Donald Trump’s immigration plans: start by deporting 3 million ‘criminals’

Speaking to 60 Minutes, president-elect says Mexico border wall would partially consist of fencing: Im very good at this. Its called construction

President-elect Donald Trump has said he plans to deport as many as 3 million people once he accedes to the Oval Office, and that fencing will form part of his promised wall on the border with Mexico.

In an interview with CBSs 60 Minutes, set to be broadcast Sunday, Trump said: What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate.

But were getting them out of our country, theyre here illegally.

On the campaign trail, Trump said he would deport all undocumented migrants living in the US, estimated to be about 11 million people. He has stressed his desire to deport criminal aliens and said that he would deport families in a very humane way.

His comments to CBS stopped short of such extremes but they also contrasted with the words of House speaker Paul Ryan in a Sunday interview with CNN.

That is not what our focus is, Ryan told State of the Union. We are focused on securing the border before we get on any immigration. We are not planning on erecting a deportation force, Donald Trumps not planning on that.

Speaking to CBS in his first broadcast interview since he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral college and lost to her in the popular vote, Trump referred to undocumented migrants without criminal records as terrific people. He did not describe in detail what his policy would be toward them.

After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, he said, were going to make a determination on the people that theyre talking about who are terrific people, theyre terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that.

But before we make that determination, he added, its very important, we are going to secure our border.

Read more:

Airlines to Trump: Block Rivals and Privatize Air Traffic Control

Donald Trump, a hotelier and former airline executive, has said plenty about immigrants, borders, and free trade. But he hasnt said much about the multibillion-dollar aviation industry. This huge segment of the American economy has some priorities and complaints that have gone essentially nowhere during the Obama administration, due in part to political gridlock.

With Republicans running both houses of Congress and the White House next year, airlines are now ready to push their case on several issues they hold dear. Most aviation experts say its hard to gauge how Trumps administration might respond, given that it doesnt owe the industry any favors.

This is probably not the kind of pro-business Republican administration you might expect, said Seth Kaplan, managing partner at Airline Weekly, an industry journal, as Trump isnt tied firmly to a particular ideology and doesnt really have any core beliefs. Hes said certain things in the campaign that he had to, to bring himself in line with the Republican Party a little bit, but its not like theres a history with anything.

Its also not clear that the Trump administration would see regulating aviation as a priority, said Bob Rivkin, a Chicago attorney who formerly worked for Delta Air Lines Inc. and at the U.S. Department of Transportation. It becomes a question of priorities and capacity to push through Congress laws invalidating regulations when youve got a whole lot of other things going on, Rivkin said. In transportation, there are number of things that could be affected, but I think theyre going to be down the list of priorities.

Also, theres the populist sentiment that may not mix well with favors to industry. The people who voted for him seem to feel that theyve gotten the raw end of the deal with big business, Kaplan said.

Nevertheless, here are some of the legislative issues facing airlines:

Air Traffic Control

U.S. carriers, with the notable exception of Delta, are pressing for Congress to transfer air traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration to a new not-for-profit entity similar to the model used in Canada to control airspace.

Large carriers such as American Airlines Group Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. argue that the FAAs structure and funding are unable to complete a long-delayed airspace modernization program and that the new organization would be more efficient and financially stable. Congress has declined to pursue the issue. But there could be a new movement from the House, especially since the airlines leading champion in Congress, Representative Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), won reelection. Shuster is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and has close personal ties to Airlines for America, the industrys trade group. 

International Rivals

The industryincluding its labor unionsis seeking to curb further expansion in North America by a trio of Middle Eastern carriers, Emirates, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways Ltd. The U.S. industry has been pressing the current administration for two years to open talks with those airlines governments over what they allege are tens of billions of dollars in unfair subsidies to the three airlines.

Trump, 70, has vehemently attacked U.S. trade deals he says disadvantage Americans, and airlines are saying the same regarding these competitors. 

We look forward to briefing President-elect Donald Trump and his new administration on the massive, unfair subsidies that the UAE and Qatar give to their state-owned Gulf carriers, said Jill Zuckman, chief spokesperson for the airline lobby group, Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, in a statement Wednesday. Trump would be inclined to not allow subsidized state-owned foreign airlines to compete unfairly against market-driven public companies from the U.S., Rivkin said. For now, the Obama administration has been at a sort of impasse over the Middle East controversy, said Brian Havel, director of the International Aviation Law Institute at DePaul University in Chicago.

