With Donald Trump in a spot of trouble over his repeated, bigoted attacks on the Hispanic judge sitting on the Trump University fraud case, Bill O’Reilly called for the judge to recuse himself “just to eliminate any doubt” about his motivation. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that this came on the same day there were reports that Trump wanted his surrogates to help him attack the judge.
On the same day Trump asked his supporters to back him against the judge, “Looking Out For You” O’Reilly did just that
As a slew of Republicans and Trump-supporting Fox hosts blasted Trump for attacking Gonzalo Curiel, the Hispanic judge on the Trump University fraud case, Trump seems to have become a bit discombobulated. From a June 6 Bloomberg report:
An embattled Donald Trump urgently rallied his most visible supporters to defend his attacks on a federal judge’s Mexican ancestry during a conference call on Monday in which he ordered them to question the judge’s credibility and impugn reporters as racists.
[…]
When former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer interrupted the discussion to inform Trump that his own campaign had asked surrogates to stop talking about the lawsuit in an e-mail on Sunday, Trump repeatedly demanded to know who sent the memo, and immediately overruled his staff.
“Take that order and throw it the hell out,” Trump said.
The entire article is a must-read for a glimpse into the amateurish, authoritarian way that Trump runs his campaign. If you don’t think he’d run a Trump administration in the same way, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Or maybe a degree from Trump University.
But I digress.
In concert with this latest dictum from his milkshake BFF, O’Reilly opened his show with a Talking Points commentary that did exactly what Trump asked.
First, O’Reilly minimized Trump University’s despicable behavior
O’Reilly described the class actions against Trump as “the disenchantment of a few Trump U clients.” Considering there are two California class actions pending and an action filed by New York’s attorney general, I think it’s safe to say there are quite a bit more than “a few” and they’re not “disenchanted,” they’re alleging fraud.
But it’s really not the number of people but the revelations of how the university conned, with fake promises and high-pressure sales tactics, a lot of people out of a lot of money they couldn’t afford to lose. Funny how O’Reilly didn’t go into any of that while he was “looking out for you,” as he boasts in every show.
O’Reilly bogusly tried to suggest the plaintiffs’ lawyers are Clinton operatives
O’REILLY: No question there is a political component to the legal action as the law firm behind the lawsuits often helps the Democratic Party. In fact, the firm has paid Bill and Hillary Clinton a combine $675,000 for speeches since 2009, according to the website, lawnewz.com. That makes the legal action look like a political hit job.
…So Mr. Trump is correct to be indignant and defend himself vigorously.
But as Megyn Kelly pointed out (and “no spin” O’Reilly didn’t), Judge Curiel has been on the case for three years – long before Trump declared his candidacy.
O’Reilly used his own flawed attempts to delegitimize the Trump University fraud cases to support his call for the judge to step down - while feigning neutrality
O’REILLY: Although appointed by Barack Obama, Judge Curiel is no raging liberal. …However, the judge belongs to a group called San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which does advocacy work on behalf of Latinos. It’s not associated with the radical La Raza group, but confusion is understandable.
Because of that, Mr. Trump apparently believes the judge may be biased against him, as it is well known the candidate has taken a strong stand against illegal immigration, including building a border wall.
Summing up, the Trump U. case is certainly political to some extent, and it’s a very high-profile situation. Because of that, Talking Points believes the judge should recuse himself. Not because he did anything wrong, he didn’t, but to eliminate any doubt as to the motivation in court rulings.
There are plenty of federal judges that could immediately step in. It is valid that some may see any recusal as caving to intimidation. But stark justice in a case this important, trumps, pardon the pun, any theoretical argument.
In other words, a Hispanic judge should cater to Trump’s prejudices and recuse himself just to reassure the bigots that he won’t hold their bigotry against them… in a case that has nothing to do with ethnicity.
This is nothing short of disgusting.
Watch it below, from the June 6 The O’Reilly Factor.
And how about noting the instances in which the judge has decided in Trump’s favor (such as Curiel’s deciding that it was in the best interest of the case to wait until after the November election and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get their whole tuition back)? BOR purposely left out pertinent info that should have come up in his Talking Points and during the Trump interview.
But then, we all know that this wasn’t about informing the folks or doing the right thing with regards to journalistic ethics. It was about coming to the aid of Trump. BOR’s “no-spin zone” is crap – pure crap. The “judge didn’t do anything wrong” nor has Trump provided any actual evidence of bias on Curiel’s part but he still needs to step down? BOR says he is concerned about the “motivation” of Curiel – perhaps it’s BOR’s motivation that deserves the scrutiny, hmm?
Sorry, BOR, but the only thing your Talking Points and your coddling of the man-baby Trump has accomplished is that Trump will see it as proof that his racist/bigoted attitudes get him the results he wants. You say you want him to tone it down but what you did only enables Trump to continue on in his unhinged, racist manner.
Btw, the FOX “news” commentator and right-wing hack, Kimberly Guilfoyle, belongs to the same legal group, National Council of La Raza, as Curiel.
So sorry I missed Trump team water boy Bill’s standard follow-up segment where one of his favorite sycophants show up and he inevitably asks the leading question: “So where did I go wrong, favorite sycophant?” Cue sycophant gushing agreement and characterizing Bill’s analysis as spot-on brilliance between smooches planting hickeys on O’Reilly’s ass.
CNN “Anderson Cooper 360” did a good job covering this. They too pointed out also the timing of the law firm getting selected predated Trump running for president.
Did I mention the law firm was picked by the plaintiff, not any judge? Did I mention Curiel wasn’t the original judge to approve the law firm? His affirmation came later. Did I mention plaintiff law firms like this one typically are pro-Democrat (a standard anti-litigation GOP whine)? I guess I should mention this stuff since half-truth telling (I’m in a generous mood) O’Reilly won’t. Fair and balanced? Maybe not so.
Even better than O’Reilly’s laughable unintentional satire of the news here was watching his most ardent and dependable Trump apologist …errrrr…. supporter on his panel (forget the guy’s name) get completely his ridiculous arguments scrubbing up the Trump University stink absolutely shredded by Karl Bernstein. A smirking Anderson was clearly trying not to laugh.
Bill likes to boast he’s an “independent” (since embarrassingly being caught as a register Republican). He’s clearly objective covering his ice cream sharing buddy, Trump.
