There is Something Going On

somthing going on

These are five of Trump’s favorite words. He uses them to provide some credibility to his various flights of fancy — Obama is in league with ISIS, Obama is secretly undermining law enforcement, Clinton is ill, etc.

What is really going on, however, is that Trump is losing this election — badly.

It’s not only that he is losing, but it is the manner in which he is losing and his reaction to that losing that is really interesting.

I’ve speculated that the narcissism that appears to drive him is satisfied by the public attention that he is getting. He dominates the headlines and refused to allow even his opponent more than a day in the spotlight. As result, even though that attention lately has been focused on Trump’s failures, he would prefer even that attention rather than allow the media to dwell on the weaknesses of his opponent.

Still there is the gnawing sense that there is another game at play.

Evidence of that is in the moves that his campaign made over the last week.

Corey Lewandowski rode the Trump campaign to national prominence with his famous “Let Trump be Trump” strategy. Trump won the nomination, but stumbled badly in the transition from presumptive nominee to Republican candidate. Political “have gun will travel” professional Paul Manafort easily ousted Lewandowski and shepherded Trump through the convention, defeated the stop Trump movement, and delivered the convention bump that put Trump in the lead. He failed to convince Trump to pivot to a kinder gentler more presidential guy. Some of Manafort’s Russian dirty laundry came out and suddenly he’s gone too. The people who replaced Manafort are REALLY interesting.

Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, and recently disgraced Roger Ailes are now running the show.

This is not a team intended to get someone elected President.

This is a team that is going to use the rest of this campaign to field test their alt-right Euro-inspired anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant message on the Trump faithful.

This is a full-on take down of Fox as the leading voice of the conservative movement. You can see why this would appeal to “vengeance is mine” Ailes.

You can also see why it would appeal to Trump.

He is free to dive deeply into the demagoguery where he seems most comfortable.

Just think of it. A 24-hour news channel devoted to all things Trump. That is WAY more interesting to him than the Presidency. It will certainly make Trump a lot more money. He has the perfect foil in Clinton. He has at least 4 years, and probably 8 to continue to blame the country’s woes (real and imagined) on her. He will also blame his loss on her and the “rigged” system that she represents. Ailes has already perfected the formula of made-up news and political influence.

Trump will laugh all the way to the bank as those who placed their trust in him eagerly switch their channel from Fox to Great America. Coming this fall, the new Republican Party brought to you by Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, and Steve Bannon. What a rush. What a waste.

21 Responses to “There is Something Going On”

  1. Keith says:

    Please, please, please, just once dive into the Clinton Foundation.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Bill’s resigning.

    The foundation will take no donations from corporations or foreign sources.

    Bill will no longer charge for giving speeches.

    What else so you think the foundation should do when Clinton wins the election?

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politics/clinton-foundation-says-it-wont-accept-corporate-or-foreign-donations-if-clinton-wins/index.html

    As far as what the foundation did prior to her election, she certainly didn’t keep her pledge to separate herself from the activities of the foundation while she was Secretary of State.

    There were contacts between the foundation and her staff.

    There is no evidence that those contacts resulted in anything, but the contacts themselves did violate the spirit of the agreement.

    We all agree that this is part of a culture of “soft” corruption that exists at virtually every level of our government.

    If someone comes up with proof that there was actually some quid-pro-quo here, then she should be held accountable. But there won’t be any quid-pro-quo because the SCOTUS has already narrowly defined “corruption” to mean only the most obvious “I give you money to do a particular thing that you otherwise wouldn’t do if there were no money involved”. It’s this strict definition of corruption that was the foundation for the Citizen’s United decision.

    That’s what we have to start unraveling.

    What appears to have happened with the Clinton foundation was that some people who know each other asked the sorts of favors that people in politics trade all the time – “Tell me the name of the person that I need to talk with about something that I need”. The reason why Clinton’s staff replied is because someone that they knew from the Clinton foundation called. The reason why the Clinton foundation person volunteered to call is because the person asking the question had given money to the foundation.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-emails-state-foundation-226897

    What happens in Congress is a staffer tells her boss that a friend of hers is working for a lobbyist for the almond growers industry group. The friend said that some big donors are going to be at this gathering and they have expressed interest in the Congressman’s support of a clean water initiative in Lake Erie. The congressman goes. The lobbyist and donors talk about how important water quality is to them too and the challenges they are having with water allocations in California. The Michigan guy says that he would be happy to support the California Congressman’s legislation intended to make life easier for the almond growers and the Michigan Congressman gets their support for his clean water bill. They also send his political action committee a nice check. Is this corruption?

