Trump Institute Offered Get-Rich Schemes with Plagiarized Lessons

[imyoda]

In the interest of intellectual integrity AND fairness, would it be too much to ask you to research and present all of the available information regarding The Clinton international educational enterprises? Even though this may be a bit shocking, you probably won't find any citations in the NEW YORK TIMES.

What does Clinton have to do with Trump's con jobs?

Are you suggesting it is OK for Trump to do as he does here...........because Clinton does it too?

Ts that what you are saying?

 

[poweRob]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-institute-plagiarism.html
Trump Institute Offered Get-Rich Schemes with Plagiarized Lessons

“In 2005, as he was making a transition from developing real estate to capitalizing on his fame through ventures like a reality show and product-licensing deals, Donald J. Trump hit upon a two-pronged strategy for entering the field of for-profit education.

He poured his own money into Trump University, which began as a distance-learning business advising customers on how to make money in real estate, but left a long trail of customers alleging they were defrauded. Their lawsuits have cast a shadow over Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. But Mr. Trump also lent his name, and his credibility, to a seminar business he did not own, which was branded the Trump Institute. Its operators rented out hotel ballrooms across the country and invited people to pay up to $2,000 to come hear Mr. Trump’s “wealth-creating secrets and strategies.”

And its customers had ample reason to ask whether they, too, had been deceived…………..

I do not know why folks dispute me when I call the Dumpster a crook………con-man……….dirtbag

I don’t know why folks don’t believe me when I said, “This is just the tip of the iceberg; and there’s much more to come……….

I just don’t know why……

ALSO SEE:
Report: Trump Institute plagiarized its course materials
Report: Trump Institute plagiarized its course materials - CBS News

I'd jump all over this but I'll wait for Trump's explanation because as he's told us... ‘I Know Words, I Have The Best Words’

 

[Excon]

No Trump never just "lends his name"..........he rents it...........And in this case was a main actor in the scheme...........The mane is a con man who has a long list of screwing others out of their money.........

No matter what you say........an all based upon feelings; not fact...........Donald is a scumbag

And again you show you have no clue as to what you speak and is all based in your irrational emotions.
And no, he wasn't the main actor. That would be Irene and Mike Milin. Had you read the actual article you would have known that.

 

[Excon]

, you may not be "responsible",

Yes, he was not responsible, per the article, Irene and Mike Milin were.

 

[Excon]

Trump didn't merely lend his name. He owned 93% of the company.

1. I see you have already been corrected yet cling to the same belief.
Maybe you should have endeavored to understand what the article actually said.

Yet while he owned 93 percent of Trump University, the Trump Institute was owned and operated by Irene and Mike Milin, a couple who had been marketing get-rich-quick courses since the 1980s.​

He didn't own 93% of "the Trump Institute". It was "was owned and operated by Irene and Mike Milin".


2. If you think you know differently, then you need to provide evidence that the article is wrong, not just say so as you did.

 

[Patrickt]

In the interest of intellectual integrity AND fairness, would it be too much to ask you to research and present all of the available information regarding The Clinton international educational enterprises? Even though this may be a bit shocking, you probably won't find any citations in the NEW YORK TIMES.

Those who support liberals, such as Donald Trump, do love distraction when faced with embarrassing facts. I know it's hard to deal honestly when you're supporting a man who is proud of being a liar and a huckster, has a clear record of being a deadbeat and a bully, and if a lifelong liberal. When you choose to adore someone with that sort of track record, life's tough.

I did appreciate a Trump supporting implying they believe in fairness and intellectual integrity. Irony is not dead.

 

[Ikari]

Yes, he was not responsible, per the article, Irene and Mike Milin were.

Yes, but it's still a mark against Trump. He put his name on it. Don't put your name on a turd if you don't want to come out stinky.

 

[JasperL]

Trump Univeristy and Trump Institute were the same company. Trump changed the name from Trump Institute to Trump University when he incorporated it. He was the sleezeball owner.

I think I understand your point, but that's not actually correct. The entity dba Trump Institute (NGC) was owned and run by different people. You can say Trump or his people saw the potential in using his name to rip off people and then started their own business doing the same thing but it was a different business with different owners.

