Trump Sews up Delegates to Seal GOP Nomination and dems in disarray. How sweet it is 
Role reversal: GOP unites behind Trump, Democrats in disarray - CNN.com
Role reversal: GOP unites behind Trump, Democrats in disarray - CNN.com
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Yep, I just heard a media fellow say 'they are victims of his rhetoric'.
The funny thing about Trump's "racist" remarks about Federal District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, about how Trump wants to build a wall across the Mexican border, Trump's remarks about Mexicans, and how Curiel's Mexican heritage may be a conflict of interest in the two Trump University trials in which Curiel is presiding, Trump is very likely correct. Not so much because Curiel is of Mexican heritage, but because Curiel is an active member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA).
The media, liberals and other various and sundry Trump haters are quick to note that the SDLRLA (sub-billed as The Chicano/Latino Bar Association of California) is just merely a bar association for Latino lawyers and is not in any way affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, the pro Mexican and pro immigration organization. They are indeed separate legal entities. But then again so is CAIRN and the Muslim Brotherhood, Hillary and her Super Pacs, the FMCSA and the ATA.
You will read over and over again in the media that the SDLRLA is nothing more than a non-profit association whose mission is to support Chicano and Latino lawyers in California. It's no different than the Jewish Lawyers Association or the Black Lawyers Association or any number of other ethnic lawyers associations. That's a lie.
For one, the SDLRLA's website states: "The purpose and goal of this Association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership." So they're not exactly entirely a bar association - they actively promote the interests of Latino communities - and their actual mission is left unstated. The National Council La Raza organization and the SDLRLA have a common origin and a direct connection going back to the 1960s. The SDLRLA in its present form was created in 1996 as a non-profit by (in part) lawyers who were active and open members of the National Council of La Raza.
It became energized (and politically important and blatantly politically active) in 2006 with its response to laws and issues targeting minorities and minority communities in North County, California, such as the anti-immigrant rallies (pushed to suppress and make them illegal), Vista, CA's "day labor" law (which required people who employed day laborers to register with the city and obtain a permit), and Escondido, CA's law barring landlords from renting to illegal immigrants. The SDLRLA found (or already knew) they had a friend in the California Super Court (which is ironically the lowest court in the state, with the Appeals court and Supreme Court being above). The same San Diego Superior Court Judge heard all of the above cases, as well as several others brought by the Association, and in every case ruled in their favor. He ruled the day labor law as having no governmental compelling interest and discriminatory, the landlord illegal immigrant renting law as discriminatory, and anti-immigration rallies as akin to inciting riots. That Superior Court Justice was none other than Judge Curiel.
As part of the list of their eight stated goals, is to put more Latinos in the law profession and to put more Latinos on the bench. The Association actively supports “equality, empowerment and justice” for “Latino attorneys” to promote the "interests of Latino communities." That's why the Association exists. And what are the interests of the Latino communities in San Diego and throughout the state? Top of the list includes free and open borders, doing away with the whole concept of "illegal alien" and citizenship (and the benefits thereof) to anyone who comes where and wants it.
The term La Raza literally translates to "the race" and means race, ethnicity; breed, strain, lineage. It's political meaning in North America was born from the Mexican-American Civil Rights political movements of the 60s and 70s that called for free and open borders, and to give the American Southwest back to the Mexicans for the creation of the nation of Aztlán. You don't create an organization, any entity, especially in California, and take on the name of La Raza without it being a clear political statement, unless you're just clueless, which I seriously doubt of the members of the SDLRLA.
On the website, in addition to several other special interest groups that focus on Mexican and Latino issues, they include the National Council of La Raza as a part of their community, and have a link to the organization's website. They all have the same stated purpose.
La Raza Lawyers Association has a scholarship fund that gives scholarships to Latino students. It gives the scholarships to illegal immigrants. Not officially, but that's who the recipients have mostly been - usually those who were brought here illegally as children and have grown up here. The student given the award in 2014 is easy to find with Google searches, because he openly took pride in his acceptance as being an illegal. Judge Curiel sits on the selection committee which awards the scholarships.
