A silver lining of a disrupted sleep cycle is that I am occasionally gifted with an unexpected slice of peace and quiet during which to peruse my incoming email at a more leisurely pace and spot some little gem I might otherwise have missed.
Such is the case this morning, with a piece last night by Will Dowd on Substack regarding Snow Micromoon 2024.
I am only a very casual follower of PoliticusUSA's The Daily, but occasionally it catches my eye, as it did tonight, with a piece entitled "Be Angry At Special Counsel Robert Hur's Smear of Joe Biden," by Sarah Jones and Jason Easley.
Their piece took exception to Special Counsel Hur's characterization of President Biden and his memory, in the Special Counsel's report, which essentially cleared the President of any wrongdoing regarding classified documents found to still be in his possession after he left the Vice Presidency in January 2017. Apparently Mr. Hur passed several judgments on President Biden and his cognitive health and well-being that he (Mr. Hur) and all other non-behavioral and cognitive health professionals have no qualification to make -- and in Mr. Hur's case, no business whatsoever to include in his Special Counsel report in any case.
Jones and Easley suggested we should all be very angry about this, and I wholeheartedly agree.
They wrote (in part);
One of the reasons why Republicans were able to get away with the Hillary Clinton email scandal in 2016 was that the left never got really angry. Sure, the scandal was dry and a bit dull, but it was also not true, and a lot of people sat back and let it happen.For some reason tonight this set me off. So I left a comment:
Maybe they did it because Clinton is a woman, which is my hunch, or maybe they thought that it didn’t matter because Hillary Clinton would win anyway. There was a lot of that going around in 2016, too, as people just assumed that America could possibly elect a sexually assaulting pile of angry orange sherbet to the White House, but they were wrong.
I, too, am angry about Special Counsel Hur's slur regarding President Biden's memory. But I do not intend to give it any additional oxygen.
I am, however, also angry about your slur in comparing orange sherbet -- "a sexually assaulting pile of angry orange sherbet" -- to He Who Shall Not Be Named (aka POTUS 45). Never have I known orange sherbet to (a) engage in any non-consensual sexual activity, (b) have piles, or (c) be angry. You should be ashamed of yourselves for impugning orange sherbet's sterling reputation.
On a more serious note, I do take serious exception to your contention "the [Clinton email scandal in 2016] was dry and a bit dull, but it was also not true."
The scandal may not have been what POTUS 45 tried to portray it as, but it was a scandal nonetheless. Hillary Clinton's use of non-governmental email accounts and a private email server for sending and receiving email regarding government business was at the very least highly inappropriate and operationally insecure, and arguably illegal. The colossal error in judgment was egregious enough, but the egocentrism and hypocrisy of violating United States Government (and her own Department of State) email regulations and thus placing herself above the law for her own "convenience" was an affront to all rule-abiding Americans. It may have seemed "dry and a bit dull" or even inconsequential to a lay audience, but to information technology email and cybersecurity professionals, it was true and anything but inconsequential.
And yes, it made me feel better. Especially about an hour later when Jones and Easley "liked" my comment.
