Hillary Clinton Has Her Own University Scandal
Law prof Jonathan Turley writes:
The respected Inside Higher Education reported that Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. While Bill Clinton worked as the group's pitchman, the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal.There was even a class action -- like the Trump University scandal. Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland but dismissed in 2015. It is not clear why it was dismissed. However, the size of the contract to Clinton, the payment from State and the widespread complaints over alleged fraud should warrant a modicum of attention to the controversy. The controversy has many of the familiar complaints over fraudulent online programs that take advantage of hard working people.
As an academic, I find both Trump University and Laureate to be deeply troubling stories. Yet, only one has been pursued by the media to any significant degree. I am not suggesting that Laureate as a whole is fraudulent. Moreover, there are distinctions that can be drawn with a university like Trump that is based entirely on the presumptive nominee and his promises in advertising. However, the money given to the Clintons, the involvement of the State Department, and the claims of fraud make this an obviously significant story in my view.
From Bloomberg's Richard Rubin and Jennifer Epstein:
Since 2010, Bill Clinton brought in just short of $16.5 million for his role as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. He left the position earlier this year weeks after his wife launched her campaign.In 2014, Bill Clinton made $9 million off of paid speeches and $6.4 million in consulting fees. Of that, $4.3 million came from Laureate and another $2.1 million from GEMS Education, a Dubai-based company that runs preschool and K-12 programs. He made less from those two gigs in previous years - $5.6 million in 2013 and $4.7 million in 2012. In 2011, the former president was paid $2.5 million by Laureate...
The Clinton money trail is laid out in Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
So let's review how the law applies to us little people. As a contractor, both I and my spouse are prohibited of receiving anything other than nominal courtesies from anyone that the government does business with. A nominal courtesy would be something like an award plaque, or something with a company logo like a coffee cup, a pen, or a T-shirt. From the government organization I work for, I cannot receive anything at all -- not even a letter of commendation. In theory, if I'm TDY with a government person and we need a cab, we must take separate cabs because the government employee cannot pay my fare and I cannot pay theirs.
What Turley describes is a pretty obvious pay-to-play scheme. If I did something like that, at the very least I'd lose my job and my company would be suspended from bidding on government contracts. Intent does not need to be demonstrated. I would probably face prosecution, and the prosecutor would use the ethics violation to establish a presumption of guilt -- I'd have to demonstrate that I had good reason to do what I did to avoid a conviction.
Cousin Dave at June 9, 2016 6:51 AM
So let's do the math (in millions):
$55-$16.5 = $38.5
Not a bad bit of money laundering for Laurate U.
But Cousin Dave: Laws are for little people. The fish rots from the head, and boy does it stank.
*insert Sith mind trick*
Nothing to see here. Move along. MOVE ALONG!
I R A Darth Aggie at June 9, 2016 7:54 AM
The problem isn't that Hillary's entire adult life has been one long criminal enterprise centered entirely upon her greed for money and power, it's that her supporters don't care.
She took bribes for her husband when he was in political office (getting $100,000 from $1,000 in a first-time foray into cattle futures was just a lucky fluke, right?). So what. She enabled and covered up his philandering and rapine. So what. She took money for work never done. So what. She schemed to put trusted consiglieri into sensitive offices for which they were dangerously unqualified, blowing past security clearance requirements. So what. Her insistence upon having a woman, any woman, in the Attorney General post gave us the worst AG ever. So what. She took bribes while Secretary of State (some through Bill returning the favor). So what. Her outlaw e-mail system was a leaky electronic sieve that potentially endangered the country. So what. Her incompetence at State got an ambassador killed by a screaming mob. So what. She lied about that afterward. So what. She engineered the unjust and unconstitutional arrest of a filmmaker to divert attention from her incompetence. So what. Her insistence on meddling in foreign conflicts has made the world a much more dangerous place and gotten Americans killed. So what. Her lies are legion. So what.
Trump supporters are like that, too. His "university" seminar company was corrupt. So what. He was sloppy in vetting the business ventures he allowed to brand themselves Trump. So what. His casinos failed and the company was ineptly managed. So what. His business acumen is mostly imaginary. So what.
It's time we start holding even favorite candidates to a standard. At least the Republican establishment has not fallen dutifully in line behind Trump and is willing to speak out against him, mostly only when he embarrasses the party. But at least the establishment is not marching in lockstep behind him like the media and the Democratic establishment behind Hillary. There's hope we'll have at least one candidate held to a higher standard.
I worked in downtown Chicago in 1993-4 and had a discussion about the then-forlorn Cubs with a woman in the office. She opined that the Cubs should hire Mike Ditka. My protests that Ditka was a football coach and probably knew nothing about baseball fell on deaf ears as she told me "Ditka can do anything." He had not at that point had his less-than-stellar stint with the New Orleans Saints to knock him off his football god pedestal.
Blind hero worship like that does not belong in a presidential campaign. Be skeptical. Be cynical. You're voters, not fanboys. You're hiring (yes, hiring) a president, not a figurehead.
Conan the Grammarian at June 9, 2016 8:50 AM
The whole Trump University thing doesn't bother me as much as it bothers the media. Does it provide further evidence that Trump is unscrupulous? Sure. But we knew that anyway.
I think I recall Amy (or someone else I read regularly) linking to analysis of the Bernie Madoff scandal that posited that the people who tend to get taken in these situations are financially misbehaving anyway. They think THEY'RE the ones taking advantage of someone, but the end up being taken. The Trump U situation doesn't even come close to the level of the Madoff scandal, of course.
...but someone doesn't feel like they got their money's worth out of a real estate investment seminar? Cry me a river. This is like the "Rich Dad/Poor Dad" scandal- you got taken advantage of because you thought you were the smartest person in the room, and YOU were going to work one over on all these dolts.
The accusations against Hillary are far more serious than profiting from fools and their money.
ahw at June 9, 2016 8:57 AM
I can't understand how much some of my reasonably intelligent friends think she's not a liar and a criminal.
These are not low-information voters.
It isn't because they don't care...the don't believe it.
They are terrified Trump would set back women's rights, civil rights, etc 100 years. Calling all his supporters stupid and uneducated. I don't understand the arrogance.
And all the criticism aimed at Obama is because of racism.
Katrina at June 9, 2016 9:33 AM
Conan:
No, you're not. Congress hires, not the people. The people vote, Congress ratifies. If they don't ratify, guess what? You don't get the president you voted for.
The President is not your employee. You do not hire him, cannot fire him, do not decide his vacation time, do not decide his raises, you cannot even reprimand him (in any meaningful way) for his performance.
Patrick at June 9, 2016 10:10 AM
Disliking you has always come easily; disrespecting you is mere reflex.
Crid at June 9, 2016 10:38 AM
"No, you're not. Congress hires, not the people. The people vote, Congress ratifies. If they don't ratify, guess what? You don't get the president you voted for."
Um, I think you are confusing the electoral college with Congress.
they are not the same thing.
Presidential election results only get thrown into the House of Representatives if neither candidate reaches 271 electoral votes.
Then the House gets to pick the next Preaident.
Isab at June 9, 2016 10:39 AM
Hill checked Bill's White Privilege and found it worth 16 & a half Mill.
Not bad for an Honorary position. Wonder what he gets for other positions?
Wfjag at June 9, 2016 1:26 PM
People do indeed hire the president.
Congress tallies the Electoral College votes and certifies the election results. Congress most certainly does not hire or employ the president. It is a co-equal branch of government, not a superior one.
Congress, expressing the will of the people can impeach the president if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." That is analogous to bringing criminal charges against him, not to firing him.
The Office of the Federal Registrar send the Certificates of the Vote to the office of the President of the Senate (aka the Vice President) to be opened and certified in a joint session of Congress. The President of the Senate then announces the election of the next president.
Congress only gets to vote, as Isab said, if none of the candidates get the requisite number of electoral votes.
And, Patrick, we'd all be better off if the voters viewed electing a president as hiring one instead of a contest to pick the one they would prefer to have beer with.
Conan the Grammarian at June 9, 2016 2:49 PM
Conan:
The branches are not coequal, nor were they ever intended to be. Congress is supreme over the other two. The impeachment process does give Congress the power to fire the President or any member of the Supreme Court. Neither the President nor the Supreme Court can remove a member of Congress.
Conan:
That is also incorrect. I'm aware of what the Constitution says, but Congress does not have to comply with the will of the people. Bill Clinton was a popular President and it was certainly not the will of the majority of Americans that he should be impeached, but impeached he was.
And the "high crimes and misdemeanors" requirement is lip-service, nothing more. There is no judicial oversight in an impeachment proceeding. The Chief Justice presides over it, but he does not get a vote, nor can he throw out the conviction. Congress can impeach for any reason or no reason.
Andrew Johnson committed no "high crime or misdemeanor," but he was impeached. He was an impediment to the Reconstruction, but he did nothing that he didn't have the right to do as President.
Much like "natural born citizen." We might have a legally binding definition of what makes a natural born citizen, but suppose the people elected Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is certainly not a natural born citizen. Congress ratifies the results of the election and Arnold becomes President. SCOTUS can scream, dance and do a hissy fit because Arnold isn't a natural-born citizen and is therefore ineligible. And Congress can say, "Fuck you, SCOTUS. He's a natural born citizen if we say he is."
And you want to know what SCOTUS (or anyone, for that matter), can do about it? Not a goddamned thing.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" and "natural born citizen" (at least as it applies to the President) means whatever Congress says it means. SCOTUS has no authority granted to them by the Constitution say otherwise.