The organization’s Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala's primary sponsor for at least the last 7 years is a prominent member of the organization, the San Diego law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. This same law firm has given Hillary Clinton more than $675,000 for speeches (Bill got $225,000 back in 2009 and Hillary got $450,000 for two different speeches in 13 & 14). Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd is also the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the two Trump University cases. The law firm is actually pretty famous for obtaining yoooge settlements (which Trump never does, so if this does go to court it's gonna get messy and their dirty laundry will come out, too) like the one from Enron and others.
The media, liberals and other various and sundry Trump haters are quick to note that the SDLRLA (sub-billed as The Chicano/Latino Bar Association of California) is just merely a bar association for Latino lawyers and is not in any way affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, the pro Mexican and pro immigration organization. They are indeed separate legal entities. But then again so is CAIRN and the Muslim Brotherhood, Hillary and her Super Pacs, the FMCSA and the ATA.
You will read over and over again in the media that the SDLRLA is nothing more than a non-profit association whose mission is to support Chicano and Latino lawyers in California. It's no different than the Jewish Lawyers Association or the Black Lawyers Association or any number of other ethnic lawyers associations. That's a lie.
For one, the SDLRLA's website states: "The purpose and goal of this Association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership." So they're not exactly entirely a bar association - they actively promote the interests of Latino communities - and their actual mission is left unstated. The National Council La Raza organization and the SDLRLA have a common origin and a direct connection going back to the 1960s. The SDLRLA in its present form was created in 1996 as a non-profit by (in part) lawyers who were active and open members of the National Council of La Raza.
It became energized (and politically important and blatantly politically active) in 2006 with its response to laws and issues targeting minorities and minority communities in North County, California, such as the anti-immigrant rallies (pushed to suppress and make them illegal), Vista, CA's "day labor" law (which required people who employed day laborers to register with the city and obtain a permit), and Escondido, CA's law barring landlords from renting to illegal immigrants. The SDLRLA found (or already knew) they had a friend in the California Super Court (which is ironically the lowest court in the state, with the Appeals court and Supreme Court being above). The same San Diego Superior Court Judge heard all of the above cases, as well as several others brought by the Association, and in every case ruled in their favor. He ruled the day labor law as having no governmental compelling interest and discriminatory, the landlord illegal immigrant renting law as discriminatory, and anti-immigration rallies as akin to inciting riots. That Superior Court Justice was none other than Judge Curiel.
As part of the list of their eight stated goals, is to put more Latinos in the law profession and to put more Latinos on the bench. The Association actively supports “equality, empowerment and justice” for “Latino attorneys” to promote the "interests of Latino communities." That's why the Association exists. And what are the interests of the Latino communities in San Diego and throughout the state? Top of the list includes free and open borders, doing away with the whole concept of "illegal alien" and citizenship (and the benefits thereof) to anyone who comes where and wants it.
The term La Raza literally translates to "the race" and means race, ethnicity; breed, strain, lineage. It's political meaning in North America was born from the Mexican-American Civil Rights political movements of the 60s and 70s that called for free and open borders, and to give the American Southwest back to the Mexicans for the creation of the nation of Aztlán. You don't create an organization, any entity, especially in California, and take on the name of La Raza without it being a clear political statement, unless you're just clueless, which I seriously doubt of the members of the SDLRLA.
On the website, in addition to several other special interest groups that focus on Mexican and Latino issues, they include the National Council of La Raza as a part of their community, and have a link to the organization's website. They all have the same stated purpose.
La Raza Lawyers Association has a scholarship fund that gives scholarships to Latino students. It gives the scholarships to illegal immigrants. Not officially, but that's who the recipients have mostly been - usually those who were brought here illegally as children and have grown up here. The student given the award in 2014 is easy to find with Google searches, because he openly took pride in his acceptance as being an illegal. Judge Curiel sits on the selection committee which awards the scholarships.
