The "What About."..games being played in DC ? Any value?

 Countering "what about" from the GOP with another "what about" from the DEMS proves nothing substantive, it cannot be considered as a defense argument in a trial in a court of law, but it is a nifty way to call out flagrant hypocrisy and false equivalencies. Two can play this game, President Biden may choose not to play, but his surrogates can. It is DC hardball in the battle for public opinion... Here are some of the most obvious on my "what about list".

GOP: What about Hunter using his status as the VP's son to get rich:

DEMS: What about Kushner et al. and the $2 billion Saudi investment fund deal generating a management fee of $25 million to Kushner a year from the Saudis two weeks after Trump left office https://www.bing.com/search...

GOP: What about Hunter getting a slap on the hand for not paying taxes. Pleading guilty to a misdemeanor is no big deal; lock him up. This is an example of unequal treatment.

DEMS: What about Hunter having paid back as restitution the $million plus in taxes (he did) before also getting a criminal charge to which he had to plead guilty. (He did). More often, those who pay back are not charged with a crime.per former federal prosecutors. Yes, sons are treated differently than their presidential or VP fathers. In this case, Hunter got it harsher than others.

GOP: What about the FBI being used as a political weapon against political opponents.

DEMS: what about the FBI scuttling Hillary's election, with the letter ten days before the election reopening the email server case. https://fivethirtyeight.com/.../the-comey-letter.../

Those who claimed the DOJ and the FBI are weaponized tools of the Biden crime family and that the DOJ and FBI should be independent of the Oval Office, consider this: Aside from both the Durham report or the Inspector General finding no evidence of a deep state in the DOJ or FBI, Trump has promised to eliminate any independence of the DOJ or the FBI and he would appoint them to go after the "Bidens".. and the p deep state.https://news.yahoo.com/radical-strategy-behind-trump-promise-114124088.html Those who cannot see the hypocrisy, ill logic, contradictions, or humor in Trump's promised use of the DOJ for his retribution campaign v.the pious goal of an independent DOJ or FBI are tone deaf

GOP: What about the FBI being used by Biden as a political weapon against Trump in the Mar A Lago document indictment?

DEMS: What about the pictures? What about the recordings and issues of the attempt to fool his own attorney? etc. (Indictment has a wealth of other" what about" besides just these)

GOP: What about Trump being treated worse than anyone else in FBI action for taking home documents critical to national security?

DEMS: What about the two chances the FBI gave Trump to return the documents, his hiding them, his lying about them? What about the long list of those in government in jail who even pleaded guilty? Here is a list of eleven recent cases: FBI, Justice Department Routinely Prosecute Misuse of Classified Documents (voanews.com). Many were not even given the same chances to comply as Trump was. Pence's case was closed. He gave them back; he didn't lie or hide them like Trump did. The Biden case is hung up in the House Oversight Committee in a spitting match between the committee chair and the FBI. House Oversight leaders clash after viewing FBI document on Biden allegations | The Hill

One rather effective use of What Abouts is to put up a theory and then set about to find the proof. (If you think what Trump's kids did was bad, just look at Hunter Biden, why he is part of the Biden crime family). Accusing first, hunting for the proof later, is putting a cart before the horse, and is particularly embarrassing when the proof poofs as the alleged proof somehow disappears. Republicans Admit They ‘Don’t Know’ if Biden Bribery Tapes ‘Really Exist’ (msn.com) In the meantime, the die-hard partisans consider any plausibility as the same as evidence or proof. When these hashed and rehashed "what abouts" are still posed as the truth, the response should be "What about the lack of evidence, court decisions, etc.". Comer Admits Nobody Has Heard From Alleged Biden Informant for Three Years (msn.com) Even the unspoken get spoken and reveals to intent to keep on hunting Hunter (there must be something there and we will keep on looking) when the Committee chair's response to the disappearing evidenc, admits publicly the purpose of the committee is to keep on digging for dirt until they find something. GOP lawmakers vow to continue investigating Hunter Biden | CNN Politics

The granddaddy of the What Abouts of course, is the claim the election was stolen, as the GOP presented what they saw as evidence. and theories. 63 federal court judges and the Supreme Court looked at the What Abouts and ruled and dismissed the accusations for lack of evidence. At least three "forensic audits" came also found was never enough evidence to overturn the election results, and in fact, errors were found that favored the Biden vote instead of the Trump vote. Last week, some tapes were reported as evidence that Biden was bribed per a telephone conversation. Those "tapes" appear to be lost and the GOP committee chairs had to admit. it.

Another GOP approach is What About Democrats weaponizing the DOJ to go after Biden's enemies, a deep state plot and the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.This one the GOP used as an excuse to investigate the investigators,

The DEM response: What about the failure of Durham to find any "deep state" plot? durham report may 23 findings summarized - Search (bing.com)

.

Ben Ghazi and the missing emails ended as fizzles and fiascos, but they still hurt Hillary

Remember Ben Ghazi?  Those hearings went on and on forever in a failed attempt to pin the tragedy on Hillary Clinton.  A certain Representative made his national mark with his aggressive appearance on that committee.  That same person is now trying to promote another one that also involves the state department. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo He is https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/11/pompeo-has-been-undermining-the-state-department-since-the-benghazi-investigation/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924795/hillary-clinton-emails-new-york-times-state-department

"The State Department’s report reaches two broad conclusions. Clinton’s “use of a private email system to conduct official business added an increased degree of risk” that classified information would be compromised. But “there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

In 2016, the State Department’s inspector general also determined that Clinton’s Republican predecessors, Secretaries Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, also received classified information on their personal email accounts."

