getting back to HRC... I voted for her but didn't love her. Now, this many years later, my heart aches for losing her as a President. We would have had to put up with Bill back in the White House but the would have been nothing compared to what we did have to put up with. She is truly an unsung hero.
It seems to me that even those on the left who disliked her picked up a lot of their hatred from the Fox News Propaganda Network. A lot of BS stories about her. I'm a lefty, so my distaste for her was based on her centrism, especially vis a vis foreign policy, not the propaganda. But when Bernie lost the primaries, I wasn't one of those whiners who claimed the DNC cheated him out of the nomination. He got hammered relentlessly in Southern primaries. Hillary won. Full stop. It wasn't even really very close.
So I became an enthusiastic backer (especially considering that presidents are almost always, by political and electoral necessity, centrists).
We'd be living in a far different country right now if she had won. Trump didn't even really WANT to win, so he would have gone off and done some other thing, and we wouldn't have a ruined Supreme Court and bans against women's health.
Her "loss" (a misnomer in her case, since hers was an election that was truly stolen) was a tragedy for this country that will take decades to recover from.
So true. Personally, I think she would have made a good president, not to mention being the first woman which would have been a sea change event, one that would have been overwhelmingly positive however good she would have been.
Impossible to know, but I think it's possible she would have been a very good one. No matter how good or bad she would have been, we'd have a very different Supreme Court.
Bill certainly had his problems, but she was not Bill. I believe we highly underestimate the impact of Russian interference in that election. This is a country that can be easily manipulated. I do not have to prove that as I can just point. I point to a country where so many people can believe their rationalizations that Trump is a great leader. I point to a country where so many practice a faith where they send in money every month to churches where the church leaders live in palaces with large garages to hold all their expensive cars. I point to a country that can listen daily to OBVIOUS political propaganda that smashes every rule of logical thinking attacking their opponents as long as they can be easily wedged, which they can. I point to a country where the other side often treats politics like the weather, talk about it a lot but do nothing or little about it.
BTW, all those late votes breaking for Trump, don't forget the very late investigation by Comey and all the gullible people who allowed what was obvious political chicanery to influence their votes as they had been in the undecided column. Which brings up another point that I question: with an election so with such a contrast, how could there have been so many undecided voters late? I'm being judgmental here but undecided with those candidates with 2-3 weeks to go? I would say incomprehensible but, unfortunately it is comprehensible.
PS, the other side I mention above is the liberal side, where I pitch my tent but recognize my side also has many issues.
Copied from recent issue of Scientific American:
The Dunning-Kruger result is a little complicated because it's actually many results. The one that is a meme is this idea: On any particular topic, people who are not experts lack the very expertise they need in order to know just how much expertise they lack. The Dunning-Kruger effect visits all of us sooner or later in our pockets of incompetence. They’re invisible to us because to know that you don't know something, you need to know something. It’s not about general stupidity. It’s about each and every one of us, sooner or later.
Thus, we all need to keep re-examining our beliefs searching for our own ignorance. Incidentally, I have trouble with the entire concept of EXPERTS.
I think Comey was the absolute deciding factor in her losing. Some viewed her as kind of shady - that was played up over and over on Fox - and when Comey brought up the emails again it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, imho.
I agree. I can still feel an ionization in the atmosphere around me after that. I was appalled as it was obvious bullshit or at least that what it felt like in the marrow of my bones.
I also think she would have made a much better president. She would've kept Putin on his toes. The pandemic would've been handled much better. Ukraine would've been safer.
HRC wouldn't have put three christofascists on the SCOTUS either.
There's plenty of blame to go around on why HRC lost, and her and her campaign deserve plenty. But by the numbers, if those Jill Stein and other faux-gressives voters could have held their nose and voted for her...
All that said, it's akin to blaming the ref on a bad call with 10 seconds left - it should never have been that close. Ultimately her loss was the result of 30 years of the GOP successfully destroying her "brand."
She lost to the only Republican she could beat that year. And Trump beat the only Democrat he could beat.
A lot of us men were hurting on election night, too. Terrible night. Just awful. And he just won't go away, like a leech that cannot be removed from the skin no matter what they try to do in the ER. I mean, seriously, damn, dude, just go away.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you’re saying. I was pulling for Bernie but supported Hillary in 2016. I think history will bear out that our country would have fared better under Hillary than we did under trump.
Agreed. Professionally, she was one of the most qualified candidates to ever run for president. Educated, experienced as a trial attorney, served in the senate (albeit getting there as a carpetbagger, but the voters knew that and chose her anyway, so 100% legit election to that high office), and did spectacular work as Secretary of State. You don't get a resume like that in a presidential candidate very often.
