On Thursday, Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election meddling and its potential ties to the Trump campaign, impaneled a grand jury. Twitter exploded. The casual observer quickly became a legal expert; it’s only a matter of time before President Donald Trump is indicted and impeached, many concluded. Not necessarily. So what exactly is a grand jury? And what does Mueller’s move portend for Trump’s fortunes?

Grand Jury v. Trial Jury

A grand jury is distinct from a trial jury in a number of ways. For one, a grand jury consists of more jurors than a trial jury, comprised of anywhere between 16 to 23 jurors. The primary function of a grand jury is to issue a preliminary decision on whether or not a prosecutor should indict a defendant. The road to making that decision is a long one: grand jury investigations can last months or even years.

In conducting an investigation, a grand jury has the power to subpoena documents and witnesses. According to Solomon Wisenberg, a white collar criminal defense attorney, grand juries have a broad mandate when subpoenaing witnesses. He said: “Federal grand jury subpoenas are almost never quashed on grounds that they call for irrelevant information or go beyond the grand jury’s authority.”

Grand jury investigations are private affairs. The defense is not present, nor are there any cross examinations. In fact, lawyers are not even allowed to be present during a grand jury’s deliberations.

What Does This Mean for Trump?

It is too early to tell if Mueller’s decision to form a grand jury will lead to an indictment of Trump or any of his campaign associates. In order for the grand jury to determine Trump’s actions warrant criminal charges, they will have to determine probable cause exists. Mueller’s decision to impanel a grand jury essentially means that the investigation is entering a new, potentially lengthy stage that may or may not lead to an indictment.

Mueller took charge of the probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. The investigation then fell to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mueller as the special counsel. Trump’s campaign and its potential ties to the Kremlin are also under investigation by the Senate and House.

According to people familiar with Mueller’s inquiry, he is moving beyond Trump’s involvement with Russia’s election meddling, and into Trump’s finances and real estate dealings. Because of their wide scope, grand jury investigations can take prosecutors down roads previously unseen–roads that can sometimes lead to an indictment.

Bill Clinton’s Impeachment

In 1998, Bill Clinton became the first president to testify as the subject of a grand jury investigation. His testimony, which lasted for four hours, was the coda to independent counselor Kenneth Starr’s investigation into the Whitewater scandal. But while Starr’s four-year investigation began with examining real estate deals in Arkansas, it ended with him examining Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton lied under oath, and continued to lie in his grand jury testimony, according to Starr. Clinton has denied that he ever misstated facts–he has said his answers were all “legally accurate.” Starr disagreed, and eventually indicted Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House voted to impeach Clinton in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him after a five-week trial.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Mueller Grand Jury appeared first on Law Street.

Since almost the moment that President Donald Trump took office, there have been calls to impeach him. Cities have passed resolutions calling for Trump’s impeachment, some Democratic politicians have indicated that they believe he should be impeached, and a late-March survey by Public Policy Polling reports that 44 percent of Americans support impeaching the president. Regardless of many unprecedented actions on Trump’s part, this isn’t really anything new–comments about impeachment consistently dogged President Barack Obama’s presidency as well.

But an impeachment is much easier said than done. Over the course of American history, only two presidents have ever been impeached–President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton, but neither president was removed from office as a result. Impeachment proceedings against a third president, Richard Nixon, began, but he resigned before much progress was made. Read on to learn about the impeachment process and the history of impeachments in the United States.

How Does Impeachment Work?

The U.S. Constitution lays out a procedure for impeaching the president (and vice president, and other officials).

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 makes it clear that the House of Representatives has the ability to “impeach” a president, essentially meaning that the House is in charge of bringing impeachment charges. Although there are a few different things that can lead to a House impeachment, usually it begins with some sort of allegations being made against an official. The House Judiciary Committee is then tasked with investigating those allegations. If so, the entire House then votes on whether or not to impeach the official–majority rules–by adopting articles of impeachment. Although not a perfect metaphor, it might be helpful to think of an impeachment like an indictment.

As Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 state, the Senate actually tries an official. Members of the House of Representatives are appointed to act as sort-of prosecutors of the official who is being tried. While usually the senators themselves serve as both judge and jury, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Two-thirds of Senators are required to convict, and as a penalty for being convicted, the official must be removed from office. There is no way to appeal.

Impeachments Throughout History

The two most notorious impeachments are obviously President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. But impeachment isn’t just reserved for presidents. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings for over 60 individuals since America’s independence. The House issued articles of impeachment for 15 other individuals. Of those 15, eight were found guilty by the Senate. The majority were judges. Here are the American officials who have been impeached:

• In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached on charges that he tried to help England seize Spanish-controlled territory in North America. He was expelled from the Senate before he was actually tried.
• In 1803, Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached for being drunk on the bench and acting inappropriately. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1804, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for “arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.” He was acquitted.
• In 1830, James H. Peck, a judge from Tennessee, was accused of abuse of power. He was acquitted.
• In 1862, West H. Humphreys, also a Tennessee judge, was impeached on charges that he “refused to hold court” and was acting against the U.S. government. He was found guilty, removed from office, and prevented from holding office in the future.
• In 1873 a Kansas judge, Mark H. Delahay, was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. He resigned before a trial began.
• In 1876, William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, was impeached on various corruption charges. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• In 1904, Charles Swayne, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he misused his office. He was acquitted.
• In 1912, Robert W. Archbald, an Associate Judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, was impeached based on allegations that he had inappropriate business relationships with some litigants. He was found guilty, lost his job, and prevented from holding office moving forward.
• In 1926, George W. English, a judge from Illinois, was accused of abusing his power. He resigned and the charges were dismissed.
• In 1933, Harold Louderback, a California judge, was accused of “favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers.” He was acquitted.
• In 1936, Halsted L. Ritter, a judge from Florida, was impeached on a few charges, including that he was practicing law as a sitting judge. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1986, Harry E. Claiborne, a Nevada judge, was accused of tax evasion, and staying on the bench despite having been convicted of a crime. He was found guilty, and lost his position.
• In 1988 Alcee L. Hastings, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he perjured himself and conspired to solicit a bribe. He was found guilty and removed from office. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because Hastings is now a congressman.)
• In 1989, Walter L. Nixon, a Mississippi judge, was impeached on various charges, including that he lied under oath. He was found guilty and removed from his post.
• In 2009, Samuel B. Kent, a Texas judge, was impeached on a number of charges, including sexual assault. He resigned before the proceedings were completed.
• In 2010, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Louisiana judge, was impeached on charges that included perjury and accepting bribes. He was found guilty, lost his position, and cannot hold office in the future.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson assumed office after his predecessor, President Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated in April 1865. However, the Lincoln-Johnson ticket was unusual. While Lincoln was a Republican, Johnson was a Democrat from the South. He had remained in the Senate even after his home state of Tennessee seceded, which endeared him to the Republicans. In 1964, Lincoln chose Johnson for his ticket, which was under the “National Unity Party,” in an attempt to appeal to the entire country in the context of the Civil War.

But when Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson was left in charge, he disagreed with the Republicans who held the majority in Congress. He famously declared: “This is a country for white men, and as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men.” He stood against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, passed by Congress. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, despite Johnson’s veto. This stopped the president from dismissing any government officials without the Senate’s approval.

Regardless of the bill, Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War, who supported the Republicans in Congress. In response, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson, 126-47. The charges were that he violated the Tenure of Office Act and brought “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach” into Congress. As Johnson was being tried by the Senate, he took actions that were seen as concessions to the Republicans in Congress. He ended up being acquitted, by just one vote.

Richard Nixon’s Narrow Miss 

President Richard Nixon resigned after the fallout from the Watergate Scandal and his administration’s subsequent coverup. But had he not resigned, he certainly risked impeachment. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed one article of impeachment–had Nixon not resigned, that vote would have made it to the full House of Representatives.

President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 

While in office, President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. Ken Starr, an independent investigator who had been originally tasked with looking into the Whitewater scandal but ended up investigating a wider range of controversies, submitted a report to the House Judiciary Committee. The report alleged that Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky during various testimony, including some regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a woman named Paula Jones. The Starr Report contained 11 possible grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

While the report was controversial, and Starr was accused of attacking Clinton for political motives, on December 19, 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against the president–one for obstruction of justice with a vote of 221-212, and one for lying under oath to a grand jury by a vote of 228-206.

