Jake Tapper nails Trump on "Mexican" judge comments in utterly mad interview

Status
Not open for further replies.

Good article, as always, with Pat.

I'm sick of judges being put in this class as though they're special and as though when become judges they suddenly become blind justice just because they got a certain job. Nobody is above scrutiny and that includes over their religion/lack of religion, ethnicity, heritage, skin color, politics, personal life or any other thing that makes them who they are. How it ever came to be that judges are so elevated and given so much power I don't know but why accept that nonsense? They are part of government which = evil. I really hadn't thought about it much until this latest installment of the never ending drama crated by Trump but now that I have I think it's another institution that ought to be torn down.

I still think Trump is a total fool for creating this s#*tstorm but that's another matter.
 
Trump issues statement

Donald Trump said Tuesday it was "unfortunate" that his recent comments about the judge in the case against Trump University were "misconstrued" to be racial.

In the last week, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had openly questioned the ability of U.S. district court judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, to preside over his case because Trump was proposing to build a wall between the United States and Mexico.

Trump published a prepared statement Tuesday afternoon on his campaign website that his concerns about receiving a fair trial were "misconstrued" to be racist, but stopped short of apologizing or rescinding those comments.

"It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage. I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent," said Trump in the statement. "The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges. All judges should be held to that standard. I do not feel that one's heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial."

In his statement, Trump laid out his argument for why he believes the details of the case favor his position and then reiterated his view that the rulings so far in the case have been "unfair and mistaken."

"[T]he Judge's reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge's impartiality. It is a fair question. I hope it is not the case," Trump said, adding that he does "not intend to comment on this matter any further."

But were Trump's comments really "misconstrued"? In a tough exchange with CNN's Jake Tapper late last week, Trump stated pretty clearly that he was, in fact, calling into question Curiel's impartiality because of his Mexican heritage.

"If you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job," Tapper said, before Trump interrupted. "I think that's why he's doing it," Trump said.

In comments before and since that interview, Trump had made a point of noting Curiel's Mexican heritage (frequently referring to him as a "Mexican," though he's not a Mexican national and was born in the United States) and said the judge has an "inherent conflict of interest" because of Trump's position as a leading presidential candidate campaigning on stopping illegal immigration across the Mexican border.

Trump's Tuesday statement simply repackages this argument without substantively changing it.

"Normally, legal issues in a civil case would be heard in a neutral environment," he writes. "However, given my unique circumstances as nominee of the Republican Party and the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs and unfair trade, I have concerns as to my ability to receive a fair trial."

So what's the point of the statement? Trump has come under fire from leaders in his own party in recent days, such as House speaker Paul Ryan and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. One GOP senator, Illinois's Mark Kirk, has rescinded his promise to vote for Trump in the general election because of the comments. The presumptive nominee is undoubtedly feeling pressured to step away from the controversy, even as he just a day earlier encouraged his staff and surrogates to remain on the offensive about the Trump University case and Judge Curiel.

Full statement:

Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Trump University

It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage. I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent. The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges. All judges should be held to that standard. I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial.

Over the past few weeks, I have watched as the media has reported one inaccuracy after another concerning the ongoing litigation involving Trump University. There are several important facts the public should know and that the media has failed to report.

Throughout the litigation my attorneys have continually demonstrated that students who participated in Trump University were provided a substantive, valuable education based upon a curriculum developed by professors from Northwestern University, Columbia Business School, Stanford University and other respected institutions. And, the response from students was overwhelming. Over a five year period, more than 10,000 paying students filled out surveys giving the courses high marks and expressing their overwhelming satisfaction with Trump University’s programs. For example:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

Art Cohen, a lead plaintiffs in the litigation, completed a survey in which he not only rated Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in virtually every category, but went so far as to indicate that he would “attend another Trump University seminar” and even “recommend Trump University seminars to a friend.” When asked how Trump University could improve the seminar, Mr. Cohen’s only suggestion was to “[h]ave lunch sandwiches brought in” and make the lunch break 45 minutes.
Former student Bob Giullo, who has been critical of Trump University in numerous interviews and negative advertisements from my political opponents, also expressed his satisfaction, rating Trump University’s programs “excellent” in every category. When asked how Trump University could improve its programs, Mr. Giullo simply asked that students be provided “more comfortable chairs.”