The same coalition of airlines and unions is also battling efforts by Norwegian Air Shuttle AS to expand internationally with more U.S. service. The airline has been seeking a permit for its Irish subsidiary to serve U.S. destinations. Norwegians request to the Department of Transportation has been pending for almost three years. 


Airlines have begun flying there, but its a tiny business and not one likely to be profitable in the near future. And while Trump may not reverse the Obama policy on more open relations with the Castro government, he could slow any further diplomatic relations, said Charlie Leocha, president of Travelers United, which lobbies on consumer travel issues. Efforts in Congress to quash the 54-year-old U.S. embargo of the islandand tourism banmay falter.

We remain hopeful that Mr. Trump, who has previously supported engagement with Cuba as a businessman and a politician, will continue to normalize relations that will benefit both the American and Cuban people, Engage Cuba, a group of U.S. companies working to end the embargo, said in a statement. But the issue is also complicated because Trump has potential business interests in the island nation, with executives from his company traveling there in 2012 or 2013 to scout golf opportunities, Bloomberg Businessweek reported in July.

Passenger Rules

Lighter regulation from a billionaire businessman in the White House could mean a Transportation Department that is friendlier to airlines, with fewer rules and fees the carriers had criticized under Obama. Trump is also a former airline executive, having operated the Trump Shuttle (Easterns former shuttle service) with flights from New York to Boston and Washington, D.C., for about two years before it shut down in 1992. One reason: Trump opted for a relatively lavish service on short flights, at a time of high fuel prices, and couldnt recover his costs. Whether his experience then will affect how carriers do business in the next four years is unclear.

I don’t think aviation policy is going to soar to the top of his inbox, Havel said. I think well see a sort of default continuity into what weve had with the Obama administration.

Read more:

The Right (and Wrong) Way to Quit Your Job

You spend more time at your job than anywhere else. Hosts Rebecca Greenfield and Sam Grobart take a close look at the way we live our lives at workour frustrations, dilemmas, habits, and anything else that happens in the office. 

Quitting a job is a delicate process. It’s effectively a breakup. And, much like ending a romantic relationship, there’s no ideal way to do it. The person getting dumped (the employer) will get hurt. But, there are a few things departing workers can do to soften the blow, and hopefully not ruin the possibility of a relationship in the future.

Since this year, Americans are voluntarily leaving jobs at the highest rate since the 2008 recession, according to the Labor Department, Sam and Rebecca enlist the help of an expert on how to leave a job with grace. Reyhan Harmanci is the soon-to-be former Editor-in-Chief of Atlas Obscura, and has left her fair share of jobs over the years. She talks tricks of the trade and the key to quitting in style.

SoundCloud: The Right (and Wrong) Way to Quit Your Job by Bloomberg

Read more:

When online ad targeting becomes blatant discrimination

The animated facade of the Nasdaq MarketSite, welcomes the Facebook IPO, in New York’s Times Square.
Image: Associated press/richard drew, file

Online advertising’s been built around the ability to know exactly who you are. Are you a guitar-playing, cat-owning botanist? You’ll get served ads for guitar-shaped catnip hedge grow kits. Google, Twitter, and all other digital platforms where an advertisement can be servedwith Facebook leading the chargewant to know everything about you, usually already do, and use that information to convince marketers that the ads you’ll see are perfectly targeted to whoever you are (or aren’t).

That’s an intense stripe of power. And maybe that’s fineeven, potentially, helpfulwhen advertisers are dividing people by shopping habits, or hobbies. But when it comes to identifiers like race or ethnicity, that targeting can devolve into discrimination that cements harmful societal norms. At worst, it can perpetuate blatant prejudice that can affect critical issues in our lives, like housing and hiring.

On Friday, Facebook finally admitted it’d been on the wrong side of that line. The company said it would stop allowing advertisers to exclude certain “ethnic affinities” in categories like jobs and housing.

The ability to exclude people by “race” will still be available for the vast majority of Facebook advertisers, though. Facebook still claims this is too useful of a tool to killthat the upside of it outweighs the downside.

Others aren’t so sure.

