Our little osama fan strikes again.
Unreal.
Where's the crap Pops? Those who brought the lawsuit donated heavily to the Clinton campaign via donating for her speeches. If they were just some students who felt they had been ripped off there would not be a conflict of interest, but since they donated to Hillary and then claim to be disgruntled at Trump, well, can't you see it looks like they were covertly at least nudged to do that? I said looks like.
Don't worry about it. One thing we've learned here is that if there is no conviction in a court of law, anything goes with the Cilintons. No right or wrong, just convictions or lack thereof. That's the only measuring stick that matters. I'm surprised nobody has reminded you yet.
[Edited on 6/6/2016 by alloak41]
Where's the crap Pops? Those who brought the lawsuit donated heavily to the Clinton campaign via donating for her speeches. If they were just some students who felt they had been ripped off there would not be a conflict of interest, but since they donated to Hillary and then claim to be disgruntled at Trump, well, can't you see it looks like they were covertly at least nudged to do that? I said looks like.
Don't worry about it. One thing we've learned here is that if there is no conviction in a court of law, anything goes with the Cilintons. No right or wrong, just convictions or lack thereof. That's the only measuring stick that matters. I'm surprised nobody has reminded you yet.
It's sort of like ignoring the 3500 or so times trump and his companies have been sued since Bill Clinton left office.
Where's the crap Pops? Those who brought the lawsuit donated heavily to the Clinton campaign via donating for her speeches. If they were just some students who felt they had been ripped off there would not be a conflict of interest, but since they donated to Hillary and then claim to be disgruntled at Trump, well, can't you see it looks like they were covertly at least nudged to do that? I said looks like.
Don't worry about it. One thing we've learned here is that if there is no conviction in a court of law, anything goes with the Cilintons. No right or wrong, just convictions or lack thereof. That's the only measuring stick that matters. I'm surprised nobody has reminded you yet.
It's sort of like ignoring the 3500 or so times trump and his companies have been sued since Bill Clinton left office.
I think most reasonable people would agree that neither the Clintons nor Trump are models of integrity. Arguing who is worse in that regard is pointless.
GOP to Trump: Stop alienating Latinos
Washington (CNN) - Top Republican officials and donors are increasingly worried about the threat Donald Trump's attack on a judge's Mexican heritage could pose to their party's chances in November -- and about the GOP's ability to win Latino votes for many elections to come.
Trump is under fire for repeatedly accusing U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a lawsuit involving Trump University, of bias because of his Mexican heritage. Those concerns intensified Sunday after Trump said he would have the same concerns about the impartiality of a Muslim judge.
House and Senate GOP leaders have condemned Trump's remarks about Curiel, while donors have openly worried that losing Latino voters could doom them in key down-ballot races. Other important party figures, including former Speaker Newt Gingrich, are urging Trump to change his combative, confrontational style before it's too late.
Veteran Republican strategist Rick Wilson warned this weekend that GOP leaders who have endorsed Trump "own his politics."
"You own his politics," Wilson wrote in a column for Heatstreet, adding later, "You own the racial animus that started out as a bug, became a feature and is now the defining characteristic of his campaign. You own every crazy, vile chunk of word vomit that spews from his mouth."
The GOP's deepest fear: A Barry Goldwater effect that could last far longer than Trump's political aspirations.
Goldwater, the Arizona senator who was the 1964 GOP nominee and a leader of the conservative movement, alienated a generation of African-American voters by opposing the Civil Rights Act -- opening the door for Democrats to lock in their support for decades. Republicans fret that Trump could similarly leave a stain with Latino voters.
Full article: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/05/politics/gop-fears-donald-trump-judge-attack/index.html
Where's the crap Pops? Those who brought the lawsuit donated heavily to the Clinton campaign via donating for her speeches. If they were just some students who felt they had been ripped off there would not be a conflict of interest, but since they donated to Hillary and then claim to be disgruntled at Trump, well, can't you see it looks like they were covertly at least nudged to do that? I said looks like.
Don't worry about it. One thing we've learned here is that if there is no conviction in a court of law, anything goes with the Cilintons. No right or wrong, just convictions or lack thereof. That's the only measuring stick that matters. I'm surprised nobody has reminded you yet.
It's sort of like ignoring the 3500 or so times trump and his companies have been sued since Bill Clinton left office.
Only 3,500? I'm surprised it's not more than that. A business owner today is likely to get sued every time he sneezes.
The politicians are worried that Trump's comments regarding the judge could hurt with Latinos. Certainly the comments reveal yet again Trumps racist outlook and could hurt him politically. There is nothing new there. But I am even more bothered by the fact that we have someone running for the top Executive position who sees fit to attempt to bully and intimidate an official in the Judicial system. I'm pretty sure the Founders did not have this in mind when they designed the three branch system of checks and balances.
Where's the crap Pops? Those who brought the lawsuit donated heavily to the Clinton campaign via donating for her speeches. If they were just some students who felt they had been ripped off there would not be a conflict of interest, but since they donated to Hillary and then claim to be disgruntled at Trump, well, can't you see it looks like they were covertly at least nudged to do that? I said looks like.
Don't worry about it. One thing we've learned here is that if there is no conviction in a court of law, anything goes with the Cilintons. No right or wrong, just convictions or lack thereof. That's the only measuring stick that matters. I'm surprised nobody has reminded you yet.
It's sort of like ignoring the 3500 or so times trump and his companies have been sued since Bill Clinton left office.
Only 3,500? I'm surprised it's not more than that. A business owner today is likely to get sued every time he sneezes.
LOL, I knew that exact kind of deflection was coming, you are so predicable. But you'd do better trying to defend your boy based on the substance of the suits rather than the number.
For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.
To maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers' names were included. The analysis found Trump has been involved in more legal skirmishes than all five of the others — combined.
Based on that article, the legal actions cover a broad range of issues. It's actually an interesting read.
[Edited on 6/6/2016 by gondicar]
The politicians are worried that Trump's comments regarding the judge could hurt with Latinos. Certainly the comments reveal yet again Trumps racist outlook and could hurt him politically. There is nothing new there. But I am even more bothered by the fact that we have someone running for the top Executive position who sees fit to attempt to bully and intimidate an official in the Judicial system. I'm pretty sure the Founders did not have this in mind when they designed the three branch system of checks and balances.
This exchange here... 😮
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: I want to ask you about the comments you made about the judge in the Trump University case. You said you thought it was a conflict of interest that he was the judge because he's of Mexican heritage, even though he's from Indiana.
TRUMP: OK, fine.
TAPPER: Hillary Clinton said that that is a racist attack on a federal judge.
TRUMP: No, she's so wonderful, you know? I mean, here's a woman that should be put in jail for what she did with her e-mails and she's commenting on this.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Let me just say, first off -- I have a case where thousands of people have taken this course, and thousands and thousands of people have said great reviews, great reviews. Fortunately, just about everybody that took the case has signed a review, an evaluation, they call it. And it's gotten tremendous marks, thousands. I don't mean like two people. I mean, thousands.
TAPPER: Right.
TRUMP: OK. I have a situation where the woman that brought the case brought the case. She's the plaintiff. She was deposed. She was found to be a disaster for them as a witness because she gave an evaluation that was like the best evaluation you've ever heard -- wait just one second.
TAPPER: OK.
TRUMP: And she did a tape like from your camera saying that this school was fantastic, it was fantastic. They went to the judge and they said, your honor, we don't want her anymore to be our plaintiff. So, we said, let's dismiss the case. That's OK. Let's dismiss the case. He said, no, I won't dismiss the case and she doesn't have to be the plaintiff.
TAPPER: What does this have to do with his heritage?
TRUMP: I'll tell you what it has to do. I've had ruling after ruling after ruling that's been bad rulings, OK? I've been treated very unfairly. Before him, we had another judge. If that judge was still there, this case would have been over two years ago. Let me just tell you, I've had horrible rulings, I've been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall. I am going to do very well with the Hispanics, the Mexicans --
TAPPER: So, no Mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you?
TRUMP: Well, he's a member of a society, where -- you know, very pro- Mexico, and that's fine. It's all fine but --
TAPPER: Except that you're calling into question his heritage.
TRUMP: I think he should recuse himself.
TAPPER: Because he's Latino?
TRUMP: Then, you also say, does he know the lawyer on the other side? I mean, does he know the lawyer? You know, a lot of people say --
TAPPER: But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about --
TRUMP: That's another problem.
TAPPER: You're invoking his race talking about whether or not he can do his job.
TRUMP: Jake, I'm building a wall. OK? I'm building a wall. I'm trying to keep business out of Mexico. Mexico's fine.
TAPPER: But he's an American.
TRUMP: He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it, as I am where I come from, my parents.
TAPPER: But he's an American. You keep talking about it's a conflict of interest because of Mexico.
TRUMP: Jake, are you ready? I have a case that should have already been dismissed. I have thousands of people saying Trump University is fantastic, OK? I have a case that should have been dismissed. A judge that never, ever gives -- now, we lose the plaintiff. He lets the plaintiff of the case out. So, why isn't he calling the case? So, we thought we won the case.
TAPPER: So, you disagree with his rulings. I totally understand that.
TRUMP: I've had lawyers come up to me a say, you are being treated so unfairly. It's unbelievable. You know the plaintiffs in the case have all said wonderful things about the school and they're suing. You know why they're suing? Because they want to get their money back.
TAPPER: I don't want to really litigate the case of Trump University.
TRUMP: You have to, because if he was giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't say that.
TAPPER: My question is --
TRUMP: Jake, if you were giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't be talking to you this way. He's given me horrible rulings.
TAPPER: I don't care if you criticize him, that's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job.
TRUMP: I think that's why he's doing it. I think that's why he's doing it.
TAPPER: When Hillary Clinton says it's a racist attack --
TRUMP: Hillary Clinton is a stiff. If Hillary Clinton becomes president --
TAPPER: Paul Ryan today -- Paul Ryan today said he didn't care for the way that you are attacking this judge.
TRUMP: Look, I'm just telling you, Paul Ryan doesn't know the case. Here's the story --
TAPPER: Isn't it the --
TRUMP: I should have won this case on summary judgment. This is not a -- this is a case I should have won on summary judgment. You know, the law firm paid Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars to make speeches. You know the law firm --
TAPPER: I do. And we reported -- we reported it on my show.
TRUMP: OK. I'm glad. You're the only one.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Wait a minute. A law firm paid hundreds and thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton for speeches.
TAPPER: Before either of you --
TRUMP: She wasn't working. Everyone fell asleep during a speech, OK?
TAPPER: Before either of you were running for president, they did.
But here's the final fundamental question --
TRUMP: Do you know they've contributed tremendous amounts of money to her campaign?
TAPPER: Yes.
TRUMP: Do you know they contributed a lot of money to Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general?
TAPPER: Here's my question --
TRUMP: No, no, do you know that?
TAPPER: I did not know that.
TRUMP: Did you know they went to every attorney general practically in the country that they could and did you know this case was turned down by almost every attorney general from Texas to Florida and to many other states?
TAPPER: Is it not -- when Hillary Clinton says this is a racist attack, and you reject that -- if you're saying he can't do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?
TRUMP: No. I don't think so at all.
TAPPER: No?
TRUMP: No. He's proud of his heritage. I respect him for that.
TAPPER: But you're saying you can't do his job because of that.
TRUMP: Look, he's proud of his heritage, OK? I'm building a wall. Now, I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics because they are going to get jobs right now. They are going to get jobs. I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics. We are building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings, rulings that people can't even believe. This case should have ended years ago in summary judgment. The best lawyers I have spoken to so many lawyers, they said, this is not a case. This is a case that should have ended.
TAPPER: I --
TRUMP: This judge is giving us unfair rulings. Now, I say why? Well, I'm building a wall, OK? And it's a wall between Mexico. Not another country.
TAPPER: But he's not from Mexico. He's from Indiana.
TRUMP: He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it.
😮
The politicians are worried that Trump's comments regarding the judge could hurt with Latinos. Certainly the comments reveal yet again Trumps racist outlook and could hurt him politically. There is nothing new there. But I am even more bothered by the fact that we have someone running for the top Executive position who sees fit to attempt to bully and intimidate an official in the Judicial system. I'm pretty sure the Founders did not have this in mind when they designed the three branch system of checks and balances.
This exchange here... 😮
It really does boggle the mind that so many people think he should be president.
"Donald Trump’s comments on the ethnic heritage and religion of judges are absolutely unacceptable. His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values. Mr. Trump's comments demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers." - US Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine
"Donald Trump’s comments on the ethnic heritage and religion of judges are absolutely unacceptable. His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values. Mr. Trump's comments demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers." - US Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine
Yet most of GOP have signed on to vote for, support, or endorse him. This includes even some he disparaged previously such as Rubio & McCain. The simpleton answer - oh, at least he's not Hillary. For the life of me for all the ugly & sick insults hurled by Trump, I find it really unbelievable that Rubio would line up. Haven't heard much from Cruz - wonder what he thinks of the ramblings of racist Donald.
"Donald Trump’s comments on the ethnic heritage and religion of judges are absolutely unacceptable. His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values. Mr. Trump's comments demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers." - US Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine
Yet most of GOP have signed on to vote for, support, or endorse him. This includes even some he disparaged previously such as Rubio & McCain. The simpleton answer - oh, at least he's not Hillary. For the life of me for all the ugly & sick insults hurled by Trump, I find it really unbelievable that Rubio would line up. Haven't heard much from Cruz - wonder what he thinks of the ramblings of racist Donald.
Party first. The USA and its people second.
That should be the motto of the GOP.
Where's the crap Pops? Those who brought the lawsuit donated heavily to the Clinton campaign via donating for her speeches. If they were just some students who felt they had been ripped off there would not be a conflict of interest, but since they donated to Hillary and then claim to be disgruntled at Trump, well, can't you see it looks like they were covertly at least nudged to do that? I said looks like.
Don't worry about it. One thing we've learned here is that if there is no conviction in a court of law, anything goes with the Cilintons. No right or wrong, just convictions or lack thereof. That's the only measuring stick that matters. I'm surprised nobody has reminded you yet.
It's sort of like ignoring the 3500 or so times trump and his companies have been sued since Bill Clinton left office.
Only 3,500? I'm surprised it's not more than that. A business owner today is likely to get sued every time he sneezes.
Don't feel sorry for poor business man Trump. He has sued just as many if not more than have ever sued him. He is the poster boy for frivolous law suits when he doesn't get his own way. It happened a couple years ago here on Long Island when he tried to build a catering facility at Jones Beach. He ignored building codes while beginning construction and when told he couldn't build exactly how he wanted against the building codes he brought a suit against New York State. Of course he got his lunch handed to him, wouldn't change his design plans and Trump on the Beach thankfully never happened. He has a past littered with these kinds of frivolous suits along with his eminent domain bulls_it trying to uproot people from their homes in order to build a parking garage for one of his casinos. Trump gives as good as he gets so don't feel sorry for this hypocritical asshat.
[Edited on 6/6/2016 by sixty8]
It's sort of like ignoring the 3500 or so times trump and his companies have been sued since Bill Clinton left office.
Only 3,500? I'm surprised it's not more than that. A business owner today is likely to get sued every time he sneezes.
Don't feel sorry for poor business man Trump. He has sued just as many if not more than have ever sued him. He is the poster boy for frivolous law suits when he doesn't get his own way. It happened a couple years ago here on Long Island when he tried to build a catering facility at Jones Beach. He ignored building codes while beginning construction and when told he couldn't build exactly how he wanted against the building codes he brought a suit against New York State. Of course he got his lunch handed to him, wouldn't change his design plans and Trump on the Beach thankfully never happened. He has a past littered with these kinds of frivolous suits along with his eminent domain bulls_it trying to uproot people from their homes in order to build a parking garage for one of his casinos. Trump gives as good as he gets so don't feel sorry for this hypocritical asshat.
[Edited on 6/6/2016 by sixty8]
I don't.
"Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Governor."
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment," Paul Ryan said of Donald J. Trump's recent comments about a judge. http://cnn.it/25KkEsk
Michael Reagan, son of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said his father -- iconic in GOP circles -- wouldn't vote for Trump if he was alive today.
"This most likely would be the 1st time if my father was alive that he would not support the nominee of the GOP @Reince @newsmax," he tweeted. http://cnn.it/25KkEsk
If what Trump were saying were remotely true, the lawyers would be arguing for a refusal in court. Instead, his attorney has stated publicly that the judge is just doing his job and they have no plans to file any motions to have him replaced. The Donald is just using the media he says he hates so much (even it is obvious to anyone watching that he really loves it) to try to distract his base from the facts of the case and so that he doesn't have to talk about issues.
If what Trump were saying were remotely true, the lawyers would be arguing for a refusal in court. Instead, his attorney has stated publicly that the judge is just doing his job and they have no plans to file any motions to have him replaced. The Donald is just using the media he says he hates so much (even it is obvious to anyone watching that he really loves it) to try to distract his base from the facts of the case and so that he doesn't have to talk about issues.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/actions-speak-louder-than-trump-his-own-lawyer-said-the-judge-is-doing-his-job-in-trump-u-case-224338852.html/blockquote >
Trump's lawyers are subject to sanctions for misconduct. Trump is free to run his mouth all he wants, at least until they place him under oath. I wonder how this is playing with his supporters? I'm sure some of the lowest of the rabble are eating it up, but you'd think some of the more clear thinking supporters are having second thoughts.
Chevy Chase: And now with tonight's commentary; Miss Emily Litella.
Emily Litella: Thank you, cheddar. What's all this talk about violins on tv? I think we need more violins and less of that loud rock music. And furthermore...
Chevy Chase: Uh, excuse me; Miss Litella. It's violence on TV, not violins.
Emily Litella: Oh. Never mind.
Donnie now says, "His Remarks on Judge Were Misconstrued".
Does he really think after the many times he's pushed his dogma about the judge that people are stupid enough to swallow his parsing of words? He was "misconstrued"...ha ha ha ha.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/trump-university-judge.html?_r=0
Shut the Fck up Donnie
[Edited on 6/7/2016 by LeglizHemp]
