Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[Padma]

35 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

As it's a Civil Suit and not a Criminal Trial, it is far more likely that he can settle without any admission of guilt. The Plaintiffs in these types of cases generally are just looking to be made whole again. Getting anything punitive on top of that is always a bit iffy if it goes to trial and there are often caps on what they could actually recover in terms of punitive damages anyway, especially given that this case didn't involve any personal injury or death.

The attorney for the Plaintiffs, however, would have had to advise them on the fact that they were accepting a settlement with no admission of guilt. It would have been up to the Plaintiffs to accept the settlement that way. Clearly, they decided to do so as most of them likely just wanted their money back (and maybe they got a little extra - not sure how much each paid out of pocket and what the difference between what they did pay out, how many Plaintiffs filed a claim, and how much the settlement was). If they had taken it to trial and even won, Trump and his attorneys could have tied up any settlement awarded to them for years in appeals and whatnot. The Plaintiffs likely saw this settlement as their best option to recover at least their out of pocket losses.

I'm not saying this is right by any means - I'm just stating the facts as an attorney and how things may have played out. I, like most of us, would have preferred to see Trump suffer and have him have to pay out far more than just $25 million (which, given the amount he's stolen from others, is chump change). However, the Plaintiffs here likely do not have the luxury of waiting on years of appeals to receive any compensation at all if a more substantial verdict would have been awarded in a trial, and with Trump being the President Elect, their window was closing quickly in terms of what jury would find him guilty. Keep in mind that, in a civil suit, it just has to be a majority and not the full jury in agreement on the verdict and how much they could (if they were able to) tack on in terms of punitive damages.

Thanks for the explanation.  However, it did make me sad that all three lawsuits were settled like this. I  hope the plaintiffs get -more- than just their money back.  Do each of them get a say or do they just leave the negotiation decision up to their lawyers (who will get most of the money)?  If it had been me, for a few thousand dollars (not for the $35k), I would have chosen to continue the trial. I'm disappointed he got his way--even in the NY one. Sad that he is right -- money and power will get him whatever he wants.

[HumblePi]

1 minute ago, Padma said:

I'm not on social media, but I had an idea that I wish could spread that way.

It's about this stupid "Write the name "Trump' on your Starbucks cup so the barista has to call out 'Trump' again and again in the cafes."

I thought it would be fun to start a response, "Great idea! Now every time I hear 'Trump' when I'm getting my coffee, it reminds me to make another donation to Planned Parenthood!" 

Padma, I have had both a Twitter and Facebook account for many years. I was concerned about protection of my privacy when I created those two accounts so I used a new email address I created specifically for them and used fictional personal information. I didn't want to share anything personal online. I rarely ever used either account until this year. I don't communicate with family and friends through Facebook, I think it can create some problems even though it works for many people to be able to interact with family they can't have a face to face relationship with close members of family due to logistics. But, I have found that in the past year, I have really been extremely involved politically through both Facebook and Twitter because of this election.

If Donald Trump can use Twitter to win the Presidency, which he essentially did through spreading of lies and propaganda, then I feel that I can use both Facebook and Twitter to counterpoint or refute whatever his policies. It will continue to be the only way that I can voice my opinion to precisely those I wish to hear it. 

I would definitely encourage anyone that doesn't currently have a Twitter account to create one. I use Firefox and I have created an entire bookmarked folder titled 'Facebook and twitter' in which I keep a slew of Twitter accounts that I want to access quickly.

[numbnut]

24 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

I wouldn't underestimate the thickness of Donald Trump's skin. I don't believe he has ever gotten his feelings hurt, he's not even capable of it.  If he feels insulted, he gets even.  It's that simple. That's the difference between a person with normal mentality and one with a dysfunctional one. Insults, finger-pointing, and personal attacks and condemnation just don't faze him.  He takes names, his motivation is to extract revenge on what he sees as an enemy. His feelings won't be hurt by anti-Trump protesters, heck he might even like that attention, it's negative but still attention. If anything, he believes that he's so powerful that all he has to do is look into the television camera and sternly say 'stop it'. He'll never believe that he won't be able to control "all the people, all the time". He should have read more of Abraham Lincoln's writings than merely comparing himself with Lincoln.

ITA that he's an attention-craving narcissist, but his motivation for and insistence on getting even stems from being wounded. If he had thicker skin, he wouldn't let negative comments fester in his brain until he can lash out on Twitter for days on end with "I know you are but what am I" tweets over the smallest slight. He reacts like a bratty child. He also thinks his new title will demand respect as if his actions are irrelevant. He still hasn't appropriately addressed the hate crimes but expects the Hamilton cast to apologize to Pence? That wasn't "harassment" and Pence wasn't made to feel not "safe." He's clueless.

Edited November 19, 2016 by numbnut

[Nysha]

8 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

Maybe if people insisted on using American steel instead of Chinese steel in their buildings then some jobs might come back, or better yet, wouldn't have been lost in the first place. 

I don't think the people who make the decisions about what type of steel to use on buildings and the people who are concerned about lost jobs are the same people. 

[HumblePi]

6 minutes ago, numbnut said:

ITA that he's an attention-craving narcissist, but his motivation for and insistence on getting even stems from being wounded. If he had thicker skin, he wouldn't let negative comments fester in his brain until he can lash out on Twitter for days on end with "I know you are but what am I" tweets over the smallest slight. He reacts like a bratty child. He also thinks his new title will demand respect as if his actions are irrelevant. He still hasn't appropriately addressed the hate crimes but expects the Hamilton cast to apologize to Pence? That wasn't "harrassment." He's clueless.

