Forget Trump...Democrats Have Been Saying That Whites And Christians Can't Be Objective All Along

[Fenton Lum]

Trump is a fair puppeteer if you’re seriously IQ and reality challenged, he know all the right buttons to press.

 

[Fenton Lum]

In the liberal mind, only whites can be racist. As such, accusing a non-white of racism, is hypocrisy in their small closed minds.

There is someone on this forum who claims to be black and once stated black people can't be racist.

So you get to be stupid too?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Forget Trump...Democrats Have Been Saying That Whites And Christians Can't Be Objective All Along"

No, they haven't.

This is a lie; do you think anyone believes your ridiculous lies.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Forget Trump...Democrats Have Been Saying That Whites And Christians Can't Be Objective All Along"

No, they haven't.

This is a lie; do you think anyone believes your ridiculous lies.

No more than people believe your ridiculous comments

 

[tinydancer]

Donald is the poor, poor victim, considering that he has a poor choice in legal representation, who did not do their legal research..

WTF?

 

[tinydancer]

Bullshit. Trump has the same right to a fair trial as anyone else. If there is the slightest indication of impropriety, a judge should recuse himself.

Except you guys haven't shown any sign of impropriety.

Trump is upset because people are finding out what a scam Trump U was. Which they shouldn't be, because this has been well known for a while.

This bigoted bastard aka Judge Curiel appointed two law firms for the plaintiffs. Both law firms had doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons for speeches. $450,000 not including donations to Clinton's campaign.

Nah. This Latino Judge with La Raza Legal Association would never ever be prejudiced would he now?

ETA: Actually it's more than $450,000.

 

[tinydancer]

No impropriety?



Check this out. Curiel is La Raza and an Obama appointee. And this.

"LawNewz.com discovered that when it comes to politics, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, the law firm behind the class action lawsuit, is not exactly neutral either. Our analysis, using data first compiled by The Washington Post, found that Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd paid the Clintons a total of $675,000 in fees for speeches since 2009.

Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech at the law firm as recently as September 4, 2014. Bill Clinton also gave a speech for the same fee back in 2013, and another one in 2009 before the firm had been renamed (they used to be called Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP). In fact, of the five law firms that paid for the Clintons to speak over the last few years, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd paid out the most money."

Law Firm Behind Trump University Lawsuit Gave Big Money to the Clintons

 

[gipper]

No impropriety?



Check this out. Curiel is La Raza and an Obama appointee. And this.

"LawNewz.com discovered that when it comes to politics, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, the law firm behind the class action lawsuit, is not exactly neutral either. Our analysis, using data first compiled by The Washington Post, found that Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd paid the Clintons a total of $675,000 in fees for speeches since 2009.

Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech at the law firm as recently as September 4, 2014. Bill Clinton also gave a speech for the same fee back in 2013, and another one in 2009 before the firm had been renamed (they used to be called Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP). In fact, of the five law firms that paid for the Clintons to speak over the last few years, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd paid out the most money."

Law Firm Behind Trump University Lawsuit Gave Big Money to the Clintons

And yet many Rs know this, but are still attacking Trump. This should be a sign to all Americans. The establishment of both parties are aligned and want the pantsuit ensconced in the White House. If only we could put these stinking criminals in prison for life.

 

[320 Years of History]

The judge has removed one of the plaintiffs from the trial because of a lack of credibility and unsealed evidence and released it to the media, then tried to reseal it after reconsidering, so Trump wants the judge to recuse himself. It's his right to ask.

Red:
And Trump should have what reason for complaining about that? One less plaintiff is helpful to Trump.

Blue:
Your remark is misleading. The "reseal" was accompanied with an order for the attorneys to redact personal information from the unsealed documents and resubmit them. The only people whom the judge was considering were the folks whose names and phone numbers and email/physical addresses were included in the unsealed documents.

Green:
And if that's what he wants, there's a standard way to request it: file a motion to recuse. (Sample motion below.) Creating a national debate about it is not the way to make it happen.

