Another misleading meme

This is a new meme making the rounds.  It bears exploration.  

 

In September of 1974, roughly one month following the resignation of President Richard Nixon, his successor in office, Gerald Ford did in fact issue a presidential pardon to former President Nixon.  It was a full and unconditional pardon for any and all crimes that Nixon might have committed during his tenure as president.

It was strongly criticized and most believe was the reason that President Ford failed in his 1976 bid to win reelection.  But it wasn't a crime to issue that pardon.  It wasn't a quid pro quo.  Was it the right decision?  Let's ask the late Edward "Ted" Kennedy who addressed this issue in 2001.  When he presented President Ford with the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award; an honor given to a politician for "following his conscience in spite of the political cost," Senator Kennedy said,

"I'm honored to be here today with President Gerald R. Ford, the winner of this year's Profile in Courage Award, and Congressman John Lewis, the recipient of the Profile in Courage Lifetime Achievement Award.
"At a time of national turmoil, America was fortunate that it was Gerald Ford who took the helm of the storm-tossed ship of state. Unlike many of us at the time, President Ford recognized that the nation had to move forward, and could not do so if there was a continuing effort to prosecute former President Nixon. So President Ford made a courageous decision, one that historians now say cost him his office, and he pardoned Richard Nixon.
"I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us. He eminently deserves this award, and we are proud of his achievement."

 It is also worth noting that after he left office, President Ford carried a copy of a portion of a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision in his wallet.  In the case of Burdick v United States, the court's decision made it clear that a pardon indicates a presumption of guilt and that the acceptance of that pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

One last thought on pardons.  I have a much larger problem with the pardon by President Bill Clinton of Marc Rich, a man who donated $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library, $1,000,000 to the Democratic National Party, and another $100,000 to the U.S. Senate campaign of Hillary Clinton.  In a strangely ironic twist, it was a man named James Comey who investigated the pardoning of Marc Rich and found no wrongdoing.  Yes, that then-Republican James Comey is the same one who just allegedly violated the Hatch Act with his letter about a new email investigation.

* * *

The allegation that President Reagan sold arms to the Iranians and financed a secret war was investigated by Congress, and by the Tower Commission.  Neither investigation found evidence that President Reagan knew about the arms sales.  It should be noted that because of the destruction of documents by the principals in this affair, there may indeed have been evidence that the President may have known about the arms sales.  But it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That President Reagan was a proponent of the cause of the Contra revolutionaries is not in dispute.  What is in dispute is whether or not he knew of the actions of some of his senior advisors in funneling money from the sale of arms to Iran to fund that cause.  Again, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the president was guilty of any criminal wrongdoing in the Iran-Contra scandal.

* * *

Video doesn't lie.  George H. W. Bush did say "read my lips, no new taxes."  But that wasn't a blood oath, it wasn't a legally-binding statement.  It was a campaign promise.  A promise made during a period of strong economic growth and prior to any sign a recession was on the horizon.  Even then, following passage of the Budget Enforcement Act in 1990, President Bush submitted a budget proposal to Congress that contained spending cuts and no tax increases.  But the Democratically controlled House rejected that spending plan.  So yes, he broke that campaign promise.

The comparison of a broken campaign promise to any allegation of criminal wrongdoing is not just a false equivalency, it is silly.  Instead, how about if we compare Bush's broken promise to other broken campaign promises made by future presidents?

Here is a partial list of the campaign promises made and then broken by President Obama:

Enact the Buffett Rule so secretaries pay tax at a lower rate than their bosses.
Tax carried interest as ordinary income (Trump made the same promise).
End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 per year.
End no-bid contracts above $25,000.  I wrote about one such no-bid contract issued by the Obama Administration over four years ago.  Big donor's company gets no-bid contract and no one cares.
Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour, by 2011.
Cut the cost of the typical family's health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year.

This isn't intended as an indictment of President Obama in particular so much as it is to point out that politicians make promises during campaigns and many of those promises get broken.  So the "read my lips, no new taxes" broken promise doesn't belong in a discussion about the allegations involving Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server and whether or not she broke the law.  It's yet another utterly false equivalency.

* * *

Did President George W. Bush lie about the presence of WMDs?  Probably.  Almost certainly.  Was the Gulf War, version II the costliest war in U.S. history?  Not according to a 2015 piece in USA Today.  That dubious distinction belongs to World War II.  The U.S. spent over $4 trillion in fighting World War II.  In contrast the war on terror from 9/11 through the end of 2010 saw the U.S. spending less than $2 billion.  When you adjust the World War II spending amounts for inflation it becomes painfully obvious that calling the war on terror the costliest war ever is dishonest.

But Bush's lies rise to the level of being compared to Clinton's alleged transgressions. The meme gets a half-point for an accurate comparison but can't be awarded the full point due to the Trump-like hyperbole about the "costliest".

* * *

Valerie Plame's covert identity was revealed by a member of the Bush Administration but it has never been proven to have been done by Dick Cheney.  "Scooter" Libby did it and he was held to answer for it.  Held to answer because it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.  Something that FBI director James Comey said his agency could not do in the case of Hillary Clinton and the classified emails/use of a private email server.

Now let's get to the crux of the matter.  Hillary Clinton has admitted that she made a mistake in using a private email server.  Fair enough.  But what she has not done is to explain why she continued to do so after sending every single member of the State Department a cable instructing them NOT to use their private email accounts to conduct official State Department Business.  

That is where this meme ultimately fails.  Because none of the things that any of those Republicans did, or allegedly did was an instance where they ordered others not to do what they themselves are accused of doing.  This "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy is the absence of leadership.

Fortunately for Secretary Clinton she is the best of the two potential winners of the presidency by far, and the dangers of Donald Trump in the Oval Office are just too great to vote for anyone but Secretary Clinton. 

California Ballot 2016 - Propositions 66 and 59

The biggest danger to Proposition 62, the effort to repeal California's death penalty is in the form of Proposition 66. 

Proposition 66 calls for the legal process for death penalty cases to be altered, with the original trial judge being the one to hear habeas corpus petitions seeking to overturn the death penalty conviction.  It would also mandate that 70% of the earnings of death row inmates awaiting execution go toward their debts to their victim and the families of those victims.

