This fucking idiot just keeps on alienating people. Like it or not, you can't win a general election without the groups he is pissing off on a daily basis.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442
Trump Says Judge’s Mexican Heritage Presents ‘Absolute Conflict’
Republican’s charge that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has a conflict of interest draws criticism from some legal observers
By Brent Kendall
Updated June 3, 2016 10:03 a.m. ET
Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.
The New York businessman also alleged the judge was a former colleague and friend of one of the Trump University plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge and the lawyer once worked together as federal prosecutors, but the lawyer, Jason Forge, in an interview said he had never seen the judge socially.
“Neither Judge Curiel’s ethnicity nor the fact that we crossed paths as prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office well over a decade ago is to blame” for Mr. Trump’s actions, said Mr. Forge, who is with the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
An assistant in Judge Curiel’s chambers said he wasn’t commenting on the matter. An aide to the judge has previously said the judicial code of conduct prevents him from responding to Mr. Trump. Judge Curiel is an Obama nominee who has served on the district court in San Diego since the Senate confirmed him in 2012.
Judge Curiel’s older brother, Raul Curiel, a 67-year-old in Hammond, Ind., said his brother wasn’t fazed by Mr. Trump’s comments. “He’s taking it pretty much in stride,” the elder Mr. Curiel said.
For judges, being criticized for rulings comes with the territory, but court watchers say it is a degree far different when the critic could win the nation’s highest office, is involved in a pending case and references the judge's ethnicity.
University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen Burbank said it was “absolute nonsense” that the judge shouldn’t be able to preside over the case because of his ethnicity.
“If this continues, I would hope that some prominent federal judges would set Mr. Trump straight on what’s appropriate and what’s not in our democracy,” Mr. Burbank said.
Ronald Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif., noted that whatever Mr. Trump’s grievances, his lawyers haven’t filed any motion asking for the case to be reassigned to a different judge. If Mr. Trump has a problem with the judge, “that’s the legitimate way” to register a complaint, he said.
Mr. Trump in the interview said that he may do so. Other judges, he said, would have thrown out the plaintiffs’ case against the school, he said.
The GOP candidate’s comments follow a San Diego speech last week in which he called the judge “a hater of Donald Trump” and “a total disgrace,” while referencing the judge’s ethnicity.
Mr. Trump also criticized the judge Thursday on Twitter, saying he would win the litigation and reopen the now-defunct Trump University when the cases were done.
While Mr. Trump’s comments prompted criticism, he said he believed the bigger threat is to be treated unfairly by the courts. “It’s called freedom of speech,” he said of the criticisms.
Legal experts agreed that defendants have the First Amendment freedom to express opinions about a judge hearing their case—as long as they aren’t disruptive in the courtroom.
“It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1941 Supreme Court decision that threw out contempt convictions of a newspaper publisher and a labor leader for speaking out on pending litigation.
Judge Curiel is presiding over a pair of cases in which the plaintiffs alleged Trump University duped them into paying tens of thousands of dollars on the belief they would be trained to learn Mr. Trump’s real-estate strategies. Mr. Trump denies the allegations, saying the students got their money’s worth, with many offering positive evaluations of the program.
The judge has issued pre-trial rulings against Mr. Trump and has unsealed documents in the case offering a detailed look at the business’s operations and scathing assessments from some former workers. One case is set to go to trial in November, after the election. No trial date has been set in the other case, with the next pretrial hearing set for July.
Such criticism is a closer call if the critic is a lawyer in the case, because attorneys are bound by professional conduct rules.
Lawyers in some instances have faced sanctions for controversial criticisms of judges, while in other cases they have avoided punishment.
Mr. Trump is being represented by a prominent national law firm, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, whose alumni include federal appeals court Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was on President Barack Obama’s recent short list for the Supreme Court.
Firm representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The code of conduct for federal judges restricts them from “mak[ing] public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court” and bars them from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office. But in at least one rare instance, judges came to the defense of a colleague they believed was being unfairly targeted with political attacks.