Personally, I don't like her. She seems arrogant and obnoxious. But those are traits you tend to find in a lot of presidential candidates, including many I have voted for. The world would be so much better off today if we were living in President Hillary Clinton's second term right now.
True story. I was an expert witness in a civil case where the attorney who retained me was back from being the top JAG officer in Iraq. He told me that while there, many politicians visited for great photo-ops (should the war have been called Operation photo-ops?).
All but one. This was Hillary who sans photographers came to him and asked him what he needed. He made her a list and within a couple of weeks he had what he wanted.
When this JAG Marine--a colonel--told this story to the non-JAG generals he was advised to be careful and not be gullible. It was suggested that some people, like Hillary, seem to have hypnotic powers. I can hear the music of the X-Files.
Certainly, this didn't increase my faith in the rationality of military leadership and the General Flynn saga threw more dirt into my already jaundiced eyes.
A friend of mine was a legal intern in the Clinton WH, got to know Hillary quite well, and is very fond of her. Her take on it was that Hillary is by nature an introvert, the opposite of gregarious outgoing Bill, and that her public persona could be rather stiff because it was an effort for her to act in an outgoing manner.
My sister was invited to a party that the Clinton hosted and said both made her feel like she was the only one there. Very very polite and kind!
So what? We are looking at the most despicable human ever shown too much and we are blathering about what?????
Command that the people running our legal world do the job. Put the F_ _ _ er away and save our country!!!!
And shame shame shame on the so called evil blather pretending to be news. It is not. It is rot that the NYT and the Wash.Post and all other word junkies throw at us non stop. Refuse it. Get a life. Get out in the streets and take this. Country back.
I always thought I didn't like her, too, but whenever I saw her on an extended interview, unfiltered, that thought pretty much went away. She wasn't just coherent. She made me think. A lot of her personality was formulated by the press.
What I like about her, aside from her superb qualifications, is her belly laugh. Has anyone ever seen tffg laugh? Sure he smirks and bares his teeth. But laugh out loud? Hillary has the best laugh, and isn't shy to laugh in public. We need that as a nation. Bid3n has a good laugh too.
Her best interview that I have seen was with Howard Stern who admires her very much. (and has undergone years of therapy to detransition from being an asshole.,)
I read his books I've liked him back when but not when he went into douche-bro mode. He talks in His last book "Howard Stern comes again" about how seriously he takes his interviews, and the book is a compilation of his best ones. He speaks of his years of therapy and how Hillary Clinton was his "white whale." He admires her, and was glad she finally agreed to sit down with him, now when he could do an interview with her justice, rather than before when he would have been all about sex scandals.
Stevens, like you I found Hillary both arrogant and obnoxious. As the campaign went on and I learned more about her, I came to believe that her arrogance is actually confidence and her obnoxiousness is more straight-shooter. She is extremely intelligent and well-educated and sometimes does not suffer fools gently.
I am aware that my opinion comes from one woman’s perspective that character traits are often interpreted differently by men and women.
Please know this is not a criticism; it is just an observation by an old lady.
Confidence in a woman is often interpreted as arrogance. Obnoxious? Not sure, maybe her leadership abilities? You know, women aren't leaders; they are bossy cows. Like I said below, misogyny. However, I am glad to hear you say we would have been better off today with her in the WH. I have always liked her.
Loved reading her memoir thru 2002, Living History. The expertise, the engagement. The dedication to causes, particularly for women and education. Imagine the difference if she had been president. Especially when the pandemic hit.
Yeah, I consciously remind myself whenever I form a negative impression of a woman in position of leadership or power that I have biases, and that it is important to ask how I'd feel about a man in the same context. But it becomes irrelevant when the issue is really qualifications and agenda. On those points, she scored 100% with me. It does make me despondent to think not only how bad a job Trump did, but how much we lost by not having her as our president.
Personally, I liked her, and still do. I thought she was smart, committed to public service, and the woman had a plan. A plan for everything. So when Covid hit, there would have been A Plan. Fewer people would have suffered and died. I am certain of that. When Russia invaded Ukraine, there would have been A Plan. When Israel rained down terror on Gaza, you bet there would have been A Plan. HRC also had a spine made of steel, which she needed to get as far as she did. And she would have needed it plus a thick skin to deal with 8 years of merciless criticism, lies, and smears that the right wingnut nazi fascists would have thrown at her day in and day out 24/7.
And for those who say “Bill would be back in the White House”, yeah, as a spouse. HRC has an ego. She is a strong woman. She wanted to be President for real. I doubt she would have let Bill do much beyond the typical role of first spouse.
For months after the 2016 election, I would have visions of standing at a fork in the road, watching events unfold in 2 realities: HRC wins and HRC doesn’t win. Somewhere in an alternative universe……..now how do I get there?
The answer to the question you pose in your intro, Jay, is misogyny. Systemic, deeply ingrained misogyny. Per an article found on verywellmind.com, "Misogyny involves punishing women for challenging male dominance."
While I completely agree with you I also think it's more than just misogyny (and apologies, I use the word ‘just’ in the sense of ‘only’; I don't mean to make light of misogyny at all). There's a political angle too. Perhaps it's cognitive bias, but it seems to me that Republicans' misdemeanours are trivialized by comparison to those of Democrats, much in the way that men's are by comparison to women's.
Democrats are traditionally judgemental and hard on their own candidates. Republicans not so much as long as a Republican wins. (Exceptions for Liz Chaney and others who tried to stand up to Trump.)
Having an affair may be immoral, but it’s not illegal. Paying hush money may be immoral, but it’s not illegal. Paying off people then lying about it through falsified records to further your own political agenda, is illegal.
Believe it or not, adultery is still a crime in New York. Section 255.17 of the New York penal code provides, “A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse. Adultery is a Class B misdemeanor.” In New York, Class B misdemeanors are punishable by up to 90 days in jail or a $500 fine.
I’m surprised that’s still on the books. Thanks for the correction. But as been noted, that’s not the focus of Trump’s trial. If it was, I wonder how a jury would react.
It's a universal flaw in American state legislatures that antiquated statutes like this get left to rot, rather than be removed. I think the reason is that no one wants to be the "pro-adultery" sponsor of such a bill.
I suspect that if this were actually ever used the legislature wouldn't be able to repeal it fast enough. Unlike a certain other antiquated law that comes to mind.
That's archaic language which has been construed as gender-neutral by New York courts for a long time. Probably also a case of no one wanting to be the "adultery legislator,' or it would have been updated. It's a legitimate criticism, though, because "he or she" does appear in the Penal Law here and there. Ought to be all or nothing, as criminal statutes should be able to survive strict construction.
Interesting thought experiment, but, leaving Clinton aside, can you imagine the media frenzy if President Biden had started attacking the special prosecutor that was investigating him, or the (political) prosecution of his son?
The double standard you refer to isn’t just favorable treatment for Trump vs other people. It’s also the double standard for women and men. That’s also true for the Fani Willis situation. Regardless of anyone’s views about whether she handled the “affair” information well, it’s laughable that, had she been a single 50-year old man making $200k/year, people would find plausible that he had hired his essentially single lover to work on the case so she could pick up the tab for expensive vacations.
As I keep saying when Trump claims that all these cases brought against him are election interference. It is the other way around him running for President is interfering in lawful prosecution.
If the Democrats are willing to weaponize the DOJ against Trump, how come he's the only one who seems to get targeted? Afterall, the GOP harasses pretty much any Democrat they can. Occam's Razor tends to suggest that maybe the problem is Trump himself. Too bad the MAWA crowd seems unable to step back and use a little common sense.
I have to say that your opening WAS VERY EFFECTIVE at getting my attention. It was also very effective at revealing the double-standard and the pro-Trump media bias
Every time I hear it should be a slam dunk, I get uneasy. I once served on a jury years ago. It should have been a slam dunk, but wasn't. All it takes is one person who doesn't listen to the evidence presented.
I just sent this to NBC… And I hope other people follow suit and send letters to every net work that post an article using the term hush money..,
“Dear NBC,
I am disappointed that my news net work is referring to this coming trial as a “hush money” trial.
it needs to be framed for what it is… It has nothing to do with silencing an indiscretion… It had everything to do with election interference.
If Hillary Clinton had done something like this, it would be called election interference…
Please report the news… And quit sounding like a tabloid.
I want to be able to respect NBC… And not think it is just following in Fox’s footsteps.
I think it would be really interesting to debate on air and in articles what this should be called… Bring peoples attention to the framing… I think that would make for some pretty interesting debates and conversations.
Yes! It seems very dangerous these days to put anything in print which can then be taken out of context. It’s up to all of us to assure our friends that Jay was using a technique to make more critical thinkers out of his readers.
Only because the Framers couldn't even begin to conceive of a voting public who would even tolerate the candidacy of a convicted felon, let alone actually elect such an unfit person!
Depending on the jurisdiction, he can't vote. If he is a Florida voter, I believe the Republicans found a way to negate the referendum that allowed convicted felons to vote, but someone else probably has a better handle on that. I am pretty sure, though, that convicted felons cannot vote in Florida.
I seem to recall Florida voters did want felons who served time and were out to be able to vote. & voted for them to be allowed to vote! But gop in that wacko state said nooooooo & made it very difficult to vote if at all. Not sure of the outcome w/respect to Florida voters wishes.