Among many other links - Arstechnica

"Trump University had no relationship whatsoever with NGC," Trump Organization general counsel Alan Garten said in an e-mail. "Trump University entered into a license arrangement" with the Milins and Trump Institute. "Upon expiration of the license arrangement in 2009, it was not renewed."

 

[JasperL]

Yes, he was not responsible, per the article, Irene and Mike Milin were.

Right, he was not responsible for running a fraudulent business. He WAS responsible for endorsing it and lending his name to slimeball con artists with a long history of ripping people off and running afoul of the authorities.

We can each make our own judgments about what that says about him and his advisors, but ordinarily if someone I know and then trust then takes a kickback from the business and vouches for that business, knowing at the time of the endorsement that they're nothing but con men who will take my money and give me nothing of value in return, it's the last advice I'll take from that person.

 

[Excon]

Yes, but it's still a mark against Trump. He put his name on it. Don't put your name on a turd if you don't want to come out stinky.

No it isn't a mark against Trump. Saying so is nothing but illogical grasping.
It is a mark against those who ran the business.

---

Right, he was not responsible for running a fraudulent business. He WAS responsible for endorsing it and lending his name to slimeball con artists with a long history of ripping people off and running afoul of the authorities.

We can each make our own judgments about what that says about him and his advisors, but ordinarily if someone I know and then trust then takes a kickback from the business and vouches for that business, knowing at the time of the endorsement that they're nothing but con men who will take my money and give me nothing of value in return, it's the last advice I'll take from that person.

You also are engaged in the same illogical grasping. You are even going out of your to demonize the relationship with your choice of words.

There is no responsibility in lending your name.
Now if you could show he knew before hand they would engage in such behavior, then you would have a point, as it stands you do not.

 

[Patrickt]

I think I understand your point, but that's not actually correct. The entity dba Trump Institute (NGC) was owned and run by different people. You can say Trump or his people saw the potential in using his name to rip off people and then started their own business doing the same thing but it was a different business with different owners.

Among many other links - Arstechnica

Watch the Trump promo for the Trump University. Watch Donald Trump lie though his teeth. And listen to the Trumpkins saying Donald Trump had nothing to do with Trump University.

"Trump University was formed in late 2004 and originally focused on web-based seminars and CD-ROMs. In May 2005 the New York Education Department notified Trump U that it was operating without a license and its use of the term “university” violated state law. The program, run directly out of the Trump Organization offices, pledged to move its headquarters out of New York, according to the New York AG’s complaint."
Trump University: How Bad Are the Charges Against Trump U? Really bad. - Fortune

Imagine that. The program run directly out of Trump Organization officers but Donald Trump had nothing to do with the program.

"But it didn’t, according to the AG. It stayed and, in fact, used the Trump Organization’s “40 Wall Street” address in many of its promotional materials—apparently to underscore to students that they were now playing in the big leagues."

Ooopsie. Perhaps that's what Dishonest Donald calls "truthful hyperbole."

"These aren’t very pretty allegations for a Presidential candidate to be fending off. If they are “a small deal, very small,” Trump hasn’t been treating them as such. He has threatened to sue—or actually sued—many of the people who have brought them to the public’s attention."

Wow! Donald Trump is suing or threatening to sue people on behalf of Trump University which he had nothing to do with. Devious Donald is all heart, isn't he?

"One of the first was Los Angeles Times reporter David Lazarus, who took a seminar and then wrote about it in December 2007. By phone, Trump personally advised him a few days later that his story was “inaccurate” and “libelous,” Lazarus wrote in a followup, but refused to say in what respect. He’d provide details “in court,” he told Lazarus, where he’d be suing the reporter’s “ass” off."

Now, I can understand Donald Trump. I arrested people like Donald and I worked for people like Donald so he's nothing new. What's new to me are the people who worship the guy and believe anything he says even when it's obviously a self-serving lie.