During the 1996 presidential campaign, both President Bill Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole, the Republican nominee, criticized a Clinton-appointed New York federal judge, Harold Baer, who excluded prosecutors’ evidence in a high-profile narcotics case. In response, four judges on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a statement in defense of Judge Baer, saying the officials’ remarks had gone “too far” and could intimidate other judges.
Judge Baer later reversed his ruling, though he said it wasn’t because of political pressure. He eventually took himself off the case.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442
Trump Says Judge’s Mexican Heritage Presents ‘Absolute Conflict’
Republican’s charge that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has a conflict of interest draws criticism from some legal observers
By Brent Kendall
Updated June 3, 2016 10:03 a.m. ET
Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.
The New York businessman also alleged the judge was a former colleague and friend of one of the Trump University plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge and the lawyer once worked together as federal prosecutors, but the lawyer, Jason Forge, in an interview said he had never seen the judge socially.
“Neither Judge Curiel’s ethnicity nor the fact that we crossed paths as prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office well over a decade ago is to blame” for Mr. Trump’s actions, said Mr. Forge, who is with the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
An assistant in Judge Curiel’s chambers said he wasn’t commenting on the matter. An aide to the judge has previously said the judicial code of conduct prevents him from responding to Mr. Trump. Judge Curiel is an Obama nominee who has served on the district court in San Diego since the Senate confirmed him in 2012.
Judge Curiel’s older brother, Raul Curiel, a 67-year-old in Hammond, Ind., said his brother wasn’t fazed by Mr. Trump’s comments. “He’s taking it pretty much in stride,” the elder Mr. Curiel said.
For judges, being criticized for rulings comes with the territory, but court watchers say it is a degree far different when the critic could win the nation’s highest office, is involved in a pending case and references the judge's ethnicity.
University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen Burbank said it was “absolute nonsense” that the judge shouldn’t be able to preside over the case because of his ethnicity.
“If this continues, I would hope that some prominent federal judges would set Mr. Trump straight on what’s appropriate and what’s not in our democracy,” Mr. Burbank said.
Ronald Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif., noted that whatever Mr. Trump’s grievances, his lawyers haven’t filed any motion asking for the case to be reassigned to a different judge. If Mr. Trump has a problem with the judge, “that’s the legitimate way” to register a complaint, he said.
Mr. Trump in the interview said that he may do so. Other judges, he said, would have thrown out the plaintiffs’ case against the school, he said.
The GOP candidate’s comments follow a San Diego speech last week in which he called the judge “a hater of Donald Trump” and “a total disgrace,” while referencing the judge’s ethnicity.
Mr. Trump also criticized the judge Thursday on Twitter, saying he would win the litigation and reopen the now-defunct Trump University when the cases were done.
While Mr. Trump’s comments prompted criticism, he said he believed the bigger threat is to be treated unfairly by the courts. “It’s called freedom of speech,” he said of the criticisms.
Legal experts agreed that defendants have the First Amendment freedom to express opinions about a judge hearing their case—as long as they aren’t disruptive in the courtroom.
“It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1941 Supreme Court decision that threw out contempt convictions of a newspaper publisher and a labor leader for speaking out on pending litigation.
Judge Curiel is presiding over a pair of cases in which the plaintiffs alleged Trump University duped them into paying tens of thousands of dollars on the belief they would be trained to learn Mr. Trump’s real-estate strategies. Mr. Trump denies the allegations, saying the students got their money’s worth, with many offering positive evaluations of the program.
The judge has issued pre-trial rulings against Mr. Trump and has unsealed documents in the case offering a detailed look at the business’s operations and scathing assessments from some former workers. One case is set to go to trial in November, after the election. No trial date has been set in the other case, with the next pretrial hearing set for July.
Such criticism is a closer call if the critic is a lawyer in the case, because attorneys are bound by professional conduct rules.
