Courtesy of the New York Daily News:
Hillary Clinton is testing the waters on a return to academia.
The former U.S. Secretary of State and presidential nominee is in talks with Columbia University to take on a formal role at the Ivy League — and potentially house her archives there, multiple sources told the Daily News.
One option under discussion is an esteemed “University Professor” role that would allow Clinton to lecture across a range of schools and departments without the requirement of a strict course load, one source said.
A former law professor, Clinton could maintain the vaunted but vague role indefinitely or decide at a later date she wants to settle at Columbia's celebrated law school or maybe the School of International and Public Affairs, the source said.
"It's all fluid. It could be a number of things. No decisions have been made, but there are talks,” a different source with knowledge of Clinton's thinking told The News.
"Professor Hillary Clinton," yeah I could see that.
A lot of former government officials have already taken a similar path into academia, and she certainly has a wealth of knowledge to share.
I actually think that her husband, who President Obama once named "The Explainer-in-Chief," might be better suited to such a profession, but Hillary would be far more than competent.
I think I would personally enjoy taking a class from a woman with her vast experience, and I can only imagine how empowering it would be for young college age women to hear about her life and the lessons she has learned.
Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Showing posts with label professor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label professor. Show all posts
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Sunday, July 09, 2017
Law professor says that obstruction case against Donald Trump is a slam dunk.
Courtesy of Business Insider:
In the weeks since the New York Times reported that President Trump allegedly asked James Comey to drop a pending criminal investigation of Michael Flynn, there has been much debate about whether the president committed obstruction of justice.
Looking at the entire affair from the standpoint of strict legal analysis, there's just one conclusion: All available evidence says he did.
Under such a plain legal analysis, of the sort my students and I conduct in the law school classroom, it is highly likely that special counsel Robert Mueller will find that there is a provable case that the president committed a federal felony offense.
The Justice Department, as well as many scholars, have opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted and tried for a crime. So the ultimate issue, whatever Mueller's findings, will come down to the political question of impeachment. But Mueller's determination will be critical because the crime of obstruction would be the most legally potent charge in any impeachment debate, as it was in the articles of impeachment against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
It's worth looking at the already strong publicly available evidence, as well as the supposed flaws in that case. Even taking into account possible shortcomings, the current case for an obstruction of justice charge is crystal clear.
The professor goes on to state categorically that the three basic legal elements of obstruction of justice are satisfied in this case.
First Trump's request to Comey that he drop the case against Michael Flynn clearly qualifies as an attempt to obstruct an ongoing investigation.
Second the request was clearly made to rescue his former national security adviser from prosecution.
And third the attempt was made with the "corrupt intent" of obstructing justice.
According to Professor Samuel Buell that is all it takes for this case to move forward.
The professor does recognize that Trump's attorneys will have a number of tactics at their disposal for arguing that this case is without merit or that Trump is immune from prosecution, which is why it will be left up to the House and Senate to determine how to deal with Mueller's findings.
And while we have every reason to doubt that the Republicans will want to move for impeachment of their president, literally every day Trump does or says something so troubling that it may leave them with little choice in the end.
In the weeks since the New York Times reported that President Trump allegedly asked James Comey to drop a pending criminal investigation of Michael Flynn, there has been much debate about whether the president committed obstruction of justice.
Looking at the entire affair from the standpoint of strict legal analysis, there's just one conclusion: All available evidence says he did.
Under such a plain legal analysis, of the sort my students and I conduct in the law school classroom, it is highly likely that special counsel Robert Mueller will find that there is a provable case that the president committed a federal felony offense.
The Justice Department, as well as many scholars, have opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted and tried for a crime. So the ultimate issue, whatever Mueller's findings, will come down to the political question of impeachment. But Mueller's determination will be critical because the crime of obstruction would be the most legally potent charge in any impeachment debate, as it was in the articles of impeachment against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
It's worth looking at the already strong publicly available evidence, as well as the supposed flaws in that case. Even taking into account possible shortcomings, the current case for an obstruction of justice charge is crystal clear.
The professor goes on to state categorically that the three basic legal elements of obstruction of justice are satisfied in this case.
First Trump's request to Comey that he drop the case against Michael Flynn clearly qualifies as an attempt to obstruct an ongoing investigation.
Second the request was clearly made to rescue his former national security adviser from prosecution.
And third the attempt was made with the "corrupt intent" of obstructing justice.
According to Professor Samuel Buell that is all it takes for this case to move forward.
The professor does recognize that Trump's attorneys will have a number of tactics at their disposal for arguing that this case is without merit or that Trump is immune from prosecution, which is why it will be left up to the House and Senate to determine how to deal with Mueller's findings.
And while we have every reason to doubt that the Republicans will want to move for impeachment of their president, literally every day Trump does or says something so troubling that it may leave them with little choice in the end.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Shooting at Mississippi university leaves one professor dead and one active shooter still at large. Update!
![]() |
| Professor Ethan A. Schmidt |
A professor was shot and killed on Monday at Delta State University in Mississippi, a county coroner said, and the school remained locked down as authorities searched for a possible active shooter on campus.
The university, located in Cleveland, Mississippi, confirmed the fatality on its Twitter account and asked those on campus to stay inside and away from windows.
The shooter remains at-large, the Bolivar County Sheriff's Department said, adding it had no immediate description of any possible suspect.
Here is more from NBC News:
Bolivar County Deputy Coroner Ted Ray identified the victim as Dr. Ethan Schmidt. The school's website lists Schmidt as a professor of American history.
I have been watching this for much of the morning. So far no motive has been identified, and the identity of the shooter remains unknown.
I will update as more information becomes available.
Update: Okay now we are learning that there is another victim linked to the shooter, and that she works at the university as well.
Update 2: They now have a suspect.
Labels:
death,
gun culture,
professor,
shooting,
University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