The entire fracas is just the latest in a running series of incidents of online discrimination that are even more subtle than Facebook’s situation. The quiet discrimination of online advertising raises questions about the fairness of targeting users via personal data-points, and the lengths marketers are willing to go do so.

It’s a dilemma that ties back to one of the biggest challenges that’s always faced the ad industry: How do you sell to society in specific ways without reinforcing our ugliest tendencies?

Ethnic ‘affinities’

An October 2016 ProPublica investigation found that the way Facebook packages users could violate civil rights laws that ban discrimination in housing ads.

They discovered an option within the platform that lets brands cater to (or exclude) people by ethnic affinityin other words, users the company’s judged to have a distinct predilection for African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics or other racial groups.

Facebook countered that the tool looks for “affinity” rather than a stated race, and thus, doesn’t break laws governing ad discrimination.

John Relman, a prominent civil rights lawyer, emphatically disagreed when ProPublica plied him with the same question.

“This is horrifying. This is massively illegal,” he told the outlet. “This is about as blatant a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act as one can find.”

The site also pointed out how the options appear under Facebook’s “demographics” heading, to which the social network replied that it had plans to switch their category. Of course, Facebook eventually made the absolute minimum changes needed to stay inside the law.

When machines discriminate

Not every example of ad discrimination is as blatant as Facebook’s.

Sometimes bias is the consequence of cold machine learning. Algorithms evolve and find patterns on their own that might fly in the face of what their creators intended. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, for instance, found last year that Google ads tended to show far fewer women than men job offers for positions with salaries of $200,000 or more.

More troubling yet, Google-hosted job listings in STEM fields also disproportionately sought out males.

An ad tech firm helped researchers trace the decision-making process back to a so-called “black-box” systeman opaque targeting script with little human supervision or input.

“There’s really very little transparency into how these decisions are getting made and whether there are societal values either intentionally or unintentionally being compromised in the process,” says Anupam Datta, a computer science professor who helped build the software responsible for the findings.

It’s unclear whether the algorithm observed traits or tendencies in Google’s cache of user data that led it to act this way, or if it was a function of its programming. It seems Google might not even know what happened.

While no laws were broken, the process illustrated how easily self-teaching programs can end up reinforcing, say, the gender pay gap, and stereotypes about which professions are supposedly more suitable for women or men.

These kinds of biases can manifest in more latent ways, too. Shades of sexism like gender-coded language or postings soliciting someone who’s the “right fit” might be amplified by perceptive artificial intelligence.

The problem there? The tools with potential for discriminatory abuse are the same ones needed for legitimate efforts to rope in diverse communities.

“In advertising you’re trying to reach out to specific groups,” says Wendy Stryker, an employment lawyer at New York law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. “How do you do that without violating some of these [discrimination] laws?”

Stryker says there are clear laws dictating what constitutes discrimination in advertising to job applicants, as there are for home-seekers. As the above case shows, those rules don’t always account for everything.

Racist searches

“Have you ever been arrested?” Harvard data privacy professor Latanya Sweeney begins her powerful 2013 study, examining how ads placed on Google and Reuters treat race. “Imagine the question not appearing in the solitude of your thoughts as you read this paper, but appearing explicitly whenever someone queries your name in a search engine.”

In her research, Sweeney found that searches for “black-sounding” names turned up significantly more sponsored results and display ads mentioning things like criminal records and background checks than others.

A Google spokesperson denied that the search engine does any sort of racial profiling, pointing to a policy that bans advertisers from advocating against any one group or subset of people. Background check site, one of the primary brands named, also swore it didn’t use any technology that could connect name to race.

If Sweeney’s right, her findings demonstrate a particularly egregious instance of prejudice. Yet, such problems also connect back to a defining dilemma that’s plagued socially-aware advertisers for years: Advertising has always been caught between reflecting and advancing the culture from which it feeds.

Advertising, by nature, plays off of sometimes-stale generalizations and group commonalities in order to better appeal to specific parts of the population, leading to a reputation as “the most prevalent and toxic of the mental pollutants,” in the words of Canadian activist Kalle Lasn.

But more groundbreaking work can also change societal perceptions and split open otherwise untapped markets. For instance, efforts like a Spanish-language campaign geared towards Hispanic web surfersthe kind of diversity outreach for which Facebook says its race tools were rightly intended.

