Mason Receives $30 Million in Gifts, Renames School of Law After Justice Antonin Scalia

...The gift includes $20 million that came to George Mason through a donor who approached Leonard A. Leo of the Federalist Society, a personal friend of the late Justice Scalia and his family. The anonymous donor asked that the university name the law school in honor of the Justice. "The Scalia family is pleased to see George Mason name its law school after the Justice, helping to memorialize his commitment to a legal education that is grounded in academic freedom and a recognition of the practice of law as an honorable and intellectually rigorous craft,” said Leo.

The gift also includes a $10 million grant from the Charles Koch Foundation, which supports hundreds of colleges and universities across the country that pursue scholarship related to societal well-being and free societies.

http://www.law.gmu.edu/news/2016/scalia_school_of_law_announcement

And in my survey, I asked the following simple question: When should Hillary Clinton release her transcripts? While 37% answered ASAP, a total of 59% answered she shouldn’t have to.

Furthermore, the comments were along the lines of asking her to release the transcripts is a “witchhunt.” Or that what she said, behind closed doors, to a group of bankers was none of my, or anyone’s business (e.g., “She was a private individual doing business in a private capacity, it’s none of your business.”)

To some of this, I had said, essentially, that Hillary Clinton is running for president. It is most certainly our business to know what she said in these speeches. So, here is my sincere question, directed primarily to Hillary’s supporters (but anyone else can also take a shot at answering). What was your reaction when you learned about Mitt Romney’s scornful comments about the 47%? Were you — as I was — both outraged and unsurprised at Romney’s cluelessness while at the same time excited that this could be used as a campaign weapon against Romney as 1%-er? If, as I am assuming, you thought it was fair game to respond to Romney’s comments, once the videotape of him speaking was released, then wouldn’t consistency mean that Clinton’s speeches also fall under the umbrella of information that the public might have an valid and legitimate interest in knowing?https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/4/1510222/-A-genuine-question-for-Hillary-supporters-who-don-t-care-if-she-doesn-t-release-speech-transcripts

Clinton said, "I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against."

Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are running ads against Clinton. But to say she’s the only one being attacked by people associated with the financial sector is preposterous.

The financial sector has contributed to both sides of the aisles, including to Clinton’s own campaign. Groups backed by Wall Street have run attack ads against virtually every candidate.

Clinton’s claim rates Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/03/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-claims-meet-press-wall-street-atta/

So imagine now the Democratic National Convention this July. Presiding over it will be, yes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, tribune for a party of incumbency, money and crony capitalism. Follow her as she makes the rounds of private parties where zillionaire donors, lobbyists and consultants transact the real business of politics. Watch as she and Hizzoner Rahm Emanuel of Chicago greet and embrace. Then imagine those thousands of young people outside the convention hall who have arrived from long months of campaigning earnestly for reform of the party they see as an instrument of their future, as well as members of Black Lives Matter and other people of color for whom Rahm Emanuel is the incarnation of deceit and oppression.

This is why Emanuel and Wasserman Schultz must go. To millions, they are enablers of the one percent, perpetuators of the Washington mentality that the rest of the country has grown to hate. What a message such servants of plutocracy send: Democrats — a bridge to the past.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_its_time_for_these_two_democrats_to_go_20160323

Hillary's silence on these bums speaks volumes about the type of Democratic candidates that she will be supporting.

Well, at least she's pro immigration!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ivana-trump-immigrants-clean-up

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/megyn-kelly-trump-cbs-sunday-morning

Well, she has to bring the kids into it because she is not exactly sympathetic on her own.

and then we can all stop posting apology demands!

NEW YORK (AP) — Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly is taking notes on who she feels has been supportive in her feud with Donald Trump, and colleague Bill O'Reilly and CNN are both on her list.

Kelly, in an interview with Charlie Rose to air on CBS' "Sunday Morning" this weekend, said she wished O'Reilly had done more to defend her when he interviewed Trump before a January debate that the Republican skipped because he wanted Kelly removed as a moderator. She also wishes CNN hadn't aired portions of a Trump rally on the night of that debate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/megyn-kelly-trump-cnn-oreilly

Yes, because O'Reilly is usually such a stalwart supporter of women.

In the book, I recounted certain allegations of sexual harassment (offensive phone calls to a female coworker in 2004), and he was understandably embarrassed by her lawsuit. It was the kind of story he would have covered on his show with glee if he weren’t a principal part of it. The news went viral.

It turned out O’Reilly was hypersensitive about the subject. In his opinion, sex problems did not have a place in exhaustively researched biographies. I disagreed. Omitting it would be like not mentioning Monica in a definitive biography of Bill Clinton or omitting Watergate from a book about Nixon.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/what-i-learned-from-writing-a-book-about-bill-o-reilly