category: politics

In Defense of Trump re: Judge Curiel

In the past 48 hours, the media and Donald Trump’s opponents have latched onto yet another angle on which they hope to bury Donald Trump (if this sounds familiar, it’s because they do this every week).

The new hit angle? Donald Trump’s ‘racist’ attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge currently presiding over the Trump University class-action suit. Trump is concerned Judge Curiel may be biased against him, based on Trump’s positions, such as his widely-reported policy-plans to build a wall with Mexico.

First, a few quick facts:

1) Judge Gonzalo Curiel is Mexican-American (the son of Mexican immigrants). [To be sure, as a Latina, I am proud of Judge Curiel’s accomplishments (not many children of immigrants go on to become federal judges!) and am sure he is a fine individual, something with which I’m sure Trump agrees as well.]

2) Trump has made remarks that some interpreted as “anti” Mexican or “anti” Latino — namely, his June 2015 remarks (albeit factual remarks) that some of the illegal immigrants who cross through the Mexican border unvetted are criminals; his plans to build a wall with Mexico; and his plans to deport illegal immigrants (the majority of which are Latinos). To those with a brain, or those without an agenda, this is not at all anti-Latino or anti-Mexican but it is nonetheless indisputable that some Latinos did take offense to these remarks, largely due to (a) the anti-Trump media widely misquoting and misrepresenting what Trump actually said in June, and (b) radicals for whom anything short of “Let illegal immigrants come and stay” is anti-Latino.

3) He has awarded scholarship assistance to those here illegally. (It is natural to infer from such that the Judge is in favor of helping illegal immigrants.)

4) Judge Curiel has issued questionable rulings in this case. The most glaring one was on May 28th, when he unsealed previously-sealed documents (already an eyebrow-raising move). It’s worse, though… The reason? As Judge Curiel himself wrote in his order to unseal the documents, the reason was the public interest in the case, part of which was due to Trump’s remarks about the case. Huh?

Hm, that’s not normal.

The worst part? In unsealing the documents, the Judge, well, messed up, to put it lightly. You see, some of these documents were never supposed to be unsealed, containing sensitive, personal information about private individuals. Judge Curiel then had to scramble to reseal some of the documents he’d unsealed but, too late — they were already out in the public domain.

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 8.43.51 AM.png

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 8.45.12 AM.png

What a mess. That alone is arguably enough to warrant Judge Curiel recusing himself, as he is apparently no longer thinking clearly or able to preside over this case in a rational manner.

A few days later, Trump, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, noted Judge Curiel has an “inherent conflict of interest”, citing his plans to build a wall and Judge Curiel’s Mexican-American heritage, including the Judge’s membership in a Latino lawyers’ associations named “La Raza” (“the race”). Trump also mentioned the reports that have surfaced regarding Judge Curiel having known the plaintiffs’ lawyer for years. (Are they friends? What is their relationship? These are questions that deserve answers.)

Shortly thereafter, on June 3rd in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Trump said Judge Curiel should recuse himself. (Notice: Trump had not previously called for Judge Curiel to recuse himself — he only did so after the unsealing of documents containing private citizens’ personal information.)

All pretty benign. So what’s the problem here???

Critics have seized on this, feigning outrage, saying Trump’s stance is “racist” because, according to them, Trump is claiming — hang onto your horses for this one! — that Judge Curiel is unfit to serve because of his Mexican ancestry.

If you try to wrap your head around that gem, it will give you a glaring headache. The truth is (to anyone without a partisan, anti-Trump agenda) Trump’s stance has NOTHING to do with Judge Curiel’s ethnicity but rather with Trump’s policy positions / remarks. Trump is rightly concerned / questioning whether his positions / remarks have caused Judge Curiel to have any personal animus towards him. Consider, for instance, this analogy:

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 8.56.32 AM

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 8.53.01 AM

It isn’t saying the judge can’t be effective “because she is a single mom”… it’s saying the judge can’t be unbiased because of remarks the person made about single moms (a category to which the judge belongs). In Trump’s case, it’s a national origin category. Big whoop.