In November 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4. This measure restores voting rights to most felons upon completing their sentences, including parole and probation. People convicted of homicide and sexual offenses remained unable to vote.
In March 2019, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066, clarifying Amendment 4. The new state law required former felons to pay all court-ordered fees and restitution before registering. These fees and costs were terms of their sentence not included in Amendment 4. This law prevented nearly 775,000 felons from voting.
This kicked off a flurry of competing court cases and demands for injunctions. In October 2019, a lower court suspended SB 7066 for indigent plaintiffs who could not pay their court fees. The following May, the court ruled portions of SB 7066 were unconstitutional. It amounted to a "poll tax" under the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.
DeSantis appealed to the 11th Circuit Court, requesting a stay on the lower court's ruling. In September 2020, the appellate court issued the stay, and the voting rights advocates appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment.
Finally, in a split decision (6-4), the full 11th Circuit Court ruled that the Florida law did not violate the due process clause and was not a "poll tax" as described by advocates. The matter is over unless there is a further action or constitutional amendment. It is now codified as Florida State Statute 98.0751.
I think he’d only be interested in voting if he can walk out of a polling booth with a big smile, flashing a ballot that’s punched for his name. (Son Eric did that stunt in NY where it’s illegal, but I believe he wasn’t prosecuted.). Keeping him from voting could be a game of Wack-a-mole, where he just moves between FL, NJ, NY or any state where he owns property that allows him to vote after getting out of jail. That’s assuming he still owns property after James is through with him.
What is glaringly obvious at least to me is the white male moneyed group who own and operate banks, courts, media and all other avenues of extreme wealth transactions have chosen Trump as their puppet and they will not allow the rest of us to see justice done because they don’t want it done. It’s to their advantage to have this bumbling idiot drawing time and attention away from the real issue. What he did was illegal!!!
I'm expecting a Dr's note to enter the docket in the next 72hrs, ala Weinstein/Ray, in this event a second opinion should be required by the Court with a physician of the Courts choosing to verify any trumped up condition.
The plain fact of this trial being very likely the ONLY pre-election jury trial of the four pending cases has hugely raised its profile, despite previously having been dismissed or derogated as "minor", "trivial", or "inconsequential" as compared to the DC, FL, and GA proceedings. Folks, it's the only game in town, and in fact it is serious in point of law, and tRump could suffer from a conviction, whatever the sentence that Judge Merchan may impose, custodial or otherwise. It's an attention-getter, and it will pull the POS off his campaign for several weeks, and none of this is good for the bastard.
getting back to HRC... I voted for her but didn't love her. Now, this many years later, my heart aches for losing her as a President. We would have had to put up with Bill back in the White House but the would have been nothing compared to what we did have to put up with. She is truly an unsung hero.
It seems to me that even those on the left who disliked her picked up a lot of their hatred from the Fox News Propaganda Network. A lot of BS stories about her. I'm a lefty, so my distaste for her was based on her centrism, especially vis a vis foreign policy, not the propaganda. But when Bernie lost the primaries, I wasn't one of those whiners who claimed the DNC cheated him out of the nomination. He got hammered relentlessly in Southern primaries. Hillary won. Full stop. It wasn't even really very close.
So I became an enthusiastic backer (especially considering that presidents are almost always, by political and electoral necessity, centrists).
We'd be living in a far different country right now if she had won. Trump didn't even really WANT to win, so he would have gone off and done some other thing, and we wouldn't have a ruined Supreme Court and bans against women's health.
Her "loss" (a misnomer in her case, since hers was an election that was truly stolen) was a tragedy for this country that will take decades to recover from.
So true. Personally, I think she would have made a good president, not to mention being the first woman which would have been a sea change event, one that would have been overwhelmingly positive however good she would have been.
Impossible to know, but I think it's possible she would have been a very good one. No matter how good or bad she would have been, we'd have a very different Supreme Court.
Bill certainly had his problems, but she was not Bill. I believe we highly underestimate the impact of Russian interference in that election. This is a country that can be easily manipulated. I do not have to prove that as I can just point. I point to a country where so many people can believe their rationalizations that Trump is a great leader. I point to a country where so many practice a faith where they send in money every month to churches where the church leaders live in palaces with large garages to hold all their expensive cars. I point to a country that can listen daily to OBVIOUS political propaganda that smashes every rule of logical thinking attacking their opponents as long as they can be easily wedged, which they can. I point to a country where the other side often treats politics like the weather, talk about it a lot but do nothing or little about it.
