Trump said, Hillary said

Trump said “Mexican Heritage,” Hilary said “German Heritage.”

Mark Langfan,

Mark Langfan
Mark Langfan
Mark Langfan

It’s a case of he said, she said, but,the media only attacks what he said. 

On the one hand, Donald Trump accuses a judge of “Mexican Heritage” of being biased against him in a legal case, and we are told by the media that this is the greatest evil ever uttered.  But on the other hand, Hilary Clinton labels Trump of “German heritage” so as to imply Trump is a new Nazi Hitler, and the big-time media agrees with her and gives her a pass. 

It's kosher for Hilary to call Trump a “German” Nazi, but it’s a crime against humanity for Trump to suggest that a judge with immediate “Mexican” heritage might be biased against him.  Sounds like a politically-correct double standard has hopelessly infected the media.

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had a conflict in his case because the judge is “of Mexican heritage" and Trump is espousing polarizing views on immigration.  “I’m building a wall [against Mexico]. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Trump told the Journal, referencing his proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that his supporters have cheered but opponents have sharply criticized.


It's kosher for Hilary to call Trump a “German” Nazi, but it’s a crime against humanity for Trump to suggest that a judge with immediate “Mexican” heritage might be biased against him.
Immediately afterwards, Hilary Clinton attacked Trump by saying, “Yes, [Judge Curiel is] of Mexican heritage. Donald Trump is apparently of German heritage. I mean, what does that mean? We’re all Americans.”  What does that mean? Are you kidding me? Hilary knew exactly that her accusing Trump of being “German” meant she was accusing him of being a Nazi.

Last August, Clinton played the Hitler card against Trump by asserting that he and the GOP want to “go and literally pull [illegal immigrants] out of their homes and their workplaces.  Round them up, put them, I don’t know, in buses, boxcars, in order to take them across our border,” she then sniped, in a clear reference to the trains that transported doomed innocents to Nazi concentration camps.

Now what is the exact law that controls whether Judge Gonzalo Curiel must or must not recuse himself from the Trump case?  It is in Canon 2 and Canon 3 of the Federal Rules for Federal Judges.

Canon 3(C)(1)(a) states:
(C) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

So, does Judge Curial have a “personal bias or prejudice concerning” Trump in the Trump University case? Maybe, maybe not.  But, it certainly isn’t clear he doesn’t have a bias against Trump.  And if Curiel does have a bias, Curiel must disqualify himself without Trump even making a motion.

However, the critical canon in this case is Canon 2 which states:

Canon 2
Canon 2A. "An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.”

So, under the Federal Rules, Judge Curiel must disqualify himself from the Trump case if a “reasonable person” would conclude that there even the “appearance of an impropriety” or an “appearance” of “bias or prejudice” against Trump.  And, under the extant facts, there clearly is some objective bare level of an “appearance” of “bias” by Judge Curiel. 

The Canon explicitly commands that Federal Judges “must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.”  The Federal Rules explicitly warned Judges that they are not “ordinary citizens,” and are subject to an extremely high level of “public scrutiny.”

So, while Trump has a solid legal basis on which to attack Judge Curiel, what’s Hilary’s basis to attack Trump's “German heritage” and, in effect, hint that he is a Nazi?  Imagine if 8 years ago someone had said, Obama is of “Muslim Heritage.”  The media would have gone crazy, and call anybody who said that a racist, because it meant calling Obama a Muslim terrorist. 

The same media people actually enable Hilary to make racist statements against Trump, but excoriate Trump for making a legally sound claim against a hostile Federal Judge.  Get ready for a wild 5 months.

 




top