Patrick at June 9, 2016 5:09 PM
Also, Conan, I take issue with your assertion that impeachment is tantamount to bringing charges. Congress cannot throw in jail, nor can they act as a grand jury to bring someone up on charges that may result in a President (or any other federal officer) being thrown in jail.
They can only remove from office. That is, indeed, firing.
Here's a link from CNN that shows the majority of Americans did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The will of the people had nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment.
Also, Benjamin Franklin hinted that the formality of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was at least flexible, pointing out that a President might "render himself obnoxious" and that impeachment and removal was the more reasonable alternative to assassination.
Patrick at June 9, 2016 5:33 PM
I'm not going to sit here and debate which branch of the government is more powerful or intended to be. Congress does not elect the president. And, yes, impeachment of elected government officials is done in Congress since it is the only deliberative elected body in our government.
The president appoints justices and the Supreme Court can overturn Congressional laws and act as a curb on an overly aggressive legislature (at least since it refined its role in Marbury v. Madison). The separate branches were intended as checks and balances against any of the other two gaining too much power.
Our forefathers were well-versed in world history and had seen what happens when legislature gets too much power and what happens when an executive is not limited by a legislature (the Protectorate was not a shining exemplar of limited government, nor a high water mark in representative government). They sought to have a government limited by a triangular arrangement of power with no one branch able to dominate the other.
And, yes, the people do hire the president. And when his term is up, we can refuse to renew his term, and even repudiate him. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
He may not have committed one, but he was accused of one and impeached for it. It was a political battle between Congress and the president over how retributive the Reconstruction would be on the former rebellious South. The presidency lost that one due to Johnson's political incompetence, not because Congress had the power to arbitrarily fire the president.
History records that Congress was in the wrong on the issue. Johnson did indeed have the authority to fire Stanton, even if Congress was in recess.
Without accusing Johnson of violating the Tenure of Office Act, Congress could not have impeached the president since Congress does not have the power to "fire" the president, only to remove him for wrongdoing - and then only with the cooperation of the third branch of the government.
Conan the Grammarian at June 9, 2016 6:16 PM
Take issue all you want. Impeachment is the functional equivalent of indictment. The impeached official is then "tried" in the US Senate. The Senate can then censure the impeached official, remove the impeached official from office, and/or ban him from ever holding another federal office. The law provides no further remedy, by design - the Founding Fathers did not want the law to be abused as a weapon in a political fight, as it was in the Johnson affair.
Clinton was impeached because the Republicans in Congress thought they were doing their jobs and holding a president to the law. That is, a president is not allowed to knowingly lie to a grand jury or abuse the authority of his office to impede an investigation of his own wrongdoing. Clinton was found not guilty by a Senate that was already in the bag. Democratic majority leaders told the House prosecutors from the beginning (before weighing any evidence) that they would allow Clinton to be removed or censured.
As for whether the majority of the public supported impeachment, is that really relevant? The majority had not yet heard the evidence. The House leaders argued they were following the will of the people in holding the highest elected official accountable for his behavior, lies, and obstruction.
Conan the Grammarian at June 9, 2016 6:35 PM
Conan:
Then don't. It changes nothing. The branches of the government are not coequal, nor were they ever intended to be. Congress can remove SCOTUS or the President. Neither SCOTUS nor the President can remove a single congressman.
Conan:
You just proved my point. It was never intended to be a check against Congress. It took their "refining" (as you call it) of their role in the Marbury v. Madison decision to make it so.
And if the President appoints justices, then why hasn't Obama's pick for Scalia's replacement now sitting in SCOTUS right now?
Because Congress doesn't want him there. That's why.
Conan:
And if they do like the President, guess what? They still can't keep him on after two terms. Not since FDR anyway, the only President elected to four terms.
If we "hire" the President, which we do not, why can't we keep the ones we like? Reagan would definitely not have been restricted to two terms. Nor would Bill Clinton, who probably could have beaten both Bush and Gore combined.
You can call it hiring all you want to. But when you consider the power that a person has over who they "hire," the comparison is ludicrous, and I suspect you know that.
We cannot fire them. We cannot retain them. We do not approve of their vacations. We do not grant them "time off." We do not approve their raises. Nor can we reprimand them in any meaningful way. For someone who "hires" the President, our hands are awfully tied. Can you think of any other business in which a person who hires someone has their hands so consummately tied?
Didn't think so.
And I never said Congress elects the President. That's you putting words in my mouth. The people elect; Congress ratifies.
Returning to my Schwarzenegger analogy, suppose the people elected Arnold Schwarzenegger, but this time, suppose Congress objects to the fact that Schwarzenegger is not a natural born citizen. They refuse the ratify the election results. And guess what? We don't get the President we "hired."
Conan:
Yes, they could have. As I already explained to you, but you seem resistant to accepting, impeachment proceedings have no judicial oversight. It is entirely dependent on Congress. So, as far as any elected official is concerned, a "high crime or misdemeanor" is whatever Congress says it is.
They could impeach for wearing mismatched socks if they wanted to.
There is no one they answer to for their decision on this matter. And please spare the me idealistic notions of how they must answer to the American people!
They will still serve their terms and they might even be reelected, despite an unpopular decision.
Not every congressman who voted for the impeachment and removal of Bill Clinton lost their jobs, despite the fact that it was in defiance of the will of the people that you seem to think controls impeachment.
There is some value, I admit, in the American people thinking of the President as someone they "hire," rather than someone they could have a beer with, but that doesn't change the fact that we do not "hire" the President. Never did. Never will.
Patrick at June 9, 2016 11:44 PM
You write more words than you used to, but they're just as provincial, snippy, and self-regarding.
Take a bus trip, meet some people.
Crid at June 10, 2016 12:36 AM
Katrina:
Because Donald Trump is indisputably a racist, that is a cause for concern.
Patrick at June 10, 2016 5:38 AM
No, Congress could not have impeached Johnson without accusing him of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's how it works. Congress cannot simply say "let's fire the president today." It must follow the procedure. We are a nation of laws.
So, the Radical Republicans controlling Congress accused Johnson of violating the Tenure of Office Act in firing Stanton and appointing a new Secretary of War while Congress was in recess, even though he dutifully notified Congress when the next session began. With that flimsy basis, impeachment proceedings were begun in the House.
The definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was intentionally left vague to leave a relief valve. Instead of violent revolution and assassination, our system allows the removal of a government official through peaceful means.
Dumb analogy.
Because the law says a president must be naturalized citizen (again, a definition left intentionally vague) and Schwarzenegger does not qualify.
We the people do "hire" the president. If you own a bar, You may want to hire your 13-year-old nephew to be a bartender because he makes a mean martini at home, but CPS comes along and says you cannot because he's not qualified to work in that environment at his age. That doesn't mean you don't "hire" the qualified bartender you eventually employ. It means that there are laws you must follow.
Many did. The people who "hired" them did not like the way they did their jobs and "fired" them.
Others, who pleased their constituents, kept their jobs.
If you consider the job a contract job and not "at will" employment, the analogy stands. You "fire" at the end of the contract by not renewing it.
Your words: "Congress hires, not the people. The people vote, Congress ratifies. If they don't ratify, guess what? You don't get the president you voted for."
As if Congress can simply decide who gets to be president and overturn the election results. It cannot, because Congress does not elect, select, or appoint the president. The people do.
Congress does not ratify the election results, it certifies them. Congress certifies that the election results announced actually match the Electoral College ballots provided to the President of the Senate.
Why doesn't Congress just pick a new justice? Because only the president has the power to appoint justices and the US Senate's role is to approve or deny said choice. It cannot deny Obama's choice and then simply appoint its own.
Congressional Democrats insisted that Thurgood Marshall's replacement be a black person, vowing to reject any non-black nominee. So, GHW Bush appointed Clarence Thomas in defiance of the presumption that Congress could dictate his next appointment be a black liberal. All Congress could do was stomp its feet and scream (which pretty much describes the circus surrounding Thomas' confirmation hearings).
==============================
Checks and balances.
Each branch has a check on the other two. Congress can pass a bill, but it only becomes law when the president signs it (or it is passed over his veto - which requires him to review it first).
The Supreme Court may have usurped the role of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, but Congress could do nothing about that because it has no power to directly overturn a Supreme Court decision.
Checks and balances. No one branch has superiority over the other. Each is kept in check by the other two.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 6:43 AM
I think the point you guys both get snagged on is this: The Constitution says things. Some are vague, but some are pretty specific, and they become more specific when one examines the context in which they were originally enacted. The government is supposed to operate per the Constitution's dictates.
However, if the three branches decide that they are going to collaborate on ignoring the Constitution's wording, then the words become meaningless. Going back to the impeachment thing, the Constitution does say "high crimes and misdemeanors", which are words with conventional meanings in law. However, if Congress wants to impeach the President because they don't like his socks, they can, even though wearing ugly socks doesn't constitute a high crime (felony) or a misdemeanor, as the terms are understood by any lawyer.
To take an example of what we have today, the federal government has collectively decided that the Commerce Clause constitutes a nearly-unlimited grant of authority to the federal government, contravening the plain language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which are now dead letters. Rather than guarding their turf, the three branches have collaborated on this project. This is something that I don't think the Founders anticipated: that the government would reach the point where it became its own interest group.
Which brings us back to Trump. Clearly, there's an expectation on the part of his supporters that a President Trump will tear the whole enterprise down and start over from scratch. Will he do that? Odds are slim. However, that's still more hope than with Hillary, who is firmly enmeshed in the existing system and will do nothing to rock the boat.