The organization’s Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala's primary sponsor for at least the last 7 years is a prominent member of the organization, the San Diego law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. This same law firm has given Hillary Clinton more than $675,000 for speeches (Bill got $225,000 back in 2009 and Hillary got $450,000 for two different speeches in 13 & 14). Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd is also the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the two Trump University cases. The law firm is actually pretty famous for obtaining yoooge settlements (which Trump never does, so if this does go to court it's gonna get messy and their dirty laundry will come out, too) like the one from Enron and others.
(continuing)
The judge has made several rulings in accordance with the wishes of the plaintiff's attorneys that absent any connections or conflicts might be viewed as a little odd, but nothing to get too worked up about (despite possibly being grounds for an appeal). But when you add in the connections and possible conflict of interest, it gives one serious pause as to judicial impartiality.
For one, after the judge put an effective gag order on the lawyers of both sides in preventing them from releasing any documents in this case to the public by sealing the documents, he then goes and orders the release to the Washington Post selected inflammatory documents the plaintiff's attorneys really, really wanted to release. (They were internal documents of Trump University that basically outlined the sale pitch to get people to sign up, and are completely devoid of any context of how they were actually applied and the results of the classes). The judge asserting that the defense had not met the bar to keep the documents out of the public eye. The documents which the judge sealed. That's a little odd, but okaaayeee.
The judge went on to state that Trump's "position as the GOP standard-bearer" and as such Trump has “placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue” by using his position to discuss the case in public, was more than enough of an argument to make the documents public. Are you kidding me? That's not merely biased, that's openly vindictive.
Two, the plaintiffs lawyers (again, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd) have several depositions and affidavits from their own witnesses that are favorable of Trump University and are in direct opposition to their lawsuit. The judge ruled that not only could those documents not be released, but ruled those documents and the statements within them as inadmissible at trial, and even went as far as to dismiss the people who made those statements from the class action.
Then there's the fact that the initial lawsuit was not brought by the Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law firm, but by a lawyer with another very small law firm (Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP ) in 2010. The lawsuit was Carla Makaeff, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC., et al. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd joined the case when they wanted to take to a class action lawsuit. Carla Makeoff, the original plaintiff, wanted to pull out of the case (in March of this year) when the plaintiff's legal team discovered her many glowing reports of Trump University in private emails and in public social media accounts. She recanted her own testimony to her legal team, and cited to the judge stress, health problems, unforeseen publicity and Trump’s public “barbs” at her character as reasons she wished to withdraw. Unbelievably, he allowed her to withdraw from the case so close to trial (in the pre-trial stage with a trial date set).
In the ruling he wrote, "Neither pundits, counsel, or the parties anticipated the media obsession that this case would create due to Defendant Trump becoming a candidate for President of the United States. It is also plain that with every additional candidates’ debate and state primary, the attention given to the case has grown. While Makaeff’s request to withdraw at the pre-trial stage is unusual, so is the unforeseen degree of attention this case has engendered." In his ruling he allowed her to remain a part of the case, "as an unnamed class member, fully able to collect damages should Trump lose the case."
Allowing the initial plaintiff to convert to an unnamed class member without dismissing the case is you betcha unusual. And this was done after the defense informed the judge that rested on Makeoff, on her affidavit, and on their ability to face the accuser, and the bulk of their defense rested on her. In May 2016 the judge then retitled the suit to Low, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC., et al. So, he cut the defense off at the knees, and he knew it when he did it.
Trump's "ridiculous" and "racist" assertion that he might not be getting a fair trial and that the judge should recuse himself because of a specific agenda bias, might not be all that ridiculous or racist. It might just be the truth of the reality.
The judge has made several rulings in accordance with the wishes of the plaintiff's attorneys that absent any connections or conflicts might be viewed as a little odd, but nothing to get too worked up about (despite possibly being grounds for an appeal). But when you add in the connections and possible conflict of interest, it gives one serious pause as to judicial impartiality.
For one, after the judge put an effective gag order on the lawyers of both sides in preventing them from releasing any documents in this case to the public by sealing the documents, he then goes and orders the release to the Washington Post selected inflammatory documents the plaintiff's attorneys really, really wanted to release. (They were internal documents of Trump University that basically outlined the sale pitch to get people to sign up, and are completely devoid of any context of how they were actually applied and the results of the classes). The judge asserting that the defense had not met the bar to keep the documents out of the public eye. The documents which the judge sealed. That's a little odd, but okaaayeee.
The judge went on to state that Trump's "position as the GOP standard-bearer" and as such Trump has “placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue” by using his position to discuss the case in public, was more than enough of an argument to make the documents public. Are you kidding me? That's not merely biased, that's openly vindictive.
Two, the plaintiffs lawyers (again, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd) have several depositions and affidavits from their own witnesses that are favorable of Trump University and are in direct opposition to their lawsuit. The judge ruled that not only could those documents not be released, but ruled those documents and the statements within them as inadmissible at trial, and even went as far as to dismiss the people who made those statements from the class action.
Then there's the fact that the initial lawsuit was not brought by the Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law firm, but by a lawyer with another very small law firm (Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP ) in 2010. The lawsuit was Carla Makaeff, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC., et al. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd joined the case when they wanted to take to a class action lawsuit. Carla Makeoff, the original plaintiff, wanted to pull out of the case (in March of this year) when the plaintiff's legal team discovered her many glowing reports of Trump University in private emails and in public social media accounts. She recanted her own testimony to her legal team, and cited to the judge stress, health problems, unforeseen publicity and Trump’s public “barbs” at her character as reasons she wished to withdraw. Unbelievably, he allowed her to withdraw from the case so close to trial (in the pre-trial stage with a trial date set).
In the ruling he wrote, "Neither pundits, counsel, or the parties anticipated the media obsession that this case would create due to Defendant Trump becoming a candidate for President of the United States. It is also plain that with every additional candidates’ debate and state primary, the attention given to the case has grown. While Makaeff’s request to withdraw at the pre-trial stage is unusual, so is the unforeseen degree of attention this case has engendered." In his ruling he allowed her to remain a part of the case, "as an unnamed class member, fully able to collect damages should Trump lose the case."
Allowing the initial plaintiff to convert to an unnamed class member without dismissing the case is you betcha unusual. And this was done after the defense informed the judge that rested on Makeoff, on her affidavit, and on their ability to face the accuser, and the bulk of their defense rested on her. In May 2016 the judge then retitled the suit to Low, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC., et al. So, he cut the defense off at the knees, and he knew it when he did it.
Trump's "ridiculous" and "racist" assertion that he might not be getting a fair trial and that the judge should recuse himself because of a specific agenda bias, might not be all that ridiculous or racist. It might just be the truth of the reality.
Truthfully I don't really think that Neither the GOP or the DNC will let Trump get to be President no matter what. Trump speaks his mind and isn't afraid nor can he be bought. What I am about to say if you look at what he is going to court for on that Real a State college that was a flop. Well so was Dave Del Dotto's course if you remember back in the day. ( Hawaii ) If that rings a memory . His wasn't really that much different.
Purchase a course. Complete the course. You got a certificate which was worthless. Ect.
The man did go bank Rupt.
So I look at it like this Trumps Real Estate school was a flop ok. We all know that those get rich quick scheems are just that. So why in the world Crucify Donald the school was a failure cant they leave it at that.
For as the Judge question does he have ties with Hillary Clinton in any way shape or Form that seem to be sort or part of the issue. What is real and what is fake or made up???
I do agree Donald needs to take a different approach on that and should have worded what he said with fineness. He failed at that. I will agree on that.
Purchase a course. Complete the course. You got a certificate which was worthless. Ect.
The man did go bank Rupt.
