Originally Posted by
Nordberg
Consent decrees have been argued about for many years because they do exactly what they did in Trump's case. They get the action to stop, often collect fines and the return is they do not have to admit guilt. It is cheaper and does not tie up judicial departments for years. The problem is repeat offenders just pay fines and continue doing what they do. Need lists of all the fines banks paid, especially since CFPB. Fines are often in the billions, but how often do the people find out? The banks think it is a great deal.
Do you have some evidence that proves that this case, that was in fact *dismissed* as allegations, is something more than dismissed allegations? Speculating on what the decree MIGHT have meant is not evidence that it meant anything more than what the court said it meant. The official position of the court was that the*allegations*were simply allegations, and they *dismissed* the case as just that. If you have evidence that this dismissed case or consent decree mean something more than the court says, provide something more substantial than politically motivated speculation and emotional assertions.
The Truth Does Not Need To Be Supported With Censorship.
Bookmarks