He can demand whatever he wants to demand. The fact is that he was just as much angered at the people that booed Mike Pence, and he can't extract any justice from them. 'Too bad-so sad' is what I say. V.P. Mike Pence and President Trump better get used to being booed. It's going to happen and it's all part of being the winner. But these guys don't really give a crap because they're still rubbing their hands together gleefully knowing that no matter what people think, they're going to proceed doing exactly what they said they would, and the hell with everyone else if they don't like it.

Edited November 19, 2016 by HumblePi

[Rapunzel]

32 minutes ago, backformore said:

About the Trump lawsuit - just a few days ago, Trump's lawyers filed a petition to NOT allow any statements Trump made during the campaign, be allowed in the trial.  The judge turned down the petition. 

I'm not sure what statements were gong to be brought in, but it seems that it may have been related to Trump's pattern of boasting about things that are not true, and how that relates to promises made to Trump U students.   Trump lost that battle, and then caved and settled.  

I'd love to know the whole story.

I have a feeling that your suspicions may be correct, backformore.

If this case had gone to trial, any good Plaintiff's attorney would have tried to bring in evidence to discredit him. The fact that there are numerous statements on record of him contradicting himself, flat out lying about things others have done, lying in general, etc. would not have boded well for him. This assumes, of course, that the judge would have allowed them in, though in a Civil suit, it would be harder to justify excluding them (though it would have been have been funny if Trump's attorneys' tried to claim them as inadmissible as he was under duress or something due to the campaign - that may have helped us get him out of the White House faster if not just prove him unfit altogether). Even if team Trump tried to exclude certain statements, if they were already out there on video, audio, the internet, etc. it would be difficult to do so as he put them out there in the public domain. These were not private, recorded conversations, wiretaps, etc.

If Trump's attorneys' did have him testify, statements Trump made likely would have been included as a means to contradict anything Trump said on the stand that was contrary to what he has said in public. At a minimum, it would be used to prove that he clearly distorts the facts. If, however, they even attempted to keep the statements out or to keep Trump from testifying directly (though he likely would have at least had to have given a deposition prior to any trial, which could also have been used to contradict anything he had said), those statements would have been to his detriment to any reasonable jury. Even though only a majority needs to be convinced one way or the other in a Civil Trial and the decision does not have to be unanimous, they would be hard pressed not to find him guilty when confronted with all of the lies and contradictions - even if only some of them were deemed admissible and relevant to this particular case.

[HumblePi]

11 minutes ago, Nysha said:

I don't think the people who make the decisions about what type of steel to use on buildings and the people who are concerned about lost jobs are the same people. 

 In reference to the coal industry and the votes that sector of the population brought to Trump.

The people in the coal industry, both miners and corporations, voted for Trump to save their jobs. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle say they cannot see any way for Trump to save the coal industry, whose decline they attribute as much to market forces as Obama-era regulation. But that's not going to be a big hurdle to get beyond, Trump will just change the regulations and the bill will pass. Keep in mind that regulation for cleaner air was issued through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA and requires states to come up with plans to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector. Scrapping the plan will definitely slow the decline of coal but it will not be enough to stop it entirely and it certainly cannot bring back the jobs that have already disappeared. Donald Trump has promised to do away with the EPA altogether.

It's a far different world than it was even a short decade ago, coal isn't in demand as it was in the past. Ten years ago coal provided half of the energy used for power generation in the U.S., but fracking has driven a boom in the country’s supply of natural gas and made it a cheaper alternative in most cases. Coal struggles to compete with renewable energy sources like wind and solar in locations where those resources are abundant. There isn’t a lot of investment activity because in some cases it looks more economically attractive for firms to invest in cleaner technologies. Coal mining has been a declining job market for a long time and it's due to progress and advancements in clean energy. Who wants to go back to dirty air and more global warming?

Edited November 19, 2016 by HumblePi

[Rapunzel]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

Thanks for the explanation.  However, it did make me sad that all three lawsuits were settled like this. I  hope the plaintiffs get -more- than just their money back.  Do each of them get a say or do they just leave the negotiation decision up to their lawyers (who will get most of the money)?  If it had been me, for a few thousand dollars (not for the $35k), I would have chosen to continue the trial. I'm disappointed he got his way--even in the NY one. Sad that he is right -- money and power will get him whatever he wants.

It saddens me as well, especially as an attorney who may work for a large tech company but does so partly because it helps enable me to take on a number of pro bono cases involving humanitarian issues, women's rights, immigration issues, etc. My company supports my pro bono work, and I'm always thankful for it.

To answer your question, generally, when there are multiple Plaintiffs involved, they elect a spokesperson or representative, which is often the same person that the attorney will use as the "Named Plaintiff" in the lawsuit (it doesn't have to be the same person, but it often is). The Plaintiffs' Rep (as determined by the group of Plaintiffs) is the main link between their attorney and the rest of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' Rep is supposed to take every offer, communication, etc.  back to the group as a whole so they can determine what action they may want to take. The attorney can only advise as to whether or not to accept an offer- the attorney alone cannot just blindly accept an offer without the consent of the Plaintiffs' Representative, and that assumes the Rep has gotten consent from the rest of the group/class.

I can only hope that this group was able to, and did, make an informed decision and that they were treated as they should have been under the law. I also hope that whomever represented them took a reduced fee or maybe even did it pro bono (I would have and know others who would have as well), as I'm not sure how much of an impact taking the standard one-third plus expenses would have had on the payout to each individual.

