Tuesday Reads: Hillary Clinton Coughed and Other News
Posted: September 6, 2016 Filed under: morning reads, U.S. Politics 18 Comments
Good Afternoon!!
The big news yesterday was that Hillary Clinton coughed. I searched several times during the day to find any reporting on the contents of the speeches she gave or her question and answer session with the press on her plane. There was nothing. Articles and tweets by reporters following Clinton focused only on two “coughing fits” and the fact that the press was invited to fly with her on her new campaign plane. By late last night, there were a few reports about the “press conference.”
I’ve finally come to the conclusion that most of members of the DC media only care about their own needs and desires and could not possibly care less about give informing voters. But some of them have apparently decided to call what Hillary did yesterday a “press conference,” even though they still refuse to acknowledge the press conference she gave to African American and Latino news media in August. But others say it wasn’t a real “press conference.”
Callum Borchers at the WaPo: Hillary Clinton’s news conference drought is finally over. Or is it?
Hillary Clinton took questions from reporters aboard her campaign plane Monday, but seemingly more interesting than what she said is what to call the session in which she said it. Was it a news conference or something else — perhaps merely a “gaggle” or an “avail”?
Under different circumstances, this would be a silly, semantic argument, but the Democratic presidential candidate’s lack of news conferences has become a campaign issue, with journalists complaining that she has not held one since last year, and Donald Trump’s team attempting to brand her as “Hiding Hillary.”
Click on the link to find out which “journalists” are still unsatisfied. But what did Clinton talk about? It was not easy to find out. One thing that was reported was that she expressed concern about Russian attempts to hack our presidential election. Reuters (via Newsweek):
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Monday expressed concern about “credible reports” of Russian interference in the U.S. election and accused Donald Trump of being fixated on dictators including Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Taking questions from reporters for more than 20 minutes on her campaign plane, Clinton said both Democrats and Republicans should be concerned about Russia’s behaviour.
“The fact that our intelligence professionals are now studying this and taking it seriously raises some grave questions about potential Russian interference with our electoral process,” Clinton said.
“We are facing a very serious concern. We’ve never had a foreign adversarial power be already involved in our electoral process…. We’ve never had the nominee of one of our major parties urging the Russians to hack more,” she said.
Here’s the in-depth report from the WaPo that Hillary was referring to: U.S. investigating potential covert Russian plan to disrupt November elections.
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions, intelligence and congressional officials said.
The aim is to understand the scope and intent of the Russian campaign, which incorporates cyber-tools to hack systems used in the political process, enhancing Russia’s ability to spread disinformation.
The effort to better understand Russia’s covert influence operations is being coordinated by James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence. “This is something of concern for the DNI,” said Charles Allen, a former longtime CIA officer who has been briefed on some of these issues. “It is being addressed.”
A Russian influence operation in the United States “is something we’re looking very closely at,” said one senior intelligence official who, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Officials also are examining potential disruptions to the election process, and the FBI has alerted state and local officials to potential cyberthreats.
The official cautioned that the intelligence community is not saying it has “definitive proof” of such tampering, or any Russian plans to do so. “But even the hint of something impacting the security of our election system would be of significant concern,” the official said. “It’s the key to our democracy, that people have confidence in the election system.”
The Kremlin’s intent may not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos and provide propaganda fodder to attack U.S. democracy-building policies around the world, particularly in the countries of the former Soviet Union.
There’s much more at the link–an important read.
Time Magazine has a bit more in-depth information on Clinton’s press availability as well as Trump’s.
Donald Trump said for the first time he will attend all three scheduled presidential debates, barring acts of God. He revealed he isn’t holding mock debate sessions—the traditional way nominees prepare for the primetime contests—and that he doesn’t have anyone playing Hillary Clinton to prepare him for the September 26 showdown.
Donald Trump said for the first time he will attend all three scheduled presidential debates, barring acts of God. He revealed he isn’t holding mock debate sessions—the traditional way nominees prepare for the primetime contests—and that he doesn’t have anyone playing Hillary Clinton to prepare him for the September 26 showdown.
Hillary Clinton said she understood classification standards when she entered the State Department, despite comments to the FBI staying she couldn’t identify a standard marking on one message found on her private email server. “The fact that I couldn’t remember certain meetings doesn’t affect the commitment I had to the treatment of classified material,” she said.
Trump wouldn’t call his long “Birtherism” crusade a mistake, and implied he believes Obama may not be born in the U.S., saying the only reason he doesn’t discuss it is that reporters would fixate on it. “Your whole thing will be about that,” he said.
Clinton expressed concern about the growing U.S. government consensus that the Russian government is seeking to influence the U.S. election by promoting the hacking of Democratic targets. “We’ve never had a foreign adversarial power be already involved in our electoral process,” she said.
Trump sidestepped questions about the fact that his foundation paid a penalty to the IRS for an improper political donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican and now a campaign supporter, who was investigating whether to bring suit against Trump University. “I never even spoke to her about it at all,” he said, contradicting comments by her spokesperson earlier this year. She ultimately did not sue the controversial Trump entity.
Clinton continued to support a no-fly zone in Syria, breaking with the Obama Administration, telling reporters, “I think we need leverage.”
Donald Trump is maintaining ambiguity about what he’d do with the the millions of people in the U.S. illegally who he is not prioritizing for deportation. He ruled out citizenship unless they leave the U.S., but, in a reversal from last week, suggested he’d be open to them remaining illegally or providing a path to legal status. “If they stay, they stay, you know,” Trump said, rejecting the notion that he was following Mitt Romney’s 2012 “self-deportation” plan. “Then were are going to make determination after our border is secure,” he said of legal status. “We are going to make that decision into the future. That decision will be made.”
OK, that was helpful, although the story wasn’t published until this morning. I wonder if there will be any follow-up on that birther question?
I have a bunch of other reads to share today, links only.
Eric Boehlert at Media Matters: Still Waiting For Newspaper Editorials Demanding The Trump Foundation Be Shut Down.
CNN: Poll: Nine weeks out, a near even race (not really)
NBC News: Clinton Holds Steady Against Trump as Campaign Enters Final Weeks: Poll
Greg Sargent at the WaPo: Yes, the race is tightening. But it’s still too soon to panic. Here’s why.
Dan Balz at the WaPo: A new 50-state poll shows exactly why Clinton holds the advantage over Trump.
WaPo: Poll: Redrawing the electoral map
CNN: After cursing Obama, Duterte expresses regret.
Time: Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump ‘Did Choke’ in Meeting with Mexican President.
Daniel Drezner at the WaPo: Why Hillary Clinton’s perceived corruption seems to echo louder than Donald Trump’s actual corruption.
Vanity Fair: FOX SETTLES WITH GRETCHEN CARLSON FOR $20 MILLION—AND OFFERS AN UNPRECEDENTED APOLOGY.
The Hill: Greta Van Susteren to leave Fox News.
Matthew Yglesias at Vox: Against transparency. Government officials’ email should be private, just like their phone calls.
Vox: Obamacare was supposed to make all birth control free. As a doctor, I see it’s not happening.
Two long reads:
New York Magazine: The Sandy Hook Hoax. Lenny Pozner used to believe in conspiracy theories. Until his son’s death became one, by Reeves Wiedeman.
New York Daily News: Peas in a pod: The long and twisted relationship between Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, by Wayne Barrett.
What else is happening? Please share your thoughts and links on any topic in the comment thread below.
Monday Reads: The Swiftboating of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation
Posted: September 5, 2016 Filed under: morning reads | Tags: Pay for Play and the Trump Foundation, Trump Foundation Scandal, Unequal coverage of Clinton Trump campaigns 21 Comments
Happy Labor Day!
We’ve been discussing the absolutely uneven and biased media coverage of the 2016 presidential race for some time here at Sky Dancing. Corporate media’s fascination with Donald Trump is completely swamping any motivation to actually ensure the truth of statements made by his campaigns and campaign surrogates.
There’s an obsessive false equivalency giving Clinton positions and arguments some kind of equal footing with outrageous, unsupported accusations and name calling coming from Trump and his seriously unhinged surrogates. A laundry list of appeals to the Alt-Right and dog whistles to White Nationalists does not equate to calling some one a bigot with no proof above and beyond the name calling. Just sayin’.
So why do they get away with it? Hasn’t anyone in the media determined that right wing conspiracies and bigoted statements by fringe groups are disinformation and propaganda?
A few group associated with media accountability and culpability plus a few–primarily woman and minority–journalists are beginning to document the absolute unequal treatment of coverage of the Trump Foundation and actual circumstances of illegal donations with that of the Clinton Foundation.The Clinton foundation has long been considered one of the ethical charities in existence. I want to provide some information on the swiftboating of the Clinton Foundation vs. the hands-off treatment given the already fined and found guilty Trump Foundation. As we’ve discussed here, both the AP and the NYT have hit absolute lows in reporting tying to infer that Clinton’s time at the State Department included a pay for play scheme with her husband’s foundation.
Hillary Clinton has faced consistent scrutiny for her role in the Clinton Foundation, which was established after Bill Clinton left office. The foundation focuses on global health, climate change, improving opportunities for girls and women and a variety of other activities.
Much of the controversy about the Clinton Foundation focuses on Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and whether she was complicit in “selling access” in return for donations to the foundation. These charges were elevated to prominence by Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, in his book Clinton Cash.
The Government Accountability Institute is the non-profit arm of Breitbart.com, a notoriously pugilistic right-wing website. Trump recentlyhired Steve Bannon, who runs Breitbart, to be the CEO of his campaign. Schweizer’s book failed to uncover any clear evidence of wrongdoing — and was rife with errors — but it did succeed in focusing mainstream media attention on the alleged issue.
Details from both the NYT and AP stories proved to be an assortment of cherry-picked schedules, innuendo, and clickbait headlines. Meawhile, an actual example of illegal donations–which has all the look of a pay for play on the part of the Trump Foundation–has going nearly ignored. I’ve borrowed a few paragraphs’ here from Judd Legume’s excellently researched at Think Progress. Please go read the entire piece which includes the wonky graph up top.
Meanwhile, on September 1, news broke that the Trump Foundation “violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.” It was required to pay a $2500 fine to the IRS.
The details of the case are even more unseemly. Florida’s Attorney General was considering opening an investigation into Trump University, which is accused of defrauding students. Bondi herself contacted Trump and asked for a political contribution. After a political committee associated with her campaign received the illegal $25,000 contribution, she decided not to pursue it.
The story has something that none of the Clinton Foundation stories have: Actual evidence of illegal conduct. In this case, not only is there concrete evidence that the Trump Foundation broke the law, but a formal finding of wrongdoing by the IRS.
This weekend, many others have taken up the banner to decry the unequal coverage. Professor Rick Hasen–a political science and law professor at UCI--is among them
Hassan points out the silence of the lambs at the NYT on the Bondi bribe. Check out the Storify listed by Greg Dworkin (below) for his complete analysis. He also has a blog which we’ll quote from shortly.
Paul Krugman has gone on the attack too. Here’s some analysis via AltNet.
Krugman has a sick feeling of deja vu in the coverage of Clinton and Trump. True, some of Trump’s dishonesty has been reported. But he is definitely being normalized and graded on a crazy curve. The minute he does not say anything deeply offensive for a whole day, he is hailed as pivoting and being presidential. Maybe he won’t immediately round up 11 million undocumented immigrants. Good for him! Meanwhile, his latest apparent criminality, payoffs to state attorneys general to stop investigating his fraudulent University, is getting almost no attention.
Compare this to the Clinton Foundation, the coverage of which Krugman calls “bizarre.”
When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better thanthe American Red Cross.
Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”
But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”
The now infamous Associated Press report, filled with innuendo, managed to dig up the fact that Clinton met with a Nobel Peace Prize winner and personal friend Muhammad Yunus. Oooooo, that’s bad.
Krugman cautions readers of such reports to be aware of “weasel” words, like “raises questions,” or creates “shadows.”
Only one candidate in the raise bilked students, stiffed workers, and from all appearances, failed to pay his share of taxes. Which is to say nothing of being totally incoherent about policy and engaging in dangerous, violence-inciting fearmongering.
My friend David Bernstein dropped these links to my facebook comment about the Bondi and Abbot donations. There is a clear implication of pay to play here as well as where the real IRS fine occurred in the Bondi case.
From the Miami Herald: Donald Trump Buys himself an attorney General for $25000 from June 8, 2016.
From the Federalist: Did Trump Buy Off Cuomo To Protect His Bogus University? from April 18, 2016
From CBS NEWS: Former Texas official says he was told to drop Trump University probe from June 5, 2016
Owens said he was so surprised at the order to stand down he made a copy of the case file and took it home.