Trump's nasty women problem

• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/trump-rape-
• accusation-e-jean-carroll-new-book/1550441001/

A version of this was published on line in the Sky Hi News, June 30, 2019

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion-muftic-donald-trump-has-a-nasty-woman-problem/

Update August 27, 2019:  He takes his nasty women problem to the international stage and insults the head of Denmark

Trump Says He Canceled Denmark Trip Because PM's Response to Greenland Purchase Plan Was 'Nasty'

.https://time.com/5657785/trump-denmark-pm-greenland/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-share-article&utm_content=20190821&fbclid=IwAR0p1plhRoM7WeDxmbXIukoDUcDvaVdRIvGUmbUxXXgBkc9CuEIfzS5o4_Y

•  As the umpteenth woman comes forward to reveal  Donald Trump raped her years ago, a vast yawn erupted from all but a few. So what else is new. What is not new is that  Donald Trump still has a nasty woman problem. Have you noticed how FOX and social media favorable to Donald Trump have become obsessed with Rep.Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez (AOC)?  In his rally announcing his second term, President Trump spent a significant amount of his speech time, fixated on Hillary Clinton, much to the delight of his audience who chanted “lock her up”. I pinched myself to make sure this was not in the middle of the 2016 campaign. It was the third presidential debate in 2016  when Candidate Trump called Hillary Clinton a "nasty woman". In June this year, he called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “nasty, vindictive, horrible person”.  His name calling is not a  problem aimed at a few powerful women.  It is a millstone around his re-election neck.

  
  

  Trump supportive media often reports AOC’s inflammatory words, usually with a visual image showing her angry.  So much extensive hackle-raising coverage by media must have explained why I had a strange conversation the other day. A friend of mine, a dedicated Trump supporter and FOX fan, insisted to me that AOC was running for president.  I tried to set her straight that AOC was not running for president. Oh yes, she is, my friend responded. I changed the subject to gardening.  Eventually, my friend would figure it out herself when AOC never appeared on the Democratic candidate debate stage.

  
  

  Why I asked me, is there such an obsession with very outspoken women politicians by those in the Trump camp?  Clinton’s ideology, mainstream old fashioned Democrat, more middle of the road and AOC’s democratic socialism, a more radical view expressed in blunt and inflammatory ways, were not the same, either on issue positions or in style. AOC is much younger and more photogenic. Trump is justified in fearing Pelosi because she indeed has the power, skills, and  official position to challenge him, but not because she is “nasty”.

  
  

  There had to be some reason that caused such a devotion of time to promote fear and loathing of women who were not running for president in 2020.  You would expect Trump, as a candidate to spend even more time to boasting of the great economy or his method of keeping America free of immigrants. However, “Build the wall” is still a chant at Trump’s recent rally, but even then  AOC became the icon of wall opposition, too.  Hope springs eternal, but Trump’s failure to build it is countered by announced ICE mass deportations and the building of more detention camps. Tongues on both sides of the aisle wagged at AOC’s calling these camps "concentration camps". Granted, no one was being marched off to Nazi ovens, but the image of such facilities is hard to erase. Media coverage of unaccompanied  migrant children crammed into unsanitary facilities, lice infected and dirty, and remaining there far past the few days they were supposed to be kept  there may be a bargaining chip to force Democrats to fund border security, but cruelty to so many so young is a turnoff even to some women who profess to be Evangelical Christians. The Marist poll found 62% of women said that Trump’s emergency declaration at the border  made them less likely to vote for Trump in 2020. 

  
  

  I have my theories about this obsession with AOC and Hillary Clinton, but from a political strategy, does it make sense or not?  One way it could make sense is to consider  it a method  to paint  every single woman candidate with the same brush of an uppity, nasty  woman to be feared  as some radical force infecting the entire Democratic field. More likely  Donald Trump is simply ginning up his base that already contains voters hostile to women as a way to increase their enthusiasm and turnout. A study by  a Tuft University professor post-2016 as reported in the Washington Post concluded that "Most voters with hostile sexist views were in the Republican camp, ...; they had been moving Republican for many election cycles."  The researcher found that other factors  were more important in determining the 2016 outcome.

  
  

  On the other hand, looking at the results of the 2018 midterms and the failure of the GOP in attracting suburban women that most attribute to flipping the House from red to blue,  it makes no political sense as a strategy to continue vilifying women if the GOP wants to expand its base.  If the GOP is to regain control of the House and keep control of the Senate and White House in 2020, it certainly would not be helpful to continue to vilify women candidates. The gender gap between the GOP and the Democratic party has always been there, but a recent poll by PEW research late spring 2019, as reflected in Trump’s job approval by gender showed there were real problems for Trump’s re-election. PEW research found “..over his first two years in office, Trump’s average approval rating was much higher among men (44%) than among women (31%).  This 13 percentage point gender gap is wider than for any of his recent predecessors, dating back to George H.W.Bush... "

  
  

  ______________________________________________________________________________

  
  

    FOX and Trump favorable media have made much of a Zogby poll was taken just after Trump declared a national emergency at the border, that claimed to show suburban women “want the wall, buoying Trump after fleeing in 2018”. The poll came under immediate fire for using a proven flawed methodology.  Recent NPR, PBS, and Marist polls of suburban women of approval Trump’s national emergency declaration found only 31% of women agreed.    It is hard to believe this one the issue on immigration would offset Trump’s appointment of anti-choice Supreme Courts justices and evidence on tapes and by witnesses of his sexual assault on women.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/11/gender-gap-widens-in-views-of-governments-role-and-of-trump/

  
  

   https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-2020-rally-092528081.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca

  
  

   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/suburban-women-want-the-wall-buoying-trump-after-fleeing-in-2018

  
  

  
  

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2019/02/12/feature/will-americans-vote-for-a-woman-obsessing-over-the-question-makes-it-less-likely/?utm_term=.4c126ceea16c

   “To have clear evidence that Clinton’s gender cost her the election, we would expect to find that the sexist Obama voters from 2012 switched to Trump in 2016,” he tells me. “That is not what we found in our study.”