BTW, all those late votes breaking for Trump, don't forget the very late investigation by Comey and all the gullible people who allowed what was obvious political chicanery to influence their votes as they had been in the undecided column. Which brings up another point that I question: with an election so with such a contrast, how could there have been so many undecided voters late? I'm being judgmental here but undecided with those candidates with 2-3 weeks to go? I would say incomprehensible but, unfortunately it is comprehensible.
PS, the other side I mention above is the liberal side, where I pitch my tent but recognize my side also has many issues.
Copied from recent issue of Scientific American:
The Dunning-Kruger result is a little complicated because it's actually many results. The one that is a meme is this idea: On any particular topic, people who are not experts lack the very expertise they need in order to know just how much expertise they lack. The Dunning-Kruger effect visits all of us sooner or later in our pockets of incompetence. They’re invisible to us because to know that you don't know something, you need to know something. It’s not about general stupidity. It’s about each and every one of us, sooner or later.
Thus, we all need to keep re-examining our beliefs searching for our own ignorance. Incidentally, I have trouble with the entire concept of EXPERTS.
I hear you. It's insane to think there's such a thing as an undecided voter in this case.
I think Comey was the absolute deciding factor in her losing. Some viewed her as kind of shady - that was played up over and over on Fox - and when Comey brought up the emails again it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, imho.
I agree. I can still feel an ionization in the atmosphere around me after that. I was appalled as it was obvious bullshit or at least that what it felt like in the marrow of my bones.
I also think she would have made a much better president. She would've kept Putin on his toes. The pandemic would've been handled much better. Ukraine would've been safer.
HRC wouldn't have put three christofascists on the SCOTUS either.
There's plenty of blame to go around on why HRC lost, and her and her campaign deserve plenty. But by the numbers, if those Jill Stein and other faux-gressives voters could have held their nose and voted for her...
All that said, it's akin to blaming the ref on a bad call with 10 seconds left - it should never have been that close. Ultimately her loss was the result of 30 years of the GOP successfully destroying her "brand."
She lost to the only Republican she could beat that year. And Trump beat the only Democrat he could beat.
So true that she wouldn't have.
Well said and thank you for voicing my thoughts, Charles.
A lot of us men were hurting on election night, too. Terrible night. Just awful. And he just won't go away, like a leech that cannot be removed from the skin no matter what they try to do in the ER. I mean, seriously, damn, dude, just go away.
Yes, also like a tick that will break in half rather than leave its victim.
More like that, actually.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you’re saying. I was pulling for Bernie but supported Hillary in 2016. I think history will bear out that our country would have fared better under Hillary than we did under trump.
Exactly.
Agreed. Professionally, she was one of the most qualified candidates to ever run for president. Educated, experienced as a trial attorney, served in the senate (albeit getting there as a carpetbagger, but the voters knew that and chose her anyway, so 100% legit election to that high office), and did spectacular work as Secretary of State. You don't get a resume like that in a presidential candidate very often.
Personally, I don't like her. She seems arrogant and obnoxious. But those are traits you tend to find in a lot of presidential candidates, including many I have voted for. The world would be so much better off today if we were living in President Hillary Clinton's second term right now.
I’ve met her and she is quite lovely and disarming in person, very down to earth.
True story. I was an expert witness in a civil case where the attorney who retained me was back from being the top JAG officer in Iraq. He told me that while there, many politicians visited for great photo-ops (should the war have been called Operation photo-ops?).
All but one. This was Hillary who sans photographers came to him and asked him what he needed. He made her a list and within a couple of weeks he had what he wanted.
When this JAG Marine--a colonel--told this story to the non-JAG generals he was advised to be careful and not be gullible. It was suggested that some people, like Hillary, seem to have hypnotic powers. I can hear the music of the X-Files.
Certainly, this didn't increase my faith in the rationality of military leadership and the General Flynn saga threw more dirt into my already jaundiced eyes.
A friend of mine was a legal intern in the Clinton WH, got to know Hillary quite well, and is very fond of her. Her take on it was that Hillary is by nature an introvert, the opposite of gregarious outgoing Bill, and that her public persona could be rather stiff because it was an effort for her to act in an outgoing manner.
My sister was invited to a party that the Clinton hosted and said both made her feel like she was the only one there. Very very polite and kind!
So what? We are looking at the most despicable human ever shown too much and we are blathering about what?????
Command that the people running our legal world do the job. Put the F_ _ _ er away and save our country!!!!
And shame shame shame on the so called evil blather pretending to be news. It is not. It is rot that the NYT and the Wash.Post and all other word junkies throw at us non stop. Refuse it. Get a life. Get out in the streets and take this. Country back.
