Weissmann A

Case A1F16F4E-7D95-48E0-A69F-DF083EDA280B
Sponsor: Robert Thibadeau

  • Status

    State
    Next Steps
    Case Date
    Watch Video
    Jurors Accepted
    Juror Verdicts Finalized

    The details, verdicts, and comments within this case record come from its participants. The Court's role is solely to facilitate the case process.

    Copyright © 2022-2026 Bright Plaza, Inc., All Rights Reserved. No one may publish a case, or any part of it, without a clear reference to the link with the case number as in https://www.truthcourt.net/case/<case-id-number>

  • Details

    Name
    Category
    URL
    Accusation
    Lie Truth
     
    Argument

  • Verdicts

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    You cannot settle a dispute with yourself. Just because you wear two hats makes no difference.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Makes complete sense that it's a lie, but not surprised that the buffoon Trump thinks he can actually do this.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Yes, pursuant to the plenary settlement authority, Trump can have the AG settle the FTCA lawsuit. However, this comes with a series of HUGE caveats.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    You cannot settle a dispute with yourself. Just because you wear two hats makes no difference.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It seems obvious fraud which is what you get when the arms o government cannot control each other. Again, it is not just the figure of Trump but the army o enablers who work the machinery of government to Trump's advantage. These are the people who have to be taken to task. In this respect the investigation of the case should seriously impact the lawyers involved. As an aside the text referred to in this case is very hard to understand.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I'm having mixed feelings lately about all these legal battles. Weissmann says one thing, but the facts mention the judge dismissed the case. It's hard for a regular person to know the truth when everything is so polarized.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    You cannot settle a dispute with yourself. Just because you wear two hats makes no difference.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    If the case was already dismissed and no settlement was presented to the court, could the government use the lawsuit as the basis for a large settlement package?

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is a lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It's an obvious lie. If Trump actually gets away with this, it will spell serious trouble for the USA.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    As written, it's the truth. HOWEVER, again this comes with massive caveats that should not be ignored.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is a lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    it is a lie

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It seems to me that Weissmann is leaving out the part where the judge actually threw the case out. You can't just talk about a settlement and ignore the dismissal; that's not the whole story.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Even if the basic facts are correct, the argument focuses only on the apparent conflict of interest. It does not address whether there were legal mechanisms, government attorneys, oversight procedures, statutory authority, or other factors that might have justified or constrained the settlement. A complete picture would require examining the legal basis for the agreement and whether independent parties approved it.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is a lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    As written, it is nothing but the truth. BUT see what I wrote above about the incredibly important caveats in doing this.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is a lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    it is not true at all.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Weissmann's argument feels loaded with his own opinions and political bias. To me, it's not 'nothing but the truth' because he's adding all this extra context about how Trump was 'lying' to get a cash pool. That sounds like speculation, not just the facts.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Weissmann is making an argument designed to persuade. While it may contain truthful facts, it also contains interpretation and conclusions. Statements about motive, intent, and legality often go beyond pure fact and enter the realm of opinion and analysis.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a great example of someone trying to manipulate the basic principles of law. As Weismann said, you don't make a law not to stick a sharp pencil in your ear. You just never do it.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a great example of someone trying to manipulate the basic principles of law. As Weismann said, you don't make a law not to stick a sharp pencil in your ear. You just never do it.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that there's no lie.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    The deceit is that there's no lie. It's just the Plaintiff's TDS. What the Plaintiff wrote is factually true. It's not morally or ethically true, but it's legally procedurally true.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a great example of someone trying to manipulate the basic principles of law. As Weismann said, you don't make a law not to stick a sharp pencil in your ear. You just never do it.

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    There is no deceit in the lie. The deceit is in Trump's claim.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The deceit here is how Weissmann is framing the whole thing. He's making it sound like Trump was trying to pull a fast one with a negotiated settlement when the legal case was already over. It's a classic case of taking a technical legal point and twisting it into a scandal. The real deceit is the way he's trying to manipulate people's emotions against Trump.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a great example of someone trying to manipulate the basic principles of law. As Weismann said, you don't make a law not to stick a sharp pencil in your ear. You just never do it.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I am 100% sure that somebody told Trump he could do it.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Not sure who advised Trump, unless Trump advised himself..LoL

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    The Plaintiff's TDS is what inspired the framing and the argument. It's not that the statement isn't true, it's that the Plaintiff doesn't *like* that the statement is true. That's fine, and completely appropriate. But the statement is still true.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I am 100% sure that somebody told Trump he could do it.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    To show Trump's ascendency over the courts. it is the kind o sophistry we get from dictators who have no one to tell them they are wrong.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Weissmann is a highly experienced lawyer. He doesn't just misspeak about these things. Choosing to frame a dismissal as a negotiated settlement is a deliberate choice meant to mislead those of us who aren't experts in law. It's clearly intended.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    He was testing to see if nobody would stop him. He's a classic criminal.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to persuade you to hate something or someone.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to persuade you to hate something or someone.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Trump wasn't testing to see if anybody would stop him. That's not how legal procedure works. Nobody is going to ride up on a white horse and proclaim, "Stop, criminal!" It's 100% valid legal procedure under United States law. Is it *right*? No, it's not. But it's TDS that pulls this conclusion, not an accurate assessment of US law.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    He was testing to see if nobody would stop him. He's a classic criminal.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to persuade you to hate something or someone.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    To hate Trump and his cronies.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to persuade you to hate something or someone.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Weissmann is clearly motivated by a political agenda. By making it look like Trump was 'lying' to get a payout, he's trying to ruin Trump's name. It's the same old story of lawyers trying to play politics instead of sticking to the law.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to persuade you to hate something or someone.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Weissmann is clearly motivated by a political agenda. By making it look like Trump was 'lying' to get a payout, he's trying to ruin Trump's name. It's the same old story of lawyers trying to play politics instead of sticking to the law.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    As George Washington said there are laws and norms. You follow both.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Definitely unacceptable!

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Laws are intended to be objective with equal applicability to all people. "Norms" are essentially morals and ethics, which are subjective. Washington lived in a homogenous society that doesn't exist anymore. His words on this topic are irrelevant.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    As George Washington said there are laws and norms. You follow both.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Clearly some people like what Trump can do with the arms of government.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Misrepresenting the facts for political gain isn't right. It just fuels more division and makes people like me, who are already feeling conflicted, even more distrustful of the legal system and the media.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is a made up lie which violates a fundamental principle that you cannot settle a dispute with yourself.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true, but misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 70 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This a so untrue to believe.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true and legal, but that doesn't make it *right*.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    That's a pretty succinct and accurate way of putting it.

    Answer:
    This is a made up lie which violates a fundamental principle that you cannot settle a dispute with yourself.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I suppose one could argue that since you pay to bring a case to court you should be paid when you withdraw it. Sounds logical, or does it?

    Answer:
    This is true, but misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    If this were labeled as 'political opinion' rather than a factual indictment, it would be much more honest. People can have their opinions, but they shouldn't present them as the only truth.

    Answer:
    This is true, but misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true, but misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text: