Republicans don't care about being consistent.

They said Obama golfed too much.

Fucking hypocrite losers.

Republicans were in the Senate this week calling for Lamont to violate the law by issuing an executive order permitting guns in state forests to, and get this, defend against attacks. Black bears obviously.

I'm fine with a politician that changes their view on things. As long as they're consistent overall.

The entirety of the conservative sales pitch to America is based on lie after lie though, and lacks any consistency whatsoever other than black and brown people are scary and rich guys need tax cuts.

Wtf you talking about...you just moved the goal post by a mile.

Nobody said the dude was illegally employed. The article doesn't involve that.

Teachers can get a certificate in CT. Even with a felony record. Grow up.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0252.htm

Backup that felons are allowed to work?

Um. Okay. A requirement of every early release program is maintaining employment.

Of course you can.

Yes, that's horrible. A teacher who served their sentence and is legally employable by a school might lose their job because of a bunch of hysterical parents afraid of something the person might do.

That's some dystopian shit; Kafkaesque; "...like a dog." ✅

Also un-American; The presumption of innocence! Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ✅

Also anti Christian; The Penitent Thief! Luke 23:39-43. ✅

That's true you'd have to outright leave the school or stfu.

Presenting a case to the people means presenting it in civil court.

It's not the school's job to disclose personnel information.

Especially since the information that you're asking about here is available from the court.

If you want to find out about arrests or a criminal record, that's who you have to go to.

They may tell you that records of certain prior convictions or arrests are unavailable.

If so, it's because that's the law .

It's important to note here that the Republican plan for schools is to privatize education by supporting vouchers and "school choice."

If this were a private school, and you started asking questions, not only are you not entitled to any answers or due process, they will probably give you a cease and desist letter.

>If you read the article, the data used is not exactly the most scientific or exhaustive method.

No shit? The headline didn't give that away immediately?

No talking anything that has idiots talking at a table. That's not news. You don't listen to news.

You're also not on the other side of a two sided coin.

You are brainwashed and your side, being as it is anti democracy, is a national security threat.

I found them before in one of the five areas where they can be found, "along ledges in southwestern Hartford County." Hanging Hills area.

I replied to this nonsense elsewhere in depth. In short: come out of your bubble, turn off the outrage media, and actually read some nonfiction.

I replied to this nonsense elsewhere in depth. And as a matter of fact, it's not even that deep too deep for you though I guess.

>Who is John Durham? Do you have any idea?

I know they don't cover it during the daytime talk radio about John Durham and the actual sham investigation he is running, and how he is zero for two in federal criminal trials while the legitimate federal prosecutor's bar has a 99% conviction rate, but let's get real.

It seems like it's you who doesn't know who John Durham is or what he's charged with investigating, because it is not relevant whatsoever to the undisputed findings of the Mueller report.

Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying, as was the disgraced former attorney general and political hack, Bill Barr, who made Durham's sham appointment from the get go.

Actual, career investigators with DOJOIG (who is that? do you have any idea?) and not political yes men, investigated the bullshit conspiracies you heard about on the radio, and what did they find?

>. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.

>. The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane...after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that...Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)." [B]ased on the FFG information, "this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia."

>. We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Although not mentioned in the EC... FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.

>. We concluded that the FFG information, provided by a government the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy, and describing a first-hand account from an FFG employee of a conversation with Papadopoulos, was sufficient to predicate the investigation. This information provided the FBI with an articulable factual basis that, if true, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security, or both, may have occurred or may be occurring. For similar reasons, as we detail in Chapter Three, we concluded that the quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open the individual investigations on Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, and Manafort in August 2016 was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by the Department and the FBI.

>. The fact that the FBI believed Steele had been retained to conduct political opposition research did not require the FBI, under either DOJ or FBI policy, to ignore his reporting. The FBI regularly receives information from individuals with potentially significant biases and motivations, including drug traffickers, convicted felons, and even terrorists. The FBI is not required to set aside such information; rather, FBI policy requires that it critically assess the information. We found that after receiving Steele's reporting, the Crossfire Hurricane team began those efforts in earnest.

>. We found that, while Lisa Page attended some of the discussions regarding the opening of the investigations, she did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases. We further found that while Strzok was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire Hurricane and the four individual cases, he was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters.

>. Steele explained that it was his firm's practice to faithfully report everything a reliable source provided and not to withhold information because it was controversial. He denied "tailoring" his reporting to meet the needs of his clients and explained that doing so ultimately was not a good business practice because it would result in loss of reputation. We also asked Steele whether his research was "opposition research" and biased. He provided a similar response and explained that his firm would not be in business if it provided biased information. 216 Steele called the allegation that he was biased against Trump from the start "ridiculous. "217 He stated that if anything he was "favorably disposed" toward the Trump family before he began his research because he had visited a Trump family member at Trump Tower and "been friendly" with [the family member] for some years. He described their relationship as "personal" and said that he once gifted a family tartan from Scotland to the family member.

And my dummy friend, this whole trash controversy is about discrediting the whole investigation by discrediting the wiretap warrant.

You are so gullible, you don't even realize that even if the warrant application was total bullshit and politically motivated, once they got the warrant, they heard Trump's team doing a bunch of crimes.

They were charged. They pleaded guilty or were convicted. They did do those crimes. It's undisputed.

Again, way unlike Durham's special minority select prosecution status, which is zero for two with juries.

It's a shame too because the green party used to stand for something important and played a critical role in presidential electoral politics.

But you are spot-on that it has been co-opted by the Russians.

It's fake if maybe you are dumb and gullible but it absolutely is real and did happen, and there is no dispute within the global intelligence and diplomatic communities.

If you weren't dense or born yesterday, you could have watched it unfold in real time in 2016 as I did.

This link doesn't have anything to do with Russia.

Wow! Got a few Republicans in CT pretending they didn't just spend four years tripping over themselves to fawn at a Russian asset that weaseld his way into our White House thanks to a massive foreign influence campaign that targeted gullible conservative voters.

And then we have Dinardis, Mary Sanders, Chai, and Pagliano, who appear to be openly supporting Vladimir Putin in their quest to undermine American democracy.

Hot glob of magnesium from the sound of it.

>The state is set to receive approximately $300 million over the next 18 years

Present day value probably $160m or so? Not enough signal now to calculate it.

It's a great result in a hard fought case, and it's a big settlement overall as against the liable parties.

Edit: Wow only off by ten mil. Pdv is $150m assuming 4% return.

How do you figure? Counting the number of events doesn't tell you anything about the cause of the events.

This is basic research skills.

Not complicated but for some reason you can't grasp it.

The downvotes are because you're quoting a tally and saying it is evidence of propensity.

You can't use a thermometer as a clock.

This is what every think tank does. They work backwards from the result they want.