06-05-2016, 12:38 AM
I'm not suggesting that no judges ever harbor bias, sally.
The judge in this case actually handed Trump a gift by pushing the trial back until after the election, but Trump wants the case dropped and didn't want the court docs made available as the press requested. So, once again, Trump insists he's being treated 'unfairly', though the judge is following the law and not speaking publicly about the case.
And, the Trump University fraud case began in 2010, so it's not like Trump can claim this is the establishment's fault, or Clinton's doing, or the media is behind it, or any of those fall backs. So....who's left? The judge, though Trump and his attorneys never tried to make a case for recusal. Now, he's made it a public issue and insists that he's being treated "very poorly", "very unfairly" by this Mexican judge who is a "hater" who's out to get him and is part of a group paying Mexican protesters to attend his rallies.
The judge was appointed to the bench by a Republican California governor, and appointed as a U.S. attorney under Obama's administration and approved with no objections. He is not Mexican. He was born in Indiana, USA. His parents came to this country many decades ago, like Trump's mother. The group of lawyers that the judge belongs to does not get involved in politics; Trump either lied about that or got one organization confused with another with a similar name. And, this particular judge was under federal protection because of his aggressive work in putting Mexican cartels and drug dealers away.
None of those truths matter to Trump. He's ramped up his rhetoric, tells his animated crowds that the judge is Mexican, tells them the name of the judge... I think that's some bullshit, but it's very "Trump".
Donald Trump isn't above the law. If he thinks the judge is biased, he could make that case in the courts. Trump knows that, he's the king of litigation.
ETA -- some sources and background:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/pol....html?_r=0
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...el/485636/
http://www.newsweek.com/federal-judge-or...nts-464692
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/31/480183253/...rsity-case
The judge in this case actually handed Trump a gift by pushing the trial back until after the election, but Trump wants the case dropped and didn't want the court docs made available as the press requested. So, once again, Trump insists he's being treated 'unfairly', though the judge is following the law and not speaking publicly about the case.
And, the Trump University fraud case began in 2010, so it's not like Trump can claim this is the establishment's fault, or Clinton's doing, or the media is behind it, or any of those fall backs. So....who's left? The judge, though Trump and his attorneys never tried to make a case for recusal. Now, he's made it a public issue and insists that he's being treated "very poorly", "very unfairly" by this Mexican judge who is a "hater" who's out to get him and is part of a group paying Mexican protesters to attend his rallies.
The judge was appointed to the bench by a Republican California governor, and appointed as a U.S. attorney under Obama's administration and approved with no objections. He is not Mexican. He was born in Indiana, USA. His parents came to this country many decades ago, like Trump's mother. The group of lawyers that the judge belongs to does not get involved in politics; Trump either lied about that or got one organization confused with another with a similar name. And, this particular judge was under federal protection because of his aggressive work in putting Mexican cartels and drug dealers away.
None of those truths matter to Trump. He's ramped up his rhetoric, tells his animated crowds that the judge is Mexican, tells them the name of the judge... I think that's some bullshit, but it's very "Trump".
Donald Trump isn't above the law. If he thinks the judge is biased, he could make that case in the courts. Trump knows that, he's the king of litigation.
ETA -- some sources and background:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/pol....html?_r=0
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...el/485636/
http://www.newsweek.com/federal-judge-or...nts-464692
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/31/480183253/...rsity-case