Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
So is Clinton! Wow! Both are facing RICO charges and both are running for President, what is a fellow to do!
The nutters really crack me up! Lol!
Thanks for the laugh CC.
No problem, saying Clinton is facing RICO charges too brought a smile to my face. You're a funny guy.
How many months have we heard Clinton is going to be indicted? Lol!
Will you loon heads ever learn to not believe every stupid internet conspiracy theory?
A board full of idiots!
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
How come Bammer gets a pass for slamming judges for ruling in a way people don't like but Trump is somehow evil for it?
Uhhh, because one case was over and the other isnt. Let's be smarter moving on.
Oh I get it now. It's okay for the first half black presidant to call the supreme court corrupt liars on the floor of congress, then he him self gets cought lying on the floor of congress, but donald can't question a judge who has questionable ties with mexican racist groups? And you are supposed to be the smart one?
Obama was near the end of his speech when he turned his attention to the court's decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling overturned two precedents and left corporations free to use their profits to support or oppose political candidates.
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.
"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."
Reactions split on Obama's remark, Alito's response at State of the Union
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
So is Clinton! Wow! Both are facing RICO charges and both are running for President, what is a fellow to do!
The nutters really crack me up! Lol!
Thanks for the laugh CC.
No problem, saying Clinton is facing RICO charges too brought a smile to my face. You're a funny guy.
How many months have we heard Clinton is going to be indicted? Lol!
Will you loon heads ever learn to not believe every stupid internet conspiracy theory?
A board full of idiots!
Lol, we've heard that a lot from RW'ER but it was based in hopes and dreams.
This RICO case is in front of a judge right now. It's not a conspiracy unless real events are considered conspiracies.
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
So is Clinton! Wow! Both are facing RICO charges and both are running for President, what is a fellow to do!
The nutters really crack me up! Lol!
Thanks for the laugh CC.
No problem, saying Clinton is facing RICO charges too brought a smile to my face. You're a funny guy.
How many months have we heard Clinton is going to be indicted? Lol!
Will you loon heads ever learn to not believe every stupid internet conspiracy theory?
A board full of idiots!
Lol, we've heard that a lot from RW'ER but it was based in hopes and dreams.
This RICO case is in front of a judge right now. It's not a conspiracy unless real events are considered conspiracies.
Yeah, last week Clinton was going to be indicted on federal racketeering charges, not civil as the charges against Trump are.
It doesn't mean a thing, it's all BS and looney righties and lefties having wet dreams.
When it happens, I'll believe it, but it doesn't swing me to vote for either candidate. Funny no one has anything nice to say about their candidate, they all just talk shit about the other guy. I guess when your candidate has nothing,, that's all you got.
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
How come Bammer gets a pass for slamming judges for ruling in a way people don't like but Trump is somehow evil for it?
Uhhh, because one case was over and the other isnt. Let's be smarter moving on.
Oh I get it now. It's okay for the first half black presidant to call the supreme court corrupt liars on the floor of congress, then he him self gets cought lying on the floor of congress, but donald can't question a judge who has questionable ties with mexican racist groups? And you are supposed to be the smart one?
You seem a tad confused there is no mention of lying in his remark.
Obama was near the end of his speech when he turned his attention to the court's decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling overturned two precedents and left corporations free to use their profits to support or oppose political candidates.
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.
"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."
Reactions split on Obama's remark, Alito's response at State of the Union
So is Clinton! Wow! Both are facing RICO charges and both are running for President, what is a fellow to do!
The nutters really crack me up! Lol!
Thanks for the laugh CC.
No problem, saying Clinton is facing RICO charges too brought a smile to my face. You're a funny guy.
How many months have we heard Clinton is going to be indicted? Lol!
Will you loon heads ever learn to not believe every stupid internet conspiracy theory?
A board full of idiots!
Lol, we've heard that a lot from RW'ER but it was based in hopes and dreams.
This RICO case is in front of a judge right now. It's not a conspiracy unless real events are considered conspiracies.
Yeah, last week Clinton was going to be indicted on federal racketeering charges, not civil as the charges against Trump are.
It doesn't mean a thing, it's all BS and looney righties and lefties having wet dreams.
When it happens, I'll believe it, but it doesn't swing me to vote for either candidate. Funny no one has anything nice to say about their candidate, they all just talk shit about the other guy. I guess when your candidate has nothing,, that's all you got.
You're confusing what someone said will happen vs what is happening. Someone SAID Hilary would be facing an indictment with no links.
I provided a suit that is being considered by a judge right now.
See the difference? If not, I can't help you
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
Nothing main stream, just ultra left sites are carrying it.
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
How come Bammer gets a pass for slamming judges for ruling in a way people don't like but Trump is somehow evil for it?
Is Donald Trump Looking For An Exit Strategy To His Long Con Of America?
Just a couple of weeks ago this article appeared and got nowhere near the attention it merited. Stephanie Cegielski, communications director for the now defunct pro-Trump Make America Great Again PAC (are you seeing a pattern with the “defunct” part?) wrote an open letter in which she labeled the Trump campaign a con, a publicity stunt:
Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.
