As discussed last night with Megyn Kelly (below), there are stories out this week of professors excusing students from classes or even exams due to the trauma caused by the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. It is the same response that we saw to the Ferguson, Missouri riots, which I also criticized at schools like Columbia. I cancelled class so that everyone could participate in this historic election. Many of my students were poll watchers and campaign workers. However, we all returned the next day and, even my students upset with the results, directed that energy told their education and moving forward. I was proud of them. We do our students a disservice by reinforcing this modern version of the vapors, where students emotionally collapse when legal or political events do not go their way. Ironically, one of the things I most respect about Hillary Clinton is her fighting spirit. She tended to stand her ground and, when knocked down, to pick herself up immediately and fight again.
Category: Politics
Protesters around the country have taken to the street in opposition to the decision of millions of their fellow Americans to elect Donald Trump. While his was a fair and free election, the results are clearly unacceptable to the protesters who seem to advocate democratic choice so long as it is their choice.
Some shouted “F–k white America!” I discussed the issue last night on Megyn Kelly on Fox News. (For interview, click here)
Continue reading “American University Students Protest Election By Burning American Flag”
It appears that that “basket of deplorables” was a bit larger than Hillary Clinton expected. I was up to 4 am at Fox participating in the coverage of the election from New York. This was my fourth such presidential election as part a media team and it was fascinating to watch unfold at the campaign headquarters at Fox. History will judge the decisions of Democrats leaders in this election. As I have previously written, many in the Democratic National Committee and establishment (including allies in the media) did everything they could to engineer the election of Hillary Clinton. While they had an extremely popular candidate in Bernie Sanders as well as Vice President Joe Biden, they insisted on advancing Clinton despite her being deeply disliked and the ultimate symbol of the establishment that the public was rallying against. As the close race indicated, the selection of a Sanders or Biden might have produced a sweep of both the White House and the Senate for the Democrats. We will never know of course but what is clear is that Clinton was the least likely candidate to prevail in this environment. Democratic leaders lost possible control of both the Senate and the White House by forcing voters to vote for someone with record negatives. Voters were clear that they did not want Clinton, but the Democrats assumed that the “lesser of two evils” approach would again prevail. They were wrong. Many people voted for third party candidates and many people on the fence refused to pick the candidate most associated with the establishment and the status quo. I expect that history will judge the work of figures like Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Donna Brazile harshly in the roles that they played and more generally in the failure of Democratic leaders to heed the clear demand from voters for a change in leadership. Hillary Clinton was a talented and historic nominee. However, she was also the very symbol of the establishment and heavily laden with the type of associations that the public was clearly reacting against.
Continue reading “DONALD TRUMP WINS THE PRESIDENCY IN HISTORIC VICTORY”
As we have previously discussed, this election has become a hate fest as both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton who seem to be trying to get people to vote against their opponent rather than vote for them. These remain the two least popular candidates in the history of presidential politics. It is a bizarre campaign as Republicans selected the only person who could lose to Clinton and Democrats selected the only person who could lose to Trump. In the meantime, a recent poll shows that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders now stands as the most popular politician in the United States. If Clinton loses today, many are likely to blame DNC officials in pushing Clinton over Sanders who might have not only won the White House but swept Congress. Clinton is still favored to win but the popularity of Sanders raises the question of whether he was the crossover candidate that both parties were seeking. Of course, he has not been the target of attacks in this general election, which has left his image strongly positive. However, it is remarkable that we now have elections between people who are viewed negatively as dishonest or untrustworthy by 60 percent of voters.
If there is one lesson that has already been learned from the 2016 election, it is that the media does actually matter . . . just not in the way that we had hoped. There has been a pronounced and rising bias against Donald Trump in the media. Some of the negative stories can be laid at the candidate’s own feet for controversial statements and actions. However, it has taken me back how consistent and aggressive the anti-Trump coverage has been in the mainstream media. It is as if Trump was declared the sole exception to the cherished media neutrality rules in this country. However, there has been an interesting response from the public, which views the mainstream media as a critical part of the “establishment.” The more the media drumbeat the call to defeat Trump, the more the public seems to swing toward the candidate. At the end of this election, the media needs to seriously examine its conduct in coverages, including the many Wikileaks emails showing both bias and coordination in favor of the Clinton campaign. One start would be something that I have long advocated: the media must stop endorsing political candidates.
We previously discussed the emails of Doug Band, founder of global strategies company Teneo and Bill Clinton’s personal assistant since the 1990s. Band was previously shown discussing what he called “For-Profit Activity of President Clinton (i.e., Bill Clinton, Inc.).” in securing personal wealth and gifts from donors. Now, Band is back in newly released Wikileaks emails from 2012 that suggest that Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation resources “for her wedding and life for a decade.” Various sites have exploded with the news. Another report stated that Hillary Clinton sent Chelsea classified emails. To make matter worse, a new report states that Clinton also forwarded classified emails to her maid to print out. What I find fascinating in all of this controversy is the role of this person, Band, who appears at times cautionary and at times self-serving in his warnings to Podesta. This allegation however is quite specific and, as discussed below, hard to believe without additional support to show foundation assets used for the Clinton wedding. I have to give the presumption to Chelsea Clinton absent some real proof of intermingling of funds and resources.
One of the controversies that has been raging in this election is the allegation of Republicans, including Donald Trump, that illegal immigrants have been voting around the country. An interview with Hispanic activist group “Mitú” has now magnified this controversy after President Barack Obama appeared to say that non-citizens could vote and that there is no way that they would be investigated. Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and dozens of sites cried foul at what they saw as an explicit encouragement of such voting. The statement came in an interview with Mitú’s Gina Rodriguez who asked the President is “undocumented citizens” are at risk if they vote. The President assured them that they have nothing to fear. It is a extremely poorly crafted question from what appears an amateur interviewer. I do not believe that President Obama was trying to encourage illegal voting but both the question and answer left many incensed.
One of the issues that was raised repeatedly by Bernie Sanders and later by Donald Trump is the alliance between Hillary Clinton and David Brock, the founder of Media Matters. Brock has been widely attacked for what critics view as sleazy and vicious work on behalf of Hillary Clinton. You may recall Bernie Sanders denouncing Clinton for her continued alliance with Brock and use of his controversial PAC organizations. Sanders referred to Brock as simple “scum” but Clinton refused to denounced Brock or to discourage Democrats from working with or contributing to his PACs. It turns out that even Clinton aides were disgusted by Clinton’s refusal to cut off Brock or to denounced his work. In the latest batch of Wikileaks, Neera Tanden, the President of Center for American Progress, allegedly emailed John Podesta that “I hope Hillary truly understands now how batshit crazy David Brock is.”
Four same sex couples are seeking more than $233,058 in legal costs from Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County last year. The demand raises some interesting questions over the right to recover fees and costs in such a case.
Continue reading “Same-Sex Couples Seek Fees and Costs For Suing County Clerk Kim Davis”
One of the few beneficiaries of this presidential election has been the virtually unknown company before made a household name by the Clinton aides in attempting to not only delete emails but guarantee that no one could retrieve them. Suddenly everyone was saying “BleachBit” as a virtually self-contained term-of-art. Now the company has used Hillary Clinton’s infamous quip about whether she would use a “cloth” to clean a server as the basis of a new product.
Continue reading “BleachBit Spoofs Clinton In New Product Campaign”
The Justice Department is under fire for allowing the involvement in the investigation of a high-ranking official with close ties to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Now, in the latest disclosure of emails, it appears that Peter Kadzik, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, proved tips to Podesta on developments in the email controversy.
We previously discussed how Dallas Police Chief David Brown quietly changed a rule that would require officers involved in a shooting to wait 72 hours before making a statement. I was highly critical of the change, which treats officers differently from other witnesses to shootings and seeks to avoid contradictions in accounts — difference that might reveal culpability or collusion. Now, Pennsylvania is about to go one better. A new law would prevent the release of the names of officers involved in shootings by 30 days. The bill by Rep. Marina White (R) is designed as a “basic protection from threats” Supporter Rep. Dominic Costa (D) declared, “We are the protectors of our protectors.”
We discussed earlier how Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, denied the legitimacy of emails that showed her leaking a question to Hillary Clinton that would be asked verbatim at the CNN downhill event. The media has largely declined to investigate the claim, including confirming the receipt of the earlier email from the Clinton staffer. Now additional emails allegedly show Brazile secretly feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Again, there has been relatively little media attention to the story and CNN issued a remarkably weak response that it was “uncomfortable” with the new disclosures on Brazile’s actions while a CNN commentator. “Uncomfortable”? How about words like “unethical”?
I just spoke on the BBC where the anchor was pursuing the question of “whether the FBI broke the law” by informing Congress of the reopening of the investigation into the emails. The allegation came from Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid on Sunday. However, with all due respect to our esteemed GW graduate (and I really do respect Sen. Reid), his allegation is in my view wildly misplaced. Reid is arguing that the actions of FBI Director James B. Comey violates the Hatch Act. I cannot see a plausible, let alone compelling, basis for such a charge against Comey.
Continue reading “Reid Alleges That Comey May Have Violated Federal Law In Disclosure To Congress”
A recent story involving Boston Latin School recently caught my attention. First, I attended Latin School in Chicago, which like its Boston cousin is an elite private school. Second, the story confirmed my rising concern over the trend in elementary and high schools to instill a hyper-sensitive culture. At issue is something that many of us experienced in our childhood: dress codes. The students of Latin Boston however, have risen up in disgust over such dress codes as sexist attacks on women and even a cause for a rape culture.
Continue reading “Students Object To Dress Code At High School As Sexist”