Indeed, these are just a few of literally thousands of positive surveys, all of which can be viewed online at www.98percentapproval.com.

For those students who decided that Trump University’s programs were not for them, the company had a generous refund policy, offering a full refund to any student who asked for their money back within 3 days of signing up for a program or by the end of the first day of any multi-day program, whichever came later.

Normally, legal issues in a civil case would be heard in a neutral environment. However, given my unique circumstances as nominee of the Republican Party and the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs and unfair trade, I have concerns as to my ability to receive a fair trial.

I am fighting hard to bring jobs back to the United States. Many companies – like Ford, General Motors, Nabisco, Carrier – are moving production to Mexico. Drugs and illegal immigrants are also pouring across our border. This is bad for all Americans, regardless of their heritage.

Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality. It is a fair question. I hope it is not the case.

While this lawsuit should have been dismissed, it is now scheduled for trial in November. I do not intend to comment on this matter any further. With all of the thousands of people who have given the courses such high marks and accolades, we will win this case!

Donald J. Trump
 
I do not feel that one's heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial."

This is what I have been saying for 30 fucking pages... OVER AND OVER AND OVER... Nobody has put up any logical rebuttal to this, there has just been a bunch of "Yap yap yap, he said Mexican!!"

This is why Trump is winning, stop worshipping the damn MSM and learn to think for yourself.
 
"Clinton Nemesis" Klayman Comes To Trump's Defense: "Trump Right About Judicial Bias And Prejudice"

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/trump-right-about-judicial-bias-and-prejudice



Recently, in a criminal prosecution of Cliven Bundy in Las Vegas federal court, where I have sought to appear as Mr. Bundy's criminal defense counsel along with a fine local lawyer (as I have written on www.wnd.com in my weekly columns), I have again experienced bias and prejudice against my client by a federal judge of Mexican-American heritage who is likely in part hostile because I represent Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a Supreme Court case challenging President Barack Obama's executive amnesty orders. This federal judge, Gloria Navarro, like Judge Curiel in the Trump University case, is a Latina activist and attended law school in Maricopa County, where Arpaio is sheriff. She was recommended to the bench by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who has said publicly that Cliven Bundy and his family are "domestic terrorists," and that they should be imprisoned. President Obama, who nominated Navarro at Reid's urging, has also attacked Cliven Bundy, falsely suggesting that Cliven Bundy is racist. In short, Judge Navarro, I sincerely believe, influenced by her national origin and allegiance to Reid and Obama, has made a number of biased and highly prejudicial rulings that have abridged and effectively trashed Cliven Bundy's constitutional rights by denying him his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and a speedy trial. For a time, Judge Navarro also apparently had Cliven Bundy imprisoned in solitary confinement. Judge Navarro has even suggested that Cliven Bundy's wife should be indicted along with him and his sons, following the lead of her benefactors, Reid and Obama. My co-counsel in Cliven Bundy's criminal defense has moved to disqualify her, which she predictably denied and the matter is now headed to the appeals court.

Wow, that is really disturbing but not in the least unusual.

I'm beginning to think there should be no judges, at all. No human being can be completely unbiased and none should have that kind of power.
 
This is what I have been saying for 30 $#@!ing pages... OVER AND OVER AND OVER... Nobody has put up any logical rebuttal to this, there has just been a bunch of "Yap yap yap, he said Mexican!!"

This is why Trump is winning, stop worshipping the damn MSM and learn to think for yourself.

I do not feel that one's heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial."

The problem is that the premise he is making is that if the glove don't fit you can't aquit. He is trying to make the argument that if the judge is racist then Trump university is not a scam. Which is categorically false.
 
This is what I have been saying for 30 $#@!ing pages... OVER AND OVER AND OVER... Nobody has put up any logical rebuttal to this, there has just been a bunch of "Yap yap yap, he said Mexican!!"