It is designed to streamline the process that takes place after a sentence of death is handed down so that it takes less time from sentence until execution.  Sounds great but what it would actually accomplish is a rush to judgment that might well increase the possibility that an innocent person would be executed.

I'm voting NO on Prop 66 for two reasons.  The first is that it is a bad idea in and of itself.  The second is that if Prop 66 were to get more votes than Prop 62 does, it would be Prop 66 hat would become law.

* * *

Proposition 59's stated purpose is mandate that California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings.

No matter how any of us feel about the decision in the Citizens United case, this proposition is an exercise in futility.  Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate before the process can move forward.  Considering that Republicans get much more money from corporate coffers than Democrats, there is the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell of getting the required majority there.   Further, as law professor Erwin Chemerinsky writes in an op-ed piece for the Daily Breeze, "... I worry greatly about amending the First Amendment and its protection for freedom of speech. Newspapers and other media are owned by corporations. Would a constitutional amendment risk taking away their protections under the First Amendment?"

He is right to be concerned.  Anything other than a  new Supreme Court decision to overturn the Citizens United ruling is fraught with peril that the First Amendment's protections might be unintentionally limited.

So without getting into the argument over the Citizens United decision itself, there are very good reasons for voting NO on Prop 59.

* * *

California Ballot 2016 - Proposition 62

California is one of the 30 states where the death penalty is still legal.  Proposition 62 seeks to repeal the legality of the death penalty.  Four years ago, Proposition 34 tried and failed to do the same thing.

Those who wish to see Proposition 62 be defeated offer three arguments against it:

1.  Proposition 62 would protect the worst criminals while diminishing protection of victim's rights.
2.  Proposition 62 would cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
3.  Proposition 62 would end the death penalty system when it should be mended.

The 2nd argument is ridiculous.  Since the death penalty became law once again in 1978 there have been 13 executions in California.  They cost the taxpayers an average of $384 million each according to the official ballot argument in favor of Proposition 62.  The legislative analyst estimates the annual fiscal savings to be around $150 million.  There is no logical reason to argue that keeping the death penalty saves money.  It does not.  This is the primary reason I will vote YES on Prop 62.

The first argument is specious.  The only protection that murderers would receive from a repeal of the death penalty is living with the uncertainty of waiting years, possibly decades, to see if they would ever reach the death chamber for that lethal injection.  Taking the life of a murderer does nothing to protect the rights of their victim or of other potential victims.  The argument that the death penalty acts as a deterrent is as silly as the idea that continuing the costly process of pursuing executions would somehow "save" moneyh.

The final argument is nothing more than an admission that the death penalty system currently in use is flawed now.  It cannot be fixed.

There is one certainty to argue in favor of Prop 62 aside from the fiscal prudence it represents.  Ending the death penalty eliminates the small, but finite risk that an innocent person would be put to death.  The finality of the death penalty is perhaps the strongest argument against its existence.

California Ballot 2016 - Prop 55

"Promises are like pie crust, made to be broken" - Jonathan Swift

Proposition 55 is the result of California voters being promised something when there was no intention to keep that promise.  Governor Jerry Brown and everyone else associated with the 2012 CA ballot's Prop 30 promised us that its tax increase provisions would be temporary.

Based on that broken promise, and the fact that California's state government is already too dependent on income tax revenue from the wealthy, I'm going to vote NO on Prop 55.  The emotional argument that we can't force the state to make $4 billion in cuts on education ignores the fact there are other ways to balance our state's budget without the extreme risk of having so much of our state's tax revenues being dependent on such a small portion of the population.

This is an extract from the actual 2012 sample ballot:

"TEMPORARY TAXES TO FUND EDUCATION.  GUARANTEED LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING."

It was sold to the voters as a temporary tax.  Prop 30 did two things.   It increased the statewide sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5% (that's the state level component of the statewide sales tax, county and city sales tax rates make the actual tax paid at the point of sale higher) for four years; and it raised the top state income tax rates from 9.3% to levels ranging from 10.3% to 12.3% depending on the family's income level.  That increase will not expire until 2019.

Prop 55 extends the second component of Prop 30 for an additional 12 years.  So in effect, Prop 55 is taking what was to be a seven year extension of state taxes on the wealthiest Californians and breaches the promise that this was to be a temporary tax increase, and it extends it for another 12 years.  It does this two full years in advance of the expiration of the current temporary tax increases.

There is another component to the discussion and that is that 12.3% apparently isn't enough of a top marginal income tax rate for the state's wealthiest residents, as there is a 1% additional tax levied on the incomes of those California taxpayers whose income exceeds $1 million.

To put this in perspective I used the 2015 income tax return of Bill and Hillary Clinton and applied the CA state income tax to their income of over $10 million for that year.  The difference between what they would have paid under the state tax rates prior to Prop 30 and what they would have paid as CA residents under the Prop 30 rates was nearly $200,000.

Bear in mind that when the tax federal marginal tax rate is 39.6% and California's top marginal tax rate is 13.3%, the combined federal/state tax rate would be more than 50%.

Now there is an argument to be made that this may well represent what the majority would consider to be the wealthy's "fair-share" but that ignores some realities that must be considered in viewing the entire equation.  In a blog I wrote back in May I used some numbers from a George Skelton column and they are very relevant to the discussion of Prop 55.

The top 1% in CA pay 48% of the income taxes
The top 10% in CA pay 79% of the income taxes
The bottom 60% in CA pay only 2% of the income taxes
To be in that top 1% you have to have an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $556,638
To be in that top 10% you have to have an AGI of around $149,000

In the upcoming CA fiscal year income taxes will be around 70% of the total revenue.
In CA in 1950 income taxes provided only 10% of the total revenue.
In that upcoming CA fiscal year, sales taxes will provide 22% of the total revenue.
In CA in 1950, sales taxes provided 60% of the total revenue.
The top 1% in CA pay 48% of the income taxes
The top 10% in CA pay 79% of the income taxes
The bottom 60% in CA pay only 2% of the income taxes
To be in that top 1% you have to have an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $556,638
To be in that top 10% you have to have an AGI of around $149,000

In the upcoming CA fiscal year income taxes will be around 70% of the total revenue.
In CA in 1950 income taxes provided only 10% of the total revenue.
In that upcoming CA fiscal year, sales taxes will provide 22% of the total revenue.
In CA in 1950, sales taxes provided 60% of the total revenue.

