New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman: Trump University Was A Fraud

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

From Politico

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman stepped up his attacks on Donald Trump’s Trump University business venture on Thursday, alleging the businessman and presumptive Republican nominee ran a thoroughly fraudulent enterprise.

“In New York, we have laws against business fraud, we have laws against consumer fraud,” Schneiderman told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America,” when asked which specific laws the Manhattan mogul broke in New York state, which filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2013.

“We have a law against running an illegal unlicensed university. This never was a university. The fraud started with the name of the organization, and you can’t just go around saying this is the George Stephanopoulos Law Firm/Hospital/ University without actually qualifying and registering, so it was really a fraud from beginning to end.”

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Hillary and her e-mails. Trump and his university. Sanders and his campaign finances. 

Imagine if all three get indicted 

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Hillary and her e-mails. Trump and his university. Sanders and his campaign finances. 

Imagine if all three get indicted 

2/3 of these scandals are campaign breaking. ActBlue's errors aren't even relatable.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, FATCAT said:

2/3 of these scandals are campaign breaking. ActBlue's errors aren't even relatable.

In your opinion. 700 pages of violations is obscene and were not the result of errors but systematic failure to limit donations in order to bypass the lack of a Super PAC.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

2/3 of these scandals are campaign breaking. ActBlue's errors aren't even relatable.

Nobody but the RIGHT really cares about e-mails either...  

 

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

In your opinion. 700 pages of violations is obscene.

When you fund your campaign from millions upon millions of people, there's bound to be problems. Not everyone can have the moral compass to fund-raise like Hillary does.

[FATCAT 60,888]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Nobody but the RIGHT really cares about e-mails either...  

 

Of course others do. This FBI investigation isn't a right-wing smear campaign.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, FATCAT said:

When you fund your campaign from millions upon millions of people, there's bound to be problems. Not everyone can have the moral compass to fund-raise like Hillary does.

How come Hillary and Trump have less than 5 pages of funding violations?

Considering Hillary and Sanders collected relatively equivalent amounts of funding from campaign donations, it's clear that this was intentional.

And yes. Better to use a Super PAC than resort to breaking the law in order to claim that you don't need Super PACs.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

Of course others do. This FBI investigation isn't a right-wing smear campaign.

It's not. The GOP and the media both liberal and conservative are blowing the situation out of proportion.

[FATCAT 60,888]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

How come Hillary and Trump have less than 5 pages of funding violations?

Considering Hillary and Sanders collected relatively equivalent amounts of funding from campaign donations, it's clear that this was intentional.

And yes. Better to use a Super PAC than resort to breaking the law in order to claim that you don't need Super PACs.

Ah. Legal bribery. Far more superior in it's moral high ground.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

Ah. Legal bribery. Far more superior in it's moral high ground.

What are you trying to say here? How is this relevant to the legality of the situation?

Also note that unions function as Super PACs under a different model, so this actually is a counterargument against you. Unions often lean, support, and advertise for their endorsed candidate irrespective of their base.

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

What are you trying to say here?

Also note that unions function as Super PACs under a different name.

Super pacs are far different from a union. I'm sure you know this.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

16 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Super pacs are far different from a union. I'm sure you know this.

Read this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-218478

Look at this: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00488486

Look at the amount spent on lobbying: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000066

Perhaps you're thinking like this woman:

“It’s not a super PAC, super PACs are corrupt,” RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, said. “They’re a way for the billionaires to influence the political process and spend unlimited money. This is nurses who want to get our support for Bernie out there. That’s way different than the Koch brothers. This isn’t big money. I think people understand the difference.”

---

Well that's a dumb opinion because super PACs are not necessarily "corrupt" nor are they necessarily ways for billionaires to influence elections. Many Super PACs don't even get donations from billionaires.

Furthermore, these union endorsements and lobbying are decided by the people in charge of the organization, not the individuals themselves. Implying otherwise is ridiculous. So these unions essentially spend money on lobbying without the agreement of their followings. How is this functionally different from a Super PAC which collects money and then invests in their own interests?

I mean you do realize that most donations to Super PACs are not actually towards a particular candidate right? Many donate to advance liberal interests. The PAC decides that's Hillary. 

Also, Super PACs  collect significant portions of their funding from individual donations from non-billionaires as well. The occasional billionaire clearly contributes a significant portion but implying that Super PACs = billionaires is intentionally dismissive. Many people don't even donate to the PAC knowing it goes to a particular candidate.

PACs stand for political action committee. They vary in form and function much like unions.

---

So no...unions are not different than Super PACs in function. They appear to be, but functionally they aren't when it comes to dealings with the election, because clearly unions don't have homogeneous followings.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

Expose Donald Duck.