Sean Hannity Show - Trump Made A Mistake - 6.7

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 8, 2016 - Sean Hannity Show

01:29:40

Trump Made A Mistake - 6.7

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast.
	You know, attention to detail is critical when you own your own business, so use legalzoom.com for the legal details.
	Now, their network of independent attorneys licensed in 48 states.
	Well, they know local laws and can provide answers to your legal questions.
	LegalZoom.com is not a law firm, so you won't pay by the hour.
	Just use Hannity One when you check out and save even more.
	LegalZoom.com.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Happy Tuesday, although I'm a little aggravated, frustrated, annoyed for a lot of different reasons.
	But we've got a big show for you today, including former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, will join us.
	A debate with Sally Cohn, Monica Crowley, Danielle McLaughlin, Congressman Duncan Hunter of California will be here talking immigration.
	And, of course, the California primary is going on today, as well as New Jersey and elsewhere.
	And we've got all of that covered for you.
	Let me start by conceding a point.
	Donald Trump was inarticulate.
	Donald Trump should not have discussed, although there's reasons, I think, why that he brought up the fact that the judge in the Trump University case happened to be of Mexican descent.
	It's not relevant.
	This always was about politics, about associations, about bad decision-making of a judge.
	And I would have said it much differently, should have been.
	And Donald Trump has now even acknowledged as much himself that this was more about politics.
	But I am convinced of one thing, and I think this is just a fact.
	There are certain establishment figures in Washington that are more concerned about how they look in things without knowing a whole lot of facts or even examining the nuance of certain issues than they are about their own political position in the world than they are about anything else.
	The establishment, I am convinced, wants Donald Trump to lose the election so they can say, oh, you people, see, we told you we were right, you were wrong.
	You picked the wrong guy.
	I honestly can't, I don't, I can't make a case right now that any of the other 16 candidates would be more electable than Donald Trump.
	It might be a more conventional political year.
	It might be, but I can't say for sure.
	But the conventional political year means that the Republican nominee has to thread the needle, and that means win Florida, win Ohio, win North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, and other states in between, Nevada.
	But short of that, you can kind of assume that everything goes to the Democrat.
	I don't know what's going to happen this year.
	But there's one thing for sure is that there are people, you know, I'll give you examples.
	On issues of race, you know, well, I've never heard Hillary chastise Roger Clinton, who was arrested for DUI over the weekend for using the N-word.
	I never heard her criticize Robert KKK Bird, the former Klansman who Hillary says is her mentor.
	I never heard anybody talk about, except for maybe on talk radio in this program and elsewhere, you know, when Al Gore or Hillary Clinton get before predominantly black audiences, their entire pitch, tone, cadence, and manner of speaking changes dramatically.
	I know the race card gets played every year.
	You know, there is, you know, Donald Trump's mistake here is that he brought up ethnicity when it's a case about politics.
	And I think a strong case could be made that the judge in the Trump University case deserved to be, should have recused himself based on some long-standing positions and associations.
	Now, this is the guy that made it a class action suit.
	This is a guy that allowed the original plaintiff to be replaced in the suit.
	It happens, but it's not particularly the normal way of things.
	You know, the judge is a member of the San Diego La Rossa Lawyers Association, La Rossa meaning the race.
	Now, that is not a branch of the National Council of La Rossa.
	I'm trying to be clear here.
	But the U.S. District Judge who has criticized Donald, who has been criticized by Trump as a hater, was appointed by Obama.
	I would argue should have recused himself from the case.
	And I am a little concerned that the La Rossa, San Diego La Rosso Lawyers Association, does have a link, according to Jerome Corsi, to the National Council of La Rosa.
	Now, that is a group, if you don't remember, is actually believes that the southwestern portion of the United States, the nation of Vastlan, actually comprising most of the southwestern United States, including California, belongs to Mexico.
	Well, that's a link that is on the page of the San Diego La Rosa Lawyers Association.
	So you have also, add to this, you've got two law firms appointed by the judge that have connections to Obama, Move On, and the Clintons.
	The judge in this particular case, I mean, went to a particular law firm that had paid, you know, $450,000 at least in speeches, two speeches for the Clintons.
	The firm's founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served two-year sentences in federal prison for a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class action suits and has also donated to Hillary Clinton.
	So I'm thinking, all right, well, there's some conflicts of interest here, which I'm just assuming, you know, again, Democrats always get the benefit of the doubt.
	The mistake, I think, of Trump was making it not political, which it is, and bringing up the race issue or the ethnicity issue of the judge who is a member of the La Rosa Lawyers Association, which does link to the National Council of La Rosso.
	So I think that's where it came from, and a reasonable assumption could be made there.
	But it doesn't stop the elite in Washington from expressing their views.
	Paul Ryan, you know, saying that this is the textbook definition of racist or racist comment.
	Well, then the next logical question is, well, why are you supporting him, Paul Ryan, if you think it was racist?
	Does that mean you're supporting people that make racist comments?
	Take it a step further.
	But the bottom line is here, there's still such fury and anger, which I think is predicating all of these comments about Trump.
	It doesn't matter that Joe Biden says you can't go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.
	Doesn't matter that Al Gore screeches, Republicans don't even want to count you in the census.
	Lindsey Graham said the most un-American thing a politician has said since Joe McCarthy.
	If anyone was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it.
	There'll come a time when the love of country will trump the hatred of Hillary.
	Why doesn't he just jump on board and endorse Hillary at this point?
	It doesn't matter.
	You know, we forget the whole reason how we've gotten this position and why these people lost as badly as they lost because they're willing to fight Donald Trump a thousand times harder than they ever fought Barack Hussein Obama.
	And they basically have written off any concept or idea of opposing Obama's agenda.
	And they have failed miserably at it as evidence when John Boehner was speaker.
	We nearly accumulated an additional $5 trillion in debt.
	And Republicans have control of the purse strings.
	And they never repealed those aspects of Obamacare they were capable of repealing because they didn't want to fight.
	They didn't want to be viewed as contrary to the president.
	They didn't want to be blamed for a shutdown of the government.
	And that basically were more concerned about their own political futures, which is what's happening here.
	You know, I just, there's more instances.
	How do you explain Hillary saying that Robert, the former Klansman Bird, was her mentor, or that J. William Fulbright, a known segregationist, was Bill Clinton's mentor.
	No, we can ignore those little happenings in the past.
	Why shouldn't we?
	That's not a textbook.
	We got Hillary's brother-in-law on tape, Roger Clinton, using the N-word 15 times.
	I don't even want to hear.
	I can't stand here in people that are ignorant like that.
	I just can't.
	So there's a lot of political conflicts galore here.
	You got a judge.
	Anyway, the federal judge, he's the one that actually takes this thing to class action.
	This is a judge that probably should have recused himself.
	This is a judge that's part of a pretty radical, or at least an organization that is associated with the radical wing of La Rosa.
	You know, and, you know, I think Trump's mistake was making it not about what it was, which was politics.
	And I think that's what it should have been about from the beginning.
	And he pretty much said as much, and it's time to move on, but not in the minds of Republicans.
	Republicans want to hit the self-destruct button.
	Republicans want to teach we, you, the people, a lesson because you didn't vote for any of the candidates of their choice.
	So they're just jumping on the bandwagon, admitting as quickly as possible that, you know, it's things that they'd never do against Obama.
	You know, did they take any statement?
	We're a nation of cowards on race.
	Who said that?
	It was Eric Holder at the time.
	Are they out there leading the charge against Hillary Clinton's lying or covering up or law breaking?
	No, they sit quietly by.
	Occasionally, they'll have show trials that go nowhere.
	Fast and furious, six years later.
	What have we learned?
	Nothing.
	What happened?
	Nothing.
	Obama obfuscates delays, executive action, anything he needs to do to just bide time.
	And then when the case finally comes up again and then they have all the evidence necessary, the excuse is always the same.
	Oh, that's old news.
	I don't know.
	I just, I see more willingness to fight Trump by Republican leaders than I do than their willingness in any of the eight years Obama's been in office now to fight and stop Obama's radical agenda, starting with the campaign in 07 and 08.
	They were too timid and too weak and too afraid to bring up anything involving Obama's radical past.
	Well, you know what?
	What's worse?
	Trump's comments about this judge, which was obviously inarticulate.
	I didn't hear Paul Ryan talk about Reverend Wright being racist.
	I didn't hear Paul Ryan making the case that somebody that hangs out with, gives speeches with, sits on boards with, and starts his political career in the home of a domestic, unrepentant domestic terrorist isn't fit for the job.
	I didn't hear Lindsey Graham make that case either, and it was his buddy John McCain running at the time.
	You know, it's like anything that they can do.
	You know, I didn't see the stuff in his two books, Audacity of Hope, Dreams of My Father, White Man's Greed Runs a World in Need, Obama said.
	Well, is that worse than Trump's comments?
	Everybody's got selective moral outrage.
	Everybody's all offended by words, but it only depends on who utters the words that offends them.
	Because they'll make all sorts of excuses time and time again if they don't want to pick that particular political fight.
	But if it's to their political advantage, they want to.
	Boy, they'll be outraged.
	I've never believed that most people that act as though they're so outraged are.
	I think all of this is about preserving their own political power.
	What was Hillary's comment a couple of weeks ago at a Democratic fundraiser?
	What was that comment that she made?
	Oh, yeah, CPT time, colored people time.
	Well, we forgot all about that.
