Trump's 'impeachment and removal' focus of Harvard Law class

Harvard Law School has a class dedicated solely to President Trump and the impeachment process.  (REUTERS/Leah Millis)

A prominent Harvard Law School professor who has repeatedly called for removing President Trump from office is teaching a course solely dedicated to impeaching the 45^th president.
Laurence Tribe, a distinguished constitutional law professor and former Obama Justice Department appointee, teaches “Constitutional Law 3.0: The Trump Trajectory,” CampusReform.org reported.
Students “will explore what the Trump presidency might mean for American constitutional law, how we might expect the Constitution to constrain Trump’s execution of his powers and duties, and what #impeachment and removal by other means might resemble in the Trump era,” according to the course description.
Outside the classroom, Tribe has made it clear he is anti-Trump.
The Harvard law professor wrote an oped for the Washington Post called “Trump must be impeached. Here’s why,” in which he called for Trump’s removal because “he poses a danger to our system of government.”
And while the Trump course doesn’t have any required textbooks, Tribe has a book coming out in May, which he billed as a “complete roadmap” for impeaching Trump called “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.”
Tribe is an avid controversial tweeter, frequently attacking the president and anyone connected to him.
“Trump should go back to bed, read the Constitution and the Special Counsel regs, learn to spell, stop referring to himself in the third person, and shut the hell up,” Tribe tweeted Wednesday.
TRUMP PROMOTES COMMENTS FROM HARVARD PROF WHO SAYS MUELLER NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED
He even took a swipe at his colleague, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, saying, “I’d rather be blocked by @realDonaldTrump (who wouldn’t dare!) than embraced and quoted by him (as I was to my shame, against @tedcruz during GOP primaries). Just saying.”
Tribe is a frequent guest on shows like MSNBC to discuss what he calls Trump’s “ongoing obstruction of justice.”
“He uses the power of the presidency to essentially defy the system of checks and balances,” Tribe told MSNBC host Joy Reid. “We have to start an impeachment investigation in the House...”
While Tribe has pushed for the impeachment and removal of Trump, unlike others on the left he has said the president has not committed treason.
The Trump-focused course is only open to 12 law students who had to submit a statement of interest for Tribe’s consideration prior to enrollment in the two-credit class.
Tribe nor Harvard Law responded to request for comment.

'America's Never Been Great': Student Records Teacher Saying Trump 'MAGA' Slogan Trying to Bring Back Segregation

On "Fox & Friends," Abby Huntsman interviewed a Georgia middle school student who captured audio of her teacher ripping President Donald Trump and his "Make America Great Again" slogan.
Josie Orihuela of Hampton Middle School near Atlanta began recording on her phone when sixth-grade teacher Johnetta Benton began reaming out the president.
"When my president says let's Make America Great Again, when was he talking about?" Benton is heard asking, and later adding that Trump must mean when "[America] was great for Europeans."
"Because," Benton continues, "when it comes to minorities, America has never been great for minorities."
Huntsman said the incident happened at the same high school where another teacher requested students write letters to their lawmakers demanding gun control.

This sixth grader recorded her teacher’s now viral anti-Trump rant. She says she’s disappointed her teacher would use her platform knowing she has an influence on students. pic.twitter.com/4cGj8dQFhe

— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) March 31, 2018

Orihuela said Benton made the comments as she was introducing a video to celebrate Black History Month.
"It kept getting worse and worse," she said.
Though not captured on the audio played by Huntsman, Orihuela said that at one point, Benton surmised aloud that "Make America Great Again" could be a precursor to "trying to bring back segregation."
In 1954, the Supreme Court - led by Chief Justice Earl Warren - outlawed school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Orihuela said she showed her mother the tape, and that they both were shocked by Benton's words.
Henry County School District spokesperson J.D. Hardin later called the incident "extremely unfortunate" and said that the "matter was addressed" after the tape went public.

