[DIGEST: New York Times, Politico]

Days after Donald Trump won the election in November, he reached a $25 million agreement to settle fraud claims against his failed for-profit Trump University. At the time, he tweeted “The ONLY bad thing about winning the Presidency is that I did not have time to go through a long but winning trial on Trump U. Too bad!”


Luckily for Trump, he may just get that day in court yet.

Earlier this month, lawyers for former Trump University student Sherri Simpson asked a federal judge in San Diego to reject the settlement agreement unless former students are given the opportunity to leave the class action and sue Trump individually.

The settlement arose out of several suits filed for fraud against Trump University. Former students alleged that they were pushed to pay up to $35,000 to attend real estate courses at the University, which were taught by unqualified instructors. Under the terms of the settlement, members of the class would get a refund of up to 50 cents on the dollar of what they paid to attend Trump University. They could object to the terms of the agreement, but they did not have the right to “opt out” or leave the class.

The last time members were given the opportunity to opt out was in November of 2015. At that time, “the case was barreling toward trial, by all accounts,” wrote Simpson’s lawyer, Gary B. Friedman, in his objection. Plaintiffs like Simpson assumed they would have another opportunity to opt out of the class.

If the court, under Judge Gonzalo Curiel, were to accept Simpson’s argument, it could compromise the settlement agreement. Trump agreed to the settlement in large part because it was a way to resolve all the Trump University claims and avoid a trial in the midst of his presidency. However, if Simpson and others like her are able to bow out and file their own suits, that assurance is gone.

“If even one person could opt out of the settlement and force a trial, that might, in fact, crater the deal,” said Shaun Martin, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. “I’m sure Judge Curiel will be aware of that.”

Trump (left) and Judge Gonzalo Curiel (right). (Credit: Source.)

Judge Curiel made news last year when Trump questioned his ability to be impartial given his Mexican heritage.

Patrick Coughlin, a lawyer representing the class action plaintiffs, called the settlement “terrific.” Coughlin said that Simpson’s objection seemed “politically motivated” and could result in delays for members of the class—who have already waited years to get their money back. “She could have excluded herself before and pursued her own litigation. That time has passed.”

“If the settlement indeed represents 50 cents on the dollar of loss, as has been reported, it is certainly a beneficial settlement by the standards of class actions. But there is no principle of law or fairness that requires Sherri Simpson to accept 50 cents on the dollar,” wrote Friedman in his objection.

“What Ms. Simpson seeks is her day in court.”

Blaze TV

Continuing a steady slide to the right since her tenure as President Donald Trump's United Nations ambassador, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is under heat for recent comments regarding the Confederate flag.

The comments came during an interview with far-Right Blaze TV host Glenn Beck.

Keep reading... Show less
Fox News

Former Vice President and current 2020 Presidential candidate Joe Biden erupted at a man during an Iowa town hall who accused him of actively working to get his son Hunter a board position on the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. Biden called the man a "damn liar" before challenging him to pushups.

Republicans seized on the moment as an opportunity to discredit Biden as a candidate, but Fox and Friends cohost Ainsley Earhardt's reaction may be the most deluded yet.

Keep reading... Show less
Bryan Woolston/Getty Images // @parscale/Twitter

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly made clear that, after President Donald Trump solicited Ukrainian leaders to announce investigations that personally benefitted him, the decision to launch impeachment proceedings wasn't a political maneuver, but a constitutional mandate.

The move came after years of Trump's supporters, as well as some critics, insisted that impeachment would be political suicide for the Democrats.

Since shortly after the inquiry's announcement in September, support for impeachment outweighed its oppositon as more revelations surfaced of Trump's dealings with Ukraine, but his 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale attempted to show that Pelosi's move to impeach would lose Democrats their House majority.

Keep reading... Show less

Shortly after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that representatives would begin drafting articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy took the podium to defend the President and the Republican party as a whole.

It could've gone better.

Keep reading... Show less
SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images // MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

One day after the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a press conference announcing that the House would begin drafting articles of impeachment, with a possible floor vote as soon as Christmas.

The press conference signaled the beginning of the end of the impeachment inquiry in the House.

Keep reading... Show less
Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The House Judiciary Committee, in its public impeachment hearing against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, consulted four constitutional scholars for greater insight to the legal implications of the President's Ukraine scandal—and whether they merit impeachment.

Three witnesses, called by Democrats, each made compelling arguments for the articles of impeachment with which Trump could be charged.

George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley—invited by Republicans—was the lone dissenter.

Keep reading... Show less