“It had to be political in my mind because Donald Trump was treated differently than any other similarly situated scam artist in the 16 years I was at the consumer protection office,” said Owens, who lives in Houston.
Owens’ boss at the time was then-Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is now the state’s GOP governor.
The Associated Press first reported Thursday that Trump gave donations totaling $35,000 to Abbott’s gubernatorial campaign three years after his office closed the Trump U case. Several Texas media outlets
Here’s Hasen’s analysis of the impropriety of the Bondi donation. As mentioned before, Hasen is a professor of political science and law at UCI.
This good story by WaPo’s David Fahrenthold explains how a $25,000 contribution to Florida AG Bondi wound up illegally, and apparently inadvertently, getting paid out of the Trump Foundation account (which cannot make such political donations) rather than from Trump personally. The explanation for how this happened seems plausible enough.
But the real scandal here is not that a payment came from a foundation but that Trump was giving money to Bondi while Bondi was deliberating over whether or not to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. After the $25,000 donation, Bondi decided not to pursue the case.
Quid pro quo? Not proven. But conflict of interest for the AG to solicit money from someone while contemplating a civil [corrected] investigation of that person? That stinks.
And imagine if Hillary Clinton had made a contribution to someone who was deciding whether to investigate her. That certainly would have been a bigger story.
This is a much worse pay-to-play problem than we’ve seen with the Clinton Foundation stories, at least what we know so far.
Meanwhile, coverage by the media has been scant with the exception of Joy Reid. (Ask me about being one of the original Reiders!!!) Media Matters gives this headline: “CBS’ John Dickerson Is Only Sunday Host To Cover Trump Foundation’s Proven Lawbreaking”.
A Washington Post report that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 fine after his charitable foundation illegally gave a political contribution went mostly ignored by the cable and network Sunday political talk show hosts, with only CBS’ John Dickerson questioning a Trump surrogate about the story.
The September 1 Post article reported that the Donald J. Trump Foundation had “violated tax laws” with a $25,000 political contribution to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who at the time was deciding whether or not to take action against Trump University. The report also highlighted an error, “which had the effect of obscuring the political gift from the IRS.” According to the Post’s article, the Trump Foundation is still out of compliance because “under IRS rules, it appears that the Trump Foundation must seek to get the money back” from the group which should never have received it:
Donald Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 penalty this year, an official at Trump’s company said, after it was revealed that Trump’s charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.
The improper donation, a $25,000 gift from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, was made in 2013. At the time, Attorney General Pam Bondi was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. She decided not to pursue the case.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post and a liberal watchdog group raised new questions about the three-year-old gift. The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed a complaint with the IRS — noting that, as a registered nonprofit, the Trump Foundation was not allowed to make political donations.
The Post reported another error, which had the effect of obscuring the political gift from the IRS.
In that year’s tax filings, The Post reported, the Trump Foundation did not notify the IRS of this political donation. Instead, Trump’s foundation listed a donation — also for $25,000 — to a Kansas charity with a name similar to that of Bondi’s political group. In fact, Trump’s foundation had not given the Kansas group any money.
The prohibited gift was, in effect, replaced with an innocent-sounding but nonexistent donation.
With the breathless media hyping of every new detail about the Clinton Foundation, despite the lack of anything illegal occurring, one would think that the proof of lawbreaking by a charitable foundation founded and named for one of the two major party presidential nominees would attract significant attention from the media. But Face the Nation host John Dickerson was the only Sunday political talk show host to bring up thePost’s findings.
During his interview with Trump campaign surrogate Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), Dickerson cited the Post story to ask if it was an example of Trump knowing “how to use political donations to get the system to work for him” because in this situation Trump “gave the money then the investigation didn’t happen”
Karoli covers the Reid coverage and the lack of coverage by both FOX and CNN.
Last Friday, Washington Post reporter David Farenthold broke a blockbuster of a story about Donald Trump, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and a clear-cut pay-to-play scheme. Our report on that is here.
It’s a blockbuster of a report that can leave no doubt about the fact that there was a quid pro quo between Bondi and Trump, with an equally clear effort to conceal it on the Trump Foundation reports.
In other words, it’s truly a scandal. A REAL scandal. One that should have dominated today’s Sunday shows and the newspaper headlines this weekend. Yet, there was no mention that I saw on any Sunday shows, and headlines are still dominated with bogus Clinton email stories.
Curiously, only MSNBC has reported the story at all. Joy Reid did a lengthy segment while sitting in for Chris Hayes on All In last Friday night, a bit of which we’ve clipped above. In the words of Joe Biden, this is a BFD.
After sitting through all of the Sunday shows today, I wondered about where all of the stories on this were, so I went on a hunt. I searched the transcripts for Fox News, CNN and MSNBC to see where they had done any reporting on this. There are also huge questions about whether Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also dropped a Trump University investigation after receiving $35,000 from Trump, but for now let’s focus on Bondi since the Trump Foundation admitted they sent her a contribution when they weren’t supposed to.
The last mention of Bondi on Fox News was on August 24th, ahead of a Trump rally where she was slated to warm up the crowd. Before that, the last mention was during the Republican National Convention, where she was a speaker.
There have been no mentions of Bondi whatsoever on CNN since Wolf Blitzer interviewed a Gold Star parent who talked about a meeting Bondi facilitated with Trump.
Meanwhile, Bondi is shocked ! Shocked I tell you! Evidently, not opening an investigation isn’t the same as blocking it! And maybe she’s
mostly shocked because she got $10,000 less than Abbott. Check out their cozy picture. Trump has a type, doesn’t he?
The alternative media and a few intrepid reporters in various outlets are giving this story legs. Meanwhile, I want to draw your attention to to journalists that are speaking out and loudly.
Charles Blow outlines the bleak state of Trump’s Soul. I wasn’t aware he had one. The entire op-ed is here at the NYT.
“You have proudly brandished your abrasiveness, and now you want to whine and moan about your own abrasions,” Blow writes. “Not this day. Not the next day. Not ever. You will never shake the essence of yourself. Your soul is dark, your character corrupt. You are a reprobate and a charlatan who has ridden a wave of intolerance to its crest.”