Census Cartoons

Trump’s census question sends media into panic and other ridiculous news disasters

The media played the question-and-answer game with the Trump administration this week. The White House proposed adding a census question on citizenship and the media resoundingly said no.
Major news organizations screamed that there was “a growing backlash” against the question. Not from the public, mind you, just from Democrats.
NBC White House Correspondent Kristen Welker explained that there were “several Democratic state attorneys general poised to sue the Trump administration.” Because it’s novel that the left sues Trump? They’ve filed so many lawsuits that they’ve probably helped lower lawyer unemployment by a sizable amount.
Several outlets warned that critics say this “will result in a population undercount.” CNN argued the move was “a big deal.”
CNN Political Analyst John Avlon concluded that the change was "designed to drive down participation and benefit Republicans politically."
Lefty Vice predicted the question “could reshape American politics for a decade or more.” Mother Jones headlined. “Trump Is Rigging the Census.” And The New York Times editorialized an almost-identical view with, “The Trump Administration Sabotages the Census.”
HuffPost tried hard to spin the question into a Republican concern, suggesting: “The controversial question may cost some GOP-led states seats in Congress and electoral votes in presidential elections.” PBS cautioned: “Democrats fear immigrants will skip census with citizenship query.”
That was the common theme. It was never a media objection about gathering the information. The reaction was simply to provide cover for Democrats.
Many outlets pushed a falsehood, claiming the question hadn’t been used in several decades. ABC anchor David Muir was one of many to get it wrong. “For the first time in more than 60 years, the census will now ask people whether they are American citizens,” he told viewers.
The census used that question last in 1950, but only on the short form. The long form included the question from 1970 to 2000, but it was discontinued in 2010 under President Barack Obama. In other words, it only skipped one census survey.
That caused widespread confusion. The Washington Post couldn’t even agree with itself. A Thursday story used a number hard to find elsewhere: “But the Census Bureau sends it out only to 3.5 million households a year, or one out of every 38.” However, a March 27 Associated Press story that ran on the paper’s site says that “citizenship or related questions were asked of about 1 in 6 households on the census ‘long form,’ which has since been retired.”
The census still has copies online of the 2000 long form and it agrees with AP. “On average, about 1 in every 6 households will receive the long form.”
The Federalist ripped apart the arguments against the question. “If asking about citizenship is illegal, every census since 1890 has been a crime,” it wrote.
Media Hate Another Trump Appointment: Journalists know more than everybody about everything. In January, they were sure that Dr. Ronny Jackson was just another “Trump fanboy” or sycophant. Jackson was caught up in what was termed the “girther” controversy when he pronounced the president was in good health and just 239 pounds. CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta even declared without examining President Trump, that “the President has heart disease.”
The president nominated Navy Rear Adm. Jackson as the new head of the Department of Veterans Affairs this week and the media once more went ballistic. Jackson, who had been President Obama’s physician, was soon questioned with the refrain: Is he “up to the job?”
The reports tended to ignore that Jackson is both an admiral and a doctor. The medical experience might help him fix the VA, which has been embroiled in scandals “in which some veterans died while waiting months for medical appointments,” according to Time.
The media either skewered Jackson’s inexperience running a bureaucracy or depicted him as a Trump loyalist. CNN Political Analyst Ryan Lizza said President Trump has a consistent style with his appointees. “What do they all have in common? They all have excelled at going on TV and defending Trump in the most over the top way and flattering his ego.”
MSNBC’s Katy Tur called the choice “interesting timing” and possibly a Trump plan “to change the subject” from possible pardons for Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort.
The New York Times even ran an op-ed by Yale forensic psychiatrist Bandy Lee and Norman Eisen headlined “Ronny Jackson’s Disturbing Lack of Independence.” What the opinion piece failed to tell you is that Lee was the one who briefed Democrats in Congress claiming President Trump is mentally unfit.
Liberal Vox depicted Lee as “leading” the effort it called: “The case for evaluating the president’s mental capacity – by force if necessary.” Yes, “by force.” Apparently, Lee had fantasies of Secret Service agents dragging away a sitting president to force him to have psychiatric tests.
TV Has Someone Who Voted For Trump: Surprise! Sixty-plus million people voted for Donald Trump and some of them even watch TV. That’s what Hollywood discovered this week when the reboot of “Roseanne” launched to huge ratings. It’s what “Today” Co-host Hoda Kotb called “red states, ratings gold!”
While the show was in no way right-wing, it did something novel for TV. It depicted the lead character as pro-Trump. The first episode showed jokes going back and forth as the divided family tried to reconcile. It ended with Roseanne giving a prayer over dinner and saying: “But most of all, Lord…. Thank you for making America great again!”
The media generally gave the show good marks, but journalists still wrestled with a character they so opposed leading a show. Washington Post TV Critic Hank Stuever compared Roseanne to another character the media hated – 1970s bigot Archie Bunker. Steuver wrote: “Rebooted Roseanne is a proud ‘deplorable.’ Can she be the Trump era’s Archie Bunker?”
Deadline summed up the Tinseltown reaction: “‘Roseanne’ Revival’s Huge Debut Stuns Hollywood, Prompts Soul-Searching.” (Hollywood bigwigs looking for their souls? Talk about impossible chores.) Even President Trump gave Roseanne kudos. “Look at Roseanne! I called her yesterday! Look at her ratings!”
But conservative radio host Ben Shapiro was quick to point out that the show isn’t conservative, describing it as “one big lie about Trump.” “The lie that the show tells is that the reason people voted for Trump is because they were dissatisfied with the economy and because they were looking to give Donald Trump a chance to fix it. And it wasn’t about cultural issues. That’s not true.”
No One Wants To Take …: The liberal argument for gun restrictions has long been that they don’t want to take away guns. They just want “commonsense gun reform.” Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens shot that down with his New York Times op-ed headlined: “Repeal the Second Amendment.”
Suddenly the news was devoted to open discussions about … taking guns and gun rights. Longtime TV host Larry King agreed with Stevens, declaring: “Yeah, repeal it.” He told TMZ: “It’s poorly written. What did they mean by ‘militia?’”
The Washington Post followed with survey results. “One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment to be repealed, national survey finds,” it reported.
Liberal outlets practically fell over themselves to try and downplay it, saying such talk aided pro-gun supporters. Vox called the idea “a counterproductive distraction.” Slate said the call was “staggeringly misplaced.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo even denied that Stevens had done exactly what he had done and instead referred to it as a “boogeyman.”

Some visa applicants may have to fork over social media information to State Dept.

The State Dept. is proposing that foreign visitors and people planning to immigrate to the US, provide links to various social media accounts in order to obtain visas.  (AP/File Photo)

The State Department is expected to publish a set of proposals Friday that would require some tourists and immigrants to provide information on their social media accounts before visiting the U.S., The Washington Times reported.
The proposals are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to implement "extreme vetting" on immigration, the department said.
Travelers would also be required to provide phone numbers, email addresses, international travel and immigration issues within the last five years.
Travelers would also be required to answer questions about possible family connections to terrorism.
“This upgrade to visa vetting is long-overdue, and it’s appropriate to apply it to everyone seeking entry, because terrorism is a worldwide problem. The aim is to weed out people with radical or dangerous views,” Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, told the paper.
According to the documents, approximately 14 million people would be affected by the new proposals and another 700,000 would be affected in the immigration system.
Don Crocetti, a former senior fraud investigator for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said an individual’s refusal to turn over their social media accounts couldn’t alone be used to deny approval.
“The use of social media is a wrench in their toolbox. It’s not that you use that same wrench for everything you do, but it’s a wrench, it’s a different-sized tool, and you have use that selectively,” he said.
After publication, the proposals will allow 60 days for public comment before the policies are finalized later this year. 

California homeowner says she won't sell to Trump supporters: report

A woman in Sacramento will sell her family-owned home to anyone – except a Trump supporter.

Looking to buy a home in Sacramento, Calif.? Well, if you support President Donald Trump, at least one homeowner reportedly says she doesn't want to sell her home to you.
The homeowner made the condition clear to her Realtor, Elizabeth Weintraub, according to Sacramento's KOVR-TV.
Weintraub relayed the woman’s request to the station, noting it could be difficult to screen potential buyers based on politics.
"We can ask somebody how they voted, but they don't have to tell us," she said.

"We can ask somebody how they voted, but they don't have to tell us."

The house has reportedly been owned by the seller’s family for several decades. Now the woman, whose name was not released, wants to sell -- so long as the buyer has political views similar to her own.
But that may be illegal, attorney Allen Sawyer said.
Discrimination based on one's political views is “an unlawful contractual term that infringes the freedom of association and First Amendment rights,” he said.
“People have a right to believe what they want to believe," Sawyer added, "and they shouldn’t be restricted from purchasing property based on that.”