​

But Trump's lawyers are not about to file that motion. Why? Because Trump’s lawyers have to, among other things, actually adhere to the law. In filing a motion to recuse, they 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.”​

Outside of court, Trump can say just about whatever he wants about the case without much risk of being held accountable. It might be another story if the candidate were to express contempt for Judge Curiel or the proceeding inside the judge’s courtroom, but so far, Trump has not made accusations to Curiel’s face.
​

Trump knows that, in general, his supporters don't know "jack" about legal procedure, and that they will form their conclusions based on the venom spewed by Trump, so he can say all sorts of things, relying on their ignorance. Let's see if the strength of Trump's convictions lead him to say that crap where it'll matter, in courtroom where he can be held accountable for having said it.

 

[WillowTree]

Donald Trump, like any American citizen, has the right to a fair trial by a fair and impartial judge or jury. He feels that he can't get this from this judge, and he has a valid case. The judge has removed one of the plaintiffs from the trial because of a lack of credibility and unsealed evidence and released it to the media, then tried to reseal it after reconsidering, so Trump wants the judge to recuse himself. It's his right to ask. The left doesn't seem to feel he has this right.

and if Trump were asking on the basis of THOSE POINTS, he might have a case. But that's an issue for an appellete court, not the public.

When he said, "I can't get a fair shake from the Mexican because I want to build a wall", he discredited his own point.

The real question is, will the GOP run an open racist for President? You guys have about a month to figure it out.

So Mexican is a race now?

 

[Moonglow]

Bullshit. Trump has the same right to a fair trial as anyone else. If there is the slightest indication of impropriety, a judge should recuse himself.

Except you guys haven't shown any sign of impropriety.

Trump is upset because people are finding out what a scam Trump U was. Which they shouldn't be, because this has been well known for a while.

This bigoted bastard aka Judge Curiel appointed two law firms for the plaintiffs. Both law firms had doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons for speeches. $450,000 not including donations to Clinton's campaign.

Nah. This Latino Judge with La Raza Legal Association would never ever be prejudiced would he now?

ETA: Actually it's more than $450,000.

Really, when does a judge appoint legal representation for plaintiffs? Except on public defender issues....

 

[mudwhistle]

Bullshit. Trump has the same right to a fair trial as anyone else. If there is the slightest indication of impropriety, a judge should recuse himself.

Except you guys haven't shown any sign of impropriety.

Trump is upset because people are finding out what a scam Trump U was. Which they shouldn't be, because this has been well known for a while.

I don't think you can be a fair judge of what is an impropriety.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/improprietyim-pruh-prahy-i-tee]
noun, plural improprieties for 4, 5.
1.
the quality or condition of being improper; incorrectness.
2.
inappropriateness; unsuitableness.
Examples for impropriety

However, just the appearance of impropriety can expose judges to additional scrutiny.
Obamacare Judges' Financial Conflict Brendan Smith December 20, 2010

Hoover preached that even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided.
Hoover’s Secret Files Ronald Kessler August 1, 2011

In The Bells of St. Mary's there isn't a hint of impropriety.
We Miserable Catholics Frank McCourt December 18, 2008

So far Mitt Romney has run a careful, disciplined campaign that has avoided the slightest whiff of impropriety.
Romney Accepts Maximum Campaign Donation From Man Whose Company Owns Penthouse Ben Jacobs February 10, 2012

She remained always allergic to sanctimony, impatient with convention, honest to the point of impropriety.
Dreams of His Mother Stacy Schiff May 2, 2011

It is no impropriety —no peculiarity—no wrong thought or deed of yours, that occasions it.
Guy Rivers: A Tale of Georgia William Gilmore Simms

No impropriety of conduct has, I am very sure, ever been imputed to the lady.
Stories By English Authors: Italy Various

We only wish at present to vindicate from the charge of impropriety one of the chief features of the Italian villa.
The Poetry of Architecture John Ruskin

It is the shell that protects them in those oceans of impropriety.
Appearances Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson

I trust the gentleman will see the impropriety of his motion, and agree to withdraw it.
Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. I (of 16) Thomas Hart Benton

Origin of impropriety
1605-15; < Late Latin improprietās. See im-2, propriety

 

[mudwhistle]

"Forget Trump...Democrats Have Been Saying That Whites And Christians Can't Be Objective All Along"

No, they haven't.

