Just because you and your social group continually assert in any marginally relevant forum that Trump is "completely devoid of ethics" and a "completely evil man"(to take two choice quotes from this thread) doesn't make it true - no matter how much you wish for it.

Just to be clear, we're talking about the same guy that settled a fraud case for $25M right as he was taking office and said that the judge on the case couldn't be fair because he's of Mexican decent.

Don’t forget the $30M bribe son-in-law Kushner received while acting as a member of the administration, or the money he’s been funneling into criminal organizations. Just search for:

Kushner israel money

Do we really need to be clear, or are you just trying to make a poor point about a legal strategy that was used by his lawyers?

Also, I wasn't aware that a settlement was an admission of guilt. Why are you treating it as such? Does no innocent person ever settle?

Does doing something as a legal strategy automatically make it ethical?

Would you not say that it is fair (if not correct), based on Trump's history of other questionable ethics (birtherism, infidelity, lying), to assume that his settlement is likely evidence of further unethical behavior? Or should we use the court system as the infallible dispenser of all truth and ethics? If so, I think the American public owes O.J. an apology.

I'm not attempting to take sides, but the judge was documented to be heavily involved in the local Mexican community, which certainly could suggest a bias in judgment against a president who wanted to build a wall to stop illegal immigration from Mexico.

I would say that it is tenuous at best.

The validity of both arguments assume the existence of evil. That is not a given.

Unless you were born on February 29.