how I knew your last line was that they didn't have to agree to a settlement which is why I said neither did Trump.
I feel better now that we've all repeated ourselves, don't you?
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: whywhynot
Those students would have never won the case against Trump in court. Trump didn't force them to go to Trump university. They did it on their own volition. Trump was being kind hearted to compensate them.
Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap.
I cannot disagree. But, likewise, I think it also makes the Plaintiff-Class look like they had a weak case and didn't want to prosecute it. They just wanted money and felt they could strong arm Trump into settling just before Congress counted the Electoral College vote.
A civil fraud verdict is serious enough to have warranted objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote, in Congress, and probably enough to open impeachment proceedings if the verdict came after inauguration.
The Plaintiffs must not have believed Trump was fraud enough to keep from serving as POTUS. Or they were weak and had a weak case. Take your pick.
They didn't have to agree to a settlement.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: whywhynot
Those students would have never won the case against Trump in court. Trump didn't force them to go to Trump university. They did it on their own volition. Trump was being kind hearted to compensate them.
Even if that were true, which I doubt, how does that vindicate him? I think it makes him look guilty and cheap.
I cannot disagree. But, likewise, I think it also makes the Plaintiff-Class look like they had a weak case and didn't want to prosecute it. They just wanted money and felt they could strong arm Trump into settling just before Congress counted the Electoral College vote.
A civil fraud verdict is serious enough to have warranted objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote, in Congress, and probably enough to open impeachment proceedings if the verdict came after inauguration.
The Plaintiffs must not have believed Trump was fraud enough to keep from serving as POTUS. Or they were weak and had a weak case. Take your pick.
They didn't have to agree to a settlement.
Neither did Trump
originally posted by: allsee4eye
Those students would have never won the case against Trump in court. Trump didn't force them to go to Trump university. They did it on their own volition. Trump was being kind hearted to compensate them.
originally posted by: allsee4eye
I think I get it now. The students were suing Trump for 40 million. They settled for 25 million. If the students lost the case in a trial, they would have had to pay Trump money. It makes sense to me now. That's why that woman cannot sue Trump again after settling.
originally posted by: Swills
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner
Bill Clinton settled with Paula Jones for nearly a million even though the judge said Paula Jones' claim was baseless.
Trump supporting 101:
a) Always deflect to Clinton when defending Trump.