On the web, where all ads are hyper-personal, and privacy’s something of an illusion, the contrast between marketers’ intentions and practices are intensified so much more than they are outside of the digital realm.

But the responsibility ultimately falls on Facebook to design targeting tools in a way that enable diverse advertising while preventing the more insidious abuses it might enable. And on Friday, Facebook took a stephowever minimaltowards addressing that challenge. The question remains: What else, if anything, will they do about it?

Read more:

Black Friday is nothing compared to China’s Singles Day

Alibaba Group Chairman Jack Ma.
Image: vcg/vcg via Getty Images

China’s e-commerce giant Alibaba moved $17.8 billion in sales during its Singles Day sale on Friday, smashing its own records.

The $17.8 billion (or 120.7 billion yuan) figured crushed Black Friday’s $4.45 billion in e-commerce sales last year and Alibaba’s own $14.3 billion record from 2015.

Singles Day is China’s biggest e-commerce day of the year, complete with a nationally televised party and concert. The day originated as an anti-Valentine’s Day, encouraging single people in China to buy gifts for themselves.

Alibaba broke records with 2016’s event, but that doesn’t even include sales from other companies. The company’s Chinese competitor didn’t post sales numbers, but said that orders were up 78 percent from 2015 at only 12 p.m. made up about 20 percent of Singles Day purchases, the analytics firm Clavis Insight said.

Alibaba reached $1 billion in sales in its first five minutes on Friday. Eighty-seven percent of Singles Day purchases were made via mobile, Clavis Insights said.

The best selling American brands during the sale were Apple, Nike, New Balance, Playboy and Skechers, Alibaba said.

Alibaba is Amazon’s biggest competitor worldwide.

On Black Friday last year, Amazon accounted for about 35 percent of e-commerce sales. On Cyber Monday, Amazon sold $2.68 billion. And Amazon held its own branded Prime Day shopping day in July, and said it received 18 percent more orders than on Black Friday.

Amazon has also been trying to make headway in China and Southeast Asia with new launches of Amazon Prime.

Read more:

New Airbnb ad shows off the company’s anti-discrimination efforts

Supporters of Airbnb hold a rally outside City Hall in New York.
Image: Associated press / Bebeto Matthews, File

Airbnb wants to remind everyone that it takes discrimination very seriously.

The home rental service is launching a flashy new ad campaign to show off its anti-prejudice efforts after a series of reports alleging racism among its hosts caused the company a public relations headache.

The 75-second ad involves a montage of ultra-zoomed faces of a diverse range of people sliding like a kaleidoscope into one another as diversity-affirming text flashes sporadically across the screen.

The commercial’s title, “Accept,” is meant to be a play on the pink confirmation button for bookings on the site, which is featured in the closing shot.

True to Airbnb’s artsy, minimalist marketing style, the ad is light on any concrete information. But the message is clearly tied to the startup’s efforts to repair its image over the past few months, during which it launched an internal investigation and a new anti-discrimination contract it now makes all hosts and guests sign.

“The concept was simple: Our people, our commitment to each other and a call to action,” Airbnb Chief Marketing Officer Jonathan Mildenhall told Mashable in an email.”The film’s power laid in the faces. It’s a lot more difficult to deny to someone while looking them in the eyes.”

But the video’s release date made it especially timely as a divided nation reels from an unprecedentedly tumultuous election.

“The intention was for the audience to be our community,” Mildenhall said. “But as the rhetoric of the country began to boil over it became clearer than ever that this message of acceptance was beyond Airbnb.”

Testimonies of racism within the service began bubbling into public view this spring when Twitter users shared their stories en masse under the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack.

A month later, the company was hit with a class-action discrimination lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. (A judge ruled to block the suit earlier this month.)

The bad publicity storm came at a sore time for Airbnb as the company struggled to defend itself from charges that its service advanced gentrification as users reserved apartments solely for renting out via the site.

The company rushed to launch an internal review of discrimination on the platform in June. Three months later, it wrapped up the probe with a series of changes to its booking process aimed at combatting the problem.

The video was made in-house and will be shared only on the company’s social channels.

Read more:

Why the NFL is likely rooting for the Seahawks to beat the Patriots

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in January 2015.  (Matthew Emmons-USA TODAY Sports)

It’s a strange thing to say, but the NFL, the most successful sports business in the world — an enterprise that brings in more money annually than the NBA and Premier League, combined — needs a win.

