The Most Biased Presidential Debate Moderator Ever?

THE MOST BIASED PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE MODERATOR EVER?

There is likely no such thing as a perfect impartial balance. Most of the people selected as moderators have long-standing involvement in political reporting and usually have a long established bias that they cannot leave in the past.

But, a few years ago Presidential debate moderation took a real turn for the worse, when Gwen Ifill of PBS started directly challenging sitting Vice President Dick Cheney, on a few issues she notably took issue with personally. But, even still, it was 10 questions for Cheney, and 10 questions for Edwards. From that point on, though, moderators have begun trying to push themselves further into the debate forum, and become part of the narrative of the event. They've tried to move social media outlets into the debates, and to start making names for themselves.

Still, that day at Case Western Reserve University pales in comparison with what went on last night at Hofstra University in New York City, as Lester Holt put on what from my memory was the most complete one-sided job of moderating a Presidential Debate that ever existed.

I not only watched the debate twice, but I've also scoured over the transcripts to confirm that this really was the case. I went through and measured numbers of how things went on.

My findings were absolutely astonishing.

(Part 1 of 6)

SPEAKING INTERRUPTIONS
Lester Holt interrupted Donald Trump speaking on 46 occasions, but Hillary Clinton only 5 times. That's 90% of the time he interrupted a candidate speaking it was Donald Trump to only 10% Hillary Clinton.

In fairness, it is tough to say on some of those occasions who was interrupting who, as the candidates interrupted Lester Holt, and at times both candidates were speaking at the same time.

But, given the disparity of the number, even a +/- on that of 5 times (double Hillary's total), it would still only be 41-10. That's at least a 80% to 20% clear indication of advantage towards the one candidate. My count was still 46-5.


REDIRECTS AND FOLLOW-UPS

Lester Holt "followed-up", "countered", "redirected", or "fact checked" Trump on 24 times, but only 1 time of Hillary.

Again, in fairness, some of those re-directs were because of things that weren't answered when originally asked, and other times they were countered because of things Trump had said. There was also the case that several of the re-directs or counters were done over each other as both Lester Holt and Donald Trump got into it talking over each other, prompting Lester Holt to repeat things he'd already asked in multiple incidents.

Still, that's 24/25 of them or 96% of the challenges to a candidate, outside of the standard prepared questions, directly going towards one candidate. So maybe, given the repetition, and other things, was it only 19/20 and 95% instead? There is absolutely no way it was anywhere near a 50%.

Then there was the break down of questions.

BREAKDOWN OF QUESTIONS

Over the course of the debate, and all the different "sections we're calling", there were really only 15 questions asked over that hour and a half. 7 of the questions were asked of both candidates, but, then there were other "follow-up" questions or other questions that were specifically done to target each candidate individually.

The break down of those 15 questions came out to be;

- 7 questions asked to each candidate, and given 2 minutes to respond, and additional time for rebuttal

- 6 lines of questioning directly put towards Donald Trump

- 2 lines of questioning directly put towards Hillary Clinton.

That comes out to 40% directed to Trump -- 46.67% given to both candidates -- 13.3% directed to Hillary

(Part 2 of 6)

But, even worse than the total number of questions, was the manner in which these questions were asked to each other.

LINE OF QUESTIONING

For instance, of the questions asked of both, Hillary was asked to "defend" her plan to raise taxes on the highest income earners, and Trump was asked to "defend" lowering taxes on the rich. Now, the way that's framed already favors Hillary, as "lowering taxes for the rich" has a negative stigma to it, and raising the taxes on only the top earners is the exact Robinhood populist mentality, that one doesn't typically have to "defend" themselves from. So, even though both were facing a similar question, it was really setting Clinton up with a softball question, and forcing Trump to try and articulate a difficult message that isn't an easy sell to the overwhelming majority of the population.

Then, when you go towards the questions directed at Trump, many of them it seemed like Lester couldn't get them out of his mouth soon enough, often times forcefully trying to interrupt over Trump to add a new wrinkle in.

For instance, during the segment "called" the Direction of America, he asked about "racial healing". There, he had a particular "follow-up" for Trump, which wasn't based off of anything that Trump said during the debate, so he obviously wasn't "following" up on anything, but rather, had a specific question he was determined to ask of Trump. It pertained to the Birther comments. Lester jumped in, while Hillary and Trump were sparring back and forth to interrupt, and started right into his question "there were five", but Trump asked if he could respond to the last thing Hillary said, and Holt agreed to let him have 20 seconds. But, after just 10 seconds he began butting in and asking the question over Trump talking, and kept forcing the question in.

HOLT: Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation's first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?

Click to expand...

But, that wasn't really enough. Lester continued to ask, and badger Trump over this same issue. He interrupted him speaking a total of 10 times just over this 1 question.

Then there were the line of questions for each candidate individually.

(Part 3 of 6)

Winners don't make excuses. That is what losers do. Maybe Trump should not make excuses for his being unprepared.

LINE OF QUESTIONING FOR TRUMP

Of the line of questioning of Trump, several of them were very specific targeted challenges of anything Trump had ever said, and some argumentative challenges to that.

QUESTION #1 - How specifically Trump would get manufacturing companies to come back to the US (a specific follow-up to Trump after asking a similar question to both candidates before that to start the very debate with)

QUESTION #2 - Releasing his tax returns, and with it a shot at him about the IRS saying it's possible for him to.

QUESTION #3 - About his statements supporting the controversial Stop & Frisk policy

QUESTION #4 - About his stance on the Birther controversy, and why it took him so long, and why he continued to push it after the Birth Certificate was given (to the point where the specific statements from Holt were that it was a "false claim" against the nation's "first Black President"). Lester even pushed this on 5 separate occasions challenging Trump's answers on them.

QUESTION #5 - Why his judgment was better than Hillary Clinton's (with a back-door question laced onto it of, because "you supported the Iraq War", which is something Trump continues to deny, regularly states he was against the Iraq War). Then he continued to interrupt Trump and go back and forth with him putting up statements of his, and allowing Hillary to butt in and make comments furthering the question.

QUESTION #6 - What Trump meant by saying Hillary doesn't have the "presidential look". This was a dirty, dirty question, as each presidential candidate from my memory has been judged on whether they "looked presidential" or not, and Hillary herself has made the accusation at Trump numerous times that he doesn't look presidential. That's been one of the main criticisms of him all throughout the process, and even leading into the debate what pundits were discussing as his objective during the debate. But, since Hillary is female people seem to be pushing back on judgment of looks because it's being associated with sexism. The way the question was phrased, even, it was set up to try and trip him up on a statement about women. Lester even followed up and pressed him about it after he answered, still trying to trip him up.

(Part 4 of 6)

LINE OF QUESTIONING FOR HILLARY

In contrast, the 2 questions specifically asked of Clinton were complete softball questions, that everyone knew she prepared responses for, and Lester Holt never challenged them, or issued a follow-up based on her cookie-cutter nondescript responses.

QUESTION #1 - If she wanted to respond to Trump bringing up the email issue.

Ooo way to pin her down on that one Lester.

The American people are notedly upset about this, and it has turned into a massive scandal, but, you asked her a soft ball open ended if she wanted to respond, and then let her get away with a simple heartless apology that she made a mistake, and that was all?

She also carried on lying about it for years, initially lying to the public stating she didn't do it, but that was exposed as a lie, then her story changed many times after each lie was exposed, she didn't exactly own up to it being a mistake. That was an invention on the debate stage that night. He didn't see a need to challenge that?

Furthermore, it's come out that many of these emails were listed as classified, and that American top secret information regarding the safety of people serving abroad may have been put at risk as a result.

Yet, Lester Holt saw no need for a "follow-up" question? Especially given how harsh he was with Trump over numerous issues?

Wait, he didn't see a need for "follow-up", because he didn't even see a need bring up the question at all. It came up because Trump brought it up, and Lester merely gave Hillary the opportunity to respond to that if she wanted.


Then, QUESTION #2, the only other question Holt asked directly of Hillary, was pretty much another soft-ball attempt for her to grandstand about her policies on the topic.

HOLT: Secretary Clinton, last week, you said we've got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people?

Click to expand...

Now, given all the popular resentment about the recent police shootings, this is again, something she's not going to be going into a bad ground by taking a stand on it, and she didn't even get forced to take a stand. She actually got away with really not answering the question.

(Ironically, though, this may have back-fired on them in this instance. One of the major voting blocks that has traditionally gone to Democrats because of their strict support of unions, and funding from state and local governments is the police union. However, since Hillary seems to be making a play for the Black Lives Matter crowd, she may have lost all law enforcement officials across the country on this, as Trump took full advantage to back the police. Given that the Republicans have been near zero with support among African Americans in recent elections, they're not going to lose any additional votes backing the police, but by backing the police, they may get a significant boost in support from the Police Unions across the country. But, that remains to be seen. The question itself certainly wasn't set up to hurt Hillary.)


But, the two worst parts about the debate, were where Lester Holt really lost control of the debate, and proved to be extremely biased, not a "moderator" but an extremely partial opponent.

(Part 5 of 6)

IndCentristMA said:

(Part 1 of 6)

Click to expand...

Oh Jesus, there's another FOUR POSTS full of this crap? Dude...ease off the throttle. You're obsessing WAY too much over this.

Anyway...Candy Crowley is the worst moderator ever.

HOLTS MAJOR DEBATE MODERATION FAUX PAS

The first was when Lester Holt physically stopped and turned around looking over at the Trump supporters and "admonished" them for making noise, because they "had an agreement". This was wrong on so many levels.

If he was concerned about noise, he should've issued a crowd wide subtle warning, rather than just jerking around like that and turning towards a specific side. Also, he never said anything other than that before or after it, despite the Hillary supporters clearly laughing and messing around as Hillary cracked 1-liners. Then, towards the end of the debate, both sounds began cheering back and forth, which made action of turning to admonish the Trump supporters completely moot at that point, and an unnecessary moment in this debate.

The other was the most controversial moment ever witnessed in an election debate. Lester Holt went side conversation with Trump, arguing back and forth the merits of a policy.

I'm sorry, did I miss something. Was Lester Holt a candidate, and part of the debate? Since when is he there to be arguing policy back and forth with Trump? It was the oddest moment I've witnessed in a Presidential Debate.

HOLT: Your two -- your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.

TRUMP: No, you're wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it's allowed.

HOLT: The argument is that it's a form of racial profiling.

TRUMP: No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and they are bad people that shouldn't have them.

Click to expand...

Trump seemed to respond to the moment well, and got an applause line in with his supporters at the end of that brief point in the exchange, but the strange part was that the exchange was with the moderator.

This wasn't his opponent questioning his stance on the policy. The moderator jumped into an argument on the merits of a policy. Wow. How dare Lester Holt try to inject input into the policy discussions as moderator?


Then, there are all the conspiracy theorists out there expounding on the notion that there was a hidden signal between Holt and Clinton, every time she scratched her face, and he seemed to soon follow up with either badgering Trump or switching to Clinton for a one-liner. Their evidence looks pretty convincing, but I'm not gonna hop on board that train. His performance was bad enough on facts, there's no need for additional speculation.


I'm pretty sure this has to go down in memory as the Trump vs Holt/Clinton debate (if not the Scratch and Sniff debate, with her face scratches and Trump sniffling constantly at the start).

Whether he was biased or not during that debate is without question. He clearly went after 1 candidate, Donald Trump, to the benefit of the other, Hillary Clinton. That was not "moderation"; it was a pure hatchet job, trying to cut down Donald Trump, and making it a 2-on-1 debate, without it being formally recognized as one.

Why is it that people are not completely outraged by this having been done on such a high profile stage, and such a pivotal moment in our nation's political history?

After having already witnessed the rigging going on of the Democratic Party primary process, and how much favoritism it took for Hillary Clinton to be able to beat Bernie Sanders, how are even more Democrats not extremely upset to see more favoritism and complete partiality favoring Clinton getting elected, against a due process? This doesn't feel like an election, but rather a 3rd World takeover of power.

Can anyone else think of a Presidential Debate that had an even remotely comparable blatantly obvious biased moderator?

I went into the debate hating both candidates, but in the end, came out hating Lester Holt more, a guy who I otherwise thought was a respected unbiased journalist. That was despicable, and we, the American people, all suffered as a result.


