Trump vindicated as judge approves 25 million Trump university settlement

a reply to: whywhynot

Correct. Almost all cases are settled outside of a court trial. Only very few cases, such as criminal cases, are tried in court.

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: 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?

Well, that one was pretty much rectally sourced. Thanks for the laff!

a reply to: allsee4eye

You are as delusional as they come! Trump scammed these students and that's why he paid out of his rear end to compensate them. You Trumpbots are definitely the problem in America!

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: 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: 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: 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?

No. I thought my comment didn't need repeating or explanation and I am dismayed that being extremely clear wasn't 'clear enough.'

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm dismayed that you're acting so put upon through no fault but your own.

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself, nor did I challenge what you said. Simply added on to it.

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.

This case had been in the works for years, 7 I think. They weren't politically motivated. They felt Trump U had defrauded them, and they wanted their money back. Trump and his lawyers were the ones stretching the case out with motion after motion, even trying to delay it until after he served his term as president after he was elected. He lost that one and the judge gave him an ultimatum; settle or go to court. The Trump team offered a settlement and the bulk of the parties agreed. Some of them didn't and went back to court to separate themselves from the class action, and take Trump U on individually. The judged turned down their request and told them they couldn't leave the class action suit and sue Trump U individually, they'd have to settle for their share in the $25 million. That's where we are today.

a reply to: windword

Thanks for sharing. Once you settle, you cannot sue again. That makes sense.

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

Yes he did, and so did they.

You do realize that once something goes to court, SOMEONE HAS TO PAY, it never actually disappears into NOTHINGNESS.

Either by order of judge or by settlement, in this case BOTH SIDES took the safe way out, since they realized it was better than paying the COURT, the BENCH, the BANK anymore time.

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.

Wow was that a huge load of BS!!

How you can even say that without choking is amazing.

Trump settled because he knew he couldn't win. No way he did anything out of being kind hearted.

Stop drinking the Trump kool aid and stop trying to sell others on complete lies. You're embarrassing yourself.

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.

"But muh edumacation?!?!"
Good now they can go get an equally worthless degree in liberal arts from their community collage. These 6000 people are clearly just chock full of intelligent life decisions.

Any moron who read the fine print would have seen that Trump Collage was basically a seminar on "the art of the deal". So sick of seeing stupidity rewarded like this thus assuring more stupidity in our future.

In order for him to be vindicated, he would've had to win the court case & gotten the people bringing the lawsuit to pay his legal fees. That's how you are vindicated when being accused of fraud. It shows that you're not in the wrong and that the case was such a waste of time that the accuser has to pay off the expenses you undertook in order to entertain it. Many times, the defendant will even launch a counter suit against the accuser for damaging the defendant's public image.

Instead, he's the one paying out $25 million just to make this go away. That doesn't sound like vindication at all. It sounds like hush money.

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.

Actually it's a lot more complicated than that. If Trump won, the Plaintiffs could be responsible for their attorney's fees and perhaps even Trump's attorneys. It depends on the Plaintiffs agreements with their attorneys and the judges ruling. Probably the biggest motivation for the Plaintiffs was $25 mil in the hand was worth much more than hoping the court rules their way. Also as I said before the Plaintiffs did have a viable filing but Trump had good defenses. That's what makes a settlement work. In the USA 97 percent of all civil cases are settled before or during trial.

As said previously, it takes two to settle and a settlement is no indication of wrongdoing.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Trump had to settle?

Uh...no, he didn't. And neither did they. That's why they agreed to settle, rather than going to trial. Nobody held a gun to their collective heads and forced them to agree to a settlement and there's no legal precedent that requires them to agree to a settlement.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The case is over. Trump has no case to worry about. That in my books is vindicated.

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.

Not really but if you want to see if anything evil has been done before, just open the Big Book of Clinton.