-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Trump U sued for $25 million
- Thread starter Kingstien
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
quincy
Senior Member
The $25 million was to SETTLE three separate lawsuits (two class action suits and a fraud case). The settlement was just approved by US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel (a judge Trump previously claimed was biased because he is "Mexican").
CTU
Meddlesome Priestess
quincy
Senior Member
Under the terms of the settlement, Trump does not have to admit he did anything wrong - so he will no doubt continue to say that, had the lawsuits gone to trial, he would have prevailed.Supercalifragilistic I have Schadenfreude ...
His fantasy world is sure an interesting one (albeit an increasingly scary one for most Americans).
CTU
Meddlesome Priestess
Oh, in his world it's probably Hillary's fault. And Obama. Gotta be.
On the plus side, he won't serve a second term.
CTU
Meddlesome Priestess
In the coming weeks the question may be, "What did he know and when did he know it?"
He invoked Nixon in order to insult Obama; what a splendid irony it would be if Trump himself is forced to walk in Nixon's shoes.
Shouldn't people in the Trump administration, or connected to it, be concerned about the Russia connection? What is the current penalty for treason? Is it hard to prove, and what constitutes treason nowadays? I seem to remember a very long prison sentence for Pollard (?) who spied for the Israelis, a close ally of the U.S. Since we're not formally at war with Russia, would they be considered a "enemy state" under the law?
quincy
Senior Member
Yes. The people in the Trump administration should be concerned about the Russia connection.
Because we are not at war with Russia, there has been no treason.
Here is a link to 18 US Code §2381, Treason: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
Here is a link to 18 US Code Chapter 115, Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim
In the year we've been hearing about the Russian connection and the half year of hyperventilation over it, you would think we would have the inkling of some actual crime committed by Trump that rises to the high crime or misdemeanor required for impeachment. Still, if the House changes hands, there is always a possibility of political punishment. A conviction is unlikely.
There are three current investigations we are aware of right now. We have the most important one about Russian interference in the election. There, the only thing we have been told is that the Russians used fake news to fool people into...well, into thinking the way they wanted them to think. Like the Democrat and Republican parties, the Russians had work groups of minions providing disinformation on social media like Reddit, Facebook, Instagram and others. There also was attacks on private communications that resulted in at least a couple of proven breaches on Democrat sides that were released in part on Wikileaks--long suspected of being a Russian-aligned entity.
The next has to do with collusion or coordination between members of the Trump administration and the Russians. There seems to have been many contacts between the two. What the alleged collusion entails, while screamed about nightly on the news for months, is never really stated as no one really seems to know. I think Comey talked about the alleged connection best by saying everyone in the intellegence community just knew without much debate Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much that the flip side of that coin was he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much. There is no word on an investigation opening on Carlos Slim and New York Times investment and/or the amounts he and his controlled entities donated to the Clintons through the Foundation.
Finally there is the investigation in regards to potential illegalities by individuals connected with Trump that involve Russia even without a claim of coordination with the election directly. Flynn, Manafort and Stone are some that are reported on now. Of what I've seen, Manafort has what might be the biggest problem. The weird thing is that it might not be for the actions allegedly taken, but for actions not taken. He may have had to register as a foreign lobbyist and I have not read that he did. Also, it seems he got a bunch of money from overseas "work". There is speculation all of it may not have reached the front pages of his tax return.
Running through all three is the underlying issue of how all the information got to the public. The only argued source for much of it has to do with electronic surveillance of foreign nationals either through basic law enforcement process or through FISA warrants. All God's children are denying there was any law enforcement investigation that had such surveillance and that leaves us with National Security surveillance. (Or, complete illegality.) For National Security issues to get around that pesky 4th amendment, "incidental collection" of U.S. citizens have a set of laws that direct how it is used. "Masking" is the removing of the person collected names and the ability to even view such documents is reserved for those with high clearance and a need to know.
Some may want to ignore the actual crimes we know were committed rather than the crimes we suspect were committed because they brought light to these troubling questions revolving the administration. Some might say some odd changes by the Obama administration in its last days were designed to circumvent the laws by increasing the number who had access to the incidental collections. I would think both sides of the political spectrum would want to investigate this as much as any other issue.
After all, Trump (minions) are now the one who gets to see all the incidental collections. I wonder if he's the type to (Illegally, wink-wink.) use them to accomplish his goals at the next election?
There are three current investigations we are aware of right now. We have the most important one about Russian interference in the election. There, the only thing we have been told is that the Russians used fake news to fool people into...well, into thinking the way they wanted them to think. Like the Democrat and Republican parties, the Russians had work groups of minions providing disinformation on social media like Reddit, Facebook, Instagram and others. There also was attacks on private communications that resulted in at least a couple of proven breaches on Democrat sides that were released in part on Wikileaks--long suspected of being a Russian-aligned entity.
The next has to do with collusion or coordination between members of the Trump administration and the Russians. There seems to have been many contacts between the two. What the alleged collusion entails, while screamed about nightly on the news for months, is never really stated as no one really seems to know. I think Comey talked about the alleged connection best by saying everyone in the intellegence community just knew without much debate Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much that the flip side of that coin was he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much. There is no word on an investigation opening on Carlos Slim and New York Times investment and/or the amounts he and his controlled entities donated to the Clintons through the Foundation.
Finally there is the investigation in regards to potential illegalities by individuals connected with Trump that involve Russia even without a claim of coordination with the election directly. Flynn, Manafort and Stone are some that are reported on now. Of what I've seen, Manafort has what might be the biggest problem. The weird thing is that it might not be for the actions allegedly taken, but for actions not taken. He may have had to register as a foreign lobbyist and I have not read that he did. Also, it seems he got a bunch of money from overseas "work". There is speculation all of it may not have reached the front pages of his tax return.
Running through all three is the underlying issue of how all the information got to the public. The only argued source for much of it has to do with electronic surveillance of foreign nationals either through basic law enforcement process or through FISA warrants. All God's children are denying there was any law enforcement investigation that had such surveillance and that leaves us with National Security surveillance. (Or, complete illegality.) For National Security issues to get around that pesky 4th amendment, "incidental collection" of U.S. citizens have a set of laws that direct how it is used. "Masking" is the removing of the person collected names and the ability to even view such documents is reserved for those with high clearance and a need to know.
Some may want to ignore the actual crimes we know were committed rather than the crimes we suspect were committed because they brought light to these troubling questions revolving the administration. Some might say some odd changes by the Obama administration in its last days were designed to circumvent the laws by increasing the number who had access to the incidental collections. I would think both sides of the political spectrum would want to investigate this as much as any other issue.
After all, Trump (minions) are now the one who gets to see all the incidental collections. I wonder if he's the type to (Illegally, wink-wink.) use them to accomplish his goals at the next election?
As Mark Felt, aka "Deep Throat", the FBI source for Nixon's downfall said, "Follow the money." One must wonder why Manafort (Trump's former campaign manager, neighbor, and pal) would have to do real-estate deals that have the hallmarks of money-laundering: http://www.wnyc.org/story/paul-manaforts-puzzling-new-york-real-estate-purchases/
While the quote is from the movie and not from Felt, following the money trail is often the best. I hadn't read the laundering aspect through property yet so thanks for that. The suspicions certainly ring true and would explain how he could get all the allegedly dirty money into the country. As long as we measure our suspicion based on how the rich hold wealth and not by how I hold wealth, it seems something that at least is going to require some explaining on Manafort's part.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">