Lawyers in some instances have faced sanctions for controversial criticisms of judges, while in other cases they have avoided punishment.
Mr. Trump is being represented by a prominent national law firm, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, whose alumni include federal appeals court Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was on President Barack Obama’s recent short list for the Supreme Court.
Firm representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The code of conduct for federal judges restricts them from “mak[ing] public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court” and bars them from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office. But in at least one rare instance, judges came to the defense of a colleague they believed was being unfairly targeted with political attacks.
During the 1996 presidential campaign, both President Bill Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole, the Republican nominee, criticized a Clinton-appointed New York federal judge, Harold Baer, who excluded prosecutors’ evidence in a high-profile narcotics case. In response, four judges on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a statement in defense of Judge Baer, saying the officials’ remarks had gone “too far” and could intimidate other judges.
Judge Baer later reversed his ruling, though he said it wasn’t because of political pressure. He eventually took himself off the case.
Let’s examine the players in this lawsuit.
The players are:
The Judge: U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the California federal judge in the Trump University law suit case.
The Lawyers: Two law firms: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP.
And let’s not forget another player, this one in New York. That would be:
The New York Attorney General: Eric Schneiderman.
The Play: As detailed here in Law360, this is how the game works:
Law360, Los Angeles (October 28, 2014, 4:00 PM ET) — A California federal judge has granted class certification in a Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suit accusing Donald Trump of scheming to make millions of dollars by falsely claiming attendees of Trump University LLC seminars would learn his real estate secrets.
… In addition to certifying the class, Judge Curiel on Friday appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP as class counsel.
Stop. Stop right there. Let’s parse.
Who is the “California federal judge” who not only granted “class certification” to the lawsuit against Trump — but then assigned the two law firms now involved with the case?
That would be Gonzalo Curiel. Who is he? Trump has gotten flak for referring to Curiel’s Mexican Heritage (he was born in Indiana). Yet right here the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is making a point of honoring Curiel for “his leadership and support to the community and to our Association!” — exclamation point theirs. The “community” in question is not the San Diego community of all ethnic groups, races, and genders who happen to be lawyers. What is the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association all about? Their mission statement (here) reads, in part, this way:
Formed in 1979, with a handful of Latino attorneys, San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA) has grown to represent over three hundred Latino and Latina lawyers practicing in San Diego County. SDLRLA is one of 18 affiliate bar associations of the California La Raza Lawyers Association, which serves several thousand Latino lawyers practicing in the State of California.
Our purpose is to advance the cause of equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys and the Latino community in San Diego County through service and advocacy.
In other words? The group that honored Curiel, an Obama appointee (and campaign contributor to House Democratic Conference Chairman Xavier Becerra) proudly boasts that the sole reason for their existence is — their ethnicity. They are not about “the cause of equality, empowerment and justice” for all San Diego attorneys regardless of ethnicity. They are quite boldly only for these things when they concern, their words, “Latino attorneys and the Latino community.” And clearly they see Judge Curiel as one of their own. And apparently the Judge agrees. In other words, when Donald Trump points out the judge’s ethnicity “happens to be, we believe, Mexican,” at a minimum the judge himself is all too willing to associate himself with his ethnicity, eagerly accepting an award citing his willingness to give “support to the (Latino) community and to our (Latino) Association!” If the Judge himself goes out of his way to make certain everyone knows he is Latino — is not Trump more than justified in being wary of a judge deciding his case with what seems to be a serious ethnic axe to grind?
Move on to the two law firms that Curiel selected to represent the class action case against Trump University. The first, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, lists as its senior partner partner Darren J. Robbins. And a check with the FEC shows that Robbins has made over a hundred campaign contributions over the years, far and away most of them going to Democrats. Including a contribution of $2700 on May 12, 2015 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.* That would be the Hillary Clinton who, assuming she polishes off the Sanders challenge, will be the Democratic nominee against… Donald Trump.
