Observations On Donald Trump’s Anti-Judge Rant (And The Selective Outrage Regarding It))

donald-trump

If I was still doing an “Unethical Donald Trump Quote Of The Day,” it certainly would have qualified. Here is Trump, blathering on, as usual,  at a rally about the case that is currently pending in federal court regarding the alleged charges that Trump University was a scam:

The trial, they wanted it to start while I am running for President. The trial is going to take place sometime in November. There should be no trial. This should have been dismissed on summary judgment easily. Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curial. And he is not doing the right thing. I figure what the hell? Why not talk about it for two minutes. Should I talk about it? Yes? [cheers and applause] so we should have won. . . .

I am getting railroaded by a legal system, and frankly they should be ashamed. I will be here in November. Hey, if I win as president, it is a civil case. I could have settled this case numerous times. But I don’t want to settle cases when we are right. I don’t believe in it. When you start settling cases, do you know what happens? Everybody sues you because you get known as a settler. One thing about me, I am not known as the settler.

And people understand with this whole thing, with this whole deal with the lawyers, class action lawyers are the worst. It is a scam. Here is what happens. We are in front of a very hostile judge. The judge was appointed by by Barack Obama – federal judge. [Boos]. Frankly he should recuse himself. He has given us ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative. I have a top lawyer who said he has never seen anything like this before. So what happens is we get sued. We have a Magistrate named William Gallo who truly hates us.

The good news is it is a jury trial. We can even get a fully jury. We are entitled to a jury, and we want a jury of 12 people. And you are going to watch. First of all, it should be dismissed. Watch how we win it as I have been treated unfairly. . . . So what happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe Mexican, which is great. I think that is fine. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs. I think they are going to love it. I think they are going to love me. . . .

A lot of people said before you run you should settle. I said I don’t care. The people understand it. And they use it. So when I have 10,000 people, and when we have mostly unbelievable reviews, how do you settle? And in fact, when the case started originally, I said how can I settle when I have a review like this? Now I should have settled, but I am glad I didn’t. I will be seeing you in November either as president. And I will say this. I have all these great reviews, but I will say this. I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself. I think it is a disgrace he is doing this. I look forward to going before a jury, not this judge, and we will win that trial. We will win that trial. Check it out. Check it out, folks. You know, I tell this to people. November 28. I think it is scheduled for. It should not be a trial. It should be a summary judgment dismissal. . . .

It is a disgrace. It is a rigged system. I had a rigged system, except we won by so much. This court system, the judges in this court system, federal court. They ought to look into Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace. Ok? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case? Where everybody likes it.

Ok. This is called life, folks. . . .

Now, we are told, “legal experts” are concerned that this rant “signals a remarkable disregard for judicial independence.” Freaking out entirely, Washington Post writer David Post (I guess he’s the paper’s son?) wrote..

“No, this is called “authoritarianism.” It’s what Berlusconi sounded like, what Chávez sounded like and what Perón sounded like — for that matter, it’s what Sulla and Caesar and the others who helped destroy the world’s first great republic sounded like: I am bigger than the law, I AM THE LAW.”

I have searched and I have searched, and darned if I can’t find Post expressing similar horrors when President Barrack Obama attacked the Supreme Court of the United States while misrepresenting its decision in Citizens United to its face, during the televised  State of the Union address in 2010.  The New York Times Adam Liptak, however, wrote at the time,

Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him…Peter G. Verniero, a former justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court, said…

“The court’s legitimacy is derived from the persuasiveness of its opinions and the expectation that those opinions are rendered free of partisan, political influences,” Mr. Verniero said. “The more that individual justices are drawn into public debates, the more the court as an institution will be seen in political terms, which was not the intent of the founders.”

Obama’s attack wasn’t a rambling, free-association muddle of half-finished thoughts and sentences, like Trump’s.  It was a direct and pointed assault on the Supreme Court and the Rules of Law. It wasn’t at a local rally. It was in a nationally televised speech that pre-empted all other programming. Obama wasn’t a “presumptive nominee” at the time. He was President of the United States. And this wasn’t a one-time aberration, for Obama has repeatedly tried to bully the court.

As the Supreme Court was deliberating King v. Burwell, the  case that nearly, and perhaps should have, ended Obamacare, Obama used the “bully pulpit” to delegitimize the court’s decision  before it came down. “This should be an easy case.” he said in one speech. “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up. It seems so cynical to want to take coverage away from millions of people.” As he often does, Obama was misleading the ignorant. The case had to be taken up, because it was badly and sloppily written, and there were persuasive and legally reasonable arguments that it forced economic conduct using a penalty, which would be an abuse of Congressional power. Obama, an alleged Constitutional scholar, know that the Court’s job isn’t to take away health coverage of provide it, but to see that the president and Congress follows the Constitution.His suggestion that a Constitutional breach should be shrugged off because insurance coverage of “millions of people” was too high a price to pay for following the Constitution was an unambiguous attack on the rule of law.

Yet few left-leaning pundits and journalists—that is, almost all journalists–saw nothing wrong with Obama’s trying to abuse his power and strong-arm the judiciary while undermining their credibility in the eyes of the public, or if those pundits did, they stifled their criticism. After all, they like Obama. They approve of Obamacare. So even though what Obama said (and did, for Presidential words equal Presidential conduct)  was far, far worse than Trump’s spontaneous rant, and much more consequential, nobody, certainly not David Post, compared the President to Chávez, Perón, Sulla and Caesar. They should have. Barack Obama legitimized what Trump was doing on a grand scale, just like he meddled in the justice system by declaring Trayvon Martin’s death a race-based killing.

When Harry Truman tried to use his office to bully a Washington Post music critic, it was immediately and correctly flagged as crossing the line. The news media, however, allowed Barack Obama to cross a more important line, so now there is no line.

Trump’s rant? It was inappropriate in every way. Of course it was. It was also, as all of his verbal diarrhea is, silly and barely coherent. Highlights:

I figure what the hell? Why not talk about it for two minutes. Should I talk about it? Yes? [cheers and applause] so we should have won. 

***

  And people understand with this whole thing, with this whole deal with the lawyers, class action lawyers are the worst. We can even get a fully jury. We are entitled to a jury, and we want a jury of 12 people. And you are going to watch. First of all, it should be dismissed. Watch how we win it as I have been treated unfairly.

***

So what happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe Mexican, which is great. I think that is fine. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs. I think they are going to love it. I think they are going to love me. .

***

Check it out. Check it out, folks. You know, I tell this to people. November 28. I think it is scheduled for.

Caesar? Chavez? Their heirs should sue David Post. If either of these orators were this garbled even when drunk and in the throes of a stroke, they would hurl themselves off a cliff in shame.

If a journalist want to use Trump’s rant as reason 889, 753, 442, 901 why Donald Trump is a fool, a bully, narcissist and a buffoon obviously unfit to be national leader, that’s dandy. Be my guest. This is not, however, the rattle of a dictator, but the fumes of an idiot. Trump just talks. He doesn’t know what he’s going to say until he says it; he’s undisciplined and lacks basic social inhibitions. I especially love the part when Trump’s free-association causes him to say that that the judge is Mexican (You know he just as easily might have said, “he’s really short,” “he has just one single, bushy eyebrow,” or “he talks with a lisp, like Daffy Duck”), and a bell goes off and he thinks, “Crap, I shouldn’t have said that,” so he goes full Seinfeld (“Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”) and says, “Which is great!”

Naturally, the news media immediately accused him of racism for this: saying a Mexican-American is Mexican is now racist (but calling a Mexican-American who shot a black man a white Mexican American, which is what the news media did to George Zimmerman, wasn’t–rules are rules, now, get them straight!) The Post  called the statement “racially tinged.”  The man isn’t a racist; he’s a child. Racists have been effective Presidents on many occasions. Children shouldn’t be President. No, even less so than liars and felons.

Somebody explain this to Paul Ryan.

What this episode tells us about Donald Trump is that he has no idea how a national leader should act, and has no clue about what are and aren’t appropriate topics to discuss. We knew that, right? The man has already discussed the size of his penis, speculated on Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle, and mocked a handicapped reporter. This was just one more, and relative to the rest, trivial.

Trivial, unlike Barack Obama’s attempt to do in earnest what Trump just blundered into. What the episode tells us about the news media and how they will cover the presidential campaign is that it will be applying double standards and guided by bias, to an even more unethical extent that it did in 2008 and 2012.

I guess, come to think of it, we knew that already, too.

 

 

23 thoughts on “Observations On Donald Trump’s Anti-Judge Rant (And The Selective Outrage Regarding It))

  1. Caesar? Chavez? Their heirs should sue David Post.

    Indeed, if you’re going to compare anyone to Caesar Chavez it should be Bernie Sanders.

  2. Trump does not want to be a dictator, he is just a con-artist. Every time I hear Trump speak off notes, this is what my brain starts hearing:

    I’ve been bringing cures from Pilgrim Heights to Provincetown
    Treated rabbit fever down on Queen Anne Road
    Gout or gastritis, mumps or bronchitis
    Bites and burns and blue abrasions
    Got a pill for all occasions

    Little Sippewisse was so nice to visit
    And Scroggy Neck is lovely to recall
    But through all my trips
    Good Lord there’s one place
    One corner, one town on my lips
    Why it’s–

    Poddomaquassy, uh, Paquamasoddy
    No, no
    Passamamassy, Quoddamapoddy, Passamadaddy
    Quoddamapassy, Passamahoddy
    Oh, I know
    It’s Passamashloddy
    No!
    It’s Passamaquoddy!
    Of course, that’s what I meant to say

    I took your drug for losing weight and now I’m a blob
    But now there’s so much more of you to love

    I wiped out impetigo on the banks of Buttermilk
    Flu is under firm control in Powder Hole
    Terminus potions, tablets and lotions
    Major news in modern science
    Step up now and join my clients

    Spent a day in Buzzard’s Bay
    They couldn’t keep me there
    Even turned away from Kingdom Hall
    They probably threw you out

    My hair was gray and thanks to you it turned into pink
    But that color, it’s so becoming
    We’re gonna wash your phony tonics right down the sink

    My friends, you’ve seen a miracle and you’ll see many more
    People will come pouring in from land and sea
    We’ll have centers for testing
    Let’s start investing
    Keep those dimes and dollars mounting
    I’ll collect
    I’ll do the counting

    Everyone who lives here will be strong and healthy
    You’ll be getting richer by the day
    Hear them acclaim us
    This town will be famous
    The whole wide world will look at us and say
    It’s…

    Poddomaquassy, no, Paquamasoddy
    Qu-Qu-Quoddamapassy, Quoddamadaddy
    Dappaddy, Dappamossy, Quoddapossy
    Pwassapwassa, Passaquassa
    Pass-a-ma-quod-dy!

          • First impression? It looks like they added a dragon to Jungle Book. But I will see it anyway. I’ll see just about any Disney kids movie. It might be great.

            • Not a Disney fan. But Jungle Book in IMAX was thoroughly engrossing (and almost worth the price, even with the Senior discount). Followed by an unusually stimulating conversation with a 15 year old — dragged to the movie by his nine-year-old twin sisters — who had been given this article to read by his teacher [yes, another non-judgemental preceptor] and thus came armed with enmity to the movie:
              http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/04/reminder-rudyard-kipling-was-a-racist-and-the-jungle-book-is-imperialist-garbage/

              After admitting he forgot Kipling was de trop and had got caught up in the movie, he said the girls had come home from their school last year saying one of their classmates had given a book review of “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” one of their favorites, and when they went to take it out of the school library, they were told it wasn’t there anymore “because,” said the librarian, “the man who wrote it was not a nice man.” The 15-year-old had an interesting reason for this new spate of censorship and misrepresentations: “They’re killing all the stories and burying them. Then, after a hundred years or something, they can write them all over again with their own names and get money for it.”

              It would explain a lot.

  3. Trump is an nonintellectual loose cannon buffoon spewing random emotional laced propaganda bull shit, this is not going to change, ever!

    I just can’t wait (intended sarcasm) for the general election campaign to start and the soon to be coming Presidential debates; oh my, what the hell is Clinton going to do when she has to deal directly with the loose cannon buffoon Trump in a face-to-face “debate”? I expect the first Clinton vs. Trump debate to be the nastiest debate in United States political history. Trump is going to throw every piece of propaganda bull shit he’s got at Clinton, does anyone think Clinton will be able to maintain her composure and keep her cool in a debate with Trump? If Trump can get Clinton to loose her cool and go off the deep end lashing out in vengeful anger at the debate, he could actually win the general election.

    Something comes to mind; the scene in A Few Good Men when Lieutenant Kaffee breaks Colonel Jessup on the witness stand. Trump is not nearly as intelligent as the character Lieutenant Kaffee but he is a calculating SOB; being continually badgered by an nonintellectual loose cannon buffoon spewing random emotional laced propaganda bull shit can wear on your psyche – I’m not sure Clinton can take it, she’s used to people bowing or being respectful to the Clinton political machine.

    God help the United States if Trump is unstoppable in his bid for the White House.

  4. Jack,
    If you ever force me to read a Trump quote that long again I’ll sue you. I’ll sue in a court of law. My lawyers are the best at the law. They’ve never lost. And you’ll settle. And everyone will know your a settler. And not like those Mexicans who settled in California or those cell-phone plan people. Real settlers. Have I mentioned I love California?

    Honestly, reading his prattle is even worse than hearing it because you can literally see him get further and further off message while his words seem to completely lose all meaning.So that, by the end, you’re left wondering “What the hell were we talking?”

    It reminds me of a quote by H.L. Mencken (in reference to Harding):

    “He writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is both balder and dash.”

    • I hear you, Neil. But I am amused that transcribers have to transcribe what he says. They have to bang their computers against the wall. I can imagine what happens in the press rooms:

      Gary: “Hey, Bill. Trump just said this . . . What case of the verb should we use?”

      Bill: “Ah, Gary, I have no idea. Just write it the best you can – hopefully no one will read it.”

      Gary: “Um . . . Uh. . . . Thanks. . . . Erm . . . Bill? How do you spell, ‘Poddomaquassy’? Is that one or two ‘d’s?”

      jvb

  5. …And we have the New York Times objective reporting of the day: “Donald Trump Rebukes Hillary Clinton as Clash Erupts Outside Event.”

    The Times reporter states “…outside the event, protesters, some brandishing Mexican flags, clashed violently with Mr. Trump’s supporters, and described three incidents:

    1. “In one, a supporter wearing a football jersey emblazoned with Mr. Trump’s name was pelted with eggs.”

    2. “Another showed an unsuspecting man being surrounded by protesters and punched in the face.”

    3. “In a third video, a man who had emerged from the event holding a Trump sign was struck in the head and began to bleed.”

    No other incidents are described by the reporter. Which of these would be described as a “clash.” These are attacks, these are beatings.

    These incidents are being executed by organized leftist street gangs. Leftist politicians have to disavow them – they have to say specifically that they do not want the votes of thse people. Responsible leftists, of whom I do not believe that there are any significant number anymore, have to come out, and place themselves between these thugs and their targets. And reporters, obviously, have to begin writing honestly. Trump is a response to the lawlessness of the left – you don’t want to see the response to the left’s violence.

  6. Agree with you on all counts, but don’t be too hard on David Post. He’s part of the Conspiracy, so he probably did call out Obama on his intrusion on the judiciary. He’s no son of the Post.

  7. Watch for this flimflam in a “news analysis” — the writer wants to solidify his or her analysis by asking an “expert” to comment. Once you hear the expert’s name and group affiliation, you know what you’re going to see or hear next. The writer has been too lazy or stupid or ideological to look for a neutral source, say for example the CBO, FRED, the Bureau of Labor Statistics or RAND. Sometimes the opinions of opposing think tanks can also shed more light.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.