The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy.
But something surprising and absolutely unexpected happened. Every other candidate misestimated the anger and outrage of the “silent majority” of Americans who are not a part of the liberal elite. So with each statement came a jump in the polls. Just when I thought we were finished, The Donald gained more popularity.
I don’t think even Trump thought he would get this far. And I don’t even know that he wanted to, which is perhaps the scariest prospect of all.
He certainly was never prepared or equipped to go all the way to the White House, but his ego has now taken over the driver’s seat, and nothing else matters. The Donald does not fail. The Donald does not have any weakness. The Donald is his own biggest enemy.
Is Donald Trump Looking For An Exit Strategy To His Long Con Of America? | RedState
Trump didn't con America .. he conned dumb people .. and I'd consider that a public service. :0)
RedState is all out against Trump. Hardly unbiased
And trump donated $35,000 to then Texas ag now governor to drop the case.Yeah good luck on RICO...lol The Atlantic?
No, no one would care that trump was a con man if he wasn't running for the highest seat in office. Leader of the free world.I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't running for president.
And trump donated $35,000 to then Texas ag now governor to drop the case.Yeah good luck on RICO...lol The Atlantic?
Maybe the liberal media will mention itAnd trump donated $35,000 to then Texas ag now governor to drop the case.Yeah good luck on RICO...lol The Atlantic?
Maybe the Feds will investigate?
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
Schneiderman (A DemoRAT politicalHack!)said on CNN's New Day Friday, defending his and other lawsuits against the school. "He did ads saying my hand-picked instructors will teach you my personal secrets. You just copy what I did and get rich."
But Schneiderman said evidence in the case makes clear that Trump was not involved in hiring instructors, and that he didn't create the program's curriculum.
"If you tell people we're going to teach you Donald Trump's secrets, and he never had any part in writing the curriculum, that's fraud," Schneiderman said.
The simple fact that he HAND PICKED People that then hired UNDERLINGS to do the teaching, doesn't quite make the FRAUD COMPLAINT, unless you are moron Socialist/Commie/DemoRAT pricks!
What's Behind the Attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
Here's the key part:
We’ll start at the beginning. Curiel is presiding over two separate class-action lawsuits about Trump University. One of them, Low v. Trump University, was filed in April 2010 under the name Markaeff v. Trump University. The other, Cohen v. Trump, was filed in October 2013. (A third case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013 is alsounder way in that state.) Trump is named as a defendant in both cases.
The plaintiffs in Low and Cohen portray Trump University as a basically fraudulent endeavor, one that promised Trump’s secrets to real-estate success but instead dispensed generic advice for tens of thousands of dollars. They’ve amassed a collection of evidence and testimony that seems to support their claims. Trump strongly denies the allegations and often cities numerous positive testimonials the seminars received from former customers of Trump University.
In his public remarks, Trump appears to make no distinction between Low andCohen. But there are crucial differences between the two civil class-action lawsuits. The Low plaintiffs sued Trump University and Trump himself under various consumer-protection laws in California, Florida, and New York—a relatively standard class-action lawsuit.
Cohen, on the other hand, targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses. In essence, Low accuses Trump University of engaging in fraudulent business practices, while Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme.
It's going to have hard for Trump to get out of this one. He claimed he didn't promise them them that they'll receive real estate advice from people who were experts. Except there are tapes where he says he "hand picked" the experts himself.
From the article: “Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Trump can be personally liable for the alleged misrepresentations and misconduct,” Curiel wrote about one of Trump’s assertions. “For example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Mr. Trump reviewed and approved all advertisements. These advertisements included the alleged core misrepresentations, such as that Mr. Trump ‘hand-picked’ the instructors and mentors.”
Schneiderman (A DemoRAT politicalHack!)said on CNN's New Day Friday, defending his and other lawsuits against the school. "He did ads saying my hand-picked instructors will teach you my personal secrets. You just copy what I did and get rich."
But Schneiderman said evidence in the case makes clear that Trump was not involved in hiring instructors, and that he didn't create the program's curriculum.
"If you tell people we're going to teach you Donald Trump's secrets, and he never had any part in writing the curriculum, that's fraud," Schneiderman said.
The simple fact that he HAND PICKED People that then hired UNDERLINGS to do the teaching, doesn't quite make the FRAUD COMPLAINT, unless you are moron Socialist/Commie/DemoRAT pricks!
Well sheesh, you better tell Trump that because he said he had no part to play in hand picking anyone. He said he just lended his name, but the video he showed to "students" said the opposite.
Who's right? Trump on video or Trump in court?
Yeah good luck on RICO...lol The Atlantic?
Hey, choose any link you like. They all say the same thing. Trump facing RICO charges.
Nothing main stream, just ultra left sites are carrying it.
.
Yeah I looked, Atlantic, Daily Kook and other Moon Bat sites