(Part 6 of 6)

...and not a word of this unnecessary novel will be read by anyone.

The Wall O' Text has returned with a vengeance!

Holt was too lax on Trump's 25 interruptions in the first half hour.

Redress said:

Winners don't make excuses. That is what losers do. Maybe Trump should not make excuses for his being unprepared.

Click to expand...

A) This post isn't to back either candidate. It was more a study for historical purposes of the debate process in presidential history. Regardless of which candidate wins, this was a horrific performance of debate moderation, that is a dangerous precedent going forward for American politics, unless there is some serious response to it.

B) Half feel Trump lost, half feel Trump won. You can't just jump to conclusions because you feel towards one of those sides and not the other. One of the things I love doing after the debates is flipping channels for hours to get all the different angles which each side is spinning. Faux News was just as hard pro-Trump as Clinton News Network was pro-Hillary. Others that did unbiased reporting tended to point towards polls which showed that each won with certain groups and lost with others. Again, my judgement is not as to who won the debate, but rather how it was conducted, and that was poorly.

C) As far as being prepared, Donald Trump seemed to dominate the part of the debate that was discussing relevant issues. He seemed well prepared. The things Donald Trump struggled with were when he was being talked over by the moderator, and when Hillary Clinton would raise a lie she hasn't told before.

You can't exactly prepare yourself to discussed getting ambushed by accusations from a former Miss Universe pageant winner from 20-30 years ago suddenly desiring to be in the spotlight again by saying "he's a bad man". That's an out of the blue sucker punch, which then when it's investigated, it turns out it's coming from the mouth of a woman who drove a getaway car during a murder, and then threatened to kill the judge, but thinks that people should excuse that part of her past, while she wants to still hold a grudge against Trump for being tough on her adding 20 lbs after being awarded the Miss Universe crown. She said it caused her to have eating disorders, but then it turns out, she had told the Washington Post that she had those eating disorders for years prior to the Miss Universe competition and even meeting Trump to begin with.

That kind of tabloid crap doesn't belong in a presidential debate on policy. Clinton name dropping fake scandals is another shameful aspect of this debate unto it's own separate topic than this.

Until Holt finally fact-checked Donald on his bull**** Iraq support claim, I thought he had ducked out to go to a bar or something.

Velvet Elvis said:

Oh Jesus, there's another FOUR POSTS full of this crap? Dude...ease off the throttle. You're obsessing WAY too much over this.

Anyway...Candy Crowley is the worst moderator ever.

Click to expand...

Candy Crowley kind of got walked over by the candidates, who kept going at each other over her. I don't think she necessarily did anything wrong herself.

I could be mistaken there, I'd have to refresh on that. I just remember all the talk being about how she couldn't stop them from talking.

But, apart from any mistakes, the topic suggested is the clearly discernible bias which the moderator had which favored one of the candidates.

Tl;dr

IndCentristMA said:

This entire thread

Click to expand...

Here...let me paraphrase for you.

IndCentristMA said:

LINE OF QUESTIONING FOR HILLARY

In contrast, the 2 questions specifically asked of Clinton were complete softball questions, that everyone knew she prepared responses for, and Lester Holt never challenged them, or issued a follow-up based on her cookie-cutter nondescript responses.

QUESTION #1 - If she wanted to respond to Trump bringing up the email issue.

Ooo way to pin her down on that one Lester.

The American people are notedly upset about this, and it has turned into a massive scandal, but, you asked her a soft ball open ended if she wanted to respond, and then let her get away with a simple heartless apology that she made a mistake, and that was all?

She also carried on lying about it for years, initially lying to the public stating she didn't do it, but that was exposed as a lie, then her story changed many times after each lie was exposed, she didn't exactly own up to it being a mistake. That was an invention on the debate stage that night. He didn't see a need to challenge that?

Furthermore, it's come out that many of these emails were listed as classified, and that American top secret information regarding the safety of people serving abroad may have been put at risk as a result.

Yet, Lester Holt saw no need for a "follow-up" question? Especially given how harsh he was with Trump over numerous issues?

Wait, he didn't see a need for "follow-up", because he didn't even see a need bring up the question at all. It came up because Trump brought it up, and Lester merely gave Hillary the opportunity to respond to that if she wanted.