Then there’s that second firm selected by Judge Curiel to be involved in the Trump University lawsuit — Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP. The senior partner in that firm? If you guessed she was a multiple contributor to Barack Obama you would of course be right. But she was also a one-time donor in 2004 to… MoveOn.org. You know Move On, the people who back there in 2004 were running an ad comparing President Bush to Hitler. Today? Today MoveOn has this to say about Donald Trump:
For as long as Donald Trump is a presidential candidate, MoveOn members will continue to call out and nonviolently protest his racist, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, and violent behavior… Trump and those who peddle hate and incite violence have no place in our politics and most certainly do not belong in the White House.
And let’s not forget New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Schneiderman filed a $40 million law suit against Trump University in 2013 charging fraud. This after repeated campaign solicitations to Trump family members and business associates, as I detailed herethree years ago. Solicitations along the line of the Mafia Don who stops by to say “ya gotta nice little business going here, ya wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.” Curiously, this very same Eric Schneiderman got a $15,000 campaign contribution in 2010 from two lawyers in a law firm named… Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. They being one of the firms Judge Curiel would assign to the Trump University class action cases. Amazing coincidence.
Let’s cut to the chase here, shall we? The accusation here is not that all these people have broken some law somewhere. The point is very simple. By October 2014 — when Judge Curiel granted that class certification to the Trump lawsuits and gave the nod to two law firms led by serious liberals who between them had given money to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and MoveOn.org — it was well known that Donald Trump was considering a race for president in 2016, as noted here among other places by the Huffington Post. He was not a shy man about his views. And, of course, he was Donald Trump the famous billionaire whether he ran for the White House or not. What a big, fat exciting target for liberal activist lawyers!
None of this makes the media coverage. Has Eric Schneiderman endorsed Hillary Clinton for president? Yes.Is that factored in to the coverage? No.
Take this recent story from May 28 at the Washington Post — the Post itself a virulently anti-Trump paper. What’s missing in this Trump University story? Any references to the Judge’s waltz with legal-style identity politics that can easily lead an observer — like Donald Trump — to believe the Judge’s Latino Heritage is in fact playing a role in his decisions on this case? No. Any look at the law firms involved, the money ties to Hillary and the rest of liberal land? No. In other words? Every effort is made to portray all of the Trump University cases as just a coldhearted billionaire-turned-presidential nominee shamelessly squeezing nickels from unsuspecting hard-working Americans. And if this storyline, saturated into the political discourse, happens to hinder the Trump campaign? Ah, well. Tough cookies.
Tough cookies indeed. What we have here is the case against Trump University being so riven with political conflicts of interest that it is clear Trump is not a defendant but the subject of a political witch hunt. A witch hunt fueled by everything from identity politics to campaign contributions.
To borrow a much used phrase from this election cycle? The case against Trump University appears to have been rigged right from the get-go.
Shocker.
This no life sick Brit Twit idiot's whole post is blown out of the water by one thing. The date of the story. Oct 2014, so no "political witch hunt" involved, since the Thief Drumpf was a private Citizen, who had not even revealed his disgusting Racist Rant against Mexican's yet that launched his Campaign, for another 8 months. In fact, there have been cases against the Thief Drumpf's Crooked University since 2005. And guess who contributed to Eric Schneiderman in 2010. You guessed it, the crooked thief Drumpf.
As for his Judge who the racist theiving Drumpf is defaming, the first Politician to appoint him to a Judgeship was not Obama, but was, in fact, Republican California Governator Arnold, and Judge Curiel was targeted by a Mexican Drug Cartel for death in that position.
In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the appointment of Curiel to the bench of the Superior Court of San Diego, the position he held until his appointment to the federal bench.
On November 10, 2011, President Obama nominated Curiel to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Great post by Guesser. Guesser is now on the Trump train.
[h=1]'Look at my African-American over here': Donald Trump points out a black man in the crowd during the middle of his speech while predicting he will get 'tremendous' support from black voters[/h]
- Donald Trump predicted he would get 'tremendous' support from black voters in the upcoming election during a speech on Friday
- Trump, who was in Redding, California, then pointed out one of his African-American supporters in the crowd
- He then yelled out; 'Look at my African-American over here. Look at him'
- The crowd cheered and applauded after the remark
PUBLISHED: 23:31, 3 June 2016 | UPDATED: 01:36, 4 June 2016
- SHARE PICTURE
+1
Huge: Donald Trump predicted he would get 'tremendous' support from black voters in the upcoming election during a speech on Friday, then pointed out an African-American supporter
Welcome aboard the Trump train.
Thank you for posting this positive video where Trump praises a African American, and rightly so.
At the Friday rally, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was in the middle of describing a past campaign event, at which he said a black supporter "slugged" protesters who were dressed in a "Ku Klux Klan outfit".
"I want to find out what's going on with him," Mr Trump said. He then appeared to spot a black person in the audience in northern California.
"Oh, look at my African-American over here," he said while pointing into the crowd. "Look at him. Are you the greatest? You know what I'm talking about? OK!"
After pointing out the audience member, Mr Trump then went on with his story, which appeared to match events at a March rally that took place in Arizona.
"We had an African-American guy at one of the rallies a month ago, and he was sitting there behaving," said Mr Trump. "And we had protesters inside the arena. And they were dressed in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, OK?
"This African-American gets up and, man, he slugged these guys. He slugged them."
Mr Trump added that many people thought the black supporter at the earlier rally was an opponent of his campaign.
"He was like this great guy, military guy, we have tremendous African-American support," he said. "The reason is I'm going to bring jobs back to our country."
Follow
Donald J. TrumpVerified account@realDonaldTrump
"@rapidcraft: Here’s The HILLARY UNIVERSITY Scandal No One In The Media Is Talking About https://shar.es/1J0NyV @realDonaldTrump"
Here’s The ‘HILLARY UNIVERSITY’ Scandal No One In The Media Is Talking About
Aleister Jun 3rd, 2016 8:45 pm
Democrats and their allies in media have been obsessing on Trump University for weeks now while completely ignoring a major scandal involving Hillary and Bill Clinton’s relationship to a for-profit college.
Hillary University: Bill Clinton Bagged $16.46 Million from For-Profit College as State Dept. Funneled $55 Million Back
With her campaign sinking in the polls, Hillary Clinton has launched a desperate attack against Trump University to deflect attention away from her deep involvement with a controversial for-profit college that made the Clintons millions, even as the school faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations.
In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation. Progressive billionaire George Soros is also a Laureate financial backer.
As the Washington Post reports, “Laureate has stirred controversy throughout Latin America, where it derives two-thirds of its revenue.” During Bill Clinton’s tenure as Laureate’s chancellor, the school spent over $200 million a year on aggressive telemarketing, flashy Internet banner ads, and billboards designed to lure often unprepared students from impoverished countries to enroll in its for-profit classes. The goal: get as many students, regardless of skill level, signed up and paying tuition.
With her campaign sinking in the polls, Hillary Clinton has launched a desperate attack against Trump University to deflect attention away from her deep involvement with a controversial for-profit college that made the Clintons millions, even as the school faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations.
In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation. Progressive billionaire George Soros is also a Laureate financial backer.
As the Washington Post reports, “Laureate has stirred controversy throughout Latin America, where it derives two-thirds of its revenue.” During Bill Clinton’s tenure as Laureate’s chancellor, the school spent over $200 million a year on aggressive telemarketing, flashy Internet banner ads, and billboards designed to lure often unprepared students from impoverished countries to enroll in its for-profit classes. The goal: get as many students, regardless of skill level, signed up and paying tuition.
The Clintons are corrupt to the core.
They used her government position of power to enrich themselves.
Keep that in mind the next time she attacks Trump.