This is a lie; do you think anyone believes your ridiculous lies.

The truth to a leftist is like a cross to a vampire.

 

[hazlnut]

It's amazing the to see the ridiculous outrage from all sides against Trump, when he let slip that he thinks that the judge in his trial, who is a member of a racist pro-amnesty group, can't be objective and fair in his trial. This is highly ironic, because every day we see examples of how the left is constantly claiming that racism still exists in this country, and that people in positions of power are abusing it because of race.

Are we to believe that a Latino judge cannot be a racist who is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association? La Raza means "The Race" in Spanish.

Democrats want everyone to think that whites and Christians are racists. They claim that white cops are targeting blacks, that Christians are unfair to homosexuals. Democrats claim that anyone who represents their protected classes can't be racist, and their actions should be beyond reproach. In this case we have a judge who is an illegal immigration advocate who was given a life-long appointment to the federal bench by Barack Obama. Don't you think he owes Democrats a debt of gratitude????


Donald Trump, like any American citizen, has the right to a fair trial by a fair and impartial judge or jury. He feels that he can't get this from this judge, and he has a valid case. The judge has removed one of the plaintiffs from the trial because of a lack of credibility and unsealed evidence and released it to the media, then tried to reseal it after reconsidering, so Trump wants the judge to recuse himself. It's his right to ask. The left doesn't seem to feel he has this right.

A warning to all internet Trump apologists.

What you post on the inter webs never goes away. Your grandchildren are going to see what a total asswipe bigot you were.

The OP of this thread should serve as a cautionary tale.

Don't end up like him.

 

[mudwhistle]

The judge has removed one of the plaintiffs from the trial because of a lack of credibility and unsealed evidence and released it to the media, then tried to reseal it after reconsidering, so Trump wants the judge to recuse himself. It's his right to ask.

Red:
And Trump should have what reason for complaining about that? One less plaintiff is helpful to Trump.

Blue:
Your remark is misleading. The "reseal" was accompanied with an order for the attorneys to redact personal information from the unsealed documents and resubmit them. The only people whom the judge was considering were the folks whose names and phone numbers and email/physical addresses were included in the unsealed documents.

Green:
And if that's what he wants, there's a standard way to request it: file a motion to recuse. (Sample motion below.) Creating a national debate about it is not the way to make it happen.

​

But Trump's lawyers are not about to file that motion. Why? Because Trump’s lawyers have to, among other things, actually adhere to the law. In filing a motion to recuse, they 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.”​

Outside of court, Trump can say just about whatever he wants about the case without much risk of being held accountable. It might be another story if the candidate were to express contempt for Judge Curiel or the proceeding inside the judge’s courtroom, but so far, Trump has not made accusations to Curiel’s face.
​

Trump knows that, in general, his supporters don't know "jack" about legal procedure, and that they will form their conclusions based on the venom spewed by Trump, so he can say all sorts of things, relying on their ignorance. Let's see if the strength of Trump's convictions lead him to say that crap where it'll matter, in courtroom where he can be held accountable for having said it.

I'm still waiting for you to mention something I didn't already know. I'm also waiting for something without a liberal spin to it.

Trump mentioned all of this because journalists keep asking him about it in a blatant attempt to take media coverage off of pantsuits. The case goes to trial in November. He has plenty of time to file motions, but right now he trying to win the nomination. This case is just the Clintons playing hardball as usual. I remember Sarah Palin being attacked by armies of lawyers in the same manner in an attempt to harrass....not get at the truth.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's amazing the to see the ridiculous outrage from all sides against Trump, when he let slip that he thinks that the judge in his trial, who is a member of a racist pro-amnesty group, can't be objective and fair in his trial. This is highly ironic, because every day we see examples of how the left is constantly claiming that racism still exists in this country, and that people in positions of power are abusing it because of race.

Are we to believe that a Latino judge cannot be a racist who is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association? La Raza means "The Race" in Spanish.