The most ironic part of all this is the media and Trump’s critics who, for a year now, have constantly insisted that ‘no Latino will vote for Trump!‘… ‘Latinos all dislike Trump because of his remarks/policy positions!‘ … yet now clutch their pearls and shout: ‘How dare you say this (Latino) judge might not like Trump because of his remarks?!’ Which is it? Make up your minds!

As I quickly mentioned on CNN’s “Out Front with Erin Burnett” last night, and again on Twitter:

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 8.53.13 AM

 

The saddest part of this fake controversy? It’s un-American. The media and Trump’s critics are essentially saying a private citizen cannot ever exercise his speech rights to question a judge’s impartiality or ethics. (Ironically, these are the same folks who danced over Justice Scalia’s grave and attack Justice Clarence Thomas on every angle, repeatedly.)

It is downright frightening.

The truth is: judges are humans. Judges are not infallible. In fact, they routinely err. Often, they even breach criminal laws:

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 9.02.02 AM

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 9.02.43 AM.png

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 9.03.38 AM.png

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 9.04.12 AM.png

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 9.05.04 AM.png

 

A 2015 New York World article entitled, “When Judges Are Judged,” notes:

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 9.07.59 AM

So what’s with the un-American pushback against Trump’s First-Amendment right to simply express misgivings about the potential bias of a judge? Since when did it become an American value that we do not, cannot, and should not question the ethics of judges? Have you ever listened to a Supreme Court nomination hearing?!

Bottom line: As a Latina myself, if I were a judge presiding over a very unique case where a defendant had made remarks, which some Latinos interpreted or could interpret as anti-Latino, I would naturally expect my impartiality to be questioned. In fact, I would likely even consider recusing myself prior to any such request, even IF I knew I was not affected by, or acting upon, the conflict of interest, in order to preserve confidence in the case and in the judicial system. Do I think Judge Curiel actually is acting upon the conflict of interest? No, I don’t. But Trump has an absolute right to voice those concerns, ask questions, and it should not spark any controversy whatsoever.

Last two points:

As for the media feigning horror that Trump called Judge Curiel “Mexican.” Hmm, newsflash for the non-Latinos — we Latinos do this all the time. I often refer to myself as “Cuban” (even though I was born in the U.S.) and my U.S.-born Mexican friends and neighbors often refer to themselves as “Mexican.” It’s just a colloquial shorthand, nothing more.

Lastly, Trump has *never* stated Judge Curiel *is* definitely biased. When Trump states there is an “absolute conflict of interest”, and a Trump critic runs with that, it only reveals the embarrassing ignorance of the Trump critic. Saying there is a definite conflict of interest, does not mean you believe the person is ACTING on the conflict of interest. All Trump is saying is the POTENTIAL for impartiality is there. In fact, look up the definition:

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 9.16.39 AM.png

 

So, again, what’s the controversy here??? The only ‘controversy’ is how the media and Trump’s critics continue to use fake, phony attacks to further their own partisan agenda. Quite frankly, it’s tacky.

Standard
category: politics

So is Donald Trump ‘busted’ re his alleged opposition to Iraq War? nope!

Trump recently claimed he opposed the Iraq War in 2003 and “before that.”

Buzzfeed’s Andrew K (a tremendous reporter, with terrific scoops) did some digging, though, and found audio of Trump appearing on the Howard Stern show on September 11, 2002. It’s a solid find by Andrew but it’s being used by Trump critics to apparently demonstrate Trump is a ‘liar’ who didn’t, in fact, oppose the Iraq War.

Buzzfeed’s headline:

Screenshot 2016-02-18 at 10.52.33 PM

I don’t see, however, how this audio negates Trump’s alleged opposition to the war. If anything, it supports the notion that Trump was against the war. Why?