June 04, 2016, 12:55 pm[h=1]Former attorney general: Trump right to question judge’s fairness[/h]
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says Donald Trump is right to challenge the fairness a judge overseeing lawsuits against him.
“An independent judiciary is extremely important. But that value is not the only one in play here,” Gonzales wrote in a Saturday op-ed for The Washington Post.
"Equally important, if not more important from my perspective as a former judge and U.S. attorney general, is a litigant’s right to a fair trial,” he continued.
“The protection of that right is a primary reason why our Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as impartial, the public will quickly lose interest in the rule of law upon which our nation is based.”Trump on Thursday said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Hispanic ethnicity is “an absolute conflict” in three civil fraud lawsuits against the billionaire.
He said Curiel’s “Mexican heritage” makes him partial because of Trump’s calls for a wall along America’s southern border with Mexico.
Gonzales on Saturday said Trump has reason beyond just race to doubt Curiel, who is American, will treat him fairly.
“As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interests. But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable.”
Gonzales said Curiel is a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, which Trump aides say is affiliated with a national group vociferously opposing Trump, National Council of La Raza (NCLR).
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that NCLR is unaffiliated with La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. It added Curiel is not a member of NCLR.
Curiel has also appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to plaintiffs, he added, noting Geller is a donor to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.
“These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered,” said Gonzales, who was attorney general for former President George W. Bush.
“If [Trump’s] criticism is solely based on Curiel’s race, that is something voters will take into account in deciding whether he is fit to be president. If, however, Trump is acting from a sincere motivation to protect his constitutional right to fair trial, his willingness to exercise his rights as an American citizen and raising the issue even in the face of severe criticism is surely also something for voters to consider.”
Curiel is overseeing three lawsuits which allege Trump University defrauded students and saddled them with debt.
Trump has repeatedly touted positive reviews from other participants, saying courts will ultimately vindicate the for-profit real estate program
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says Donald Trump is right to challenge the fairness a judge overseeing lawsuits against him.
“An independent judiciary is extremely important. But that value is not the only one in play here,” Gonzales wrote in a Saturday op-ed for The Washington Post.
"Equally important, if not more important from my perspective as a former judge and U.S. attorney general, is a litigant’s right to a fair trial,” he continued.
“The protection of that right is a primary reason why our Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as impartial, the public will quickly lose interest in the rule of law upon which our nation is based.”Trump on Thursday said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Hispanic ethnicity is “an absolute conflict” in three civil fraud lawsuits against the billionaire.
He said Curiel’s “Mexican heritage” makes him partial because of Trump’s calls for a wall along America’s southern border with Mexico.
Gonzales on Saturday said Trump has reason beyond just race to doubt Curiel, who is American, will treat him fairly.
“As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interests. But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable.”
Gonzales said Curiel is a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, which Trump aides say is affiliated with a national group vociferously opposing Trump, National Council of La Raza (NCLR).
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that NCLR is unaffiliated with La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. It added Curiel is not a member of NCLR.
Curiel has also appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to plaintiffs, he added, noting Geller is a donor to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.
“These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered,” said Gonzales, who was attorney general for former President George W. Bush.
“If [Trump’s] criticism is solely based on Curiel’s race, that is something voters will take into account in deciding whether he is fit to be president. If, however, Trump is acting from a sincere motivation to protect his constitutional right to fair trial, his willingness to exercise his rights as an American citizen and raising the issue even in the face of severe criticism is surely also something for voters to consider.”
Curiel is overseeing three lawsuits which allege Trump University defrauded students and saddled them with debt.
Trump has repeatedly touted positive reviews from other participants, saying courts will ultimately vindicate the for-profit real estate program
Michael P @micah_micahk 5h
@realDonaldTrump why won't the media show this?!! #neverhillary #superpredator #MAGA
10 retweets15 likes
Reply
Retweet
10
Like
15
More
@realDonaldTrump why won't the media show this?!! #neverhillary #superpredator #MAGA
10 retweets15 likes
Reply
Retweet
10
Like
15
More
