Donald Trump grievious disregard for human decency

It's impossible to understand how Republicans can tolerate a Donald Trump leadership candidacy. They will have to explain their position to future generations and there's no excuse for their lock step ignorance.

Sorry, Donald Trump, the Trump University judge was just following the law - Washington Post Michelle Hee Lee

Donald Trump has finally revealed his ugly Pinocchio nose by trying to interpret the rule of law. NOT!"...the students provided evidence that could dispute Trump’s reason for requesting a summary judgment."

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told CBS's "Face the Nation" that the judge overseeing the Trump University lawsuit case has treated him "very unfairly," and that "there is something going on" adding that he is biased. (Reuters)

“He [Judge Gonzalo Curiel] is giving us very unfair rulings, rulings that people can’t even believe. This case should have ended years ago on 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.”

“I have had terrible rulings forever. I had a judge previous to him [Curiel], and it would have been a very quick case. This is a case I should have won on summary judgment.”

Trump has been blasting U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel for having an “inherent conflict of interest,” because of his Mexican heritage and Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Curiel, who is presiding over two of three lawsuits against Trump and Trump University, was born in Indiana to parents who emigrated from Mexico. But the presumptive Republican presidential nominee continues to rail against the judge for biased, negative and unfair rulings. (I don't understand how the media lets Donald Trump get away with saying "Trump's plan to build a wall", when he has said it was Mexico that would build his stupid plan for an anti-immigration wall.)

In particular, Trump points to Curiel’s use of a procedural move — a summary judgment — as evidence:

Whether Curiel is biased is a matter of opinion, not one we can fact-check. But we took a look at what exactly a summary judgment is, and whether the judge’s decision was anything out of the ordinary, as Trump suggests. As usual, Trump’s campaign did not respond to our request for comment.

Trump University marketed its seminars and mentorship packages that cost up to $35,000 as opportunities for “students” to learn tricks of the real estate trade from mentors and instructors said to be “hand-picked” by Trump.

Both cases before Curiel are class-action lawsuits from former students, claiming fraud and demanding their money back. 

One lawsuit was filed in 2010 by students in California, Florida and New York, and the other in 2013 by a plaintiff who alleged he was misled and upsold to pay for an $35,000 upgrade.

Trump is named as a defendant in both lawsuits, and has filed for a motion for summary judgment in both. Last year, Curiel ruled on the motion in the 2010 lawsuit. The motion in the 2013 lawsuit is pending a court hearing next month, as noted in this explainer by the Popehat blog.

A “summary judgment” is a procedural move that allows a judge to dismiss a case before going to trial. 

If summary judgment is granted, that means the judge found there’s “no genuine dispute of material fact” that requires a full trial. So all the judge is deciding is whether the two sides agree or disagree on facts — a pretty low bar.

When a judge grants a summary judgment, it’s usually for a narrow and straight-forward issue, said Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California, Davis School of Law.

For example, a judge may grant it if someone is suing a defendant who has immunity from that specific lawsuit. Or a judge may grant it if someone was bringing an asbestos lawsuit against a manufacturer — but the manufacturer wasn’t making any products during the time that person claims they were injured.

“In any kind of complex factual case, it’s very hard to get summary judgment,” Johnson said. “The [Supreme] Court has made it clear that only in certain, limited cases, will summary judgment be granted. … We have a Constitution that requires civil cases to be submitted to a jury if there’s enough fact and dispute – and that’s a pretty important right to most people.”

Trump says this case “should have ended years ago on summary judgment.” 

But historically, fewer than 10 percent of total cases in six key federal district courts between 1975 and 2000 were resolved as a result of such a motion, according to a December 2007 study on summary judgment practices by researchers at the Federal Judicial Center.

Further, out of the total number of federal cases during that time, summary judgments were granted in part or in full for less than 15 percent of all cases. In cases where there was such a motion, summary judgments were fully granted less than 40 percent of the time.

“These findings offer solid evidence that summary judgment is a weak filter designed to resolve only the most lopsided of cases where no reasonable jury could find for the other side,” said David Freeman Engstrom, Stanford University law professor and expert in civil procedure. “Unless the case is a slam dunk for one side or the other, summary judgment is not appropriate.”