	What about CPT time?
	You imagine if I said that or Donald Trump said that?
	What would be the reaction then?
	This would go on for the whole cycle for crying out loud.
	You know, never mind the merits.
	You know, look, the group, La Rasa, is radical.
	Now, the lawyers group is separate, but then why do they link to it on their website?
	And is that an indication that maybe deep down, because they do have the same name and the same link, that there might be some crossover belief system here?
	Why did the judge allow the original plaintiff when it was found the original plaintiff had praised Trump University to be replaced?
	Why did the judge allow it to be a class action suit?
	Why did the judge in this particular case, you know, why did he appoint law firms associated with Obama Clinton in moveon.org?
	A lot of indications about political problems involving this case.
	Trump's mistake is he should have made that the issue.
	That was his mistake.
	No denying it.
	It was a mistake.
	But I'm sure it was the foundation probably of his thinking because fundamentally he knows he's being treated unfairly by somebody that probably has radical views or at least views that oppose his.
	It should have been political and only political.
	Not about ethnicity.
	Not about heritage.
	It's irrelevant.
	Guy was born in Indiana.
	That's, you know, it's more of the political question to me.
	I'm just so sick and tired.
	I really, I've had it with these people.
	I'm telling all of you, Washington, establishment, Washington Republicans, I'm telling you they want Trump to lose.
	They want him to lose, and they'll fight harder against him than they ever fought against Obama.
	If I'm proven wrong, you come tell me.
	I'm not going to be proven wrong.
	Why didn't you go after Obama on the things that he's been involved in?
	Because they were too gutless.
	They're only courageous when it comes after going after their own, which threatens their entire establishment foundation.
	And that's what Trump represents to them.
	He is a threat to their ultimate long-term longevity and power.
	And you're too stupid to see it, because if you were smart enough, you would have voted for one of their candidates.
	And they want to be able to tell you after November you are stupid.
	You know, attention to detail is critical when you own your own business.
	That's why you need to use LegalZoom.com.
	Now, they take care of all the legal details so you can focus on growing your business.
	Now, you already know that LegalZoom is a great way to start your business, and they've helped over 1 million people get up and started the right way.
	But there's more to running your business than getting started.
	Supplier and customer contracts come with the territory.
	And if you need to hire help, well, every state has its own employment laws.
	So don't spend your valuable time researching laws and reading small print.
	Let the experts at legalzoom.com handle this.
	Now, they have a network of independent attorneys licensed in 48 states who know your local laws and regulations.
	They'll provide the best legal answers for your day-to-day questions.
	And the best part is you don't pay by the hour since LegalZoom is not a law firm.
	Instead, you pay a low monthly fee.
	You know exactly what you're getting up front.
	Go to legalzoom.com today and spend your time growing your business instead of worrying about the legal details.
	Just use Hannity1 when you check out and save even more, legalzoom.com.
	So last night, no celebration, no confetti, no climax, no nothing, no joy, zip.
	Hillary is announced by the AP that she had reached the 2,383 delegates.
	Now she has 1,812 pledge delegates that were actually won in primaries and caucuses.
	She has the support of 571 superdelegates.
	I think Bernie's up to like 50.
	That's all he has.
	So it's kind of fitting Hillary wins the Democratic nomination in a way that is so corrupt, so bankrupt of any morality, and in a way that is just, it's like antiseptic almost.
	There's nothing to it.
	No energy, no joy, no party, no enthusiasm, just anger among Sanders supporters who feel like they lost the nomination even before today's six primaries, which is obviously headlined by California.
	California alone offers 475 pledge delegates.
	Now, you know, you got to put this in a larger context here.
	In California, Clinton is now tied with Bernie Sanders.
	Who's Bernie Sanders?
	A 74-year-old, angry, disheveled, socialist cremudget.
	It's taken to the last day to beat him.
	And the only way you can beat him is a system designed by Democratic insiders.
	And on the day after she was declared the winner, you know, she may lose the largest state in the union.
	And even if she wins, it's going to be a heck of a lot harder for her than it ever should have been.
	Donald Trump had 16 people against him, 16 well-known governors, successful governors, 16 senators and former governors, 16 real, serious candidates running against him.
	I mean, what else can you say about this?
	In a contest that was supposed to be a coronation, at one point, Clinton led Sanders by 50 points at a national poll.
	Sanders has won 20-plus states.
	Everyone knows that the passion and energy and enthusiasm is for him.
	His crowds have been twice, three times, four times as big as hers.
	And then to complicate things more for Hillary, Bernie Sanders' campaign even condemned the media for their rush to judgment in declaring that Hillary is the Democratic or presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, saying superdelegates should not be counted.
	Quote, it's unfortunate that the media in a rush to judgment are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer, according to a Sanders spokesperson.
	By the way, that's a fair point.
	And frankly, an indication that despite a call from Obama to Bernie, Bernie's not so inclined to go away and just go gently into the night.
	And on Sunday, Sanders delivered a pretty defiant rebuttal to the growing calls of Democrats for him to drop out of the race.
	And he gave a speech to thousands of supporters, and he signaled that he plans to fight the Democratic National Convention in Philly as far, you know, and is far from ready to see the nomination of Clinton.
	And according to media reports, turning his ire towards party officials and power brokers around Clinton, Sanders warned that his supporters and progressives, socialists, may well decide to stay home in November if they feel wronged or ignored.
	And what all that means is, add to this the tight race in California, the anger among Sanders supporters, you know, the threat that they might sit out in November, the Democratic Party is far from a unified party.
	It is literally divided, and in some cases, Clinton and Sanders supporters are at each other's throats.
	And, you know, as the cover of the New York Post pointed out today, it was in a drawing.
	Hillary is literally crawling over the finish line.
	It wasn't supposed to be like this with Bernie Sanders grabbing her leg and pulling her from reaching the finish line.
	It's hilarious.
	So the situation, I think, is going to get worse rather than better for her.
	We still have the so-called FBI primary.
	That has yet to be resolved.
	It's beyond dispute that Hillary was engaged in wrongdoing with a private email server.
	The question is whether or not there's a criminal referral by the FBI.
	And if so, what is the Department of Justice going to do with that?
	Email scandal is precisely why Sanders supporters are so upset that the AP and other news outlets declared her to be the winner.
	And if Hillary is indicted between now and the Democratic Convention, the superdelegates, they're still free agents.
	They don't have to cast their vote until the convention.
	They can change their minds if outside events intervene.
	Beyond that, the story of this former Secret Service agent writing this book, Gary Byrne, Hillary Clinton's Jekyll and Hyde temper, has resulted in these wild outbursts that he witnessed being the guard outside of the Oval Office door.
	You know, that she's too erratic, too uncontrollable, and even violent for the job of the presidency.
	Quote, what I saw in the 1990s sickened me, he wrote.
	The name of the book is Crisis of Character.
	A White House Secret Service officer discloses his firsthand experience with Hillary Bill and how they operate.
	Well, that book is coming out a month before the Democratic Convention.
	It's now in the top slot on Amazon.com.
	And Hillary's now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president.
	He says, quote, she simply lacks the integrity and the temperament to serve in that office.
	From the bottom of my soul, I know that to be true.
	And with Hillary's latest rise, I realize her own leadership style, she's volcanic temper, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, disdainful of the rules set for everyone else, hasn't changed a bit.
	Anyway, this unchangeable reality is what's now happening with her.
	By the way, do you notice, you know, Paul Ryan or Lindsey Graham or company or Mitch McConnell ever get mad about the people that have died killed by illegal immigrants?
	I don't know.
	They're so outraged over Donald Trump.
	And he wasn't inarticulate.
	Should not have made it about ethnicity.
	Should have made it about politics.
	It was about politics.
	Anyway, as many as 30 million illegal immigrants live in the U.S. Immigration officials keep the release of criminal illegal aliens a secret, leaving communities in the dark about whether or not dangerous foreign nationals reside in their neighborhoods.
	According to the Boston Globe, the Obama administration released 323 criminal illegals into New England from 2008 to 2012, 25% of whom were convicted of violent crimes like murder and rape, with nearly one-third of them going on to commit more crimes.
	It goes back.
	I went and sat through the briefing in Texas.
	No one wants to talk about that side of things.
	All right, let's get to our busy telephones.
	Teresa is in Georgia listening to News Talk WSP.
	Hi.
	Hi, Sean.
	How are you?
	I'm good.
	How are you?
	Good.
	I heard on the news last night you were talking about Laureate and Bill Clinton.
	Laureate University, yeah.
	Yeah, well, I went to Walden University as a doctorate student, and they told me that it would cost about $40,000.
	I'm a teacher in Georgia.
	It ended up costing me about $117,000, which now put my kids through school, but they kept delaying the dissertation process, delaying, changing my committee members.
	And every time I did change, it made me disapprove what they already approved.
	And then finally, last January, I was part of the group that filed a lawsuit against Laureate.
	But this past January, they just so happened that they just dismissed it without even telling us why or anything.
	But yet, Bill Clinton gets $16 million from them.
	And it just really upsets me that you look online and see how many students from Walden have gotten screwed by this college.
	Why don't you file a class action suit with a bunch of other students?
	Yeah, that's what we tried to do last January, and we had to wait.
	We literally waited all of last year, couldn't say anything.
	And all of a sudden, in January of this year, they dismissed the case, and they didn't tell us why.
	They didn't give us anything, and everything was dropped, and we cannot get a hold of the attorneys whatsoever.
