As the FBI closes in on Hillary Clinton for keeping over 2,000 classified emails on a private server and then trying to delete the evidence, it’s good to see the American court system is focusing on the really important issues. You know, like Trump University.
However, at least the latest news in the case is good for The Donald: One of the trials against Trump’s former real estate training program will begin 20 days after the Nov. 8 election.
According to Newsmax, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego said he was balancing “opening a Pandora’s Box” by holding the trial while Trump could be president-elect against the media frenzy a trial would create while Trump was running for president.
“I’m thinking of my jury,” Curiel said during his Friday ruling. “Will they be able to stay clear of the media frenzy that will occur and will we be able to insulate them from events that may occur outside the courthouse?”
— POLITICO (@politico) May 7, 2016
Curiel also made note of the violent leftist protests that often trail anything even remotely Trump-related like a tort lawyer trails ambulances.
“I want to ensure that we have a fair trial for both parties that is based on the facts of the case and the law,” Curiel said.
The trial involves thousands of Trump University students who felt that they were defrauded by alleged bait-and-switch tactics used by the school that bore The Donald’s name. Trump’s lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli, had argued for a February court date, saying that it would allow Trump to devote all of his energy to the trial after the inauguration and transition process, if he wins the general election.
“Mr. Trump must devote all of his time and energy to running for the office,” Petrocelli told the court. “If Mr. Trump is unsuccessful in November, he will have plenty of time on his hands afterward.”
However, observers agreed that managing to schedule the trial for after the presidential campaign was still a win for the presumptive GOP nominee.
— Mary Cicero (@mcicero10) May 7, 2016
Gabriel Lenz, an associate professor of political science at University of California at Berkeley, researches voter preferences. He said a post-election court case is “definitely good news for Trump.”
“I think that one of the reasons why he did better than many people expected is because there was never really a coordinated attack against him,” Lenz said.
“A trial would have definitely kept a negative attack going for a while.”
Trump’s opponents did, for a time, try to use the Trump University court case in negative attacks. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, in particular, put a lot of stock into the case. However, judging by Lil’ Marco’s lil’ showing at the ballot box, it doesn’t seem to have taken hold.
Now, thanks to a wise jurist, it’s unlikely to take hold for Hillary Clinton, either.
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you think this judge made the correct decision.