Then, QUESTION #2, the only other question Holt asked directly of Hillary, was pretty much another soft-ball attempt for her to grandstand about her policies on the topic.



Now, given all the popular resentment about the recent police shootings, this is again, something she's not going to be going into a bad ground by taking a stand on it, and she didn't even get forced to take a stand. She actually got away with really not answering the question.

(Ironically, though, this may have back-fired on them in this instance. One of the major voting blocks that has traditionally gone to Democrats because of their strict support of unions, and funding from state and local governments is the police union. However, since Hillary seems to be making a play for the Black Lives Matter crowd, she may have lost all law enforcement officials across the country on this, as Trump took full advantage to back the police. Given that the Republicans have been near zero with support among African Americans in recent elections, they're not going to lose any additional votes backing the police, but by backing the police, they may get a significant boost in support from the Police Unions across the country. But, that remains to be seen. The question itself certainly wasn't set up to hurt Hillary.)


But, the two worst parts about the debate, were where Lester Holt really lost control of the debate, and proved to be extremely biased, not a "moderator" but an extremely partial opponent.

(Part 5 of 6)

Click to expand...

Stop whining, you will get plenty of opportunities over the next four yeas.

IndCentristMA said:

THE MOST BIASED PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE MODERATOR EVER?

There is likely no such thing as a perfect impartial balance. Most of the people selected as moderators have long-standing involvement in political reporting and usually have a long established bias that they cannot leave in the past.

But, a few years ago Presidential debate moderation took a real turn for the worse, when Gwen Ifill of PBS started directly challenging sitting Vice President Dick Cheney, on a few issues she notably took issue with personally. But, even still, it was 10 questions for Cheney, and 10 questions for Edwards. From that point on, though, moderators have begun trying to push themselves further into the debate forum, and become part of the narrative of the event. They've tried to move social media outlets into the debates, and to start making names for themselves.

Still, that day at Case Western Reserve University pales in comparison with what went on last night at Hofstra University in New York City, as Lester Holt put on what from my memory was the most complete one-sided job of moderating a Presidential Debate that ever existed.

I not only watched the debate twice, but I've also scoured over the transcripts to confirm that this really was the case. I went through and measured numbers of how things went on.

My findings were absolutely astonishing.

(Part 1 of 6)

Click to expand...

Until the next debate moderator...............

Cardinal said:

Until Holt finally fact-checked Donald on his bull**** Iraq support claim, I thought he had ducked out to go to a bar or something.

Click to expand...

This was another major problem with the moderation as well. This isn't "fact checking". This is finding one quote and trying to blow it up out of context, and using it as a gotcha style political attack. The MODERATOR of the debate has no business acting in this manner. If Hillary wanted to bring up Trump saying he supported the Iraq War during that question, that's one thing.

But, you have to remember. This question HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IRAQ WAR. They were talking about her judgment, and discussing relevant current events, such as ISIS and the Nuclear deal with Iran. Lester jumped in and said "How is your judgment better than yours, if you supported the Iraq War", which is a trap question completely off topic.

It's really not a bogus claim, either. I'd seen numerous appearances with Trump around that time where he was stating he was against the war. It's typically his general position. Trump never shies away from the ability to use military force, for sudden strikes, but he's always been mostly an isolationist when it comes to getting involved in war, because he's a big national debt guy. He knows war debt tend to hurt his stock portfolio, what he's usually most concerned with. So, yes, I did see him say numerous times throughout that period that he was against the war.

The supposed "gotcha" quote was from an appearance on Howard Stern where asked if he was for the war and he said "I guess so". "I guess so" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, and him urging people to get on board with it. It's also an appearance by a private businessman and entertainment figure on the Howard Stern show. That's not exactly the forum for political conversation either. On the flip side, Hillary wasn't saying "I guess so", but was out arguing heavily in favor of doing it. She argued before Congress in favor of the Iraq War resolution, and a future funding bill to continue the effort.

The important aspect which a true "fact checker" would really divulge isn't one brief statement on a talk radio show, but rather a full timeline of all his statements with true context behind them. The appearance on the Howard Stern show in question was from late August of 2002. There was no Iraq War to speak of. What Iraq War would he have been in favor of? At that point in time, they were just switching the focus from Afghanistan into Iraq, and it was still all talk of weapons inspections at that point.