Cousin Dave at June 10, 2016 6:57 AM
"Because Donald Trump is indisputably a racist, that is a cause for concern."
So? Hillary Clinton is indisputably a misandrist.
dee nile at June 10, 2016 7:12 AM
The point we're getting "snagged" on is Patrick thinks Congress hires and fires the president at will and I don't.
Although he'll come back and say I'm putting words in his mouth (which happens to him a lot, hmmm).
Except to get rich(er) through graft and corruption at our expense while not rocking that boat.
True. However, as I explained to Patrick, Congress must successfully accuse the president of a "high crime and misdemeanor" first, whatever it is. It cannot simply "fire" him.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 7:18 AM
Because no woman or minority who worked for Trump ever did so except in a menial capacity.
"But many women who have worked closely with Trump say he was a corporate executive ahead of his time in providing career advancement for women. While some say he could be boorish, his companies nurtured and promoted women in an otherwise male-dominated industry. Several women said they appreciated how Trump granted them entry to a new playing field."
While Trump may not have been perfect, he did offer women entry into a field from which they were traditionally discouraged. He gave them a chance to prove themselves, and when they did, he promoted them.
Sometimes, the person you get to pave the way isn't the ideal person you would have chosen. But the way is paved nonetheless.
Patton gave black tankers the chance to prove themselves, despite being an unrepentant racist. Does that mean Ruben Rivers et al should have rejected the opportunity to prove themselves because Patton didn't think pure thoughts? No. They seized the opportunity and ran with it. Many, interviewed later, said they were proud to have served under George Patton.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 7:23 AM
Because Donald Trump is indisputably a racist, that is a cause for concern. ~ Patrick at June 10, 2016 5:38 AM
Patrick again misses the point that it is not what you *say* or how the mainstream media reports what you say, it is what you *do*
Obama's Teleprompter has been talking a good line for the last nine years.
Gotta ask: how is that working out for you?
Think Hillary's Teleprompter is going to fix all the shit that she and Obama fucked up?
Isab at June 10, 2016 8:24 AM
Actually, Patrick is correct in the terminology.
The Constitution requires the president be a "natural born" citizen. The definition of that term is not given, so it is up to the courts and body of laws to determine what constitutes a "natural born" citizen. At this time, under our current definition, Arnold does not qualify.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 9:55 AM
No, I'm not snagged on anything. Conan is. I understand that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard is absolutely meaningless without judicial oversight.
Conan:
Okay. Who's going to make them ensure an actual "high crime or misdemeanor" has occurred before they begin impeachment proceedings?
The Supreme Court? Nope. The Constitution gives no role to the Supreme Court in the impeachment process other than the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment proceedings.
The Supreme Court cannot intervene and say, "You can't impeach the President. You haven't accused him of a high crime or misdemeanor."
Don't you get it?
There is no one, no one at all, that can make Congress adhere to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard if they want to impeach the President. They do not answer to anyone for this. If they want to call mismatched socks a "high crime and misdemeanor," they can. Neither you, nor anyone else, can stop them!
Conan:
I think you meant to say "natural born citizen." A naturalized citizen is someone who gains their citizenship through a legal process after birth.
And United States v. Wong Kim Ark in a 6-2 decision pretty much settled the definition of natural born citizen as someone who gains their U.S. citizenship at birth.
Contrary to popular belief, that doesn't mean you have to be born in the U.S., although that's the usual way. Ted Cruz, due to his mother's citizenship, was a U.S. citizen since birth, ergo a natural born citizen.
Although since the only distinction between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen is eligibility to the presidency, "natural born citizen" can mean whatever Congress wants it to mean.
Since there is no judicial oversight in the election process, the people can elect a toaster, and when Congress ratifies the election results, we will have a toaster for a President.
And what can the courts do about it? Nothing.
Conan:
Congress does not elect, but they do ratify the election results, and thereby appoint the President. The people elect, nothing more. They do not appoint.
I don't say Congress can pick their own President or SCOTUS appointee, but if they do not ratify the results, we are in limbo until something gives.
And I don't dispute that there is a process to followed in firing the President. But without judicial oversight, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a meaningless standard. It can mean whatever Congress wants it to mean.
And yes, Congress ratifies the election results. Google is your friend.
And yes, there is something they can do if Congress doesn't like the Supreme Court's decision: impeach them all and refuse to accept any of the appointees from the President until he produces some that agree with their standard. That would be, admittedly, a very long drawn-out process, but technically feasible.
Patrick at June 10, 2016 10:25 AM
Okay, the difference here is we're both saying Congress can use a pretext and call it "high crimes and misdemeanors" but I'm specifying that Congress needs the pretext and interpreting your comments to indicate that you're saying Congress doesn't even need the pretext.