According to an article in Forbes from earlier this year, California has the 5th highest state tax burden of the 50 states.   Prop 55 will only exacerbate and extend that ranking.  That's why I'm voting NO.

Why I'll never patronize LensCrafters again

Let me first share the Yelp review I wrote after my experience at my local LensCrafters store:

"I was fully prepared to give this place five stars after my first visit.  The eye exam was one of the best I've ever received.  The doctor was great.  So was Mark, who helped me pick out the right frames and found me some great discounts on the frames and lenses.  I left that day with one pair and a promise my other pair would be ready within a week.  That was on June 29th.

I got a call on July 7th that my other pair of glasses was ready to be picked up.  I drove over and spent 15 minutes waiting to be served.  That's fair, they were busy.  But then I waited for a full 40 minutes waiting for them to locate my new glasses before they finally admitted the truth.  My lenses had come in and were there but the frames hadn't arrived yet.  The person helping me said they would definitely be in on Saturday.

I called them on Monday, July 11th and was told that they hadn't arrived yet but a new shipment was there and being unpacked  I left my number and they promised to call back either way.  No call back.

On Tuesday I tried and failed to reach them on the phone.  I should mention that it is nearly impossible to reach them.  They have a computer answering incoming calls and when you press 2 for an associate; if one doesn't pick up, there is no way to leave a voicemail message.  You find yourself hearing the initial greeting again.

If it weren't for the incredible inconvenience of having to find someone else to make the second pair of glasses, I'd cancel the order and demand a refund.  They won't get any of my future business and anyone who asks me will get the negative reference this kind of service deserves."

Recently I was able to see the VA optometry office and they examined the bifocals that I'd paid good money for at LensCrafters.  They told me something surprising and yet it made perfect sense.  I'd been using a pair of bifocals that were over two years old when I had gone to LensCrafters; and they had told me that my new glasses were a stronger prescription.

The optometrist at the VA let me know that this was a half-truth.  The lower portion of the new bifocals was indeed stronger.  But the top portion was actually a weaker prescription.  I'd felt like I was having trouble seeing at a distance and now I knew why.  These incompetent idiots had actually given me a weaker prescription.  Now, while I wait for a good pair of bifocals from the VA, I am actually using my older glasses when I drive, so I can be safer.  So I can see better at a distance.

In my personal opinion, LensCrafters put me and others at risk with their incompetence.  

 

Those pesky reenlistment bonuses and their repayment

The Los Angeles Times published a story this past Saturday about nearly 10,000 former members of the California Army National Guard are being forced to repay reenlistment bonuses they received and the public is up in arms about it.  There are members of Congress who are being highly critical of the Pentagon for not just waiving the repayments.

Before exploring the issue and the appropriateness or inappropriateness of requiring repayment of these bonuses it is important to understand what actually transpired at the time.  These bonuses were paid out in error at a time when reenlistment rates were crashing.  When the U.S. was conducting combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

As always, the devil is hidden in the details and the devil in this case is a woman named Toni.  Master Sergeant Toni Jaffe was in charge of the Guard's reenlistment bonus program in California.  As the administrator of this program she was authorizing both reenlistment bonuses and federally subsidized repayment of student loans owed by these soldiers.  But as detailed in an article published in the Sacramento Bee in October of 2010, the people who were being paid those bonuses and loan payments were not always authorized to receive them.  The following extract from the Sacramento Bee article is very enlightening (I have made some salient points in the extract show in bold text):

"Instead, according to a Guard auditor turned federal whistle-blower, as much as $100 million has gone to soldiers who didn't qualify for the incentives, including some who got tens of thousands of dollars more than the program allows.

For years, the auditor and other Guard officials alleged in interviews or internal documents obtained by The Sacramento Bee, California's incentives program was operated as a slush fund that was doled out improperly to hundreds of soldiers with fabricated paperwork, scant supervision and little regard for the law.

The Guard documents describe a high-speed assembly line for bonuses and loan repayments, in which Jaffe single-handedly processed some 8,600 payments over a 16-month period in 2007 and 2008 — about 25 per workday. 

Most student loan repayments, the documents show, were drawn from money designated for combat veterans. Yet a large portion of those funds went to Guard members who hadn't served a day at war. Captains and majors were among those whom auditors think benefited improperly.

A Bee investigation, including a review of thousands of Guard documents gathered or prepared by auditors and other officials and sworn statements from managers who replaced Jaffe, found evidence that from 2001 until last year Jaffe often provided improper or illegal bonuses and loan payments.

The documents show that by recruiters and officers up the chain of command overlooked or ignored her efforts. Some recruiters appear to have benefited personally. The documents also show that state Guard officials failed to fix the incentives program despite warning signs going back years.

In comments to The Bee laced with profanity and evident bitterness toward former superior officers, Jaffe denied wrongdoing, insisting that she had followed regulations "by the book."

"They are still trying to blame me for s--- I didn't do," she said in a phone interview from her home near Sacramento. "I wish I never joined the Guard. I regret it, and I hate the Guard."

Did the Guard members who received payments to which they were not legally entitled not know they weren't supposed to get those payments?  Probably not.  Years of improper payments ignored by state Guard officials. 

Now members of Congress are being critical of the Pentagon for requiring the Guard to seek repayment of improperly paid bonuses.  Duncan D. Hunter is a Republican member of the House who is also a U.S. Marine who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  He sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that included this:

"It remains my firm belief that even the simple request of asking soldiers to repay money contingent on reenlistment is disgraceful and insulting,"

Well Congressman Hunter, perhaps you should read the laws of the United States before you question how government officials enforce those laws that you have a hand in creating and amending.  According to 37 U.S. Code, Section 303(b) the Pentagon must seek repayment of bonus payments that were made to people not entitled to receive them.  Instead of calling out the Secretary of Defense, get off of your ass and introduce legislation to allow these bonus repayments to be waived.  Maybe we can find the $25 million or so that would be needed by trimming a few Congressional perks. 

