Hmm…How much does Trump pay Hope Hicks, I wonder. Is she compensated per prevarication, or what?
2 Likes
I’d say she’s selling bullshit by the pound.
2 Likes
While technically true, Hicks is relying on people not actually knowing what any of that means.
First, yes, the suit was brought as a part of a nationwide “inquiry” (depending on how you define that) against a number of companies. That is how the Fair Housing Act works and why it exists. There were a number of landlords discriminating based on race, and so they were all sued. If this was an excuse then pretty much any crime could be explained away by this little gem. However, this was only the second major rental discrimination action brought by the DOJ in two years. Trump isn’t the “one of many” he portrays as being accused of racial discrimination by the DOJ; he was one of very few brought in an extended period of time.
The matter was ultimately - careful choice of words there, far better than Trump’s mischaracterization during the debate - settled. Over 98% of Fair Housing Act cases are settled out of court with the landlord taking corrective action. This is because the goal of the FHA isn’t to punish racist assholes, but rather to make sure that housing is available to all races of qualified tenants. However, the vast vast majority of cases are also settled quickly; Trumps took two years, likely complicated by the countersuit Trump brought.
There was no admission of wrongdoing by Trump. Of course not; that is how such suits work. Again, the goal isn’t to humiliate the landlord but to get them to correct their ways. The settlement specifically forced changes in how Trump’s properties were rented, and required a significant education efforts in the city to alert black families that Trump properties were now open to all races. In fact, the restitution that Trump agreed to to settle the case was far more widespread and significant than others settled in the same era; either Trump was a crap negotiator, or he had a lot of guilt to “settle out”.
“No admission of wrongdoing whatsoever” is actually important in this case, because Trump also filed a countersuit, claiming that the DOJ had unfairly accused him of discrimination and asking for $100M in damages. The court threw his countersuit out. The DOJ was not wrong in accusing him of being a racist asshole. Make of that what you will. At the same countersuit hearing, Trump asked the judge to throw out the case against him for lack of any evidence; contrary to his later claims that the government folded because they had no evidence, the judge in the case saw sufficient evidence to prosecute and let the case stand.
Technicalities aside about the specific lawsuit, we also have available much of the actual evidence of that case, of earlier (1963) complaints, a later re-opening of the 1973 case due to Trump not abiding the consent decree (1978-1982), and finally from class action suits. Taken as a whole, the evidence is incredibly compelling. Trump, following his father’s KKK-tinged footsteps, clearly discriminated based on race when determining which tenants he would allow to rent which of his properties.
The Washington Post first-debate fact-check summary is quite to the point:
This was not a case brought against many real estate firms; it was brought against Trump and his father. Trump did not get a better deal; he got essentially the same deal, or possibly worse, than the deal he would have gotten if he had settled before spending legal fees for two years. He also failed to live up to the deal and found himself back in court. While Trump touts there was no admission of guilt, that’s rather typical in these sorts of settlements. The Justice Department simply wanted to get the Trumps to agree to rent to African American tenants — which they failed to do even after agreeing to settle the case.
1 Like