Showing 1 - 6 of 6 posts found matching keyword: hillary clinton
Wednesday 5 April 2023
What's interesting to me about the New York State charges against a certain former American president is that all 34 counts stem not from having done something illegal but from having done that something in an illegal way.
To illustrate this point with a hyperbolic example, let's say I have $100 in a bank account. It's perfectly fine for me to withdraw my $100 from an ATM. It's altogether another thing for me to walk in with a gun and yell, "Give me my $100!" Just ask O.J. Simpson.
In this case, what's particularly funny is that if they had simply opened their checkbook and paid the former porn star her extortion money without the sideways "catch and kill" shenanigans, it would have been just another drop in the bucket of shitty things he's done, and he probably still would have become the "grab 'em by the pussy" president anyway. (Remember: the FBI confirmed they were still investigating his opponent 11 days before the election! America hates Hillary Clinton.)
By involving a fixer (who openly claims that the purpose of the payment was to aid a presidential campaign) and a publisher (who has reportedly testified to a grand jury that the purpose of the payment was to aid a presidential campaign) and lying about the purpose of the payment to accountants, he's gone out of his way to make things much harder on himself than they had to be. There's certainly a lesson here for other people who wish to make under-the-table hush money payouts to cover up extramarital affairs.
No matter what your definition of the word "is" is, it's never the crime; it's always the cover-up.
Friday 14 July 2017
Transcript of actual telephone conversation between father and son:
I'm just calling to remind you that Battle Bots is coming on television tonight on the Science Channel.
I did not know that. I don't get the Science Channel.
Of course you do. You've seen Battle Bots before.
Yes, I have. And I liked it. But it didn't used to come on the Science Channel.
Do you get the National Geographic Channel?
The Science Channel is right next to that.
I don't have the same cable provider you do. We're not even in the same state.
Science Channel is 244 on DirecTV.
I don't have DirecTV.
Oh, well. I was just trying to help. You know intention is what counts.
Are you saying that if the son of the President of the United States intended to collude with Russia, he's guilty even if he didn't successfully collude with Russia?
Well, Hillary Clinton —
What does Hillary Clinton have to do with any of this?
What can I say? Some people are brainwashed.
. . .
One of the two of us should be committed. I'm still not sure which.
Comments (1)| Leave a Comment | Tags: dad family hillary clinton television trumps america
Wednesday 9 November 2016
When the Republicans chose Donald Trump to be their representative in the general election, I was convinced that they had selected the only man who couldn't win, a reality television star and self-proclaimed business genius who ruined both the USFL and Atlantic City, New Jersey. Obviously, I underestimated how much Americans hate Hillary Clinton. I hate being wrong.
People say they hate government, yet they keep re-electing the same Congressmen. They say they want to change a broken system, but they vote for the same political party their parents voted for. So don't try to tell me that this election was about anything other than a referendum on whether they wanted a woman who lied about her correspondence to run their country.
Just think how big a win it would have been if the Republican candidate hadn't called American P.O.W.s "losers" or said that most Mexicans in America were rapists or bragged about how he sexually harassed women or called the whole system rigged unless he won. Ye gods. This was the better option?
While I join at least 50% of Americans trying to come to terms with the surprise election outcome of a lifetime, I admit that I have already learned something new. I used to believe that people voted for the candidate that offered them what they wanted. While that's still true, I learned that what they want isn't a job (which Trump can't create) or a handout (which Trump won't offer). What they want is a friend. In politics, personal charisma trumps all. Everyone's willing to forgive their friend for just about anything, even being an ill-tempered, misogynistic racist. Sorry, Hillary, but you aren't any better at being charismatic than you are at managing your email.
Now America's newest
cult of personality friend is Donald Trump. We'll just have to live with him and his foibles until someone more charismatic comes along. (What's Oprah doing these days?)
Wednesday 2 November 2016
There's only one more week remaining in this godforsaken presidential election, and still no one has answered the single most important question of our times: do the candidates wear boxers or briefs?
I'm of the MTV generation, and I recall when Bill Clinton was asked the question. His answer was "Usually briefs." Bernie Sanders said the same thing when Ellen asked him last year. But what about Trump? Or Hillary?
Personally, I used to wear standard white briefs until one evening in 1993, when an icebreaker at my coed freshman dorm had everyone trade underwear and mingle until we had all recovered our own. While everyone else revealed a pair of boxers or silk panties, my only option was a pair of tighty-whities. My underwear was very, very easy to recover. At least my name wasn't written in them.
You can imagine my humiliation. I spent the rest of the mixer sitting alone on a bench holding some stranger's underwear in the air. Scarred by that experience, I naturally changed my underwear preference. Now I only wear colored briefs. (The pair I'm wearing right now are navy blue.)
Based on my experience, I know that what you wear under your clothes says a lot about you. That's why it's so important to see what our presidential candidates are wearing. Trump, Hillary, it's time to drop your pants. It's a matter of national security.
Comments (2)| Leave a Comment | Tags: dear diary hillary clinton history politics trumps america walter
Monday 18 May 2015
This is the last week of shows for David Letterman. For the next few days, we'll be bombarded by a stream of pro-Letterman hype and hyperbole in a desperate attempt to remind us that he was once relevant. Personally, I stopped caring about Letterman a long time ago, and I find this "retirement" nonsense long overdue.
Some say Dave's luster dimmed when he left NBC for CBS in 1993, but he still managed to be entertaining for a few years. I didn't lose respect for the man until about 2000. After a prolonged period of making biting, derogatory insults about Senate hopeful Hillary Clinton's reluctance to come on his program, he disappointingly turned into a lap dog when she finally arrived. Gone was sarcastic and clever Dave, replaced by some milquetoast who did nothing but make polite small talk and laugh at her jokes. If Dave wouldn't or couldn't follow up his bluster, he should have refused the interview rather than waste his audience's time shilling for another politician.
This transformation from comedic outsider to corporate tool roughly coincided with Letterman's heart bypass surgery. No one will argue that after Dave came back to television, he was but a shadow of his former self. It's startling to think that he's passed the intervening 14 years living on a reputation for irreverence earned in the 80s. Seeing him finally leave CBS is almost a relief.
Not that I wish Letterman any ill will. I just look forward to the arrival of his replacement. I've felt unmoored since Stephen Colbert left Comedy Central back in December. For nearly a decade, Colbert's show was righteously satirical consistently hysterical. I have my doubts that anything will soon take it's place, and I don't think that Colbert will even try on CBS. I don't look forward to seeing another talk show in the threadbare late-night mold, but if there's anyone I'm going to watch do it, it's Colbert.
So get out of the way, Letterman. Make some room for someone who still wants the job.
Comments (1)| Leave a Comment | Tags: colbert report david letterman hillary clinton television
Saturday 24 May 2008
I don't comment on politics often, mainly because I figure it's a mug's game: anyone running for President probably isn't worth electing President. However, yesterday the Hon. Hillary Clinton defended her refusal to withdraw from the all-but-over race for the Democratic Party nomination by explaining that she was still in the running just in case something should happen to her opponent:
|"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."|
Now, just for a second, let's assume that she wasn't hinting that her opponent, the Hon. Barrack Obama, will be assassinated on the way to the nomination. What is the chance that if Obama is removed from the race she wouldn't be the party nominee even if she willingly stepped aside? Hmm? (Historical note: RFK was in second place in his party's delegate counts when he was slain, and it is unlikely that he would have received the party nomination should he have survived.)
While it is too much to hope that the Clintons will be learning a lesson from this (depending on what your definition of the word "is" is), it's not too late for you, the reader of this blog, to take away a little something. As Aesop might say, the stubborn donkey that stays late in the field is likely to contract hoof-in-mouth disease.
(On a tangentially related aside, what's the chance that Ted Kennedy's recently revealed malignant brain tumor is the result of a conspiracy? I'd hate to see Teddy left out of the family legacy, after all. Poor guy might actually die from >shudder< natural causes.)