What Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel tells us/ Corrupt Clintons worse than hypocrites.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/



Trump knows Democratic fix is in against him in the Trump case. No justice when dealing with fascist liberals. Very liberal judge associated with La-raza presiding against guy who wants to build a wall, assigns huge Hillary donor to defend plaintiffs. http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/
Hillary always lied when claiming her scandal after scandal were nothing, just manufactured by "right wing conspiracies" as she is still doing while 150 FBI agents investigate her for treason. Clintons have a far worse university scandal but the media says nothing.  see http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2016/06/clinton-disgusting-hypocrisy-about.html

In sum: the Judge is involved with LaRaza, radical leftist Clnton supporter. He woks closely with  ILLEGALS. Trump wants to send illegals back, and to build a wall. Plus, this Judge recommended any plaintiffs to go to a law firm who gives HEAVILY to the Clintons. The Judge also supports Clintons. Meanwhile Clinton's collect $16 million from phony online university that is full of scandals the media never covers. Not just Bill Clinton but other Clinton friends from the past were hired to promote the university. Investors in the vast multinational university include Henry Kravis, George Soros, Steve Cohen and Paul Allen. One of the investors in Laureate University, SAC Capital Advisors LP, is a hedge fund that had to pay a $1.2 billion dollar settlement to the US Dept. of Justice to settle allegations of insider trading. Laureate has taken over struggling colleges by using high-pressure marketing tactics such as “turbocharging enrollment” using students as telemarketers. Laureate University was investigated by the Rio State Legislature’s Investigative Commission on Private Universities in Brazil. Robson Leite, a Rio state legislator who led the probe concluded: “They have turned education into a commodity that focuses more on profit than knowledge”

What Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel tells us Posted: 05 Jun 2016 01:15 PM PDT (Paul Mirengoff) What to make of Donald Trump’s attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over the Trump U case? Is it a counter-intuitive litigation strategy? Is it, asSteve suggests, an attack, witting or not, on the premise of diversity? Is it, as the Washington Post and many others say, new evidence of his unfitness for the presidency? In my view, it isn’t really any of the above. Rather, Trump is doing what he thinks will help him counter a line attack his political opponents have raised — that he’s a con man who defrauded those who enrolled in his “university.” He’s also acting in line with his propensity for lashing out at people who do things he doesn’t like. Let’s try to reason our way through this situation. Litigants have a right to complain about judges. They don’t lose that right when they run for office. Complaints that because Trump seeks the presidency, his criticism of a judge undermines judicial independence are off base. Even if Trump becomes president, he will have no power to remove or otherwise punish Judge Curiel. Usually, it’s unwise for a litigant to blast a judge while a case is still pending. But here’s where Trump’s status as a candidate for president becomes relevant. If you put politics aside, the Trump U litigation can’t seriously injure Trump. In the worst case, he pays an award he can easily afford. Politically, it’s another matter. The very existence of the litigation is a source of potential injury — it exposes Trump on an ongoing basis to the “con man” charge leveled powerfully by Marco Rubio and sure to be pushed by Hillary Clinton. Thus, political considerations, not litigation strategy, should guide Trump’s statements about this case. The “con man” charge didn’t work for Rubio. But that doesn’t mean it won’t work better among the different set of voters now in play, who will hear it leveled in new ways, possibly in attack ad after attack. Trump’s response is that the class case would not have been allowed to proceed had the judge not been biased. It’s the natural politician’s answer — very similar to Team Clinton’s suggestion that the State Department inspector general is biased against her. Clinton’s complaint lacks plausibility. For one thing, the IG is an Obama appointee. Trump wants to lend plausibility to his complaint, so he offers a plausible-sounding argument. The judge is of Mexican origin (Trump mistakenly calls him “Mexican”) and therefore doesn’t like Trump due to his position on immigration and his statements about Mexicans. Anyone who assumes that ethnicity/race, ideology, and politics don’t sometimes enter into a judge’s handling of litigation is naive. I know from experience that litigating a claim of racial discrimination before a conservative white judge is often a different experience from litigating such a claim before a liberal black one. I also know from the experience of attorneys in one of my former law firms that representing a controversial conservative (and one-time presidential candidate) before a celebrated liberal federal district court judge is no picnic. Does this mean that Judge Curiel’s rulings in the Trump U case are the product of bias against Trump? No, they may or not be. Does it provide Trump with a potentially effective way of mitigating political damage the Trump U case may inflict? Possibly. Now let’s return to the questions I posed in the first paragraph. In my view, attacking Judge Curiel is a political, not a litigation, strategy (and also consistent with who Trump is). As for the second question, Trump isn’t out to make a statement about “diversity” (nor does Steve say he is). Trump’s attack on Curiel does raise questions about the premise of diversity, but it’s not his motive for making the argument or something he’s likely to be conscious of doing. Trump is simply seizing, as he always does (and often brilliantly) on an obvious, but politically incorrect, talking point. The third question is whether the attack tells us anything new about Trump’s fitness, or lack thereof, for the presidency. I don’t think so. As I suggested in the paragraph above, this is more of the same from Trump. Since he isn’t jeopardizing judicial independence, he hasn’t crossed any line not previously traversed. If Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel were something new and different, what would it tell us about Trump’s fitness? It would indicate that he’s nasty and not presidential. Ideally, a president should not be so ready to assume (or pretend) that judicial rulings (or other unpleasing forms of expression) are the product of ethnic or ideological bias. A president should have thicker skin and display more respect for those who disagree with him. But we must also keep in mind that Trump’s opponent will very likely to Hillary Clinton. As noted, her campaign was ready to assume (or pretend) that the State Department’s inspector general (an Obama appointee confirmed by Democrats) is biased against her. Clinton was also part of the effort to brand as bimbos (and worse) those who complained about her husband’s predatory sexual behavior. She blamed the woes that stemmed from her Whitewater-related corrupt behavior on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Much of Trump’s objectionable behavior and concerning tendencies has been displayed by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or both. You would never suspect this, however, if you relied on the Washington Post and other outlets doing the tut-tutting over the attack on Judge Curiel. They may occasionally criticize Clinton, but they assume Trump’s flaws are of a different order of magnitude. I doubt that they are.

Trump’s Jujitsu Overthrow of Liberalism Posted: 05 Jun 2016 10:51 AM PDT (Steven Hayward) On the surface Trump’s attack on the presiding judge in his civil trial over Trump University is reckless, irresponsible, menacing, and . . . just plain wacko. Jonah Goldberg speculates that what he’s really trying to do is force the judge to recuse himself and have another judge take over the case, which will result in a delay of the proceedings well beyond the election, at which point Trump might settle, or who knows what. I’m wondering whether Trump really wants to win in November after all, but I’ll ponder that idea another time. And yet, leave it to our anonymous friend “Decius” at the Journal of American Greatness (who received a very nice extended shout out yesterday from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal) to offer the case that Trump is, wittingly or not, directly attacking one of the most egregious aspects of liberal orthodoxy today—the premise of “diversity” embedded in our rigid identity politics that really means uniformity to the liberal line. Turns out, for example, that judge Curiel is a member of the lawyer’s advisory board to La Raza, a deeply ideological leftist group determined to mark out Latinos for a political and social identify largely separate from America. Take it away Decius: The left mostly takes for granted, first, that people from certain ethnicities in positions of power will be liberal Democrats and, second, that they will use that power in the interests of their party and co-ethnics.  This is a core reason for shouts of “treason!” “Uncle Tom” (or Tomas) and the like.  People like Clarence Thomas are offending the left’s whole conception of the moral order.  How dare he! The implicit assumption underlying Sotomayor’s comment [about a “wise Latina”] and Thomas’ refusal to play to type is that there is a type—an expectation.  By virtue of her being a liberal, a Democrat, a woman, and a Latina (wise or otherwise), Sotomayor’s voting pattern on the Court ought to be predictable.  As, indeed, it is.  So should Thomas’, but he declines to play his assigned role. The slightly deeper assumption is that this identity-based predictability is necessary, because the institutions and laws as designed will not reliably produce the “correct” outcome.  That’s the logic of diversity in a nutshell.  If everybody in power strictly followed law and procedure, the good guys—the poor, minorities, women, etc.—would lose a great deal of the time and that would be bad.  We need people who will look past the niceties of the rule of law and toward the outcome—the end.  The best way to ensure that is “diversity,” i.e., people more loyal to their own party and tribe than to abstractions like the rule of law. Trump simply took this very same logic and restated it from his own point-of-view—that is, from the point-of-view of a rich, Republican, ostentatiously hyper-American defendant in a lawsuit being litigated in a highly-charged political environment.  He knows full well that at least 50% of the country will howl like crazy if he wins this suit.  He knows that the judge knows that, too.  He further knows that judge knows what his own “side” expects him to do.  It would take an act of extraordinary courage to act against interest and expectation in this instance.  And our present system is not calibrated to produce such acts of courage but rather to produce the expected outcome. That’s what diversity is for.  That is, beyond the fairness issue, viz., that in a multiethnic country, it’s unwise and arguably unjust for high offices to be monopolized by one group.  But that’s an argument for something like quotas—or, if you want to be high-minded about it, “distributive justice”—and the quota rationale for diversity is passé.  The current rationale is that diversity provides “perspectives.”  Perspectives to aid in getting around the law and procedure.  Otherwise, who cares about diversity?  Just apply the law.  Simple. Trump is taking for granted—because he is not blind—that ethnic Democratic judges will rule in the interests of their party and of their ethnic bloc.  That’s what they’re supposed to do.  The MSM and the overall narrative say this is just fine.  It’s only bad when someone like Trump points it out in a negative way.  If a properly sanctified liberal had said “This man is a good judge because his background gives him the perspective to see past narrow, technical legalities and grasp the larger justice,” not only would no one have complained, that comment would have been widely praised.  In fact, comments just like it are celebrated all the time.  That is precisely what Justice Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” phrase was meant to convey. Plus, Trump has whacked the hornets’ nest by his criticism of Mexican immigration, which he feels this judge is bound to take personally.  And why shouldn’t he conclude that?  The left (and the domesticated right) tell us incessantly that any criticism—however fair or factual—that touches on a specific group will inevitably arouse the ire of that group.  Don’t say anything negative about immigration or the Hispanics will never vote for you!  Don’t say anything critical of Islamic terror or more Muslims will hate us!  But when Trump uses that same logic—I’ve criticized Mexican immigration so it’s likely this judge won’t like me—he’s a villain. In other words, with this seemingly reckless attack, Trump is once again performing a high public service that is long overdue. I still can’t tell if there’s a deliberateness behind Trump’s crazy genius, or whether this is all happening by weird instinct or randomness.