They’re poised to get one this weekend, but only if the Seattle Seahawks cooperate.


More from FoxSports

It’s no secret that television ratings are down for the NFL this season, and that’s obviously a concern for the league. Commissioner Roger Goodell calls the downtick a “cyclical” part of rapid growth, and he’s correct. The league has also taken a stance that ratings are down because of the presidential election’s “unprecedented interest” and they’re right about that too.

The downtick cannot be that easily written off, though. So far this year 27 of 28 prime-time games have failed to beat the same viewership numbers the same 2015 time slot, and that kind of trend should scare the NFL to its core. Those prime-time, showcase contests are the games the league counts on to turn the current $13 billion in revenue into Goodell’s goal of $25 billion by 2027 by selling them for $45 million per contest.


The election is over, but the NFL’s ratings problem clearly went beyond that competition — the television viewing experience (number of advertisements, pace of play) has to be taken into account, too. NBA ratings are up this season, so why are the NFL’s in freefall?

The largest on-field issue, of course, is the quality of play. Viewer retention is part of television ratings and if you were able to watch the entirety of Browns-Ravens on Thursday night, you should see a psychiatric professional immediately. The NFL has always pushed for parity, and they’ve gotten it this year — but you can have parity without quality and in the showcase games this year that’s often been shockingly apparent.

But not with Sunday night’s Patriots – Seahawks game. The Patriots are, hands down, the best team in the NFL and the Seahawks appear to be the top contender in the NFC. This is one impressive matchup — perhaps even a Super Bowl preview.

This is a market-correcting game for the NFL — see, it was the election! — so long as it’s a good one.

That’s not guaranteed.

The Seahawks have two schedule disadvantages going against them in this game — a double-whammy if there ever was one — on top of having to take on the best team in the NFL.

The first problem is that the Seahawks played on Monday night — they’re on a short week. If they were playing the 49ers Sunday, that might not have been a problem, but when you’re playing the Patriots, you want as much time as possible to heal and prepare.

You especially want that extra time when you have to travel 3,000 miles east for the game.

West Coast teams have won only 35 percent of road gamesagainst East Coast teams, a number that lends credence to the belief that there’s a larger factor at play than simple home field advantage — the further they travel, the more they lose.

Sure enough, the Seahawks are more than a touchdown underdogs Sunday, and that spread is rising.

The NFL won’t want to hear that — for one, it pretends that betting isn’t happening, but also because a lopsided Patriots win won’t keep East Coast viewers (more than 50 percent of the nation lives in the time zone) from getting a good night’s rest.

There aren’t too many exciting prime-time games left on the NFL schedule (unless you want to get excited about the Chiefs or New York Giants, which means you were probably already watching the games), so the league will surely be rooting for the Seahawks to summon some mystic strength and deliver its A-game to Foxborough.

The NFL really needs a win, and the biggest one it could get is a Seahawks victory Sunday night.

Read more:

Workers ‘cutting hours’ because of childcare costs – BBC News

Image copyright Thinkstock

More than one in four UK business leaders say employees have cut their hours because of the “high cost of childcare”, a report from the British Chambers of Commerce says.

The survey of more than 1,600 business leaders also found nearly 10% said some staff had quit for the same reason.

Government policy “should evolve to help as many parents as possible stay in the workplace,” the BCC urged.

The government said it was doing “more than ever before to support families”.

Under current measures, every three- and four-year-old in Britain is entitled to up to 15 hours of free early education and childcare per week.

From 2017, this entitlement will be doubled to 30 hours a week. Those surveyed said they would welcome further support.

The BCC carried out the survey in conjunction with Middlesex University researchers.

One third of those questioned said the availability of childcare was a “key issue in recruiting and retaining staff”.

Some 12% said their employees’ productivity had fallen because of the cost of childcare, and a further 8% said staff changed roles within their business as a result of the same issue.

‘Removing barriers’

Although almost 40% of the businesses surveyed said the government plans to double free childcare in 2017 would help, the BCC said it was calling on ministers to do more, including considering offering universal childcare until a child started school.

Adam Marshall, director general of the BCC, said the government should consider the childcare system as part of Britain’s core business infrastructure – “in the same way that it thinks of energy, transport, or broadband”.