But apparently Congressman Hunter is too busy seeking reelection to find time to be part of a solution to this problem.  Perhaps the fact that there are a lot of veterans living in his district has something to do with his blustering since he couldn't possibly accomplish anything else before election day.

If a veteran received a bonus due to an error that was not their fault, then there should be a system to address that honest mistake.  If a veteran received an amount they knew they were not legally entitled to, they should be forced to repay it.  The problem is, how do we know for certain what that person knows.  Anyone who served, in combat or not, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

 

p://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24596350.html#storylink=cpy

There's something rotten in Choctaw

The Sixth Amendment reads as follows:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Apparently the federal judicial system believes that 96 days in jail without access to an attorney is not a violation of someone's rights as articulated above.   At least that appears to be the situation in the case of Jessica Jauch.  She was pulled over for a traffic infraction in Choctaw County, Mississippi and spent 96 days in jail.  She was indicted by a grand jury and charged with selling narcotics.  According to an informant, Ms Jauch, a 34 year old mother, offered to sell eight Xanax pills for $40.   Now that's not to say that mothers aren't drug dealers, but when the prosecutor who went before the grand jury to secure the indictment actually looked at the videotape evidence, they learned that in fact Jauch had actually asked to borrow $40.  She had not offered to sell pills or anything else.

96 days in jail without a bail hearing, without access to an attorney.  How does that happen?  It happened because this took place in Mississippi.  A poor state that doesn't want to spend money on public defenders.

There is something seriously wrong with this situation.  Or as Donald Trump might put it, bigly wrong.

* * *

Since I enjoyed the hashtag #TrumpBookReports so much I thought I'd share my favorites and my own entries.  Some of my favorites first:

 

The Neuman ‏@EricNeuman 2h2 hours ago

Juliet was only a 4. Nasty Woman. Romeo, big loser. Huuuuge loser. Should've Grabbeth the lady bits. Died instead. #TrumpBookReport

P to the Such ‏@PeterSucher Oct 21

The Wind? Gone! A total disaster. Scarlett O'Hara a 5 at best. And that war? I was against it from the beginning. #TrumpBookReport

Jer-Jer ‏@DALLASNITES Oct 20

Little Women? Should have called it Little Pigs. All of them disgusting, SAD #TrumpBookReport

Ben @noblerzen

It was the best of times. Absolutely phenomenal. It was the worst of times. Total disaster. #TrumpBookReport 

Shannon Hale ✔ @haleshannon

Don Quixote was a loser, ok? He couldn't even win against a windmill. Listen, I'll beat all the windmills, believe me. #TrumpBookReport

Brian Fitzpatrick ✔ @therealfitz

The first four slaughterhouses were losers. The 5th was tremendous. Huge. The best slaughterhouse. #TrumpBookReport

big nose betty @mayapraff

Look, I don't know Voldemort. He said nice things about me. If we got along with the Death Eaters, wouldn't be so bad. #TrumpBookReport

The Real B Ham @TheRealBHam

The bridges, nobody builds a bridge like me. I'll build one and make Madison County pay for it #TrumpBookReport

My entries in this hashtag:

 
I'd have made the best Shogun ever. Japan would have been great again. That Mariko was only a 5 though. Just look at her. #TrumpBookReport

Cheese? Who gives a damn about cheese. No one moves my cheese without me suing them. Trump cheese is the best! #TrumpBookReport

Afraid to fly? What wimp is afraid to fly. I fly everywhere in my private jet, without fear. #TrumpBookReport

I don't know this Morrie but I never spend a single Tuesday with him. I'm sure he says nice things about me though. #TrumpBookReport

Pi?  Pi is a number. It isn't alive. Only Crooked Hillary could claim a number is alive.  #TrumpBookReport

Reach her?  Reach for her?  I didn't touch her and I don't care what that jerk Jack said I did. He's a liar. #TrumpBookReport  

Michael Corleone is a wimp. Tom Hagen couldn't close a deal the way I can. I'd have made a fortune selling mattresses. #TrumpBookReport

Odysseus was a piker. I've had way more and more bigly adventures than he ever dreamed of. Helen lied about my groping her. #TrumpBookReport

A real God wouldn't have needed 6 days to create Earth. I'd have done it in 3 and brought it in on budget. Eve was a babe. #TrumpBookReports

What really happened in Florida in 2000?

One of the talking points that Donald Trump is attempting to use to bolster his extraordinarily specious claims that the election is rigged in 2016 is what happened in 2000 in the state of Florida.  Let's take a look back at what really happened that night. 

The video below is ABC News at 8 p.m. EST calling the state of Florida for Al Gore, based on exit polling data.

But George W. Bush took an early lead in the actual counting of the ballots and five hours later, the media was looking at Florida as one of the four states remaining undecided.

The final tally showed George W. Bush winning Florida, but with a result that was so close, a recount was automatic.  Vice-President Gore sought a recount of the ballots in four Florida counties, counties that contained a much higher percentage of registered Democrats than registered Republicans.  Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the last ongoing recount was to be halted.

Did the Republicans steal the election?  Not according to a very extensive study, funded by eight media outlets.  That study claims that even if Gore's desired recount of just ballots in those four counties had taken place, he would still have lost, albeit by a smaller margin.

There are those who claim the Republican Secretary of State engaged in a conspiracy to rig the results, but there is no proof that this took place.  What did take place was that because of confusing ballots and too many presidential candidates on those ballots, over 113,000 ballots showed that the voter had cast a vote for either Bush or Gore, and one other "minor" candidate.  When there are two choices marked on a ballot, there is no way to conclude what the voter's intent was and such ballots have to be discarded.

The election of 2016 is nothing like that because Donald Trump is nowhere near that close to Hillary Clinton in the polls and the results will not be close enough to warrant a recount.  Except of course for the fact that Donald Trump is such a sore loser, he will undoubtedly insist on one.