In any case, if they had carried it on to a court case and had possibly been able to recover a bit more, a lot of that would have gone to the attorney and expenses if they weren't doing it pro bono. Trials are not cheap, so it's possible that, even if awarded a bit more, their increase in expenses would have gone up as well.

Again, I  have issues with the whole thing and with any lawsuit involving Trump. This man has robbed, cheated, and bankrupted so many people that I'd like to see him behind bars for a very long time. That is truly what he deserves. In the meantime, the only thing that seems to affect him is money, so the more people can take from him, the better. He has hundreds of active lawsuits against him that must have some degree of merit. If they did not, they would have been thrown out quite quickly. I can only hope that a number of those are successful and hit him hard.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Rapunzel

[Bastet]

Quote

Rump reacts to poor Pence being "harassed" at the theater

"Harassed" and "rude."  Um, where?  The cast thanked him for coming, asked the audience members who were booing (upon hearing Pence's name) to stop (and they did), and made a request that was simple, eloquent, and very deliberately respectful in both word and tone.

[backformore]

And Trump's demand for an apology already has 77,000 likes.

I assume most are paid for accounts.

This presidency is going to be the most ridiculous thing that has ever happened

Edited November 19, 2016 by backformore

[callmebetty]

5 minutes ago, Bastet said:

"Harassed" and "rude."  Um, where?  The cast thanked him for coming, asked the audience members who were booing (upon hearing Pence's name) to stop (and they did), and made a request that was simple, eloquent, and very deliberately respectful in both word and tone.

It doesn't matter. Even if he saw the video or his followers saw it, just by saying the opposite of what happened they believe it and that's their truth now.

Forgot what I was watching but a person made this comment

"A lie is halfway around the world before the truth has time to pull up its pants"

[inkworks]

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7581388/fifth-harmony-lauren-jauregui-open-letter-donald-trump-voters

Please read this open letter to Trump voters if you get the chance.

It really sums up a lot of what we have been feeling these past couple of weeks.

[Kromm]

9 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

Maybe if people insisted on using American steel instead of Chinese steel in their buildings then some jobs might come back, or better yet, wouldn't have been lost in the first place. 

And when that fact was presented to Trump supporters, they chose to either not believe it (saying that the liberal media was inventing it), or buy into the Trump campaigns' rhetoric that anything wrong Trump did was natural human mistakes, being "inflated" by the liberal media out of proportion, while conversely, they'd simple talk over how much of the stuff Clinton was being accused of was even more petty and according to them not at all being inflated out of proportion.

In summary: in sane times that would have made Trump out as a hypocrite. It THESE times it just robotically got glossed over, denied or underplayed.

9 minutes ago, inkworks said:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7581388/fifth-harmony-lauren-jauregui-open-letter-donald-trump-voters

Please read this open letter to Trump voters if you get the chance.

It really sums up a lot of what we have been feeling these past couple of weeks.

The Trump voters for the most part won't care. Oh, there will always be exceptions. It IS indeed wrong to put them all in one basket. But this whole sequence of events has seemed to reveal a previously unacknowledged tendency of people in this country, that they are so entrenched in their mindsets, and so frustrated overall, that tunnel vision and denial is the new norm.

[Rapunzel]

1 hour ago, HumblePi said:

Padma, I have had both a Twitter and Facebook account for many years. I was concerned about protection of my privacy when I created those two accounts so I used a new email address I created specifically for them and used fictional personal information. I didn't want to share anything personal online. I rarely ever used either account until this year. I don't communicate with family and friends through Facebook, I think it can create some problems even though it works for many people to be able to interact with family they can't have a face to face relationship with close members of family due to logistics. But, I have found that in the past year, I have really been extremely involved politically through both Facebook and Twitter because of this election.

If Donald Trump can use Twitter to win the Presidency, which he essentially did through spreading of lies and propaganda, then I feel that I can use both Facebook and Twitter to counterpoint or refute whatever his policies. It will continue to be the only way that I can voice my opinion to precisely those I wish to hear it. 

I would definitely encourage anyone that doesn't currently have a Twitter account to create one. I use Firefox and I have created an entire bookmarked folder titled 'Facebook and twitter' in which I keep a slew of Twitter accounts that I want to access quickly.

I've done the same thing HumblePi and have had an ambiguous Facebook and Twitter accounts for a couple of years now. I started doing it because of my job and not wanting my boss/company to know about my personal life. I know that, when I interview people for a new position, one of the first things I do when I get a resume is check their Social Media Accounts. If there are questionable photos and things (i.e. drug use, nudity, etc.), I'm most likely not calling that person in for an interview. If they are applying for a job at a tech company and can't either make those things private or not post them at all, I probably don't want them working for me.

I rarely use the accounts I set up, but for the election I did check them on occasion, though since it's not a regular habit of mine, I often forget they are out there and when I do remember, forget the log in details or something. At least it's a way (if I remember) to keep somewhat up to date on Trump and Co's Tweets and the like. I do admit, however, that I usually just read the ones that end up being posted to this site - especially since I can never remember my log-in details. :-)

[DollEyes]

16 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

For those of you that watched "Brain Dead," the TV Show, I'm almost wishing aliants would come and invade the brains of those who Trump is selecting for these critical positions (assuming the aliants would be against the agenda that Trump's minions are wanting to move ahead with). I also wish they would invade the Trumpster and his spawn as well. If Trump or any of his minions suddenly start sounding more intelligent, then there may be hope that the aliants have invaded.