I always thought I didn't like her, too, but whenever I saw her on an extended interview, unfiltered, that thought pretty much went away. She wasn't just coherent. She made me think. A lot of her personality was formulated by the press.
What I like about her, aside from her superb qualifications, is her belly laugh. Has anyone ever seen tffg laugh? Sure he smirks and bares his teeth. But laugh out loud? Hillary has the best laugh, and isn't shy to laugh in public. We need that as a nation. Bid3n has a good laugh too.
The other guy doesn't laugh. Not really. That alone should disqualify him from the highest office.
Biden. Poor proofreading on my part.
Comment sections automatically get a mulligan on typos:-)
Her best interview that I have seen was with Howard Stern who admires her very much. (and has undergone years of therapy to detransition from being an asshole.,)
That's pretty cool, and I didn't know that about Stern. That's also cool. No wonder we don't hear about him as much outside of NYC, lol.
I read his books I've liked him back when but not when he went into douche-bro mode. He talks in His last book "Howard Stern comes again" about how seriously he takes his interviews, and the book is a compilation of his best ones. He speaks of his years of therapy and how Hillary Clinton was his "white whale." He admires her, and was glad she finally agreed to sit down with him, now when he could do an interview with her justice, rather than before when he would have been all about sex scandals.
Stevens, like you I found Hillary both arrogant and obnoxious. As the campaign went on and I learned more about her, I came to believe that her arrogance is actually confidence and her obnoxiousness is more straight-shooter. She is extremely intelligent and well-educated and sometimes does not suffer fools gently.
I am aware that my opinion comes from one woman’s perspective that character traits are often interpreted differently by men and women.
Please know this is not a criticism; it is just an observation by an old lady.
Please don't undermine yourself. We old ladies have some pretty good thoughts.
Darn tootin’.
Damn straight!
Re: character traits. Reminds me of the old verb conjugation of the verb “to be”:
I am firm, you are stubborn, he is a pig-headed fool.
Sooz, that is fantastic! I will try very hard to remember it. Clearly it is something I will find very useful
Confidence in a woman is often interpreted as arrogance. Obnoxious? Not sure, maybe her leadership abilities? You know, women aren't leaders; they are bossy cows. Like I said below, misogyny. However, I am glad to hear you say we would have been better off today with her in the WH. I have always liked her.
Loved reading her memoir thru 2002, Living History. The expertise, the engagement. The dedication to causes, particularly for women and education. Imagine the difference if she had been president. Especially when the pandemic hit.
Yeah, I consciously remind myself whenever I form a negative impression of a woman in position of leadership or power that I have biases, and that it is important to ask how I'd feel about a man in the same context. But it becomes irrelevant when the issue is really qualifications and agenda. On those points, she scored 100% with me. It does make me despondent to think not only how bad a job Trump did, but how much we lost by not having her as our president.
Carpetbagger? REALLY? We certainly love our ad hominems don't we?
Personally, I liked her, and still do. I thought she was smart, committed to public service, and the woman had a plan. A plan for everything. So when Covid hit, there would have been A Plan. Fewer people would have suffered and died. I am certain of that. When Russia invaded Ukraine, there would have been A Plan. When Israel rained down terror on Gaza, you bet there would have been A Plan. HRC also had a spine made of steel, which she needed to get as far as she did. And she would have needed it plus a thick skin to deal with 8 years of merciless criticism, lies, and smears that the right wingnut nazi fascists would have thrown at her day in and day out 24/7.
And for those who say “Bill would be back in the White House”, yeah, as a spouse. HRC has an ego. She is a strong woman. She wanted to be President for real. I doubt she would have let Bill do much beyond the typical role of first spouse.
For months after the 2016 election, I would have visions of standing at a fork in the road, watching events unfold in 2 realities: HRC wins and HRC doesn’t win. Somewhere in an alternative universe……..now how do I get there?
She was smeared for close to 30 years by that damned Richard Melon-Scaife, a conspiracy theorist who, when he actually met her liked her.
Hindsight is a bitch.
Or a lesson.
And, she has been spot on in her predictions of Trump and his presidency.
And pretty much everything else. Too bad so many viewed her as a "vagina-American."
The answer to the question you pose in your intro, Jay, is misogyny. Systemic, deeply ingrained misogyny. Per an article found on verywellmind.com, "Misogyny involves punishing women for challenging male dominance."
While I completely agree with you I also think it's more than just misogyny (and apologies, I use the word ‘just’ in the sense of ‘only’; I don't mean to make light of misogyny at all). There's a political angle too. Perhaps it's cognitive bias, but it seems to me that Republicans' misdemeanours are trivialized by comparison to those of Democrats, much in the way that men's are by comparison to women's.
Democrats are traditionally judgemental and hard on their own candidates. Republicans not so much as long as a Republican wins. (Exceptions for Liz Chaney and others who tried to stand up to Trump.)
Having an affair may be immoral, but it’s not illegal. Paying hush money may be immoral, but it’s not illegal. Paying off people then lying about it through falsified records to further your own political agenda, is illegal.
Bingo.
Believe it or not, adultery is still a crime in New York. Section 255.17 of the New York penal code provides, “A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse. Adultery is a Class B misdemeanor.” In New York, Class B misdemeanors are punishable by up to 90 days in jail or a $500 fine.
Oh good. Then let’s try him on that one too…
If we tried people for adultery half the population would be imprisoned.
Well, we don’t need to try all of them, thank goodness. (But HALF? Really?)
Exaggerate? Moi? Well, maybe a little. 😢
I’m surprised that’s still on the books. Thanks for the correction. But as been noted, that’s not the focus of Trump’s trial. If it was, I wonder how a jury would react.
It's a universal flaw in American state legislatures that antiquated statutes like this get left to rot, rather than be removed. I think the reason is that no one wants to be the "pro-adultery" sponsor of such a bill.
I suspect that if this were actually ever used the legislature wouldn't be able to repeal it fast enough. Unlike a certain other antiquated law that comes to mind.
They are actually in the process of repealing it right now...https://apnews.com/article/cheating-spouse-new-york-adultery-law-c06ff2e38a5661094207815255a5b810#:~:text=(AP)%20—%20A%20little%2D,approved%20the%20bill%20almost%20unanimously.
Unless, of course, it's a 160 year old law against abortion in a Republican controlled state like Arizona...then it's absolutely enforceable.
Apparently, although very rarely, it has been used in the modern era. And, somewhat to my joy and surprise, the state legislature may be on the verge of repealing it now: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/adultery-ny-crime/5249711/
His attorneys, per Politico, are trying to get the felony
charges reduced to misdemeanors. 🙄
FWIW, it appears that only men can commit adultery 😆. Of course “men includes women” except when it doesn’t.
That's archaic language which has been construed as gender-neutral by New York courts for a long time. Probably also a case of no one wanting to be the "adultery legislator,' or it would have been updated. It's a legitimate criticism, though, because "he or she" does appear in the Penal Law here and there. Ought to be all or nothing, as criminal statutes should be able to survive strict construction.
I have wondered if he deducted these ‘legal fees’ from his taxes? If he did wouldn’t this be a case of tax evasion as well?
Of course he did. The CPAs would have only seen "legal fees" on the books. I would love for someone to get him on tax evasion.
I would think so. Add it to the list of crap he’s gotten away with for years
... and immoral.
🙂
Lol, absolutely
Interesting thought experiment, but, leaving Clinton aside, can you imagine the media frenzy if President Biden had started attacking the special prosecutor that was investigating him, or the (political) prosecution of his son?
Excellent point.
The double standard you refer to isn’t just favorable treatment for Trump vs other people. It’s also the double standard for women and men. That’s also true for the Fani Willis situation. Regardless of anyone’s views about whether she handled the “affair” information well, it’s laughable that, had she been a single 50-year old man making $200k/year, people would find plausible that he had hired his essentially single lover to work on the case so she could pick up the tab for expensive vacations.
I left it to others to interpret, but I agree.
When I glanced at those first paragraphs I almost had a heart attack!! I’m so hopeful this trial kicks trump’s arse!!
I assumed no one would believe it, but I also assume that about my April Fool’s every year…
lol I bought the April 1 post. Gullible I am.
Fox wouldn’t but they would use it.
Me too, Karen. Jay almost gave us all a fright. Thank goodness he was just making a very valid point!
As I keep saying when Trump claims that all these cases brought against him are election interference. It is the other way around him running for President is interfering in lawful prosecution.
If the Democrats are willing to weaponize the DOJ against Trump, how come he's the only one who seems to get targeted? Afterall, the GOP harasses pretty much any Democrat they can. Occam's Razor tends to suggest that maybe the problem is Trump himself. Too bad the MAWA crowd seems unable to step back and use a little common sense.
I read erection interference at first glance! 😂
I like your perspective!
Jay,
I have to say that your opening WAS VERY EFFECTIVE at getting my attention. It was also very effective at revealing the double-standard and the pro-Trump media bias
Thanks.
Justin
Every time I hear it should be a slam dunk, I get uneasy. I once served on a jury years ago. It should have been a slam dunk, but wasn't. All it takes is one person who doesn't listen to the evidence presented.
I just sent this to NBC… And I hope other people follow suit and send letters to every net work that post an article using the term hush money..,
“Dear NBC,
I am disappointed that my news net work is referring to this coming trial as a “hush money” trial.
it needs to be framed for what it is… It has nothing to do with silencing an indiscretion… It had everything to do with election interference.
