Attorney leads Facebook page to remove Trump as Indy 500 pace car driver

May 5, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The more than 17,000 people who “like” the “We don’t want Donald Trump to drive the Indy 500 pace car” page on Facebook must be very excited to learn that Trump has decided not to drive the pace car this year.

The page was started by Indianapolis attorney Michael Wallack. According to the page, it was started because Wallack believes Trump’s “birther” movement and self-promotion isn’t good for politics or America and he shouldn’t be “rewarded with the honor of driving the pace car” this year. Wallack claims to have no problem if Trump dislikes President Barack Obama or his polices, but that Trump has stepped over the line into “the realm of conspiracy-mongering.”

Wallack’s wasn’t the only page created on the social networking site devoted to whether Trump should remain as the pace car driver. The number of people who “liked” pages in favor of Trump driving the pace car paled in comparison to the number of those who wanted Trump to step down.

There has been debate recently whether Trump would remain the driver. When he was first announced in April, some people questioned the selection and were disappointed that someone who had a connection to the Indianapolis 500 or racing wasn’t selected. Thursday, Trump said driving the pace car would conflict with his possible presidential campaign and he’d have to step aside.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT