Image 01 Image 03

Republican Senators Rail Against Trump’s Attacks on Judge Curiel

Republican Senators Rail Against Trump’s Attacks on Judge Curiel

“I warned that this was going to happen.’

Donald Trump lashed out at the federal judge presiding over the Trump University fraud case, claiming his Mexican heritage made him ineligible to properly dispense justice. Because of course.

Though Trump’s verbal assault against Judge Gonzalo Curiel began earlier this year, Trump cranked them to eleven last week. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” said Trump. Trump also alleged Judge Curiel, “was a former colleague and friend of one of the Trump University plaintiffs’ lawyers,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

For their part, many a Republican Senator are refusing to condone Trump’s judge fight and have gone so far as to condemn his rhetoric.

Sen. Sasse cut through the politispeak:

And Sen. Rubio said, “All I can tell you is, I ran for President. I warned that this was going to happen,” and condemned Trump’s remarks as wrong.

Sarah Rumpf blogged for Independent Journal Review:

“I think it’s wrong, [and] he needs to stop saying it,” said Rubio in a video clip from the interview posted by WFTV.

“That man [Curiel] is an American, born in the United States,” added Rubio. But even if Curiel hadn’t been born here, explained Rubio, he was still “a judge who has earned that position and in the end should be treated with the same level of respect as any other officer of the court.”

“I don’t think it reflects well in the Republican Party. I don’t think it reflects wells on us as a nation. There shouldn’t be any sort of ethnicity or religious or racial test for what kind of judges should hear what kind of cases…it’s wrong and I hope he stops.”

…Rubio also reaffirmed that he still views the election as a “binary choice” between Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, and is still planning to honor his pledge to support the Republican nominee.

Even those who’ve endorsed Trump: Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Senator Corker, Senator Flake, and Senator Ayotte have publicly denounced The Donald’s judge remarks.

But he loves Hispanics! Or something.

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 3.41.38 PM

And if you’re wondering whether The Donald has any standing in this “unfit to serve because Mexicans arrgggg” recusal spat, he does not. Ken White over at Pope Hat has the skinny.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I wish Republicans attached Obama with the same fervor.

    Old0311 in reply to sequester. | June 6, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    And be racists? LOL!! No, it’s just a lack of balls. !

      Common Sense in reply to Old0311. | June 6, 2016 at 11:51 pm

      Ever voter supporting Trump will remember the “ball-less” wonders. They all will pay a price at the voters booth!

      The majority of the so called republicans are worthless trash!

    DaveGinOly in reply to sequester. | June 6, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    If they had spent half the energy defending Congress from Obama’s encroachments upon its prerogatives, they would have impeached the president years ago, and we’d all be better off. The GOPe only rocks the boat when there’s somebody in it they’d rather see overboard.

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 6, 2016 at 11:31 pm

      The House could have impeached the president at any time, but what would be the point? Without

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 6, 2016 at 11:38 pm

      The House could have impeached the president at any time, but without 14 D senators willing to convict him — and you know very well that there woudn’t be any — he’d be sure of an acquittal, which would be universally seen as a vindication. It’s completely unethical for a prosecutor to indict someone he knows is unlikely to be convicted, so please explain why you think it is ethical for the House to impeach someone it knows the senate will not convict?

      And even if it is ethical, please explain why you think it’s a good idea. Consider what a political disaster Clinton’s impeachment turned into, after his acquittal, which came for the exact same reason 0bama would be acquitted; no Ds were willing to convict him no matter what he did.

    jack burns in reply to sequester. | June 7, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Sassy isn’t a republican. He’s a sitting member of the Opportunist Party.

DieJustAsHappy | June 6, 2016 at 5:42 pm

Kemberlee Kaye,

The following message appears when this article is loaded, at least on my system. I re-loaded with the same result.

AccessDeniedAccess DeniedD0DF46FC32D008B8xVT9zujB4bXCXrHGgqGBq2NSherSExs178FSlRhShxR4q22Vyvzpc5xNv8l5o7dw0ILBzzJk8k4=

    Kemberlee Kaye in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | June 6, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Thank you! It appears the video coding has some problems, but you can access through the Independent Journal Review link.

This is why the establishment is disfavored by Americans on both sides of the partisan border.

The Hispanic-American, or perhaps Mexican-American, Judge has clear conflicts of interest in association with Hispanic civil rights businesses. Not unlike the transgender/ homosexual Judge who overrode the Democrat and democratic majority in order to legalize selective exclusion (“=”).

    Milhouse in reply to n.n. | June 6, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    Bulls**t. Membership in a Hispanic lawyers’ club no more disqualifies Curiel from sitting on a case involving Trump than membership in a Black, Jewish, or Catholic lawyers’ club would disqualify a judge from sitting on a case involving a Klansman, or membership in a female lawyers’ club would disqualify a judge from sitting on a case involving a misogynist. Any lawyer actually filing such a recusal request would be sanctioned.

      InEssence in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 1:09 am

      So a judge who spends much of his spare time trying to get California to become a part of Mexico is going to fair and impartial to a defendant who wants to build a wall?

      This is a kangaroo court, if there ever was one.

      When a lawyer is sanctioned for seeking an impartial judge, the system is near collapse.

      If you are at a college football game, you won’t find impartial refs from the cheering fans who are wearing their school colors.

        Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | June 10, 2016 at 6:50 pm

        a judge who spends much of his spare time trying to get California to become a part of Mexico

        You are lying. Curiel, as far as anyone including you knows, has spent none of his time attempting any such thing, nor given any indication that he would want it.

      How about a lawyer’s club that has passed a resolution urging a boycott of the defendant’s businesses?

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 9:56 am

      “Bulls**t. Membership in a Hispanic lawyers’ club no more disqualifies Curiel from sitting on a case involving Trump than membership in a Black, Jewish, or Catholic lawyers’ club would disqualify a judge from sitting on a case involving a Klansman, or membership in a female lawyers’ club would disqualify a judge from sitting on a case involving a misogynist.”

      And if the judge was a “klansman”, could he be expected to provide impartial rulings?

      This judge is La Raza, plain and simple. “Everything for the race, nothing for anyone else”.

      La Raza is no different than the KKK.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 2:03 pm

      You’re a stupid liar, Barry.

      But if you actually think your bullshit has some legs, press Der Donald to move for recusal.

      THAT will be a laugh riot!

      Or EVEN better, get up a movement to impeach Curiel.

      Go for it, you lying POS…

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2016 at 11:56 pm

        nah, nah, nah, you’re a stupid liar…

        It’s all you ever have. Calling someone a liar. The judges “The Race” link is as clear as it can be to anyone not brainwashed by the left. But, hey keep trying. Keep lying. It’s all you have.

        Be a good lefty and call us all racists.

      Valerie in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 3:49 pm

      It’s not a “spanish lawyer’s club.” It is La Raza.

        Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | June 10, 2016 at 6:52 pm

        Wrong. It is a Spanish lawyers’ club, exactly like the Italian, Irish, Catholic, Jewish, and other such clubs that abound everywhere. It has no connection with the National Council of La Raza.

inspectorudy | June 6, 2016 at 6:08 pm

ALL of us on this site hate and despise hillary. We all will do anything to keep her out of office. If Trump would go after her on the 2nd amendment, jobs, healthcare, foreign policy failures, the clinton foundation and character, he could destroy her in a month. So what does he do? He goes after Cruz, and then goes after Martinez in New Mexico. Then to make things even worse he goes after a judge who does have baggage but calls him a Mexican when he isn’t. Then he insults muslims which to me is very hard to do. Now he is supporting the loud mouth RINO Renee Elmers because she was one of the first to support him!!!!! Is he falling apart? Is the original conspiracy theory of he and hillary planning this all along true? How can any candidate be so bad? I will vote for him if he isn’t in jail or thrown out of the convention for his future remarks but it is getting more and more difficult.

    DaMav in reply to inspectorudy. | June 6, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    Good for you sir. Nobody is saying you gotta love him but that vote is the only way to stop Hillary from packing SCOTUS and destroying our country. If she is defeated the war goes on. If she wins it is pretty much over and we lost.

    katiejane in reply to inspectorudy. | June 7, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Interesting how some here refuse to accept that Trump feels a judge who identifies with La Raza might be biased against him. When did Trump lose his right to have an opinion?

    Seems like everyone else can jump to thinking people are biased against “fill in the blank” victim group and the accused are required to defend themselves, prove they aren’t biased. But somehow Trump questioning the fairness of this judge is just “beyond the pale” of acceptable.

    We constantly hear about how Hispanics “hate” Trump for his comments. why would it be a surprise to find out a judge with ethnic ties to the Hispanic community does indeed hate Trump and is biased against him?

This judge is affiliated with an organization that calls for “reconquista”… the taking of American territory by Mexico.

Don’t government officials have to swear oaths to uphold our laws and our Constitution?

Isn’t advocating for a foreign power to take over our territory treasonous?

What is the penalty for treason?

Oh, that Donald.

The more I see him in action, the more I appreciate that the man’s a genius.

What’s a genius? One of the best definitions I’ve come across (admittedly, not always applicable) is that a genius is someone who can hit a target most people can’t even see.

Here, as he’s often done, he tosses a hand grenade, and all the conventional unimaginative workaday political drudges try to prove their conventional unimaginative workaday bona fides by diving on top of it. Meanwhile, headlines are made, playing pieces long since relegated to the side of the board are suddenly back in play, and The Unmentionable is not just mentioned, it’s at the top of the front page. Things which need to be said are finally not only said, but heard. And the Lilliputians have failed to restrain the giant once again.


Trump must be winning. His pandering opponents are all claiming he’s a racist for pointing out a judge who heads up a local La Raza organization and raises money for illegal aliens.

Any of these Stormtroopers for La Raza ever call Obama or Holder or Luis Guttierrez a racist?

    Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | June 6, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    1. when did T-rump point out the judge “heads up a local La Raza organization”?

    2. when did T-rump that the judge raises money for illegal aliens?

    3. many of us have pointed out that Obama, Holder, etc. are racists: how does that help or hinder T-rump in avoiding his own apparent racism?

      legalbeagle in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2016 at 8:14 pm

      What was Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment?

      Ever argue a legal position for a client, even though you might not have fervently believed in the argument?

        Ragspierre in reply to legalbeagle. | June 6, 2016 at 8:21 pm

        That’s no answer to my questions, is it?

        And I don’t represent clients who are simply wrong, beyond helping them settle their matter and eat the consequences. I tell them that at the intake interview.

        inspectorudy in reply to legalbeagle. | June 6, 2016 at 9:25 pm

        Reagan also said that we should never attack a fellow conservative who is after the same results we are. Did Trump follow that rule? Hell no! And he is still not following that rule. The only rule he knows is Trump rules.

          sequester in reply to inspectorudy. | June 7, 2016 at 5:41 am

          Just for reference, here is what President Reagan originally said:

          The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since

          Now to editorialize. Identity politics (“white privilege”) is a Democrat creation. Democrats are not scared of using race. Why do Republicans quiver like scarred little babies?

          Barry in reply to inspectorudy. | June 7, 2016 at 10:00 am

          “Why do Republicans quiver like scarred little babies?”

          Tee up an easy one. Because they are “scarred little babies”.

conservative tarheel | June 6, 2016 at 7:14 pm

I still believe that Trump a life long dem
who is working overtime to piss everyone
except white males by and large.
is working for HIllary .. throws the election to her.

At this point, Republican officeholders should either stand with Trump, or keep their mouths shut and their pens sheathed. Or come right out and endorse a Democrat for President so the Republican base will know them for what they are.

I am not an enthusiastic Trump supporter. I will crawl over broken glass to vote against Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife, and that means voting for Trump.

    Ragspierre in reply to gospace. | June 6, 2016 at 7:23 pm

    So your position would have been to defend and protect Richard M. Nixon. Regardless…

      Old0311 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2016 at 7:50 pm

      Except of unleashing the EPA on us.

      inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2016 at 9:28 pm

      I at last disagree with you Rags! Nixon was a giant compared to these two losers. hillary and the Cheetos man are beneath any two candidates in my lifetime.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2016 at 11:27 pm

      What has Obama done that was not worse than what Nixon did? Yet still he sits in the Oval Office, even though there’s a Republican majority in Congress. Now tell us how great all those Republicans are, who won’t do their duty and impeach the imposter in the White House. And don’t give me that crap about them not having the votes in the Senate to remove him from office – the House has a clear duty to impeach, regardless of how the Senate might embarrass itself by failing to remove the president from office. The reason why it didn’t (and won’t) happen is because the lot of them are spineless and worthless, interested in nothing more than staying in office and maintaining their power, unwilling to stick their necks out for fear of being called “racists” by actual racists. I thought the well-being of America was supposed to be their priority? It seems their actual priority is keeping the GOPe in charge – to hell with what happens to the country.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 6, 2016 at 11:54 pm

        the House has a clear duty to impeach, regardless of how the Senate might embarrass itself by failing to remove the president from office.

        Where did you get that cr*p? How is it even ethical to indict someone you know won’t be convicted? Prosecutors are not allowed to do that, so why do you think the House is any different?

        But even if you think it’s ethical, what good would it do? The Senate would acquit him, and both he and the media would successfully portray that acquittal as a vindication. The average uninformed voter would hear that he was acquitted and think that proved he was innocent, and that his impeachment was persecution. Exactly as happened to Clinton. In what way would that be a good idea?

    “I am not an enthusiastic Trump supporter.” Translation: I am an enthusiastic Trump supporter.

At the time, no. And, I seem to remember at least one of the Watergate prosecution team subsequently stated it would actually be impossible to convict Nixon of having violated any criminal statute.

Since then, we’ve watched the Democrats stand lockstep behind William Jefferson Clinton, refusing to even consider impeachment and conviction, after he committed perjury in court. An actual crime. For which he was forced to surrender his law license. And let’s not forget that in every sexual harassment class prior to Monica Lewinsky we were all told that a powerful man having a sexual relationship with a subordinate woman was the very definition of sexual harassment. But suddenly in his case it became totally consensual sex. And he paid Paula Jones and her lawyers $850,000. Not because he was guilty of anything, of course, but because he wanted to move on with his life.

And the vast majority of Democrats in a poll have indicated they will vote for her EVEN IF SHE IS INDICTED. The leaders of the Democrat Party are standing lockstep behind her even though it’s plain as day she broke the law with her private email server. But, hey what’s national security compared to having the first woman president?

Oh, hey, Ted Kennedy. Let’s not forget him. Drowned a woman. Didn’t report it to the police. Was driving without a license at the time, having neglected to get it renewed. Lion of the Senate. Ever hear of a Democrat speaking against his behavior? And let’s not forget the Waitress Sandwich with him and Chris Dodd, Democrat Senator.

Barney Frank?

Republicans get driven out of office by REPUBLICANS for transgressions far less then any of these. And Democrats elect and re-elect their scandal laden leaders. And always stand lockstep behind them. Makes you wonder what the rest of them are hiding.

So, at the time, no. Now? I’m not so sure.

    Ragspierre in reply to gospace. | June 6, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    “And, I seem to remember at least one of the Watergate prosecution team subsequently stated it would actually be impossible to convict Nixon of having violated any criminal statute.”

    Now you’re trying to gnat-strain. Being a racist is not a crime. Like lots of wrong things, we don’t criminalize it.

    Conservatives have said…SAID…that character counts. Some of us still believe that.

    DaMav in reply to gospace. | June 6, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    You are merely honest and tempered in your deliberations.

    However Mr RabidPierre is not only Holy in his own mind but Holier than us all … in his own mind. Expect the lectures to continue 🙂

legalizehazing | June 6, 2016 at 9:27 pm

I think this Daily Caller article does enough to invalidate judges for the average voter.

The Don walks a fine line. . . But I think that Ben Sasse tweet is uncharacteristically out of line. Between that and Rubio I think we have a fine example of politician’s detachment from the voters and everyday reality.

inspectorudy | June 6, 2016 at 9:47 pm

I know no one cares but I am losing heart on this site. The Trumpets are so belligerent that there is no give and take. They never answer questions with facts only opinions and the calm quiet atmosphere that brought me here years ago is gone. Vitriol and hatred are not the way to converse. Politics is a very subjective position and when someone disagrees with you then it is a stand off not a duel. The Trump supporters here never show us his actual positions on anything. They only project their positions on any given subject. The obama supporters did the same thing and we all see that we and they were misled. For you Trump supporters, don’t you want to hold his feet to the fire on the things that you thought he was for? Don’t you want to demand that he swear to do the things that he promised? But you don’t. All you do is defend him no matter what he says or does. Would you allow a home contractor who promised great changes to your home and then didn’t do them to stay on the job? You can still be for him but at least make sure he is staying with the things that made you like him. Have you heard him mention stopping the Syrian refugee program lately? Have you heard him mention the “Wall” lately? Have you heard him mention the 2nd amendment lately? Have you heard him mention obamacare lately? In fact, have you heard him mention anything of any value in the last few weeks? This judge issue is about him running a fraudulent university that was an obvious scam. Why would a smart man make a mountain out of a molehill? Why would he drag himself down to the gutter by saying stupid things about a possibly biased judge instead of letting his overpaid lawyers handle it? Is that smart? Would he do the same thing with the Russians? Or the Chinese? Does the man have any control over his mouth?

    healthguyfsu in reply to inspectorudy. | June 6, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    First of all, the return key here and there every once in awhile would make this much easier to read.

    Second, if comments lead you away from a site (or give you motivation to whine about considering leaving) then perhaps this site is not for you (or any adult internet comment board for that matter).

    Barry in reply to inspectorudy. | June 7, 2016 at 1:33 am

    “They never answer questions with facts only opinions…”

    Whiner. I doubt you have presented anything but opinion, other than some obvious to everyone fact.

    That’s 99% of what these blogs are, opinions. When you don’t like the opinion you start simpering. Grow up.

I’m not going through every claim you just made but here are a couple:


“It’s going to be a big, fat, beautiful wall!” Trump shouted to cheering supporters Thursday night in San Jose. (last week)


Trump’s staunch opposition to gun control could also pose problems in the state, where polls have found most voters believe in stronger restrictions on access to firearms. At all of his campaign stops here, Trump has touted his endorsement by the National Rifle Assn. and accused his presumed Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, of trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

“We’re going to keep our guns — don’t worry about it,” Trump told the crowd in Sacramento. “You need them.”

(same link)

So, is it true the Judge Curiel is one of the La Raza-ist lawyers ?

    InEssence in reply to Neo. | June 6, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    Yes, it seems to a political circus that has little to do with Trump University. And Trump U seems to have very little liability in this case. The plaintiffs, who are an extreme minority of the graduates, are mostly complaining that they didn’t make enough money, and the school seems to have delivered what it promised.

    It seems like Trump likes to bait people with remarks, and then prove them wrong.

      Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | June 7, 2016 at 12:14 am

      You are either woefully uninformed, or lying. Probably the latter. The fraud that was “Trump University” has been established beyond doubt; the defense isn’t even denying the facts.

      The NY Department of Education personally warned Trump that it was illegal for him to operate this fake “university” in that state, and they assumed that he stopped, but for five years he brazenly continued to operate it from 40 Wall St, NYC. Customers, knowing that it is illegal to operate a fake university, had every reason to assume that this was a real accredited insitution.

      Trump also personally advertised that he had hand-picked the instructors and trained them in his investment methods, which he knew was not true. In fact he had no involvement in the institution at all beyond shilling for it and reaping the profits. It was actually operated for him by some firm in Utah that has made a business model of this.

      The representative plaintiffs in a class action are always a minority of the class; that’s the whole point of a class action. You don’t need thousands of victims to appear in court and testify how they were ripped off, when a few representative examples will do. Once they establish what happened to them, the judgment is entered on behalf of anyone who can show that he suffered the same injury, and then each claimant merely has to do that.

        InEssence in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 12:53 am

        Are you sure your facts are in order? Is it illegal to call something a “university”.

        The people enrolling knew exactly what they were doing. They attended the classes. You are saying they did not know where they were when they were in class, and yet they still had enough cognizant abilities to actually make it to class? Perhaps their consciousness comes and goes. Quite frankly, this has to be in the running for the most irrational mind at LI.

        If they didn’t like the courses they could have dropped out. The number of people suing is extremely small. They can only sue for damages. As you have already admitted, Trump wasn’t involved. The whole suit is probably worth a few thousand dollars, and we are not sure if Trump is liable even for that insignificant amount.

        Trump seems to be a tar-baby that catches bad logic and makes it die by frustration while the assailants wildly swing in the air.

          Arminius in reply to InEssence. | June 7, 2016 at 4:23 am

          I’m sure of the facts, the New York State Education Department is sure of the facts, the NY state AG is sure of the facts, the NY courts are sure of the facts, and now Donald Trump is sure of the facts. How? Trump has already lost that court fight and has been found personally liable for breaking the law; it is illegal to call a business entity incorporated or operating in New York that provides live training events a college or university UNLESS it has been evaluated, accredited, and chartered by the state as a bonafide college or university. After the NYSED warned Donald Trump personally that he would be operating illegally, Trump knowingly and willfully did just that for five years. Trump sent out (or allowed his corporate agents to do so on his behalf) on Trump letterhead stationary, with his signature or a facsimile of it, letters “invitating” selected “students” to take courses at Trump “University.” At considerable, bank breaking expense of course. And giving the address of said University as 42 Wall St., 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10005. Which I believe are the corporate offices of the Trump organization.

          Now you can be sure of the facts:

          “…The supreme court of New York ruled earlier that Trump University, now renamed Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, LLC, is liable for its violation of state education laws in its illegally calling the program a “university” without the appropriate licensure or accreditation and for allegedly defrauding students of $40 million…”

          I look forward to the Trump supporters trying to argue the facts as if there are any facts left to argue except for how much Donald Trump will have to pay out of pocket now that he has been found personally liable for breaking this very clear NY state law. Stick a fork in Trump he’s done; the case is over. I am talking about the NY case in which none of the judges involved were Mexican or members of La Raza. Not the two still pending class action suits before Judge Gonzalo Curiel. But since Trump has already been found guilty, in a civil suit, and is personally liable for one of the elements of the Trump University fraud alleged in the CA class action suits, well. Let’s just say The Donald’s chances in CA cases aren’t looking very good.

          Speaking of cases, I’m sure the Trump supporters will do it anyway as if they had a point because they are as persistent, as mindless, as welcome, and as charming as a case of herpes.

          InEssence in reply to InEssence. | June 7, 2016 at 12:53 pm

          If you think real estate classes are unusual you need to get out more often. I have a number of friends who have taken them, and not any of them thought they were going to college. That would be funny, if they thought they were.

          Your entire argument comes down to whether a person should be charged $40 million for a technical violation in a name.

          The people signed up for real estate classes, and they could easily see that they were taking real estate classes.

          “Accredited” schools have burdened the youth of America for $1 Trillion of debt and no marketable skills. This fraud is not being addressed in the courts.

          Arminius in reply to InEssence. | June 8, 2016 at 4:45 am

          How can you be this stupid? I predicted someone with the IQ of the Herpes Simplex virus would come along and try to argue this as if there’s something to argue. The law in NY is clear; it’s illegal to call anything a college or university in that state unless it’s licensed as a college or university in that state. That’s not “my argument.” It’s not even my law; I’ve never set foot in NY state or city. But it’s their law, and Trump broke it. And when you do it as knowingly and willfully as Trump it’s considered fraud.

          The NYSED sent Trump a letter in 2005 telling Trump did what he was planning to do he’d be breaking the law. But they also told Trump if he had no physical presence in NY and only offered online training he could call his damn school anything he wanted. So what did genius Trump do? He opened a fake office in Delaware, lied to the New York government that he’d be operating from Delaware, and then just went ahead and fucking broke the law and did everything the NYSED told him would be illegal.

          It was an open and shut case. Your boyfriend didn’t commit a “technical violation.” Now your boyfriend is on the hook for damages because the NYSED told Trump he’d be lying to customers and committing fraud if he called his real estate training a university unless he got it licensed with the state as a real no shit university.

          Instead Trump decided to lie to the government and the customers. That’s how you end up personally liable for an estimated $40 million.

          How can you be so stupid that you can’t understand something this simple? You can’t call something a university in NY unless you license it with the state as a university. This is about as complicated as the recipe for making ice, but it’s beyond your understanding. Amazing.

    Milhouse in reply to Neo. | June 6, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    No, it is not true. He is a member of a perfectly respectable Hispanic lawyers’ association, which has no connection whatsoever to the National Council of La Raza, the racist far-left organization that’s often justly criticized on this blog.

      CloseTheFed in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 8:19 am

      THat’s GREAT!!

      I am starting the KKK Lawyers’ Guild.

      NO relation to the KKK. Who wants to join?!!!!

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 10:07 am

      “which has no connection whatsoever to the National Council of La Raza,…”

      Are you just making shit up again, or are you completely ignorant of the links and association with La Raza? – everything for the race, nothing for anyone else.

      Paul in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 2:04 pm

      I’m sorry, but as a white male who is sick and fucking tired of being accused of being a racist or *phobe every time I disagree with anything, I find it wholly unacceptable for any organization to center itself around racial identity politics.

      And no, it is NOT respectable for a federal judge to be handing out college scholarships to law breakers.

    Who cares? A presumed Republican nominee opined that the judge is not qualified because of his ethnic heritage.

“First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right…”

    Milhouse in reply to jwoodatty. | June 7, 2016 at 12:21 am

    You’re quoting Pat Buchanan?! Seriously?! On this blog, of all places? You are aware that Buchanan is an antisemite, aren’t you? He probably hates him some Mexicans too. But in any case he’s been a discredited nonentity for at least the past 15 years.

      Paul in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2016 at 2:09 pm

      You sound just like a good little regressive. RACIST! Discredited!

      The irony is rich… you’re defending a guy who belongs to an organization named “The Race” by accusing his detractors of being racist.

    Arminius in reply to jwoodatty. | June 7, 2016 at 4:41 am

    Or, here’s a thought! You could just read the judge’s ruling instead of letting some doofus tell you what to think about them.

    Curiel’s rulings appear pretty reasonable to me.

    Not that Trump wants reasonable from a judge. The Donald wants a judge who will give The Donald everything The Donald wants.

Here is some information one might find useful. It. Is about the judge and the chief of police in San Jose. They go back a long way. Also at the same site, a three part article about the judge’s background.

This is a bit of a read, but a real eye-opener. To say that Ms.Kaye is biased against Trump is quite an understatement. Here is hoping she will read this article.

Remember Trumpsters — Keep a smile on your lips and a song in your heart while we drive the Eeeeevil Establishment nuts 🙂

Trump’s making a list,
Checking it twice,
Gonna find out who’s running from ICE,
Donald Trump is building,
A wall!

Well, to you self proclaimed “principled conservatives” pushing the #never Trump line.
AP has declared your girl has the delegates to achieve the nomination of your party. You’re halfway home. All you have to do is keep up what you’re doing for 5 more months & you’ll have the internationalist statism you & your boy Cruz have sought all along.
If it had worked out the way your fantasy was presented I’d probably have voted for Cruz. But over the nomination fight you & he revealed yourselves for what you truly are.
So I’m back to what I said when your Republican branch of the Uniparty showed who they truly are during the 2014 lame duck, & since with their bipartisan uniparty majority & agenda.
The Republican party must be destroyed.
And now add sellout “principled conservatives” to that list. You too must be destroyed. You’re both cut from the same roll of material.

    tyates in reply to secondwind. | June 7, 2016 at 3:46 am

    Trump University is the “we told you so”, and we actually told you about it months ago because we knew this would hit right around the time of the convention. Trump is a con artist, and like most smart people, you fell for the con because you thought you were too smart to be conned. Trump University calls everything Trump does into question because if he’s so successful at real estate, why does he have to con senior citizens and single moms into maxing out their cards?

    Bullying “principled conservatives” to vote for your guy by calling us sellouts isn’t going to work. If you want the support of principled conservatives, run someone with some conservative principles. If you can’t do that, at least pick someone who can fake some principles by the convention. Otherwise, sorry, you’re on your own. Because four years of Clinton will just make conservatism stronger, whereas a Trump defeat will finish him for good and its already in the making.

      Barry in reply to tyates. | June 7, 2016 at 10:17 am

      “Because four years of Clinton will just make conservatism stronger…”

      LOL, what complete morons you people are. I guess 8 years of Obama has made conservatism stronger. Hell, in another 20 years of this we will be so strong that, that, uh well, something.

      try another anti trump diatribe. That dog don’t hunt.

UK Transplant | June 7, 2016 at 6:57 am

Judge Curiel is a member of the ethnic legal group HNBA, Hispanic National Bar Association. The HNBA published a press release on July 2, 2015 as follows:

“The HNBA calls for a boycott of all Trump’s business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision, and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision, and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.”

Cynthia D. Mares
HNBA National President

The attorney group leading the lawsuit against Trump are heavily involved in Democrat politics and have paid Bill and Hillary Clinton $675,000 for “speeches”.

This whole thing smells.

How insulated do you have to be to not see a problem with our judiciary?

Let’s take the Steyn case. Why did they pick the venue of Judge Natalie Combs? BECAUSE OF HER BIAS.

In fact that entire jurisdiction appears to be broken.

Examples are numerous and people who cannot see it are simply in denial. I admit I hold the naïve notion that justice must be blind. The state of lawfare is epidemic and anti-justice.

And a judge belonging to any group with ” La Raza” in its name is troubling.

I think the congress critters may need a good dose of going back to the home district and living the real life.

That LI has sunk so low as to adopt the lefts tactic of launching strawman attacks on Trump is dissapointing.

Anyone with an ounce of sense and objectivity knows that Trump’s issue with this judge is not that he is of Mexican ancestry. The issue is that this judge is a part, and a leading voice and advocate, of the groups/ movement attacking Trump as a racist because he wants border security. The judge, as a person, has a clear bias against Trump, and the organization’s he voluntarily joined are involved in the 2016 election to defeat Trump.

You can lawyer that away any way you like, but it does not change the fact that this judge, based on his voluntary membership in racist organizations, some of whom are actively working to slander Trump the candidate, hates Donald Trump. And to pretend that Trump is being racist, when the judge is a member of objectively racist groups like LA Raza (I mean come on, it’s called the fucking RACE, they define it as racial themselves), is embarrassing to read on a once well respected website.

If you think Donald Trump is a racist, please provide evidence: these strawman attacks do little to advance your integrity.

    Ragspierre in reply to SeanInLI. | June 7, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Bullshit, Sean.

    You and others here have been putting words in T-rump’s mouth he’s never spoken, and provided apologia and rationalizations he wasn’t bright enough to provide himself.

    I listened to the T-rumpian speech very carefully. It was, I thought at the time and still do, blatant tampering with the jury pool.

    You people amaze me.

    Ragspierre in reply to SeanInLI. | June 7, 2016 at 9:43 am

    Oh, and, Sean…. Don’t use terms like “straw man” you don’t understand.

    Look up “logical fallacies”.

Sneaky Pete | June 7, 2016 at 8:53 am

Since the name of this website is “LEGAL Insurrection,” and a fair number of the readers seem (to me anyway) to be lawyers or law students, it would be natural for those interested in this issue to actually READ THE DECISION on TU/Trump’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It has been linked in comments above several times, but I see no evidence that those attacking the judge have read it.

Were one to do so, one might actually conclude that, not only is the decision balanced, measured and fair, it is the only decision that could have been made, correctly.

Trump is no idiot, and he has had more experience with civil litigation than 99.99% of the population. This suggests to me that his extra-judicial attacks on the judge have nothing to do with the law suit and everything to do with whipping up anti-Mexican fervor in a grossly provocative manner. Trump would know that, if the judge’s bias and conflicts were as obvious as he claims, the proper venue for his complaint is a Motion to Recuse and/or a complaint for judicial misconduct under 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364.

He has not done that, and I assume it is because his lawyers have advised him he will not succeed.

    RodFC in reply to Sneaky Pete. | June 7, 2016 at 9:10 am

    Or simply that Trumps lawyers are telling him that the motion isn’t ripe yet.

      Sneaky Pete in reply to RodFC. | June 7, 2016 at 11:44 am

      Not only is it ripe, it is so PAST ripe as to arguably have been waived.

      When you have reason to believe a judge is biased, you have an obligation to act promptly. You don’t get to wait a few yuears until the judge rules against you and then attack the ruling as the product of a biased judge.

I remember taunts of “Little Debbie” Nelson for Bias. Of Barry Williams. On this site.

I remember Newt saying that federal judges should testify to congress why they made certain rulings.

So, pot. kettle.

There are a bunch of remarkably ignorant/stupid/rationalizing people here, apologizing for Der Donald and saying untrue crap.

First, you don’t “forum shop” cases in the federal system, or any state system of which I know. There are laws and rules that control both jurisdiction and venue, and virtually all cases are assigned to judges by lottery.

Second, when this case landed in this court, T-rump and judge Curiel were on the same side…both Progressives. Curiel was a networked Hispanic-American judge. T-rump was a dirty, networked crony capitalist. They both very likely gave money to some of the same people. They shared a lot of the same views.

Third, federal judges do not retain cases that are “weak” on their dockets. These T-rump-U cases are not in the least “weak”. On the contrary, they appear to be quite strong, and very damning in terms of the fraud conducted by T-rump and his associates.

T-rump certainly has a right to bitch about his case. Any idiot does. He has a right to be an overt racist. Any idiot does. But he doesn’t have a right to lead a party.

He had a choice to at least act like a man instead of a petulant, spoiled brat respecting these cases. He chose the latter course. He could have relied on his lawyers to make whatever meritorious arguments they have. He could have avoided any racist remarks. Instead, he chose to make this all about him and race.

He can be reliably predicted to do that in the future. I thought we’d had enough of a pathological, lying, racist asshole in the presidency, but apparently not for many of you.

Where in my comment did I say anything about Trump U?
Why did you deliberately avoid my central point & instead wander off into a distraction? If you’re as you contend an offended “principled conservative”, why do you use statist talking points & tactics? Why do all of you that wear your P. C. uniform’s do that?
How is calling you out for what you are an attempt to “bully” you into voting for Trump? As is usual with you of the statist mindset, you read what you want into a perfectly clear comment. I know there’s no way in hell you’d vote for Trump, he doesn’t advocate for your statist religion.
I stand behind my comment. It is perfectly clear to anyone capable of seeing reality. The rest of your comment is posturing braggadocio. Typical from someone whose champion just got handed his ass on his home field, playing under home rules, with crooked referees. Even with the deck stacked heavily in his favor, your boy lying Ted lost. He lost because your team over the last 32 years hasn’t won a single big game. And to make it worse, you lost to the Bush’s 3 times.

    SDN in reply to secondwind. | June 7, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Remind us all again which “anti Establishment” candidate got the Boehner endorsement? And spent time on Pedo Island with Billy Jeff and Epstein? Spelled T-R-U-M-P.

    You are a liar.

Sneaky Pete | June 7, 2016 at 9:06 am

I would also like to emphasize (as a few commenters already have, to little avail), that many of Trump’s defenders here seem to ignore the no-so-obscure fact that the group to which Judge Curiel belongs (La Raza Lawyers of San Diego) is not affiliated in any way with the National Council of La Raza. Calling the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego a “racist organization” is simply ignorant.

    Barry in reply to Sneaky Pete. | June 7, 2016 at 10:24 am

    “that many of Trump’s defenders here seem to ignore the no-so-obscure fact that the group to which Judge Curiel belongs (La Raza Lawyers of San Diego) is not affiliated in any way with the National Council of La Raza. Calling the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego a “racist organization” is simply ignorant.”

    La Raza = “The Race”. Now where o where would anyone get the idea that The Race Lawyers of San Diego is a racist organization?

    And you, of course, are wrong. The Race Layers Association of San Diego is linked to The Race through their own website.

    “Everything for the Race. Nothing for Anyone else”

      Sneaky Pete in reply to Barry. | June 7, 2016 at 10:55 am

      Another one who didn’t bother to read the decision.

        Barry in reply to Sneaky Pete. | June 8, 2016 at 12:05 am

        Another one brainwashed by the left, that is unable to translate La Raza to The Race, that is unable to begin to understand the depth of judicial activism and prejudice.

          Sneaky Pete in reply to Barry. | June 8, 2016 at 8:10 am

          Dude, not that you’re susceptible to reason, but since you have accused me of being “brainwashed by the left,” a most scandalous and slanderous accusation, I shall have to defend myself.

          I am a lifelong conservative Republican who served for 6 years in a state legislature. During that time, my voting record marked me as the 6th most conservative member in a House of 160 members. My conservative credentials go back to before your were born.

          I am a trial lawyer. I deal with facts and law, not innuendo and false equivalencies.

Sneaky Pete | June 7, 2016 at 9:42 am

“n fact, if O’Melveny were to file a recusal motion, according to two law professors and three private lawyers specializing in legal ethics, Trump’s lawyers would expose themselves to sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to discipline by state bar associations.

As many, many legal experts have opined in the past few days, a federal judge’s ethnicity or national origin cannot serve as the basis for a claim of judicial bias. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, held in its 1998 opinion in MacDraw Inc v. CIT Group that U.S. District Judge Denny Chin (now on the appeals court) was within his rights to sanction two lawyers who asked whether his Asian ancestry prejudiced him against them. (They were involved in completely separate litigation against an Asian fundraiser for President Bill Clinton, who appointed Chin.) “Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge’s impartiality,” the 2nd Circuit said. Added Alexandra Lahav, who specializes in legal ethics at the University of Connecticut: “There is no basis in the law or our legal history. It’s antithetical to the rule of law.””

I suppose all you TDS afflicted would approve of this judge for the Supreme Court, right?

    Barry in reply to Barry. | June 8, 2016 at 12:08 am

    hey, hey, hey. I knew I would come back and none of you would touch that with a 10 ft pole.

    Hypocrites. You’re all hypocrites.

Trump is speaking uncomfortable truths admittedly in an awkward, blundering, clumsy way. This election has always been about immigration and indirectly, race. The anti Trump, anti-white coalition is unified against a deteriorating demographic and to think that they can be coddled into supporting a white male candidate is insane. The wild card will be the vagina voters, to borrow Susan Sarandon’s term, and their purse carrying beta males. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

    Ragspierre in reply to jack burns. | June 7, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    You’ve self-identified as a racist here.

    “Mexican” isn’t a race. In fact, a lot of Mexicans are “European peoples” (alt-right code for “white”). I’ve known red-haired, blue-eyed Irish surnamed Mexicans descended from Irish soldiers conscripted into the U.S. army who’s ancestors stuck in Mexico after the Mexican-American war.

    Some are Korean descendants from a slave population imported into Mexico.

    A LOT of Mexicans are pretty pure Indians.

    Nor is true that illegals are “Mexicans”…even predominantly. Many are Asians who come here legally and stay illegally.

    “Mexicans” helped carry the Texas Revolution and the statehood of California, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona.

Trump needs to be more disciplined. He should have said his membership in the racist La Raza organization disqualifies him. La Raza is a front organization for the Democratic Party and no different than the KKK. They are organizing assaults on those attending my rallies. They are the new Nazi brown shirts attacking those in opposition to the Democratic Party and funded by Obama from the $17 billion he extorted fro BoA.

    GOP primary voters need to be more disciplined. Next time try picking a candidate who’s not a full-blown psycho — even if it feels good to vote for a full-blown psycho.

      Where’s my free Trump phone? It should be here by now. Since America is just rocketing skyward towards renewed greatness I’m expecting an iPhone 6s+ (128GB). Preferably in comb-over yellow with an orange protective case.

The interview opened with O’Reilly asking Trump, “Do you regret making it personal with the judge?”

“Look, I’ve had very, very unfair decisions, people have said this should have gone away a long time ago on summary judgment,” Trump replied.

Really? Who? What “people”?

He added, “The plaintiff in the case was an absolute disaster for them and they asked whether or not…they went to the judge and they asked whether the plaintiff could get out of the case.”

“I mean, she said all great things about the school. She has a tape of her saying great things and she has a written statement signed by her saying great things and the judge dismissed her from the case but left the case stand. We thought we were going to win the case.”

Trump concluded saying, “I don’t care if the judge is Mexican or not. I’m going to do great with the Mexican people because I provide jobs, so I don’t care about Mexican.”

Asked by O’Reilly why he didn’t just say that in the first place Trump replied, “Well the question was asked to me.” For the record, that’s not true, at least not initially. Politico reported last month that Trump attacked Judge Curiel as “Mexican” at a rally in San Diego (the judge is American). Then, last Thursday, Trump told the Wall Street Journal the judge had a conflict of interest because of his “Mexican heritage.” A day later Trump was asked about those comments by Jake Tapper and chose to double down rather than walk them back.

So, NOW he’s walking it back AND LYING about it.

I am again demonstrated prescient!

This will be the 97th comment on this thread. This is my 3rd & final comment. You on the other hand made 14 of those 97 comments. What you have proven “Sir” is that you are a strutting & bloviating popinjay. With a compulsion to have the final word.
For all those words you’ve once again proven nothing. We already knew that.

    DaMav in reply to secondwind. | June 7, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    The RabidPierre Cycle 🙂

    Monday “No way is it going to rain you moron. You
    obviously don’t know shit about weather.”

    Tuesday (Epic downpour sets records across area)

    Wednesday “Just as I predicted, it rained”

Full Speech: Donald Trump San Diego, CA (5-27-16)

Excerpt about the lawsuit:

at 4:28

“the judge, who, we believe, happens to be Mexican, which is great, I think that’s fine. You know what, I think the Mexicans are gonna end up loving Donald Trump, when I give all these jobs. OK? I think they are gonna end up, I think they’re gonna love. I think they’re gonna love me.”

There is still hope. Trump,might just deflate before the convention. Even if nominated, what do you think he’ll do if it’s mid-September and he’s losing to Hillary by double digits? The way I see him, he’ll throw in the towel.

    “There is still hope.”

    No, not for you. you are #neverhope.

    “Trump,might just deflate before the convention.”

    LOL, filed with Trump demise prediction #4,338,572.

    “Even if nominated, what do you think he’ll do if it’s mid-September and he’s losing to Hillary by double digits? The way I see him, he’ll throw in the towel.”

    That’s why we call you a kook. Just because you are a kook.

First the judge seals some documents, then he unseals some documents after Trump criticizes him, then after the press gets them, he decides that some should not have been unsealed.
Sounds like either bias or incompetence to me.

Trumps latest response.

    Arminius in reply to RodFC. | June 8, 2016 at 4:15 am

    It would sound that way to me, too. If I didn’t know what I was talking about.

    The Washington post filed a FOIA request to unseal some documents. Since the courts are supposed to lean toward public disclosure, and neither side objected, Curiel unsealed the documents which were then available via a system called PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). If there was any incompetence it was on the part of the attorneys including Trump’s attorney David Petrocelli. It’s the lawyers’ job to redact personal information. The screen on PACER warns them of that responsibility but they didn’t do that. So when the judge found out documents with personal information had been accidentally made public he resealed the documents so the attorneys could fix their mistakes and Curiel could unseal the corrected copies.

    That’s all it was. It was a screw up, and it wasn’t even Curiel’s.

      DaMav in reply to Arminius. | June 8, 2016 at 6:03 pm

      So Curiel was in such a hurry to punish a declared enemy of La Raza by releasing the documents that he failed to do even the simplest checking to confirm that the lawyers had properly redacted the personal information. He didn’t even tell one of the court’s clerks to call the lawyers to check. Probably in a rush to get to Clinton Foundation Donors Meeting. Or maybe to write out a check to some lawbreaking illegal alien.

      That’s what you meant, verdad?

        Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | June 8, 2016 at 7:29 pm

        “If there was any incompetence it was on the part of the attorneys including Trump’s attorney David Petrocelli. It’s the lawyers’ job to redact personal information. The screen on PACER warns them of that responsibility but they didn’t do that.”

        When someone tries to help you with your astounding ignorance, you should at least TRY to read what they’ve been charitable enough to provide.

          DaMav in reply to Ragspierre. | June 8, 2016 at 8:11 pm

          As I said, Curiel could have checked that they had done so. He didn’t.

          Apparently you find this elementary concept impossible to grasp.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 8, 2016 at 9:44 pm

          Find me a Federal judge who checks the redactions the lawyers are supposed to make before releasing documents. Name him/her.

          You stupid phuc.

        Arminius in reply to DaMav. | June 9, 2016 at 4:18 pm

        How can you be this stupid? You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with reality. It’s not the judge’s job. It’s no judge’s job. It’s the attorney’s job, and no federal judge has the spare time to babysit attorneys and do their job for them.

        I had a similar exchange with InEssence earlier in the thread. InEssence accused somebody (not me) of not having their facts straight because InEssence couldn’t believe it’illegal to call something a University without state s permission. I responded that it is in New York. Accoring to NY education law in order to call a training enterprise a college or university, it has to be evaluated, accredited and chartered with the state as a college or university. In facwere
        Trump didn’t ignore the letter; he did far worse than that. He opened a bogus Dover, Delaware office and flagrantly violated the law by continuing to do what the NYSED had told him was illegal.

        These are facts, not my opinion. How do I know? Because Trump already lost this case in court in late 2014. In fact, the judge noted none of these facts were even in dispute on the way to finding that Trump had willfully violated the law by illegally operating a university in NY when he had not bothered to obtain the licenses that would allow him to call his operation a university.

        One more time; it is illegal to call a training enterprise a university unless you have met all the requirements and it is chartered by the state as a university. If you have a garage band and want to have “university” somewhere in the name, great. Go for it. But in NY it is illegal to offer training for a fee from something called a university unless you have a license from the state to call it a university.

        Is this hard? I don’t think this is hard. But it was hard for InEssence and I knew it was going to be if not for InEssence for the Trump fanboi crowd to accept reality. So I said as much; I expect you to argue with reality as if there’s anything left to argue except how much Trump will pay in damages now that he’s lost the case by breaking the law.

        So hear we are, DaMav, same shit, different day, with you Trumpkins still rejecting realiity. For some reason you think the world is supposed to live up to some imaginary requirements when it involves your macho boyfien Trump who’d you like to go skinnydipping with in his hotel hot tub.

        You think Curiel is also supposed to be so in love with Trump that he should do things for Trump that no judge, anywhere, does for other people. Review the attorneys’ submissions to PACER.

        But you don’t care about reality, do you, DaMav? Your boyfriend told you the mean judge is being unfair to him. Nobody can find any evidence of this. Ken White at Popehat, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line, Mark Levin; those are just some of the conservative/libertarian attorneys who have looked at Curiel’s rulings in the Trump case and in other cases and found them to be boring and mainstream. There’s no hint of activism, also known as reversible error.

        But evidence, who needs evidence. Which brings us to another aspect of your unhinged rejection of reality. While you’ve been rejecting reality the rest of us have noticed that Trump has dropped the mask and has revealed himself to be the flaming leftist he’s always been. And while you’ve had your tongue up his ass we’ve noticed you’ve become a flaming leftist, too.

        Him and Hillary both are just victims of these consipracies, arent’ they? The overwhelming evidence r.e. Hillary Clinton’s Espionage Act, Federal Records Act, and political corruption crimes is that she’s guilty as sin. But then the same holds true for Trump and his various frauds and RICO act violations; he’s guilty as sin. He’s already been found guilty, or rather liable, by NY courts for committing some of the fraudulent acts alleged in the class action suits before Curiel. That being the case it’s no longer an allegation. It’s a fact that Trump did commit some of those fraudulent acts.

        So, what’s a flaming leftist demagogue got left? Accuse everyone involved in justice system of being biased and out to get them. So Hillary invents a vast right wing conspiracy and Trump invents a vast La Raza experience. Don’t believe your lying eyes, the two flaming leftists tell their sycophants. YOu can’t believe the evidence, you have to believe me, your god.

        It used to be that conservatives stuck to the facts, DaMav, and the whole cult of personality thing was entirely the province of flaming leftists. Guess what? It still is.

        And since you’re going with the cult of personality, refusing to believe your lying eyes, in fact rejecting anything resembling reality let alone evidence, that makes you a flaming leftist.

        Arminius in reply to DaMav. | June 9, 2016 at 4:39 pm

        Forgot to mention, among those attorneys examining Curiel’s rulings in the Trump case and finding no bias or activism whatsoever? Yeah, that would include Trump’s own attorney David Petrocelli.

        On May 6 he told reporters in video recorded comments outside the federal courthouse that Curiel was doing his job, that Curiel was fair, that he as Trump’s attorney was pleased with Curiel’s decision to postpone certain trial events so that they would not impact the election, and that he as Trump’s attorney had no intention of asking Curiel to recuse himself.

        Less than three weeks later Trump decided it would be to his political advantage to tell his dumbshit knuckle-dragging racist fanbois that of course the “Messican La Raza judge” was being mean to him because he was going to “build a wall.”

        And, well, you know how those Messicans feel about illegal immigration, pendejo.

        He knew you’d buy it even though the evidence was all going the other way. The way his own lead lawyer David Petrocelli said it was pointing; Curiel was entirely fair. But since he could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and you’d not only support him you’d praise it as a brilliant political move without knowing the facts, you’d buy this without knowing the facts. Or, having been told the facts after rejecting the facts because you don’t care about facts.

GOPe: a bunch of cared rabbits. The death of the nation is happening on their watch.