  
  

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/29/most-americans-say-they-wont-vote-trump-next-year-will-they-vote-all/?utm_term=.e460de40cc2

  
  

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/25/no-trumps-national-emergency-declaration-hasnt-erased-trumps-problem-with-suburban-women/?utm_term=.c0ca41e3c6d9

  
  

  
  

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/25/no-trumps-national-emergency-declaration-hasnt-erased-trumps-problem-with-suburban-women/?utm_term=.c787d919ee81
• 
  

Democratic Party is on the verge of blowing it

As a variety of candidates take aim at front runner Joe Biden in order to increase their poll numbers by beating down Biden,  it is the usual Democratic party political stupidity. So like in 2016 the party splits, the losers sit on their hands, and Trump wins. Liberals and Progressives:  How did you like the way that worked out? Then what happens in 2020 and beyond to any form of Medicare for all..as a single payer or as a public option...neither. Then what happens to any steps to deal with global warming...nothing. Then what happens to the Supreme Court? For years to come, expect a Trump court ruling in favor of abolishing Roe v Wade, supporting an imperial presidency, and even declaring any federal health plan, including Obamacare unconstitutional. I hope many will join me in this pledge: I will refuse to support any candidate who speaks ill of another Democrat in the race. 
Candidates need to make a case for their platform on issues and let their issue arguments and credentials speak for themselves as a way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack. Negative campaigns in primaries are losers for Democrats. They are a circular firing squad.

Recently, some press and candidates are aiming their weapons at the front runner Joe Biden for a history of not being in favor of pro-choice. He has evolved on the issue. In 2008 he announced he was pro-choice. A devout Catholic, he paid a price when the Archbishop of the diocese in Pennsylvania refused to give him communion.  Since 2008  Biden has had a NARAL rating of 100%. He supports Supreme Court appointees who support Roe v Wade. He had supported the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funds for abortions. June 6, he reversed his prior support, citing that formerly free services provided by Plan Parenthood clinics have been so restricted in certain states, that the poor no longer had access. ,  Other attacks have centered on his past hard-line support on law enforcement and other issues. Unlike many of his fellow aspirants,  he has baggage for being a public figure for 40 years at different times,, but what should count is where he stands now on issues and his more recent track record.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Abortion,_stem_cell_research,_cloning

Not only do politicians going negative on others competing for their party's nomination create sound bites for GOP general election campaign ads and video clips, but it can also divert or suppress votes to hurt the Democratic party candidate.  One fallout of a split party going for the throats of fellow candidates in order to gain a political advantage is that it generates "; a plague on both your houses; I don't like either candidates"  disgust factor. Bernie Sanders famously proclaimed on CNN during the run-up to the nomination that Clinton "was not qualified to be President" because she did not support the same issues as he did.   The result is for a group of voters to flee to a third party, Greens and Libertarians or sat on their hands.  There is a case to be made that votes for third parties swung the election to Trump by splitting the potential Clinton vote in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida and costing her electoral college votes.

 Democrats cannot afford to have potential voters sit on their hands in 2020. A recent PEW study of 2016 demographics and attitudes concluded "The data also provide a profile of voting-eligible nonvoters. Four-in-ten Americans who were eligible to vote did not do so in 2016.  "Compared with validated voters,...and nonvoters were much more Democratic." 

 The Russians were very well aware of the importance of the disgust factor and aimed their very significant social media propaganda efforts to paint Hilliary Clinton in a very unfavorable light, even to the extent of targeting bots and lies and conspiracy theories aimed at her potential voters. Some of that social media targeting was aimed at supporting the candidacy of  Green candidate Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders as a way of splitting Democratic votes.  We know this from both the Mueller Report and the indictments of spies and GRU operatives.  This was not a matter of a few well placed online ads, either. Both the indictments of Russians and the content of the Mueller report reveals the significant extent and effectiveness of the Russian interference. 

We have marveled at Russian's sophisticated knowledge of their targeting in key swing states and their knowledge of demographics.  The secret of their sophistication may have been revealed in the Mueller Report as Trump in house polling data was share with the Russians by Paul Manafort's contacts with his business associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, a suspected Russian intelligence operative, but so much of that connection has been  redacted in the Mueller Report version released to the public.  That is why it is important that Congress gets the full unredacted version. 

http://fortune.com/2018/08/09/nonvoters-trump-presidency-pew-study/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Abortion,_stem_cell_research,_cloning

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/us/politics/biden-hyde-amendment.html

https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/#in-march-2018-modest-gender-gap-in-views-of-trump-among-supporters

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-qualified/index.html

"Trump won 290 Electoral College votes to 232 for Hillary Clinton, as of Wednesday evening, with Clinton topping him in the popular vote. But had the Democrats managed to capture the bulk of third-party voters in some of the closest contests -- Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16) and Florida (29) -- Clinton would have defeated Trump by earning 307 Electoral College votes, enough to secure the presidency." https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/gary-johnson-jill-stein-spoiler/index.html

Closing arguments: Beware the Ides of October and what is at stake

Ancient Romans had a superstition that on a certain  date, something bad would happen and they expressed it with  “beware the Ides of March”.  We should rephrase that as the “beware the Ides (or near Ides) of October”, since that is when political dirty tricks and surprises seem to come out of the blue.  The FBI dropped a potential game changer eleven days before Nov 8 when they wrote  a letter to Congressional leadership saying they found more emails that pertained to Hillary Clinton’s email server.

Timing is everything .  The surprises coming so late in the game give the targets no time to defend themselves, especially when reports are the FBI investigators sat on this information for weeks, waiting until October 27 to tell Director Comey, putting him in an untenable situation , danged if he did and did if he did not.  

 It is even more of a surprise when the surprise is unprecedented, with its director violating his own FBI department and Department of Justice rules not to spring findings related to a candidate within the 60 day pre election day period or that they  violated their  own FBI  rules not to discuss if and what was being investigated until the investigation was completed.  How did it happen that the FBI  announced they were undertaking more investigations of Hillary Clinton’s emails without having even reviewed the material that appeared to be “pertinent” and were not sent by her?   

