Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Women Are Waiting to Cheer the Misogynists Indictment – The Nation

People gather outside of a Manhattan courthouse while waiting for an indictment against former president Donald Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Braggs office. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

On Monday night, supposedly Arrestmas Eve (Donald Trump claimed, falsely as usual, that hed be arrested Tuesday), I dreamed about him. I was being held captive by Trump at Mar-a-Lago with a lot of other women. He was more deranged than usual, as he apparently is right now as he awaits arrest. It was terrifying. But somehow I escaped. I didnt know what would happen next.

We all know dreams work on multiple levels, but on one, this felt straightforward: Trump may soon face the first consequences of his many crimes, and many women will feel liberated, and vindicated, even if we dont know whats to come.

Marisa Kabas wrote a piece for Monday that I wish I had, urging people to stop lamenting that its the Stormy Daniels hush money casein which Trump could be prosecuted for falsifying business recordsthat may produce the first Trump indictment. (Notice I said first indictment, because I believe that, though Im not a lawyer and I have no inside information.) I too have felt irritated with the dismissal of the Daniels case as somehow trivial. Sure, its less of a big deal than Trumps trying to overturn the results of a valid election, inciting violence and insurrection, or even stealing classified documents and resisting returning them when asked to by the Department of Justice.

But its not nothing. Crime is crime is crime. Also, as Kabas noted, for many American women, probably millions, there would be something psychically vindicating about seeing Trump brought down, directly or not, by his creepy treatment of a woman. By all accounts, the sex was consensual, which many women, including his late ex-wife Ivana, say wasnt always the case with Trump. You could even argue that the woman most hurt by it all was his wife Melania, who had just given birth to their son, Barron.

When their sexual encounters became public, Trump denied them, insisting Daniels was just a fan who took a photo with him back in 2005. Then he took to calling her Horseface, claiming that this woman clearly blessed with beauty and brains was too ugly to fuck. (He called her Horseface again just last week, when it came out that she had just spoken to the Manhattan district attorneys office.)

This is his modus operandi, of course. He said E. Jean Carroll, who in 2019 accused him of raping her in the mid-1990s, wasnt his type. (Then he mistook her for his ex-wife and former mistress Marla Maples in a series of photos. Oops.) Hes derided his multiple female accusers as too old, too fat, too ugly, or all three to have attracted his unwanted and often brutal sexual attentions.

He bragged on the Access Hollywood video that he could grab women by the pussy because when youre a star, they let you do it. Credibly accused of sexual assault or harassment by at least a dozen women, it seemed impossible that hed defeat Hillary Clinton and become president. But, tragically, he did.

Its no accident that millions of women wearing pink pussy hats stormed Washington and other cities and towns the day after his inauguration, that the #MeToo movement exploded shortly thereafter, that The Handmaids Tale became a hit TV series in the same period, or that Democratic women ran for office in record numbers in 2018. Its also, sadly, no accident that three right-wing Trump-appointed judges took away a constitutional right that women had known for 50 years. That was their plan.

Meanwhile, once the story of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen paying Daniels hush money when Trump learned, just before the 2016 election, that she was getting ready to go public with her story, Daniels faced a wave of abuse from Trump, his allies, and the MAGA faithful. Im tired of being threatened by the then-president and his thugs, Daniels told The View; in April 2018. And intimidating me and trying to say that youll ruin my life and take all of my money and my house or whateverIm sorry, Im done. Im done being bullied.

All women, outside the MAGA cult anyway, hope were done being bullied by Trump. Many of my friends say its too early to celebrate. Were still waiting for the grand jury to indict. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Braggs case may not be strong enough to put Trump in the jail cell he deserves. Other cases, whether by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis or special counsel Jack Smith, might not materialize despite my optimism that theyre coming. Its OK. If Trump is charged, Ill raise a glass to Trumps comeuppanceand to the power of a woman proud of her own sexuality, who couldnt be shamed about it, helping us all get revenge on a sexual predator who continues to try to assault our democracy.