    1. For starters, Trump’s “Yeah, I guess so…” isn’t exactly an enthusiastic, ringing endorsement of the war plans. One can almost hear his shoulders shrugging. Let’s just say that’s not what an Iraq War supporter sounded like in 2002.
    2. It’s September 2002 — months before the war began the following year. At that time, I recall opinions (my own included) wavered week to week. Wildly varying information and various Bush pitches were emerging constantly, and opinions on whether to invade — including even what the ‘invasion/war’ would actually entail — were all over the place. So, yes, one could say “Sure, let’s go over there” one week and easily turn around and oppose it the following week, or vice versa. Thus, it’s possibly Trump could go on a show and say “Yeah, I guess so” regarding plans to invade but then reconsider — which would make his “I opposed the war” truthful.
    3. Notice the date — the interview was on the anniversary of September 11th. Who would dare — 12 months after 9/11, on its anniversary — question Bush’s “plan to fight terrorism”, much less on a public show that isn’t even about political affairs??? Most of us, even if we opposed the war, would probably just say “Yeah” when interviewed on that date and on that show.
    4. It’s NYC. As someone in NYC during this exact time period, I can tell you support of the Iraq War — at a time when one was expected to give Bush free-reign to go after ‘terror’ — was almost mandatory. Only the most hardcore liberals dared openly AND CONSISTENTLY criticize the idea of invading Iraq.

So there you have it.

UPDATE/FURTHER INFO: Trump addressed the matter, noting:
Screenshot 2016-02-18 at 11.55.18 PM
Indeed. End of story.

Also, a quick Google search revealed Trump did, in fact, express skepticism BEFORE the war began (the invasion began in March 2003), back in January 2003. I guess if you’re going to take his I-was-against-it-in-2003-and-before-that (a one-time, offhand remark) extremely LITERALLY, and take that to mean 2002 or earlier, then sure, maybe he didn’t do so publicly, on the record, in 2002 or earlier. But he DID publicly, on the record, do so… in January 2003 (close enough, for ya?!), certainly before the war started. Trump’s Jan 2003 comment is ‘skepticism’ at the very least but pretty much what most would call healthy opposition.

Screenshot 2016-02-18 at 11.57.26 PM.png

Need more? Here’s Trump at a Vanity Fair party, only five days after the war began, calling it a “mess.”

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 10.31.28 AM

Here’s Trump outright AGAINST the war in July 2004, a year after the war began but still pretty darn early on and at a time when many were still fervently supporting it!, during an interview with the Dallas Morning News.

Screen Shot 2016-06-02 at 9.58.48 PM

And also in August 2004: 

Screenshot 2016-02-19 at 12.00.12 AM

Also: Since posting this circa 10 pm EST tonight and sharing it on Twitter, my Twitter tweeps made some excellent points, with which this post should be updated:

 

UPDATE 2 (following day, Feb 19th): New information has emerged, including additional finds. Thanks to some of my Twitter tweeps, who tipped me off to my pal Sean Hannity’s remarks on this topic, I located two relevant remarks by Sean, wherein Sean clearly notes Trump was clearly against our going into Iraq from the very beginning.

and…

Andrew also had another good find, this afternoon, though, worth addressing:

Again, however, I do not see the ‘gotcha’ here. Of course (!) folks (even those against the war) would compliment the job our troops and military were doing. My take?:

Also, notice Trump’s actual quote: “it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint.” FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT. That’s not saying you support the endeavor or think it’s a great success overall — but rather are opining strictly from a military standpoint. Trump also later adds, in an obviously skeptical manner: “let’s hope it all works out.”

UPDATE 3: In August 2003, only five months after the war began, while on Joe Scarborough’s show, Trump noted the following:

Screenshot 2016-02-20 at 9.46.01 AM
Also, there is this 2006 CNN interview:

And in 2007, when, yes, many were still supporting the war, including Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Trump noted anyone who justified it was an “imbecile.”

Standard