Congress wouldn't take up the Iraq War resolution until October 2002, 2 months later, and as most of the Congressmen who voted on it stated, they didn't feel at the time that they were voting to approve a war, but rather just clarifying that should it come to that point, that the president would be authorized to send troops without needing to have declared war.

There was another quote of Trump's from November, in which he stated that he didn't want us to go in, but he felt that if we did, we needed to make sure we took the oil to pay for it. (That statement exactly mirrors many of the ones I heard him speak about from the same time period). But, the quote they used makes it seem vague, as if he's there blood thirsty trying to go into Iraq for the oil.

Colin Powell's speech before the UN about the weapons inspections wasn't until January of 2003, 5 months after Trump's comments. The Iraq War didn't become a thing until about that point, and it didn't occur until March.

There were numerous speaking engagements where Trump spoke out against the War prior to March of 2003. If the "fact checker" had done due diligence, they would have found them, and accurately reported that Trump did indeed make statements against the War, even before it became popular to do so.

As he said, he'd have arguments about this topic with Sean Hannity all the time (who was always a Warhawk), and he would be against the War. Immediately after the debate, Sean Hannity affirmed that to be the case. He went into detail, too, further elaborating on it.

He was out early on being against the war. That's not in any way how they painted it. So, that's just another instance where it shows how they were biased in reporting only one side of that issue.

Regardless, how in any way did this pertain to Hillary Clinton's poor job as Secretary of State, and not dealing with ISIS, Egypt's protests, the Benghazi situation, nuclear deal with Iran, not doing anything about the Russians taking the Crimea, etc.

It didn't, and Lester Holt knew it didn't, this was yet another biased hatchet job during the debate.

Velvet Elvis said:

Here...let me paraphrase for you.
View attachment 67207939

Click to expand...

Funny, I'd have said that about the person who has replied to that post 3 times, 2 of which said nothing about the topic...

Casper said:

Stop whining, you will get plenty of opportunities over the next four yeas.

Click to expand...

Who is whining?

I'm neither a conservative, nor a Trump supporter.

I had no candidate out there myself.

But, if you're being honest about what went on during the debate Monday, it was a horribly biased job done by Lester Holt.

Again, look at the numbers there

46 interruptions of Trump, 5 interruptions of Hillary

24 occasions of countering statements made by Trump, only 1 time asking Hillary to clarify a statement

6 lines of questions asked directly about controversial topics of Trumps (each of the responses getting challenge on multiple occasions), 2 lines of questions asked of Hillary, only one of which was a controversial topic (none of the responses got countered by Holt).

There's no question about it. It's factually born out through the statistics of what went on. There was a clear bias with Holt attacking Trump, and Hillary the beneficiary of it.

Velvet Elvis said:

...and not a word of this unnecessary novel will be read by anyone.

Click to expand...

I heard that Lester got his panties in a wad because Trump called him a Democrat when in reality he's registered as a republican. and that might explain why he was biased against trump and it showed

TurtleDude said:

I heard that Lester got his panties in a wad because Trump called him a Democrat when in reality he's registered as a republican. and that might explain why he was biased against trump and it showed

Click to expand...

I heard that Lester was really easy on Trump, and still got blamed for Trump's failings. What I heard is more likely true than what you heard.

And ask yourself one important question: if Lester had done exactly as Trump wanted, would it have made a bit of difference? Would Trump have been any more prepared, and more on point, any less rambling?

Redress said:

I heard that Lester was really easy on Trump, and still got blamed for Trump's failings. What I heard is more likely true than what you heard.

And ask yourself one important question: if Lester had done exactly as Trump wanted, would it have made a bit of difference? Would Trump have been any more prepared, and more on point, any less rambling?

Click to expand...

probably not but Hillary would have looked a lot worse I believe if Holt had gone after her with the same intensity as he went after Trump

TurtleDude said:

probably not but Hillary would have looked a lot worse I believe if Holt had gone after her with the same intensity as he went after Trump

Click to expand...

He did not go after any one with any intensity. Not even remotely. If Trump could not handle that, he can in no way handle the pressure of being president.