"With past Trump-affiliated business failures and controversies, Trump has often distanced himself by noting that his only financial involvement was a branding agreement. In the case of Trump University, however, Trump's ownership is not in dispute — Trump wanted the business for himself.
When future Trump University President Michael Sexton pitched Trump on the deal, he wanted to pay Trump a flat fee in a licensing deal. Trump rejected that, Sexton said in a deposition.
Trump "felt this was a very good business, and he wanted to put his own money into it," said Sexton, who ended up receiving $250,000 a year from Trump to run a business in which Trump held more than a 90 percent stake. The design of the Trump University operating agreement "was entirely in the hands of the Trump legal team," Sexton said.
Other court records and depositions showed that Trump and senior members of the Trump Organization were responsible for reviewing and signing all checks — and that Trump withdrew at least $2 million from the business.
Trump reviewed the advertising for Trump University's courses, Sexton said. And he did not believe Trump ever looked at what the three-day seminars included."

The reason Donald Trump attacked the judge with nonsense is because he knows he has no defense in court. In the Trumpkin Court of Sycophants, he's doing fine.

 

[JasperL]

Watch the Trump promo for the Trump University. Watch Donald Trump lie though his teeth. And listen to the Trumpkins saying Donald Trump had nothing to do with Trump University.

"Trump University was formed in late 2004 and originally focused on web-based seminars and CD-ROMs. In May 2005 the New York Education Department notified Trump U that it was operating without a license and its use of the term “university” violated state law. The program, run directly out of the Trump Organization offices, pledged to move its headquarters out of New York, according to the New York AG’s complaint."
Trump University: How Bad Are the Charges Against Trump U? Really bad. - Fortune

Imagine that. The program run directly out of Trump Organization officers but Donald Trump had nothing to do with the program.

"But it didn’t, according to the AG. It stayed and, in fact, used the Trump Organization’s “40 Wall Street” address in many of its promotional materials—apparently to underscore to students that they were now playing in the big leagues."

Ooopsie. Perhaps that's what Dishonest Donald calls "truthful hyperbole."

"These aren’t very pretty allegations for a Presidential candidate to be fending off. If they are “a small deal, very small,” Trump hasn’t been treating them as such. He has threatened to sue—or actually sued—many of the people who have brought them to the public’s attention."

Wow! Donald Trump is suing or threatening to sue people on behalf of Trump University which he had nothing to do with. Devious Donald is all heart, isn't he?

"One of the first was Los Angeles Times reporter David Lazarus, who took a seminar and then wrote about it in December 2007. By phone, Trump personally advised him a few days later that his story was “inaccurate” and “libelous,” Lazarus wrote in a followup, but refused to say in what respect. He’d provide details “in court,” he told Lazarus, where he’d be suing the reporter’s “ass” off."

Now, I can understand Donald Trump. I arrested people like Donald and I worked for people like Donald so he's nothing new. What's new to me are the people who worship the guy and believe anything he says even when it's obviously a self-serving lie.

"With past Trump-affiliated business failures and controversies, Trump has often distanced himself by noting that his only financial involvement was a branding agreement. In the case of Trump University, however, Trump's ownership is not in dispute — Trump wanted the business for himself.
When future Trump University President Michael Sexton pitched Trump on the deal, he wanted to pay Trump a flat fee in a licensing deal. Trump rejected that, Sexton said in a deposition.
Trump "felt this was a very good business, and he wanted to put his own money into it," said Sexton, who ended up receiving $250,000 a year from Trump to run a business in which Trump held more than a 90 percent stake. The design of the Trump University operating agreement "was entirely in the hands of the Trump legal team," Sexton said.
Other court records and depositions showed that Trump and senior members of the Trump Organization were responsible for reviewing and signing all checks — and that Trump withdrew at least $2 million from the business.
Trump reviewed the advertising for Trump University's courses, Sexton said. And he did not believe Trump ever looked at what the three-day seminars included."

The reason Donald Trump attacked the judge with nonsense is because he knows he has no defense in court. In the Trumpkin Court of Sycophants, he's doing fine.

Good post, but I'm not quite sure why you quoted me, and so just want to point out I wasn't defending him. He lent his good name to a con man running what became Trump Institute, then from what I can tell, saw that the con was effective and so started Trump University so he didn't have to share in the profits. In my view, both businesses are morally repugnant because they end up attracting gullible, often desperate people, knowing they're not giving them the tools to succeed. And either they know that, and don't care, or that's the entire purpose.

 

[JasperL]

You also are engaged in the same illogical grasping. You are even going out of your to demonize the relationship with your choice of words.

There is no responsibility in lending your name.
Now if you could show he knew before hand they would engage in such behavior, then you would have a point, as it stands you do not.

