If I have to chose to believe either Nikki Haley or Tillerson it would be Nikki 100%.
WASHINGTON – Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is disputing a claim by Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, that he sought to subvert President Donald Trump’s agenda in an effort to “save the country.”
Tillerson, a former ExxonMobil chief executive, told media outlets on Monday that during his tenure as America’s top diplomat, “at no time did I, nor to my direct knowledge did anyone else serving along with me, take any actions to undermine the president.”
“Once the president made a decision, we at the State Department undertook our best efforts to implement that decision,” Tillerson said, according to the Washington Post, adding that “Ambassador Haley was rarely a participant in my many meetings.”
That denial came after reports emerged that Haley, in her new book, said that Tillerson worked with former White House chief of Staff John Kelly to combat Trump’s decisions and that Haley rebuffed their efforts to join their cause.
“Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country,” Haley wrote in “With All Due Respect,” which is set to be released on Tuesday.
‘This can be a very mean-spirited town’: Rex Tillerson bids farewell to Trump’s D.C.
Pressured to admit transgender student A Romania-born academic says he recently left his tenured position at Columbia University because the Ivy League school is “on its way toward full blown…
I wish that Democrats could see what this professor sees. He recognizes the lefts agenda to become a communist country. The Democrats claim they want a democracy but all their policies and practices are more towards socialism or communism. And the left claims they want inclusion, but it’s only for certain “groups” or “ideology” which is the opposite or inclusion. In fact, they are discriminating.
Pressured to admit transgender student
A Romania-born academic says he recently left his tenured position at Columbia University because the Ivy League school is “on its way toward full blown communism,” according to a Romanian TV interview translated by a Romanian-American immigrant.
Prof. Andrei Serban, an award-winning director, complained about the increasing social justice demands he faced in the theater department in the interview, which aired on Romania’s TVR1 Oct. 26. One prominent example he gave: pressure to admit a transgender applicant who auditioned as Juliet from “Romeo and Juliet.”
Andy Ionescu, a native Romianian speaker who immigrated to the United States in 1999, told The College Fix in a Twitter message that he translated the interview.
He said it was likely the first time that Serban made his resignation publicly known. Columbia still lists Serban as an active professor. Media relations did not respond to an email from The Fix, and Serban’s department did not return a voicemail. Serban did not respond to an email.
The TV host expresses incredulity at multiple points in the interview, seemingly shocked that the American higher education system is headed toward communism. Serban fled from the ideology, which ruled Romania for much of the 20th century.
Serban says in the interview that after a faculty member retired, the remaining professors in the department were called in to a meeting to discuss a replacement.
It was at this meeting that the dean of the art school told them that there were “too many white professors, too many heterosexual men,” and that it would be best to hire a minority or a woman, or a gay man.
Serban, who was the director of the hiring committee, says that he was told that it could not be someone like him because he is a man that has been “married, a heterosexual man who has children.”
The professor says that he then asked if they could choose a straight white male if the most qualified candidate happened to be so, and was promptly told that they could not. “I felt like I was living under communism again,” he said.
A second incident involving a male-to-female transgender student was the final impetus for Serban to resign, according to the translated video.
While reviewing applicants to the theater school, the transgender student prepared Juliet’s monologue from “Romeo and Juliet.”
An impeachable offense is not a legal designation. It is, in our system, a political conclusion.
Is it an impeachable offense?
That is the question of the hour. On “Fox News Sunday,” Chris Wallace pressed it on Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas. It is a question every Republican supporter of President Trump should be prepared to answer. Democrats, by contrast, determined that the president was impeachable before he ever darkened the Oval Office door; it’s not worth asking them since their answer preexisted any real or imagined occasion for posing the question.
It is, of course, the question that must be asked. That does not make it a fair question. It is unfair because it assumes a fact that is not in evidence, namely: that we have a working definition of an impeachable offense on which there is agreement – or at least something close to consensus. We don’t.
In fact, even that explanation of the problem is misleading. To have a “working definition” in this context implies that we are dealing with a legal reality – as if the question were, Is it a contract? Or, Is it a homicide? A contract or a homicide is a legal designation with a settled definition applicable in all circumstances.
By contrast, an impeachable offense is not a legal designation. It is, in our system, a political conclusion.
Well, OK, even that is an oversimplification. I grappled with the problem – at the crossroads of law and politics – in my 2014 book on the impeachment, “Faithless Execution.” (I wasn’t smart enough to wait until Donald Trump was president to write an impeachment book – I might have made a few bucks!)
The “impeachable offense” question comes down to whether a president’s alleged misconduct amounts to “high crimes and misdemeanors.” On this, the Framers believed they had a legal definition, although one more elastic than those that define offenses in the penal code. As Hamilton put it in “Federalist 65,” high crimes and misdemeanors are offenses that:
“…proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they chiefly relate to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
Legally, then, impeachable offenses need not be courtroom-prosecutable crimes. They are in the nature, instead, of abuses of power, derelictions of the office holder’s fiduciary duties.