Another surprise was sudden attention on the long predicted increase in Obamacare premiums. If you get your insurance from an exchange and you get a subsidy  or you get your insurance from your employer, or military related provider,  or   are on Medicare and Medicaid, you will not see an increase due to Obamacare.premiums because they do not get insurance through the Obamacare system,. That is due to a general increase in health care costs which would have risen anyway and will be worse even if Obamacare goes away.Those who earn too much money to be qualified  for subsidies.who do  get insurance from the state Obamacare exchanges will see the hike. Congress can fix that if it wants to.

Who occupies  the  White House will have the power to influence our lives by  interpreting legislation broadly, appointing  agreeing cabinet officials, and nominating candidates to fill Supreme Court and lower court vacancies.Whether you still have to vote, know that whatever your motivation, love, hate, protest, your vote for a candidate or non vote or a third party vote is then all that really counts to determine who will occupy the White House and run the Senate. Recent Colorado polls: Clinton and Tump are tied in the state.

Here is what at stake : If Donald Trump and the GOP continue to be the majority in both houses of Congress and control the White House and Supreme Court appointee process, women’s control of their reproductive lives is in danger as Roe v Wade could be overturned. Obamacare will be repealed with no effective and comparable replacement for the 20 million losing insurance. The GOP still beats its drums for repeal of Obamacare, but after years of trying, they have found no replacement to cover similar numbers with similar consumer protections. Donald Trump proposes enormous tax cuts for the rich depending on old failed trickle down theories, and will increase the gap between the rich and the middle class. Fossil fuels will get preferential treatment .  

What is even more critical are the issues of war and peace:  Donald Trump’s stream of conscious  uncontrolled  demagogic mouth vs. skilled diplomatic experience of Hillary Clinton is the choice we must make  in a dangerous world where one word or phrase could harm American national security,  and provoke  a needless war  or a frightening incident that leads us to the brink.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/12/news/economy/health-care-costs/index.htm

The fat lady has not yet sung. The FBI just lobbed an IED into the campaign, a true October surprise. This is tasty fodder for the GOP opposition anxious to jump to their conclusions.. The House email investigation is now reopened eleven days before the election, with the FBI reporting they found more emails that need to be investigated. Whether these new emails provide proof Clinton intentionally sent classified material and lied about, unlike the previous findings, is not known since the investigation has just started. If it is like the FBI’s previous meticulous investigation, we will not know until well after the election. Until then, expect GOP political operatives to act as jury, judge, and hangman.  Donald Trump’s rally audiences will raise their chant of ‘lock her up’ with even greater lynch mob fervor now. In the meantime, FBI director Comey indicated in his announcement “the FBI does not yet know if the new material in question is "significant."  The results could be or could not be the same as with the  earlier investigated emails.

Whether this will influence voters who have not voted already or have made up their minds because of other issues, is yet to be seen.  Both candidates have legal clouds hanging over them, now, though Clinton’s cloud is more threatening because the accusations could concern a crime. Donald Trump’s suit against him that he committed civil fraud regarding Trump University goes to trial after the election.

What is also yet unknown is voter turnout.  Both major party campaigns believe that unless their supporters actually vote instead of just answering polls, they could lose. According to Bloomberg News, insiders in the Trump campaign are trying to “suppress” the Clinton vote by last minute reminders of her negatives so that voters just leave that line on the ballot blank. This FBI action can help the voter suppression effort. The Clinton camp is also concerned that the media reports that she has the race already won, some will not make the effort to get their ballots in. Many a race has been lost or won by a vote or two in each precinct. Colorado is still considered a swing state.  The only poll that counts on election-day is the actual vote.

 Pollsters tell us the most important factor that determines voter choice is “does he/she care about me “.Polls show more women have seen enough of Trump’s behavior to answer that with a  “no”.  For many women Trump is a reminder of their worst nightmare, of past unpleasant experiences with men of his personality traits...an intimidating bully and/or a groper who judges women as objects to be scored one to ten.

 Only 4% of African Americans polled also supported Donald Trump. Many expressed they were insulted by Trump’s negative broad brush painting of their lives. A majority of Hispanics believe Trump is even hostile to themselves and their concerns. In Colorado Hispanics make up 14.5% of eligible voters, enough to swing the outcome if they turn out to vote.

The FBI's reopened investigation will probably eclipse stories concerning Wikileaks and Obamacare .. Wikileaks’ release of hacked emails  so far  only reinforced existing negative opinions about Clinton.  The Obamacare premium hikes had become a hot topic deceptively spun.Trump supporters made it sound like everyone’s premiums were going up 20%. Wrong.  Only a small percentage of consumers will be affected. Get your insurance from your employer, a subsidy (tax credit; premium assistance) from Connect for Health Colorado exchange with over 85,000 customers, Medicare, or Medicaid, or military related providers?  Obamacare premium increases will not cause your rates to increase. Those impacted with be those who make too much money to qualify for subsidies and who buy insurance through Connect for Health Colorado or other state exchanges.  Congress than fix that problem if they want.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/mapping-the-latino-electorate-by-state/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-reopens-clinton-email-server-investigation-230454

http://connectforhealthco.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/C4HC-2015-Annual-Report-11-x-8.5-Final-Jan-16-WEB.pdf

http://kff.org/health-reform/perspective/how-aca-marketplace-premiums-measure-up-to-expectations/?utm_campaign=KFF-2016-August-Policy-Insight-Larry-CBO-Project

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/10/10/sorry-trump-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-wouldnt-lower-costs/#6f2c07725f01

http://khn.org/news/health-insurance-across-state-lines/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/briefing-amid-price-hikes-where-obamacare-stands-161900023.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb

Why Donald Trump is failing as an agent of change

Saturday Donald Trump delivered a much ballyhooed First One Hundred Days speech in Gettysburg, billed as what he would do in that time period if elected. Instead, it was a case in point of why Donald Trump is failing as an agent of change.

