A key figure behind the US investigation into links between Russia and President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign will testify next week before a Republican-led Senate committee examining the origins of the probe, the panel said on May 27. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017, will testify on June 3 as part of a Senate Judiciary Committee examination of an FBI probe of Trump campaign officials code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” which led to the Mueller investigation. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of President Trump’s strongest congressional allies, said Rosenstein would offer “new revelations” about federal surveillance practices.
President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have long claimed that the Trump-Russia probe was intended to undermine his candidacy and presidency, whereas supporters of the investigation note that there is clear and convincing evidence that members of the 2016 Trump campaign conspired with Russian President Vladimir Putin to release damaging information against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as a way to sway the election in Trump’s favor. In December of 2019, a Justice Department watchdog found evidence of numerous errors but no political bias when the FBI opened the probe. “Even the best law enforcement officers make mistakes and … some engage in willful misconduct,” Rosenstein said in a statement announcing his senate testimony. “We can only hope to maintain public confidence if we correct mistakes, hold wrongdoers accountable and adopt policies to prevent problems from recurring,” he added.
The Rosenstein hearing is set a day before the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote whether to subpoena Rosenstein, former FBI Director James Comey, and other former top officials from the Obama administration, as part of its probe. The panel’s top Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), has sharply criticized the committee investigation as an effort to attack President Donald Trump political rival Joe Biden, the presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. The Mueller probe found that Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election to boost Trump’s candidacy and that the Trump campaign had numerous contacts with Russians. But Mueller concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Many people are asking if the Democrats will take back the House of Representatives in 2018? I suspect they will make significant gains. Upsets in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have shown a weakened Republican party. The Republicans across the state have been slowly eaten by the Tea Party movement and even the Bannon movement where they have been running candidates and working hard to get rid of “moderates”, meaning centrists Democrat types like Bob Mendez (NJ) or others modern neo-liberal Democrats. What the media has been ignoring is “insurgents” candidates across the country that have been chipping away at the Democratic Machine.
In America, money almost always determines victory in an election, but since the Sanders Movement during the 2016 elections we saw an underfunded candidate nearly take over America’s major political party (the Democratic Party). He created a group OUR Revolution which has affiliates in every state in America. Even Puerto Rico! America politics have just been changed forever and people don’t seem to understand it. Sanders victory would not have been winning the presidency, I don’t think he had the political muscle to get anything significant done, the Democrats hate him, the Republicans would have controlled congress, what could he have really done but slow down the de-funding of government? Another debate for another time. Now he goes around, traveling across the country, talking to the American people while Clinton goes on book tours trying to sell her book. He has built the infrastructure for a new style of American Democracy not seen since the 1960s. He has the largest support among millennial’s, now the largest voting block in America. He has a fairly good history on most issues and being on the right side of history except foreign policy (Sanders is relatively weak on anti-war policy). He should have won the black vote but the churches are so establishment-controlled that he couldn’t break through. The only thing Sanders needs is the backing of religious zealots who are progressive and can destroy the notion that Republicans are the only people who talk to God. Over time I doubt those groups will disappear, you’re looking at a long drawn out civil war on both parties, but worse off for the Democrats. You have a long history of political corruption in some states more than others and you have the truth. Its simple enough to pull up statistics and see that the percentages for big companies donating to Democrats or Republicans can be evenly split.
The single-payer idea is the only rational policy and then you have the Democrats being unable to support it because their being funded by the same people destroying American healthcare. Over time with reforms, you could see insurgent candidates stay in power and continue to build stronger power bases for more “working class heroes” or Bernie Sanders-esque politicians. Where Ralph Nader failed in 2000, Sanders succeed in 2016, with many of the same issues, just different microphones. A graph I did personally at Monmouth University showed the vast majority of young MU college students under 50,000 support Sanders, even many in the upper income brackets, but as people get poorer because of the global economy and poor policies that increase poverty, will we see the rise of a new party growing inside the old? A party that is Democratic, a party that fails for a few years and then starts to rebirth the Democrat party? I think so, its the right time in America, unless there is a war where many troops are used then we could see the process speed up, as wars often do to these things. The Our Revolution groups have nowhere to go but up, the mainstream parties battling each other and the ‘insurgent’ candidates can really only become more unpopular as they fail to get real policy in place and start to bring in people who traditional aren’t in the process or haven’t been accepted as a decision maker. We see similar politics in the UK with labor changing under Jeremy Corbyn. We are seeing infrastructure for the Sanderist movement grow, where communication and cooperation between different groups are growing. They are running decent candidates, many of which will lose this time, but will be able to run again, and again, and again. The 2020 election is where everything will likely start to break down. Sanders is the Henry Wallace of his time, although this time labor is set for a huge victory, its the speed that is hard to figure out.
Yesterday, Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump gave his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. After thanking the delegates and the American people for giving him the opportunity to accept the Republican nomination for President, Trump proclaimed that “the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation” will come to an end with a change in leadership.Trump then went on to focus on the perceived failures of the Obama Administration on issues such as crime, economic policy, and foreign policy. In particular, Trump mentioned that Hillary Clinton is to blame for much of the foreign policy issues currently facing the US due to the policies that she pursued as Secretary of State. Trump then stated that the US would continue to face the same problems so long as the leadership that failed to effectively manage them continues to stay in office.
Trump then went on to discuss his position on a number of political issues and proclaimed that it would “put the American people first.” Trump first stated that millions of dissatisfied Democrats would join his movement because he will fix the system so it would work fairly for all Americans. Trump then went on to praise his running-mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, stating that he is a “man of character and accomplishment.” Trump declared that his economic plan would create millions of new jobs and that he would pursue trade policies that would be beneficial to the American worker. Additionally, Trump pledged that law and order would be the priority of his administration and claimed that “there can be no lasting prosperity without law and order.” On foreign policy, Trump declared that he would abandon the “failed policy of nation building and regime change” in the Middle East and work with all of the allies of the US who share the goal of defeating ISIS and similar radical groups.Finally, Trump highlighted his hard-line position on immigration, pledging to build his proposed border wall, placing a ban on immigrants from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until a proper vetting mechanism is implemented, and placing limits on the number of refugees to be admitted to the US from countries such as Syria. When discussing his policy positions, Trump continued to express a high level of criticism towards Hillary Clinton, claiming that she is the preferred candidate of the powerful special interest groups and that her policies would only worsen the issues facing America.
Overall, the reaction to Donald Trumps acceptance speech is mixed. When compared to earlier campaign speeches, Trump came across as more composed and his speech was relatively strong rhetorically. On the other hand, the tone of Trump’s speech as a whole was markedly negative. For example, Trump did not present an optimistic vision of America’s future and instead focused on the problems currently facing America instead. This is directly in contrast to prior convention speeches, where Presidential candidates focus on their positive vision of America and what they will do to make that vision a reality. Additionally, many of the allegations (in particular the claims he made regarding the rate of crime) made by Trump over the course of his speech proved to be false.
A major consideration within American politics is the eligibility requirements of the President, in particular, the question of the “natural born” citizenship requirement. The Constitution does not specifically mention what it means to be a natural born citizen, which has raised numerous questions among Constitutional experts and Presidential historians as to what exactly makes someone a natural born citizen. In recent weeks, there has emerged several issues regarding Ted Cruz’s eligibility to the Presidency because he was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother. Cruz has argued that there are no Constitutional barriers that prevent him from running for President. On the other hand, rival candidates for the Republican nomination such as Donald Trump have claimed that Cruz is not a natural born citizen as is, therefore, ineligible to serve as President under the Constitutional guidelines. Despite the allegations to the contrary, it can be argued that Ted Cruz is a natural born US citizen and qualified to run for President.
The Constitution directly addresses the qualifications necessary for someone to serve as President in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In addition to being a resident of the United States for a minimum of 14 years and being at least 35 years old, the Constitution mentions that the Presidency is to be filled by a natural born citizen of the United States. The definition of what exactly makes someone a natural born citizen is not specifically addressed in the Constitution and was not addressed before the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1790. The purpose of the Naturalization Act was to put forward the rules of granting citizenship would occur and clarify any remaining questions regarding United States citizenship not previously addressed. Furthermore, the Naturalization Act stated that any foreign-born child who had one parent with American citizenship would automatically be a US citizen so long as the parent met certain requirements of prior US residency.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a mother with American citizenship and a Cuban father who initially came to the United States for schooling on a student visa. Cruz’s father would eventually earn Canadian citizenship and ultimately US citizenship. At the time of his birth, both Cruz’s parents had lived in Canada for several years for work-related reasons. Despite the fact that Cruz was born abroad and had one parent who was not an American citizenship, it can be argued that he is a natural born citizen of the United States due his mother’s citizenship. As previously stated, the Naturalization Act asserts that any foreign-born children with one parent with American citizenship are considered an American citizen, assuming that the parent in question had resided in the United States for at least 14 years.
Ted Cruz at Political Rally
Furthermore, past legal precedence can be used to argue that Ted Cruz is a natural born American citizen despite his birthplace. For example, the Supreme Court case Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS determined that an American citizen who was living abroad and expecting a child could either re-enter the United States to have the child born or either stay abroad and have the child born there. In either case, the court determined that the child would still be considered an American citizen.
Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that one may become a natural bon citizen of the United States through either being born abroad to at least one citizen parent or by being born in the United States in the case of United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado.
In addition to the questions raised about Ted Cruz’s eligibility and citizenship status, there was also debate over the citizenship status of John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee. McCain was born in 1936 to American citizens stationed at a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. Cases questioning McCain’s eligibility were rejected due to a lack of legal standing. Despite the lack of legal standing for many of the allegations, one federal court recognized that McCain would indeed classify as a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen because he was born outside the limits of the United States to parents who met the requirements for citizenship.
In conclusion, the definition over what constitutes a natural born citizen of the United States has influenced the Presidential selection process and raised numerous questions about the citizenship status of several Presidential candidates. The vague meaning of the term has prevented a consensus over what exactly the term means. The issue has been brought up recently regarding the Presidential qualifications of Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Despite the fact that Ted Cruz is not a native born United States citizen, it can be argued that he is indeed a natural born citizen under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Additionally, past legal precedence in a number of cases further argue in favor of Ted Cruz’s position that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
In the Foreign Affairs article “Restoring America’s Strength,” US Senator Marco Rubio puts forward his vision for U.S. foreign policy assuming that he is elected president in 2016. Rubio argues that as the world has become more connected over the past few decades, American leadership has grown critical to maintaining world order and protecting the interests of the American people. Rubio feels that President Obama refused to recognize that fact and instead his policies resulted in American interests becoming less secure and threatened throughout the world. In contrast, Rubio puts forward a foreign policy that involves restoring American strength, promoting the spread of economic prosperity and defending freedom and human rights.
Marco Rubio states that the most important part of his foreign policy is the restitution of American strength, based on the idea that the world is safest when America is strongest. In addition, another major component of Rubio’s foreign policy plan is the importance of protecting open international trade. Due to an increasingly globalized world, millions of people have jobs dependent on foreign trade. Thus, their prosperity is dependent on keeping international trade open and free from threats. Another component of Rubio’s foreign policy proposal is the need for the U.S. to speak out against human rights violations and defend the cause of freedom throughout the world. Overall, Rubio feels that the recent departure from those principles caused chaos and discord throughout the world and that it is necessary to reassert those principles through an active U.S. foreign policy.
In international politics, a major theory is Realism. Realists argue that the primary goal of states is survival and the need to act within their self-interest, that political decisions are more important that morality and that international politics is driven by an endless struggle for power and influence. Several important figures in Realist thought were Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. The assertions that Marco Rubio makes in “Restoring America’s Strength” both reject and support Realist principles. One example of Marco Rubio rejecting Realist theory occurs when he speaks about President Obama ignoring human rights abuses committed by China when negotiating economic issues. A proponent of Realist theory would argue that morality is subservient to political decisions and that it is in the best interest of the U.S. to not question China’s position on human rights issues.
Another example of Marco Rubio rejecting realist theory occurs when he discusses Russia’s policy in Ukraine and China’s aggression the Pacific. Rubio argues that a central reason for Russia and China’s actions in Ukraine and the Pacific is a decline in U.S. global stature during the Obama Administration. In contrast, a Realist would argue that the main reasons why Russia intervened in Ukraine and why China is asserting its influence in the Pacific is due to both countries self-interest. On the other hand, Rubio embraces a concept from Realism when he remarks that Russia, Iran, and China are challenging the U.S. on the world stage. A Realist would argue that they are doing so because they sense that the U.S. is in a weaker position on the world stage and that they have a chance to expand their power and influence.
In conclusion, Marco Rubio discusses out his potential foreign policy agenda in “Restoring America’s Strength.” The main foreign policy planks that Rubio brings up consist of three components that he argues will make America stronger and more respected on the world stage, improve human rights and spread the cause of freedom and protect international trade from any major threats. The main points that Rubio brings up both reject and embrace the main assumptions of Realist thought