Sounds straightforward enough. Except it’s not. The Framers, you see, did not leave impeachment to judges. They left it to Congress, i.e., to a *political branch.* And because they feared that this could give the legislature too much power over the executive, or that a politicized faction in Congress could exploit the impeachment power frivolously against a rival president, they made impeachment-and-removal very difficult to do.
A simple House majority may vote articles of impeachment, but it takes a two-thirds’ supermajority of the Senate to convict – i.e., to oust the president from office.
That is not the way things work with straight legal questions. In those, an impartial factfinder reaches the legal conclusion under the guidance of an impartial judge. In theory, it’s a simple application of legal definitions to the facts of the case.
Impeachment, to the contrary, is left to the politicians. Moreover, the supermajority requirement in the Senate assures that no misconduct will be found impeachable unless the public strongly and broadly believes the president should be removed. Only that intense political pressure would spur two-thirds of the Senate to convict, regardless of partisan loyalties.
So the question is never as simple as, Is it an impeachable offense?
Attorneys for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard have demanded a retraction of Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Gabbard is a Russian asset.
Tulsi Gabbard is demanding an apology from Hillary for referring to her as a Russian asset. Hillary is denying that some of her comments were about Gabbard but we all know that Hillary is a liar. And I doubt Gabbard will get her apology. But she is definitely brave in asking for one.
Attorneys for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) have demanded a retraction of Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Gabbard is a Russian asset, and accused the former first lady of defamation.
“Your statement is defamatory, and we demand that you retract it immediately,” wrote a lawyer for Gabbard, who is a 2020 presidential candidate, reported The Hill.
The lawyer, who was not named, demanded that Clinton “immediately” verbally retract the comments. The lawyer also wanted the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate to post a retraction to her Twitter account.
Clinton hasn’t responded to the lawyer’s demands.
In October, Clinton made the comment about Gabbard during a podcast.
“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far,” Clinton said. She didn’t refer to Gabbard by name but strongly suggested it.
“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton also stated in October, CNN reported. She also suggested that Gabbard might run as a third-party candidate, but a Clinton spokesperson later said it wasn’t in reference to her, according to The Hill’s report.
“It appears you may now be claiming that this statement is about Republicans (not Russians) grooming Gabbard,” Gabbard’s lawyer said in the letter.”But this makes no sense in light of what you actually said. After you made the statement linking Congresswoman Gabbard to the Russians, you (through your spokesman) doubled down on it with the Russian nesting dolls remark.”
Gabbard has said she isn’t interested in running on a third-party platform.
In an interview with Fox News in late October, Gabbard said such claims are “baseless” and are “offensive” because she served in the military.
“I will never be able to undo what they have done in trying to cast suspicion amongst the American people about where my loyalties actually lie,” Gabbard said.
Her spat with Clinton is bigger than just her, she said.
The public tussle “is really about our freedom. Our freedom of speech and being able to make sure that we, as the American people can stand up. We can be critical of our leaders. We can disagree, and the reason why we’re seeing this coming from Hillary Clinton and her proxies and kind of this foreign policy establishment that represents her legacy is they know they cannot control me. And that worries them very much,” Gabbard said in the interview.
Event at University of California is cut short amid anger at his refusal to take questions from the audience
I am completely disgusted that these people behaved this way at the book signing. I’m talking about conservatives heckling at Donald Trump Jr. because the y didn’t want to take questions. Really? This just gave the left their Monday talking points on all the liberal news channels. Kimberly Guilfoyle was right in calling them rude.
Donald Trump Jr ventured on to the University of California’s overwhelmingly liberal Los Angeles campus on Sunday, hoping to prove what he had just argued in his book – that a hate-filled American left was hell-bent on silencing him and anyone else who supported the Trump presidency.
But the appearance backfired when his own supporters, diehard Make America Great Again conservatives, raised their voices most loudly in protest and ended up drowning him out barely 20 minutes into an event scheduled to last two hours.
The audience was angry that Trump Jr and his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, would not take questions. The loud shouts of “USA! USA!” that greeted Trump when he first appeared on the stage of a university lecture hall to promote his book Triggered: How The Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us quickly morphed into even louder, openly hostile chants of “Q and A! Q and A!”
The 450-strong audience had just been told they would not be allowed to ask questions, “due to time constraints”.
At first, Trump and Guilfoyle tried to ignore the discontent, which originated with a fringe group of America Firsters who believe the Trump administration has been taken captive by a cabal of internationalists, free-traders, and apologists for mass immigration.
When the shouting would not subside, Trump Jr tried – and failed – to argue that taking questions from the floor risked creating soundbites that leftwing social media posters would abuse and distort. Nobody was buying that.
In minutes, the entire argument put forward by the president’s son – that he was willing to engage in dialogue but that it was the left that refused to tolerate free speech – crumbled.