	So now our whole group's trying to get some more attorneys together and go through this process again.
	But it's so frustrating that Walden has done this to so many students, and Bill Clinton was right there apart of it.
	Of course, he was a chancellor until Hillary put her bid in for presidency, and then all of a sudden he drops out.
	Kind of funny.
	I think you make a pretty powerful case.
	I think you should be your own litigator here.
	You become the attorney of the case.
	You sound pretty good to me.
	Thank you.
	I'm sorry you went through it.
	Listen, I'm sorry you went through that, but I want you to hang on.
	We may be doing more about this in the future.
	Stay right there.
	Maybe we'll get a group of Laureate University students and put them on the TV show.
	That sounds awesome.
	All right.
	Precious.
	I'm sorry you went through that, Teresa.
	Charles?
	Charles in California.
	Hi.
	How are you?
	Yeah, this is Charles, and not that it really matters, but I'm a black conservative Republican, 100% supporter of Donald Trump.
	And I guess I look very, we've been listening at you for years and just love listening to you.
	But we've been standing at this cliff since, oh my gosh, since 2008 when McCain Palin were excoriated, didn't make it.
	And then all of a sudden 2012 thought we had another opportunity.
	Then Romney Ryan didn't make it.
	And here we are now getting ready to move ahead and hopefully get Donald Trump in that White House so we can start to turn this beautiful country around.
	And I, as a veteran, I cannot stand by and look at what's going on.
	He cannot stay on point because they won't let him.
	Well, I'm going to tell you, look, I mean, I'll ask him a question about this tonight.
	He's been asked a million times about it, but I mean, I'm almost obligated to if he has any additional comments to make on it.
	I am just telling you right now that I watch these guys, these Republicans in Washington, and they fight Trump harder than they ever fought Obama.
	And I'm scratching my head and I'm thinking they want Trump to lose.
	There's no other explanation for their behavior.
	None.
	They didn't spend the time to look into the case, the background, the decisions, the associations of the judge.
	I think this is political.
	I don't think this has anything to do with race or ethnicity or background or the fact that his parents were Mexican immigrants.
	He's an American from Indiana.
	Exactly.
	But he certainly has a liberal agenda, and he certainly appears to be biased towards Trump in a lot of different ways.
	And I think that's what Trump inarticulately was trying to say.
	Yes.
	And what's really even more threatening is the fact that the judge, and it's his business, you can support who you want, but because of his stance with LaRaza and with Trump saying that he is going to build the wall, which means he's going to start to seal up these borders as time goes forward, we can all understand that there's a problem, but they won't let him stay on point.
	They won't let him or allow him an opportunity to drill down on Hillary.
	Well, listen, I am telling you that there is a real fear that I think goes to the heart of the establishment, both Republican establishment, the Democratic establishment, the media establishment.
	I think that Donald Trump represents a threat to the old order.
	And Donald Trump is capable of blowing up the entire corrupt, incestuous system.
	And I think they all feel it, and none of them want it to happen.
	And what they really, you know, this is like a part of Washington nobody ever talks about.
	Do you know reporters?
	Guess who they go out and hang out with?
	They hang out with staffers of congressmen and congressmen hang out with the staffers and they have the parties they all go to together and they pat each other on the back and they leak to certain people and they leak back.
	And it's just, it's gotten so bad that in the process, 95 million Americans are out of the labor force.
	We have 12.5 million more on poverty.
	We have one in five American families without a single member working.
	And we're literally robbing our kids blind.
	And our position in the world is declining every day.
	And it's, you know, it's sad.
	I don't want to see America decline.
	And America is declining rapidly.
	And I agree with you 100%.
	As I said, as a veteran who stands for this country and as a person who loves this nation, we're in a very clear and present danger situation right now.
	And if we don't regain the White House on this round, I don't know what's going to happen with my children and our grandchildren.
	We're screwed.
	Listen, listen.
	We're on our way right now.
	I think you've got to accept it.
	We're screwed.
	We are absolutely, positively, our kids are screwed.
	The country's, I don't know if you ever recover.
	Well, I'm the primary here in Southern California right now, and we're going to at least give him two right now.
	And we can't wait between now and November for what's going to happen.
	We pray that he gets in.
	I can't even believe that Hillary still has the lack of integrity to even run, which is scary.
	No, no, no.
	She's got all the arrogance to run in the world.
	I appreciate the call, though.
	By the way, Catherine Herridge is just reporting that four central figures in the FBI's criminal investigation of Hillary's email practices are all using the same lawyer.
	Wow.
	That's a little bit of a red flag.
	Former U.S. attorney now runs a government watchdog group, lawyer Beth Wilkinson, is representing Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Felipe Reigns.
	They all have the same lawyer.
	Well, Matthew Whitaker, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, told Fox News in reference to the defense, he suggested having a single lawyer would help the four aides align their stories for the FBI interviews.
	The benefit is to have one lawyer's brain, have all the knowledge of all the various pieces and parts so that each of the potential targets or subjects of the investigation get to share information through the same attorney.
	Quite frankly, get this story all synced up to understand what other people know of the situation.
	Wow.
	They ought to not allow that, don't you think?
	That sounds a little corrupt.
	But that's the way things work.
	This is Washington, isn't it?
	It's your government.
	Are you comfortable with a potential president attacking a federal judge for his heritage?
	No.
	This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made.
	I think it's inexcusable.
	He has every right to criticize a judge, and he has every right to say certain decisions aren't right.
	And his attorneys can file to move the venue from the judge.
	But first of all, this judge was born in Indiana.
	He is an American, period.
	When you come to America, you get to become an American.
	And Trump, who has grandparents who came to the U.S., should understand this as much as anybody.
	Second, to characterize, you know, if a liberal were to attack Justice Clarence Thomas on the grounds that he's black, we would all go crazy.
	Oh, every conservative would say it was wrong.
	And it was racism.
	And Trump has got to, I think, move to a new level.
	This is no longer the primaries.
	He's no longer an interesting contender.
	He is now the potential leader of the United States, and he's got to move his game up to the level of being a potential leader.
	You consider what this he did here, racism?
	I think that it was a mistake.
	I think that I hope it was sloppiness.
	He says on other occasions that he has many Mexican friends, et cetera.
	But that's irrelevant.
	This judge is not Mexican.
	This judge is an American citizen and deserves to be treated.
	Now, that means he can attack him as a judge and say he's a liberal and he's against me and he's doing things I don't agree with.
	And he has lawyers who are supposed to be doing that.
	If it's a good case, they should file the change of venue.
	All right, that was Newt Kingridge on Fox News Sunday.
	Glad you're with us.
	Sean Hannity Show, hour 2-800-941-Send.
	You want to be a part of the program?
	And the former Speaker of the House, Newt Kingridge, is with us now.
	How are you?
	I'm doing great.
	I just am at the In-N-Out Burger near the San Francisco airport.
	Oh, I really hate you.
	You want to know why?
	Why?
	Because In-N-Out Burger is my absolute favorite burger.
	I want a double-double in a lettuce wrap animal style, and you can try it that way, and you'll never go back.
	See, there you go.
	Now, I just want to say I'm looking forward very much to doing your show tonight because it's going to be a big night for Donald Trump.
	It's going to be a very interesting night on the Democratic side, and we're going to have a lot to talk about.
	It's a fact.
	I'm out here actually to give a speech for Bio, which is the biological companies that try to develop cures for various diseases.
	But, you know, I can't imagine a better day to be in California than the day of their primary.
	Pretty fun day.
	And just be careful.
	You saw a lot of the violence in San Jose.
	I don't think you're that far from there.
	But let me just go to your comments.
	I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on it because it's getting frustrating, and we've spent a lot of time on it.
	I think where Trump made his mistake in this particular case, if you look at the judge, this judge has pretty radical connections.
	The judge is the one that made this a class action suit.
	The judge is the one that appointed law firms that were connected to Obama, the Clintons, and moveon.org.
	The judge is a member of the La Rossa Lawyers Association, which is where I think the whole heritage issue came up.
	To me, it's a political issue, not an ethnic or heritage issue, but I think his connection to that La Rossa lawyers group is where that came from.
	Yeah, look, let me say, first of all, that I don't think it helps Trump to focus on a lawsuit about himself.
	I mean, Trump's great strength is he's going to change America.
	And then he wants to draw us to bigger things.
	And he just had a chance on Friday to spend the whole weekend talking about the fact that this economy last month created one job for every 8,000 Americans.
	I mean, just a disaster.
	And so I think there are big things.
	Trump's always stronger the bigger he is.
	Second, as a citizen in a lawsuit, he has every right to complain about this judge and to really complain about the law, the law firm.
	And I've never objected to that.
	In fact, if you remember, even on Chris Wallace on Sunday, I said, look, he has every right to attack him.
	It was only when he got into ethnicity that I thought he went way off the reservation, and I think he's pulled back a fair amount from that.
	You know, let's talk about the judge as an individual, and let's talk about the judges' decisions and the judges' associations as an individual.
	That's perfectly fair game.
	The American Revolution, the number two concern in the American Revolution after no taxation without representation, was that the judges had become instruments of the state, and people no longer trusted them.
	And so there's a long American tradition of being willing to take on judges and raise serious questions about them.
	And this judge has certainly earned that kind of approach, particularly when you look at the record where Trump can point to some 10,000 students who have said that this was a very good course.
	It was very helpful, including, ironically, the woman who filed the lawsuit who has been taken off the lawsuit.
	Well, that's another thing.
	And that was a whole other issue involving this lawsuit is the original plaintiff, it was found, actually praised Trump University, and the judge allowed the replacement of the original plaintiff, which to me is just obscene.
	But, you know, look, for example, if you link to your website, you know, you've heard about this National Council of La Rossa, which, by the way, the law firm, the San Diego La Rossas Lawyers Association, of which this judge is a part of, is not a branch of the National Council of La Rosa, but the website is linked to the San Diego La Rosa Lawyers Association.
	And you may remember that the National Council of La Rossa is the separatist group that believes in the nation of Aslan and the idea that the southwest part of the United States ought to be given back to Mexico.
	So it's a pretty radical.
	So I can see where it came in.
	I just don't think it's smart to bring it in.
	Yeah, look, and I also think the more Trump can shift his game to understand that when you're going to be an alternative president of the United States, you're one of the two people who is going to be the leader of the free world, the head of the American government, and in many ways the leader of the American people.
	That's a very high standard.
	And, you know, he's up against an opponent who, frankly, I think is extraordinarily vulnerable, but he should not try to make himself equally vulnerable.
	So I think he's got to really think about how he structures his campaign.
	How does he make the transition from the primary game, which is one kind of game, to a general election game, which is different.
	And I drew the analogy the other day that he won the nomination, which is one of the great historic achievements.
	I mean, I would not take anything away from Donald Trump with this.
	He won the nomination against 16 pretty good people, at least a dozen of whom were very, very serious candidates, many of whom we would normally have thought of as a very plausible nominee.
	He won that, but he won that as a golfer.
	He really won it by himself on his own.
	His staff implemented his ideas, his genius, his tweets, his coming on your show.
	Now he's in a different business.
	Now he's got guys like Paul Ryan and Vitch McConnell and Reince Privus.
	So it's more like football.
	He has an entire team that he's the leader of, but the team has to have plans and the team has to have plays and the team has to have some confidence that they're going to operate together.
	And I don't think that Donald's made the transition yet to being the team leader as opposed to being sort of the lone golfer.
	And I think he can make that transition.
	I think he'll be very good at it once he gets it clear in his own head.
	But that's part of the transition I think we're living through right now.
	Have you spoken to Trump after this whole thing or after your comments?
	No, I was going to call him later on today.
	I thought I'd wait a day or two because we clearly, it's the most he and I have ever been in direct disagreement.
	And knowing him reasonably well, I figured he'd be happy to not talk to me for a day or two.
	Well, you know, your name has been floated quite often as a potential VP candidate.
	Yeah, but that's you're probably my biggest booster, and I love it.
	I think it would be a great ticket.
	I think you were the name one other speaker in modern history that balanced the budget.
	No, no, no.
	My only point is that's not what this is about right now.
	I understand.
	You're not applying for the job.
	I get it.
	And I'm not either being positive about Trump so he might pick me, nor am I being negative about Trump so he won't pick me.
	I did over the weekend what I thought as a leader of my party, I had an obligation to do.
	I'm a little frustrated, though, with people like Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham.
	I really am.
	I'm very convinced that the establishment in Washington wants him to lose.
	That if it was Hillary, if it was Obama, they'd bend over backwards to find out and understand what it is that the person is saying.
	And if it's Donald Trump, they want to pile on as quickly as possible.
	No, no, actually, no, in Ryan's case, I don't think that's accurate.
	I mean, Ryan was actually more cautious and more circumspect than I was.
	So was McConnell.
	I mean, McConnell was very disciplined in what he said.
	And so was Bob Corker.
	I mean, Lindsay's just Lindsay.
	I mean, Lindsay's totally off the wall.
	He's always been off the wall.
	But for Paul Ryan to say that this is the textbook definition of a racist comment, that is off the wall, considering when you know if he actually looked into the judge's background, that's just not fair.
	Well, but the statement, I think the actual statement was not defensible.
	And that's the only point.
	I mean, the right to attack is totally defensible.
	I think Trump has a good case that, in fact, the judge has been wrong, and the law firm has been wrong.
	But I think we need to move on.
	I mean, we have a lot of other issues.
	And I thought when we did O'Reilly last night, I thought Trump was very good.
	He was very focused.
	He handled this thing with grace and with calmness.
	I didn't see it.
	What did he say?
	Well, I mean, he basically said, look, it's really not about the guy's background.
	It's really about the guy's behavior, and it's about his associations.
	I mean, he really narrowed it down to whether if he had said originally what he said last night, there would have been no issue.
	None.
	Well, look, you know what?
	You're going to be on the campaign trail.
	You make mistakes.
	Let me move forward.
	You know my frustration comes from.
	I'm going to be very blunt with you.
	My frustration is that I find Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and a lot of other Republicans are far more willing to fight Donald Trump than they ever dared fight Barack Obama.
	That's where I'm frustrated.
	And as a result, Obama got his entire agenda passed.
	Look, and it's easy to do because the news media applauds you if you take on Donald Trump, and the news media attacks you if you take on Barack Obama.
	So there's a lot more headwind doing your job and taking on Obama.
	But at the same time, my only point is I think that Donald Trump has the opportunity to win an historic election.
	I think he has a chance starting at the convention to bring us together as a country.
	I think he can prove that he wants to run an American coalition that's much bigger than the Republican Party.
	And I'm very excited by the possibility that in Cleveland we're going to see a historic turning point.
	And that's what I hope Trump will focus on.
	He has a great opportunity to bring together the vast majority of Americans who understand that the job situation is a disaster.
	He really has shown a capacity.
	And I think you more than anybody have pointed this out.
	He has shown a particularly strong growth curve in terms of a guy that, you know, he wasn't even in politics a year ago.
	Right.
	And I think he'll keep growing.
	I'm optimistic.
	I think that he'll keep growing.
	I think he has a chance here to do some things that are really different than we've ever seen.
	And I think that that's what he should focus on.
	The bigger he is and the bigger his ideas are, the better off we are.
	And, you know, I think it's only when he starts to get down into smaller things that he has a challenge.
	But when he gets big enough, the American people drown the news media.
	And that's why he was able to get nominated despite all the opposition from all the different media.
	And I think that if he runs a campaign of very big choices between he and Hillary, he'll beat her decisively.
	And in the process, he'll create a new majority that could govern for a generation.
	What does these polls mean to you now, these state polls, head-to-head matchup, Hillary versus Trump?
	Well, I think Trump had a bad two weeks in the news media.
	And I think that Hillary's had some positives in the sense that she's gradually grinding down Sanders.
	So I think she looks a little stronger than she did three or four weeks ago, but I don't think that lasts very long.
	And I think, as I said, tried to say to people all weekend, the biggest political news last week was not Donald Trump, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton.
	It was the unemployment numbers on Friday and the fact that this economy is a disaster.
	Between regulations and taxes and anti-entrepreneur, anti-small business attitudes, the Obama administration has ground the American economy to the lowest point since the Great Depression.
	And people know it.
	They feel it in their lives.
	They feel it in trying to do jobs.
	25 million people have dropped out of the middle class.
	And Obamacare is grinding down small business.
	It is crushing middle-class people.
	Do you know one in five families don't have a single family member in the workforce?
	Do you know that one in six adult men 18 to 34 are either in jail or out of work?
	I know.
	And that's what we should be talking about.
	The Democratic Party's vision of how the world works ultimately leads you to the kind of collapse they had in Venezuela.
	And the fact is that we should take them head on.
	What should we say to Hillary Clinton?
	Is the Obama record of creating one job for every 8,000 Americans?
	Is that good enough for you?
	Are you really comfortable saying you want to continue that?
	I got to run, but you're going to be joining us.
	I hope you're not going to be in any big rallies tonight where all these people are throwing eggs at people.
	I never, I never, look, if I show up with somebody like me, we'll just, you know, we'll try to find a way to claim that.
	During the RNC convention, you want to hang out with me.
	I'm bringing my sensei, who has 14 black belts, multiple degrees.
	He's my bodyguard for the whole week.
	You want to hang out with me?
	There we go.
	All righty.
	All right, Mr. Speaker.
	I don't know what's in his heart, but I think that comet itself is defined that way.
	So I am not going to defend these kinds of comments because they're indefensible.
	I'm going to defend our ideas.
	I'm going to defend our majority.
	And I think our likelihood of getting these ideas into law are far more likely if we are unified as a party.
	And so I see it as my job as Speaker of the House to help keep our party unified.
	I think if we go into the fall as a divided party, we are doomed to lose.
	And that is why I'm going to be focusing on these ideas, these solutions, and not attempt to try and defend the indefensible.
	All right.
	That was Paul Ryan commenting about the Donald Trump controversy.
	Glad you're with us.
	800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Joining us now is Congressman Duncan Hunter of California.
	We have him on for a lot of different reasons.
	How are you?
	Hey, doing great, Sean.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	So you probably know about this particular group which has come into play here, and that is the San Diego La Rossa Lawyers Association, because that's where you're from.
	And you know probably the positions of the controversial National Council of La Rossa, of which, by the way, is translated into the race.
	They're separate groups.
	The Lawyers Association is not a branch of the National Council of La Rossa, but a report on WorldNet Daily today says they do link to the National Council of La Rossa on their website.
	Is that relevant to you?
	Yeah, that is relevant.
