Monroe wrote:
http://larazalawyers.net/id3.html

Scroll to the bottom to see the link.

Monroe wrote:
Judge Curiel not only awarded a scholarship to an illegal alien, but his California La Raza lawyers group hosts a link to the national La Raza hate group.

Gee, if Trump belonged to a group who had an Aryan Nation link on its website, now we'd have a story!

Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a nonprofit professional association of Latino lawyers that is affiliated with a statewide organization, the La Raza Lawyers of California. Neither these groups nor Curiel are affiliated with the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), an unrelated advocacy group.

When House Republicans created the Select Committee on Benghazi two years ago, tasking the panel to investigate a deadly attack that had already been thoroughly investigated by other committees, GOP activists, conspiracy theorists, pundits, and election staffers had high hopes of what Rep. Trey Gowdy?s (R-S.C.) committee could accomplish.

That was quite a while ago. More than two years and $7 million later, the Republicans? Benghazi panel has wrapped up the longest congressional investigation in the history of the United States, and it couldn?t avoid this lede in the New York Times.

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.

The full report, which is over 800 pages long, is online here. By all accounts, the GOP members of the panel raised a variety of criticisms and concerns, including inadequate security resources in Libya, bureaucratic inertia, and breakdowns in coordination between agencies.

Or put another way, the Select Committee on Benghazi came to the same conclusions all of the other investigations reached quite a while ago, raising questions anew about why in the world this committee was necessary in the first place.

As regular readers know, some congressional Republicans admitted the panel was a partisan exercise, which was created and sustained for purely political reasons. Committee Democrats, who released their own 339-page report yesterday, said in a press statement, ?Decades in the future, historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation.?

The evidence to bolster the point is overwhelming. Given the panel?s abuses, the inescapable fact is clear: the Republicans? Benghazi Committee didn?t investigate a scandal; the Republicans? Benghazi Committee was the scandal.

It?s obviously unrealistic to believe the Republican scandal-mongers who?ve thrown all kinds of ugly accusations at President Obama and Hillary Clinton will apologize now, but I am genuinely curious about how they?ll deal with the cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, the right has already convinced itself that administration officials are guilty of horrific wrongdoing. On the other hand, every Republican committee ? including the one created for the purpose of digging up dirt in time for the 2016 election ? has failed to find evidence to bolster the conspiracy theories.

So, are we to believe the conspiracy theories are wrong or that Trey Gowdy and his GOP allies are somehow in on an elaborate cover-up?

Perhaps the more salient question is more straightforward: why in the world did House Republicans spend two years and $7 million to effectively exonerate Hillary Clinton as part of the GOP?s favorite conspiracy theory?

While conservatives ponder that, let?s reiterate an important angle to all of this: I?ve long found the Republicans? Benghazi Committee to be ridiculous, but I?m not suggesting the deadly terrorist attack in Libya, which left four Americans dead, was unworthy of investigation. Just the opposite is true ? Congress had a responsibility to determine what happened and take steps to prevent similar attacks in the future.

But therein lies the point: seven separate congressional committees investigated the Benghazi attack before the Select Committee was even created. This was already one of the most scrutinized events in American history. Republican lawmakers, however, didn?t quite care for what the evidence told them, so they effectively concluded, ?Seven committees didn?t tell us what we wanted to hear, so maybe the eighth committee will.?

Except, it appears this one came up short, too.

The Select Committee on Benghazi lasted longer than the investigations into the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President Kennedy, the Iran-Contra scandal, Church Committee, the Watergate probe, and the 9/11 attacks. In fact, it?s of interest that the 9/11 Commission, investigating every possible angle to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the country, worked for 604 days and created a bipartisan report endorsed by each of the commission?s members.

The Benghazi committee, meanwhile, worked for over 700 days to create a partisan, election-year document, rehashing revelations that have been known and documented for years.

History will not be kind.

Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a nonprofit professional association of Latino lawyers that is affiliated with a statewide organization, the La Raza Lawyers of California. Neither these groups nor Curiel are affiliated with the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), an unrelated advocacy group.

Mexican drug cartel target
Before he was first appointed to a state-level judgeship in 2006, Curiel worked as a federal prosecutor in Southern California with a focus on drug cases -- and with them, the Mexican cartels.
In the late 1990s, Curiel's efforts to extradite a pair of alleged cartel gunmen to Mexico put him directly in the traffickers' crosshairs. The Los Angeles Times reported at the time that, according court documents, "a top lieutenant in the Arellano Felix drug trafficking cartel" told another inmate he planned to have "Curiel assassinated and that he had requested and received permission from the leaders of the Arellano cartel."
Curiel was quickly provided a security detail, including bodyguards who traveled with him until the threat passed. He would go on to serve, between 1999 and 2002, as the lead attorney for the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.
"During this period, he led an investigative unit of more than 20 federal agents and four assistant U.S attorneys that successfully extradited and prosecuted leaders, assassins and members of the infamous Arellano-Felix drug cartel," Sen. Barbara Boxer's office said in a statement following his 2011 nomination to the federal court.
In 2012, Sen. Richard Blumenthal introduced Curiel at his confirmation hearing, touting the judge's "extraordinary experience" and decades in the courtroom.
"One of the most significant cases involved the successful prosecution of the Arellano Felix drug cartel, a multi billion-dollar drug trafficking ring responsible for more than 100 murders in the United States and Mexico," he said.

Monroe wrote:
@pebble, Trump has a lot less exposure over Trump U than Clinton does over her husband getting paid $16.5 million dollars to shill for a 'for profit' university with abysmal graduation rates-a company that scored big US govt funding while Hillary ran state. But I'd be leery about a jurist with radical, pro illegal alien ties being involved with someone wanting to build a border fence. Wait, are the Democrats building a fence and demanding photo ID's for the Philly convention? Is that true?? tee hee

@sushi, lol. I guess growing up in one of the most racist, discriminatory, and jingoistic countries on the planet makes you see racists everywhere. You can probably get professional help for that.

A delegate to the Republican National Convention filed a class action lawsuit in federal court late last week, ?challenging a state law that binds delegates to support the primary winner at the nominating convention.? Around the same time, a group called ?Delegates Unbound? launched a new television commercial, intended to rally support for Republican convention delegates to vote their conscience when they meet next month in Cleveland.

The point of this is plainly obvious: there are more than a few Republican delegates who still hope to deny Donald Trump the party?s presidential nomination, and they?re looking for any possible, last-gasp, Hail-Mary solutions in the hopes of preventing the inevitable.

Trump and the Republican National Committee are taking the possibility seriously, ?moving quickly and aggressively to head off the fledgling effort to stage a revolt,? but let?s not miss the funny part of all of this: Republican officials aren?t the only ones worried about Trump getting derailed by a convention coup.

Politico published a piece last week with an off-hand observation thrown in: Democratic donors and Hillary Clinton?s allies ?are no longer convinced that Donald Trump is sure to be the GOP nominee.? A day later, Politico fleshed this out further.

Hillary Clinton?s top fundraisers are encountering an unexpected obstacle a month out from the party conventions: big money donors suddenly reluctant to give for fear of running Donald Trump out of the race before he locks up the nomination.

?They?re worried about giving money to attack Trump before the convention,? said longtime Clinton ally James Carville, who has been raising money for the campaign in New York?. There?s no evidence that Trump is considering dropping his presidential bid, and it?s unlikely Republicans will dump him as the party nominee. But Clinton?s well-heeled supporters are nevertheless worried by the prospect of running against anyone other than him.

An unnamed Clinton donor added, ?That?s all anyone?s worried about.?

Let?s not brush past this too quickly. Dems are not only aware of the GOP chatter about a convention coup, they?re actively worried about it. As these Democrats see it, Trump is a weak general-election candidate who?s likely to lose, so the fear is the Republican revolt will succeed and the GOP will nominate someone more competitive.

In fact, apparently some Democratic donors are holding onto their money, fearful that the Clinton campaign will spend it, build an even larger lead in the polls, and make it that much more likely that Trump will get the boot.

For the record, I still think the prospect of a convention coup is unlikely. But that doesn?t change these amazing circumstances: the only folks more worried than Trump about an intra-party revolt at the Republican convention are the Democrats eager to take on Trump in the fall.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I'm always amused when someone from one of the most racist countries on earth opines on the US.

That's BS. You can be from Congo and criticize human right abuse by other countries. I'm a lot more critical of Japan in many issues. I can still call racists such as you as a racist!

The way Monroe is thinking is eerie similar to Trump's attack on Indiana judge. Because he is of Mexican heritage, he can't do his job. Similarly, he Monroe is saying because Atsushi is from Japan, he can't call him a racist. That is, according to Paul Ryan, "Text book definition of racism."

Trying to pivot. Pathetic. You are a truly worst kind of racist.

A social justice warrior from one of the most racist, discriminatory, and jingoistic countries on the planet. Isn't it funny how no Democrats called Trump a racist (he's been a national figure for decades) until he ran for President?

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I'm always amused when someone from one of the most racist countries on earth opines on the US.

That's BS. You can be from Congo and criticize human right abuse by other countries. I'm a lot more critical of Japan in many issues. I can still call racists such as you as a racist!

The way Monroe is thinking is eerie similar to Trump's attack on Indiana judge. Because he is of Mexican heritage, he can't do his job. Similarly, he Monroe is saying because Atsushi is from Japan, he can't call him a racist. That is, according to Paul Ryan, "Text book definition of racism."

Monroe wrote:
I'm always amused when someone from one of the most racist countries on earth opines on the US.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Racist! Drink!

I sometimes fail to understand humor in English, but this sounds like the best thing racists can be doing now.

Drink! the next time Atsushi's Japan admits a single refugee Muslim into its country!

Monroe wrote:
Racist! Drink!

During his trip to Scotland, reporters asked Donald Trump to respond to former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson?s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. ?Don?t know anything about him,? the Republican candidate responded.

As BuzzFeed noted, we know that?s not true. During the economic crash in late 2008 ,Trump singled out Paulson for praise. ?I would give him an A,? Trump told CNN, lauding the Treasury Secretary?s response to the crisis. Trump added at the time, ?[T]he fact is, [Paulson] came into a mess. He didn?t create the mess. And he is helping us get out of the mess.?

The admiration is clearly not mutual. Paulson wrote a piece for the Washington Post, published over the weekend, in which the veteran of the Bush/Cheney administration wrote, ?Enough is enough. It?s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump.?

The piece reads like a stinging indictment, trashing Trump?s business acumen, dishonesty, divisiveness, and temperament.

Simply put, a Trump presidency is unthinkable.

As a Republican looking ahead to November, there are many strong conservative leaders in statehouses across the United States and in Congress, whose candidacies I am actively supporting. They have a big job to do to reinvent and revitalize the Republican Party. They can do so by responding to the fears and frustrations of the American people and uniting them behind some common aspirations, while staying constant to the principles that have made our country great.

When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump. I will not cast a write-in vote. I?ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world. To my Republican friends: I know I?m not alone.

As striking as this is, let?s not forget the degree to which Paulson?s announcement is correct: he isn?t alone. A separate Washington Post piece added:

Paulson?s backing, which he announced in a Washington Post op-ed, follows that of Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state under Bush and assistant secretary of defense under Bush?s father and Ronald Reagan. Armitage told Politico last week that he would also back Clinton over Trump.

At the time, he was believed to be the highest-ranking former Bush official to cross over; that designation now belongs to Paulson. Other former Bush officials and top GOP foreign policy minds of the era, including Max Boot and Robert Kagan, previously made the same call. Even more have said they won?t back Trump but have stopped short of endorsing Clinton.

It?s true that these officials are largely unknown to most Americans, many of whom probably don?t recall Paulson?s tenure, and are unfamiliar with figures like Armitage and Kagan.

But there?s a larger truth that?s nevertheless helping shape our understanding of the 2016 campaign: for many leading Republicans, putting party over country simply isn?t an option right now. Voters don?t have to remember Paulson specifically to recognize the significance of this trend.

Henry M. Paulson Jr., the former Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush, just became the second top Bush administration official in two weeks to cross the aisle and endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

Paulson's backing, which he announced in a Washington Post op-ed, follows that of Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state under Bush and assistant secretary of defense under Bush's father and Ronald Reagan. Armitage told Politico last week that he would also back Clinton over Trump.

At the time, he was believed to be the highest-ranking former Bush official to cross over; that designation now belongs to Paulson. Other former Bush officials and top GOP foreign policy minds of the era, including Max Boot and Robert Kagan, previously made the same call. Even more have said they won't back Trump but have stopped short of endorsing Clinton.

Here's the crux of Paulson's decision:

Republicans stand at a crossroads. With Donald Trump as the presumptive presidential nominee, we are witnessing a populist hijacking of one of the United States? great political parties. The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism. This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American. Enough is enough. It?s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump.

Paulson moves on to eviscerate Trump's business acumen, in detail, and then questions whether he has what it takes to actually be president. He doesn't dwell on why he'll back Clinton, except to say that he wants to do whatever it takes to stop Trump.

When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump. I will not cast a write-in vote. I?ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world. To my Republican friends: I know I?m not alone.

The lack of support from Bush world, of course, extends to the family itself. The two former presidents Bush have declined to endorse Trump, and Jeb Bush, who clashed repeatedly with Trump in the Republican primary, has said he won't vote for either Trump or Clinton.

Christine wrote:
The only thing that I find more depressing than Donald Trump is that there are enough people in the United States who actually take him seriously. Is it the lead in the water or what?? I can understand if one is unhappy with the current landscape of the political world, but this guy is so APPARENTLY of low intellect and character that he just can't be part of any answer to any of our issues.