Curiel actually granted partial summary judgment for Trump, in the 44-page ruling published November 2015. The former students made an array of claims in the 2010 lawsuit, including one requesting an injunction against Trump and Trump University from selling the same services so that the same thing can’t happen again in the future.

But Trump asked for a summary judgment, since Trump University stopped enrolling students after July 2010 and isn’t selling the same seminars or mentorships anymore. Curiel granted Trump the summary judgment and dismissed that claim.

For other claims, Curiel dismissed Trump’s request for a summary judgment because he found a genuine factual dispute. 

For example, the former students claimed that Trump and Trump University used deceptive practices and misrepresentation in advertisements, thereby violating consumer protection and business laws in California, Florida and New York. One of the “core” misrepresentations Trump made, they claimed, was that they would be taught by real estate experts who were “hand-selected” by Trump.

Trump asked the judge to throw out that claim by granting him summary judgment, saying he never personally misrepresented the program to those individual students. 

But the students disagreed, showing advertisements featuring Trump’s statements such as, “You’ll learn inside secrets from me” and from hand-picked instructors. Plus, ads were reviewed and approved by Trump himself.

So Curiel denied Trump’s motion — since the two sides disagreed on the basic facts — and allowed it to go to a jury trial. The two sides now have to argue before a jury with their case.
The Pinocchio Test

Once again, Trump greatly stretches the facts to the point of Four-Pinocchio inaccuracy. We can’t fact-check whether or not Curiel has a bias against Trump; that’s Trump’s opinion. But what is clear is that Curiel made a straight-forward legal judgment as to whether two sides agreed or disagreed on facts, and whether or not they should be presented to a jury.

Further, Trump says the case should’ve been ended with a summary judgment, but fewer than 10 percent of federal court cases in key districts between 1975 and 2000 were resolved in that way. Judges make this decision for narrow circumstances, to filter for cases that shouldn’t be taken to a jury. Trump also overlooks that Curiel, in his November 2015 ruling, did grant him partial summary judgment.

Trump can disagree with the judge’s decision all he wants, but Curiel didn’t really have a choice: the students provided evidence that could dispute Trump’s reason for requesting a summary judgment. So Curiel had to do his job — and let the case go forward to a jury.

Clearly, Republicans must nominate a candidate who is qualified and who respects the rule of law. NOT Trump.

Newt Gingrich should call for Donald Trump to withdraw from nomination

Republicans don't have anything to be proud of in their presumptive nominee to run for the office of president and leader of the free world.

Newt Gingrich finally stopped praising the unstable Donald Trump. Instead, Gingrich is rightly criticizing Trump's outrageous comments about Federal Judge Curiel, who happens to be overseeing the Trump University's lawsuit case.  Obviously, Donald Trump misunderstands the US Constitution's "separation of powers".

In fact, Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for even trying to coalesce behind Donald Trump, a mentally unbalanced man who is clearly an unqualified and unstable candidate.

Now, Republican conservative former Congressman Newt Gingrich has finally criticized Donald Trump, because of the unprecedented verbal abuse for Judge Gonzolo Curiel.  

Newt Gingrich says Trump's Comments About "Mexican" (Judge Curiel) "One Of The Worst Mistakes He Has Made"

The former House Speaker, who has been a passionate defender of Trump over the past few weeks, says that his statement that a federal judge's Mexican heritage makes the judge biased agaisnt him is one of Trump's "worst mistakes."

"He has every right to criticize the judge, and he has every right to say certain decisions aren't right, and his attorneys can file to move the venue... but... this judge was born in Indiana. He's an American, period."

"Trump has got to move to a new level," Gingrich said. "This is no longer the primaries, he is no longer an interesting contender, he is a potential leader of the United States. And he's got to move his game up."

In my opinion, the Republicans must call for Donald Trump to remove himself from the GOP nomination. There's no doubt in my mind that Newt Gingrich would demand for a Democrat to be recalled, if the circumstances faced by the GOP were reversed. 

Donald Trump is unqualified to be nominated to run for the GOP candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Moreover, Trump has no understanding about politics and probably can't even say the "Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag"; as a matter of fact, has anybody asked Trump to recite the pledge? I didn't think so.

I PledgeAllegiance, to the Flag, of the United States of America.

And to the Republic, for which it stands,

One Nation, Under God, indivisible, 

with Liberty and Justice for all.

Repeat:

"With Liberty and Justice for all."

Donald Truump revelas bombastic instability on a daily basis

Even an obsessed blogger like me who blasts Donald Trump nearly twie a day is having a tough time to stay ahead of all the Trumponian instabilities.  The man is dangerous and not qualified to lead, plus, every indication is that his behavior is decompensating. In other words, he's getting worse.

In any given 24 hour news cycle, Donald Trump tells the media so many  lies it's tragically impossible to keep the truth going, because the next lie is an incredulous surprise.  

Not only are the impending lies incredulous, but they're too unbelievalbe to conceptualize a coherent response. For example, "Judge who ruled to open Trump University files is Mexican", lies Donald Trump.  

Well, here's a picture of the judge Donald Trump wrongly attacked:

Judge Gonzalo Curiel

Born in Indiana

Gonzalo Paul Curiel is a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Born: 1953, United States of America
Education: Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Indiana University Bloomington

With Trump attack on 'Mexican' judge, has he hit a new low?
By Dean Obeidallah a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM's weekly program "The Dean Obeidallah Show," a columnist for The Daily Beast and editor of the politics blog The Dean's Report. Follow him on Twitter: @TheDeansreport.  

(CNN) Has Donald Trump reached an alarming new low? (I submit he started his low when he was held accountable by Megyn Kelly:

"Megyn Kelly to Donald Trump: 'You've called women you don't like fat pigs, slobs – and disgusting animals.'"

On Friday, during his campaign rally in San Diego, Trump ripped into federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel who is presiding over one of the two class action lawsuits pending against Trump University and Trump, personally, for allegedly defrauding thousands of people out of money in connection with the now defunct school.

Trump dedicated an incredible 12 minutes of his campaign speech to slam Curiel. 

First, Trump demanded the judge recuse himself because he was a "hater" who had been nominated by President Obama. Then, only a short time after the crowd had been chanting "build that wall," Trump told his rabid fans that Curiel was a "Mexican." But then Trump added, "I think that's fine." (For those who care about actual facts, Curiel is not Mexican; he was born in Indiana.)

If Curiel's Latino heritage was "fine," then why did Trump bring it up at all? Simple: Trump was telling his supporters that Curiel is not one of us, rather he's a "Mexican." He's an other. This has been a central theme in Trump's divisive presidential campaign. After all, Trump kicked off his campaign last year claiming -- despite having no factual support -- that Mexico was sending "rapists" and people who are "bringing drugs" to our country.
Republican politicians slamming federal judges is nothing new. 

We have seen it time and time again with conservatives attacking "judicial activism," such as when Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee went ballistic over the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. 

And to be fair, Democrats like President Obama have been publicly critical of the Republicans, who until recently held a majority on the Supreme Court, and struck down portions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

But the difference is that both the Republicans and Democrats who have publicly criticized judges in the past have been focused on constitutional issues that impact countless Americans. 

That's not what Trump is talking about here. 

Rather, Trump is only concerned how this lawsuit will impact one, person, Donald J. Trump.

To be clear, Trump is facing personal liability in this case as well as the other two cases involving Trump University, one in New York and another in California. In 2013, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a $40 million civil lawsuit against Trump personally and the school on behalf of 5,000 former students who had allegedly been defrauded. Schneiderman called Trump 

University "a bait and switch scheme" and noted that Trump could personally face millions in civil penalties under New York law. A separate federal class action lawsuit not connected to Curiel is also still pending in California. 

It alleges that Trump engaged in racketeering in violation of the RICO statute.

If Curiel were truly biased, Trump would have a point. 

But that's simply not the case. Curiel is not some Democratic activist nominated by President Obama in 2011 to the federal bench as payback for his years of political service. Rather Curiel was first appointed in 2006 to the California Superior Court by then-Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Before that, Curiel served for 17 years as a federal prosecutor and was even targeted by a Mexican drug cartel in the 1990s for assassination after his efforts to extradite two drug kingpins from Mexico. And when Curiel was finally confirmed as a federal judge by the U.S. Senate in 2012, it was by way of a voice vote with no recorded Republican opposition. Apparently Trump has not figured out how to use Google or perhaps more likely, he could not care less about the facts.

Even Trump's claim on Friday that Curiel has "given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative" is undermined by the facts. Just a few weeks ago, Curiel agreed to Trump's request to delay the trial in this case from this summer, as originally scheduled, to after the election. As Curiel stated in making this ruling in Trump's favor and over the plaintiffs' objections, he feared the "media frenzy" could make it impossible for the jury to be unbiased.

But still that ruling was not enough for Trump. 

In Trump's view, this "Mexican" judge still needed to be investigated, without offering any specific facts as to why.

Trump concluded his tirade about Curiel by noting how much he relished the idea of returning to the stand for trial after being elected President.

But he picked back up on Memorial Day by continuing his attacks on the judge in a series of tweets, calling him "unfair" and "Totally biased-hates Trump." (Odd to see the GOP nominee using Memorial Day to attack a judge in a personal lawsuit.)

Hopefully, this case will finally go to trial in November -- like Trump wanted -- after six long years in the court system. 

It will give the plaintiffs, which include senior citizens who have made claims under California state law for "financial elder abuse," a chance to make their case and if successful to be reimbursed for their losses. And here's hoping that when that trial takes place, Trump is simply known as the former GOP nominee, not the President-elect.

Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM's weekly program "The Dean Obeidallah Show," a columnist for The Daily Beast and editor of the politics blog The Dean's Report. Follow him on Twitter: @TheDeansreport. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

Fraud at Trump University - money trumped education

Customers who say they were cheated by Donald Trump and his fraudulent "University" are on a track to win damages for their collective complaint about the non-university known as "Trump University". Similarly, in my opinion, Donald Trump is cheating the American people and especially his declared Republican Party by promoting himself as qualified to be nominated to run for leader of the free world.


Judge Gonzalo Curiel



WASHINGTON (Reuters)
A judge, called a "hater" by Donald Trump for his handling of a lawsuit related to the businessman's Trump University real estate school, has unsealed documents related to the case.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee (aka "leader of the free world nominee) for the Nov. 8 election, is fighting a lawsuit that accuses his school venture of misleading thousands of people who paid up to $35,000 for seminars to learn about the billionaire's real estate investment strategies.

In an order signed on Friday, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said that materials, including Trump University procedures on dealing with students and the media, should be unsealed.

He noted they had already been published by the media organization Politico and that a magistrate judge described them previously as "routine" and "commonplace."

At a rally in San Diego on Friday, Trump criticized Curiel for his handling of the Trump University case.

"I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump. A hater. He's a hater," Trump said. (OMG I can't imagine how FoxNews would handle such an obstruction of justice and contempt of court quote if a Democrat had said such vile slander.)

"We're in front of a very hostile judge. The judge was appointed by Barack Obama," Trump said, adding he believed Curiel was Mexican.

Curiel is an American who was born in East Chicago, Indiana, and graduated from the Indiana University School of Law.

Legal scholars said Trump could face consequences for slamming the judge, although many speculated that Curiel was unlikely to sanction him formally.

"Mr. Trump's conduct could be subject to sanction for indirect criminal contempt of court," said Charles Geyh, a legal ethics expert at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

"He has impugned the honesty of the judge in a pending case, and has done so in the context of a political rally that seems calculated to intimidate by inciting anger among his supporters," he said.

Arthur Hellman, an expert on federal courts and judicial ethics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said the judge was in a difficult position.

"He can’t respond directly. He’s not supposed to talk out of court about proceedings before him. Judges have gotten into trouble defending themselves from attacks. The judge’s hands are really tied," he said.

Trump has drawn criticism for his comments about immigrants from Mexico, some of whom he has said were criminals and rapists.

He has proposed building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration and requiring Mexico to pay for it.

Hispanics are a critical voting bloc in U.S. presidential elections.

Last week, Trump knocked one of the highest-profile Hispanic women in the Republican Party, criticizing New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez for her handling of the state's economy.

Her office said his criticisms were not substantive. Martinez has been touted as a potential vice presidential pick for a Republican ticket.

(Editing by Caren Bohan and Peter Cooney)