They'd actually have to find their brains first-which, given the potential subjects, would be an exercise in futility.

Trump's demanding an apology from the Hamilton cast for being mean to Mike Pence reeks of hypocrisy. I care as much about Pence's hurt feelings as Trump did about the students of Trump "University," whom he bilked and has to pay $25 million for the privilege, not to mention all of Trump's pending sexual harassment lawsuits which he might also end up settling. As far as I'm concerned, the cast of Hamilton should apologize for their remarks when Trump apologizes for his.

Edited November 19, 2016 by DollEyes

[backformore]

12 minutes ago, DollEyes said:

 As far as I'm concerned, the cast of Hamilton should apologize for their remarks when Trump apologizes for his.

the cast did not say anything that could possibly warrant an apology. 

To be clear -  When Pence entered, audience members booed him.   that wasn't the cast.  

At the end of the play, while Pence was walking out,   one cast member asked the audience to stop booing and listen, and then  read a speech that was from the whole cast - this is what was read: 

Quote

We have a message for you, sir. We hope that you will hear us out.

Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you, and we truly thank you for joining us here at “Hamilton American Musical,” we really do.

We, sir, we are the diverse America, who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights.

But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us.

Again, we truly thank you for [inaudible] this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men, women, of different colors, creeds and orientations.

THAT is the full speech that Trump demands an apology for! 

INSANITY

[NewDigs]

And that's how he's going to fucking play it for the next however long.

"Look at those ill-mannered libs!"

He and his bots.

[DollEyes]

9 minutes ago, backformore said:

the cast did not say anything that could possibly warrant an apology. 

To be clear -  When Pence entered, audience members booed him.   that wasn't the cast.  

At the end of the play, while Pence was walking out,   one cast member asked the audience to stop booing and listen, and then  read a speech that was from the whole cast - this is what was read: 

THAT is the full speech that Trump demands an apology for! 

INSANITY

Oh, I already know that they didn't say anything wrong; my point was about Pence and Trump taking it wrong, like the hypocritical, thin-skinned bullies they are.

[ari333]

I say boo the hell out of the lot of them. It is non violent and it will get under their skin.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Lisin
Fixed floating quote box for you :)

[ChristmasJones]

Just wanted to share for people who don't often listen to NPR, and are looking for political podcasts that explore topics in-depth, this is a good one. 

http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/to-the-point

[backformore]

I think every one of use should have Twitter accounts (you don't have to use your real name)  and keep replying.  Trump will then spend all his time and energy on Twitter, where he can't really do much damage, he's just getting pissed.

And @NewDigs, thanks for that link.  Yeah, when Trump tweets something he thinks especially relevant, he makes sure it has 50,000 likes almost immediately, which, even though he paid for them, reassures him that he is indeed popular and correct.

[callmebetty]

23 minutes ago, backformore said:

the cast did not say anything that could possibly warrant an apology. 

To be clear -  When Pence entered, audience members booed him.   that wasn't the cast.  

At the end of the play, while Pence was walking out,   one cast member asked the audience to stop booing and listen, and then  read a speech that was from the whole cast - this is what was read: 

THAT is the full speech that Trump demands an apology for! 

INSANITY

It doesn't matter .  He tweeted that Pence was booed  (or Boo-urns) which Pence was.  It doesn't matter that it was the audience who booed. And that the cast of Hamilton should apologize. That's all they see now. There is nothing in between those  two slices of bread.

As I keep telling myself, just because you keep telling me the sky is purple ,  I know it's blue. And a lot of other people know it's blue too. So I know I'm not insane.

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, backformore said:

I think every one of use should have Twitter accounts (you don't have to use your real name)  and keep replying.  Trump will then spend all his time and energy on Twitter, where he can't really do much damage, he's just getting pissed.

And @NewDigs, thanks for that link.  Yeah, when Trump tweets something he thinks especially relevant, he makes sure it has 50,000 likes almost immediately, which, even though he paid for them, reassures him that he is indeed popular and correct.

And what happens when Trump gets SO pissed off that he gets the FBI (remember, it's already his but will be even MORE his soon) or the NSA or even a twisted enough Justice Department to either break into Twitter or have them hand over information to trace back Tweets to their originators? 

Two months ago this would have sounded like ridiculous conspiracy claptrap, but are we really so sure that the things we say can still be relatively anonymous and that the goons won't come after us? A small part of me even worries about posting here, except that the bigger part of my brain realizes that we are a drop in the ocean of upset and that there's so much going on and around that the Stormtroopers have little reason to look here (when they arrive admittedly... the current FBI isn't really set up for it yet). 

Of course the same is true of tweets. An investment in resources to track someone down would be pretty silly and excessive. But you never know with tweets what we go viral, and if someone's anti-Trump tweet did so and a lot of people saw it, then how will the new powers react?

Seriously. We are approaching a world where someone will just be called an "agitator" and while that may not by itself be enough to lock someone up (we hope) I bet a Trump power structure will be filled with plenty of other ways to go after people. Going to their ISP for example, and having their service discontinued, for example. Stuff like that.

 

56 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

It doesn't matter .  He tweeted that Pence was booed  (or Boo-urns) which Pence was.  It doesn't matter that it was the audience who booed. And that the cast of Hamilton should apologize. That's all they see now. There is nothing in between those  two slices of bread.

As I keep telling myself, just because you keep telling me the sky is purple ,  I know it's blue. And a lot of other people know it's blue too. So I know I'm not insane.

The words I bolded are ones we need to ALL keep in mind as we head into this mess.