    Based on your answer we can continue to discuss the Clinton Foundation and the underlying ethics.

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, If trading on your name is a disqualification for running for the Presidency, then both Trump and the Clintons are guilty.

    Bill, Hillary, and Trump all made a lot of money trading on their respective celebrity status. None of them did that, however, while they were in the employ of the government.

    You could say that some of those paying Hillary big speaking fees were attempting to curry favor for someone who might make a run for the Presidency. For the past couple of years, you could also say the same thing about most of Trump’s dealings too. Those willing to pay him big endorsement deals may also have been looking to gain a position of influence if he got elected.

    That’s the way things work in this country right now. It’s not right, but it is also not illegal.

  4. Keith says:

    First and foremost thank you for your response. I greatly appreciate your at least peeking over the fence. But dig deeper!!!

    Where did the money come from in the four years Hillary was SS? What actions were taken at State that may have benefited those who gave the money? What nations?
    Where does the money go that is given to the Clinton Foundation? I’ve heard/read, it could be incorrect, no more the 10% of what’s given actually goes to causes but the Clinton’s fly private jets, stay in the best places, etc, all at the expense of the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton’s give about 10% of their income to Charity. Most, close to 95% to all, goes to their own foundation. Dig a little deeper my good friend. You do this better then I…

    As to the polls trump now leads nationally in one poll. I do not think he will will as nice said from day one. I find it integration though that Hillary is playing from the Republican play book. Stay out of the spot light. The less we hear from her the better she does. The more we hear from her the worse she does. Why? My person opinion is no one, and I mean NO ONE, likes her. However she will win and that will be a shame. A person who’s done all she’s done, and genuinely disliked as much as she, should never be rewarded in such a way. However one his I know we disagree.

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Where does the money go that is given to the Clinton Foundation? I’ve heard/read, it could be incorrect, no more the 10% of what’s given actually goes to causes but the Clinton’s fly private jets, stay in the best places, etc, all at the expense of the Clinton Foundation.

    Please don’t post hearsay. If you have an article from a credible source, please post it. What you have “heard” from the right wing bubble not only doesn’t count – it is inaccurate.

    This fact-check article came in response to criticisms from Fiorina.

    Another philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating.

    Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

    and

    By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.

    “What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

    The Clinton’s give about 10% of their income to Charity. Most, close to 95% to all, goes to their own foundation.

    That’s what people who have foundations do. That’s because they have some control over how the money is spent.

    The bulk of the annual charitable giving for Bill and Melinda Gates goes toward their foundation.
    Same with Sean Parker (Facebook), Paul Newman, Michael Bloomberg, etc.

    Trump gives almost nothing to charity including his own foundation, but he takes credit for the money that his foundation gives out in grants even though it is mostly not his money.

    In the 15 years prior to the veterans donation, Trump promised to donate earnings from a wide variety of his moneymaking enterprises: “The Apprentice.” Trump Vodka. Trump University. A book. Another book. If he had honored all those pledges, Trump’s gifts to charity would have topped $8.5 million.

    But in the 15 years prior to the veterans’ gift, public records show that Trump donated about $2.8 million through a foundation set up to give his money away — less than a third of the pledged amount — and nothing since 2009. Records show Trump has given nothing to his foundation since 2008.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

    My person opinion is no one, and I mean NO ONE, likes her.

    Wrong here too. No one you KNOW likes her. Few CONSERVATIVES like her. But there are plenty of people including me that do like her. I’m part of the 42% favorable rating that she has. That is clearly not NOBODY. That rating has been improving since the Democratic Convention reflecting her gain in the polls.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html

    By contrast only 32% favor Trump, which is basically the Republican base that won him the nomination.

    The telling trend, however, is that the 5% negative change in Trump pretty much mirrored the 5% positive change in Clinton.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

    People are making their decisions based on the measure of who is more fit for office. Trump may regain some of that loss, but the numbers of persuadable voters is decreasing by the day.

    As far as Clinton’s strategy, it’s working. Trump is being forced to play catch-up. Until he demonstrates that he can be a more credible candidate, there is no reason for her to change.

    It’s too bad that this election couldn’t have been about more substantive issues, but that’s not Clinton’s fault or the fault of the Democratic Party. That is clearly on the shoulders of the Republican Party and those who supported Trump. Trump doesn’t want have a conversation on real issues. From the start he was only interested in this being a referendum on him. He is getting his wish and he is losing.

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW – this question of the Clinton Foundation is where your confirmation bias and motivated reasoning show up.

    You believe that Clinton is a terrible untrustworthy unethical person. So clearly EVERY activity that she is involved with must also be a sham constructed to advance her own agenda.

    Then you have the Clinton Foundation. They are doing great work around the world dealing with issues like AIDS.

    Clinton said 9 million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine thanks to the efforts of the Clinton Foundation and her husband. Bill Clinton started the foundation and its first big project was the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The program focused on using market mechanisms to reduce treatment costs. Costs have fallen dramatically and the initiative remains a key global player in maintaining a steady supply of affordable drugs.

    If anything, Clinton understated the number of people who have benefited from the program. We rate this claim True.

    http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/

    There is no evidence that the Clinton’s are personally benefiting in any way from foundation activities. They are generally MORE efficient from the perspective of administrative overhead than their peers. And the Clinton’s themselves give a lot of money to their own foundation. They also lend their names and influence to foundation fund raising and that’s where the line gets a little fuzzier regarding the trading of donations for influence.

    BUT

    If the money all ends up going to serve the mission of the foundation, the claim of corruption becomes more difficult to establish. That’s the reason why so many conservative sites are suggesting that the foundation is some sort of sham to support the Clinton’s living high on hog.

    The reality is that the Clinton’s don’t need a foundation to live well. They have plenty of money and relatively few debts.

    Instead the simple story is that they ARE committed to making the world a better place. And that’s the truth that you are having the hardest time accepting.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, BTW – Clinton is already taking steps to eliminate any appearance of conflict of interest between her family and their foundation. The fact that the foundation remains active may still pose some challenges for her, but we’ll see how she manages those.

    On the other hand, the NYT expose on Trump finances documents the fact that Trump has significant debts and obligations to organizations and countries that will certainly be affecting by his policies if elected.

    But an investigation by The New York Times into the financial maze of Mr. Trump’s real estate holdings in the United States reveals that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount than can be gleaned from public filings he has made as part of his bid for the White House. The Times’s inquiry also found that Mr. Trump’s fortunes depend deeply on a wide array of financial backers, including one he has cited in attacks during his campaign.

    For example, an office building on Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan, of which Mr. Trump is part owner, carries a $950 million loan. Among the lenders: the Bank of China, one of the largest banks in a country that Mr. Trump has railed against as an economic foe of the United States, and Goldman Sachs, a financial institution he has said controls Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, after it paid her $675,000 in speaking fees.

    As president, Mr. Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect his own financial empire. He would also wield influence over legislative issues that could have a significant impact on his net worth, and would have official dealings with countries in which he has business interests.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?_r=0

    Trump has said he will turn over the operations of his business to his family, but that doesn’t eliminate the potential loss or gain that might occur as a result of something that he chooses to do as President.

    This is WAY more serious than the Clinton Foundation, so why aren’t you talking about that?

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW BTW BTW The Fed is likely to raise interest rates in the near future because………………….

    There has been robust MIDDLE CLASS job growth over the last two years. In fact that sector of the employment market grew 50% faster than either low wage or high wage jobs.

    The tech boom is the fundamental driver.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/business/economy/middle-income-jobs-finally-show-signs-of-a-rebound.html?_r=1

    Looks like the stars are aligning for a Democratic win.

  9. Keith says:

    Now, back to the emails and the Clinton Foundation.

    http://bloom.bg/2bumhAo

    Also, she says what tweeks they will make when she’s elected. I give you refer you to the video I have provided you of her comments last year at the United Nations regarding her emails side by side with Mr Comeys finding, or better known as the public scolding of Mrs Clinton. If you look carefully you will she Hillary reading from prepared remarks. Now as you know she was a top 100 lawyer in her day. So she is proven to be a thoughtful,carefully prepared liar. And you believe what she’ll do with the Clinton Foundation. Ed Randell, whom I very much like, is calling for it to be completely shut down.

    Also over 290 days with out a press conference from Hillary….

  10. Keith says:

    Also. Did we pay a ransom to Iran?

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Robust?

    https://www.facebook.com/chris.finnigan.10/videos/756678427805296/

    Now, back to the emails and the Clinton Foundation.

    http://bloom.bg/2bumhAo

    Also, she says what tweeks they will make when she’s elected. I give you refer you to the video I have provided you of her comments last year at the United Nations regarding her emails side by side with Mr Comeys finding, or better known as the public scolding of Mrs Clinton. If you look carefully you will she Hillary reading from prepared remarks. Now as you know she was a top 100 lawyer in her day. So she is proven to be a thoughtful,carefully prepared liar. And you believe what she’ll do with the Clinton Foundation. Ed Randell, whom I very much like, is calling for it to be completely shut down

    What new news is contained in the above quotes?

    Glad you like Ed Rendell. Here’s what he had to say about Trump.

    “[For Trump] to say Hillary Clinton’s against the LGBT community, to say Hillary Clinton’s against African-Americans, you might as well try to convince people that Hillary Clinton’s a vampire. I mean, it’s just not going to work,” Rendell told CNBC’s “Squawk Alley.”
    And while Trump cited few sources in his attacks on Clinton, Rendell said the former secretary of state was taking a different approach.

    “Hillary Clinton has used, specifically, quotes from Donald Trump himself, and every quote is backed up with a citation. So these are Trump’s words that she’s using to categorize Trump himself,” he said.

    In Trump’s speech, he said he would lower taxes and “build the greatest infrastructure on planet Earth” among other things. Rendell said those promises might be hard to keep.

    “You don’t lower taxes, and then get money to fund a massive infrastructure and redevelopment program. So of course Donald Trump hasn’t told us how he would fund that all,” he said.

    There is NO EVIDENCE that the Clinton Foundation or the State Department under Clinton did anything illegal or engaged in any pay-to-play. There is no evidence that the State Department under Clinton provided any donor to the Clinton foundation some “deal” in order to secure a donation to the foundation. Nor is there any evidence that ANY of the money that was donated to the Clinton Foundation was used to enrich any of the Clinton’s or to fund Hillary Clinton’s Campaign. Rendell is a Clinton supporter and is suggesting that winning the Presidency is WAY more important the the Clinton foundation. Shutting it down would eliminate any question of conflict of interest while she was in office.

    You haven’t commented at all in the ACTUAL conflict of interest documented by the NYT. Trump owes money to the Bank of China for goodness sake AND Goldman Sacks. Please comment on this reality before you go down the rat hole of another conspiracy theory against Clinton.

  12. Jeff Beamsley says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/21/nyt-tech-columnist-calls-google-suppress-hillary-health-info/

    There is no Hillary “health info”. Only a cynical conspiracy theory attempting to undermine the Clinton candidacy. This claim has no more credibility than the claim that Obama was not a citizen, or Obama is a Muslim, Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts for profit, or Kerry didn’t deserve the medals that he received. This is dirty tricks based on edited videos, out of context pictures, and FAKE medical records.

    You are obsessed with the “Clinton as liar” narrative and then you post stuff like this as if it was indication of some liberal media conspiracy. There is no liberal media conspiracy, just general outrage from ethical media that the Trump campaign has stooped to this level. This is your confirmation bias and motivated reasoning on display.

    Ruth Marcus is just one example of that disgust.

    She accurately points on that Clinton on a daily basis is working harder on her campaign that Trump and that Trump, if elected, would be the oldest president EVER.

    This is also what Brietbart does with a headline “calls for google to suppress Hillary health information”. Farhad Manjoo wanted Google to suppress all of the conspiracy theory articles that display when you search on the term Clinton illness.

    Google should fix this. It shouldn’t give quarter to conspiracy theorists,” Manjoo tweeted

    As far as the number of days since her last press conference, you’re right. She should be holding more press conferences. Right now, however, she doesn’t have to because this election is about Trump. As long as it remains about Trump, she will win. She has no need to hold press conferences because all the press will do is ask her about Trump.

    If the election were about more substantive matters than whether or not Trump is fit for office, then the press would have reason to ask more substantive questions and write better stories. But sadly it isn’t.

  13. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Also. Did we pay a ransom to Iran?

    No clearly we didn’t. This is money that was owed to Iran.

    Did we withhold payment on a debt until Iran made good on releasing the hostages that they agreed to release?

    Yes we did.

    BTW, this criticism comes from the same people who complained that we didn’t include the release of our hostages in the Iran nuclear deal.

    Here’s what Trump said about the Iran deal and how we would have done things differently.

    “If I win the Presidency, I guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in our country before I ever take office,” he said at the rally. “They will be back before I ever take office, because they”—the Iranians—“know that’s what has to happen, O.K.? They know it. And if they don’t know it, I’m telling them right now.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-bluster-on-iran

    Here’s what he said about the $400M.

    “We’ve just learned about a $400 million ransom payment. Now Obama said yesterday, ‘It has nothing to do with it.’ It’s another lie. It’s just like the Obamacare lie,” Trump said, referring to the Affordable Care Act during a campaign event in Des Moines. “It’s just like so many other lies. It’s another lie. Same day, just a coincidence right? Cash. Cash.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/05/trump-accuses-obama-of-lying-says-400-million-to-iran-was-ransom-payment/

    The only liar here is Trump.

    He criticized the President for not including the hostages in the nuclear deal. Then when it turns out that the hostages WERE included in the nuclear deal and the US had a big cash “hammer” to make sure the Iranians delivered. He called it ransom. It wasn’t ransom. Obama used Iran’s money to get the hostages back, just like Trump claims he is going to be able to Mexico’s money to build a wall.

    That’s just another difference in this election. Trump is just talk. No action.

  14. Keith says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/22/the-fbi-found-15000-emails-hillary-clinton-didnt-turn-over-uh-oh/

    Is it over. Remember carefully prepared, thoughtful, read from notes as to what she did with her emails.

    Trump until now is as my favorite writer Cramila Bagalia called him, “a cranival barker.” He’s now trying to grow up. Most of what he said until now was off the cuff. No excuse for that but the smartest women on earth is a top 100 lawyer, carefully prepared, rehearsed, deliberate in what she said. Again, it’s just like her husband bill when he sat before us and said “I did not…..” And his wife like too cute “it depends on what your definition of is, is.”

    So in the good words of the good man Ed Randell and following his advice, tell me why wouldn’t she close it down to eliminate all appearance of impropriety.

    Come paring Trumps business debt and Hillary’s actions at State and Clinton foundations is a red herring. Not the same thing my friend, not even close. But you’re doing your job carrying the water for her. Anything I preprint she may be involved with create the same with him. Nice try.

  15. Jeff Beamsley says:

    So in the good words of the good man Ed Randell and following his advice, tell me why wouldn’t she close it down to eliminate all appearance of impropriety.

    That could yet happen. It would put a lot of good people out of work and slow the international effort to contain AIDS. You sure it is worth that?

    Come paring Trumps business debt and Hillary’s actions at State and Clinton foundations is a red herring. Not the same thing my friend, not even close. But you’re doing your job carrying the water for her. Anything I preprint she may be involved with create the same with him. Nice try.

    Not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Trump has financial interests in properties whose mortgages are financed by Goldman Sacks, the Bank of China, and some shady Russians.

    The NYT lays out the problem pretty clearly.

    Real estate projects often involve complex ownership and mortgage structures. And given Mr. Trump’s long real estate career in the United States and abroad, as well as his claim that his personal wealth exceeds $10 billion, it is safe to say that no previous major party presidential nominee has had finances nearly as complicated.

    As president, Mr. Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect his own financial empire. He would also wield influence over legislative issues that could have a significant impact on his net worth, and would have official dealings with countries in which he has business interests.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?_r=0

    He has no conflict of interest now because he doesn’t have any control over policies that could affect his assets and those that finance those assets.

    As President he would have SIGNIFICANT conflict of interests.

    His remedy so far is that he would have his children run his business. THAT IS NOT A SOLUTION.

    So, if you are suggesting that Clinton close a charitable foundation that has a track record of doing good work around the world in order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest if she is elected President, shouldn’t you also call for Trump to sell his interest in all of his properties in order to remove the very obvious conflicts of interest that will occur if he happens to get elected president?

    Also shouldn’t you be calling for him to release his tax returns and have an independent audit of his finances so that the american voter can clearly understand what potential conflicts of interest might exist PRIOR to when they are asked to case their vote?

    If you feel that a conflict of interest, imagined or real, is a serious issue that the voters should pay attention to – why have you focused all of your attention on Clinton’s appearance of conflict and completely ignored Trump’s MUCH bigger problem.

  16. Keith says:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-14-35-04

    Because Trump hasn’t done it this way. She was a member of the administration, obviously, selling influence, or at minimum a implied influence. Trump was doing it as a businessman taking loans which are normal and customery.

    Here’s the test. What, from what you have shown about trumps loans above isn’t normal and customery? Where I’m headed here is this. Do you think what is coming out about Hillary and the foundation is what President Obama had in mind prior to her joining his team?

    Trump should turn all over all activity to others. Period. It is nieve to him you can simply dissolve those businesses.

    I could careless about trumps taxes. I wouldn’t if I were him. Much like Hillary not holding a press conference for 260 days, I was wrong saying 200 recently, also well before Trump was the nominee so your reasoning is incorrect also. Trump has nothing to gain from doing so. It’s not required which is different then Hillary’s emails which even yesterday she continues to be dishonest about. Trump makes tons of money, he also losses tons, he also has depreciation and every other legal tax deduction he’s allowed. He probably pays between 0 and 20% . So he loses because 90% of the population don’t understand the tax code even while 47% pay nothing.

  17. Keith says:

    Also, maybe I wouldn’t have a proplem with a foundation of it were someone other then her. I trust zero of what she says or who she says she is. She has proven her self over and over again, in the very environment she is about to be elected to, as dishonest. She gets and has earned zero grace until proven otherwise.

    As a Christian I judge no one. I’ve told you many times I am particularly found of the story of the women at the well. I am not condemning her. I think I need to make that clear. However if thief comes to know the Lord the church would not be advised to make them the head of the treasury…. So when she wins, I hope not, I will pray for her. I will ask for judgement. I will pray daily, mostly, for her. This in spite of the facts she will not choose life, she will not protect marriage, she will divide and she will be dishonest. All things that can change and I will have to be hopeful they will.

  18. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Because Trump hasn’t done it this way. She was a member of the administration, obviously, selling influence, or at minimum a implied influence. Trump was doing it as a businessman taking loans which are normal and customery.

    Here’s the test. What, from what you have shown about trumps loans above isn’t normal and customery? Where I’m headed here is this. Do you think what is coming out about Hillary and the foundation is what President Obama had in mind prior to her joining his team?

    Please answer the following question. You claim Clinton was “selling influence”. What was she personally getting in return for influence that you feel she was selling?

    Here’s a brief thought experiment for you. Let’s replace the Clinton Foundation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Red Cross, or the March of Dimes, or the Salvation Army, or whatever your favorite charity is. Then let’s say that Clinton does exactly the same thing. Her staff take calls from donors to the Red Cross who want to have dinner with her or want help with a Visa or want a referral for a job opening. You still think this is corruption?

    Answer the two questions and we will have more to talk about.

    As far as Trump, you are being purposefully dense.

    There is no corruption now.

    But if Trump becomes President, many of his actions will have a direct and potentially positive effect on his business. That is the text book definition of a conflict of interest. Simply allowing his children to run HIS business does not remove that conflict.

    There is a direct moral equivalent between your demand that the Clinton Foundation shut down and my suggestion that he sell all of his properties.

    This issue with his taxes is that it will reveal exactly where these potential conflicts of interest are.

    Clinton has released her taxes. Those taxes show that she and her family receive no direct benefits from the family foundation (other than a tax break).

    We are entitled to know the same thing about Trump.

  19. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Also, maybe I wouldn’t have a proplem with a foundation of it were someone other then her. I trust zero of what she says or who she says she is. She has proven her self over and over again, in the very environment she is about to be elected to, as dishonest. She gets and has earned zero grace until proven otherwise.

    Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful reply.

    Guess what?

    Your description of her isn’t her.

    It isn’t her any more than Obama is a Kenyan or Obama is a Muslim or Kerry’s medals weren’t earned.

    These “people” are all inventions of their political opponents.

    Those who have actually spent time with Clinton claim that she is both warm, caring, and honest. I know that is hard for you to believe, but let’s just suppose that it’s true. Those who opposed Jesus attributed a lot of terrible things to Him too. That’s what cynical people do.

    I’m not asking you to change your view of her today.

    I am grateful that you are willing to give her some room to prove by her actions that she really does care about others and wants to make the world a better place.

Leave a Reply