My position is that Congress cannot simply say "let's impeach the president today," rather it needs to say "the president violated Statute X and that's an impeachable offense."
In order to proceed with impeaching Andrew Johnson, Congress had to wait until it had an "impeachable offense." The Judicial Committee was left in an extended session when Congress went on recess to search or wait for such an offense and, unable to find one, adjourned without impeachment proceedings beginning. Later, when Johnson fired Stanton, Congress had found its pretext to impeach Johnson.
As the Johnson and Clinton impeachments proved, an impeachment is a complex process and does not automatically result in removal from office. It requires the support of both parties and a majority in both houses of Congress to succeed. Quite a lot of disparate elements need to be gathered and aligned. As intended.
Nixon resigned when he was told by Barry Goldwater and a contingent of Republican senators that he did not have the votes to stave off impeachment and subsequent removal from office.
I did mean that. See my later correction.
Yes, but impeaching a sitting justice or even all of them does not overturn the existing decision.
Congress would then need to ensure that the successor justices would overturn the precedent in the next relevant case.
Again semantics. Ratify vs. Certify.
Ratify: sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
Certify: to say officially that something is true, correct, or genuine.
Congress counts the Electoral College votes and certifies that the results are a true and correct result. By giving formal consent to said results, Congress can be said to ratify the election, but ratify also implies an authority to refuse to ratify and effectively nullify. As Congress does not have the ability to arbitrarily cancel or void the results without a formal process of objection, I'll stick with certify.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 10:59 AM
Conan, that's a very interesting reply. I accuse Trump of racism, and you respond with a quote which defends him from sexism. Gee, I feel so defeated right now.
Stay tuned.
Isab:
I could respond to this contemptuous comment directed to me in kind, but since Conan will likely accuse me of "raining derision on you" while giving you a free pass, I will be more respectful to you than you were to me.
Basically, because I'm engaging Conan in a discussion right now, and I'd rather not have to slog through the tirades to get the relevant points in our discussion.
But am I to understand you know nothing of Trump's public life? Because Trump has been called out for racism since his appearance in the public eye, even resulting in legal actions that have gone against him.
In fact, it was his racism that propelled him into the public eye in the first place.
On October 16, 1973, The New York Times ran an article on the front page under the headline “Major Landlord Accused of Antiblack Bias in City.”
According to the article, “the Department of Justice, charging discrimination against blacks in apartment rentals, brought suit in Federal Court in Brooklyn yesterday against the Trump Management Corporation.” The suit alleged that Trump Management was violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in the operation of 39 buildings. The president of Trump Management, the then-27-year-old Donald J. Trump, vehemently denied the charges, calling them “absolutely ridiculous.”
But the Justice Department was prepared. In addition to interviews given with former Trump employees, who told DoJ that they were told to practice housing discrimination. Employees were also directed to mark applications with coded information like "No. 9" and "C" for "colored." In addition, two undercover testers were sent to Trump's apartments, ostensibly to rent. The first, a black woman, was told nothing was available. The second, a white woman, was given a choice between two apartments.
Trump settled the case after hiring infamous Joe McCarthy lickspittle Roy Cohn to represent him. Cohn filed a countersuit for 100 million dollars in punitive damages against the government. The judge threw out the countersuit, calling it a waste of time and paper.
But again, Trump settled. The evidence was against him, and he knew it.
On another occasion, in 1992, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission fined the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino 200,000 dollars over accusations of racism. The fine, one of the highest ever from the Division of Gaming Enforcement, was apparently imposed over allegations that management was accommodating the prejudices of a certain high-rolling patron of the casino by removing black card-dealers from their tables. The fine was appealed, but a New Jersey appellate court upheld the penalty.
You might argue that that's not Trump being racist. He's just giving into the demands of a racist patron. To which I would say, "Bullshit." If I owned a business, any business, and someone came in planning to spend a lot of money in my business, and he told me to get all the black employees off the floor, I'd tell him to go fuck himself and throw him out. Probably physically throw him out.
In addition, I can think of two of Trump's former employees that would attest to his racism.
Kip Brown, a black employee who stripped and waxed the floors in one of Trump's casinos told The New Yorker.
“When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor. It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back.”
John R. O’Donnell (no relation to Donald's arch-foe Rosie), the former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, published a book called “Trumped!” in 1991. In this book, O’Donnell recounts a dinner conversation with Trump. When the discussion turned to the Plaza’s black financial executive, Trump said, "And isn't it funny? I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day … I think the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control."
I'm going to leave out the full-page ads that Trump took out in four New York City newspapers (costing 85K), because, even though Trump was accused of racism, there was no racist rhetoric in those ads.
And let's not forget, Trump is a birther. And if you think the birthers aren't motivated by racism, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.
