Attorney General Serves Donald the Trump Card

  • Sumo

It has been a less than memorable couple of years for the Trump Organization. After an unsuccessful presidential run, Donald Trump has recently been announced as a defendant in an upcoming civil suit seeking 40 million dollars in restitutive damages. The civil suit, which has been brought upon by the New York State Attorney General, contends that Donald Trump and the Trump organization misinformed the public and engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices. This school that was unaccredited ran in various locations across the United States.

The school promised to make their potential students rich while teaching them the particulars of real estate investment. In addition to the sales pitch of elucidating them to the world of real estate development, Trump University claimed the instructors were handpicked by the real estate mogul himself.

The lawsuit contends, contrary to the claim that Donald Trump had no influence on the curriculum nor the instructors. Under typical circumstances this inaccuracy would hardly be noticed, but in this case where seminars and classes are as costly as $35,000 per course,  these and a litany of other indiscretions quickly came to light. According to former students, the information provided at these seminars was nothing more than information a simple Google search could uncover. The attorney general was made aware of this situation after dozen of disenfranchised students levied formal complaints against the Trump organization.

According to Mr. Trump’s defense team they feel these charges or more politically motivated in direct response to Mr. Trump’s snubbing of the attorney general’s request for a campaign donation. The Trump camp contends this suit is unfounded stating that based on 11,000 student evaluation 98 percent were extremely satisfied.

The underlying elements of this suit are presently a highly contested topic. The ethics of for-profit colleges, their dependence on federal aid coupled with their disproportionate default and job placement rate has fueled an ongoing dialogue of the permissibility of such practices.  The recent magnification of this issue is partially attributed to the less than optimal economic climate. Nonetheless, this is an issue that will continue for extended time to garner discussion.