He then reminds us of some of Trump’s greatest hits, including:
- His role in promoting the “birther” conspiracy theory about President Obama
- His claim that Mexico is intentionally sending rapists across the border into our country
- His lies about Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11
- Mocking a disabled reporter and then lying about it
- Encouraging supporters to “knock the crap” out of protesters at his rallies
“You are not to be praised for your fourth quarter outreach, but reviled for it, because it contains contempt, not contrition,” Blow seethes. “Everything about this spectacle was offensive: that a black pastor had invited this money changer into the temple to defile it; that Trump was once again using the objects of his aggression for a last-ditch photo-op; that news media continue to call this an ‘outreach to black voters,’ when it’s clearly not.”
The best is from Soledad O’Brien who accuses CNN of mainstreaming White Supremacist thought.
From Raw Story: Soledad O’Brien eviscerates CNN: ‘You have normalized’ white supremacy with shoddy Trump reporting
Former CNN host Soledad O’Brien blasted the cable news business over the weekend for profiting off the hate speech that has fueled Donald Trump’s political rise.
According to O’Brien, the media had gone through “contortions to make things seem equal all the time” when comparing Trump to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
“If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basically pointed out that what Donald Trump has done — actually quite well — has normalized white supremacy,” O’Brien explained to CNN host Brian Stelter on Sunday. “I think she made a very good argument, almost like a lawyer. Here is ways in which he has actually worked to normalize conversations that many people find hateful.”
“I’ve seen on-air, white supremacists being interviewed because they are Trump delegates,” she noted. “And they do a five minute segment, the first minute or so talking about what they believe as white supremacists. So you have normalized that.”
“And then Donald Trump will say, ‘Hillary Clinton, she’s a bigot.’ And it’s covered, the journalist part comes in, ‘They trade barbs. He said she’s a bigot and she points out that he might be appealing to racists.’ It only becomes ‘he said, she said.’ When in actuality, the fact that Donald Trump said she’s a bigot without the long laundry list of evidence, which if you looked at Hillary Clinton’s speech, she actually did have a lot of really good factual evidence that we would all agree that are things that have happened and do exist. They are treated as if they are equal.”
O’Brien insisted “that’s where journalists are failing: the contortions to try to make it seem fair.”
The former CNN host argued that the question that journalists should be asking is if Trump is “softening the ground for people — who are white supremacists, who are white nationalists, who would self-identify that way — to feel comfortable with their views being brought into the national discourse to the point where they can do a five minute interview happily on national television?”
“And the answer is yes, clearly,” she said. “And there is lots of evidence of that.”
O’Brien observed that cable news outlets were effectively being rewarded for bad behavior.
This puts me in mind of the harping of the TV news readers on Hillary Clinton’s lack of press conferences. She had a press conference. The audience was Black and Hispanic Journalists.
Hillary Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine told ‘This Week’ host Martha Raddatz that claims that Hillary Clinton is avoiding the press are not true. He also compared Donald Trump’s relationship with the press to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.
“Secretary Clinton has not held a press conference in 274 days,” Raddatz noted. “Our campaign reporters and others say she doesn’t really answer that many questions. Is this going to change?”
“She’s had hundreds interviews in the last year,” Kaine replied. “And I’ve got to push back on the notion that she hasn’t done a press conference.”
Kaine referred to Clinton’s appearance last month at the Association of Black and Hispanic Journalists convention where “members of mainstream media outlets” were allowed to ask Clinton questions. “She did a press conference there,” Kaine said.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the 2016 National Association of Black Journalists’ and National Association of Hispanic Journalists’ Hall of Fame Luncheon at Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, Friday, Aug. 5, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Here’s a headline that appeared in someplace other than CNN, FOX News, etc. from August 5, 2016 : Journalists grill Hillary Clinton at NABJ/NAHJ conference
Hillary Clinton held a mini-press conference of sorts with reporters Friday — and lived to tell the tale.
She spoke to the joint convention of the National Association of Black Journalists/National Association of Hispanic Journalists in Washington, D.C. and briefly dealt with what’s been her frustrating (for reporters) reluctance to hold a press conference.
She was more predictable and scripted than revealing and forthcoming as she answered a series of questions from NBC’s Kristen Welker and Telemundo’s Lori Montenegro, who then opened the proceeding up to questions from the audience.
Some drew very generic responses from a political pro, while others were a bit more ticklish but navigated without much apparent damage by her. But there was one surprisingly, and needlessly, awkward moment.
The two most notable questions perhaps came from Ed O’Keefe of The Washington Post and Kevin Merida, a former top Post editor who now oversees ESPN’s daily dissection of sports, race and culture, the Undefeated.
O’Keefe spoke to press chagrin with how a famously press-wary figure deals with the press following her on the campaign. Damning with a certain faint praise, he said, “We encourage you to do this more often with reporters across the country, especially those news organizations that travel the country with you whereever you go.”
He didn’t get any response to that comment. He did get a very Clinton-esque response when he got to his main query: How would she lead a nation where a majority of people mistrust her, according to survey?
Her answer: She’s been in the public arena long time, it’s in the opposition’s self-interest to stir the pot against her and, regardless, she will work to earn the trust of all Americans once elected.
I guess it’s only a press conference if the white boys get to do it.
So, I’ve run long. It’s a holiday and I’m sure you didn’t want this long form, documented rant from me but here it is!!
And, I’m giving my last word to the Rude Pundit. Hillary Clinton is running for President too.
While we are all mesmerized by watching the ongoing train crash into a dumpster fire on top of a mountain of shit that is the Donald Trump campaign, we seem to be missing any coverage at all of what’s been going on with Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, aka “The Evilest Harpy Ever to Swoop from the Heavens to Devour Our Children and Our Testicles” or whatever right-wing media and Trump are calling her now.
Believe it or not, she has a campaign, too. I know. Hard to believe. And things happen with it that have nothing to do with love emails to ISIS or the Clinton Foundation digging a tunnel right to the State Department’s door or whatever we’re supposed to believe now. And some of those things happened just in this last week or so of watching Trump dance the merengue on the dreams of immigrants.
For instance, Clinton proposed a “Comprehensive Agenda on Mental Health,” something you’d think Donald Trump’s family would want him to get in on. A chunk of it already has bipartisan support in that the GOP-controlled House passed some of what she is proposing. Her full plan is incredibly detailed, with projected costs included, in a way that you’d never see on that other guy’s website for his idiot hordes. It’s smart and insightful, and it has real reform and compassion behind it. So no one gives a shit. If she had said, “Lock up the calm nuts and shoot the criminal ones in the streets like they’re rabid dogs,” the media would have been all over it, discussing the merits of such an extreme action.