And how about some examples from the Donald's own lips? The best stuff comes out when he tries to defend himself from accusations of racism.
“The word is, according to what I've read, that he was a terrible student when he went to Occidental. He then gets to Columbia. He then gets to Harvard. I heard at Columbia, he wasn't a very good student. How do you get into Harvard if you're not a good student? Now, maybe that's right or maybe that's wrong, but I don't know why he doesn't release his records. Why doesn't he release his Occidental records? The word is, he wasn't a good student, and he ended up getting into Columbia and Harvard.”
Need any help in understanding what Trump is implying? Bob Schieffer of Face The Nation didn't.
“That's just code that he [Obama] got into law school because he's black,” and further called it an “ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing.”
The Donald was not pleased.
“That is a terrible statement for a newscaster to make. I am the last person that such a thing should be said about.”
Now we get to the good stuff. If you have to so vehemently deny you're a racist, then chances are you're a racist.
“When it comes to racism and racists, I am the least racist person there is. And I think most people that know me would tell you that. I am the least racist. I’ve had great relationships. In fact, Randal Pinkett won on The Apprentice a little while ago, a couple years ago, and Randal’s been outstanding in every way. So I am the least racist person.”
Oh, so because Donald Trump picked a black winner on The Apprentice one season, that's means he's the least racist person in all the world.
Well, Randall Pinkett is also the only winner of The Apprentice who was made to share the winner's spot with someone else.
Goldie Taylor, of the Daily Beast, didn't appreciate Trump's insinuations behind his "Obama was a terrible student" remarks.
“The implication is that Barack Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action and took the place of a more qualified white student. Apparently, graduating magna cum laude from the nation’s most prestigious law school and being named editor of the Harvard Law Review — the institution’s highest student honor — is not enough for him.
“For guys like Trump, it never is.”
On April 14th, 2011: “I have a great relationship with the blacks,” Trump told Albany's Talk Radio. “I've always had a great relationship with the blacks.”
One more, because I'm fed up with writing on this blog entry.
In 2012, referring to his handpicked winner of Celebrity Apprentice – Trump asked rhetorically, “How can I be a racist? I just picked Arsenio Hall.”
I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that Obama's teleprompter has been doing its job. I did my own research on this. And this is most of what I found.
Patrick at June 10, 2016 11:01 AM
Okay, Conan, I think we're agreeing on pretty much everything. I was just trying to point out that Congress, if they wanted to, could come up with a bullshit reason to impeach the President, call it a "high crime and misdemeanor" and impeach away, even if it doesn't meet the definition of "high crime" or "misdemeanor."
I wasn't trying to suggest that they could just march right into the Oval Office (which would be an awful lot of people in that office) and say, "You're fired!"
Though that does make a very interesting visual.
Patrick at June 10, 2016 11:06 AM
Patrick, I think the issue is that the charge of "racism" no longer has any particular meaning. Too many leftists have used it to describe anything that they don't like, whether it's Klansman or a frappucino without enough whipped cream. So calling Trump a racist has no impact on anyone. In fact, it probably gains him some supporters among those who are sick of PC culture.
Cousin Dave at June 10, 2016 11:09 AM
I hate to pick on you, but sometimes you make such obnoxiously grandiose statements that you need to be called on them.
"If I owned a business, any business...." But you don't. Own a business that is.
The sentiment you express is virtue signaling. It doesn't cost you anything to say that you'd be better than someone else when it comes to choosing principle over money. And in doing so you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how much better you are than that evil rich guy without ever having to risk finding out that you're not.
You lose nothing. You don't lose the ability to pay the rent, the employees, or the mortgage by saying that you would do the right thing, but never actually having to make the choice. You're safe in your living room, not risking the retaliation of a violent mobster.
I'm not saying Trump chose rightly, nor am I defending him or his choice.
Instead of telling us hypotheticals about how you'd take a stand if you were in that situation, tell us about when you actually were in that situation; when you told the patron to go fuck himself and threw him out, choosing principle over millions of dollars in business that could help keep your operation afloat and your employees working.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 2:06 PM
I hate to pick on you, but sometimes you make such obnoxiously grandiose statements that you need to be called on them.
"If I owned a business, any business...." But you don't. Own a business that is.
The sentiment you express is virtue signaling. It doesn't cost you anything to say that you'd be better than someone else when it comes to choosing principle over money. And in doing so you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how much better you are than that evil rich guy without ever having to risk finding out that you're not.
You lose nothing. You don't lose the ability to pay the rent, the employees, or the mortgage by saying that you would do the right thing, but never actually having to make the choice. You're safe in your living room, not risking the retaliation of a violent mobster.
I'm not saying Trump chose rightly, nor am I defending him or his choice.