"People have a right to believe what they want to believe, and they shouldn’t be restricted from purchasing property based on that.”
- Allen Sawyer, attorney

The Fair Housing Act forbids home sellers from discriminating against potential buyers based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or nationality – but says nothing about political preference.
Despite having been home to presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan -- both of whom served as California governor prior to winning the White House -- the Golden State has backed Democrats for president in recent elections.
George H.W. Bush, who was elected in 1988, is the most recent Republican presidential candidate to win the state. 

Democratic lawmaker asked to resign over reports of harassment 'coverup'

Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Esty is being asked to resign after reports surfaced that she hid allegations of harassment.

A Connecticut Democrat is being asked to resign after reports surfaced that she let her former chief of staff continue to work for her office for months -- despite knowing of allegations that he physically harmed and threatened to “kill” another staffer.

U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty came under fire Thursday after a report in the Connecticut Post said that her former chief of staff, Tony Baker, allegedly called a young female staffer, with whom he had a romantic relationship, nearly 50 times on May 5, 2016, and had once punched her in the back in Esty’s Washington office.

An affidavit obtained by the Post said the woman, Anna Kain – who has since gone public – felt “intimidated” by Baker, which led her to keep quiet for fear of jeopardizing her own safety.
"Throughout the Winter of 2014, respondent (Baker) repeatedly screamed at petitioner (the former staffer) in the workplace, making the woman feel intimidated and caused petitioner to feel she could not report respondent’s actions without putting her safety at risk,” the affidavit says.

A Connecticut Democrat is being asked to resign after reports surfaced that she let her former chief of staff continue to work for her office for months -- despite knowing of allegations that he physically harmed and threatened to “kill” another staffer.

U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty came under fire Thursday after a report in the Connecticut Post said that her former chief of staff, Tony Baker, allegedly called a young female staffer, with whom he had a romantic relationship, nearly 50 times on May 5, 2016, and had once punched her in the back in Esty’s Washington office.

An affidavit obtained by the Post said the woman, Anna Kain – who has since gone public – felt “intimidated” by Baker, which led her to keep quiet for fear of jeopardizing her own safety.
"Throughout the Winter of 2014, respondent (Baker) repeatedly screamed at petitioner (the former staffer) in the workplace, making the woman feel intimidated and caused petitioner to feel she could not report respondent’s actions without putting her safety at risk,” the affidavit says.
But Baker remained on Esty’s staff for three months and even accompanied her to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 25, 2016.
He sent an email Aug. 12, 2016, announcing his departure.
Documents provided by Esty to the Post further revealed that after his departure, Baker was given a letter of recommendation, multiple secrecy provisions surrounding his reasons for leaving and a severance payment of $5,000.
Esty debates the letter of recommendation saying it was “limited” and added that she was forced to sign and NDA by the Office of House Employment Counsel, which she claims delayed Baker’s firing.
A spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, Chris Martin, issued a statement slamming Esty for “orchestrating one of the most disturbing Washington cover-ups in recent memory,” and asking for her resignation, the Hill reported.
An editorial in the Hartford Courant also called for Esty to resign.
‘Ms. Esty had every opportunity — and every responsibility — to at least suspend Mr. Baker on the spot and hold him accountable for his behavior. Instead, she went with the script that has cloaked sexual assault and harassment in Congress for decades. She is complicit.”
Feeling pressure from Republicans to stand down, Esty released a statement to Facebook on Thursday, apologizing for “failing to protect” Kain.

She apologized to the young female staffer and said that it is her “responsibility” to uphold “equality and fairness.”
“Equality and fairness are values I’ve held long before I came to Congress. Now that I am in Congress, it is my responsibility to run an office that is not only safe, but upholds those values and respects staff and their work on behalf of the people of the 5th Congressional District,” her statement read.
On Friday, Esty told CNN that she has no plans to step down.
"For those who have asked, I want to be clear that I am not resigning," Esty said in a statement to to the network. "I have important work to do in Congress including building on the lessons of this horrible series of events."

VA Benefits Cartoons (not really funny)