If Hillary Clinton had done something like this, it would be called election interference…
Please report the news… And quit sounding like a tabloid.
I want to be able to respect NBC… And not think it is just following in Fox’s footsteps.
I think it would be really interesting to debate on air and in articles what this should be called… Bring peoples attention to the framing… I think that would make for some pretty interesting debates and conversations.
Thanks for your time.
I would appreciate a reply.
Sincerely
Kathleen Hansen “
Thank you!
I do hope you warned the former Secretary of State before you published your fictional lede!
Yes! It seems very dangerous these days to put anything in print which can then be taken out of context. It’s up to all of us to assure our friends that Jay was using a technique to make more critical thinkers out of his readers.
If he is convicted of these felonies, isn't that the type of crime that disqualifies him from holding office, per the constitution?
Sadly felonies are not disqualifying for a presidential candidate
Only because the Framers couldn't even begin to conceive of a voting public who would even tolerate the candidacy of a convicted felon, let alone actually elect such an unfit person!
Ah if convicted for felonies can he vote? lol
Depending on the jurisdiction, he can't vote. If he is a Florida voter, I believe the Republicans found a way to negate the referendum that allowed convicted felons to vote, but someone else probably has a better handle on that. I am pretty sure, though, that convicted felons cannot vote in Florida.
I seem to recall Florida voters did want felons who served time and were out to be able to vote. & voted for them to be allowed to vote! But gop in that wacko state said nooooooo & made it very difficult to vote if at all. Not sure of the outcome w/respect to Florida voters wishes.
I did a very, very quick google search but I don't have time to look further. But maybe someone who lives there can fill the gaps. :-)
In November 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4. This measure restores voting rights to most felons upon completing their sentences, including parole and probation. People convicted of homicide and sexual offenses remained unable to vote.
In March 2019, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066, clarifying Amendment 4. The new state law required former felons to pay all court-ordered fees and restitution before registering. These fees and costs were terms of their sentence not included in Amendment 4. This law prevented nearly 775,000 felons from voting.
This kicked off a flurry of competing court cases and demands for injunctions. In October 2019, a lower court suspended SB 7066 for indigent plaintiffs who could not pay their court fees. The following May, the court ruled portions of SB 7066 were unconstitutional. It amounted to a "poll tax" under the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.
DeSantis appealed to the 11th Circuit Court, requesting a stay on the lower court's ruling. In September 2020, the appellate court issued the stay, and the voting rights advocates appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment.
Finally, in a split decision (6-4), the full 11th Circuit Court ruled that the Florida law did not violate the due process clause and was not a "poll tax" as described by advocates. The matter is over unless there is a further action or constitutional amendment. It is now codified as Florida State Statute 98.0751.
and if he is in jail and re-elected ... he just pardons himself?
He can't pardon a state conviction, only a federal one.
good point ... then can he serve as President from jail?
Let us hope that is not tested.
I think he’d only be interested in voting if he can walk out of a polling booth with a big smile, flashing a ballot that’s punched for his name. (Son Eric did that stunt in NY where it’s illegal, but I believe he wasn’t prosecuted.). Keeping him from voting could be a game of Wack-a-mole, where he just moves between FL, NJ, NY or any state where he owns property that allows him to vote after getting out of jail. That’s assuming he still owns property after James is through with him.
Right! Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, be convicted of murder and serve his presidency from prison.
Don’t call it the hush money case. Call it election interference or falsifying financial records with intent to commit a crime.
Or dare we use the F word…….FRAUD?
What is glaringly obvious at least to me is the white male moneyed group who own and operate banks, courts, media and all other avenues of extreme wealth transactions have chosen Trump as their puppet and they will not allow the rest of us to see justice done because they don’t want it done. It’s to their advantage to have this bumbling idiot drawing time and attention away from the real issue. What he did was illegal!!!
I'm expecting a Dr's note to enter the docket in the next 72hrs, ala Weinstein/Ray, in this event a second opinion should be required by the Court with a physician of the Courts choosing to verify any trumped up condition.
The plain fact of this trial being very likely the ONLY pre-election jury trial of the four pending cases has hugely raised its profile, despite previously having been dismissed or derogated as "minor", "trivial", or "inconsequential" as compared to the DC, FL, and GA proceedings. Folks, it's the only game in town, and in fact it is serious in point of law, and tRump could suffer from a conviction, whatever the sentence that Judge Merchan may impose, custodial or otherwise. It's an attention-getter, and it will pull the POS off his campaign for several weeks, and none of this is good for the bastard.