Can't get more owned that Hillary.

Hillary does have great experience though, I must say you have a point there. Wanting to go into Iraq, pushing the operation in Libya while letting great American soldiers die in Benghazi, taking millions of dollars from the Saudis, storing sensitive emails on a private server, covering up for Bill's rapes, and the list goes on. She sure does have a lot of experience in being absolutely terrible at her job! Which is exactly why we need Trump.

Here's the thing about Trump: he's smart. Smarter than you. Smarter than Hillary, smarter than the media. Say whatever you want about him, but he has 150 IQ and has outsmarted all his opposition countless times along his path to the nomination. People keep saying he needs to "learn", to "change him tone", and all this nonsense. Why? He's done better than any candidate in history. People are telling him to change because they know he has a winning formula and are scared to death because they can't stop him.

hopefully trump becomes president

Best rapper alive.

its as if you don't know anything about impartially in case law
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/fjc/recusal.pdf



Curiel has recused himself on many cases of conflict of interest in the past for lesser reasons than this.

If you want a detailed video about it and actually are willing to spend the time to consider your opinion on this rather than just #neverdonaldtrump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9XMioUUa3E
with sources here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47562-youtube-the-truth-about-trump-university-and-judge-gonzalo-curiel/

Called it.

I am more qualified on the concept than you unless you have any sort of law education. This is not a reasonable case to question him being impartial, which is pretty evident by the absolute flood of backlash he's receiving.



are you eluding to the cases he took himself off of because he knew the lawyers personally? that's a fairly bad use of "lesser" in my opinion.

i watched the video.... whole thing comes down to semantics of "mexican's aren't a race"? was disappointed. I could care less if his statement is or is not considered "racist" it was grossly incorrect and unamerican.

Lets be honest though, a large amount of people think Trump as a person is a slimy scumbag salesman. That doesn't disqualify them from interpreting the law at play in cases for or against him. Scumbags are awarded fair decisions on the regular, and what Trump is saying is that someone's potential opinion on an unrelated topic to the case at hand will disqualify them from making a fair decision against him on that unrelated case. Which undermines the entire judicial process, something Trump knows how to do well. He's cried like a bitch every time he's lost any decision because he's a poor loser. Want more proof of that, wait a few months and listen to the bitchbaby make concession speech after concession speech as the electorate slowly swings to HRC state by state in a landslide that makes Romney look like a posterboy for success.

after watching the video all you were able to draw from it is "mexicans aren't a race"? Did you ignore all of the parts about law and impartially? Curiel's background?

His end conclusion is a rant on how mexicans arent a race and we need to stop looking at things through the PC lense and focusing only on race. "whole thing comes down to" was poor wording, i meant it concludes with.

Answer me a simple question if you will. How is a judges personal (assumed) stance on Mexico related to a case on Trump University when TU has nothing to do with Mexico?

Please don't claim that being a race that someone has spoken against constitutes reasonable reason to recuse, it doesnt. If it does i'd love to see the precedence for such a statement. Maybe you can find black judges stepping down from KKK cases, or something of the like. But im unaware of any precedence and disagree with this case being "reasonable" at all.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 9 2016 04:01pm

it has to do with Trump as a person and his stance on mentioned things. TU has nothing to do with Mexico and it shouldn't but a Judge with a bias may treat him unfairly based off a personal dislike for Trump and/or his political stances related to Mexico

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 9 2016 04:05pm

and it is YOUR opinion that someone's race/nationality constitutes as an unfair bias, it is the majority opinion that it does not. And it is not supported with precedence on your part. I'm not even sure you can substantiate personal dislike as a concrete reason for a judge to step down. How could any notorious criminals get a fair judge? How can notorious slimeballs? Or confessed terrorists?

Like i said, down that road likes the unraveling of our entire judicial system, which is built on qualified judges making decisions based on legal precedence rather than the personal bias you feel disqualifies him to make decisions that he shouldnt be basing decisions on.