On February 12, 1998, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges. In order to convict Clinton, the Senate would have needed a two-thirds majority. The obstruction of justice charge only garnered 50 votes, and the perjury charge only had 45 votes.

However, the impeachment, and affair, marred Clinton’s legacy.

Conclusion

Despite calls to impeach President Donald Trump (and previously President Barack Obama), impeachment isn’t as simple as it sounds. It’s a long, controversial, and political process–one that has only ever been even partially started against three presidents. While other figures throughout history have been impeached, those three presidents–President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton–offer the closest thing we have to a blueprint for how an impeachment of a president would look. Given today’s contentious political landscape, who knows when we’ll see that again.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Impeach a President appeared first on Law Street.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will likely face more questions in regards to her “secret meeting” with former president Bill Clinton, thanks to a new lawsuit filed Wednesday by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) against the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The meeting between Lynch and Clinton took place aboard her plane on June 27 in Phoenix, Arizona, and lasted about 30 minutes. It was deemed controversial, given that it came a week before Lynch announced that her department had closed its federal probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails without filing any criminal charges.

At the time Lynch claimed that the pair’s conversation was “primarily social” and that they had spoken a great deal about grandchildren, traveling, and golf. But even Lynch agreed that the meeting had “cast a shadow” over the investigation.

The ACLJ previously sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the DOJ and the FBI demanding an explanation as to why the meeting was allowed to transpire, calling for her resignation.

Then last week, in a letter to Congress,  FBI Director James Comey announced a new investigation into Clinton’s emails–this time focusing on emails found on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide, and her former husband Anthony Weiner.

In the complaint, the conservative Christian organization is demanding specific information regarding communications sent between Lynch and the former president, as well as the names of any officials or staff members present during the exchange.

The organization has repeatedly condemned President Obama and his appointees  in the past. In fact, this marks the fourth major federal lawsuit the ACLJ has filed against the Obama administration for what it considers to be “corruption and failure to comply with FOIA.” It has also launched a petition demanding a full, thorough, and unbiased FBI investigation into Secretary Clinton’s email server.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ACLJ Sues Loretta Lynch Over “Secret Meeting” With Bill Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Another high-profile political name is in the news again for an alleged sexual assault. And no, it’s not Donald Trump. This time, it’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas whose name has surfaced–brought up by an Alaskan lawyer on her Facebook page earlier this month. Moira Smith, who was 23 at the time, claims that Thomas groped her at a dinner in 1999.

And while we shouldn’t question why a woman comes forward with a claim of past sexual assault, Smith’s reasoning is worth noting–it seems that the accusations against Donald Trump that surfaced earlier this month propelled her to go public. Smith’s accusations, while certainly pointed at Thomas, also add to a recognizable pattern. Thomas once again joins the scores of high-profile, powerful men who are accused of sexual assault but seemingly never thought they’d get caught. Although it’s also worth noting that this isn’t the first time Thomas has been accused of this kind of behavior–the Anita Hill accusations of 1991 are just as noteworthy. If nothing else comes out of this election cycle and out of these myriad allegations, it seems like there is one, shining potential: we start to dismantle the idea that we should believe powerful men over these scores of women.

So let’s talk about those powerful men. Trump–who is currently not only facing scrutiny over his comments to Billy Bush in 2005, but also multiple accounts of women who say that he groped, sexually assaulted, or attempted to sexually assault them–is probably the first example that comes to mind. But Bill Clinton has also been accused of sexual assault multiple times, an issue that has resurfaced as Hillary Clinton runs for the office. And the conversation about powerful men and what they have previously been able to get away with hasn’t just been limited to political figures. Bill Cosby, once beloved, has now been accused of sexual assault by over 30 women (although, in aggravating fairness, it of course took a male comedian pointing out the allegations to really spark the outrage). Accusations against Woody Allen, while they haven’t stopped him from making movies, have certainly colored many’s perceptions of him.

All of these men have, in a lot of ways, gotten off kind of easily, and the women who come forward with assault allegations are still put through the ringer in the court of public opinion, which will do almost anything to avoid believing them. Nothing new there. But many people are also now backing them up, pointing out the ubiquity of sexual harassment and assault as an American woman.

After the Billy Bush/Donald Trump account surfaced, women started taking to Twitter to talk about the first time they were every sexually assaulted.

ME: 14, molested in pool by family friend. 19, ejaculated on by fratboy while asleep. 23, said NO, got shoved/spit on/called a dyke #NOTOKAY

— Sheila Callaghan (@sheilacalla) October 18, 2016

@kellyoxford birth father forced me to give him a blowjob. I was 11. Told family 2 years later. I was called a liar. #notokay

— Karen Ott Guerinot (@OttGuerinot) October 16, 2016

@kellyoxford 22- boss asked for me to rub his shoulders-then said it turned him on. i left the room and was fired the next day.#notokay

— anita (@peezer01) October 15, 2016

@kellyoxford I was 12 alone with a man in an elevator, he felt up my then not developed breasts. I’ve never told anyone until now. #NOTOKAY

— Dee Harlow (@DWanderlustress) October 14, 2016

Almost every single woman has a story like that. So why is it so hard to believe that powerful men are in some cases the cause? Are they somehow immune from contributing to an issue that is clearly pervasive? How is it easier to believe that women who accuse powerful men are only after their money or fame when it’s been shown time and time again that that’s not the case?

Smith even said she came forward specifically because of the current movement to speak out against sexual harassment and assault. In an interview she explained her motivations saying:

I have an eight-year-old daughter. Before last weekend, I had subconsciously convinced myself she would never go through this and now I know she almost certainly will. I am responsible to help minimize the risks and help her to understand what to do if she does, and to model the behavior that it’s not OK. It has changed my worldview as a mother.

She also said:

We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women. That willingness by men in power to take advantage of vulnerable women relies on an unspoken pact that the women will not speak up about it. Why? Because they are vulnerable. Because they are star-struck. Because they don’t want to be whiners. Because they worry about their career if they do speak out. But silence no longer feels defensible; it feels complicit.

Smith’s statements are, in a lot of ways, the point: “We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women.” Maybe the end result of these accusations is that we start treating them more as more than just myths.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Finally Going to Start Believing that Powerful Men Can be Sexual Assailants? appeared first on Law Street.

The jokes started out pretty harmless, referencing some of our favorite childhood cartoons.

#MoreTrustedThanHillary Spongebob’s magic conch pic.twitter.com/Vmn714Gpav

— Preston (@PrestonFlowers) July 6, 2016

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post #MoreTrustedThanHillary Trend Takes Twitter by Storm appeared first on Law Street.

The Great American Debate: Jorts

The invention of jorts might be one of the most American things out there. It is almost guaranteed that idiots will be wearing jorts this Fourth of July weekend. But people are still trying to decide what true jorts really. There’s what I call “cut-off jeans” and then there are jeans that have been fashioned into shorts. In my opinion, they are gross and should not exist. Will we ever reach a consensus on the jorts issue?

Every time I see someone wearing jorts I give them a head nod so they know what’s up. Jorts gotta stick together you know

— vasilios poulos (@poulos3317) June 20, 2016

i wear jorts. proudly. i don’t give a fuck what you think. #cutoffs

— marc maron (@marcmaron) June 28, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: Independence Day Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

WTF is a “Renegade Jew?”

According to Breitbart, William Kristol is a ‘renegade jew’ for not backing Donald Trump and Twitter can’t decide if that’s an insult or a badass nickname. The term trended Sunday night into Monday after Breitbart published an article criticizing William Kristol for supporting a third party bid despite his conservative ties. The article at no point referenced Kristol’s faith. But Twitter is going wild nevertheless.

If we’re being real tho, “Renegade Jew” would be a title for Drake’s next album.

— Jon Schneidman (@RealSchneidman) May 16, 2016

A Very Specific Scientific Breakthrough

Other advances in modern medicine will never match this: the first penis transplant in the US. So crazy, it just might work! And guess what? It did. Thomas Manning, 64, who received the Genitourinary Vascularized Composite Allograft (Penile) Transplant, is recovering well. Manning was given the transplant from a deceased donor and is thanking his doctors and Massachusetts General hospital for improving his quality of life.

What? Lmao RT @pzf: Man receives the first penis transplant in the United States. https://t.co/Fzp0OfGyMw pic.twitter.com/ewaf0mzNGx

— GOD (@MarckAnthony_) May 16, 2016

SCOTUS Sends Back Birth Control Decision

The Supreme Court dodged a ruling on the controversial issue of contraceptive coverage for religiously affiliated nonprofits by pushing the case back to a lower court. Yet, there is a glimmer of compromise that would allow employees to receive Obamacare coverage for birth control without requiring the non-profits to play any role in providing it. In any case, while many of these religious groups are pleased with the decision, a lot of others feel it is a cop out on the part of SCOTUS.

Don’t Worry, It’s All Good

Popular Irish artist Sinead O’Connor was found after she went missing just outside of Chicago. The singer had last been seen going for a 6am bike ride and did not return. Concern for her well-being and safety spurred from a previous incident where she allegedly overdosed and claimed had she not written a Facebook status about it her family wouldn’t have known or cared. No one knows if today’s incident was a genuine cry for help or O’Connor just returned from a refreshing 36-hour bike ride. 

All in the Family

Hillary Clinton is a pro. A pandering pro! At a recent rally in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, Clinton told supporters she would put husband Bill Clinton in charge of economic revitalization “because you know he’s good at that stuff.” In between cheers, she added that this was especially important in coal country and inner cities. While I don’t disagree, I can’t help but feel like Hillary is planning an epic 90’s party and Bill is the DJ. See for yourself:

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps no public figure has received as much criticism and vitriol over such a long period of time as Hillary Clinton. Clinton has been nationally famous since the 1980s, and internationally famous since her first day as First Lady of the United States. In her stump speeches and TV appearances, Clinton chalks the near-constant mudslinging up to oppositional Republican forces who are threatened by her ability to enact real change. And though it may sound trite at this point in the campaign due to repetition, sexism is still a real and damaging force, and may contribute to some of these efforts. Of course, that can’t be true for every line of attack–not every criticism is a right-wing conspiracy designed to slander the former secretary of state. So which is the truth–or could it be a mixed bag of libelous fiction and legitimate fact? Let’s evaluate Clinton’s history of responding to sexual assault and rape by trying to determine the truth, and what they might mean about Clinton’s candidacy and presidency.

Before I dive in, I’ll try to pre-empt some bias–as it stands, I like Hillary Clinton. I know that for some reason, saying you support the efforts of the frontrunner of The Democratic Party (and the most likely person to be our future president) is a divisive statement, but it’s something I should acknowledge. I wasn’t always set on Mrs. Clinton, and my support isn’t unmovable, but her levelheaded approach to policy reform and breadth of executive experience appeal to me. I like Bernie Sanders, and I respect him as a politician. He’s represented the state of Vermont loyally for decades, but I find myself doubting whether he’d make progress on his lofty plans with Congress, and wonder if he has enough foreign policy clout to serve as our Commander in Chief.

Still, the internet can be a toxic place for a Hillary Clinton supporter. The seemingly cult-like online presence of Sanders fans is suffocating to anyone voicing support for his opponent. In the real world, Clinton leads Sanders nationally, and has fantastic momentum in the delegate count, but the subset of voters who are active online paint a very different picture. Know that I’m not a blind supporter of Mrs. Clinton, and that I believe her to be a flawed person.

Most famously, Clinton’s husband’s sex scandal has also become her cross to bear. It’s no shock to the American people at this point that President Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. At the time that the affair was first breaking to the public, Hillary Clinton argued that the claim was yet another attempt by a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to tarnish her husband’s reputation. Then, as evidence to support Ms. Lewinsky’s claims grew, Clinton told the press that she had been misled by her husband, and she publicly committed to her marriage in spite of her husband’s indiscretions, taking the role of “the good wife.” Whether Clinton was truly unaware of the goings-on between her husband and Ms. Lewinsky, and whether Hillary and Bill are in love and devoted to each other is anyone’s guess. It’s equally reasonable to think that the former President and his wife have successfully moved on from the scandal as it is to think that their relationship is rocky and held together by political promise. Either way, I don’t think that the personal marital strife of the couple reflects poorly on Hillary Clinton’s intelligence or leadership.

The larger concern borne out of the Lewinsky scandal is Hillary Clinton’s attitude toward women leveling accusations against her husband. On the campaign trail these days, she tells crowds that rape victims should be believed and supported.

Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015

That proves troubling when faced with Juanita Broaddrick’s 1978 rape accusations against Clinton’s husband, which came to light two decades later. This created a conundrum for her: if these claims are false, standing by your husband is the right thing to do. If the claims are true, disbelieving a rape victim is heartless, wrongheaded, and reprehensible. The only response from Bill or Hillary to these claims came through President Clinton’s lawyer, who said “Any allegation that the president assaulted Juanita Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false.”

A person in a position as powerful as president is a lightning rod for false accusations, but it’s also true that a president’s influence could be used to cover up sexual indiscretions as well as acts of sexual violence. Knowing that both of those things are true, it would be extremely difficult to navigate charges made against your extremely powerful husband. There is no evidence to show that Hillary Clinton threatened or intimidated Broaddrick into silence. At the time, Clinton was supporting Anita Hill during her testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, so it’s tough to argue that Hillary was completely unsupportive of women or even specifically victims of sexual harassment and assault. Many online rags will argue that Hillary personally sicced private investigators on Bill’s accusers, but the only concrete statement on that comes from a 1998 Matt Lauer interview:

I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.

That’s certainly not the “love and kindness” angle that Clinton is espousing now, but it’s not inherently criminal or evil. While false rape accusations are exceedingly rare, they do happen, so though it’s very disappointing to hear Clinton say these things, it would only be truly unforgivable if Clinton knew that these accusations were true, and actively tried to bury them. Criticizing Hillary Clinton for her comments about rape accusers in the nineties is absolutely fair game, and shows pretty clearly that in many areas of women’s issues, Hillary Clinton was certainly part of the problem.

For a candidate whose campaign often puts women’s issues at center stage, Clinton’s comments from twenty years ago show that she has been on the offensive against specific women accusing her husband. Whether she’s learned from the backlash, or simply learned to hold her tongue, her policy decisions and voting record show that she’s been a defender of women for decades, turning the feminist corner and leading the charge among the 2016 candidates. While her record on equal pay legislation, maternity leave, and global women’s rights is something she can proudly tout, some of Mrs. Clinton’s attitudes and comments from the 90s are absolutely disheartening, but not disqualifying.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Should we Make of Hillary Clinton’s Record on Rape Victims? appeared first on Law Street.

Normally if I saw an emerging feud between Donald Trump and Samuel L. Jackson was trending I would be really confused as to what the “The Apprentice” mogul and the actor sometimes known as “that one black guy in every movie” have to do with one another.

But sadly, we must remind ourselves that it is 2016 and Trump is no longer just a bossy billionaire who reserves conflict for his reality show contestants. He’s moved on to become a very serious Republican contender vying to be the next president of the United States–and he’s starting feuds with everybody.

So what’s going on this time?

Well it all started after SLJ shared in a recent interview with Rhapsody Magazine that he once received a bill from Trump’s National Golf Club, despite not even being a member. He then went on to say that he’s golfed with Trump before, and sees Trump as more “P.T. Barnum than politician.”

Trump must not have liked the comparison, since he called SLJ boring and denied even knowing him in the following tweet:

I don’t know @SamuelLJackson, to best of my knowledge haven’t played golf w/him & think he does too many TV commercials—boring. Not a fan.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2016

“Late Night’s” Seth Meyers then proceeded to stoke the feud’s flames Tuesday when SLJ appeared on his show. Meyers probed further into the actor’s relationship with Trump, and SLJ obliged, joking about how Trump refers to himself in the third person as “the Don” and even cheats at golf. He also told a story about the time Trump tried to convince him to play a round with him and former president Bill Clinton.

Watch SLJ joke about Trump on Late Night below

“Blackish” star Anthony Anderson even corroborated SLJ’s story:

C’mon @realDonaldTrump you played Golf with @SamuelLJackson and me as well. we also had lunch together! shrimp and hot dogs. sound familiar?