Lending his name was giving that business his personal stamp of approval. That stamp is why he got paid. Of course he owes those who would use that stamp for purposes of buying a product the ethical duty (although perhaps not legal obligation) to do enough due diligence to know the product is suitable.

And ignorance is no excuse. The person had a long history of being a con man, and if Trump and his lawyers didn't know it, they're incompetent fools. This is information any decent paralegal could uncover in a couple of billable hours at most - probably with a few keystrokes - and doing basic background checks on a business wanting to use your name to market that product is routine, at least in Tennessee because I've seen it done for clients of mine. Maybe Trump just goes into business with pretty much anyone who will cut him a check that clears, but if so that says a lot about the man.

 

[Patrickt]

Good post, but I'm not quite sure why you quoted me, and so just want to point out I wasn't defending him. He lent his good name to a con man running what became Trump Institute, then from what I can tell, saw that the con was effective and so started Trump University so he didn't have to share in the profits. In my view, both businesses are morally repugnant because they end up attracting gullible, often desperate people, knowing they're not giving them the tools to succeed. And either they know that, and don't care, or that's the entire purpose.

What a wonderful defense of Donald Trump.

His good name? Tell that to the people who lost a billion dollars on his amazingly profitable, for him, bankruptcies. Tell that to the workers, contractors, suppliers who had to sue to payment, often partial payment, from the self-described King of Debt.

Poor Delicate Donald fell in with evil companions. Remember Donald bragging about having a crew pretending to be busy working on a project that wasn't actually in progress to influence potential investors visiting the site? And, Donald fell in with con men? Remember Donald using aliases when he was making deals? What kind of people use aliases? I don't. I suspect you don't. Or, allegations, which Donald denies, that people calling to speak to a PR flack actually got Donald pretending to be someone else. And this innocent, with a good name, fell in with evil men.

Remember Trump Water? Nothing special. Bottled water provided by a company who had made a profit by printing labels. Your company was having a retreat then the bottled water could have the company name. Your daughter was getting married then the bottled water could honor the bride and groom. But, Donald thought with his good name they could convince people the water was special.

Or, Trump Vodka. The premier vodka...according to the hustler. Or Trump Steaks. Same scam.

Donald Trump fell in with evil companions. Donald Trump met some con men who suckered him. I don't think so. At best, it was a gathering of con men and I doubt Donald would have let any other con man lead him around. After all, he has told us, he's te smartest guy in the room.

And why did Donald get so enraged with the "Mexican" judge? While Donald enjoys lying and does it well, he's brighter than Bill Clinton when it comes to committing perjury. When Donald settles a lawsuit they have a non-disclosure clause. That's usually demanded by the loser and paid for. The judge was releasing the depositions. Donald's lies would be clearly visible to the public.

Not that those he calls "my people" care. When he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and not lose a single one of "my people" he was speaking the truth. A novel experience for Devious Donald.

 

[Excon]

Lending his name was giving that business his personal stamp of approval. That stamp is why he got paid. Of course he owes those who would use that stamp for purposes of buying a product the ethical duty (although perhaps not legal obligation) to do enough due diligence to know the product is suitable.

And ignorance is no excuse. The person had a long history of being a con man, and if Trump and his lawyers didn't know it, they're incompetent fools. This is information any decent paralegal could uncover in a couple of billable hours at most - probably with a few keystrokes - and doing basic background checks on a business wanting to use your name to market that product is routine, at least in Tennessee because I've seen it done for clients of mine. Maybe Trump just goes into business with pretty much anyone who will cut him a check that clears, but if so that says a lot about the man.

As I said ...

You also are engaged in the same illogical grasping. You are even going out of your to demonize the relationship with your choice of words.

There is no responsibility in lending your name.
Now if you could show he knew before hand they would engage in such behavior, then you would have a point, as it stands you do not.​

You are engaged in grasping and have yet to refute that.

 

[Hatuey]

What a con man this Trump guy is. He's willing to put his name and money into businesses willing to scam and defraud people.

 

[Excon]

What a con man this Trump guy is. He's willing to put his name and money into businesses willing to scam and defraud people.

Doh!
Show he knew beforehand what they would do.