His speech was to be a pivot to issues away from the sensational last few weeks where the focus has been on his alleged predatory sexual behavior.  However, he buried his own intended message by dwelling on the sensational news with his promise to sue all ten women who came forward to testify to his unwelcome advances.  Bully good?  A few hours later, an unintimidated #11 went public. He began his speech by relaunching his claim that into the “system is rigged,” followed by  a riff on  familiar refrains, “the FBI is rigged, the press is rigged”, and  everything and everyone opposed to his views are rigged. He continued with charges and grievances, citing some statistics that had been debunked by independent fact checkers earlier.

His issue discussion was finally reached and it drew together familiar themes, but much more fleshed out and specific.  This deserves coverage and debate, but waiting until less than three weeks to election  day and burying it as nearly a sub point in sensationalistic news making, an opportunity was missed.  A skilled candidate would understand how to direct media attention by not highlighting diversions, but that takes self-discipline, which Trump lacks.

Issues are important, especially in the context that this is a change election and that a large segment of public opinion believes the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Nonetheless, looking at a recent history of polls, Trump has not benefitted by the change sentiment, at least not enough to stay ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls consistently over the campaign from start to near finish. To turn a Trump ad phrase on its ears, if this is such a change election, why isn’t Trump far ahead of Clinton in the polls instead of constantly running behind her?

There are some good reasons. While his issue message resonates with many, the problem is the messenger himself .Trump takes personal offense at barbs and gets hung up on a compulsive need to respond. He undermines democratic traditions by threatening not to honor the vote, or ignoring facts, legal due process, and standards of proof. Major turnoffs are his hostile comments directed toward women, immigrants, and minorities such as “build the wall”, “nasty woman”, “ban” those from certain countries, practitioners of a religion, ,and promising wholesale deportation regardless of individual constitutional rights, individual circumstances, or family concerns. The implied response from those groups offended by him is, “yes we want improvement, but no, no, not that kind by that person.”

Hillary Clinton represents the status quo, but with an improved version, advocating stronger Wall Street regulation, a no fly zone in Syria, improving Obamacare, and more. She is indeed a political operator, but she still looks better to many more than the Trump brand of replacement. Even fact finders conclude she is far more factual than Trump.The Council of Economic Advisers reported real median household income grew 5.2 percent from 2014 to 2015, the fastest annual growth on record...The number of people in poverty fell by 3.5 million... the largest one-year drop since 1968. Likewise, Pres. Obama’s popularity at 57%, extremely high for a last term president, is another indication that there are  more content with the status quo than the Trump camp counted on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/07/do-wrong-track-polling-numbers-really-prove-that-america-is-clamoring-for-donald-trump/

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/22/latest-gallup-tracking-poll-shows-obama-popularity-soaring-time-election.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/09/13/income-poverty-and-health-insurance-united-states-2015

The second presidential debate was epic, alright, epic nasty

The second presidential debate Sunday October 9 was an epic one, alright, epically nasty.  The  nation and the world to which this was broadcast was on edge of their seats to see if Donald Trump would  contritely apologize for the leaked audio and video of his boasting of his conquests of groping and sexually predatory behavior toward women.  He did not.  Instead he paraded before the world and placed in the debate audience some of the women with whom Bill Clinton had had affairs. Monica Lewinsky was not among the attendees.   He justified his own behavior because Bill Clinton had spoken or done worse.

 That Trump stopped the run for the exit door of evangelical and “establishment” Republicans withdrawing their endorsement is yet to be seen.  What he did, however, was claim that he “has not groped” and he called the damning audios just “locker room” talk and awkwardly tried to switch the topic to fighting Isis. He can only hope no “groped” women come forward.

It is a good thing that Bill Clinton is not running for president this go around. His actions over twenty years ago were worthy of the consequences.  The candidate, however, is Hillary Clinton and, if anything, she showed remarkable composure, and exuded dignity in the face of Trump’s attempt to rattle her or to paint her with the sins of her husband. In the run up to the debate he had tried to make the point that Hillary was the “enabler” because she showed no respect for women because she dared to try to destroy the reputation of “the other women”.  That must be some male fantasy to expect the victim, the wronged wife, to take a kind and caring approach to the “other women” because of  some feminist ideology. Given the public focus on all of the tawdriness, I imagine not many women would have had the self-control to invoke Michelle Obama’s advice, “when they go low, we go high” as Hillary Clinton did Sunday night.  It is  her steeliness and self control under such provocations that stand in contrast to tweet happy Trump who reacts whenever his manhood or ego is stroked or offended that makes him particularly unsuited to make rational policy decisions regarding war and peace.

Donald Trump made some eyebrow raising comments, especially regarding his differences with his own running mate Mike Pence over policies toward Russia and Syria.  Like a wannabe tin pot dictator, he said he would appoint a prosecutor to put Hillary in jail for her alleged lies on the email server because he disagreed with the FBI director’s findings that she had no intent to relay material marked classified or had lied to him.  In the post-debate spin room, the shock of Trump advocating to abuse legal and due process to get rid of an opponent overshadowed his stock allegations of Clinton lies.  Trump also openly admitted he had used a tax loophole to avoid paying federal personal income taxes for years. She responded by advocating an expanded version of the original  Buffett Rule that would impose a 30% income tax on income over $1 million with her proposed additional surtaxes on the five million dollar earners. She then scored unrebutted points that Trump’s tax proposals would give enormous tax cuts to the wealthy and raise taxes on some in the middle class.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-taxes/

The fear factors in the race for the White House

Last week left many asking why  Donald Trump was so schizophrenic. On the same day he posed as presidential in his press conference after meeting with the Mexican president,  he delivered a speech with red meat dripping in hate fueling tones that whipped the crowd into a frenzy. There was no “pivot”. The kinder, gentler Trump had disappeared in six hours. Why? It appears that his strategy is to scare more voters to support him by creating an even greater atmosphere of fear. Will it work?

It could not help his already dismal standing with minorities.  Even some of his Hispanic advisors distanced themselves by the next morning, expressing their “disappointment” and “being misled”. That response does not bode well for outreach to Hispanics.  No doubt it consolidated the base he groomed in the primaries.  But would hyping fear and hate help him expand his support among independents and suburban women?

It is obvious he did not aim any of that day’s actions toward gaining more minority support. In his evening rally (billed as a policy speech) he repeated his battle cry of “build the wall and pledged he would still make Mexico pay for it.   “No amnesty” was once again his message to the eleven million undocumented in this country and he doubled down on deportation of criminal illegals (he estimated at two million), proposing to increase border patrols and to triple ICE agents in a deportation task force to work with local police. Otherwise, much of what he proposed was already Obama administration policy and priorities. Trump simply placed the nine million illegals who did not commit crimes as lower priority for deportation and in limbo since he promised he would come up with “humanitarian” policies after his other deportation and build the wall proposals had been completed.

His tone was even more important than his avowed policies.  He ginned up fear of immigrants.  To whom and how will that expand his support ?To justify his earlier assertions that  illegal immigrants were murderers and rapists, he paraded by his microphone a dozen or so parents of victims of those who were murdered and raped by illegal criminals who escaped deportation if having been found guilty of prior crimes. Fact checkers had already knocked holes into the figures of crime increases and most of those caught, they reported, had been released by Court order, not by Obama or Clinton’s State Department policies.  The “problem” of due process would continue to exist no matter who became president.

 In a current Atlantic article, I found a compelling case made that his fear based strategy was his most important allure, but it could turn off some, as well. . Most already  drawn to Trump are those who are  the most fearful, and it is not so much  fear of economic and job problems, it  is the racial and  cultural changes and terrorist threats brought on by  recently  increased in migration of Mexicans and the prospect of more Muslims. This strategy, however, may be backfiring with women in suburbs. They see his fear mongering  as causing more violent and emotionally disturbing conflicts in the future in their communities and in the world, not less.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/

 http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3216907b7cad4dc7a610a14e8166975a/ap-fact-check-trump-immigration

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-immigration-speech-pho/

For sometime I have felt that there was something irrational at play during this election cycle. A recent  article  in The Atlantic puts a name to it: fear. Mostly supporters of Trump are the most fearful..and it is not just fear of economic problems, it is the racial, cultural changes and indeed recent iincreased immigration that is the driver. Trump has tapped onto it regarding immigration. Hillary has tapped into the fear factor, too, with the danger of his temperament causing even more danger, especially in foreign relations. 

My take on this: This is where the battle for the undecided is taking place and it may even explain why usually Republican women in suburbs are swinging away from Trump due to his racially charged, anti minority tones. They see this as causing more violent and emotionally disturbing conflict in the future in their communities and in the world, not less. By nature, women are peacemakers and peace makes their families even more secure. .They see Trump as causing more conflict with his hateful rhetoric than resolving it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/

For the sake of the country, Hillary Clinton needs to shut down the foundation and clearly apologize for emails.

Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings have now sunk to 31%, on par with Donald Trump's, according the recent polls. Emails and Foundation issues are not  blowing over and it appears she has the advantage now in electoral college votes, but she is in danger of losing the popular vote,or be a minority president with less than 50% of the popular vote,  and  it would weaken her claim of a mandate needed to make her presidency effective.  What if her voters stay home or throw away their votes on a third party?  What if Wikileaks does produce some damning information or  more email disclosures produce a dramatic October surprise? There are some unknowns in this race that is like no other.  What is happening now will also follow her into the White House, complicate her ability to govern, and feed the GOP's never Trump to re-elect their senators, who are clever enough to paint themselves as a check to Clinton. This hurts  the chances of a Clinton friendly Senate and to get her agenda passed or the best choices for a Supreme Court to get approved.

In earlier postings I have recommended that the Clinton Foundation needs to announce a transition to Gates and that Bill Clinton and Chelsea, as well as Hillary be at more than arms length.  Sure the Foundation does great stuff and sure the key is the importance of the Clinton family's influence, but at this point the Gates foundation has the ability to continue with existing programs and Hillary's election and trust in her as a president are far more important issues when we consider the good of the country as a whole.  It is also a pre-emptive strike against unknowns lurking out there that could be even more damaging..such as the Wikileaks threats or even more revelations of pay to play in heretofore unreleased emails.  She should stop  being a lawyer covering her tail.  What Clinton did may not have technically broken the law, but the ethics factor and her  propensity to parse words to skirt the law are harmful to her campaign  and will cloud trust of her even into the Oval Office.  For the good of the country, the Clintons have got to remove themselves from the Foundation and she has got to say again and again, she screwed up with  the emails.  Those are the best inoculations against lurking surprises in October.

Could the shut-down of the Foundation be contingent on Clinton's election?  It could be, though not as convincing as beginning the process now.  The process could be started,  now but reversed if she is elected. If for some reason she is not elected, at least the Foundation could continue its good works and the conflict of interest would no longer be an issue.

Obamacare revisited: Heads up for the good, bad, and ugly proposals

Just as certain as hot  temperatures in summer, repeal and perhaps replace Obamacare is a topic of party platforms and soaring oratory at the party conventions.    What is certain is that Obamacare needs tweaking or replaced. What is not an option is simply to kill it.  24 million would lose their insurance now.

 The political problems are thorny: How much of government participation can the majority tolerate and what benefits are covered.  To what extent are we willing to cough up the money in co pays, higher deductibles, more expensive premiums, or taxes.  

I received a livid call from a subscriber to an Obamacare policy bought through an exchange not in Colorado. His premium just increased by 25%. (In Colorado, this year’s increase was close to the national average of 11%). I congratulated him for having too high an income to get a premium subsidy. In many ways Obamacare is successful. Government subsidies make it affordable for either the near poor via Medicaid expansion or lower middle income.  Benefits have greatly improved for everyone, including employer provided insurance. All insurance must cover pre-existing conditions and free annual physicals and cancer screenings and more. The costs of premiums and all of health care went up less quickly than if Obamacare  had not been in place and the number of uninsured has been more than halved. In fact, cost savings to the government added years to the solvency of Medicare.