— Anthony Anderson (@anthonyanderson) January 5, 2016

So it’s pretty clear that once again Trump is lying and using name calling as immature polling tactic. I’m just glad someone is finally standing up to Trump, and doing it in style for that matter. Who knows, Trump may have finally met his match, so keep it up Samuel L. Jackson!

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Has Donald Trump Met His Match With Samuel L. Jackson? appeared first on Law Street.

Executive control over declaring war or starting military missions has long been a controversial topic. According to the U.S. Constitution, only the legislative branch can order military attacks. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes called the War Powers Clause, declares that Congress has the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Despite Congress having authorization authority, many presidents have used their executive powers to send soldiers into battle without an official declaration of war. This has been done in order to quickly activate military forces until Congress has time to pass funding and other approval measures. One might think that this violates the Constitution and has the president undermining Congress. So what powers does the president have in commanding military operations?

A Complicated History

Due to the process of checks and balances, Congress and the president both have roles in military actions. Congressional approval is needed to declare war, fund armed missions, and make laws that shape the execution of the mission. The president has the power to sign off on or veto the declaration of war, just like on other congressional bills. The president is also the Commander-in-Chief and oversees the mission once Congress has declared war. So in short, if the president vetoes a congressional declaration of war, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and still force the president to control military action he does not support.

For more than 200 years presidents have asked Congress for approval of war, but many presidents have wanted to bypass Congress to put their own military operations into place. It wasn’t until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave the executive branch more power over military interventions and homeland protection, including ordering war participation from independent government agencies, and expurgating communications with foreign countries. These powers lasted until six months after the military operation. The Second War Powers Act was passed the following year, which gave the executive branch more authority overseeing War World II operations. It was this act that allowed the U.S. to relocate and incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

Presidents used the War Powers Act numerous times over the next 20 years. Neither the Korean or Vietnam Wars were technically wars, but were military interventions in intense foreign conflicts because neither of them were passed as a declaration of war. This angered legislators who believed the president had too much control of the military. In response, they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which President Richard Nixon vetoed arguing that it undermined his role as Commander-in-Chief; however, his veto was overridden by Congress.

What does the Resolution do?

The resolution extends the president’s power by allowing him to conduct military operations without congressional approval, but there are limits. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to send armed forces without congressional approval only if there is an attack on American soil or its territories; otherwise the military intervention would require congressional approval. It also forces the president to notify Congress within the first 48 hours of the mission and forbids armed forces from intervening longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

Since the beginning of the resolution, numerous presidents have put military actions into play without congressional support, sometimes well past the 60-day window. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton continued the assault on Kosovo past the deadline. In this case, Congress did not directly approve the missions, but approved funding for them.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress overwhelming passed a law permitting President George W. Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Support for the invasion of several Middle Eastern countries was high at first, but after years of fighting with no end in sight, approval for the “War on Terror” fell and so did public opinion of Bush’s handling of the war.

In 2011, President Barack Obama faced backlash from Congress and voters who claimed his use of executive powers as Commander-in-Chief were being stretched and that his actions overreached his authority. When the Libyan army started to kill its own citizens for protesting their government, Obama and leaders from several European countries decided to aid the Libyan civilian rebels by enforcing no-fly zones and providing aid for the cause. Because the president put into place a military action on his own, congressional Republicans called foul, saying he overstepped his boundaries by not first getting Congressional approval. The president defended his actions saying that U.S. military involvement did not meet the constitutional definition of a war and that it was not the U.S. that was leading the mission, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite his assertion, in a letter addressed to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the president withdraw troops; ten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting congressional approval for the intervention.

Fighting ended on October 31 and NATO ended its operations following the death of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The suit, along with ideas for other potential legal actions, then ceased for the most part, due to dismissal precedent of similar cases.

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

At its beginning, most Americans were supportive of the president’s intervention in Libya. In March 2011, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 56 percent of those polled were in favor of the U.S. implementing a no-fly zone across the region in order to protect Libyan rebels from government attacks. While the support for assistance was very high, Americans overwhelming believed that activating troops on the ground was too much, with polls showing disapproval around 90 percent.

Support for the military action was strong in the first weeks, with about 60 percent of Americans supporting the president’s initiatives, but as time marched on without any end in sight, support began to wane. By early June, only 26 percent of those surveyed believed the U.S. should continue the mission, according to a Rasmussen Report poll.

These polls seem to show that Americans don’t like unchecked military actions that go on too long. Does that mean the War Powers Act should be replaced with something that better balances executive actions and congressional approval?

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

Congress has not officially declared war since June 1942 during World War II when it unanimously voted for war against the Axis countries of Bulgaria, Hungry, and Romania. Many lawmakers think that because the U.S. response to foreign conflicts has become quicker due to improvements in technology and intergovernmental military alliances–like NATO–that the War Powers Resolution is no longer needed.

Several members of Congress have suggested the repeal of the War Powers Resolution entirely, or replacing it with a measure that gives the president diminished power. In January 2014, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) revealed a piece of legislation, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, that would replace the resolution and restrict the president’s military power. It would require the president to consult with Congress before using military forces in foreign conflicts and require the president to consult Congress within three days of deployment. It also sought to create a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that would enforce a dialog between the executive and legislative branches. The act would not apply to humanitarian or covert missions. After the Libyan conflict ended in a substantial NATO victory in October 2011, support for reform fell until military intervention in Syria in 2014.

Conclusion

The definition of war makes it difficult to effectively apply the War Powers Resolution. Does war mean boots on the ground, weaponry assistance, or no-fly zones? This question is hard to answer and is debated with almost every military intervention.

Americans tend to support giving an incumbent president more power over military decisions when citizens are attacked on U.S. soil, and during the early part of missions. Once the mission seems to be dragging on, support and morale fall, and so does congressional support. If a president wants to go rogue on his own, he has to get the job done fast or the missions might fail to maintain support. The War Powers Resolution has helped the U.S. respond to foreign conflicts quickly and without that power many missions may never have been started.

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

U.S. Senate: Official Declarations of War by Congress

Senator Tim Kaine: Kaine, McCain Introduce Bill to Reform War Powers Resolution

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post War Powers Act: Has it Outlasted Its Usefulness? appeared first on Law Street.

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event that occurs every February in Washington D.C. As part of the event, speakers are invited to share encouraging words of faith. The National Prayer Breakfast was especially visible in the news recently as a result of controversy over a recent speech by President Obama. Read on to learn about the history, inception, and purpose of the event.

What is the National Prayer Breakfast?

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event held in Washington, D.C. on the first Thursday of February. This year the event celebrated its sixty-second anniversary. Among the 3,200 people in attendance, guests from all fifty states and 140 countries were represented. One of the most high-profile attendees is the president of the United States who gives a speech, as well as a designated keynote speaker whose identity is kept confidential until that morning. The event has had many notable speakers including Mother Teresa, Bono, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and NASCAR legend Darrell Waltrip. Some have garnered national attention for speeches that they have made at the Breakfast, including Doctor Ben Carson, whose speech is in the video below.

Who is invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast?

People from all walks of life are invited. This list includes the President and First Lady, members of Congress, visiting heads of state, and a myriad of ambassadors representing scores of countries, many of them adherents of other religions or non-theist.

What is the purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast?

The purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast is two-fold, but the main intention is quite simple: to come together in prayer and thanksgiving. Non-Christians attend the breakfast, but the event is designed to make sure that everyone is respectful whenever possible. The second purpose is to hear from the prominent speakers who offer words of encouragement and/or challenge the audience to live their lives in fuller service to Christ’s teachings.

History of the National Prayer Breakfast

The first National Prayer Breakfast took place in 1953 when the houses in the United States Congress joined together to establish it during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. Since then not only has the National Prayer Breakfast become a yearly tradition, there are also smaller versions that occur in cities and states across the country and around the world.

The concept of the event actually began in the 1930s when a young man named Abraham Vereide began to meet  with the leaders in his home area of Seattle and counseled them to study Jesus and his teachings, especially with regard to the poor and disenfranchised. As the 1940s progressed, Vereide began to meet with members of Congress for the exact same reason. The results of these meetings moved Congress to start the breakfast and invite the president to partake in the event, as well.

Is the National Prayer Breakfast a partisan or denominational event?

All members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, are invited to put aside their jobs as politicians and for that brief time come together as one. This is regardless of denomination as well as religion. One will see Lutherans sitting next to Evangelicals and those who are not Christian at all. The Dali Llama was also present at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast as a guest of President Obama.

Who organizes the National Prayer Breakfast?

There are many religious groups that help to put on the event, whether it is getting the venue set up, arranging for the speakers, or providing other forms of support; however, the organization that takes the leading role is a group called Fellowship Foundation. This group, which started in 1929, is framed as a network of friends from all walks of life joined together by an interest in the power of Jesus.

How is the National Prayer Breakfast similar to and different from other national religious events?

The National Prayer Breakfast is similar to other events such as the National Day of Prayer, in that both are a nationwide call for Prayer; however, these events differ because the breakfast is not mandated by law, but rather is sustained by private individuals. They also differ in their focus, as the National Day of Prayer is designed to be a call for Americans to humbly come before God, seeking his guidance and grace and the National Prayer Breakfast is designed as an event  to hear words of wisdom, inspiring testimony, or to give those who attend and those read about it on social media afterward something to think about in order to help to bring their own lives closer to Christ.

What topics are covered in the speeches given at the National Prayer Breakfast?

The topics have been as varied as the speakers. When Mother Teresa spoke, her topic was abortion. She condemned the procedure, stating that “any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” When Doctor Carson was the speaker in 2013 he spoke about fixing America using principles from the Bible itself. Eric Metaxas, who spoke in 2012, discussed the topic of dead religion. Finally Darrell Waltrip spoke this year on his own conversion, stating that:

Good guys go to hell. If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, if you don’t have a relationship, if He’s not the master of your life, if you’ve never gotten on your knees and asked Him to forgive you of your sins, you’re just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal, you’re gonna to go to hell.

Watch the video below for more on Waltrip’s speech.

Is there opposition to the National Prayer Breakfast?

Most of the dislike for the event comes from secularists and more liberal forces. Groups such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have opposed it on a number of grounds, ranging from their opposition to the group that sponsors it–the Fellowship Foundation–which is a fundamentalist group, to wishing that those who attended the event better understood the need for separation between church and state.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the National Prayer Breakfast shouldn’t exist, at least not in its present form. In addition to the critiques that the it receives from the non-religious community, it is also no stranger to political controversy. One such controversy occurred in 2012, when the National Prayer Breakfast had additional competition from the Occupy Faith DC protest, which was set up to proptest the breakfast as an event for the rich and famous only. Other controversies included when Mother Teresa called out then-President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary on their stances on abortion; and  most recently critiques point to President Obama’s remarks at this year’s event. He was accused of comparing historical Christianity and modern extremist Islam.

Resources

Primary

National the Day of Prayer

Additional

Priests For Life: Mother Teresa’s Speech

Huffington Post: Occupy National Prayer Breakfast

American’s United Blog: Breakfast Club: Obama Endorses Seperation at Evangelical Event

America Blog: The National Prayer Breakfast Shouldn’t Exist

Americans United Blog: Doubting Thomas: Prayer Breakfast Theocrats Try to Baptize Jefferson

Doctor Ben Carson: National Prayer Breakfast Speech Transcript

Fellowship Foundation: History

Faith and Action: Salvation and Damnation in DC

Freedom Outpost: The Message You Didn’t Hear About at the National Prayer Breakfast: Without Christ, You Will Go to Hell

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The National Prayer Breakfast: History and Controversies appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 Midterms just wrapped up, so of course the 2016 presidential race contenders have not even crossed the starting line. Or, have they? In my oh-so-humble opinion, the race hasn’t just begun — it’s already over. The cheering fans watching the contestants have already gone home and are reminiscing about the day’s excitement over a nice dinner. And which runner dashed first through the tape held taut across the finish line? Hillary Clinton, of course. Her win seems already a guarantee. Why? For the following reasons, which all happen to conveniently start with the letter F. Just like on Sesame Street, today’s episode is brought to you by the letter F.

1. Feminism

This is the word of the moment, especially after Emma Watson gave her speech on the topic at a recent United Nations event causing people to swoon over her more than usual. We had our first African-American president, so now it’s time for a lady to step up to the plate. And in Hilary’s case, a pretty bad-ass lady.

2. Foreign Policy

Love him or hate him, it’s pretty undeniable that Obama’s foreign policy leaves much to be desired. That’s where Hilary steps in. She traveled to 112 countries while serving as Secretary of State – the most of anyone in that position throughout history. That kind of indicates she knows her shit.

3. Family Dynasties

The Bush family. The Kennedy family. The Clinton family. What do they have in common? Their members were and are political big wigs and small wigs (maybe a wig for a baby or a gnome?). It must be some sort of requirement that as they are raised, members are brainwashed to some extent to acquire and live out lofty political aspirations.

4. Facial Expressions

Okay, okay — perhaps facial expressions alone are not exactly a qualification for making someone a good president. But you have to admit that her facial expressions to suit varying social situations are pretty on the ball. She’s not afraid to let those emotions show, and we need some honest people in politics.

PHOTOS: @HillaryClinton‘s Best Facial Expressions http://t.co/FXcUqu7me8

— Mstars News (@MstarsNews) June 19, 2014

All you naysayers out there (and not just horses) are probably pointing out that after the scandal caused by Bill Clinton and a certain Ms. Lewinsky with whom he DID, indeed, have sexual relations, we don’t need another Clinton in the White house. But look at it this way: with all of that crap Hilary had to put up with from her husband, she deserves to get what she wants and be president. Furthermore, she has already lived in the White house and can therefore just pick up where she left off there and doesn’t need an adjustment period. So, get ready for Hillary to step up to the presidential podium: our first woman president. Brace yourself, nation!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House appeared first on Law Street.

Dov Seidman is the best-selling author of the book, How: Why How We Do Anything Means Anything, and if you haven’t heard of him, then you should go look him up. Former President Bill Clinton wrote the foreword to How, and Seidman is the CEO of LGN, a business that does the almost unthinkable: it reaches out to other businesses and helps them create more ethical cultures.

For the last ten years, Seidman has built his brand using the tagline, “How Matters.” Seidman’s do-gooding, however, may be lost on the Greek yogurt company Chobani, which wants to stop Seidman from using his trademark.

Chobani introduced its own “How Matters” campaign during a 2014 Super Bowl commercial, which featured a bear that buys a Chobani yogurt container. A voiceover states: “A cup of yogurt won’t change the world, but how we make it might,” which leads into the tagline: ‘How Matters.’  Jonathan Mahler of The New York Times reports that Chobani has built its brand around the phrase, which “highlight[s] the quality of its yogurt and the way it is made, including a straining process that makes it extra dense.”

Moreover, the inside of Chobani’s 100-calorie yogurt cup lids read, “‘Nature got us to 100 calories, not scientists. #howmatters.”

Earlier this year, Seidman sued Chobani and its advertising agency Droga5, which is partly owned by William Morris Endeavor, for trademark infringement. Ashley Lutz of the Business Insider reports that Seidman argues:  “They’re using ‘how’ to convey and connote that they are an ethical company. They are using ‘How’ exactly the way I use it. They’ve appropriated the foundation of my entire philosophy.”

Chobani and Droga5, however, have requested that the court cancel Seidman’s “How Matters” trademark because they believe it is too broad, and they have even filed their own trademark application for “How Matters.” Venessa Wong of BusinessWeek reports that Peter McGuiness, Chobani’s Chief Marketing and Brand Officer, stated that Seidman’s allegations are “baseless, desperate, and have no merit.” McGuiness further claims that “HowMatters” “speaks to our food philosophy,” which is a “beautiful and perfect articulation of what our brand is all about.”

Moreover, according to Mahler, Chobani and Droga5 claim they have never heard of Seidman, but ironically Seidman alleges that he had lunch with Droga5’s Vice Chairman, Andrew Essex, in 2013, who tweeted just days before the Super Bowl, “@DovSeidman: Thanks for inspiring the world to care about ‘how.’ Can you help inspire the food industry, too?” Nevertheless, Mahler reports that court papers claim that “no one on the creative team for Chobani had ever heard of Mr. Seidman. The agency said the inspiration for its campaign came during a brainstorming session at a Thai restaurant with an open kitchen that underscored the importance of how food is prepared.”

Seidman may have a tough time proving that Chobani infringed his trademark, as they are designed to prevent consumer confusion; therefore, the biggest hurdle that Seidman will have to climb is proving how consumers will confuse a Greek yogurt company with a consulting firm.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured Image Courtesy of [tbiley via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chobani and Consulting Firm Battle Over Phrase “How Matters” appeared first on Law Street.

Although the United States was founded to escape a monarch and royal family, it is irrefutable that certain families have dominated the American political spectrum. Surnames have transformed into a sort of brand for these families through money, publicity, talent, or a combination of them all. As of October 2013, 37 members of Congress had a relative who had previously served in Congress. Some of the most discussed names of potential candidates for the 2016 presidential election are those shared with former presidents. The scope of power and attention each of these families has acquired through the years is a testament to America’s fascination with celebrity figures.

The Kennedy Family

Perhaps one of the most iconic families in American politics, the Kennedys have shaped the country over several generations. The first, Patrick Joseph “P.J.” Kennedy, was a savvy businessman born to Irish Catholic immigrants. As a young man, he worked on the Boston docks to support his three sisters and widowed mother. P.J. built a name and fortune for himself, eventually entering the political realm. He served five consecutive one-year terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, followed by three two-year terms in the state senate. His political aspirations went beyond his own career, influencing and pushing for his children to reach the highest office in the country.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (“Jack”, “JFK”)

P.J.’s eldest son, Joseph Patrick “Joe” Kennedy, Jr., was expected to become president, but those plans were derailed when Joe Jr. was killed in action during WWII. His father’s aspirations then fell upon a younger son, John F. Kennedy.

After serving in the U.S. Navy, JFK was elected to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts’ eleventh district for six years, followed by a stint as a Senator fro the same state until he was elected president. To this day, he is the only Roman Catholic president and the only one to have won a Pulitzer Prize. He was also the youngest elected to office, inaugurated at just 43 years old.

JFK’s presidency was dominated by the Cold War. He is known for the failed military invasion in Bay of Pigs, which damaged his administration’s image; however, the Cuban Missile Crisis restored faith in his presidency. JFK also started the Peace Corps, and supported racial integration and the civil rights movement.

Only two years and ten months passed between his inauguration and assassination, yet to this day he remains one of the most celebrated and idolized figures in American history.

Robert Francis Kennedy (“Bobby,” “RFK”)

Jack’s younger brother Robert served as his campaign manager and White House advisor during the presidency. Bobby’s authority over cabinet departments led the press to call him, “Bobby – Washington’s No. two man.” JFK appointed him as Attorney General, causing controversy as critics claimed he was unqualified and inexperienced.

His position as AG allowed him to advocate for the  Civil Rights Movement. The sense of urgency for racial equality that RFK projected greatly influenced the President.

After JFK’s assassination, Robert became senator of New York and then began campaigning for presidency. He was shot and killed the night he won the California primary while leaving the ballroom where he had addressed his supporters.

Edward Moore “Ted” Kennedy

Edward was the youngest Kennedy and far outlived his brothers. He was the third-longest serving senator in America, having represented the state of Massachusetts for nearly 47 years. During his time in the Senate, he was chairman and member of many different committees.

The presidency was not a realistic goal for Ted after the Chappaquiddick incident, in which a young woman was killed. Despite this tragedy, he attempted to run in the 1980; however, he lost the Democratic primary to President Jimmy Carter.

The Next Generations

The privileges and opportunities afforded to members of the Kennedy family are vast.  While many descendants of the Kennedys have served at various levels government, these are some of the more notable examples:

Caroline Bouvier Kennedy

Caroline is the only surviving child of JFK and Jackie since her brother, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., was killed in a plane crash in 1999. There were talks of “John John” following in his father’s political footsteps before his untimely death. President Obama appointed Caroline as United States Ambassador to Japan in 2013.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Eldest child of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003.

Joseph P. Kennedy II

The former U.S. Representative for Massachusetts’ eighth district, RFK’s eldest son served in office from 1987 until 1999.

Joseph P. Kennedy III

Son of Joseph P. Kennedy II and grandson of RFK, he was elected to Massachusetts’ fourth congressional district in 2012.

Patrick J. Kennedy II

The only child of Ted Kennedy to enter politics, he served as U.S. Representative for Rhode Island’s first Congressional district for 16 years. When Patrick decided not to run for reelection, which was prior to Joseph P. Kennedy III’s service, it was the first time Washington was without a Kennedy in office in 60 years.

John Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg

Although still an undergrad at Yale University, JFK’s only grandson has already discussed pursuing a future career in politics. “Jack” has already interned on Capitol Hill for John Kerry and writes political commentary for Yale publications and CNN.

The Bush family in the Red Room of the White House

The Bush Family

While the Kennedys are royalty among liberals, the Bush family is champion of the right. Two Governors, two U.S. Senators, one Supreme Court Justice, one Vice President, and two Presidents make up their lineage. Various business achievements have created a net worth of $60 million. Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, said that the Bushes have “got to be considered the most successful political dynasty in American history.”

David Davis

Davis started the political dynasty serving as Abraham Lincoln’s campaign manager. Once Lincoln was elected, David received a recess appointment to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. He was an associate justice from 1862 to 1877. He is first cousin three times removed to George H. W. Bush’s generation.

Prescott Bush

Prescott Bush was the father of George H. W. Bush and grandfather of George W. and Jeb Bush. Prescott became a profitable businessman before becoming a U.S. Senator from Connecticut from 1952 to 1963.

George H.W. Bush

Commonly referred to as Bush Sr. since his son’s administration, the elder Bush enlisted in the U.S. Navy before attending Yale. Bush Sr. moved his family to Texas and became a prominent member of the oil industry. He had become a millionaire before the age of 40.

Prior to his presidency, Bush Sr. held various positions including: Member of the House of Representatives, Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the Liaison Office to the People’s Republic of China, Director of Central Intelligence, and Vice President to Ronald Reagan.

Following his inauguration in 1989, his administration was instrumental to changes both domestically and abroad. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Berlin Wall happened in the earlier stages of his presidency. The United States was involved in the Gulf War during this time as well. At home, Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which led to a 40 percent increase in legal immigration to the United States. Bush St. lost his campaign for a second term to Bill Clinton.

George W. Bush

Following in his father’s footsteps, George W. Bush entered both the oil industry and political arena. George W. worked on his father’s presidential campaign, and then joined others in purchasing the Texas Rangers. He made history as Governor of Texas by becoming the first Governor to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011 transformed George W. into a wartime president. They propelled the United States into the War on Terror and the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Approval ratings for George W. landed on both ends of the spectrum. During the 2008 financial crisis they were one of the lowest on record, while following the events of 9/11 they were the highest in history. To this day, George W. Bush’s legacy is split between those who praise him and those who view him as catastrophic for the country.

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush

George W. Bush’s younger brother Jeb served as Governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. Jeb was the first and only Republican to serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida. Republicans are hopeful for a Bush 2016 campaign in the next presidential cycle, and Jeb has acknowledged that he is thinking about running. There are many factors that will decide the younger Bush’s next steps, such as immediate family wishes and if he predicts he could run a successful campaign.

The Clinton Family

While not technically a dynasty yet, the Clinton family continues to be influential in the world of politics, philanthropy, and advocacy.

William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton

Unlike President Kennedy and Bush, Bill Clinton was not born into a family of wealth. He grew up in a modest home in Arkansas before earning scholarships to Georgetown and Yale Universities.

Clinton entered public service through election as Arkansas Attorney General prior to his election as Governor of Arkansas. He was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993. Clinton quickly gained popularity with the public by signing into law the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. A major disappointment of his presidency, the inability to create a national health care system spearheaded by the First Lady, plagued his administration. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton in 1998 following the Monica Lewinsky scandal on alleged acts of obstruction of justice and perjury. The Senate voted to acquit Clinton on both charges. Despite the impeachment, Clinton left office with an approval rating of 66 percent.

Since leaving office, President Clinton has been active in philanthropic endeavors. The William J. Clinton Foundation (renamed in 2013 as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) was founded in 2001 to, “Bring people together to take on the biggest challenges of the 21st century.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary’s time as First Lady was influential and has had lasting impacts. She played a central role in shaping the course of her husband’s administration. Hillary used her position to help pass legislation such as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Foster Care Independence Act, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Her time spent as a United States Senator from New York was also filled with progress. She served on five Senate committees with nine subcommittee assignments. President Obama nominated Hillary to the position of Secretary of State in 2009, and she served in this capacity until 2013.

Hillary ran for president in 2008, but ended her campaign to endorse future President Obama. Many Democrats hope she will run again in 2016, and there is already a campaign-in-waiting in place if she formally decides to run.

Chelsea Clinton

As the only child of Bill and Hillary, Chelsea has been in the public eye her entire life. She has worked for NBC as a special correspondent, and works closely with the Clinton Foundation as Vice Chairwoman.

Negative Aspects of Family Dynasties

The 2012 presidential election was the first since 1976 in which a member of the Bush or Clinton families was not a presidential or a vice presidential candidate; however, a recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News finds that 69 percent of Americans would prefer that neither a Bush nor a Clinton dominate the 2016 presidential race. This implies that Americans dislike family dynasties, yet they continue to elect them. Why is that? It’s easier to vote for a familiar name, regardless of the actions of its predecessor. By nature budding politicians who are raised in the spotlight have an easier time building a political career, as the public and potential donors will take their campaign more seriously and feel an instant connection.

Kennedy

Following the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as Ambassador to Japan, speculations rose regarding if she deserved the position or if sharing the high-profile Kennedy name prompted the assignment. It would benefit the Obama Administration to have a member of one of the most beloved Democrat families representing him and the country. Japan is an advanced nation, so her position would not be as challenging compared to being placed in a country ensnared in domestic or international conflicts.

Bush

While in many instances being related to former politicians is a blessing, for potential presidential nominee Jeb Bush having the family name could be detrimental to a potential presidential campaign. His older brother’s tainted legacy will prove to a be challenge if the younger Bush does decide to make a stab at running for the presidency.

Clinton

With revelations about what goes on behind the scenes of the Clinton Foundation, speculations surround the Clintons and their willingness to sell their image and reputation to further their own agendas. One of which could be a potential Hillary campaign, as the former Secretary of State has made the foundation her base while she contemplates a presidential run. With the addition of Hillary and Chelsea taking on major roles, it has truly become a family affair.

The New York Times wrote a takedown of the Clinton Foundation, stating:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

 Resources

Primary

Hart Research Associate/Public Opinion Strategies: Survey

Additional

The New York Times: Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Time: Liz Cheney And The Family Business: A Chart of All Congressional Dynasties

JFK Library: Joseph P. Kennedy

JFK Library: Life of John F. Kennedy

James W. Hilty: Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector

CNN: RFK Assassination Witness Tells CNN: There was a Second Shooter

JFK Library: Edward M. Kennedy

History Channel: Incident on Chappaquiddick Island

Time: Remembering JFK Jr., 15 Years Later

NBC News: The Kennedys: Portrait of an American Dynasty

Celebrity Net Worth: Bush Family Net Worth

Washington Times: Rise of ‘Dynasty’ Quick, Far-reaching

Michael Fix: The Paper Curtain: Employer Sanctions’ Implementation, Impact and Reform

Washington Post: As Jeb Bush Eyes 2016, Key Question is how a Presidential Campaign Would Affect his Family

The New York Times: Impeachment: The Overview — Clinton Impeached; He Faces a Senate Trial, 2D in History; Vows to do job Till Term’s ‘Last Hour’

Politico: Foundation Renamed for all Three Clintons

Christian Science Monitor: Chelsea Clinton Gets PhD From Oxford: For What?

Huffington Post: Political Family Feuds: The Good, the Bad, and the Really Ugly

Washington Post: 3 Reasons why we Have a Love/Hate Relationship With Political Dynasties

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Political Family Dynasties in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, how many of you are John Green fans? I hope every single one of you raised your hand. He’s basically perfection.

Not only does he write awesome books, but he also posts weekly vlogs on YouTube with his brother, Hank. The two of them cover everything from goofy details about their daily lives to politics and religion. And they do it HYSTERICALLY. Seriously, I never knew I could be so entertained while watching a video about the American healthcare system.

Anyway! One of John Green’s wonderful books, The Fault in Our Stars, has been made into a feature film. It’s hitting theaters next month and stars Shailene Woodley.

So much gorgeousness is happening here, you guys.

Shailene is pretty awesome, making some queer-ish, feminist-y comments about love being independent from gender, doubting our society’s obsession with marriage and monogamy, coming down on Twilight for promoting an unhealthy and abusive relationship dynamic, and advocating for more nuanced, kickass roles for women in movies.

She’s pretty rad.

But! Shailene was recently asked if she identifies as a feminist. And she said no. Cue collective exasperated sigh of disappointment.

Why is this apparently feminist star eschewing the feminist label? Because, it seems, she doesn’t actually understand what being a feminist means.

“No,” said Woodley, when asked if she considered herself a feminist, “because I love men.” She went on to say that feminism means giving undue power to women at the expense of men, an arrangement that wouldn’t be beneficial to anyone.

But, see, that’s not what feminism is. That’s not what it means. Not even a little bit. Feminists aren’t power hungry man-haters looking to depose men from their porcelain thrones of fragile masculinity. We’re not looking to climb over the men, flip the oppression coin, and unfairly win some sort of gender pissing contest where vagina-bearers come out on top.

Feminists are people who come in all shapes, sizes, and genders — some of them are men, go figure! — who believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Just ask Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the TEDx talker who came up with this perfectly coined definition of feminism. This isn’t power grabbing. This isn’t renewed, rearranged sexism.

Feminism is a commitment to ending gender-based oppression. And that’s something that both men and women will benefit from.

Because, let’s be real. We live in a world where gender-based oppression is a huge fucking deal. There’s so much of it, in fact, that every week I’m swamped with potential stories to cover here on The F Word. My email inbox is consistently flooded with article recommendations from friends, family members, and coworkers, all alerting me to the latest crazy incident of racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit to hit the airwaves. There’s always too much to cover on any given day.

This week, for example, we’ve got Monica Lewinsky. Vanity Fair has debuted an exclusive essay by Lewinsky, breaking her decade-long silence regarding her past as the White House whore. “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress,” she writes, going on to express her deep regret and remorse for her affair with former President Bill Clinton — which, she insists, was totally consensual.

But does consent really exist between an intern in her early 20s and her boss — a man who’s not only twice her age, but who’s also the President of the United States? The leader of the motherfucking free world asks you for a blow job, and what do you do? Report him to human resources?

I feel like the U.S. military’s Commander in Chief probably pulls rank on that one, no?

Yes, yes he does.

We live in a world where the man who abused his position of power to score sex from a hot, 20-something staffer, is now getting paid millions of dollars in speaking engagements. Meanwhile, his well-educated, exceptionally capable whore has been unable to land a full-time job ever, AT ALL, because of her “history,” a media sensation that’s transformed her from a person into a joke.

This is a world that needs feminism.

Then, we’ve got Emily Letts, an abortion counselor at a clinic in New Jersey who filmed her surgical abortion and posted it online, to show other women that “there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.”

The short video, featured below, is not graphic or violent, shows only the top half of Letts’ body, and focuses on her emotional and physical experience during the procedure. As a counselor, Letts wanted to share her experience to diffuse some of the frightening misinformation surrounding abortions, modeling one possible solution to a very personal, complicated situation.

Letts’ video and her accompanying essay for Cosmopolitan are helping women across the country come to safe, informed decisions about how to handle an unexpected pregnancy. They’re also helping to chip away at the deeply ingrained stigma our country holds against women who take control of their bodies and reproductive systems.

We live in a world where those are two goals that cause a huge chunk of the United States to respond with anger and vitriol, calling Letts a Godless Baby Slaughterer Witch from Hell. I give it about five minutes before death threats start rolling in.

This is a world that needs feminism.

And then, we’ve got 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

These girls, who range in age from 9 to 15 years old, haven’t been found, which is SHOCKING considering how little media or political attention their abductions have warranted. (Please re-read that sentence and multiply the sarcasm factor by infinity.) And why were they abducted? Because Boko Haram is opposed to women in Nigeria receiving Western educations.

That’s right, folks. We live in a world where girls are violently denied educations and sold into slavery — all while making fewer headlines than Kimye.

This world needs feminism so badly that I have to come up with creative ways to squeeze multiple stories into a single blog post — and I never manage to cover them all. It needs feminism so badly that I had an entire post written about this racist, sexist,  douchebag extraordinaire from Princeton who’s not apologizing for his white privilege, and I SCRAPPED it, because there were too many other stories that were even more important to cover this week.

So, to Shailene Woodley, and to all the other people in the world who are hesitant or unwilling to adopt the feminist identity, please listen.

Feminism is not man-hating. Feminism is not power-grabbing. Feminism is not dangerous, destructive, or harmful.

Feminism is empathy. Feminism is self-love, and love for your fellow human beings. Feminism is working to end the oppression of all people — men, women, queers, people of color, poor people, disabled people — so that all of us can live happier, healthier lives.

Being a feminist means that you believe in social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. Being a feminist means you believe in ending oppression.

And sadly, this column is proof that there aren’t enough of us.

So, please, get next to feminism. Feminists are changing the world for the better. And we need you.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Mingle MediaTV via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear appeared first on Law Street.

Last night at the Oscars, a group of America’s most recognizable celebrities banded together to take this record-breaking selfie.

If only Bradley’s arm was longer. Best photo ever. #oscars pic.twitter.com/C9U5NOtGap

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) March 3, 2014

When she gathered everyone, Ellen DeGeneres announced that she wanted to make it go viral as the most retweeted photograph ever. And that’s exactly what happened — the picture was retweeted about 2.5 million times as of this morning. It was retweeted so many times that it even crashed Twitter, and smashed the previous record of 700,000 retweets of a picture of President Obama and the First Lady.

While last night’s picture was of course a particularly well known one, celebrity selfies in general are becoming increasingly popular. Others are getting in on the fun too — for example, just a few days ago, Bill Nye posted this photo to his Instagram account.

That is, of course, President Obama with Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye, two influential scientists and pop culture icons.

And for a combo politician and celebrity pic, check out this one of real-life and TV Veeps Joe Biden and Julia Louis-Dreyfus:

That was an unforgettable evening. Thank u @JoeBiden @BarackObama @MichelleObama pic.twitter.com/eFOQlVGjlg

— Julia Louis-Dreyfus (@OfficialJLD) February 12, 2014

I’ve seen news stories on multiple platforms about all three of these pictures, last night’s Oscar selfie of course being the most popular of the three. Now part of me is thinking, “Why should I give a damn?” At the same time the Oscars were happening, Venezuela’s protests were getting worse, and Ukraine was devolving further into a bonafide mess.

But there’s also something to be said for the pure, sophisticated brilliance of these selfies. Free publicity is arguably the best kind of publicity, and it cost that gaggle of A-Listers absolutely nothing to have their picture retweeted a few million times last night. For years, celebrity gossip magazines have been printing pages with pictures of stars being “just like us” — they get Starbucks, they grocery shop, or they take their dog for a walk. These selfies are just an extension of that idea — a way for stars to connect with their fan bases.

The same goes for politicians and other public figures. When Obama takes a selfie with two of the most recognizable faces in science, it’s not just to commemorate meeting the two men, but also because it serves as free publicity. It goes on Instagram, a social media platform used mainly by young people. Much as he did during the 2008 and 2012 elections, he’s reaching out to young people on their terms. Now, obviously most politicians do use Twitter and have other social media accounts, but Obama’s usually pretty much on the cutting edge.

What about Bill Clinton’s selfie with Demi Lovato?

Too excited to filter this… NO BIG DEAL – #Selfieswiththeprez…. @billclinton – so nice to meet you!!!! pic.twitter.com/un07E9JEOy

— demetria lovato (@ddlovato) February 28, 2014

Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve got to assume that there isn’t a ton of overlap between Clinton’s and Lovato’s fans. So by sending this picture out, they probably both got exposure to different groups.

Viral marketing is by no means new, companies have been doing it for a few years now. But the selfie as an individual marketing tool has grown over the years. Not all industries are doing such an excellent job with free marketing. For example, a few weeks ago, a report came out that indicated that law firms in particular are not doing a good job with social media marketing. These celebrities and politicians are doing an excellent job harnessing the power of social media to get their names — and mostly their faces — out there. The selfie is no longer just a thing that teenagers share with their friends. It’s become a powerful tool — and last night proved that.

—

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Marketing Genius of the Selfie appeared first on Law Street.

‘Monica Lewinsky’ is a name that has lived in relative infamy for the last decade and a half. In some ways, the real woman who had a brief affair with our 42nd President has fallen into obscurity, but her name and what she represents live on. The archetype of the staffer who gets involved with a powerful man is a facet in books, movies, and TV shows.

For example, ABC’s hit show Scandal is pretty overt about it; during the first episode (slight spoiler alert if you’ve been under a rock for the last two years) Olivia Pope actually invokes Ms. Lewinsky’s name. She tells a girl named Amanda who may or may have not been sleeping with the President to make herself scarce, and when Amanda insists she’s a nice person, Pope points out, “You know who else was a good person? Monica Lewinsky, and she was telling the truth and she still got destroyed.”

And that right there, that’s what Monica Lewinsky has become. She’s a symbol and a political pop culture facet. Her affair with Clinton has been, no pun intended, put to bed. He has ascended to a position as a sort of elder statesman of the Democratic Party. And Hillary has moved on too, from New York Senator to Secretary of State, to presumed Democratic frontrunner.

So why are we talking about Monica Lewinsky? Now I’m not accusing everyone of this. Mitt Romney, for example, in an interview, felt the need to emphasize that we shouldn’t bring up Lewinsky in a conversation about Hillary, stating, “On the other hand, he embarrassed the nation, he breached his responsibility, I think, as an adult and as a leader in this relationship, and I think that’s unfortunate. But I don’t think that’s Hillary Clinton’s to explain. She has her own record and her own vision for where she would take the country.”

This was after potential Republican candidate Rand Paul, weirdly brought up Monica Lewinsky to slam Bill Clinton, and by extension, Hillary. He brought up the supposed “War on Women” that has become a contentious topic between Democrats and Republicans. Within that context, Paul claimed that because Bill Clinton had an affair with a younger woman on his staff 15 years ago, that means that Republicans can’t possibly be prejudiced toward women, and Democrats are the real offenders. OK, whatever. Rand Paul can say whatever he wants about Bill Clinton. As much as I do like Bill Clinton’s politics, he was creepy toward Monica Lewinsky and their relationship was inappropriate.

But any attempt to bring up Lewinsky as a tactic to attack Hillary Clinton makes very little sense, and is quite frankly, ridiculous. And that has happened. Take this tweet by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:

Remember all the #Clinton scandals http://t.co/IxTqPN44rC That’s not what America needs again

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) February 16, 2014

Now, Priebus could be talking about something else, I guess. As a political couple, there are other scandals surrounding the Clintons. But if someone says “Clinton Scandal,” you think of Lewinsky. And Priebus’ slam to Hillary’s campaign is poorly shielded and tactless.

So here’s the crux: say whatever you want about Bill’s affair, really, it’s fair game. But I don’t think it’s fair to imply that Hillary’s leadership may be in question because of something her husband did. She didn’t encourage him to have an affair, she didn’t get involved, au contraire, she handled the entire thing with a lot of poise and grace. To attack her for Bill’s mistakes either implies a) that she is somehow responsible, b) guilt by association, or c) that if she can’t keep her husband from straying, she’s not strong enough to be President.

There are substantive things to attack Hillary Clinton on, even as a huge fan I am 100 percent comfortable to admit that. Feel free even to attack her on the fact that she is famous mostly because of her relationship with Bill Clinton. But to analyze that relationship, to fault both for a mistake made by one is grasping at straws.

So Romney’s right, it shouldn’t be brought up. And while I hope that her competitors agree, I know they won’t. It’s a political maneuver, same as questions about Michelle Bachman’s relationship with her husband were in 2012. Monica Lewinsky is a buzzword, an easy political association. But please everyone, save the drama for Scandal.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [White House Photo via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Monica Lewinsky Matter in 2016? appeared first on Law Street.