"It doesn't matter".

We all have to start to realize that the new normal is Hilter's Big Lie technique. That it's happening not just occasionally now, but with virtually every single thing said by the new powers that be coming along. And that it seems to be working close to 100% for his supporters, because they don't WANT to know, to think, they've failed or endangered our country. Their pride and sense of self-worth aren't going to allow that.

Facts no longer matter, except to the side opposing Trump, basically. And those facts only serve to give us a basis to keep our own sanity intact--to help assure ourselves that we are still thinking beings rather than robots.

Always remember that for the most part "it doesn't matter" covers how things will go down now. 

That doesn't mean give up. It just means plan differently. Points have to be made harder. Unity has to be tighter. Individual cases have to be more detailed. Emotion has to be allowed in, because clearly for at almost half the population that's the only thing which works. Deflection/redirection techniques have to be sensed and challenged when we see them. 

And even still, that's just to convince individuals. It's not going to go past that. Only the media can do that part.

[HumblePi]

2 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

I have a feeling that your suspicions may be correct, backformore.

If this case had gone to trial, any good Plaintiff's attorney would have tried to bring in evidence to discredit him. The fact that there are numerous statements on record of him contradicting himself, flat out lying about things others have done, lying in general, etc. would not have boded well for him. This assumes, of course, that the judge would have allowed them in, though in a Civil suit, it would be harder to justify excluding them (though it would have been have been funny if Trump's attorneys' tried to claim them as inadmissible as he was under duress or something due to the campaign - that may have helped us get him out of the White House faster if not just prove him unfit altogether). Even if team Trump tried to exclude certain statements, if they were already out there on video, audio, the internet, etc. it would be difficult to do so as he put them out there in the public domain. These were not private, recorded conversations, wiretaps, etc.

If Trump's attorneys' did have him testify, statements Trump made likely would have been included as a means to contradict anything Trump said on the stand that was contrary to what he has said in public. At a minimum, it would be used to prove that he clearly distorts the facts. If, however, they even attempted to keep the statements out or to keep Trump from testifying directly (though he likely would have at least had to have given a deposition prior to any trial, which could also have been used to contradict anything he had said), those statements would have been to his detriment to any reasonable jury. Even though only a majority needs to be convinced one way or the other in a Civil Trial and the decision does not have to be unanimous, they would be hard pressed not to find him guilty when confronted with all of the lies and contradictions - even if only some of them were deemed admissible and relevant to this particular case.

Good post. I just want to add a couple of things. If he didn't settle the case then a third case brought by N.Y. attorney general could be brought to trial during the presidency. Now, that case is officially settled too,  but if that had happened, Trump would have had to take the stand. His financials including his tax returns would be open for scrutiny in addition to his denials of fraudulent practices which could be refuted by witnesses. This could technically open the door to Congress pursuing impeachment proceedings against Trump. The settlement will likely help the country turn the page on the sordid details of President-elect Trump's alleged fraud and avoid the embarrassment of his testimony and potential loss at trial. He saved his ass by settling for 25 million, which is the largest settlement ever paid out by Donald Trump in one of the over 250 lawsuits against him. But considering that Trump University brought in more than 40 million to his pocket, he got away easy.

Edited November 19, 2016 by HumblePi

[Kromm]

3 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

Good post. I just want to add a couple of things. If he didn't settle the case then a third case brought by N.Y. attorney general could be brought to trial during the presidency. Now, that case is officially settled too,  but if that had happened, Trump would have had to take the stand. His financials including his tax returns would be open for scrutiny in addition to his denials of fraudulent practices which could be refuted by witnesses. This could technically open the door to Congress pursuing impeachment proceedings against Trump. The settlement will likely help the country turn the page on the sordid details of President-elect Trump's alleged fraud and avoid the embarrassment of his testimony and potential loss at trial. He saved his ass by settling for 25 million, which is the largest settlement ever paid out by Donald Trump in one of the over 250 lawsuits against him. But considering that Trump University brought in more than 40 million to his pocket, he got away easy.

And it's also going to divert people from the fact that there should have been Trump U. legal actions in Florida, and the name "Pam Bondi" and investigations into her being bribed by Trump will also disappear into the ether. 

Our soon to be President BRIBED a State AG to not pursue a case, using in fact his CHARITY organization to do so, and it's not going anywhere (and most people either haven't heard of it, or knee-jerk dismiss it as some kind of witch hunt by "liberals"). 

[HumblePi]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

"Harassed" and "rude."  Um, where?  The cast thanked him for coming, asked the audience members who were booing (upon hearing Pence's name) to stop (and they did), and made a request that was simple, eloquent, and very deliberately respectful in both word and tone.

Here's a readout of Dixon's statement:

“We have a guest in the audience this evening. Vice President-elect Pence I see you walking out, but I hope you will hear us just a few more moments. There’s nothing to boo here ladies and gentlemen. We have a message for you sir. We hope that you will hear us out. I encourage everyone to pull out your phones and tweet because this message needs to be spread far and wide.

Vice President-elect Pence we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us here at Hamilton, an American Musical. We really do. We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, out children, our parents or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us. We truly thank you for sharing in this show, this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men, women of different colors, creeds and orientations and we truly hope that you heard our message sir, because you all represent all of us."

Dixon added: "We don't have to fight one another. The beautiful part of this country is ... we don't have to agree, but we gotta live here, baby, and share with one another."

THAT!  lol

[NewDigs]

Riiight.

He doesn't settle, until he does.

And is currently facing 75 active lawsuits.

[windsprints]

Quote

The "un-PC" conservative talking about safe spaces the second someone says something that hurts his VP's precious little feelings?

He used that intentionally to get a reaction. All his supporters use "liberals need safe spaces!" in their insults. IIRC "safe space" was used initially when discussing gun free zones where kids would be safe but I could be wrong.

Thanks all for the legal details about the lawsuits; appreciated.

[Padma]

3 hours ago, HumblePi said:

I would definitely encourage anyone that doesn't currently have a Twitter account to create one. I use Firefox and I have created an entire bookmarked folder titled 'Facebook and twitter' in which I keep a slew of Twitter accounts that I want to access quickly.

Appreciate your thoughts on twitter. I find it a lot more congenial in format and concept than fb, so maybe this is the time to take the plunge.

2 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

....Again, I  have issues with the whole thing and with any lawsuit involving Trump. This man has robbed, cheated, and bankrupted so many people that I'd like to see him behind bars for a very long time. That is truly what he deserves. In the meantime, the only thing that seems to affect him is money, so the more people can take from him, the better. He has hundreds of active lawsuits against him that must have some degree of merit. If they did not, they would have been thrown out quite quickly. I can only hope that a number of those are successful and hit him hard.

Thanks for answering my question about the lawsuit, Rapunzel, particularly how it is resolved. I hope that the plaintiffs were all well informed and agreed on the decision, that no one was railroaded into accepting it.  It's a difficult situation, because so many other peoples' well-being is at stake, not just your own. For me, if it were only my decision (and the legal fees were pro bono), I would give up any settlement for the satisfaction of forcing Trump into court. 

He thinks he can get away with anything, everything. If money doesn't work, then threats and intimidation will--and vice versa.  It would be so gratifying to have said "no" to his money, "no" to his threats and bullying, and forced him to begin his presidency with the humiliation of  the press having to cover his trump U fraud trial (in which so many unflattering and dishonest testimonies would be given, forcing the Trumpkins to pay attention. A priceless opportunity sadly lost.

As for the Hamilton cast, that was an eloquent and respectful message. Did Trump even read it? What a big whiny baby he is.

[HumblePi]

48 minutes ago, Padma said:

Appreciate your thoughts on twitter. I find it a lot more congenial in format and concept than fb, so maybe this is the time to take the plunge.

Thanks for answering my question about the lawsuit, Rapunzel, particularly how it is resolved. I hope that the plaintiffs were all well informed and agreed on the decision, that no one was railroaded into accepting it.  It's a difficult situation, because so many other peoples' well-being is at stake, not just your own. For me, if it were only my decision (and the legal fees were pro bono), I would give up any settlement for the satisfaction of forcing Trump into court. 

He thinks he can get away with anything, everything. If money doesn't work, then threats and intimidation will--and vice versa.  It would be so gratifying to have said "no" to his money, "no" to his threats and bullying, and forced him to begin his presidency with the humiliation of  the press having to cover his trump U fraud trial (in which so many unflattering and dishonest testimonies would be given, forcing the Trumpkins to pay attention. A priceless opportunity sadly lost.

As for the Hamilton cast, that was an eloquent and respectful message. Did Trump even read it? What a big whiny baby he is.

As President, he pretty much can. There are swastikas popping up everywhere, there's a cabinet of civil rights deniers being formed and we have a leader who put a white nationalist right at his side. These aren't signs of unity, these are warning shots fired directly at everyone that's not white, straight or Christian*.

*sorry meant Christian, not Muslim

Edited November 19, 2016 by HumblePi

[windsprints]

Trump poised to violate Constitution his first day in office, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer says

Lawyers on  the forum, thoughts?

[ruby24]

He is EXTREMELY vulnerable to fraud and corruption charges, if the press and Congress does its job.

[PatsyandEddie]

We have swaztikas popping up in Canada as well as well as more verbal assaults. I find it repulsive. 

46 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

He is EXTREMELY vulnerable to fraud and corruption charges, if the press and Congress does its job.

Good luck with either happening. The press blew it during the election IMO and your Congress will blow it in the future. 

[inkworks]

1 minute ago, PatsyandEddie said:

We have swaztikas popping up in Canada as well as well as more verbal assaults. I find it repulsive. 

Isn't Canada supposed one of the most progressive countries in the world?

I suppose it can happen anywhere.

[PatsyandEddie]

Most of us are inkworks but we all seem to have losers lurking in the background .

[windsprints]

Quote

We have swaztikas popping up in Canada as well as well as more verbal assaults. I find it repulsive.  

Oh no, he's infected Canada. :(  And, we all wanted to move there.  It is repulsive.

[onthebrink03]

You're still welcome to come.  Remember we have laws to protect civil liberties and human rights and our leader is not looking to dismantle decades of progress and throw out all that protects the rights of our citizens and residents.  

[PatsyandEddie]

People are totally appalled at the graffiti and small crowds turn out to assist in the cleanup while apologizing for the morons who did it.

[fishcakes]

5 hours ago, KerleyQ said:

The interesting thing is the way he worded his tweet about it.  He said that he settled it for "much less than the actual penalty" to get on with the country's business.  So, um, are you saying you settled for less fraud than the actual fraud you committed?  I mean, I know that's usually what a settlement is, but it seems odd for the one paying the penalty to basically brag "I defrauded them out of so much more money than that!" especially when that person is the P-E.

Ha, yes, that's how I read that too. He simply can't stop himself from bragging about any situation, and in this case it led him to inadvertently admit that the settlement amount was, in his words, "a small fraction" of his actual liability.

2 hours ago, Padma said:

I hope that the plaintiffs were all well informed and agreed on the decision, that no one was railroaded into accepting it. 

It was a class action suit, so only the named plaintiffs would have any say and even then, it is likely the attorneys who had the most input into the decision. In general, a class action is a great way to monetarily punish a defendant and can be a good way for a plaintiff's attorney to earn a big fee, but generally the plaintiffs don't do as well as their attorneys. In the Trump U case, however, the attorneys waived their fees and the entire settlement will go to the plaintiffs. I'm not sure how the pot is being divided, but with a $25 M settlement and 7000 plaintiffs, that works out to an average of $3500 per plaintiff. I've read that each plaintiff will recover between 55 and 100 percent of the money they're out and there are reports that some plaintiffs lost as much as $35,000, so there's some kind of formula for dividing up the settlement and my guess is that the people who lost the most money will receive a lower percentage in order to ensure that everyone gets something. Honestly, I wish they hadn't settled and that Trump would have had to testify and have his financials subject to further discovery, but I also understand that the plaintiffs who were so badly shafted needed to recover something now just so they could make headway in paying off the credit card bills they were encouraged by Trump U to "max out" so they could take those worthless courses.

1 hour ago, windsprints said:

Trump poised to violate Constitution his first day in office, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer says

Lawyers on  the forum, thoughts?

I think that article explains it pretty well, and that this is the trickiest part of proving an ethics violation:

Quote

There’s a catch, however, for someone like Trump who trades on the value of his own name. “Anything in excess of fair market value is a gift,” according to Painter, “and I don’t think you can take into account the value of the name Trump in calculating fair market value.” The diplomats are not staying in one of Trump’s expensive luxury hotels because Trump is charging their nation a reasonable market rate for a night’s stay. They are staying in the hotel because of the added value that comes from doing business with the President of the United States.

So long as the diplomats are charged no more than the rack rate for the room, then Trump can argue that he received no gift from them and therefore isn't in violation of the clause. The counterargument is that the foreign officials would not have stayed in his hotel at all, but for the fact that it's his hotel; I think one person from the Japanese delegation already said something like, "well, it would have been rude not to." But to find a violation, there would have to be a pretty clear connection between a foreign official staying in the hotel and that official or his or her government receiving special treatment by the Trump administration and I don't know how you'd even begin to prove that because it calls for so much speculation into what goes on in Donald's big doughy head. With a normal president, this wouldn't even come up because those presidents would be worried about not only actual impropriety but also the mere appearance of impropriety. But Trump DGAF about how it looks or even if it's actually illegal and, so long as he does what they want, a GOP-led Congress won't care either.

Quote

Oh, and Starbucks baristas, can we talk?  As someone who has long had their last name misspelled and mispronounced by the pizza restaurants of the world, I offer you this - every single one of those cups should say "Tramp" or "Rump" on them.  Don't refuse.  With a smile, input their order the same way my local pizza place inputs my last name even as I spell it out for them, and carry on.   

Over the years, I've given cashiers my actual name, which they have variously heard as Renee, Michelle, Rebecca, Kelly, and, my personal favorite, Midge. None of these are even close. So I support any Starbucks barista writing any damn thing they feel like writing on the cup and if turns out to be Shemp, so be it.

Oh and fun fact: the "Give Trump's Name" was Chachi's bright idea back last spring. Not sure what it was supposed to accomplish back then, but at least it wasn't the world's most ineffectual protest. A couple of times today, I remembered that morons are trying to "punish" Starbucks by spending six dollars on 40 cents worth of coffee and milk and it really cheered me up.

Edited November 19, 2016 by fishcakes

[HumblePi]

I'm wondering why we really haven't been able to have some communicate in this forum with people that support Donald Trump. They're here, I know it. I have only seen one or two comments and they were both anti-Hillary and not pro-Trump. Do they choose not to dialog because they feel a bit outnumbered, are they fearful of being ganged up on, or are they just not open to an honest dialog with Trump detractors?

Everyone here is articulate and respectful from what I've seen and I don't think a Trump supporter would be admonished or belittled intentionally. But I honestly would like the perspective of someone that really believes all the campaign promises and why they believe it. I want to understand how they're comfortable and hopeful with the incoming President. For the past months all I've taken away from debates and rallies has been insults at each other, mean spirited antagonism and boastful promises. What I never really saw between any candidate was a calm and honest discussion and detailed plans of the ideas they have for the future of the United States. I'd like to get some real insight, thoughts and feelings as to what attached them to Donald Trump other than a dislike of Hillary Clinton.

I'm not blind by Democratic loyalties I know the party failed a lot of Americans and I'm more than happy to welcome change as long as it's positive change for everyone.

[windsprints]

I understood the article but was wondering if there was any chance that anything would actually come of it. There's been media reports of all sorts of conflicts, possible violations, etc but they all seem to have escape hatches for him. 

Quote

So I support any Starbucks barista writing any damn thing they feel like writing on the cup and if turns out to be Shemp, so be it

Lump, Frump, Grump.......

[Duke Silver]

I'm likely being redundant at this point, but please go look at this string of (7) tweets:

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/800072169632002048

Quote

1. We talked to George W. Bush's ethics lawyer. Trump is in some serious legal trouble.

[PatsyandEddie]

I sincerely wish he was Duke but he'll skate once again. I have no doubt. It isn't right but I can see it coming. 

[Duke Silver]

Just more awfulness in this space:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/alt-right-washington-dc-meeting-231671

Quote

 

"Donald Trump’s campaign was the first step towards identity politics in the United States,” cheered Richard Spencer, the president of the National Policy Institute, an arm of the alt-right, at an afternoon press conference. “…I do think we have a psychic connection, a deeper connection with Donald Trump, in a way we simply do not have with most Republicans.”

The alt-right, a nationalist movement that embraces white identity politics and has been associated with racism and anti-Semitism, gathered over the weekend at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center downtown to regroup after the election and plot a path forward.

 

Can the Trump supporters who say they are not racist & shrug their shoulders when it's pointed out that they, in the very least, did not let a racist agenda stop them from supporting this scum, at least acknowledge that when trash like Spencer loves Trump & what he is doing, that it's not a good thing for this country?

[Rapunzel]

1 hour ago, windsprints said:

Trump poised to violate Constitution his first day in office, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer says

Lawyers on  the forum, thoughts?

There is a bit of ambiguity here, which makes it challenging, as many ethics situations are. If, in fact, he still maintains ownership of the hotel after he is officially President and it isn't part of what is turned over to his kids (and we all know there is already controversy surrounding that), Congress still has to do their part, but it makes it easier to claim a violation. If it is included in what Trump hands off to the kids, he could still potentially skate if Congress gives him permission to allow people to stay there as long as he is charging the fair market rate for the rooms - Congress could likely also still give this permission if he remains control of the hotel. The part about "trading on the value of his name" is the really ambiguous part, and there are several arguments that could be made either way on that one. So much depends on Congress and what they feel is "ethical" in this particular case and how hard those who feel it is a violation are likely to push.

If Congress does not give him permission to pimp his kid's (um...his) hotel, he would still have to be impeached, which would not remove him from office. He would go through impeachment proceedings (just like Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton - both were found not guilty and remained President) and be found guilty or, do what Nixon did and realize that the writing was on the wall and resign just prior to impeachment. In any case, we'd end up with Pence being our President serving out the remainder of Trump's term.

Basically, it's not a very easy question and there is a fair amount of grey area. Too much depends on how Congress responds and what actions they decide to take. If the American people start to write to their Congress people and complain about this and other conflicts of interest, including the all too cozy relationship with Putin and Russia, then Congress may be more inclined to do something, even with the slight Republican majority. What we are facing here with Trump and all the moves he is currently making is unprecedented, and no one really knows what to do or how to respond. We need to use our voices and call out the damn media and make them do their jobs and call out our other elected officials and remind them who it is that elected them and tell them what we want if they hope to continue their career in politics. I like to think that the American people still hold some power here, but we need to be vocal about it and remind those in power from our respective states how they got there. Trump lost the popular vote - that means that those who were against from the beginning outnumber those who were for him regardless of the fact that he won the election due to the antiquated, bullshit EC system. Our elected officials and the media need to be reminded of that as well. Trump does not have the majority of the American people.

[sistermagpie]

6 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

Can the Trump supporters who say they are not racist & shrug their shoulders when it's pointed out that they, in the very least, did not let a racist agenda stop them from supporting this scum, at least acknowledge that when trash like Spencer loves Trump & what he is doing, that it's not a good thing for this country?

Honestly, there are only concern about racism or bigotry from any self-professed Trump-supporter that I've spoken to or read is that they're not bigots, sometimes with the added accusation that it's anti-Trump people who are bigots.

But in a way this goes back to not being distracted by the personality stuff. It's gone beyond the personal character failings (or personal niceness) of anyone who voted for him, or the lectures of proud they didn't vote for Hillary. Now it's about real people losing their rights, the security of the country (and then the world) being totally compromised.

[windsprints]

Sorry if this is a dumb question - could Congress make some kind of ruling that his hotel is off limits to anyone visiting the White House on official business?  I'm sure not but just asking/grasping at a straw.

[parisprincess]

HumblePi, a fourth reason that not many Trump supporters post here could be that, after seeing the people he is picking for his cabinet, they're starting to  have a case of buyer's remorse. At the rate he's going, I imagine that it won't be long before there are millions suffering from the same thing. I'm not a vindictive or revengeful person, but if and when it happens, I'll be there, gleefully saying "told you so".

[parisprincess]

23 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

Just more awfulness in this space:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/alt-right-washington-dc-meeting-231671

Can the Trump supporters who say they are not racist & shrug their shoulders when it's pointed out that they, in the very least, did not let a racist agenda stop them from supporting this scum, at least acknowledge that when trash like Spencer loves Trump & what he is doing, that it's not a good thing for this country?

A good portion of the people who support Trump have no idea who Richard Spencer is. Like Trump, reading and becoming informed is not their strong suit. As someone said up thread, we're fucked!

[Padma]

8 minutes ago, parisprincess said:

HumblePi, a fourth reason that not many Trump supporters post here could be that, after seeing the people he is picking for his cabinet, they're starting to  have a case of buyer's remorse. At the rate he's going, I imagine that it won't be long before there are millions suffering from the same thing. I'm not a vindictive or revengeful person, but if and when it happens, I'll be there, gleefully saying "told you so".

That would be nice. I'm not normally like this either, but feel very spiteful and resentful of what these people have voted into power (controlling all three branches of govt, too).  But I don't think there's any buyer's remorse. And I think he'll continue to successfully bamboozle them for quite a while, esp. since he will just find someone else to scapegoat when things go wrong (Dem opposition in Congress? Foreigners? The dishonest media? Someone, surely).  And I think his supporters will believe him, no matter what bad things happen and what excuses he gives.