Repeatedly I have been most scornful of all aspects related to the email mess created by Hillary Clinton. I made it very clear in March when I wrote the following.
There has never been a political cloak for Clinton from this blogger when it comes to the foundational issues surrounding this mess. There was no justification–zero, zip, nadda–for the email server to be set up in the fashion that she desired. For someone with as much political savvy as she possesses it was one of the most foolish decisions she ever made. I suspect at the time she was hoping to deny her opponents a potential unknown by keeping the server private.
But in the end her move has created a political event that is embarrassing for her and most troubling for the party.
Today the mess got worse–and at the most awful time.
FBI Director James Comey says the bureau is reviewing new emails related to Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, according to a letter sent to eight congressional committee chairmen, a surprise development with 11 days before the election.
After recommending this year that the Department of Justice not press charges against the Secretary of State, Comey said in the letter that “recent developments” urged him to take another look.
“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation,” he said.
This was ugly and just one more reason as to why a Democratic pick-up will take place Election Day in Illinois.
At Thursday night’s Senate debate, Rep. Tammy Duckworth explained at that her family has “served this nation in uniform going back to the Revolution.” Senator Mark Kirk responded, “I had forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington.”
Richard Nixon was a piker compared to Donald Trump when it comes to theories on who is working to back-stab.. Trump is listing all those who the billionaire thinks is out to get him.
As (Trump) heads into a potential loss on Nov. 8, Trump has expanded the scale and scope of his accusations to include Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, the media, establishment leaders from both parties and unidentified ‘global financial powers.’ The ‘power structure’ he describes, according to a review of his speeches this week, includes banking institutions, the judiciary, media conglomerates, voting security experts, Democratic tricksters, scientific polling and also perhaps military leaders. He has also accused Clinton of meeting ‘with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty to enrich these global financial powers, her special-interest friends and her donors.
The truth is of course that the first name Trump should place on the list of those who have harmed him IS HIS OWN!
Is this not the most ironic news story today from the election?
We are 11 days before Election Day and Donald Trump, a man who claims to have more than $10 billion and is a real estate titan, faces a massive cash deficit in his campaign. The latest campaign finance reports put Hillary Clinton ahead in the money race by nearly $100 million.. That is simply stunning news for those who follow politics. Trump has promised to spend $100 million of his own money, but so far, he’s only spent a little over $56 million, just recently put a paltry $31,000 into his campaign during the first few weeks of October. That is insane!
But get this!
What makes this more crazy is that according to a review of [FEC] filings only one of Trump’s children showed up on a list of itemized receipts for the campaign: Eric. On Sept. 7, 2016, Eric Trump appears to have contributed $376.20 listed only as ‘meeting expense: meals.’ It appears that money was later refunded. Ivanka Trump, who previously contributed to Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2007 and 2008 respectively, does not appear to have given to her father.
September’s Will & Grace election-themed reunion apparently served as a big wake-up call for NBC. The network is in talks to reboot the Emmy-winning comedy starring Eric McCormack, Debra Messing, Megan Mullally and Sean Hayes. How much better can life be?
Last month, the four cast members gathered to make a nearly 10-minute episode posted online shortly before the start of the Sept. 26 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The video and the teaser campaign sparked an outpouring of fan interest on social media. James and I loved it and talked then how much we miss that show.
The idea is to do a one-off, 10-episode installment. While NBC, the series’ original network, is a possibility, a streaming player, like Netflix, is considered more likely. Whatever it takes–lets just hope it happens.
There is no doubt Democratic candidate Russ Feingold is the superior candidate for the senate seat in Wisconsin. His intellectual heft and proven abilities makes him the star candidate in this state. But as we know this year is most odd and therefore the news about a late funding spree on the former senator’s behalf can not be taken lightly.
Democratic Super PAC is making a surprise major investment in this senate race in the election’s final days. This is perplexing as many Democrats had long considered this race a sure victory here but there seems reason to speculate this race has become unexpectedly tight. Senate Majority PAC now plans to spend $2 million on behalf of Feingold.
Since the election cycle began even many Republicans had believed that Ron Johnson, the first-term Republican senator, was likely to lose his re-election battle. Johnson has trailed Feingold in nearly every poll of the race this year, sometimes by as many as 10 points or more. Johnson also has one of the weakest minds in the chamber and rattles off the most remarkably unfounded statements about everything from climate change to how college classrooms might consider teaching students.
We must hope the public Democratic statements are correct that this ad buy is merely a precautionary step, made possible in part by the group’s record fundraising (it raised more than $19 million in the first 19 days of October alone). Party strategists privately and publically say they believe Feingold is still on track to win.
Wisconsin needs Feingold’s values and keen insight to help with the national issues that we confront. Go Russ!
This presidential election was not the issue-orientated one the times demand. The average voter will not walk away this year with any sense of a deeper appreciation for the complexity of the choices that lie ahead for the economy, education, health care, or international policy. When most people cast a ballot in November a rush of general feelings and perceptions will determine their decision. For myself there has been one over-riding issue that has guided me as the election season progressed.
I still recall my civics teacher, Mr. Winn, who in high school pressed the fact that presidents are ever mindful of the lasting fingerprint they make on history by the justices they place on the Supreme Court. With the death of Justice Scalia earlier this year, and three sitting members of the court aged 78-83 means there is a high probability the next president will be allowed a court legacy. (Long time readers to this blog will forgive me it I mention President Nixon placed four members on the court and did so in under three years.)
Helping to shape and alter the arc of history so that it bends in a more just and equitable fashion is something a president has a direct role in creating. There is no doubt that President Eisenhower who had a military career that literally helped save Europe can also be lauded for his selection of Earl Warren to the court. With that decision this nation that had once known the outcome of the Dred Scott case to be the law felt the power of progress with the unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
Political leaders fully understand the gravity of who sits on the court. That is why a total rejection of allowing President Obama to have another nominee, Merrick Garland, considered in the senate was seen as a must by Republicans. Objective minds saw the move as purely partisan, as there was a year left in Obama’s term and the GOP move was without precedent. But what drove the Republicans to make such an audacious power play was clear to see.
The make-up of the court is at stake in this election and as Winn would say there is ample opportunity for a fingerprint to be pressed upon the pages of history from the one who takes office next January.
There is only one person running for president who has the resume, experience, intelligence, and the grasp of history suited for the task of selecting nominees to the Supreme Court. That person is Hillary Clinton. I do not say this based on her party affiliation as I consider the importance of the court to be higher than partisan desires. I base my support for her on the fact she understands the Constitution has endured because of its flexibility. That flexibility comes from those who have helped shape the court and render decisions about the laws of this country. With that as a foundation I expect Clinton to select jurists who know the Constitution is a living document.
The alternative views are that the Constitution should only be seen through the eyes of originalism or textualism, and that is simply baffling. The Founding Fathers were wise not to tie down future generations with lots of specifics. They understood the nature of what they were doing and knew their experiment in a new Republic would demand latitude to make it work. The very broadness and generality of the Constitution demands that a reasonable series of reflections and additions be allowed and made. The history of the court shows how judges have worked to expand, explain, and elaborate upon rather terse wording from the work of the Founders.
Not only does this nation require keen insight for Supreme Court picks but there is also a dire need to make sure lower courts are filled with competent judges. The idea that vacancies should linger in congress due to political snits is not good for the ones the courts are set up to serve. Why this matters for those seeking a more just and equitable nation can be seen from what has happened over the past two terms of Obama.
Nine appellate courts–out of the thirteen–now have Democratic-appointed judges who dominate numerically. When Obama was first inaugurated that number was only three appellate courts. How does this relate to the Supreme Court, you ask? More cases are coming up to the Supreme Court through a process where liberals have already weighed in and prevailed at the lower level.
A liberal majority on the court would have a drastic impact on matters relating to elections–from voter ID, to redistricting, and campaign monies. It would put brakes on the erosion of affirmative action, control fights over abortion, and limit the erosion of an understanding between church and state. Citizens United would surely be re-examined with a new case.
Liberal views can once again be seen as a realistic outcome from Supreme Court rulings with the election of Hillary Clinton. What made Americans pleased during the Warren Court can again be the way we view law and progress in America.