See the rest here:
Women Are Waiting to Cheer the Misogynists Indictment - The Nation

Washington County voters offer varying opinions on the Donald Trump indictment process – WTAE Pittsburgh

Washington County voters offer varying opinions on the Donald Trump indictment process

Updated: 6:27 PM EDT Mar 21, 2023

Donald Trump enjoyed strong support in Washington County during the 2020 presidential election, winning 60 percent of the vote over President Joe Biden.As he awaits his fate over a grand jury investigation that could lead to an indictment over altered payout documents, some of those same Washington County voters express their opinions about the process.Republican Party chairman for Washington County, Sean Logue, says the process is mishandled."This is unprecedented. This is unheard of," Logue said. At issue is whether Trump altered documents while in the White House to cover up payments to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who admitted to paying $130,000 to Stormy Daniels as "hush money," on behalf of Trump, following an affair between the two.This is said to have happened in New York, before the 2016 presidential election."They're somehow going to go back seven years and use some kind of state charge against him on a federal election matter? That makes absolutely no sense. I'm a lawyer and I can't understand it," Logue said.Todays top headlines: Police: Woman assaulted and robbed inside Westmoreland County apartment building elevator Woman found dead on Route 119 in Westmoreland County Woman facing homicide charges in Butler County shootingOther voters in Washington County offer varying opinions."It gives you the impression that it might be a witch hunt sort of speak, but no one is above the law," says David Young, a registered Republican."I was always for Trump. He was my choice," said Myrna Adams, another Republican. "I think it's just a political thing like a witch hunt. This was years ago that this happened. When it comes time for the primaries, why is it all of a sudden a big issue? But independent voter Amber Jellots says Trump is rightfully targeted in the investigation."I think it's completely fair. I think he skirted the law the whole four years he was in office, and multiple years before that. this is accountability, the same accountability they wanted for Hillary Clinton," Jellots said.

Donald Trump enjoyed strong support in Washington County during the 2020 presidential election, winning 60 percent of the vote over President Joe Biden.

As he awaits his fate over a grand jury investigation that could lead to an indictment over altered payout documents, some of those same Washington County voters express their opinions about the process.

Republican Party chairman for Washington County, Sean Logue, says the process is mishandled.

"This is unprecedented. This is unheard of," Logue said.

At issue is whether Trump altered documents while in the White House to cover up payments to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who admitted to paying $130,000 to Stormy Daniels as "hush money," on behalf of Trump, following an affair between the two.

This is said to have happened in New York, before the 2016 presidential election.

"They're somehow going to go back seven years and use some kind of state charge against him on a federal election matter? That makes absolutely no sense. I'm a lawyer and I can't understand it," Logue said.

Todays top headlines:

Other voters in Washington County offer varying opinions.

"It gives you the impression that it might be a witch hunt sort of speak, but no one is above the law," says David Young, a registered Republican.

"I was always for Trump. He was my choice," said Myrna Adams, another Republican. "I think it's just a political thing like a witch hunt. This was years ago that this happened. When it comes time for the primaries, why is it all of a sudden a big issue?

But independent voter Amber Jellots says Trump is rightfully targeted in the investigation.

"I think it's completely fair. I think he skirted the law the whole four years he was in office, and multiple years before that. this is accountability, the same accountability they wanted for Hillary Clinton," Jellots said.

Read this article:
Washington County voters offer varying opinions on the Donald Trump indictment process - WTAE Pittsburgh

Mismatched definitions of basic stuff may explain disagreements – Futurity: Research News

Share this Article

You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license.

Mismatches in conceptual definitions of basic thingseven animalshelp explain why people end up talking past each other so often, according to new research.

Is a dog more similar to a chicken or an eagle? Is a penguin noisy? Is a whale friendly?

Psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley say these absurd-sounding questions might help us better understand whats at the heart of some of societys most vexing arguments.

The research in the journal Open Mind shows that our concepts about and associations with even the most basic words vary widely. At the same time, people tend to significantly overestimate how many others hold the same conceptual beliefsthe mental groupings we create as shortcuts for understanding similar objects, words, or events.

Its a mismatch that researchers say gets at the heart of the most heated debates, from the courtroom to the dinner table.

The results offer an explanation for why people talk past each other, says Celeste Kidd, an assistant professor of psychology at UC Berkeley and the studys principal investigator.

Simple questions like, What do you mean? can go a long way in preventing a dispute from going off the rails, Kidd says. In other words, she says, Just hash it out.

Disagreements about word meanings arent new. From interpretations of the Constitution to definitions about what a fact is, semantic disputes have long been at the center of legal, philosophical, and linguistic thinking. Cognitive psychologists have likewise studied these differences in how people perceive and describe the world. The accumulation of our lived experiences affects how we conceptualize the world and helps explain why two people approach problems in different waysor even agree if something is a problem in the first place.