	I mean, that's, you know, take if you had a judge that was a member of a white supremacist group that thought that, or a Native American supremacist group or anything, that's what La Raza is here in San Diego.
	They believe that California is theirs, that the United States took it wrongly, and they're going to get it back one day.
	And they're going to take it back by force if they have to.
	That's what La Raza is.
	So that's the belief in this notion of the nation of Aslan.
	In other words, that the southwestern portion of the United States really belongs to Mexico.
	Correct.
	Okay, and so if you would link to that as the San Diego La Rosa Lawyers Association, as Jerome Corsi points out, if you link to that on your website, what does that say to you?
	It says that you have an affiliation with them.
	But that, you know, I'm still kind of, I don't understand what Trump needs to do here with this, with all of it, he's got to separate his business stuff from his presidential campaign.
	I don't think you can mix the two, and that's what he just did.
	He mixed them forever.
	Yeah, I think I would agree that that's a mistake.
	I think you're right on that.
	In other words, and I don't think he went into enough detail in explaining his comment.
	For example, if the judge in the case appoints people connected to Clinton and a law firm that paid the Clintons $600,000 in speeches and donations to the Clinton campaign and have connections to Obama and moveon.org, that's problematic, isn't it?
	Yeah, that's a much bigger deal, I think.
	And that's probably the real deal here, not somebody's heritage.
	But you can look at this multiple ways, Sean.
	One of the ways, what I like to do is take these arguments out to their logical extreme.
	So let's say that Chris Kyle, the American sniper, is still alive, and he was on trial for something, and his judge was a Muslim American of Iraqi descent.
	And here you have Chris Kyle, who's killed a whole bunch of bad guys in Iraq.
	Would that be a fair trial for Chris Kyle?
	If you had that judge there, probably not.
	And Chris Kyle could probably say, hey, this guy's not going to like Christian.
	But the left has made this case for a long time, that, for example, somebody should have a jury of their peers.
	And if they happen to be a black American or Hispanic American, that they shouldn't have an all-white jury, correct?
	Isn't that a similar argument?
	Yeah, you can look at the O.J. trial, too.
	Was that fair?
	Right?
	You know, so I guess the question is, is probably Donald Trump was A, inarticulate.
	B, didn't explain the facts of the case and the reason why he doesn't like this particular judge.
	And I think he probably made the mistake of sort of making this, while it's political, he brought up the fact that the immigrants, that the judge's parents, he was born in Indiana, he brought up their ethnic background.
	That was a mistake.
	Yep.
	No, that was a mistake, Sean.
	And I don't have, you know, kind of like Paul Ryan said, I don't have, I'm making no excuses for Donald Trump here.
	Just because I endorse him and support him doesn't mean that I support and endorse everything he says, and this is one of those things.
	Yeah, but why did Paul Ryan say this is the textbook definition of being a racist?
	Why did Lindsey Graham say it's un-American?
	It seems there's almost a group of people in Washington, establishment types, that just want him to lose and want to help Hillary any way they can.
	No, and I'll tell you what, too, Sean, this is not going to be the first time, or excuse me, this won't be the last time.
	It's obviously not the first time, but it's not going to be the last time that he says something like this either.
	So either you support the Republican nominee against the horrible Hillary Clinton or you don't.
	I don't know what game my colleagues are playing when they try to slam Donald Trump any chance they get as opposed to just saying, look, that's not my position.
	He said some things we don't agree with, but we're still behind him.
	I don't know what their game is.
	Well, Lindsey Graham actually is now a few years for president.
	Lindsey Graham is now openly urging Republicans to abandon Trump and saying that people will recognize that the time will soon come when, quote, the love of country will trump the hatred of Hillary.
	So if you love America, according to Lindsey Graham, you need to get over your hatred of Hillary because we'd be better off with her in the White House.
	Well, that's how I interpret it.
	How do you take it?
	Yeah, I take it that way too.
	But I think you can separate what Trump says to how he will act as president and what he will enact as president.
	I trust him to be the next president of the United States.
	That doesn't mean he's not going to say some dumb things, but I think he will be a great president because he's going to put America first.
	He's going to focus on the economy, on the border, on ISIS.
	That's what he's going to do.
	So things like this, they're on the periphery.
	I think the liberals love them because they take the focus off of the economy and the border and ISIS.
	The more we talk about it, I think the more fodder that we give the liberals to go after him on stuff that doesn't really matter on how he would be as president.
	Let's talk a little bit.
	I mean, you're in the San Diego area.
	How bad is illegal immigration?
	How bad does it impact San Diego?
	I was in a San Diego office building once reporting on the border.
	I saw a tunnel that had been dug all the way from Mexico through a San Diego office building.
	I assume it's impacting your educational system, your criminal justice system, and your health care system in a pretty expensive way, no?
	And our election system, because now you can get your driver's, when you get your driver's license, you can register to vote at the same time without having to be a citizen.
	But here's the upside to San Diego.
	We have the border fence that Trump always talks about.
	It's here in San Diego.
	It goes from the Pacific Ocean to the desert inland.
	So there is almost no illegal immigration in San Diego.
	You do have to build a tunnel for a mile and bring it up under some warehouse or something.
	That's what you have to do to come across the border here.
	To come across the border in Arizona or Texas, you just got to climb under a fence like the Afghan criminal, the Afghan terrorists did late last year.
	So in San Diego, we don't have a lot of illegal immigration.
	We have the impacts of illegal immigration on the economy, like you said, the health care system, school system, but not the criminal illegal immigration where you have people coming across that are able to just come across immediately.
	Because we have the actual violence that took place in San Diego.
	We saw the violence in San Jose.
	We see the violence at a lot of these Trump rallies.
	I mean, you see gangs of people, mobs now, surrounding innocent women and throwing eggs in their faces and chasing men down the block and punching people in the face, cold cocking them.
	And it happens again and again.
	And in the case of San Jose, I know the mayor, well, he blamed Donald Trump, but they seem to be a group of radicals that are pretty well organized now, and they want to intimidate Trump supporters and they want to start violence with them.
	And nobody seems to really be talking about it.
	No, it's pretty crazy, actually, Sean.
	I mean, these are criminals.
	These are thugs.
	That's un-American.
	With what these folks are doing at these rallies, that's un-American.
	When you try to kill freedom of speech and the freedom to assemble, especially during a political season, you know, you don't see a bunch of Republicans or conservatives beating people up at Bernie Sanders rallies.
	These guys are just thugs, like Trump said.
	And what I say is I would welcome them to the one we had, the rally we had here in San Diego, because I had about a few hundred veterans, including Navy SEALs, Special Forces guys, and U.S. Marines with me.
	So if these guys want to bring it, they can bring it back to San Diego, and we'll let the Marines and SEALs take care of them.
	Well, that wouldn't be a bad idea.
	I mean, especially people.
	Look, I felt so bad for a couple of women.
	One woman got punched.
	Another woman had an egg.
	Literally, she was surrounded by a mob, people waving Mexican flags, throwing an egg right in her face.
	I don't know if you saw that video, but I mean, it's gotten pretty violent out there.
	Where are the police, by the way, in all of these things?
	They're told to stand down?
	No, not in San Diego.
	They were great, but in San Jose, I think that they were.
	I think the demo, I mean, unfortunately, this is political, right?
	So you have a Democrat mayor.
	They want to see the worst outcome possible at these events so they can blame Donald Trump.
	I mean, that's their political job, and they're putting politics above the safety of the people.
	And I'll tell you, to have people stand by and watch women be disparaged and beaten down like that, you would think that from the woman's candidate, Hillary Clinton, you would have had massive outcry from her and other liberals across the country.
	But they don't care if it's a Republican woman getting beat up or being egged.
	I guess they only care if it's a Democrat woman.
	That's pathetic.
	What does this tell us about what we can expect this summer at the convention?
	Oh, I think it's going to be crazy, Sean.
	In fact, I'm probably not going to go.
	I'm going to watch you to see what's going on there.
	I've got more important things to do than try to get through a bunch of protesters at the convention.
	So, really, so you've got to put it all on my shoulders.
	I really appreciate that.
	Don't worry, I have my sensei coming with me for self-defense purposes.
	So, we're a pretty good tag team.
	Although he's got 15 black belts, multiple degrees.
	I only have one little brown belt that he taught me.
	So, we'll see how I do.
	All right.
	Well, thank you.
	Appreciate you being with us.
	I know you're trying to get Staff Sergeant Earl Plumley to the Medal of Honor.
	By the way, that's a Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, and he was once considered for the top award, but downgraded to a Silver Star.
	How's that going?
	It's going well.
	I mean, not just considered for the Medal of Honor, right?
	He was recommended for the Medal of Honor by right now the current Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joe Dunford, who I did a couple of tours with.
	So the highest guys recommended him, and the bureaucrats back in D.C. stop this again.
	So, you know, we have all this, we have a lot of inside information coming out from Special Forces, from the Marine Corps, from Homeland Security on a lot of the stuff that we work on.
	This is one of those things where we're just trying to correct a wrong and have the warfighter win and not the bureaucrats in the Department of Defense.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	We appreciate it, Congressman Duncan Hunter, 800-941, Sean, Tolfree, telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Let's get to our busy telephones here as we say hi to Donna in Staten Island, listening to the all-new AM710 WOR.
	What's going on?
	Hi there, Sean.
	How are you?
	I'm good.
	How are you?
	Good.
	I just wanted to comment on the whole thing with Sodomayor when she had said that, you know, she would be influenced as a Hispanic female.