So I look at it like this Trumps Real Estate school was a flop ok. We all know that those get rich quick scheems are just that. So why in the world Crucify Donald the school was a failure cant they leave it at that.
For as the Judge question does he have ties with Hillary Clinton in any way shape or Form that seem to be sort or part of the issue. What is real and what is fake or made up???
I do agree Donald needs to take a different approach on that and should have worded what he said with fineness. He failed at that. I will agree on that.
Also, some of these you may know, some maybe not, but here's some interesting astroturfing going on.
Six Degrees of Separation Among Trump Critics | Sharyl Attkisson
Six Degrees of Separation Among Trump Critics | Sharyl Attkisson
Politics as usual in the United States.
Well she did want to be the Indian when it was convenient. lol. Too funny, throws Bernie under the bus and endorses crooked Hilliary.
She is no different than any of the others up there.
"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These were common words and values. She cares about her family," Manafort said. "To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy."
---Common words and values is right. I've heard this many times before. To try and make some kind of scandal out of a tiny portion of her speech is ridiculous. What next, slam everyone who uses "this is the most important election of our life time"
On to more important things, like Donald having the coolest entrance RNC history
---Common words and values is right. I've heard this many times before. To try and make some kind of scandal out of a tiny portion of her speech is ridiculous. What next, slam everyone who uses "this is the most important election of our life time"
On to more important things, like Donald having the coolest entrance RNC history
Be honest with your selves . Does anybody really give two ccloister hoops about what a candidates wife has to say? I know I don't.
It's official. Donald J Trump is the Republican Candidate for President.
A year ago the Republican party's establishment, the pundits, the media, everybody underestimated Trump. That's just how out of touch they all were.
A year ago the Republican party's establishment, the pundits, the media, everybody underestimated Trump. That's just how out of touch they all were.
wonder if Trumps dealings with Vince from WWE inspired that opening?....LOL"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These were common words and values. She cares about her family," Manafort said. "To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy."
---Common words and values is right. I've heard this many times before. To try and make some kind of scandal out of a tiny portion of her speech is ridiculous. What next, slam everyone who uses "this is the most important election of our life time"
On to more important things, like Donald having the coolest entrance RNC history
While not all that surprised, I was nevertheless amazed at how the GOP established elites, including the entire Bush family, along with Ohio Governor Kasich, can't keep munching on the pity party soup grapes, acting like a bunch of liberals who didn't get their way. Their time is over insofar as national politics is concerned.
But Ted Cruz surprised me. He took the childlike liberal mentality one giant step further and threw a virtual temper tantrum by getting on stage, dousing himself with gasoline, and setting his political future on fire. What an idiot.
A significant number of people on donor suite level was so angry at Cruz that they later called him disgrace to his face.
On a side note, Pence is pretty impressive.
But Ted Cruz surprised me. He took the childlike liberal mentality one giant step further and threw a virtual temper tantrum by getting on stage, dousing himself with gasoline, and setting his political future on fire. What an idiot.
A significant number of people on donor suite level was so angry at Cruz that they later called him disgrace to his face.
On a side note, Pence is pretty impressive.
His speech was very good, I liked it, too. I particularly liked where he called Ted Cruz a great orator, comma, who said some things that were misunderstood (which doesn't happen with great orators), and threw him, not necessarily a lifeline, but at least a damp towel to lessen the pain of the the engulfing flames.
I'm not a real big fan of Newt, though. At least not for president or VP. When he was running for president he managed to fail to get himself on the ballot in his own home state, and I still can't get past the whole, "Give me eight years and I'll give you a permanent American moon base." He introduced a bill into Congress in 1981 that would offer a path to statehood for a lunar colony of 20,000 residents. His plan for an American moon colony and it being the 51st Moon State violates the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, logic and common sense, not to mention it would cost several gazillion dollars to do that within eight year.
I think Gingrich will make a good close adviser, even Chief of Staff (just not on space and science matters).