Delaware Liberal

Open Thread for Thursday, September 15, 2016

Delaware Dem

“Donald Trump’s tale about why he took $150,000 in 9/11 money is as tall as the Downtown skyscraper he says he used in recovery efforts,” the New York Daily News reports.

“Though the billionaire presidential candidate has repeatedly suggested he got that money for helping others out after the attacks, documents obtained by the Daily News show that Trump’s account was just a huge lie.”

“Records from the Empire State Development Corp., which administered the recovery program, show that Trump’s company asked for those funds for ‘rent loss,’ ‘cleanup’ and ‘repair’ — not to recuperate money lost in helping people. That government program was designed to help local businesses get back on their feet — not reimburse people for their charitable work.”

A Washington Post editorial says even Trump’s charity is a scam:

“Mr. Trump has cultivated the persona of a generous man, repeatedly claiming on television he would donate to charity “out of my wallet” and accepting honors from groups he appeared to support. In fact, an exhaustive investigation by Post reporter David A. Fahrenthold shows that Mr. Trump retooled his foundation about a decade ago to act as an intermediary for other people’s charitable giving, a racket from which Mr. Trump gained in reputation and from which he may even have occasionally profited.”

“Mr. Trump does not appear to have given his own money to the Trump Foundation since 2008, and by then Trump funds had become a tiny slice of the organization’s revenue. Since then, the available records suggest, a charitable group that bears the billionaire’s name has been funded by others. That has not stopped Mr. Trump from claiming credit for doling out other people’s cash.”

Josh Barro: “Obviously, it’s been a rough few weeks for Hillary Clinton, and most of the poll analysis has focused on how she has hurt herself and what she can do to improve her position.”

“But here’s the thought that’s making me nervous: What if the shift in the polls is more about Donald Trump campaigning better?”

“Specifically, what if it’s about the fact that he brought in a reasonably competent campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, on August 17, started listening to her advice, and became somewhat less self-destructive and more on-message?”

“I don’t know folks, do you think Hillary Clinton would be able to stand up here for an hour? I don’t know.”

— Donald Trump, quoted by the Daily Beast, finally breaking four days of near silence about Hillary Clinton’s health.

You’re gonna find out in two weeks, Donny boy.

The story-of-the-day that got smothered by the media’s obsession with the health of the two presidential candidates comes from Kurt Eichenwald titled, “How the Trump Organization’s Foreign Business Ties Could Upend U.S. National Security.”

A close examination by Newsweek of the Trump Organization, including confidential interviews with business executives and some of its international partners, reveals an enterprise with deep ties to global financiers, foreign politicians and even criminals, although there is no evidence the Trump Organization has engaged in any illegal activities. It also reveals a web of contractual entanglements that could not be just canceled. If Trump moves into the White House and his family continues to receive any benefit from the company, during or even after his presidency, almost every foreign policy decision he makes will raise serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires.

Clinton responded to this story with a tweet storm of questions for Donald Trump that you can read here.



First Read: “With less than eight until Election Day, it looks like Donald Trump will be successful in not releasing his tax returns, becoming the first presidential nominee we can remember not doing so. But it’s becoming harder and harder for him to avoid releasing them.”

“First is the news that New York’s Democratic attorney general has launched an inquiry into the Trump Foundation… Second was the Washington Post’s investigative piece noting that most of the Trump Foundation money comes from other people’s money; that Trump passes the money to other charities and takes credit for it; and that he has used that money to buy himself a gift. (“One candidate’s family foundation has saved countless lives around the world,” President Obama said on the campaign trail yesterday. “The other candidate’s foundation took money other people gave to his charity and then bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself.”) And third is a new Newsweek article detailing how Trump’s international business ties could become a significant conflict of interest if he becomes president.”

“Any conventional politician would be feeling the heat here; of course, Trump isn’t your conventional politician. But every day that goes by with Trump not releasing his taxes suggests that these is something to all of these stories.”

Brian Beutler says Hillary’s Deplorables line was not a gaffe, but Trump’s response to it was:

Recall that there were two parts to this supposed blunder. First that she called certain Trump supporters “deplorables” for being “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic.” Second, that she claimed their ranks amounted to “half” of Trump’s base. Though Clinton retracted the numerical estimate, the Trump campaign’s reaction was telling. They were far less concerned with the broad brush Clinton used than that she used any brush at all. […]

If there was a “gaffe” this week, it wasn’t Clinton claiming that half of Trump supporters are unsavory, but the Trump campaign suggesting that the correct number is zero. Trump and Pence’s unwillingness to cede an inch to Clinton leashed them to the filth of the nation, which in turn revealed the truth of her critique in skin-crawling fashion.

Stu Rothenberg on why Clinton’s narrow lead is bigger than it looks

So, the next time you see media reports that Florida or Ohio is “close” or that Pennsylvania is “tightening,” you should not be surprised. They are narrowly divided states where it is difficult for one party to blow out the other in a competitive federal election.

But being “close” isn’t the same thing as saying a state is a “toss up” or both candidates have the same chance of winning it.

And because of that, the Clinton-Trump race can be both “competitive” and even “close” in a state and nationally, but at the same time clearly favor one nominee – in this case Clinton.

Exit mobile version