So why have those premiums jumped? Per the Motley Fool’s Sean Williams (www.fool.com) the healthier have not enrolled as originally projected because the penalties have not been enough to force them into a health plan. The result: there are not enough healthy paying in to pay for the sick and there are no effective controls of private insurance premiums. There is no effective non-profit competition, either. Now, nearly all insurance in exchanges are provided by private for profit insurers.

New replacement plans are being proposed. The Democratic plank is shaping up to having government  play a larger role, by lowering the age to qualify for Medicare, and providing a government provided option which would be cheaper than private ones, providing competition to  private for profits. Donald Trump's earlier proposal would leave 18 million without health insurance.

 Another, like Bernie Sanders’ proposal of Medicare for All, a single payer system, is on the ballot this fall in Colorado, but it would require much  higher taxes on payroll, all  income, and  on businesses to pay for it.  Lower wage earners, middle class workers and small businesses would feel the pain the most.

Ezekial Emanuel and Tophir Spiro writing in USAtoday, July 1, looked at the GOP replacement plan just proposed by House Speaker Paul Ryan. The plan would gut Medicaid, partially privatize Medicare,   eliminate,  prescription drug, maternity and mental health care coverage, increase average deductibles by more than $2700 and  repeal limits on out of pocket costs. It eliminates subsidies for low income Americans and it costs $25 billion to cover few people in high risk pools who would still have to pay high cost premiums. It would give less tax advantage to employers’ coverage and the estimate is that 6 million workers would lose insurance by 2019. An estimated 5.5 million seniors would be thrown off Medicare as the eligibility age would rise to 67 years old.  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2016/07/01/yet-another-failed-republican-health-care-plan-column/86527150/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2016/06/22/what-paul-ryans-latest-health-proposal-would-mean-for-seniors/#70f7215b5f39

http://www.benefitspro.com/2016/07/07/18-million-would-lose-health-coverage-under-trump

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/obamacare-repeal-would-lead-to-24-million-more-people-without-health-insurance.html

More thoughts on the FBI decision not to recommend charging Hillary Clinton

More thoughts on the FBI decision:

The problem is showing intent. That is essential to criminal charges. The FBI could not find proof of intent. Without that they could not charge her. The shrill spokesperson for the RNC kept saying she intentionally set up her server to avoid scrutiny. That is exactly what the FBI could not prove. That she was careless is no doubt, but the strategy of the GOP to get her indicted was a true bust. An indictment would have gotten her out of the race. That she was careless did not rise to the criminal prosecution standard of gross negligence, just extremely careless.That was Comey's call and conclusion. Expect the GOP to question his judgment call. I spent 7 years as a white collar crime DA investigator and another 8 enforcing election contributions fraud...so I understand the differences. I also understand that DA's standard for prosecution is: can we win or at least probably win and they often refuse to file or indict.

How does one prove intent?  Some direct evidence such as statements of record is one way, but Comey did not find that evidence. Another is a pattern of behavior. Yes, some of the classified material was referred to in the chains of  emails, though if you listen carefully, she received those chains sent by others in the State Department to her, but it was not clear how many  marked classified Clinton initiated  herself or were sent to her by staff. The key is that those that were sent through the server were few compared to the whole body of the of the emails.  She may have lied if she had knowledge or memory of that, but that she knowlingly had initiated classified material  marked that way or was it that she had received them : Her intention was that she did not send it. That is difficult to determine intent because it is a very weak set of evidence to prove a pattern of behavior.  Even Rudy Giuliani who was first to criticize the Comey decision admitted, as a former prosecutor himself, intent is difficult to prove.  That gross negligence clause in that statute was a provision that had never been charged before, said others on MSNBC. . The question is why? Is it the fuzzy definition of it?  Last but not least, is there any evidence of the harm it did to national security, or was it just the potential of harm that could have been done, but was not.  That is a question for the CIA and we will never know that answer.

What the fallout is that Hillary Clinton survived to be the Democratic nominee and she received such a black eye, that it will still hurt her ability to gain the trust she seeks.  If she were running against anyone by Donald Trump, who fact checkers have designated the liar of 2015 and who keeps sticking his foot in his mouth with racist and chauvinistic comments, it would be more harmful.   

ps. Trump's response this morning: " Comey was bribed."   

It turns out that only 3 emails with portions marked classified (c) are in question about whether Clinton sent them.  Two were marked classified mistakingly.  That is 3 out of 30 thousand.  Comey once again thinks she did not know the "c" meant those lines in the email were classified. In those cases, the headings should have been marked classified, but the transmission did not have the required heading.  http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/?utm_source=FactCheck.org&utm_campaign=dc7c61172e-FactCheck_Newsletter_7_9_20167_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3294bba774-dc7c61172e-47897245

Firecracker duds: Benghazi and a private email server

Firecracker duds: Benghazi investigations and a private email server

A lesson for voters: where there is smoke there is not always fire and a lit fuse does not necessarily mean fireworks follow.

Like firecracker that failed to go off, the $7million House Select Committee Ben Ghazi  investigation and report failed to blast Hillary Clinton out of the race.  The eighth report on Ben Ghazi was issued in two partisan reports by a “bi partisan” House subcommittee, but Clinton herself was not fingered with guilt  in any of them.

 In addition, the attacks against Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server grew out of the Ben Ghazi hearings and Tuesday, the FBI director announced he would   recommend to the Justice Department  not to prosecute her for intentionally conveying classified information on it or for being guilty  of gross negligence in handling of such sensitive material.  The reason, there was not enough evidence for any reasonable prosecutor to prove a criminal case.   The State Department was criticized for sloppy handling, but in a criminal case  a prosecutor must be able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt of intent and criminal negligence.  One other outcome was that there was no evidence the private server had been hacked by anyone, though it could have been possible.

This is becoming a pattern: Donald Trump or the GOP Congress to make charges to tarnish Clinton and then find out later they were not true or lacked sufficient proof.  Over a year ago the House Select Committee dominated by Republicans set about to dig into the Benghazi incident once again, even after other investigations preceding it had found  no guilt to pin on Clinton herself. Democrats saw it as a witch hunt to try to damage Clinton. The political purpose was inadvertently confirmed on September 29, 2015, when Republican Rep.  Kevin McCarthy said the following during an appearance on Hannity: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.” (McCarthy tried to back peddle a few days later). Donald Trump had also made accusations against Clinton that Clinton was asleep during the attack and decision making. That charge was so outrageous and without proof, even he backed down the next day.

Regarding Benghazi, the select committee did discover that administration SNAFUs  resulted in miss spoken, missed opportunities, lack of security planning in the face of  CIA warnings about the dangers of going to Benghazi , the failure of the military to execute orders, and erroneous  public statements issued in its aftermath about the details and causes  fed by White House staff to spokespeople.  What is clear, though, the death of the Ambassador and three Americans with him was a tragedy that did not need to have happened.

What we can now expect is that conspiracy theorists will go to work trying to find the proof that the FBI did not find everything or some sort of collusion. FBI  Director  James B. Comey  took unusual public  pains to be transparent about the investigation. As he said, what matters are the facts, so let us see what facts theorists present.

More thoughts on the FBI decision:

The problem is showing intent. That is essential to criminal charges. The FBI could not find proof of intent. Without that they could not charge her. The shrill spokesperson for the RNC kept saying she intentionally set up her server to avoid scrutiny. That is exactly what the FBI could not prove. That she was careless is no doubt, but the strategy of the GOP to get her indicted was a true bust. An indictment would have gotten her out of the race. That she was careless did not rise to the criminal prosecution standard of gross negligence, just extremely careless.That was Comey's call and conclusion. Expect the GOP to question his judgment call. I spent 7 years as a white collar crime DA investigator and another 8 enforcing election contributions fraud...so I understand the differences. I also understand that DA's standard for prosecution is: can we win or at least probably win and they often refuse to file or indict. For more: this and more are contained in a subsequent follow up posting: More thoughts on the FBI....

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-mccarthys-truthful-gaffe/2015/09/30/f12a9fac-67a8-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

Hillary Clinton's emails: What difference will it make?

Hillary Clinton's email travails only serve to intensify her poll ratings that she is not honest or trustworthy.  Whether it will make a difference in the campaign beyond that is yet to be seen.

Donald Trump's low personal poll ratings are even lower, and they may cancel out the poor ones of Hillary's.

This is like to prize fighters in the ring fighting to a draw with below the belt punches.

What is different between Clinton and Trump's lies or sort of lies, is that Clinton uses word parsing to cover her tail. Trump on the other hand misuses facts to exhort his followers to believe in his viewpoint.  What is dangerous about misuse of facts to shape policy could lead to serious security consequences, particularly regarding the Muslim ban and its repercussions on cooperation with our allies. Below is a 2015 blog postings that discusses the differences in the implications of lies attributed to both.  What we must be aware of is that the GOP claims that reverses or revisions from previous policy positions is not a lie, but a flip flop. What should be consider lies is whether, after receiving the correct information, the lies based on false facts or faulty legal interpretations continue.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-three-times-more-honest-than-donald-trump/24676/

From the previous blog posting:

One of the recently emerging themes of the current political season is calling opponents liars. It is beginning to look like an elementary school yard brawl. How does a rational voter sort this out?

Here is the danger.  The dedicated partisans of one side often believe their favorite candidate’s lies are true, even if facts reveal otherwise.  Worse is how those lies are used.  If it is used to make people hate others more to gain their support, Trump is guilty of that. Clinton is more guilty of self-aggrandizement, guilt avoidance, and factual inaccuracies in making a case for a specific government program.

Tapping fact checkers is one way to see who is the  bigger liar. Partisans of the Trump wing usually dismiss fact checkers as main stream media as a way of avoiding arguing the facts.   PolitiFact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times and uses a “Truth-O-Meter”. Glen Kessler of the Washington Post awards Pinocchios, the worst lies deserving four of them. FactCheck.org is not part of the mainstream media. It is a project of the Annenberg Foundation.   What is interesting is to compare them with those from those usually right wing leaning, including the New York Post or Breitbart.

PolitiFact awards the Liar of the Year to Donald Trump. “PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements on our Truth-O-Meter, where we’ve rated 76 percent of them Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, out of 77 statements checked. No other politician has as many statements rated so far down on the dial.…. But it was hard to single one out from the others. So we have rolled them into one big trophy.”

The Washington Post Fact Checker  gives  Trump  their  liar award, too. They concluded “ In the space of just six months, he earned 11 Four-Pinocchio ratings, far more than any other candidate.”

FactCheck.org names Donald Trump the “King of Whoppers”.

 Trump frequently makes false claims or claims without proof to gin up hate of others. Mentioned as Trump whoppers by at least one, if not more, are Trump’s “Thousands and Thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attack, that Mexican government sending immigrants that are criminals and rapists to the US, and that “Whites killed by Whites, are 16%; whites killed by blacks are 81%” when the reverse is true. Another falsehood is that Christian refugees cannot come into this country, while Muslims can come easily”.

Hillary Clinton gets criticized by saying she tried to join the marines once, but the NY Post says that is a lie and Washington Post  gave her 2 Pinocchios. The NY Post claims Clinton knew the Ben Ghazi attack was caused by jihadists from the beginning. The Washington Post gave her two Pinocchios for her Congressional testimony on Benghazi and three on some of her email server statements. Fact Check.org said she was mistaken when she claimed drug prices had doubled and that cost shifting accounted for higher premiums.  Was she dead broke when she left the White House? NY Post says her net worth was $101 million. Did she come under sniper fire in Bosnia? Clearly not true per videos of the time.