Clinton also proposed a public health fund for things like the Zika outbreak. Yeah, “Rapid Response Fund” isn’t as glamorous as “big, beautiful wall,” but, you know, probably a great deal more useful.
She was also recently endorsed by the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, which has never endorsed a candidate in its 15 year existence. Oh, and the Teamsters endorsed her last week, making it the final of the 5 biggest unions in the United States to do so, none of which seem to be bothered by email bullshit or faux Foundation shenanigans. Or even Benghazi.
Yeah, in a normal campaign, where we actually treated the candidates in a normal way, we’d have a discussion about some of these things and their implications should Clinton become president.
But when one thing sucks up all the oxygen in the room, the rest of us suffocate.
Have a good Labor Day!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Lazy Saturday Reads: Children of the Corn and Some Serious Journalism
Posted: September 3, 2016 Filed under: morning reads, Surreality, The Media SUCKS, U.S. Politics | Tags: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, journalism 29 Comments
Good Morning!!
I spent most of yesterday in a state of extreme anger. As I’ve been writing for a long time now, I’m fed up with the media attacking Hillary and ignoring real questions about Donald Trump’s dishonesty and corruption. I’m hoping when I drive back to Massachusetts next week, I’ll find some peace and quiet all alone in my car. It usually works that way.
Late last night, lots of people on Twitter were having fun photoshopping a new Trump ad that showed three of his children (Where is Tiffany?). For the first time all day I was able to laugh. I’m going to use the best ones to illustrate this post. Here’s the original tweet from Donald Trump Jr. that started it all.
The corporate media spent the last day before Labor Day reveling in the release of the FBI’s notes from their interview with Hillary Clinton. Sadly for the New York Times and the rest of the national media circus, there was once again nothing to support their ravening desire to prove Hillary is a corrupt liar. Too bad, so sad. Oh, they tried their best to make her look bad, but with very little success.
It’s been a very bad couple of weeks for the corporate media. Now that we have twitter and blogs, they can’t escape criticism when they screw up, and they’ve screwed up royally. It must be very difficult for these “journalists” who like to think of themselves as so much smarter and more savvy than the rest of us to see their flawed stories and their own pompous attitudes mocked on Twitter. But why is it so hard for them to just admit when they’re wrong?
John Stoer at The Washington Monthly tries to understand Why Political Journalists Can’t Take Criticism. Stoer begins by discussing the AP’s claim last week that half of the people who met with Clinton as Secretary of State were Clinton Foundation Donors. It was simply ridiculous, but the AP still refuses to correct their false tweets about the horrible article. Then he offers a more recent example:
On NPR this morning, “Morning Edition” host Steve Inskeep asked Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake if he shares Clinton’s view on immigration. According to Trump, Inskeep said, his opponent favors “open borders” and “amnesty.”
This is an example of a statement that’s technically accurate, but entirely misleading. And dangerous. Yes, Trump has said, time and again, that Clinton wants “open borders” and “amnesty.” It’s also true that this claim exists only the realm of fantasy. Indeed, in an interview — just yesterday — NPR’s Mara Liasson told Inskeep those claims were false.
Journalists, I believe, are beholden to the truth. If they are unwilling to pay deference to the authority of the truth, even when that deference conflicts with the profession’s other guiding principles, there isn’t much point in being a journalist….
I got in touch with Inskeep on Twitter this morning to make him aware of his mistake. (I do not subscribe to the childish claim, as Glenn Greenwald does, that the American media is in the tank for one or the other candidate). It was an honest mistake. So I asked: Will you be offering a clarification?
I didn’t expect Inskeep to reply. When he did, it was not a good faith exchange between journalists about the concrete facts of the matter. He offered instead a series of bewildering deflections, obfuscations, and, to be frank, playing dumb.
Go over to The Washington Monthly to read the exchange.
Of course there are some journalists who are doing important investigative work. One is David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post who has spent the past year trying to find evidence of Trump’s charitable giving. He wrote the story that Dakinikat referenced yesterday about Trump’s illegal gift (essentially a bribe) to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi while she was considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University.
Donald Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 penalty this year, an official at Trump’s company said, after it was revealed that Trump’s charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.
The improper donation, a $25,000 gift from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, was made in 2013. At the time, Attorney General Pam Bondi was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. She decided not to pursue the case.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post and a liberal watchdog group raised new questions about the three-year-old gift. The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed a complaint with the IRS — noting that, as a registered nonprofit, the Trump Foundation was not allowed to make political donations.
The Post reported another error, which had the effect of obscuring the political gift from the IRS.
In that year’s tax filings, The Post reported, the Trump Foundation did not notify the IRS of this political donation. Instead, Trump’s foundation listed a donation — also for $25,000 — to a Kansas charity with a name similar to that of Bondi’s political group. In fact, Trump’s foundation had not given the Kansas group any money.
The prohibited gift was, in effect, replaced with an innocent-sounding but nonexistent donation.
Trump’s business said it was unaware of any of these mistakes until March, when it heard from the watchdog group and The Post.
Anyone who believes that this wasn’t a bribe that was deliberately hidden from the IRS is a hopeless fool. Twitter has been filled with comments on this story and questions about why no one else in the media is covering it, but I’ve seen no serious responses from corporate media reporters.
Another investigative reporters who has been doing important work is Gabriel Sherman of New York Magazine. Sherman is the author of a book on Roger Ailes, and he has spent month investigating the story of Ailes’ sexual abuse of women at Fox News. Sherman’s stories ultimately led to Ailes leaving the right wing network and going to work for Donald Trump. Here’s the latest blockbuster story from Sherman: The Revenge of Roger’s Angels. How Fox News women took down the most powerful, and predatory, man in media.
It took 15 days to end the mighty 20-year reign of Roger Ailes at Fox News, one of the most storied runs in media and political history. Ailes built not just a conservative cable news channel but something like a fourth branch of government; a propaganda arm for the GOP; an organization that determined Republican presidential candidates, sold wars, and decided the issues of the day for 2 million viewers. That the place turned out to be rife with grotesque abuses of power has left even its liberal critics stunned. More than two dozen women have come forward to accuse Ailes of sexual harassment, and what they have exposed is both a culture of misogyny and one of corruption and surveillance, smear campaigns and hush money, with implications reaching far wider than one disturbed man at the top.
It began, of course, with a lawsuit. Of all the people who might have brought down Ailes, the former Fox & Friends anchor Gretchen Carlson was among the least likely. A 50-year-old former Miss America, she was the archetypal Fox anchor: blonde, right-wing, proudly anti-intellectual. A memorable Daily Show clip showed Carlson saying she needed to Google the words czar and ignoramus. But television is a deceptive medium. Off-camera, Carlson is a Stanford- and Oxford-educated feminist who chafed at the culture of Fox News. When Ailes made harassing comments to her about her legs and suggested she wear tight-fitting outfits after she joined the network in 2005, she tried to ignore him. But eventually he pushed her too far. When Carlson complained to her supervisor in 2009 about her co-host Steve Doocy, who she said condescended to her on and off the air, Ailes responded that she was “a man hater” and a “killer” who “needed to get along with the boys.” After this conversation, Carlson says, her role on the show diminished. In September 2013, Ailes demoted her from the morning show Fox & Friends to the lower-rated 2 p.m. time slot.
https://twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/771894372455575552
Carlson knew her situation was far from unique: It was common knowledge at Fox that Ailes frequently made inappropriate comments to women in private meetings and asked them to twirl around so he could examine their figures; and there were persistent rumors that Ailes propositioned female employees for sexual favors. The culture of fear at Fox was such that no one would dare come forward. Ailes was notoriously paranoid and secretive — he built a multiroom security bunker under his home and kept a gun in his Fox office, according to Vanity Fair — and he demanded absolute loyalty from those who worked for him. He was known for monitoring employee emails and phone conversations and hiring private investigators. “Watch out for the enemy within,” he told Fox’s staff during one companywide meeting.
Taking on Ailes was dangerous, but Carlson was determined to fight back. She settled on a simple strategy: She would turn the tables on his surveillance. Beginning in 2014, according to a person familiar with the lawsuit, Carlson brought her iPhone to meetings in Ailes’s office and secretly recorded him saying the kinds of things he’d been saying to her all along. “I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago, and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better. Sometimes problems are easier to solve” that way, he said in one conversation. “I’m sure you can do sweet nothings when you want to,” he said another time.
It’s a long, fascinating story. Read all the gory details at the New York Magazine link.
That’s all I have for you today. What stories are you following?
Friday Reads: SMH and WTF all day long
Posted: September 2, 2016 Filed under: Afternoon Reads | Tags: Clinton Derangement, Clinton Foundation, Donald Trump and the Alt Right 21 Comments
Good Afternoon and Welcome to the Long Weekend!
There is a very little about this campaign season and the associated media coverage that can shock me any more. We’ve gone way beyond the usual silly season nonsense. We’ve got a Republican candidate that shouldn’t be any where near anything having to do with Presidency and the media seems to just be trying to turn lies and conspiracy theories about the Clintons into actual news rather than cover the jaw-dropping shit coming from him and his campaign. Boston Boomer has been covering this aspect of the campaign quite completely and I’m afraid I have to go there for one more day of posts. It isn’t getting any better.
We keep hearing total fabrications about the Clinton Foundation while we really actually do have a scandal about a candidate’s foundation. This is from Vox and Matthew Yglesias: ‘Guess which candidate’s foundation was caught in an illegal campaign funding scheme?’ The Trump Foundation has been fined and caught making illegal campaign contributions.
For some time now, the Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold has been looking into the neglected subject of Donald Trump’s charitable giving.
And most recently he’s found out that Trump’s charitable foundation made an illegal campaign contribution to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (this reporting is based, in turn, in part on work done by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington). Then when they found out they had broken the law, they kinda sorta corrected the error but didn’t actually follow their legal obligation to get the money back.
It’s all at least a little suspicious. The story includes the phrase: “Trump staffers said that a series of unusual — and unrelated — errors by people working for Trump had led to both the improper donation and to the omission of that donation from the foundation’s tax filings.”
What’s more, the contribution to Bondi came right when she was one of several attorneys general who were looking into possible Trump University fraud investigations. Shortly after receiving the illegal campaign contribution she dropped the investigation.
Oh, also, it turns out that the Trump Foundation itself was part of a setup to ensure thatTrump’s own money was never used to finance a Trump charitable contribution.
In the grand scheme of the 2016 campaign this seems like maybe not that big of a deal.
But it’s hard not to notice the fact that various Clinton Foundation lacuna involving such scandalous activity as trying to help a Nobel Peace Prize winner, introducing the chair of the Kennedy Center at the Kennedy Center Honors dinner, and having a meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain have been major, cycle-dominating news stories. I think it’s fair to say that a lot more digital pixels have been spent exploring possible conflicts of interest involving Clinton charities than the contents of Clinton’s plan for combatting drug addiction.
Oh, for the love of god, mother Times. Are you freaking kidding me?
It’s long past the point where many of our major news publications be sent to the dogtrack with their names pinned to their sweaters, at least as far as the Clintons are concerned. Right now, there is substantial evidence that many of them will print anything as long as they can wedge “Clinton,” “questions” and “e-mails” into a headline. Of course, if Hillary Rodham Clinton would just hold a press conference, at which every question would feature those three words in some order or another, then we’d all turn to discussing the comprehensive mental health plan that she released to thundering silence on Monday when most of the press was in an Anthony Weiner frenzy. Yes, and I am the Tsar of all the Russias.
But this latest iteration of The Clinton Rules is probably the most egregious one yet. From the Times:
A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday, raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department.
The request by the adviser, Douglas J. Band, who started one arm of the Clintons’ charitable foundation, was unusual, and the State Department never issued the passport. Only department employees and others with diplomatic status are eligible for the special passports, which help envoys facilitate travel, officials said.
Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign said that there was nothing untoward about the request and that it related to an emergency trip that Mr. Clinton took to North Korea in 2009 to negotiate the release of two American journalists. Mrs. Clinton has long denied that donors had any special influence at the State Department.
Jesus H. Christ on Dancing With The Stars, that’s what this is about? Bill Clinton’s mission to get two American journalists out the hoosegow of The World’s Craziest Place? Wasn’t that a triumph?Weren’t we all happy about it? Hell, this was so surreptitious and “questionable” that HRC even wrote about it in one of her books.
I thought the bombshell in Tiger Beat On The Potomac about how Bill Clinton questionably availed himself of services to which he was legally entitled as an ex-president was going to be this week’s most prominent parody of investigative journalism. (After all, it got to drop the ominous “taxpayer money” into the conversation right next to “private server,” which one of the endless parade of dingbats shilling for the Trump campaign used on CNN just this morning.) But this story puts that one in the ha’penny place, as my grandmother used to say.
Meanwhile, Trump hires a Citizen’s United dude and crickets except for WAPO. Thank you Robert Costa! This means it’s only going to get uglier.
David N. Bossie, the veteran conservative operative who has investigated the Clintons for more than two decades, has been named Donald Trump’s deputy campaign manager.
The Republican presidential nominee revealed his hire in a phone call with The Washington Post.
“A friend of mine for many years,” Trump said, speaking from his office in New York. “Solid. Smart. Loves politics, knows how to win.”
Bossie participated Thursday in strategy sessions at Trump Tower where he was introduced to campaign aides and Trump associates, according to Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway.
Conway said Bossie would be assisting her with managing day-to-day operations and with strategic planning.
“He’s a battle-tested warrior and a brilliant strategist,” Conway said. “He’s a nuts-and-bolts tactician as well, who’s going to help us fully integrate our ground game and data operations, and help with overall strategy as my deputy.”
Bossie will also work on crafting attacks against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, mining past controversies involving her and former president Bill Clinton, and cultivating Trump’s bond with conservative activists.
The addition of Bossie, who first gained notice in the 1990s as the Republican congressional staffer who aggressively delved into the Clintons’ finances and dealings, is the latest sign that the Trump campaign’s new leadership team is embracing right-wing figures whose ties to the party’s elected leadership have been tenuous or even hostile.
And outreach to hispanics with race baiting continues with the race baiting coming from representatives of the groups themselves! This happened after three hispanic advisors quit the Trump Campaign after that horrid Wednesday night screed.
A supporter of Donald Trump appeared on MSNBC’s “All In” on Thursday night to offer a vision of a bleak, delicious future.
“My culture is a very dominant culture, and it’s imposing — and it’s causing problems,” Marco Gutierrez of Latinos for Trump told Joy Ann Reid. “If you don’t do something about it, you’re going to have taco trucks on every corner.”
That’s a serious charge, worthy of being considered seriously. Although easy access to inexpensive Mexican food would be a boon for hungry Americans, what would the inevitable presence of those trucks do to the American economy? How could our country accommodate an explosion of trucks at that scale?
And we find out that Trump’s outreach to Black Americans has been scripted and arranged so that he doesn’t really have to go near the community still. He just has to hold his breath long enough to read his script in front of maybe one or two in Detroit. I mean, WTF does this say?
Donald J. Trump’s visit to a black church here on Saturday will be a major moment for a candidate with a history of offending the sensibilities of black Americans.
His team was leaving nothing to chance.
Instead of speaking to the congregation at Great Faith Ministries International, Mr. Trump had planned to be interviewed by its pastor in a session that would be closed to the public and the news media, with questions submitted in advance. And instead of letting Mr. Trump be his freewheeling self, his campaign prepared lengthy answers for the submitted questions, consulting black Republicans to make sure he says the right things.
An eight-page draft script obtained by The New York Times shows 12 questions that Bishop Wayne T. Jackson, the pastor, intends to ask Mr. Trump in the taped question-and-answer session, as well as the responses Mr. Trump is being advised to give.
The proposed answers were devised by aides working for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, according to an official who has been involved in the planning but declined to be identified while speaking about confidential strategy.
The document includes the exact wording of answers the aides are proposing for Mr. Trump to give to questions about police killings, racial tension and the perception among many black voters that he and the Republican Party are racist, among other topics.
The official said the answers could change based on feedback from the black Republicans they are consulting with.
At least the Press of Lake Woebegone are working overtime.
Essas três mulheres não são Rosa Luxemburgo, Simone de Beauvoir e Emma Goldman na praia dos anos 1930
Former “Prairie Home Companion” host Garrison Keillor penned a scathing letter to Donald Trump on Wednesday, accusing him of only running for president to win the respect of Manhattan elites.
“If you were to win election, they couldn’t ridicule you anymore,” the author and radio personality wrote.
“You wanted Mike Bloomberg to invite you to dinner at his townhouse. You wanted the Times to run a three-part story about you, that you meditate and are a passionate kayaker and collect 14th-century Islamic mosaics. You wish you were that person but you didn’t have the time.”
Keillor mocked Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” hat and his entourage of Fox News host Sean Hannity, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, comparing them to hospital visitors.
“The cap does not look good on you, it’s a duffer’s cap, and when you come to the microphone, you look like the warm-up guy, the guy who announces the license number of the car left in the parking lot, doors locked, lights on, motor running.”
Running for president won’t gain Trump the respect he wants because he lacks the discipline, Keillor writes:
“You walk out in the white cap and you rant for an hour about stuff that means nothing and the fans scream and wave their signs and you wish you could level with them for once and say one true thing: I love you to death and when this is over I will have nothing that I want.”
It’s about time Hillary Clinton comes out swinging and defending her honor directly. I’ve really appreciated how many of her proxies–like Jennifer Granholm yesterday–have been sticking up for the work of the Clinton Foundation and pushing back on the false narratives cooked up by the press and the Alt-Right. But, it’s time Hillary address them directly. BB said she felt that we were seeing the swiftboating of Hillary. That’s a very good comparison. But this time, the press appears eager to join in with the lies. Watch the Granholm interview. She expresses complete, utter frustration while listing a catalog of complaints.
Here are a few other things to read:
From Raw Story: ‘Drinking the Orange Kool-Aid’: Cult expert says Trump is like Rev. Jim Jones — but far more dangerous
From The Californian: Trump’s repellant inner circle
From NYDN: KING: Oregon white supremacist uses his Jeep to chase down, maul and kill black teen
I hope your Labor Day Weekend will be AB FAB!!!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Thursday Reads
Posted: September 1, 2016 Filed under: morning reads, U.S. Politics | Tags: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, immigration, Trump Mexico visit 57 Comments
Good Morning!!
Did you watch Donald Trump’s speech last night? If you didn’t, I suggest you do so today. This man is a danger to our country and to the world, and our clueless media is largely playing down the horrific nature of what was broadcast live from Phoenix, Arizona last night.
https://twitter.com/HawaiiDelilah/status/771171716345180160
What we saw was essentially a Klan rally dressed up as a “major policy speech.” Are the “journalists” in this country so young and historically ignorant that they can’t see the parallels between what is happening here and in Europe right now and events in Europe in the 1930s?
https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/771177837072048129
https://twitter.com/stevenlwalker/status/771166896334839809
I watched the speech in shock and horror, and I was even more shocked by the calm reactions I saw on the cable shows afterward. Lawrence O’Donnell claimed that Trump was continuing to back off his threat to deport the 11 million undocumented people and their families and that his renamed “deportation task force” was different from the “deportation force” he had previously described. Steve Kornaki’s show at 11PM struck a similar tone. In addition they invited guests like Bill Kristol and Hugh Hewitt on their shows to push the narrative that yesterday was a great day for Trump and his campaign.It was if watching a madman scream at the top of his lungs about “illegal aliens” destroying our country and how he would crack down was no big deal to these people.
Many reporters seemed deeply impressed by Trump’s charade in Mexico City yesterday, calling him “presidential” and “statesmanlike.” When the speech finally came last night, they were apparently primed to continue seeing Trump in that way. I’ve never seen anything like it. What on earth is wrong with these people?
Of course I wasn’t alone in my reaction to Trump’s speech, as you can see from some of the tweets above. But many in the media still seem anxious to normalize Trump as they work to tear down Hillary Clinton with attacks on her emails the Clinton Foundation. More twitter reactions:
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton has been essentially erased from the campaign coverage. She gave a speech to the American Legion yesterday that turned out to be nothing but a blip in the midst of the wall-to-wall coverage of Trump’s quick trip to Mexico and his insane speech last night. He was on TV again with his own speech to the American Legion. Where is Hillary? She and her campaign are going to have to step up soon or all could be lost.
Hillary has been focusing on raising money and attracting Republicans and independents to support her. It’s way past time for her to focus on talking about her own liberal agenda. When is the last time she talked about guns and gun violence, for example? And she is going to have to deal directly with the attacks on the Clinton Foundation and the lies about her emails and server. I don’t know what strategy would work, but what she is doing right now is not helping.
So what did Trump say last night?
Nolan D. McCaskill at Politico: Trump promises wall and massive deportation program.
Donald Trump on Wednesday squashed any speculation that he might soften his immigration position to reach new voters in the final stretch of the 2016 campaign, delivering a hawkish, hardline, and true-to-his-roots border platform and vowing that on Day One of his administration, the United States would launch a mammoth deportation program and begin construction of a wall.
Emerging from a hastily organized meeting with Mexico’s president, the Republican nominee flew to Arizona and not only renewed his pledge that America’s southern neighbor would fund an impenetrable, beautiful border wall but said it would be built in “record time” and at a “reasonable price.”
“We will build a great wall along the southern border — and Mexico will pay for the wall,” Trump said. “100 percent. They don’t know it yet, but they’re gonna pay for the wall.”
Trump hailed the “great people and great leaders” of Mexico following his visit to Mexico City but insisted, “they’re going to pay for the wall.”
“On Day One, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall,” Trump said during a major speech on immigration in Phoenix after weeks of waffling on the issue that has been core to his campaign. “We will use the best technology, including above- and below-ground sensors. That’s the tunnels. Remember that. Above and below. Above- and below- ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels and Mexico, you know that, will work with us. I really believe it. Mexico will work with us. I absolutely believe it.”
It seems pretty clear to what Trump is saying. He even made it clear that any undocumented person who is arrested will be shipped out, without trial. So he’s not just talking about drug dealers or murderers. He’s still telling tales to his followers about a wall that will never be built and that he will somehow make Mexico pay for it. Will that involve a war?
James Hohmann at The Washington Post provides a succinct summary of the policy proposals in Trump’s immigration speech:
In case you missed it, here’s a recap of what Trump said:
- He declared that he will build a “Great Wall.” (“On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall.”)
- He insisted “Mexico will pay” for it: “One-hundred percent. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for the wall.”
- He suggested that he’d like to deport his opponent. “Maybe they’ll be able to deport her.”
- He said Dwight Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” did not go far enough. (He name-checked Ike but did not say what the strategy was called.)
- He reiterated that he will indeed create “a deportation task force” and promised to deport two million “criminal aliens” starting on “day one.”
- He said undocumented immigrants seeking legal status would first have to leave the country and try to return lawfully. “There will be no amnesty,” he said. “You cannot obtain legal status or become a citizen of the United States by illegally entering our country. Can’t do it. … Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation.” He did not use the term “self-deportation,” but that’s exactly what he called for: “You can call it ‘deport’ if you want. The press doesn’t like that term. You can call it whatever the hell you want.”
- He claimed “countless Americans” are “victims of violence” by illegal immigrants who are “dangerous, dangerous, dangerous criminals”: “We will issue detainers for illegal immigrants arrested for any crime whatsoever.”
- He said government has “no idea” how many undocumented immigrants are on U.S. soil: “It could be 30 million.”
- “We’re like the big bully that keeps getting beat up,” Trump explained. “We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. Sometimes it’s just not going to work out. It’s our right, as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us.”
Read the full transcript here, and watch the whole thing for yourself here.
More stories to check out:
Think Progress: America’s ‘Most Prolific Conspiracy Theorist’ Reveals He’s Now Advising Donald Trump. Yes, they are talking about Alex Jones.
Charles Blow: The Duplicity of Donald Trump.
Joseph Cannon: Let’s predict the day Trump pulls ahead. {{shudder}}
Benjy Sarlin at NBC News: Trump Meets With Mexican President but Dispute Emerges Over Wall.
Jorge Ramos at the WaPo: Jorge Ramos: Peña Nieto was meek with Trump. Latino voters in the U.S. won’t be.
Politico: Several Hispanic Trump surrogates reconsider support.
Nate Silver: Election Update: As The Race Tightens, Don’t Assume The Electoral College Will Save Clinton.
Wall Street Journal: Donald Trump Dealt With a Series of People Who Had Mob Ties.
ABC News: FBI Warns Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Staffers to Beware of Foreign Spies in US.
Josh Marshall: Blood and Race and Trump.
Politico: Vicente Fox on Trump: ‘Please wake up, America.’
Crooks and Liars: Former Mexican President on Trump’s Visit: He Is Lying!
What else is happening? Please post your thoughts and links in the comment thread below.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments