As promised, the judge presiding over the case against Donald Trump and his former for-profit real estate program known as Trump University unsealed the documents related to the case, and he inadvertently unleashed a major bombshell about Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Trump accused U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel of being a “hater” of Trump during a Friday speech, and apparently he was spot-on with his assessment. Curiel ruled against Trump in the lawsuit against his former business, and unsealed the court documents related to the case, but he may have also put himself in a situation where he needs to be recused from the case.
“I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater,” Trump said Friday in San Diego. “He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel.”
Trump said that Curiel, who’s an appointee from Barack Obama, is “hostile” towards him, and he doesn’t believe the judge is able to be fair while presiding over the case. The conservative magazine American Spectator might have just proven Trump right as well.
Apparently Curiel picked the firms to represent the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, and one of the firms has suspicious ties to Hillary Clinton. In fact, the chain of events leading up to it being chosen are quite similar to other pay-for-play schemes that Clinton has been accused of in the past.
How similar? The firm has financial ties to Clinton to the tune of a half of a million dollars, and for what? Speaking fees…
More from the American Spectator:
It seems that Robbins Geller “paid the Clintons nearly half a million dollars in less than a year.” Why? Speeches of course.
That’s right. One of the law firms picked by the Judge in the Trump University case — the very Judge Donald Trump accuses by name of anti-Trump bias — awarded this firm the case after — say again after — Hillary and Bill Clinton had been paid a cool $450,000 for two speeches by the firm.
Thanks to data compiled by the Washington Post, a reporter from the spectator was able to determine that the firm’s chair, Robbins Geller, paid the Clintons $450,000 for speeches. However, the Post didn’t actually report the connection to the Clintons, and the rest of the media has been rather uninterested in the shady chain of events. Shocker, right?
It’s rather odd that it wasn’t until after these large “speaking fees” were paid that the firm ended up being awarded what could prove to be a lucrative lawsuit. If one didn’t know any better, they would almost think that those “speaking fees” were actually an investment by the firm to get the CLintons to lean on Curiel to give it the case.
Surely Bill and Hillary aren’t THAT crooked, are they? …are they? Hopefully you catch the sarcasm.