Instead of telling us hypotheticals about how you'd take a stand if you were in that situation, tell us about when you actually were in that situation; when you told the patron to go fuck himself and threw him out, choosing principle over millions of dollars in business that could help keep your operation afloat and your employees working.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 2:07 PM
I hate to pick on you, but sometimes you make such obnoxiously grandiose statements that you need to be called on them.
"If I owned a business, any business...." But you don't. Own a business that is.
The sentiment you express is virtue signaling. It doesn't cost you anything to say that you'd be better than someone else when it comes to choosing principle over money. And in doing so you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how much better you are than that evil rich guy without ever having to risk finding out that you're not.
You lose nothing. You don't lose the ability to pay the rent, the employees, or the mortgage by saying that you would do the right thing, but never actually having to make the choice. You're safe in your living room, not risking the retaliation of a violent mobster.
I'm not saying Trump chose rightly, nor am I defending him or his choice.
Instead of telling us hypotheticals about how you'd take a stand if you were in that situation, tell us about when you actually were in that situation; when you told the patron to go fuck himself and threw him out, choosing principle over millions of dollars in business that could help keep your operation afloat and your employees working.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 2:07 PM
> I hate to pick on you,
> but sometimes...
If your energy ever flags, just shoot me a text.
Crid at June 10, 2016 2:30 PM
Conan:
Ah, yes, virtue signaling. The latest in convenient buzzphrases. Whether this person was truly going to spend millions of dollars is debatable. Maybe he was. Bill Bennett once lost millions in gambling and didn't tell his wife (he told the casinos not to call his home).
The article I quoted referred to him as a "high-roller." I don't know if there's a standardized amount to be considered a high-roller. To me, betting hundreds is playing for high stakes. But I don't gamble.
I don't know if this is so much "virtue-signaling" on my part, but as simply a business practice that would indicate I haven't lost my fucking mind. I mean, seriously. Someone comes into your business, Conan, and says, "I'm going to spend a couple of million in your store, but could you please get all the blacks [or some other less kind word] out of the room. They make me nervous."
You'd throw him out, too, I'd wager, or at least tell him that you will not do such a thing, under any circumstances. Not out of virtue, necessarily, but out of common sense. I imagine you'd get into some serious trouble if you did such a thing (just as Trump did), to say nothing of the damage to your business's reputation. I doubt this customer would be spending enough money to make it worth it.
Another aspect that struck me as so outrageous about this story, also, is the fact that this happened in 1992, not 1962.
Without answering any questions about how disgusting you might find this request, doesn't complying with this request make you wonder if Trump is out of his mind?
From a business perspective, don't you think that's a dangerous thing to do? If one employee, white or black, complains about this (which is probably precisely what happened, and the New Jersey Casino Control Commission came over incognito to observe this happening, perhaps, or corroborative testimony from other employees), wouldn't you advise a businessman that he's taking a terrible risk and he could be paying fines and lose his business?
Remembering the world as it was in 1992, with racial sensitivity being in vogue (as opposed to racial privilege we have today), doesn't it strike you as pretty funny that someone, especially someone like Trump, needs to be told not to do that?
Patrick at June 10, 2016 3:40 PM
Robert LiButti was one of the most profligate gamblers in Atlantic City history. He regularly gambled millions at casinos. I'd say that makes him a high roller.
His comps included "nine cars worth $1.6 million, five European vacations, Super Bowl tickets, jewelry, and $40,000 worth of champagne."
You could probably pay the $200,000 fine with the proceeds from one day of his gambling.
Don't forget he was a violent mobster with ties to John Gotti, ties that got him banned-for-life from New Jersey casinos.
Trump was actually not implicated in the behavior that led to the $200,000 fine.
LiButti claims to have been close to Trump. LiButti's daughter claims her father and Trump were close. Trump says not so. Both say they'll vote for him.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 4:13 PM
He is responsible, nonetheless. It's an open question, I suppose, whether Trump even knew about this, much less approving of it.
If the testimony of Kip Brown is to be believed, along with the account given by John O'Donnell in Trumped!, then I would say it's entirely possible that Trump knew about this, and would likely have given his approval.
If that's the case -- and I don't say it is, only that it's possible -- then whether Trump himself did this is largely irrelevant.
I tried to find some kind of response from Trump regarding O'Donnell's book, but was unable to.
I'm surprised Trump never threatened to sue over it; it seems out of character for the litigious Trump. He threatened to sue Rosie O'Donnell over her classless insults and claims that he filed for bankruptcy, but that never materialized.
John O'Donnell gave an account that, if true, is a textbook example of racism. Yet silence from Trump?
Regarding LiButti, doubtless he could have paid the fine, though I suspect that if the Casino continued to indulge his prejudices, the NJCCC would have upped its game and laid out some more serious consequences.
Patrick at June 10, 2016 5:09 PM
😎
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2016 7:04 PM
Leave a comment