This is why Trump is winning, stop worshipping the damn MSM and learn to think for yourself.

So he's back peddling his comments, again. Wouldn't be the first time and it certainly won't be the last.

I already provided several quotes which directly conflict with the statement he issued today.

I'll leave you with this.

“I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent.”
 
WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.

Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.

Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.

She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.

Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.

Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and an adviser to Mr. Obama, said Judge Sotomayor’s remarks were appropriate. Professor Ogletree said it was “obvious that people’s life experiences will inform their judgments in life as lawyers and judges” because law is more than “a technical exercise,” citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous aphorism: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

In a forward to a 2007 book, “The International Judge” (U.P.N.E.), Judge Sotomayor seemed to put a greater emphasis on a need for judges to seek to transcend their identities, writing that “all judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial” and letting reason rule. Courts, she added, “are in large part the product of their membership and their judges’ ability to think through and across their own intellectual and professional backgrounds” to find common ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html
 
So he's back peddling his comments, again. Wouldn't be the first time and it certainly won't be the last.

I already provided several quotes which directly conflict with the statement he issued today.

I'll leave you with this.

No, what you did is called cherry picking.. What I did was take his statements as a whole, which don't even contradict each other and determine what the true meaning was. And I was right because he said he was saying exactly what I have been saying he was saying. You can take your cherry picked statements and make assumptions, but without broader context all you are doing is cherry picking.. you are playing right into the MSM's hands and helping Trump get elected, great job....
 
The race-driven San Diego La Raza Association is exactly what’s wrong with the legal system.
The GOP Establishment is in full flight.

No Abraham Lincolns here.

In a shameful haste to embrace identity politics, the latter the political descendant of slavery and segregation, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have stunningly given thumbs up to a judge who has made no bones about injecting his ethnic heritage into his role as a lawyer and judge.

In a broadside against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presiding over the case against Trump University (a case in itself riddled with bad judicial decision-making as the judge has assigned the case to a notoriously Clinton-supporting law firm — more of which later this week), Trump has assailed the Indiana-born judge as “of Mexican heritage” who has “an inherent conflict of interest.”

The response from the Speaker? “It’s reasoning I don’t relate to. I completely disagree with the thinking behind that.” Said McConnell: “I think it’s a big mistake for our party to write off Latino Americans.” Hello? Speaker Ryan can’t relate to standing up to fight racism? Who, Senator McConnell, is writing off Latino Americans? And isn’t it time to get right with Lincoln and write off racism — aka in the 21st century, “identity politics”? Appallingly in the case of Ryan, his latest comments embracing out and out race-driven lawyering and judging comes only weeks after he said he stood for the “Party of Lincoln, Reagan, and Kemp.” Well that didn’t last long. Somewhere Abe, Ronnie, and Jack are baffled as to why their defender has suddenly thrown them over the side to embrace the absolute worst of racial politics.

Over in the Wall Street Journal, our friends on the editorial board have written an entire editorial on the subject entitled:

Trump and the ‘Mexican’ Judge

Why equating ethnicity with judicial bias is so offensive.
Well, yes, “equating ethnicity with judicial bias” is offensive. Yet the WSJ has not a solitary word revealing to readers that Judge Curiel has been actively associated with the racially-centric San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — a group entirely devoted to “equating ethnicity with judicial bias.” An association Curiel listed on his questionnaire filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee. The group, as I noted over at NewsBusters, specifically states its mission on its website as follows:

Our purpose is to advance the cause of equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys and the Latino community in San Diego County through service and advocacy.

Note. The group supports “equality, empowerment and justice” not for all attorneys in San Diego — only for “Latino attorneys.”

Listing eight “goals” of the group, every one of which are ethnocentric, the first three reading:

Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.
Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench.
Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.
Note well goal number two — “Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench.” In other words? The group wants to put not qualified attorneys of any color or gender on the bench. No, the insistence is a racially-oriented drive to put only one group — a group pre-selected by ethnic heritage on the bench. (Can you imagine the uproar if the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had belonged to a “white attorneys association”? Answer: Yes, you can.) Why might this be? The answer is obvious.

In a day and age when the working assumption by the Left is that all minorities, Latinos in this case, are liberal, the way to liberal decisions is by backing openly race-centric judges of Latino heritage. To get decisions from the bench that are geared to supporting Latinos — not all Americans — but Latinos only.

(Cont.) http://spectator.org/trump-is-right-the-shame-of-paul-ryan-and-mitch-mcconnell/
 
This is what I have been saying for 30 $#@!ing pages... OVER AND OVER AND OVER... Nobody has put up any logical rebuttal to this, there has just been a bunch of "Yap yap yap, he said Mexican!!"

This is why Trump is winning, stop worshipping the damn MSM and learn to think for yourself.

Excellent summation of the main point. Trump has once again reinforced the divide between him and the establishment pols and pundits, by making a "sauce for the goose" comment that exposes their incoherency on race, and selective bullying as to what can or can't be discussed. If the PC set can suggest there are positive aspects to having latino judges, Trump can suggest there can be negative aspects, including judicial bias. If Hillary wants Bill Clinton campaigning for her because of his positive skills, then it's fair game to talk about his many negatives. Etc., etc.

Throughout, Trump is advocating other Republicans (or his own staff) not so much to get behind his roughly stated positions, as to get a spine. One reason the GOP has been losing elections, is they run from every cultural issue. The Donald's answer is, GET OFF YOUR KNEES, bowing and cowing to the MSM and elite's presumptions about what one is "not supposed to say." Who put them in charge of American speech, anyway? Trump is making the point of challenging the MSM's self-declared exclusive right to frame every issue or comment their way, by reframing it along his lines and saying in effect, "how do you like them apples?"
 
Last edited:
Excellent summation of the main point. Trump has once again reinforced the divide between him and the establishment pols and pundits, by making a "sauce for the goose" comment that exposes their incoherency on race, and selective bullying as to what can or can't be discussed. If the PC set can suggest there are positive aspects to having latino judges, Trump can suggest there can be negative aspects, including judicial bias. If Hillary wants Bill Clinton campaigning for her because of his positive skills, then it's fair game to talk about his many negatives. Etc., etc.

Throughout, Trump is advocating other Republicans (or his own staff) not so much to get behind his roughly stated positions, as to get a spine. GET OFF YOUR KNEES, bowing and cowing to the MSM and elite's presumptions about what one is "not supposed to say." Who put them in charge of American speech, anyway? Trump is making the point of challenging the MSM's self-declared exclusive right to frame every issue or comment their way, by reframing it along his lines and saying in effect, "how do you like them apples?"


Yep, people think Trump is just some big dumb bully, he may be acting like that but these people aren't smart enough to see what his strategy is.. He's actually a very smart guy, even if he speaks in 5th grade language he knows exactly what he is doing. He isn't just doing well because he is getting lucky.. He has been doing this time and time again and has been very successful. It's just too bad he has that authoritarian bent.
 
No, what you did is called cherry picking.. What I did was take his statements as a whole, which don't even contradict each other and determine what the true meaning was. And I was right because he said he was saying exactly what I have been saying he was saying. You can take your cherry picked statements and make assumptions, but without broader context all you are doing is cherry picking.. you are playing right into the MSM's hands and helping Trump get elected, great job....

Trump's argument is that the judge's genetics are why he isn't getting his way with a ruling. The judge's genetics in Trump's opinion have clouded the judge's judgement from properly ruling in agreement with Trump's wishes. Impartial to Trump is that the judge rules in his favor, otherwise the judge is succumbing to bias due to his hispanic race.
 
Trump's argument is that the judge's genetics are why he isn't getting his way with a ruling.

Bullshit, please post the quote and stop making shit up... This is getting really old.

The judge's genetics in Trump's opinion have clouded the judge's judgement from properly ruling in agreement with Trump's wishes. Impartial to Trump is that the judge rules in his favor, otherwise the judge is succumbing to bias due to his hispanic race.

You have no idea wtf you are talking about. Trump never said it was his genetics, he said it was his heritage and his political beliefs, based on the political organizations he belongs to.

You really have to stop doing this.
 
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/

NEW YORK – The federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has been criticized by Donald Trump as a “hater” appointed by President Obama who should be recused from the case, listed his membership in the “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” on a judicial questionnaire he filled out when he was selected to be a federal judge. He was named in a brochure as a member of the selection committee for the organization’s 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala. Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event.

Judge Gonzalo Curiel

WND reported the San Diego firm paid $675,000 to the Clintons for speeches, and the firm’s founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.

Get a first-hand account of the Democratic Party presidential front-runner’s character in “Hillary The Other Woman.” Then take action with the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project and let others know, with a bumper sticker calling for “Hillary for prosecution, not president.”

While critics of Trump have argued that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ association is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, consider the following:

* The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of California, affiliated with the Chicano/Latino Bar Association of California.
* On the website of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California, at the bottom of the “Links & Affiliates Page,” the National Council of La Raza is listed.
* The website of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is joint-listed as San Diego’s Latino/Latina Bar Association.
* On the “endorsements” page, the combined website lists the National Council of La Raza as part of the “community,” along with the Hispanic National Bar Association,, a group that emerged with a changed name from the originally formed La Raza National Lawyers Association and the La Raza National Bar Association tracing its origin back to 1971.

Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicanos de Atzlán.

MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a “nation of Aztlán,” comprising much of the southwestern United States, including California.

As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks that La Raza, Spanish for “the race,” also has roots in the early 1960s with a “united front” organization, the National Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS. The group initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

In 1968, the Southwest Council of La Raza was organized with Ford Foundation funding. In 1972, the group changed its name to the National Council of La Raza and opened an office in Washington, D.C.
At the 2014 San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association event at which Curiel served as a panel member, one of the recipients of a $1,500 scholarship, Ricardo Elorza, boast about being an illegal immigrant.

“Mr. Elorza wishes to someday tell any student struggling with higher education, ‘Look, a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English, and is undocumented has now graduated from law school and is an attorney,” the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ Association brochure for the 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala said.

The “Pro Bono & Community Service” page on the Robbins Geller website lists the La Raza Scholarship Fund as one of the causes the firm’s attorney and staff have supported for more than a decade.

In 2014, the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Scholarship Fund named past president and then-current endorsement committee chair George Aguilar, a Robbins Geller attorney, as the groups 2014 Attorney of the Year.

On May 26, the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association held a reception for Curiel, honoring him “for his leadership and support to the community and to our association.”

Hillary Clinton’s ties to La Raza

In 2007, Hillary Clinton named Raul Yzaguirre, the former president of the National Council of La Raza, to co-chair her presidential campaign and to lead its outreach to Hispanic voters.

In the announcement, the Clinton campaign noted that under Yzaguirre’s leadership, the National Council of La Raza became the largest Hispanic advocacy organization in the nation, with 41 state affiliates and revenues exceeding $3 million, including corporate contributions, philanthropic foundation grants, federal taxpayer support and private member donations.

Yzaguirre was a member of the 2007 Council on Foreign Relations task force that published a report titled “Building a North American Community,” which some critics regard as the blueprint for the creation of a regional North American Union modeled after the European Union.

Clinton addressed the National Council of La Raza annual conference in Kansas City, Missouri, in July 2015.

In the speech, Hillary attacked Trump, characterizing him as engaging in hate speech toward Latinos.

“It was appalling to hear Donald Trump describe immigrants as drug dealers, rapists, and criminals,” Clinton said. “He’s talking about people you and I know, isn’t he? He’s talking about people who love this country, work hard, and want nothing more than a chance to build a better life for themselves and their children.”

She then attacked Trump for not apologizing to Hispanics.

“And when people and businesses everywhere rejected his hateful comments, did he apologize? No. He doubled down,” Clinton continued. “It’s shameful. And no one should stand for it.

“So I have just one word for Mr. Trump: BASTA! Enough!” she concluded, receiving an enthusiastic response from her audience.

La Raza named in anti-Trump violent protests

While the National Council on La Raza has made clear the organization does not endorse anti-Trump protesters engaging in violent acts, demonstrators in California were marked by the presence of Mexican flags, which resonates with the separatist ideology of radical La Raza Hispanic activists in California since the 1960s.

Commentators such as talk-host Tammy Bruce and former Republican Rep. Allen West have identified anti-Trump protesters in California as La Raza activists.

On May 27, an estimated 1,000 anti-Trump protesters waved Mexican flags and burned Trump “Make America Great Again” baseball caps outside the San Diego Convention Center while chanting slogans protesting Trump’s candidacy and his vow to build a wall to control illegal immigration.

On June 3, Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, wrote in an April 3 column for Breitbart that the recent increase in violent Hispanic demonstrations suggests the influence of La Raza activists, with the group’s history of identifying with the Mexican Reconquista movement.

“The Mexican Reconquista movement is a rejection of American sovereignty over lands that, according to mythology, were formerly held by the Aztecs throughout the southwestern United States,” Manning noted. “And it is telling that many of the anti-Trump protesters reject his notion to ‘make America great again’ instead waving Mexican flags while burning the Stars and Stripes.”

I have a lot of sympathy with the complaints from those south of border about exploitation (farm workers, domestic help and the like) but La Raza and the other organizations that manipulate and brainwash the peons are, at their core, communist. It's about the global revolution. When these organizations start getting big (anti American) foundation money and government grants, they adopt the veneer of respectability and start playing within the system. Then they get government jobs handed to them (for purely political reasons) and corporate positions and they ARE the system. They often lie and deny their roots (to protect their positions and the money that comes with them), as we see with the attempts to distance La Raza Lawyers from greater La Raza, but they are the same and have the exact same agenda. The street thugs who attack Trump protestors and wave the Mexican flags are akin to the IRA soldiers, while the legal and other professional groups try to maintain the appearance of being separate so they aren't associated with the street thugs and lose the establishment credibility they work hard to cultivate. The Muslim Brotherhood does that, too. Sometimes, their masks slip and you see who they really are, as happened with that La Raza hag that Lou Dobbs used to have on back when he was on CNN. They're the ones who got Dobbs thrown off CNN, btw. Anyway, this is who La Raza (and the other organizations) is:



That was in 2007 and you can see how far they have come thanks to the careful cultivation by their very NOT hispanic benefactors and handlers who are using cultural Marxism to tear the country apart. We are losing this war because people have been to afraid to look like 'racists' by standing up against this crap. Trump sees it (though has a hard time defining what "it" is) and that's why he's such a threat. Cultural Marxism uses mind control and brainwashing very successfully. You can even see it here when people adopt this nonsense about 'racism' and Trump and are trying to push this lie that La Raza isn't La Raza. It's almost Orwellian.
 
I hope Trump attacks more judges. Why should this behavior trouble any libertarians? Are we supposed to lick the boots of judges now because Trump=bad?
 
La Raza Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the Hispanic National Bar Association…
Posted on June 7, 2016 by sundance


https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ispanic-national-bar-association/#more-117158


The curriculum vitae of Trump University Judge Gonzalo Curiel specifically mentions his affiliation with the Hispanic National Bar Association, or HNBA.



The Hispanic National Bar Association published a press release on July 2nd 2015 which specifically stated their intention to target the “business interests” of Donald Trump

There it is.
 
Bull$#@!, please post the quote and stop making $#@! up... This is getting really old.



You have no idea wtf you are talking about. Trump never said it was his genetics, he said it was his heritage and his political beliefs, based on the political organizations he belongs to.

You really have to stop doing this.

Judge's genetics are the very essence of what makes him hispanic/Mexican depending on which article or interview you'd like to cite the quote. So heritage comes from his parents, which are his genes because they were from Mexico.

Curse, stomp, pout all you want. Trump's argument are without substance and still have yet to explain how the judge's October 2014 ruling could have been faulty due to the genetic makeup and the affinity of the judge for empowering Latino lawyers. Trump had a chance yet again, and offered no evidence just more whingeing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top