California Ballot 2016 - Prop 61

This is the short-form ballot summary of Proposition 61 on the California ballot in 2016:

Prohibits state from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at price over lowest price paid for the drug by United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Exempts managed care programs funded through Medi-Cal. Fiscal Impact: Potential for state savings of an unknown amount depending on (1) how the measure’s implementation challenges are addressed and (2) the responses of drug manufacturers regarding the provision and pricing of their drugs.

On the surface this seems like a good idea.  Require that the state pay no more than the VA pays for prescription medications.  The VA pays lower prices for a number of reasons, and they are definitely paying less than state Medicaid programs.  So why not tie what these Medicaid programs pay to the lower pricing the VA is able to obtain?

Then there is the fact that "big pharmacy" is spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat Prop 61.  Again, on the surface that seems to be reason enough to vote for it.  That's something that the people behind Prop 61 are counting on you buying into.

The questions that need to be explored to make an informed decision about this proposition are:

1.  Why does the VA pay a lower price than a state program for prescription drugs?

2.  What would happen if Prop 61 passes to the pricing structure of these drugs?  Would the VA wind up paying more, as commercials are telling us?

3.  Why is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation spending millions to pass this proposition, when it will have no impact on the price that organization pays for drugs through its own health plans?

So why does the VA pay less for drugs than California's Medi-Cal program?  Even with the recent explosion in Medi-Cal enrollments in California since 2012, there are just under 12 million Medi-Cal recipients in CA.  Some of them are covered by both Medicare and Medi-Cal and so Medi-Cal is not their primary provider for prescription medications.  The VA is mandated by federal law to pay no more than 76% of the average wholesale price of a prescription medication.  But that is an artificial limitation.  The VA is actually paying less that those limits because of negotiated discounts.  Discounts that require the VA not disclose the pricing structure.  It also must be noted that the VA does not have as extensive a formulary for medications.  That's something I have personal experience with.  During my numerous visits to the VA, both for emergency room care and for regularly scheduled care, I've discussed the merits of medications for treatment of my various ailments.  Some of the medications that I had excellent results with when I was fortunate enough to have private health insurance are simply not available through the VA pharmacy system.  So even though the number of veterans who are covered by the VA's healthcare programs is just over 9 million, the VA pays less for our prescriptions because of the reduced formulary and that federal mandate.

The smaller formulary has another impact on Prop 61.  Any medication not available from the VA would not be subject to the pricing controls contained in this proposition.

What would happen if Prop 61 passed?  The commercials tell us that veterans will pay more for prescriptions from the VA.  That doesn't seem to be accurate.  At least not according to the VA website which contains the following information concerning prescription copayments:

Veterans in Priority Groups 2-6, for each 30-day or less supply of medication for treatment of nonservice-connected condition. - $8 copay. (Veterans in Priority Groups 2 through 6 are limited to $960 annual cap)
Veterans in Priority Groups 7-8, for each 30-day or less supply of medication for treatment of nonservice-connected condition. - $9 copay. (Veterans in Priority Groups 7-8 do not qualify for medication copay annual cap)

To understand the different priority groupings, you can get that information here.

The bottom line here is that all copayment amounts at the VA are set by Congress.  To increase the amount veterans pay to the VA for prescriptions would require an act of Congress.  So the fear-mongering of the opponents of Prop 61 doesn't make logical sense.  That doesn't make it any less effective of a message though.

Which brings us to the reasons why the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is supporting Prop 61.  According to an article in the L.A. Times the organization received more than $800 million of its budget from its pharmacies.  Could that be why the man who runs the AIDS Healthcare Foundation crafted Prop 61 to exempt his organization from its pricing controls?

I'm voting NO on Prop 61.  Not because I'm scared that veterans will pay more for prescriptions.  That almost certainly won't happen.  I'm voting no because I see no good reason for this measure.  Maybe if it applied to all state agencies that provide prescription meds.  But it doesn't.

Is the lead being buried?

Here is a look at the lead story on a number of media outlet websites on Tuesday morning, October 18th (in cases where the lead story was not related to the presidential election, those outlets were not listed):

Fox News:  CLINTON COVER-UP CONTROVERSY - Trump leads GOP calls for Kennedy
to be removed after FBI revelations.

CNN:  PLAYING WITH FIRE - Experts:  Trump's 'rigged' accusation may erode public trust.

MSNBC:  Poll - Clinton maintaining solid lead over Trump

ABC News:  Trump Suggests Ryan wants him to lose because of Speaker's 2020 ambitions

CBS News:   Poll gauges voters' views 3 weeks before election:  CBS News survey asks voters about Donald Trump’s sexual misconduct allegations, Hillary Clinton's email controversy and other issues

NBC News:  Clinton Shifts Message, Eyes Congressional Takeover

Washington Post:  Trump’s escalation of ‘rigged’ claims alarms election officials, party leaders

Los Angeles Times:   One Big Reason the Wikileaks emails aren't as damaging for Hillary Clinton:  Donald Trump

New York Post:  Hillary Clinton Accused of Stealing Furniture from State Department

Boston Herald:  Trump in talks to launch Trump TV

* * *

Is the election rigged, as Donald Trump claims?  Is the media engaged in collusion to ensure a Clinton victory?  The answer to that question is found in the L.A. Times headline.  Trump is the reason that there isn't more focus on the leaked emails.  He has been addicted to the spotlight for so long he is going to continue to insist on having it, even to his own detriment.

If the lead story should be the revelations found in the contents of Clinton emails being disseminated by Wikileaks, then it must be noted that it is Donald Trump's own blatherings that have buried that lead.

Imagine these headlines if he had followed the example of Hillary Clinton and gone into serious debate preparation mode, with the 3rd and final debate taking place tomorrow night.  Without his continued hijacking of the election narrative by making totally unsubstantiated claims, he is his own worst enemy.  Of course the problem with that concept is that trying to get Trump to shut up and get out of his way for a few hours, let alone days, makes the labors of Hercules seems like a stroll in the park.  None of his advisors, even his offspring, would have any chance of getting him to stay quiet for 24 full minutes, let alone hours.

If anyone has rigged the election against Donald Trump, it is Trump himself. 

Just where is the line

Documentary filmmaker Deia Schlosberg has been arrested in North Dakota.  Those who are involved in the protests against an oil pipeline there are claiming she was arrested solely for filming a protest.  The police are charging her and the protesters with more severe crimes.  Those who were allegedly committing "civil disobedience" were actually going beyond mere trespass, a time-honored form of actual civil disobedience.  These protesters cut chains and locks and tampered with pipeline safety valves, disrupting the flow of oil.

Depending on the jurisdiction, failing to report a crime is in and of itself a crime.
The question is, should a journalist get a pass for trespassing to document a crime? It isn't an easy question.  Let's examine this potentially slippery slope.

November 22, 1963.  A journalist knows that Lee Harvey Oswald is going to assassinate JFK.  This reporter accompanies Oswald to the site where he fired the fatal shot.  Is that reporter guilty of a crime?

June 17, 1972.  A reporter goes along with the five "plumbers" to the Watergate Hotel to document their break-in.  Is that reporter guilty of a crime?

December 11, 1978.  A producer accompanies the gangsters who steal nearly $6 million from the Lufthansa facility at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.  He or she films the pistol-whipping of Lufthansa employee Kerry Whelan.  What, if anything, should this producer be charged with?

Ms Schlosberg definitely trespassed when she went with the protesters on that day in North Dakota.   On February 2, 1988, I covered an anti-nuclear protest at the gate to the Nevada Nuclear Test Site.  The protesters lined up and one at a time crossed the cattle-guard across the gate to the  site. They were arrested as they did so.  Several of those who were filming the protest would have been able to get a much better angle of the arrests had they been allowed to go inside the site and shoot footage of the faces of the protesters as they were cuffed and led away.  But they couldn't have done so, because they too would have been arrested.  They were able to cover these events without violating the law.

I do not believe for one minute that Ms Schlosberg should be charged as an accessory to the crimes of the protesters, other than that of trespassing.  But the charge of trespassing against her is a fair and appropriate charge.  Journalists do not deserve a free pass to commit a crime to cover the comission of a crime.

Michelle Obama's comments on Trump

The video below is the complete speech made by Michelle Obama regarding Donald Trump and his taped conversation with Billy Bush.  It's long.  A transcript of this speech is also available.

Let's focus on one paragraph from her remarks:

"Because consider this: If all of this is painful to us as grown women, what do you think this is doing to our children? What message are our little girls hearing about who they should look like, how they should act? What lessons are they learning about their value as professionals, as human beings, about their dreams and aspirations? And how is this affecting men and boys in this country? Because I can tell you that the men in my life do not talk about women like this. And I know that my family is not unusual. And to dismiss this as everyday locker-room talk is an insult to decent men everywhere."

There is an argument being made that there is some hypocrisy in this statement because President and Mrs. Obama have invited musicians to the White House whose music is rife with misogynistic lyrics.  Lyrics like these from a Rick Ross song.

"That nigga sold you that re-rock, you ain't even know it
I die over these Reeboks, you ain't even know it
Put Molly all in her champagne, she ain’t even know it
I took her home and I enjoyed that, she ain't even know it
Got a hundred acres I live on, you ain't even know it
Got a hundred rounds in this AR, you ain't even know it
Got a bag of bitches I play with, on cloud 9 in my spaceship
Zoned out but he stay fresh from Zone 1 through Zone 6
Bricks all in my blood, birds all in my dreams
Boats all in my yard, lemon pepper my wings
I’m bout to get you fuck niggas wacked, you ain't even know it
Your main nigga bout to turn his back, you ain't even know it."

The people who are calling Mrs. Obama's speech hypocritical are making the point that if it is acceptable for people to sing about sexual misconduct, it makes it okay for Donald Trump to joke about it.  It makes sense on a very simplistic level.

However it ignores a very basic concept.  There is a difference between art and life.  Life may imitate art but that doesn't make the art the same as the action.  Songs, books, movies and other forms of creative expression are just that.  Art.

Donald Trump was not engaging in creative expression for an audience when he talked about kissing women on the mouth without their permission.  When he gloated about grabbing women by the pussy.  He was talking about actual behaviors.  With the ever growing list of women who allege he did these things to them, behaviors that he may well have actually engaged in.

Is Rick Ross a misogynist to the level of Donald Trump?  That's for you to decide.  But his lyrics are not the same as Trump's words.  They serve very different purposes.  That's why the attempt to conflate them to create the appearance of hypocrisy is yet another failing false equivalency and should be ignored.

Why Donald Trump will not sue the Times or the women

Once again, Donald Trump's lawyers are claiming that the real estate mogul and Republican presidential nominee is going to sue the New York Times.  In a letter to the Executive Editor of the Times, attorney Mark Kasowitz calls the NYT article in which two women claim that they were groped by Trump "...libel per se."

Trump's been making threats to sue the Times over and over again during this campaign.  In May he threatened to sue over what his campaign called a "hit piece" over his alleged past treatment of women.  He did not sue.  He threatened to sue Ted Cruz.  He never filed suit.

But in this most recent case there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that he will sue.  First off, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally.  The Times reported that the women made claims, and did not state the claims were or were not true.

Then there's the fact that Trump's reputation is of his own making and there is no reputation to protect when it comes to his actions involving women.  However the real reason he won't sue is that in defending itself, the NYT would be able to delve into every aspect of every Trump relationship with a woman going back decades.  He doesn't want to open that particular Pandora's Box.

So he blusters and makes the hollowest of threats. Meanwhile the allegations continue to pour in.

Ethics, civic duties, moral obligations

Gloria Allred is calling on Apprentice producer Mark Burnett and MGM Television, the owners of The Apprentice series to release unaired outtakes of episodes of the show where Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump allegedly says things far worse that the previously released "hot microphone" tape where he says being a star allowed him to 'grab women by the pussy.'"

She tried to deliver a letter to the MGM Television office that read:

"I am writing to request an immediate meeting with you and/or senior executives at MGM with reference to the release of footage of The Apprentice. You have publicly stated that there are legal restrictions and prohibitions on releasing the tapes. I would request and welcome a meeting with you and your attorneys in which you would explain in detail the specifics of those claimed restrictions and/or prohibitions. In the alternative, I would proposed that the evidence supporting your assertion that there is a legal basis for your refusal to release footage of Mr. Trump on The Apprentice” be disclosed to a panel of three retired Los Angeles Superior Court judges who would review your claimed legal restrictions and determine if the footage of Mr. Trump can legally be released."

Another letter, signed by Allred, National Organization for Women president Terry O'Neill and Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal says:

"The compelling public interest overrides any confidentiality clauses MGM, Burnett Productions Co. or you personally may be hiding behind.  Those clauses are not intended to shield a presidential candidate from scrutiny that he himself has invited by making his racism, xenophobia and misogyny a campaign issue. Mr. Burnett, history can turn on a single act, one decision to do the right thing. You have an obligation to take that step today."

Meanwhile, TMZ.com reports that NBC executives planned to release the Access Hollywood tape of Trump's remarks about grabbing women by the genitals at the moment that would most directly influence the results of the general election.

The New York Times publishes an account of two women who claim that they were groped by Donald Trump in the manner he described on that tape.  The Palm Beach Post published a similar account by a third woman.  The Trump campaign and the candidate deny these allegations.

Emails published by Wikileaks involving the Clinton campaign show that reporter Kenneth Vogel of Politico sent an advance copy of a story to the Clinton campaign, a serious breach of journalistic ethics.

Another of those emails shows that Donna Brazile, the current interim head of the Democratic National Committee, shared an upcoming town hall question in advance with the Clinton campaign.  Brazile was a CNN contributor at the time.  She became interim head of the DNC in the wake of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's departure following revelations of improprieties in how the DNC failed to remain impartial during the primary campaign, possibly damaging the chances of Bernie Sanders to secure the nomination.

* * *

This is all wrong and improper.  Mark Burnett and the people at MGM Television have no "civic duty" to release that outtake footage, especially if there are legal ramifications because of contract provisions.  As Ms Allred and her friends are not party to those contracts, they have no standing to do anything but politely ask for disclosure of those provisions.  Or in simpler terms, those contracts aren't her damn business.  If she wants someone to violate the terms of those contracts she can pony up enough money to indemnify anyone who chooses to take the risk of breaching those agreements.

As a broadcast company, NBC has a duty as a trustee of the public airways to not attempt to influence the outcome of elections by "scheduling" the release of the news.  They and other journalism outlets have to remain as impartial as possible in the reporting of actual events.  You don't give out advanced copies of stories to the subject of those stories.  You do seek to verify the accuracy but you can do that without what was done in this instance.

Donna Brazile is not fit to be the head of the DNC, in the interim or ever.  Not if she was helping the Clinton campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign during the primaries.

Lastly we come to Donald Trump.  Why is it okay for him to call the women who accuse him of failing to tell the truth, while not providing the same presumption of innocence in the case of Bill Clinton and the women who have accused Clinton of rape and sexual assault?  He has denied those allegations.  Trump is denying these new allegations.  Why should either man be treated differently?  Either both deserve the benefit of the doubt or both do not deserve that benefit.  To do otherwise is to continue to do what Donald Trump has done for his entire life.  Exempt himself from being held responsible for his actions.

 

Donald Trump's Photo-op Pre-Debate

Much is being made, particularly by the scads of Trump apologists, of the allegations made by four women he hosted at an event before Sunday's debate.  They are:

Paula Broaddrick
Kathleen Willey
Paula Jones
Kathy Shelton

Let's deal with Ms Shelton first.  Her claims are presently clearly in this meme:

Here are the problems with this meme.

Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to represent this rapist.  She was appointed by a judge.
Hillary Clinton did not tell the judge that the victim made up the rape story.  If you read the actual court records, you'll see that she swore an affidavit that a child psychology expert believed that the child victim engaged in fantasizing, and the sole purpose of the affidavit was to compel a psychiatric examination of the victim.
Hillary Clinton did not get the rapist freed. She arranged for him to plead guilty to a lesser charge after the forensic laboratory made errors in processing the underwear of the accused, preventing that forensic evidence from being presented at child.
Hillary Clinton did laugh in an interview, but not about the fact that the rapist was guilty.  She made light of the fact that the rapist took and passed a polygraph exam, which forever changed her view on the reliability of such exams.

Now let's talk about Juanita Broaddrick.  She claims that Bill Clinton raped her.  He has denied that allegation.  That she did not choose to report her claims prior to the statute of limitations expiring is a sad commentary on that  fallacy of our justice system, that arbitrary time limits can prevent victims from seeking justice.  But we do live in a nation where we are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Kathleen Willey accuses Bill Clinton of groping her.  Well, Jill Harth accuses Donald Trump of groping her.  Miss USA contestant Temple Taggart accuses him of kissing her on the mouth without her consent.  Why is what Bill is accused of doing worse than what Donald is accused of doing?

Finally, Paula Jones.  Now let's bear in mind once again, that both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton have denied every allegation of sexual harassment and sexual assault made against them.  Bill Clinton did pay Paula Jones a settlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Without admitting wrongdoing or guilt.  Much like Donald Trump has done on a myriad of occasions.  Most notably when he was taken to court by the U.S. Department of Justice when he stood accused of racism involving housing discrimination against minorities.  Trump trumpets that the settlement does not prove he did anything wrong?  So why does he keep bringing up the fact Bill Clinton paid a settlement to Paula Jones?  Is President Clinton somehow to be held to a higher standard than a man who is seeking the highest office in the land?  The answer is a resounding NO.

If ever there was an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, it is the lunacy that whatever Bill Clinton stands accused of doing, it mitigates what Donald Trump is accused of.

The names

Those who continue to act as the apologists for Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump are bringing up the names of women who have made allegations of rape and sexual harassment against former President Bill Clinton.

Juanita Broaddrick
Paula Jones
Kathleen Willey

The spectre of President Clinton's various infidelities have also become fodder for the Trump sycophants to raise as an issue.