But measuring just how much those concepts vary is a long-standing mystery.

To help understand it a bit better, Kidds team recruited more than 2,700 participants for a two-phase project. Participants in the first phase were divided in half and asked to make similarity judgements about whether one animala finch, for examplewas more similar to one of two other animals, like a whale or a penguin. The other half were asked to make similarity judgments about US politicians, including George W. Bush, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. The researchers chose those two categories because people are more likely to view common animals similarly; theyd have more shared concepts. Politicians, on the other hand, might generate more variability, since people have distinct political beliefs.

But they found significant variability in how people conceptualized even basic animals.

Take penguins. The probability that two people selected at random will share the same concept about penguins is around 12%, Kidd says. Thats because people are disagreeing about whether penguins are heavy, presumably because they havent lifted a penguin.

If peoples concepts are totally aligned, then all of those similarity judgments should be the same, Kidd says. If theres variability in those judgments, that tells us that theres something compositionally thats different.

The researchers also asked participants to guess what percentage of people would agree with their individual responses. Participants tended to believeoften incorrectlythat roughly two-thirds of the population would agree with them. In some examples, participants believed they were in the majority, even when essentially nobody else agreed with them.

Its a finding befitting of a society of people convinced theyre right, when theyre actually wrong.

Overall, two people picked at random during the study timeframe of 2019-2021 were just as likely to have agreed as disagreed with their answers. And, perhaps unsurprisingly in a polarized society, political words were far less likely to have a single meaningthere was more disagreementthan animal words.

People are not aware of that misalignment, Kidd says. People generally overestimate the degree to which other people will share the same concept as them when theyre speaking.

An exception? People were generally on the same page when it came to the word eagle.

In a second phase of the project, participants listed 10 single-word adjectives to describe the animals and the politicians. Participants then rated the animals and politicians featuresIs a finch smart? was an example of a question they were asked.

Again, researchers found that people differed radically in how they defined basic concepts, like about animals. Most agreed that seals are not feathered, but are slippery. However, they disagreed about whether seals are graceful. And while most people were in agreement that Trump is not humble and is rich, there was significant disagreement about whether he is interesting.

This research is significant, Kidd says, because it further shows how most people we meet will not have the exact same concept of ostensibly clear-cut things, like animals. Their concepts might actually be radically different from each other. The research transcends semantic arguments, too. It could help track how public perceptions of major public policies evolve over time and whether theres more alignment in concepts or less.

When people are disagreeing, it may not always be about what they think it is, Kidd says. It could be stemming from something as simple as their concepts not being aligned.

Source: Jason Pohl for UC Berkeley

View original post here:
Mismatched definitions of basic stuff may explain disagreements - Futurity: Research News

NTSB: Deteriorating weather conditions present during takeoff of fatal Little Rock flight – KATV

NTSB: Deteriorating weather conditions present during takeoff of fatal Little Rock flight

{p}The preliminary report into the ongoing investigation of the failed takeoff of a small airplane from the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock last month was released Friday, March 17 and showed that "changing/deteriorating weather conditions from the time of taxi, takeoff, and the accident" were present. (Photo KATV){/p}

The preliminary report into the ongoing investigation of the failed takeoff of a small airplane from the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock last month was released Friday and showed that "changing/deteriorating weather conditions from the time of taxi, takeoff, and the accident" were present.

The commercial pilot and and all four passengers died when the Beech 200 airplane they were traveling in departed to Columbus, Ohio on Feb. 22. The five people were all employees of CTEH, a Little Rock-based environmental consulting firm.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, a video surveillance camera located near the site of the crash showed the airplane impacted the ground in a right-wing-low, nose down attitude. The NTSB said the video from the 3M plant also showed heavy rain and blowing debris near the impact area.

"Other than severe impact and thermal damage, no pre-impact airframe anomalies were identified," the report said. "Detailed examinations of the engines did not reveal any pre-impact anomalies."

Stated in the report, according to two weather reports taken before and after the planes takeoff, the wind gusts went from 27 knots to 40 knots.

It also said visibility went from ten statute miles to 2 statute miles

The report also noted that the aircraft was "about 300 pounds under its maximum gross takeoff weight at the time of takeoff."

The preliminary report into the ongoing investigation of the failed takeoff of a small airplane from the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock last month was released Friday, March 17 and showed that "changing/deteriorating weather conditions from the time of taxi, takeoff, and the accident" were present. (KATV){p}{/p}

The twin-engine plane piloted by Sean Sweeney carried Gunter Beaty, Kyle Bennett, Micah Kendrick, and Glenmarkus Walker as they were traveling to Ohio in response to an alloy plant explosion in the city of Bedford.

"We are incredibly saddened to report the loss of our Little Rock colleagues," Dr. Paul Nony, senior vice president of CTEH said after the crash. "We ask everyone to keep the families of those lost and the entire CTEH team in their thoughts and prayers."

Meteorologist James Bryant said the crash happened just as a line of showers were moving quickly east with strong winds out of the west northwest. Bryant said when the plane crashed at 12:02 p.m., Adams Field recorded a wind gust of 46 mph.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the crash and the NTSB will ultimately determine the ultimate cause which could take between 12 and 24 months to complete.

Read the original:
NTSB: Deteriorating weather conditions present during takeoff of fatal Little Rock flight - KATV

Legal career of Hillary Clinton – Wikipedia

Following her graduation from Yale Law School until becoming first lady of the United States in 1993, Hillary Clinton (ne Hillary Rodham) practiced law.

During her postgraduate studies, Clinton, at the time known as Hillary Rodham, worked as a staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[2] In 1974, she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C. during the impeachment process against Richard Nixon, and advised the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard W. Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for it. The committee's work culminated with the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.

After moving to Arkansas in 1974 with her boyfriend Bill Clinton, Rodham initially jointed the University of Arkansas School of Law, where she was one of only two female faculty.[5] She taught classes in criminal law. She was considered a rigorous teacher who was tough with her grades.

Soon after joining the faculty at the University of Arkansas Law School, Rodham managed to convince an all-male politically-conservative panel of 25 lawyers and jurists from the Arkansas Bar Association to provide $10,000 in funding to establish the state's first legal aid clinic.[7] Rodham became the first director of the clinic at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Clinton secured support for the clinic from the local bar association and gained federal funding.

As a court-appointed lawyer, Rodham was required to act as defense counsel to a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl (Kathy Shelton). After Rodham's request to be relieved of the assignment failed, she used an effective defense and counseled her client to plead guilty to a lesser charge. Rodham has called the trial a "terrible case".[7][9] During her time in Fayetteville, Rodham and several other women founded the city's first rape crisis center.

Clinton's early litigation work saw great focus on cases related to family law and domestic disputes.[7] In a 2016 article, Amy Chozick of the New York Times wrote,

A tour of Mrs. Clintons early work as a litigator, through interviews with some of the trial lawyers, judges and clients who remember her, turns up much of what would distinguish her as a politician many years later: Diligent preparation and a surgical approach to dismantling opposing arguments. A capacity for warmth with clients and adversaries alike. Toughness and deftness in the face of male condescension. And a minimal appetite for the spotlight, if not quite an aversion to it.[7]

After Rodham married Bill Clinton on October 11, 1975, she initially retained her maiden name. Her motivation for doing so was threefold: she wanted to keep the couple's professional lives separate, avoid apparent conflicts of interest, and as she told a friend at the time, "it showed that I was still me". The decision upset both mothers, who were more traditional.[11]

In November 1976, after Bill Clinton was elected Arkansas attorney general, and the couple moved to the state capital of Little Rock. In February 1977, Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence.[13] Clinton was the first first lady Arkansas to be employed during their husband's governorship.[14] She was the first female associate at the firm.[15] She specialized in patent infringement and intellectual property law[16] while working pro bono in child advocacy; she rarely performed litigation work in court. Clinton largely represented businesses,[7] and a later Wall Street Journal review of court records indicates that the majority of the cases Clinton represented in court saw her defending large corporations.[15]

While at the firm, Rodham maintained her interest in children's law and family policy, publishing the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977[19] and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.[20] The latter continued her argument that children's legal competence depended upon their age and other circumstances and that in serious medical rights cases, judicial intervention was sometimes warranted. An American Bar Association chair later said, "Her articles were important, not because they were radically new but because they helped formulate something that had been inchoate."[21] Historian Garry Wills would later describe her as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades".[22] Conservatives said her theories would usurp traditional parental authority,[23] would allow children to file frivolous lawsuits against their parents,[21] and exemplified critical legal studies run amok.[24]

Clinton's first jury trial saw her represent a canning company in a lawsuit from a man that alleged that he had found part of a rodent in can of pork and beans which they produced. The canning company she represented was ordered to pay only nominal damages in the trial.[7]

In 1977, one of the first assignments Clinton was given at the Rose Law Firm was to assist the First Electric Cooperative in litigation to overturn a ballot measure that had increased the electric rates that businesses were billed at while decreasing the electric rates that poor individuals were charged.[7][15] The ballot measure had been championed by Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Clinton wrote the legal brief for the case, which argued that the measure would cause businesses to leave the state. The First Electric Cooperative won the case.[7] Laura Meckler and Peter Nicholas of The Wall Street Journal observed in 2016 that this assignment was contrary to Clinton's pre-corporate law roots. Clinton's Rose Law Firm colleague Webb Hubbell later recalled the assignment, writing, "Instead of defending poor people and righting wrongs, we found ourselves squarely on the side of corporate greed against the little people."[15]

A 2016 New York Times article by Amy Chozick recounted that as, "one of only a handful of women litigating cases in [Arkansas]," Clinton, "carefully calibrated her appearance and approach.[7]"

While working at the law firm, Clinton represented a failed savings and loan association that had been led by James McDougal. McDougal and his wife would partner with Clinton and her husband in the Whitewater real estate investment that was the root of the later Whitewater controversy.[15]

In 1977, Rodham cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund.[16] Later that year, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had been the 1976 campaign director of field operations in Indiana)[27][28] appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation.[29] She held that position from 1978 until the end of 1981.[30] From mid-1978 to mid-1980,[a] she was the chair of that board, the first woman to hold the job.[31] During her time as chair, funding for the corporation was expanded from $90million to $300million; subsequently, she successfully fought President Ronald Reagan's attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

In 1979, Rodham became the first woman to be made a full partner in Rose Law Firm. From 1978 until they entered the White House, she had a higher salary than her husband. In November 1980, Bill Clinton was defeated in his bid for re-election. Two years later, he returned to his job as governor of Arkansas after winning the election of 1982. During her husband's campaign to reassume the governorship, Hillary took a leave of absence from Rose Law to campaign for him full-time, and also began to use the name "Hillary Clinton", or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters, and she would continue to use this name.During her second stint as the first lady of Arkansas, she made a point of using Hillary Rodham Clinton as her name.[b]

Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was again the first lady of Arkansas. She earned less than the other partners, as she billed fewer hours but still made more than $200,000 in her final year there.[38] Clinton was billed fewer hours than other partners due to commitments from her position as first lady of the state and her charitable work.[7] The firm considered her a "rainmaker" because she brought in clients, partly thanks to the prestige she lent it and to her corporate board connections. She was also very influential in the appointment of state judges.[38] Bill Clinton's Republican opponent in his 1986 gubernatorial re-election campaign accused the Clintons of conflict of interest because Rose Law did state business; the Clintons countered the charge by saying that state fees were walled off by the firm before her profits were calculated.

In a case in which Clinton represented Maybelline, she convinced a judge to allow her to question an expert witness via a satellite video feed. This was a first in an Arkansas courtroom.[7]

From 1987 to 1991, she was the first chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, created to address gender bias in the legal profession and induce the association to adopt measures to combat it. She was twice named by The National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in Americain 1988 and 1991. She was one of only four female lawyers featured on the 1988 list.[42]

Clinton was chairman of the board of the Children's Defense Fund[43][44] and on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital's Legal Services (198892)[45] Clinton also held positions on the corporate board of directors of some Rose Law Firm clients. This included the board of TCBY from 1985 until 1992 and the board of Wal-Mart Stores from 1986 until 1992.[38][46]

During her husband's 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton faced accusations that she had perhaps been the beneficiary of state business directed to the firm during her husband's governorship.[15] Great public scrutiny was given to her career at Rose Law Firm.[7]

Clinton's work with the Rose Law Firm is regarded as a lesser-known aspect of her biography. Clinton herself rarely discussed her fifteen years in corporate law when campaigning for president, at one point even completely omitting it from her 2016 presidential campaign's official biography of her.[15]

Read more from the original source:
Legal career of Hillary Clinton - Wikipedia