Democrats want everyone to think that whites and Christians are racists. They claim that white cops are targeting blacks, that Christians are unfair to homosexuals. Democrats claim that anyone who represents their protected classes can't be racist, and their actions should be beyond reproach. In this case we have a judge who is an illegal immigration advocate who was given a life-long appointment to the federal bench by Barack Obama. Don't you think he owes Democrats a debt of gratitude????


Donald Trump, like any American citizen, has the right to a fair trial by a fair and impartial judge or jury. He feels that he can't get this from this judge, and he has a valid case. The judge has removed one of the plaintiffs from the trial because of a lack of credibility and unsealed evidence and released it to the media, then tried to reseal it after reconsidering, so Trump wants the judge to recuse himself. It's his right to ask. The left doesn't seem to feel he has this right.

A warning to all internet Trump apologists.

What you post on the inter webs never goes away. Your grandchildren are going to see what a total asswipe bigot you were.

The OP of this thread should serve as a cautionary tale.

Don't end up like him.

Yep......act like Lemmings and don't ask any questions.

 

[Syriusly]

It's amazing the to see the ridiculous outrage from all sides against Trump, when he let slip that he thinks that the judge in his trial, who is a member of a racist pro-amnesty group, can't be objective and fair in his trial. This is highly ironic, because every day we see examples of how the left is constantly claiming that racism still exists in this country, and that people in positions of power are abusing it because of race.

Are we to believe that a Latino judge cannot be a racist who is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association? La Raza means "The Race" in Spanish.

Democrats want everyone to think that whites and Christians are racists. They claim that white cops are targeting blacks, that Christians are unfair to homosexuals. Democrats claim that anyone who represents their protected classes can't be racist, and their actions should be beyond reproach. In this case we have a judge who is an illegal immigration advocate who was given a life-long appointment to the federal bench by Barack Obama. Don't you think he owes Democrats a debt of gratitude????


Donald Trump, like any American citizen, has the right to a fair trial by a fair and impartial judge or jury. He feels that he can't get this from this judge, and he has a valid case. The judge has removed one of the plaintiffs from the trial because of a lack of credibility and unsealed evidence and released it to the media, then tried to reseal it after reconsidering, so Trump wants the judge to recuse himself. It's his right to ask. The left doesn't seem to feel he has this right.

And the racists line up to support Donald Trump and once again explain how only minorities can be racists.....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Exactly.. Remember all the Romney is a Mormon threads?

These people are so full-of-shit.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's amazing the to see the ridiculous outrage from all sides against Trump, when he let slip that he thinks that the judge in his trial, who is a member of a racist pro-amnesty group, can't be objective and fair in his trial. This is highly ironic, because every day we see examples of how the left is constantly claiming that racism still exists in this country, and that people in positions of power are abusing it because of race.

Are we to believe that a Latino judge cannot be a racist who is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association? La Raza means "The Race" in Spanish.

Democrats want everyone to think that whites and Christians are racists. They claim that white cops are targeting blacks, that Christians are unfair to homosexuals. Democrats claim that anyone who represents their protected classes can't be racist, and their actions should be beyond reproach. In this case we have a judge who is an illegal immigration advocate who was given a life-long appointment to the federal bench by Barack Obama. Don't you think he owes Democrats a debt of gratitude????


Donald Trump, like any American citizen, has the right to a fair trial by a fair and impartial judge or jury. He feels that he can't get this from this judge, and he has a valid case. The judge has removed one of the plaintiffs from the trial because of a lack of credibility and unsealed evidence and released it to the media, then tried to reseal it after reconsidering, so Trump wants the judge to recuse himself. It's his right to ask. The left doesn't seem to feel he has this right.

And the racists line up to support Donald Trump and once again explain how only minorities can be racists.....

You need new shtick... calling everyone a raciest really is worn out.

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump mentioned all of this because journalists keep asking him about it in a blatant attempt to take media coverage off of pantsuits.

??? You have to be kidding. Trump didn't make a statement that is the very definition of racism (Paul Ryan's words, not mine) because of journalists asking him about anything. Trump could have said any number of things other than what he said. He didn't say any of them.