 

[Hatuey]

I know I wouldn't put my money into a business based entirely around selling my name and nothing else. Wat a con man this guy is.

 

[Excon]

Oy vey!

 

[JasperL]

What a wonderful defense of Donald Trump.

His good name? Tell that to the people who lost a billion dollars on his amazingly profitable, for him, bankruptcies. Tell that to the workers, contractors, suppliers who had to sue to payment, often partial payment, from the self-described King of Debt.

Poor Delicate Donald fell in with evil companions. Remember Donald bragging about having a crew pretending to be busy working on a project that wasn't actually in progress to influence potential investors visiting the site? And, Donald fell in with con men? Remember Donald using aliases when he was making deals? What kind of people use aliases? I don't. I suspect you don't. Or, allegations, which Donald denies, that people calling to speak to a PR flack actually got Donald pretending to be someone else. And this innocent, with a good name, fell in with evil men.

Remember Trump Water? Nothing special. Bottled water provided by a company who had made a profit by printing labels. Your company was having a retreat then the bottled water could have the company name. Your daughter was getting married then the bottled water could honor the bride and groom. But, Donald thought with his good name they could convince people the water was special.

Or, Trump Vodka. The premier vodka...according to the hustler. Or Trump Steaks. Same scam.

Donald Trump fell in with evil companions. Donald Trump met some con men who suckered him. I don't think so. At best, it was a gathering of con men and I doubt Donald would have let any other con man lead him around. After all, he has told us, he's te smartest guy in the room.

And why did Donald get so enraged with the "Mexican" judge? While Donald enjoys lying and does it well, he's brighter than Bill Clinton when it comes to committing perjury. When Donald settles a lawsuit they have a non-disclosure clause. That's usually demanded by the loser and paid for. The judge was releasing the depositions. Donald's lies would be clearly visible to the public.

Not that those he calls "my people" care. When he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and not lose a single one of "my people" he was speaking the truth. A novel experience for Devious Donald.

If you think I'm defending him, I suggest you read what I wrote again. Bottom line is we agree 100% and for some reason you appear to think I'm a Trump defender.

 

[JasperL]

As I said ...

You also are engaged in the same illogical grasping. You are even going out of your to demonize the relationship with your choice of words.

There is no responsibility in lending your name.
Now if you could show he knew before hand they would engage in such behavior, then you would have a point, as it stands you do not.​

You are engaged in grasping and have yet to refute that.

Yeah, OK, he's too stupid to do a background check to know the guy had a long history of defrauding people. That's not a very effective defense, but stick with it if you want. I'm not going to try to change your mind.

 

[Excon]

Yeah, OK, he's too stupid to do a background check to know the guy had a long history of defrauding people. That's not a very effective defense, but stick with it if you want.

As I said. Grasping.

 

[Patrickt]

Trumpkins can dance all they want. Donald Trump's name is not a "good name" and when he made the promo for the Trump University scam he said the instructors would be hand picked by him. He admitted in depositions that he not only didn't pick them but he could only remember meeting one.

Donald Trump attacked the judge because he knows if he goes with the witnesses and testimony he's done. If, in fact, he had nothing to do with the business and only rented them his name he wouldn't have anything to worry about. But, that is not what happened.

Here you go:
Trump University: Yes, It Was a Massive Scam | National Review

Watch the video. It's only 2:17. Listen to Donald tell about the great professors, great brains, successful people handpicked by him. Then come back and say Donald wasn't involved. Donald had no idea what was going on. The man who says he's brilliant, never apologizes because he doesn't make mistakes was led astray by bad companions.

 

[Mason66]

It's the typical distraction tactic. Popular with liberals.

And, here's a link to the Donald Trump promotional video for Trump University. I keep having to find new sites for the promo because they seem to get scrubbed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1N_B6Y4ZQ

This thread is about a Trump Institute.

Is that the same as the University or were there two such businesses?

 

[Excon]

Trumpkins can dance all they want. Donald Trump's name is not a "good name" ...

Said only by Trump haters.

Here you go:
Trump University: Yes, It Was a Massive Scam | National Review

1. This thread is about the Trump Institute. Not the University. For some reason you haven't seemed to grasp that.
2. There are far more people who attended the university that praised it and got their money's worth than those who say they didn't.