Gennifer Flowers
Dolly Kyle
Monica Lewinsky

All names well known to the public.  But there are other names that should be discussed if we are going to engage in an analysis of comparative behavior between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump

Ivana Trump said in a deposition that Trump had raped her, although she clarified later that she did not mean rape "in the criminal sense."  But she also described how he pulled out chunks of her hair, pinned her arms behind her and worse that I won't detail here.

Jill Harth is a woman who sued Trump for sexual assault and dropped her case only because it was part of a deal in a settlement of another lawsuit involving her and her then husband where Trump had stiffed them on a business deal.   I bet the list of people he has stiffed is a lot longer than those he's attempted to be stiff with (I know, bad pun).

Then there is the Jane Doe who is suing Trump for allegedly raping her in 1994.  Sadly this won't see the inside of a courtroom until after the election.

Temple Taggart was a Miss USA contestant when she claims to have received an unwanted kiss onthe mouth from Mr. Trump.

A server at a Trump-owned golf course claims he was "overly familiar and unprofessional." That may not be a criminal offense, but it is certainly a potential instance of sexual harassment.

To call all of this old news is to ignore the fact that MGM is refusing to release unaired video footage from The Apprentice.  There are reports that more unacceptable behavior is present on that video and apparently the fear of lawsuits is keeping that video under lock and key.

But this comparative analysis ignores a reality.  Donald Trump is not running against Bill Clinton.  He's running against Bill's wife Hillary.  And none of her actions during Bill's many "bimbo eruptions" rise to the level of what Mr. Trump stands accused of.

The Trump Tape

This is a transcript of the "Trump Tape"

Donald J. Trump: You know and ...

Unknown: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.

Trump: I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.

Unknown: Whoa.

Trump: I did try and fuck her. She was married.

Unknown: That’s huge news.

Trump: No, no, Nancy. No, this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping.

She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —

I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

Billy Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.

Trump: Whoa! Whoa!

Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!

[Crosstalk]

Trump: Look at you, you are a pussy.

[Crosstalk]

Trump: All right, you and I will walk out.

[Silence]

Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.

Trump: Oh, it looks good.

Bush: Come on shorty.

Trump: Ooh, nice legs, huh?

Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.

Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford, Gerald Ford, remember?

Bush: Down below, pull the handle.

Trump: Hello, how are you? Hi!

Arianne Zucker: Hi, Mr. Trump. How are you? Pleasure to meet you.

Trump: Nice seeing you. Terrific, terrific. You know Billy Bush?

Bush: Hello, nice to see you. How you doing, Arianne?

Zucker: Doing very well, thank you. Are you ready to be a soap star?

Trump: We’re ready, let’s go. Make me a soap star.

Bush: How about a little hug for the Donald? He just got off the bus.

Zucker: Would you like a little hug, darling?

Trump: O.K., absolutely. Melania said this was O.K.

Bush: How about a little hug for the Bushy? I just got off the bus.

Zucker: Bushy, Bushy.

Bush: Here we go. Excellent. Well, you’ve got a nice co-star here.

Zucker: Yes, absolutely.

Trump: Good. After you.

[Break in video]

Trump: Come on, Billy, don’t be shy.

Bush: Soon as a beautiful woman shows up, he just, he takes off. This always happens.

Trump: Get over here, Billy.

Zucker: I’m sorry, come here.

Bush: Let the little guy in here, come on.

Zucker: Yeah, let the little guy in. How you feel now? Better? I should actually be in the middle.

Bush: It’s hard to walk next to a guy like this.

Zucker: Here, wait, hold on.

Bush: Yeah, you get in the middle, there we go.

Trump: Good, that’s better.

Zucker: This is much better. This is —

Trump: That’s better.

Zucker: [Sighs]

Bush: Now, if you had to choose honestly between one of us. Me or the Donald?

Trump: I don’t know, that’s tough competition.

Zucker: That’s some pressure right there.

Bush: Seriously, if you had — if you had to take one of us as a date.

Zucker: I have to take the Fifth on that one.

Bush: Really?

Zucker: Yup — I’ll take both.

Trump: Which way?

Zucker: Make a right. Here we go. [inaudible]

Bush: Here he goes. I’m gonna leave you here.

Trump: O.K.

Bush: Give me my microphone.

Trump: O.K. Oh, you’re finished?

Bush: You’re my man, yeah.

Trump: Oh, good.

Bush: I’m gonna go do our show.

Zucker: Oh, you wanna reset? O.K.

Is this what passes for "locker room talk"?  Talking about kissing women with or without their consent?  Grabbing them by the genitalia?

Any man who talks about it being okay to grab women in any way because the man is a "star" is someone who believes they are entitled to grope women without consequence.  That's not talk.  That's brutality.

Mr. Trump says that the above comments are not who he is as a person.  Well, back in May, the New York Times wrote a piece about how women have been treated by Trump.  It's extremely instructive about who he really is.

New York Times Article

An apology or a nonapology?

Let's go to the video.

This is from 2005 and has been described by Mr. Trump as "locker-room talk."  He took time to claim that Bill Clinton said things to him on the golf course that were much worse.  Hours later, Trump issued an apology.

"I've never said I'm a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I'm not. I've said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong and I apologize."

The problem is that those words do indeed reflect who Donald J. Trump is.  He's a player.  A lech.  A horny dude.  He may criticize Bill Clinton for the former president's affairs, but Trump is a serial adulterer who took the Fifth Amendment 97 times to avoid answering questions in a divorce deposition so he would not have to admit to having extramarital affairs.

Maybe if Mr. Trump had admitted to being a horn-dog and said that his penchant for "pussy" has  no impact on his ability to govern, this non-apology wouldn't bother me.  But he can't even admit the truth when it comes to the fact that he lives a good part of his life between his legs.  Instead he denies that those 2005 comments tell us exactly what kind of man he is.

Did a  married Donald Trump try to have sex with a married Nancy O'Dell?  Seems to be the case.  So a man whose first marriage ended because of an affair with his second wife, a man who has made unfounded allegations that Hillary Clinton was unfaithful to her husband, can't even be honest about who and what he is.

Donald Trump's best move at this time is to follow the advice of more than a few Republicans and drop out of the race voluntarily.  But he won't.