	I think, I know that judges are supposed to be impartial, but I think it's human nature that on some level you're going to relate and it's going to have a bearing on your decision and the way you think and the way you rule on things.
	I mean, well, that has been the premise of the left for a long time.
	I mean, that's why you've got to have juries that are representative of the people that they are in fact, you know, the community.
	In other words, if you're black in a black community and you have an all-white jury, I think people have a very strong case to be made that that's not a fair jury.
	I agree with that.
	You know, Judge Sotomayor is saying as a wise Latina, her background, her experience, you know, I'll play it again if you want.
	She's very clear in saying that would impact how she does her job.
	Here's what she said.
	I gave a variant of my speech to a variety of different groups, most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups, most particularly of young Latino lawyers and students.
	As my speech made clear in one of the quotes that you referenced, I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system.
	Because different life experiences and backgrounds always do.
	I don't think that there is a quarrel with that in our society.
	Isn't that what she's saying there?
	Exactly what we're talking about?
	Right.
	So then Trump's not wrong to say that he feels that guy would be prejudiced towards him and that that guy, that judge, should recuse himself.
	He's not wrong.
	He's not making a misstatement.
	I think if Trump made a mistake here, and I think he did, I think it was not making it political when it seems political.
	It's not about heritage.
	It's about this guy having a political agenda that I think can be proven.
	And I think in that case, you remember, this is the judge that allowed this granted class action certification in this case.
	You know, this is the guy that appointed the law firms connected to Obama and Hillary and moveon.org.
	He didn't appoint, you know, in that sense, the judge seems to be biased towards him in a political way.
	You know, put aside all heritage issues.
	That's meaningless here.
	This judge is political.
	This seems to be a political, and I think probably that was what Trump was trying to say and did it very inarticulately.
	And in that sense, he's paid a price for it and continues to.
	But, you know, there is something really wrong when the association of the judge actually links to the National Association of La Rosa, which believes in this whole idea of Astland and that the Southwest United States belongs to Mexico.
	And you could say, well, it's not actually their website, but they link to that radicalism.
	The name is the same as the radical group.
	You've got to believe that there's got to be some sympathies there.
	It's not a leap in faith to get there.
	I gave a variant of my speech to a variety of different groups, most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups, most particularly, of young Latino lawyers and students.
	As my speech made clear in one of the quotes that you referenced, I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and backgrounds always do.
	I don't think that there is a quarrel with that in our society.
	All right, that was Justice Sotomayor.
	She also made the comments about a wise Latina.
	Here's the question.
	When you have guys like Paul Ryan saying this is the textbook definition of racist, or Lindsey Graham suggesting Trump's comments are un-American or the comments by Mitch McConnell or anybody else, and you ignore the obvious political conflicts of interest in which is going on in the Trump University case when you have a district judge who has been criticized by Donald Trump yet is a member of the La Rossa Lawyers Association.
	And by the way, the judge appointed a law firm that had paid the Clintons $675,000 for speeches as well as political donations.
	And also, when you have the La Rosa Lawyers Association of California at the bottom of their website, that they have a link to the National Council of La Rossa, a fairly radical group.
	Something funny, Sally?
	I mean, they have a link to a bunch of things.
	I'm sorry.
	The National Council of La Rossa, as you probably know, believes that the southwest part of the United States actually belongs to Mexico.
	Do you agree with that?
	I'm just curious, do you think that?
	No, no, no, no.
	You don't answer.
	Sally, I don't have patience today.
	You don't answer a question with a question.
	The National Council of La Rosa believes the National Council of La Rosa, which is connected to the website of the San Diego La Rosa Lawyers Association, believes the southwest portion of the United States belongs to Mexico.
	Do you believe that?
	I don't.
	I haven't given it much thought, Sean, but I'll tell you, if you go on my website, you'll find a link to your website somewhere in there, and I can guarantee I don't agree with most everything you're saying.
	Okay, so now on top of that, Monica Crowley, the National Council of La Rossa, or the race, as it is said, along with the Hispanic Bar Association.
	And, you know, if you look at the website and you look at the connections and you look at some of the bizarre, I would argue, rulings in this case, it seems like that there is a conflict with this particular judge who holds somewhat radical views.
	Is that a fair statement, Monica Crowley?
	Yes, it is, and that's why Donald Trump was correct to be concerned about this.
	If you do a review of this judge and his associations, here's what you find: you find that Judge Curriell is an Obama appointee.
	He's also a campaign contributor to Democrats, including the House Democratic Conference Chairman, Javier Becera.
	The lawyers group to which he belongs, as you pointed out, Sean, is not the National Council of La Raza, but it is a Latino activist group for lawyers that has ties to La Raza.
	Judge Curiel also did another thing.
	He appointed two law firms to handle the cases involving the Trump University lawsuit.
	Those law firms have senior partners who have repeatedly donated to Democrats, including Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and moveon.org.
	So of course Donald Trump has grounds to be worried.
	I don't blame him for raising it.
	The question is, was it the best and most proper way for him to raise it, doing it the way he did, by bringing more public attention to the lawsuit and focusing the attention on him when he should be focused more on the United States and what he's going to do to the United States?
	I would tend to agree with that.
	And I would also argue that it was probably inarticulate.
	But I think there is obvious conflicts of interest here in which the judge, I think, in any other case, would probably move towards recusal considering the associations or making the appointments of law firms that are associated so dominantly with opposition to Donald Trump.
	Have we vetted all the senior partners?
	We're sure they all give Clinton to Clinton leadership.
	Look, listen, Donald Trump didn't just attack this one judge.
	And by the way, whatever.
	He can think the judge doesn't like him, doesn't like his rulings, whatever.
	If it had been a white judge, he wouldn't have made it about this.
	In every other case, he didn't make it.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Wait, wait, hang on.
	I don't know if that other judge would be associated with the group La Rosa, which means the race, which is also associated with the national La Rosa, which has very extremist and controversial views.
	So, you know, you say that in a vacuum as though that that is meaningless and absolutely has no relevance in the case.
	If somebody has very, very radical views on issues involving Hispanic Americans and Mexican-Americans, you've got to wonder whether or not that could play a part in being prejudiced against a particular okay.
	First of all, I'm not going to mitigate the belief of the National Council of Laws nor the long, tenuous connection you're trying to make between the Latino Bar Association in California.
	No, no, no, no, stop.
	You're not being honest.
	It's the La Rosa.
	It's called La Rosa.
	It's not affiliated with.
	Sean, he also said in repeat report, in interview after interview, questions, question, that seems like no Latino judge, forget their memberships, forget their beliefs, association, political donations.
	No Latino judge could fairly adjudicate a case involving Donald Trump, nor could any Muslim judge.
	So this is not about one judge, and this is where this is problematic.
	And by the way, no, here's the thing.
	You want to ignore the facts of the case, and that's a problem.
	Because the facts of the case, as Monica, I think, articulated very well.
	The two law firms appointed by the judge have close connections to both President Obama and the Clintons.
	And the other radical group, moveon.org.
	You know, you can dismiss, I totally concede your point that the National Council of La Rosa is not the same as the San Diego La Rossa Lawyers Association.
	But when you actually look at the San Diego Lawyers Association and you find out on their website, there's a link to the National Council of La Rosa.
	So that does raise questions about whether or not they have some type of association with this radical group.
	Sean, I'd like to jump in if I can, because I've actually clerked for a federal judge for close to a year.
	This is Danielle.
	I think we need to remind ourselves that judges are people.
	Judges are people.
	They have life experience.
	They have associations.
	Often they have associations that are connected with causes that they care about, maybe with their ethnicity, maybe with their life experiences.
	And so I think the bigger problem here is that Donald Trump is besmirching this judge for no good reason.
	I mean, there are some decisions in his case that he didn't like, but that happens with every litigant.
	That's just life.
	He's besmirching this judge on the basis of the association that you're talking about that may or may not hold.
	But shouldn't you?
	But wait a minute.
	Shouldn't our shouldn't our judicial system be above reproach?
	In other words, shouldn't we assume that there should not be politics brought into the courtroom?
	And when a judge in a particular case, and you're dealing with a presidential candidate now, is making appointments with law firms directly associated with the competitor of another presidential candidate, it does raise questions.
	Well, I get two questions here, and I absolutely believe a judge goes into a courtroom, they wear a black robe, they are a collection of their experiences, but they are meant to set everything aside.
	And I believe in that system, and I believe that this judge has set those things aside.
	If you haven't read everything in the case, then why would the judge allow one plaintiff to be replaced with another plaintiff once the original plaintiff was found to have said positive things about Trump University?
	Isn't that unusual?
	And I can explain that.
	It's actually not.
	So this is a claim that I'm not sure.
	Actually, not.
	We'll just get rid of the litigant that looks good for Mr. Trump, and we'll put in one that looks bad.
	That's what he's saying.
	But a class action always has a class representative.
	And by the terms of the law and by the terms of the Class Action Fairness Act, the representative plaintiff has to have claims that are similar to all of the other members of the class.
	And so what sometimes happens.
	And what happened with the original plaintiff?
	You're not telling the whole story.
	Well, as I understand it, he was or she, the original plaintiff was replaced with a class action.
	And why was the original plaintiff replaced?
	That's how class action law works.
	I'm asking, why was the original plaintiff replaced?
	Do either of you know?
	Because the original plaintiff was found to have said positive things about Trump University and one's experience with it.
	And undoubtedly, in the course of a trial, that will come out.
	But the way class action law...
	Not necessarily if the judge rules against that coming out.
	...represent...
	You have a name plaintiff who represents the full class.
	Look, again, you know what, actually, Sean?
	You go to town with this one.
	This is a losing issue.
	This is a losing issue for your side across the board.
	I don't need your advice on what's a losing issue.
	I'm just saying, in fundamental fairness.
	One judge.
	If you, Sally Cohn, let's just look at you for a second.
	Let's say SallyCohn.com.
	I don't know what your website is.
	Do you have a website?
	Yes, it is, SallyCohn.com.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for the ad, Sean.
	And let's say that you link on your website to the National Council of La Rossa, like the San Diego La Rossa Lawyers Association, okay?
	Then we look into what you're linking to.
	All right, the National Council of La Rossa, you know, it would be an affiliation with a group and the emergence of the MECHA movement in the 1960s, which was a radical separate student movement in California that espoused this, you know, mythical nation of aspirations.
	Bring a flashlight in that rabbit hole, Sean.
	It's not a rabbit hole.
	I'm trying to advise you.
	I'm trying to educate you.
	That is connected to the National Association of La Rossa.
	He's a member of an organization that has a link to another organization on his website, and you want to tie it to him.
	Would you ask me?
	No, no, no, it's not done.
	No, you don't get away with that.
	Monica Crowley, wouldn't that be the equivalent of you, Monica Crowley, linking to a separatist group on the other side on a conservative side?
	What's the difference?
	Yes, and certainly when any example of that happens, all hell breaks loose, right?
	When anybody does something like that.
	The bigger point is, I think, twofold, Sean.
	One, I think Donald Trump sort of stumbled into this.
	I think he has legitimate cause for concern, but he didn't handle it the proper way.
	What Trump should be saying is, look, there are plenty of unbiased, impartial judges in this country, that is true.
	But we also have a problem of very biased judges in this country.
	I don't know whether Judge Curiel is one way or the other, but if you elect me, I can guarantee you that I'm going to make sure that the federal judiciary from the Supreme Court down has conservative judges that are strict constitutionalists.
	The other point, and this is a big one, this has to do with the judiciary and what we have been told by the left for decades, which is that anybody of color cannot get a fair shake in the justice system.
	Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court Justice, the wise Latina, said, and I quote, ethnicity will make a difference in our judging.
	The Supreme Court just recently overturned the death sentence of a black defendant because his case was heard by an all-white jury in Georgia.
	So they vacated that death sentence.
	The assumption is that an all-white jury cannot be fair.
	This is what the left has been telling us for a long time.
	You cannot charge what is involved in the job.
	Hold on, let me finish.
	I'll let you think about it.
	What is involved here is the reverse.
	Did Donald Trump handle it in the most graceful or effective way?
	Of course not.
	He did not.
	That's why we're having this debate.
	But the bigger point is that he was raising a point to the reverse, and I suppose that's not allowed to raise those questions, right?
	Okay, I want to go back to this because this is very important.
	It is against the law to select a jury on the basis of race.
	And that death penalty case was overturned because the notes from the prosecutor, which had been held through the appeals process, showed that there had been notations in the jury selections sheets that indicated whether the juror was white or non-white.
	That was the problem there, number one.
	Number two, judges all the time, as I said at the beginning, are affiliated.
	We have Scalia, you know, Scalia was.
	We have Justice Thomas now, very, very involved with the Federalist Society, which is a conservative lawyers group, okay?
	And you don't, you know, that was their reason.
	Do they have any radical views that you know of?
	Well, I mean, radical is in the eye of the beholder.
	No, no, no.
	Hang on.
	If La Rossa and the National Council now, which is separate from the San Diego lawyers La Rossa group, if La Rosa, which is tied to the website, if in fact they believe in this radical separatist movement where the southwest of the United States, the nation of Astlan, would belong to Mexico, isn't it?
	Excuse me.
	Stop interrupting.
	Danielle, would that be considered radical to you?
	Does the Federalist Society relate to or have any connections to any radical separatist groups?
	Well, calling them a radical separatist group is one thing.
	I mean, Texas wants to secede.
	We have groups are allowed to have a lot of people.
	No, I don't know that Texas wants to secede.
	Maybe some people.
	I go back to what Trump did, and I think in many ways we're in agreement.
	It was an artful, it was an articulate, it wasn't appropriate.
	He had a really great news week, and he should have focused on that.
	But I'm just not sure he can really help himself.
	I think he feels victimized by this judge.
	I don't think it's right.
	I don't think he was.
	I think it's inappropriate.
	Can I just ask, Sean, do you think that any this is what Trump said, that any Latino judge or any Muslim judge cannot fairly hear a case against Donald Trump?
	That's not what he said.
	That's not a direct quote.
	You're paraphrasing.
	I'm sorry, if I'm not afraid of that.
	That is not a direct quote.
	Thank you very much.
	No, but I will say that, listen, when you have a presidential...
	What do you think?
	I...
	I think there are fair people in all races, backgrounds, creeds, and colors.
	And I also think in this particular case, inarticulately, and I think he should have definitely said it a lot differently, but I think I understand his feelings here.
	Based on this judge's background, I think there might be questions that the judge holds radical views, and that could play a factor in his case.
	Hold on, you know, I love you.
	You're getting this one wrong.
	He made this about the judge's ethnicity, and he didn't just make it about this judge.
	No, I think he inarticulately was talking about the judge's lack of fairness.
	And, you know, I'm talking about it's not about ethnic backgrounds, it's about political backgrounds.
	For me, this is about politics.
	That's not what Trump has said.
	No, he hasn't said that.
	Listen, I am saying I said it again.
	I said it's inarticulate, and I'll say it again.
	But I am saying that I think that what this was rooted in is the fact that he feels he was treated unfairly.
	I think you're probably both right in the sense that Trump didn't really say it or he was sort of equivocal about it.
	But that's also what we see in a lot of the delivery and a lot of his policy positions and a lot of his responses to journalists.
	And he didn't say point blank, I think any Muslim judge would be biased.
	He said it's possible.
	He said it's possible.
	Exactly Sean.
	And I think that this is, he leaves himself a lot of wiggle room.
	He leaves.
	This is how he delivers.
	And I think.
	Listen, I will agree.
	I think this is getting too deep in the weeds for most people, but unfortunately, the soundbite rules the day, and it's a much deeper issue than the soundbite.
	And that's the problem here.
	All right.
	Thank you all.
	Telephone numbers 800-941.
	Sean, you want to be a part of this extravaganza as we say hi to is it?
	Let's see.
	Stephanie is in North Carolina.
	What's up, Stephanie?
	How are you?
	Oh, great.
	Last week, you were speaking with another lady on the show about you thought it was okay to walk up to drive-thrus to place your order at restaurants.
	That's correct.
	And I have to tell you, I agree with almost everything you say, but I disagree with that because I ran over a woman's foot who was walking in the drive-through one night at a McDonald's.
	Well, why didn't you see the woman?
	She was intoxicated, and she was crouched on the ground, and she was searching for something.
	And I told her, I said, Lady, I have to pull up.
	I've paid for my food.
	I need to pull up to the next window.
	And she told me, Go ahead, you're fine.
	Just go, go.
	And then I felt the bump and I went right over her foot and she started rolling around on the ground, screaming obscenities.
	My kids were terrified.
	And then one of her drunk friends was like approaching my car.
	I thought he was going to get violent.
	So I had my gun and I'm thinking, oh, no, I hope I don't have to shoot this man.
	It was chaotic.
	Now, did the lady sue you?
	She did not.
	However, in an odd twist, the police came and she was charged with a city ordinance violation of obstructing a passage.
	So she was fined $150 for being in the drive-through outside of her car.
	Why does life always have to be this complicated?
	All I want is a stupid cheeseburger.
	I just want a cheeseburger, french fries, and a Coke.
	But she wasn't ordering.
	No, I understand.
	And listen, I can sympathize with what happened.
	If she said to go, then at that point, it's her responsibility to get out of the way.
	Apparently, she was a little intoxicated and misjudged the distance between the wheel of your car and her foot.
	I understand.
	Oh, yes, absolutely.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate it.
	800-941, Sean is on number.
	If you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, we have Sandy is in El Centro, California, and Gary in Duluth, Minnesota.
	Gary is a liberal and wants justice for Judge Currell.
	What's up, Gary?
	Say hi to Sandy.
	Sandy, say hi to Gary.
	Hi.
	Sandy, how are you doing?
	Good.
	How are you?
	I'm doing pretty good.
	So, what's on your mind, Mr. Liberal?
	Well, we're just a little left to center, that's all.
	So, I don't know I'm that big a liberal.
	I got you voting for you voting for you voting for Hillary.
	Let me ask it.
	Are you voting for Hillary?
	Are you voting for Hillary?
	Well, I'm a Bernie fan.
	All right.
	Sorry, that's even worse.
	Are you voting for Obama twice?
	Absolutely.
	Okay, trust me.
	You're not a liberal.
	You're a leftist, statist, you know, socialist.
	Go ahead.
	I'm not.
	Sure, I'm not.
	Pro-choice.
	I got a closet full of guns, but I don't care who you sleep with.
	So there, you label me now.
	I don't care who you sleep with either.
	I'm just a little left to center, and I got two right now.
	You figure that out.
	All right, those are two limited values you're talking about.
	You voted for Obama and the mess he created.
	You'll vote for socialist Bernie Sanders, even though it's a massive proven failure.
	800,000 jobs are being lost a month.
	What's unemployment at now?
	And where's the stock?
	Unemployment is, what, 4.7%, and the labor participation rate is the lowest it has been since 1977.
	And we have 12.5% more million Americans on food stamps and 10 million more Americans in poverty.
	Thank you very much.
	You've got the debt.
	4.3 beyond.
	Who started the debt?
	All right.
	Get to your point.
	Do you want to talk about Justice Curiel or not?
	I do.
	Because the true colors of Trump is coming out.
	He is the biggest racist you've got.
	You've got Lindsey Graham coming out against him this morning.
	You've got your buddy Newt Gingrich against him because of what he said.
	No, Newt said he made a mistake, and I would argue that he was inarticulate.
	I would argue that it was about the judge's politics, not about his heritage.
	And I think Trump was just inarticulate, and I think there's a lot of evidence that backs up my point of view.
	Well, if he's articulate, then he should be a man to come out and say that.
	He won't say it.
	Well, maybe he doesn't.
	I think what he's now done is he's clarified where his opposition is.
	This is the judge that made this a class action suit.
	This is the judge that appointed law firms connected to Obama, the Clintons, and so on.
	And I think the judge should have recused himself.
	I don't think so.
	All right, hang on.
	Let's get Sandy's point of view here.
	Sandy, go ahead.
	The deal is, if all judges were impartial, we wouldn't have to worry about the Supreme Court.
	And in Justice Curiel's place, the problem is word choice.
	Now, he has chosen to be part of an organization that uses La Raza.
	Now, I would turn it around and say that he is actually the racist, not Trump.
	And I base that on the fact that La Raza is a very radical term.
	And it doesn't matter whether he's part of that other organization or not.
	That's a word choice.
	And it's even more radical than Latino.
	When what should judges be judges for?
	They should be judges for Americans, not just one specific group that they affiliate with.
	What's your response to that, Gary?
	But his affiliation with the La Rosa on his side is not the radical one.
	Well, the website.
	Well, I actually have more information than you do.
	Let me help educate you, okay?
	Because the group that he, you're right, very technically speaking, that the group, the National Council of La Rossa and the San Diego La Rossa Lawyers Association, are not affiliated, except that the San Diego La Rossa Lawyers Association links to the National Council of La Rossa.
	Now, the National Council of La Rossa is a pretty extreme group.
	Why would you link to an extremist group like that?
	And they chose La Raza.
	They didn't even choose Latino.
	You need to understand, La Raza means something, and it means something to the community that's hearing it, whether they be Hispanic, black, or white.
	It means something to the community.
	And the fact that they chose that signifies where they're coming from.
	And to also hear that he's part of a group that's providing water for illegal immigrants, and to hear from another group that he supported boycotting Trump, I'm telling you there's a problem there.
	And you can't separate ethnicity from politics in this case.
	I think, you know what?
	I wouldn't have made it about ethnicity, though.
	I wouldn't have made it about heritage in this case.
	I would have made it about what it is, politics.
	And I think this is obviously somebody who's got a very political agenda that's sitting on the bench.
	And I think he made a lot of wrong decisions in this case.
	And I think Trump probably frustrated.
	But on the other hand, he's a political candidate, and he should separate both his business and his political dealings, in my opinion.
	Can he rotate on that?
	Can he turn.
	Yeah, of course he can.
	I mean, I think so.
	I mean, I think the case has pretty much been made that this judge clearly has an agenda.
	And I think this judge has made a number of bad rulings in this case, as we've gone over.
	But, you know, we'll see what happens.
	Anyway, thank you both.
	Sandy and Gary, thank you both for being with us.
	All right, let's go to Justin Justin Time, Silver Springs, Maryland.
	And that's what Justin does.
	He meets girls at the bar and he said, what's your name?
	You're just in time to meet Justin.
	What's up, Justin?
	How are you doing, sir?
	It's so good to hear your voice again and to be back with you.
	Thank you.
	What are you going to tell me?
	I am really interested in the fact that Donald Trump is doubling down on his statements.
	I respect a man who is doing that, even though sadly, as you know, Paul Ryan and several others in the upper establishment are basically frustrated with him because of his clearly inexperienced, and he's just simply getting in trouble.
	He's becoming exactly what Hillary Clinton has said.
	He's a loose cannon.
	You don't know what he's going to say.
	And if you tell me, why haven't the Republican Party come up with a better representative?
	Hillary Clinton on the Democrat side is horrible.
	But what's up with Trump?
	You know, I think that the issues involving Donald Trump, and I kind of take it for what it is.
	I mean, I think you're looking at somebody that is not a seasoned politician, that is an outsider, that doesn't use notes, that doesn't use talking points, that speaks extemporaneously.
	He probably should have thought it out a little more.
	And I would imagine going forward, he probably will.
	I think he's shown an amazing learning curve in a very short period of time.
	I don't think this is going to be a big issue come November.
	I think people are going to be looking at who's going to create jobs and who's going to secure the border and who's going to eliminate Obamacare and who's going to fix education.
	And, you know, and I think that when you compare the issues, I think that's what matters most.
	Not an inarticulate moment because Hillary's had plenty of them.
	And Hillary and Bill have their own issues they've got to deal with.
	She's a pathological liar, congenital liar.
	She may even ultimately end up being indicted.
	I think that her policies are nothing short of a continuation of the policies of Barack Obama.
	And I just think at the end of the day, that's what the election is going to be about in spite of all the hype and hyperventilating that's going on and the interpretation of a liberal media.
	I just took it a step further.
	I'm trying to understand why is it that Trump feels so frustrated, and I think there's a legitimate case to be made on that side.
	I think it's political.
	I think it's not ethnic.
	That's my take.
	Anyway, I appreciate it.
	800-941-Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
	Sherry is in New Jersey.
	Sherry, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hey, Sean, how are you?
	I'm good.
	What's happening?
	Listen, I know you said you had an arsenal of info on Hillary, and I just hope you use whatever you can dig up on her.
	I love how you dig up so much stuff on her.
	Just use it and give it to Trump.
	I'm sure Trump has a bunch of stuff himself.
	If you notice, every day I'm releasing stuff, you've got to pay attention.
	I'm not listing them by numbers, but as issues come up, I go into my arsenal and my thousand-plus pages of op research, and I pull out the appropriate documents, and I make them relevant to what we're talking about that day, okay?
	You are awesome.
	And then even the montages that you have of her in the past and her in the present, those are awesome.
	So you need to hammer away at those as well.
	All right, Sherry, I promise I will.
	Between now and November, I'm not going to rest.
	I promise.
	You and Trump, you've got to do it for us.
	Listen, Hillary's just going to be another term of Obama.
	More people in poverty, more people on food stamps, more American decline, and maybe to the point where it's irreversible.
	I don't know.
	Lourdes is in Miami.
	News Radio 600, W-I-O-D.
	What's up, Lourdes?
	How are you?
	Hi, Sean.
	How are you?
	What's up, darling?
	How are you?
	Good to hear your voice.
	Been a while.
	I know.
	You doing okay?
	You miss me?
	Yeah.
	Of course we miss you.
	You make it sound like we've been to dinner together for crying out loud, and I just know you as a caller.
	I know, but you're my brother from another mother, remember?
	That's true.
	Thank you.
	Anyways, listen, I'm going to put another spin.
	Okay.
	Let's say you don't even defend Trump.
	I'm not even going to defend Trump.
	I'm going to defend freedom of speech is what I'm going to defend.
	Okay.
	How can us, somebody like me who fled communism, come to this country and allow people to not let me express who I want to vote for, who I want to go see?
	My freedom of speech.
	How about that?
	How about these people rioting?
	What are we, Neanderthals?
	I mean, whatever happened to freedom of speech in this country.
	I just think that the whole issue of where people's priorities are and the analysis of some people are so off base.
	And here's this other thing.
	People, you know, they're always feigning outrage.
	They're feigning, you know.
	What about Joe Biden?
	You can't go to a 7-Eleven or a Dungan Nonuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.
	Or any of the other instances.
	Or Hillary Clinton pandering before predominantly black audiences and changing her tone and her cadence and her pitch.
	I mean, you know, it's everybody, everybody is outraged only as far as it meets their political agenda.
	It's nauseating.
	It's nauseating.
	But they're not really outraged.
	It's selective moral outrage.
	It's phony.
	I hate it.
	I hate it.
	And then how about, see, I'm not outraged.
	And to me, La Raza is a very, very racist term, period.
	Well, it means the, it literally means the race.
	And while I accept.
	What race?
	Well, in this particular case, you're talking about Hispanics.
	The San Diego La Rosa Lawyers Association does.
	It's not a.
	I have nothing in common with them.
	And I'm Hispanic.
	I'm American by choice.
	Thank God.
	And in fairness, the judge is American as well.
	But he has associated with a group that has linked itself with the National Association of La Rosa, the Council of La Rasa, which is listed on their website.
	And that should be troubling.
	And I think the decisions of the judge are more troubling.
	Anyway, but I appreciate it.
	It's disgusting.
	It's a really, really bad organization which hates America.
	I don't care what they say.
	They hate everything we stand for.
	Appreciate the call.
	Why are you here?
	Lourdes, thank you in Miami.
	800.
	941 Sean.
	Toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.

▲