A Department for Education spokesman said that in England, from September, parents would have up to 30 hours of childcare a week for three- and four-year-olds, “helping to remove the barriers that can stop them from working”.

“It is backed up by a record 6bn per year investment in childcare by the end of the Parliament, as well as introducing tax-free childcare worth up to 2,000 per child per year.”

Read more:

Nigel Farage, Donald Trump meeting “very productive”

(CNN)Nigel Farage met with President-elect Donald Trump in New York on Saturday for what a Trump aide called “a very productive” meeting.

Farage, the head of the UK Independence Party and leader of the Brexit movement, was spotted in the lobby of Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. He yelled out, “We’re just tourists!” when reporters asked what he was doing there.
    Later that day, Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said the two met in the President-elect’s residence inside.
    “I think they enjoy each other’s company, and they actually had a chance to talk about freedom and winning and what this all means for the world,” Conway said.
    Farage later posted a picture on Facebook and Twitter of him with Trump, who gives a thumbs-up for the camera.
    “It was a great honour to spend time with Donald Trump today. He was relaxed, and full of good ideas. I’m confident he will be a good President,” read the caption.
    “His support for the US-UK relationship is very strong. This is a man with whom we can do business,” Farage wrote.
    A longtime Trump supporter, Farage introduced Trump at a rally in Mississippi in August and later worked in the spin room as a surrogate after the second presidential debate in October.
    Trump made frequent references to Brexit throughout the campaign, saying it demonstrated the wish for change among voters frustrated with establishment politics.

    Read more:

    My beef over Hillary Clinton’s loss is with liberal feminists, young and old

    One picture, taken in the New York woods, restored the candidate to ordinary life. If Democrats had listened to ordinary Americans, she might have been president

    The black mood of women feeling battered and bereft after Hillary Clintons loss was suddenly pierced on Thursday by an image that brought the tears all over again.

    It was a snap on Facebook taken on the hiking trails surrounding Chappaqua by Margot Gerster, a grieving Hillary supporter who was out walking with her little girls. Suddenly, she wrote, there was the sound of rustling. Then, appearing like a mirage in the clearing, was Hillary herself with Bill and their dogs, doing exactly the same thing as Gerster. The former president obliged Gerster by taking the photograph after she and Hillary had exchanged a few sweet pleasantries and hugged.

    Nothing I have seen in the last 15 months of the campaign has resonated with me as much as the image that Gerster posted. It shows Hillary wearing what looks like no make-up, her hair uncoiffed, dressed in a baggy black parka, brown leggings and boots, and holding the dog leash twisted in her hand as her poodle mix snuffles among the carpet of leaves at her feet.

    Only 24 hours after delivering the poised, dignified concession speech that masked her own heartbreak and tried to mend ours, its as if she had finally been returned to the world as she really is: an approachable woman in late middle age, hiking the trails with her dogs and her husband in the solitude of a beautiful fall morning, trying to cope with her pain. The sight of it, so comforting in the warmth of its ordinariness, was a visual rebuke to the distortion and the cruelty of the attacks she has endured.

    She was my champion. I miss her, my 26-year-old daughter grieved last night. Every disappointed Democratic supporter has her own target for anger it seems. My daughters is her fellow millennials, who didnt come out in enough numbers to take Clinton to the White House. Clinton won this group by 54%, six-percent down from Obama in 2012. Always in a storm of umbrage about micro-aggressions, those crucial solipsistic stay-at-home millennials wound up enabling the macro aggression of Donald Trump.

    By contrast, Hillary has been the living embodiment of resistance to a torrent of intimidation that was not a construct, but horribly real. She faced an alt-right and Fox News smear campaign, followed by the coup de grace from the self-righteous FBI director who hasnt yet had the decency to resign. She was called a crook, a felon, a liar who was too old, too past it, not cool enough, not authentic enough, not not not.

    But there are iconic images of her courage we should never forget: her cool precision through 11 hours of congressional assault in the Benghazi hearings, her triumph in each presidential debate with crackling, well-prepared arguments, even though in one she was watched by a peanut gallery of her husbands accusers disgracefully assembled by Trump to put her off her stride. The aim was to portray her as Bills enabler, which is the cruelest slander of all.

    Read more: