Trump – a Joker, a Welsher, and a Crook

trumpchump161618_600-540x382

Donald Trump nearly went personally bankrupt in the early 90’s as his casino empire collapsed.  Bankers forced him to give up his majority holdings in four properties, sell his yacht, and his airline.

He rebuilt his casino/real estate empire only to see it collapse again in 2004 and 2009.  As part of the 2004 bankruptcy, Deutsche Bank revealed that they had loaned Trump’s company $40M backed by his personal guarantee that included his own estimate that he was worth $3.5B.  The bank and the court discovered that he was only worth $788M.  He later defaulted on that loan and sued the bank. They settled in 2010 with Trump getting a 5 year extension to pay back the loan.  It is unclear whether than obligation was satisfied, but the bank has provided Trump other loans since.

What’s important about these timelines is that Trump’s business model changed in 2004 when he started a new business as a celebrity on the long running Apprentice series.  Trump reported that NBC paid him more than $200M over 14 seasons to appear on the show.  NBC said multiple times that those figures were “grossly inaccurate and … significantly overstated”.  But this was only one of the whole host of celebrity endorsements that Trump was making.  The problem is that celebrity endorsements simply don’t bring in the same cash that real estate does, but they also don’t require nearly the same amount of upfront cash.  So it appears that Trump began to suffer from a cash flow short fall between the costs of his lifestyle (needed to support his endorsement business) and the income that lifestyle was generating.

He did the same thing most every other family in the country does when that happens.  He took some money out of the piggy bank.  In this case the piggy bank was his personal foundation.

The Washington Post recently documented that he withdrew roughly $258M from his charitable foundation to pay his own personal bills.

Now you might say that this was his own money, after all, and he should be able to do whatever he wants with it, but that’s not how charitable foundations work.  Trump got a tax deduction for the money that he donated to this charity.  Taking money back out to pay his own expenses constitutes fraud and violates federal rules against “self-dealing”.

To make matters worse, he wasn’t even taking out his own money.  He had pretty much run his foundation dry of his own money by 2006, leaving it with just $4,238 at year’s end, according to tax records.  He made small donations in 2007 and 2008.  Everything after that was other people’s money.  Other people who were making donations to his charity in order to ingratiate themselves to him.

Hillary Clinton has been accused of selling access to the State Department in return for large donations to her family’s charity.  The difference is that the Clinton foundation used those donations to fight AIDs.  The Trump foundation used access to Trump to secure large donations, but then used some of that money to pay Trump’s bills.

Here’s how he used that money.

In 2007, he settled a dispute with Palm Beach over the size of a flagpole at his Mar-a-Lago Club.  The original unpaid fines for the zoning violation totaled $120,000.  Trump settled with the city by offering to make a $100,000 donation to a veteran’s charity.  Rather than write the check, the donation came from his charity.

In another case in 2010, Trump was offering a $1M prize during a charity golf outing at a Trump golf course for anyone who had a hole in one.  Martin Greenberg won the prize.  The small print on the rules said that the golf ball had to travel at least 150 yards.  The hole where this challenge was set up was deliberately less than that.  Greenberg sued Trump’s club, the charity of former NBA star Alonzo Mourning, which was also hosting the tournament, as well as the insurance company that had underwritten the prize.

Eventually, Trump’s club and Greenberg settled the case, with the course agreeing to donate $158,000 to a charity chosen by Greenberg.  Trump paid that bill using foundation money.

In 2013, the foundation purchased $5,000 advertising for his hotels in programs for three events organized by a D.C. preservation group.  In 2014, Trump paid for a portrait of himself purchased at a charity auction with $10,000 of foundation money.  This is reminiscent of a similar $20,000 purchase of a portrait in 2007 that he also made with foundation money.

The bottom line is that this is all illegal.

“I represent 700 nonprofits a year, and I’ve never encountered anything so brazen,” said Jeffrey Tenenbaum, who advises charities at the Venable law firm in Washington. After The Post described the details of these Trump Foundation gifts, Tenenbaum described them as “really shocking.”

“If he’s using other people’s money — run through his foundation — to satisfy his personal obligations, then that’s about as blatant an example of self-dealing [as] I’ve seen in a while,” Tenenbaum said.

 

The real question is if this guy is as wealthy as he said he was and as generous as he said he was, why didn’t he just pay these bills out of his own pocket?  Why would he take the risk of breaking IRS rules for what to him should have been pocket change?

You can ask the same question regarding the $25,000 donation that the foundation made to the Bondi campaign just before the Florida AG dropped her plans to bring legal action against Trump University.  That donation was also illegal.  It should also have been easy from Trump to write the check himself.  He didn’t.

There are only two answers.

  1. He is pathological and this was an obsession that he simply couldn’t control.
  2. He didn’t have the money and this was the only way that he could cover those expenses.

In either case, it is just another example of why this person is uniquely deceptive and wholly unsuited for the office that he is seeking.

 

 

 

22 Responses to “Trump – a Joker, a Welsher, and a Crook”

  1. Keith says:

    Nice nuanced detail, however he is NOT uniquely deceptive. HRC would fall in line quickly with what you expose above.

    Also, as an FYIhaving worked the business side of east coast construction, lawsuits, failure to pay, unsupported change orders, etc, is a way of life. I romoved our company from such business…

    If you were a republican here is the sort of nuanced detail you would be posting.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/dr_lisa_bardacks_faustian_bargain.html

    I believe Hillary is still slightly leading in the electoral college but it’s tightened. Wash Post lead tomorrow will say tomorrow it’s all tied up.

  2. Keith says:

    http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/

    Should this be of any interest at all?

    Huma even is on record as saying “How is this not classified” when shown an email from President Obama, using a fake name, to Hillary, on her personal server and private email address. An by the way he “only found out about her private email when he read about it in the news papers.”

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Nice nuanced detail, however he is NOT uniquely deceptive. HRC would fall in line quickly with what you expose above.

    The depths of your bias and illusion are stunning.

    Are you really suggesting that, given the chance, Clinton would take money from her foundation to pay her personal bills too?

    Well guess what? She DOES have a foundation. One that is MUCH bigger than Trumps. Contrary to Trump, she and Bill DO contribute a significant portion of their income every year to their foundation. Contrary to Trump, her foundation is run by professionals and had]s a mission of combating world-wide AIDS. Contrary to Trump, her foundation is regarded as one of the best in the world at what it does and has received a top rating regarding it’s efficiency and low administrative costs. And contrary to Trump, she has not taken a DIME from her foundation for her own personal enrichment. How do we know all of this? Contrary to Trump, Clinton has shared DECADES of tax returns with the public. It all there for everyone to see.

    As far as UNIQUELY deceptive, that was not a casual description. Trump is a liar of COLOSSAL dimension. Clinton doesn’t even come close. Few in the western world come close. NO ONE seeking the sort of public office that Trump is seeking comes close.

    You don’t have to take my word for it. All of the fact checkers have documented it. A recent article in the NYT listed 31 YUGE lies that Trump told in just the past week. His total number of lies was much larger than that. These were just the ones of ridiculous proportion.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/24/us/elections/donald-trump-statements.html

    All politicians bend the truth to fit their purposes, including Hillary Clinton. But Donald J. Trump has unleashed a blizzard of falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies in the general election, peppering his speeches, interviews and Twitter posts with untruths so frequent that they can seem flighty or random — even compulsive.

    However, a closer examination, over the course of a week, revealed an unmistakable pattern: Virtually all of Mr. Trump’s falsehoods directly bolstered a powerful and self-aggrandizing narrative depicting him as a heroic savior for a nation menaced from every direction. Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist, described the practice as creating “an unreality bubble that he surrounds himself with.”

    The Cincinnati Enquirer just endorsed Clinton. They have not endorsed a Democrat for 100 years. That means that they endorsed Nixon (multiple times). They endorsed Bush I even after he lied about not raising taxes. They endorsed all of the Republicans that ran against FDR from Hoover to Dewey to Landon to Willkie.

    Trump is a clear and present danger to our country. He has no history of governance that should engender any confidence from voters. Trump has no foreign policy experience, and the fact that he doesn’t recognize it – instead insisting that, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do” – is even more troubling. His wild threats to blow Iranian ships out of the water if they make rude gestures at U.S. ships is just the type of reckless, cowboy diplomacy Americans should fear from a Trump presidency. Clinton has been criticized as being hawkish but has shown a measured approach to the world’s problems. Do we really want someone in charge of our military and nuclear codes who has an impulse control problem? The fact that so many top military and national security officials are not supporting Trump speaks volumes.

    While Clinton has been relentlessly challenged about her honesty, Trump was the primary propagator of arguably the biggest lie of the past eight years: that Obama wasn’t born in the United States. Trump has played fast and loose with the support of white supremacist groups. He has praised some of our country’s most dangerous enemies – see Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein – while insulting a sitting president, our military generals, a Gold Star family and prisoners of war like Sen. John McCain. Of late, Trump has toned down his divisive rhetoric, sticking to carefully constructed scripts and teleprompters. But going two weeks without saying something misogynistic, racist or xenophobic is hardly a qualification for the most important job in the world. Why should anyone believe that a Trump presidency would look markedly different from his offensive, erratic, stance-shifting presidential campaign?

    From the Dallas Morning News who also hasn’t endorsed a democrat since WWII.

    We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent’s.

    Trump’s values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

    From the Houston Chronicle

    Any one of Trump’s less-than-sterling qualities – his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance – is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, “I alone can fix it,” should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.

    I could go on, but the bottom line here is that there is NO comparison, no equivalency, no scale that you can use to compare Trump’s OBSESSIVE dishonesty with Clinton.

    Also, as an FYIhaving worked the business side of east coast construction, lawsuits, failure to pay, unsupported change orders, etc, is a way of life. I romoved our company from such business…

    Just another excuse. If it were true that there is some cultural influence that has created the lying cheating person that Trump has become – WHY WOULD YOU THEN ELECT HIM PRESIDENT?

    If you were a republican here is the sort of nuanced detail you would be posting.

    Finally no, I would not be posting this sort of trash regarding Clinton’s health. Both candidates have promised to share more detailed medical histories. Clinton has already shared MUCH more than Trump. Let’s wait and see if Trump shares any real medical records. But please excuse me if I remain skeptical that we will see anything more substantial from Trump. Just like his taxes, he has no problem lying and will not keep any promise that doesn’t promote his own personal agenda.

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Should this be of any interest at all?

    No.

    The article was labeled opinion and does satisfy that description.

    It all comes down to whether or not you trust the FBI.

    If you only trust them when they do things that you like, you probably SHOULD support Trump because you both have a lot in common.

  5. Keith says:

    My point exactly…. I watched for years you look for the spot on the nats behind and then describe it in nuanced detail. Here are a set of very valid thoughts and facts doing the same thing, yet you dismiss it. I’m not saying right or wrong, true or false. It’s you who’s mind is closed. Remarkably….

    Why did Huma say “how’s that not classified?” We now know President Obama did know she had a private setup, he said he didn’t. Does that matter?

    What’s very clear now is summed up in the below paragraph.

    Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

  6. Keith says:

    https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/amp/?client=safari

    You new your times piece above is very deceptive as well. Here’s an example. Trump said his numbers with African Americans was up. New times said they were not and were very low. The truth is BOTH can be true. It depends how you look at it. Trumps numbers are UP with that group, see link above, while they are still very low.

    I can and won’t answer for each. As I have stated, he is a carnival barker. He exaggerates, he is given to hyperbole. For far too long he quoted things he had read or heard on TV. He admit this is where he previously got all his information. again, he gets a pass from me as I choose between the two. Hillary is a carefully prepared, lawyerly, liar under pressure. Been that way for decades. Her emails answers are proof again. She is NOT a carnival barker, does not speak In Hyperbole, she is not a salesman. She is carefully prepared.

    And to make a point, carefully prepared and knowledgeable on subjects DOES NOT necessarily make a good leader. As you would agree, she was wrong about Iraq for years, she got the Middle East wrong, got Bingazi wrong and at this point it does matter, there was not a right wing conspiracy, she did not have it right about her email server and called it a bad choice. etc etc etc. Jeff, change leadership is something quite different. It’s theme based. Make America great again. Let’s stop getting screwed on trade deals. Etc etc etc. I I my need to prove direction as a leader in many cases. My team, once given the direction, tells me how we’re getting there. That’s one type of leader. Much like President Reagan. And no I don’t care if they don’t have a plan. Repeating, many times in my professional life I’ve set the direction and have no clue how to get there. The team comes up with the plan over time. Again, I have no problem with this.

    Please don’t ever forget, no mandate, keep your own doctor, no cost increase, healthcare for everyone, etc etc etc. he did have a direction however.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    My point exactly…. I watched for years you look for the spot on the nats behind and then describe it in nuanced detail. Here are a set of very valid thoughts and facts doing the same thing, yet you dismiss it. I’m not saying right or wrong, true or false. It’s you who’s mind is closed. Remarkably….

    Why did Huma say “how’s that not classified?” We now know President Obama did know she had a private setup, he said he didn’t. Does that matter?

    What I am generally doing is responding to the biased echo chamber stories that you post with “the rest of the story”. It isn’t nuance. It is adding the facts that your sources withheld in order to twist the truth into a form that better fits with their narrative.

    This most recent story is good example.

    Here’s a little bit more “nuance” from Politico.

    In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

    “Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

    Your story left out this last part. What Abedin was asking is whether or not the pseudonym that the President was using should be classified – not the message itself. If that pseudonym was not classified, she asked if she could have a copy because she is smart and realized what the conservative press will likely do with this information.

    The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the “presidential communications privilege,” a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The report doesn’t provide more details on the contents of that particular email exchange, but says it took place on June 28, 2012, and had the subject line: “Re: Congratulations.” It may refer to the Supreme Court’s ruling that day upholding a key portion of the Obamacare law.

    It’s been known since last year that Obama and Clinton corresponded occasionally via her private account, but the White House has insisted Obama did not know she relied on it routinely and exclusively for official business.

    Presidential communications are protected from FOA requests, but clearly there are other ways that emails can be obtained. This appears to have been a personal message exchanged between Obama and Clinton. Obama claims that he didn’t receive any official emails from Clinton using that account. Nothing in any of the FBI files or emails calls that claim into question.

    What’s very clear now is summed up in the below paragraph.

    Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

    What’s clear is that this just happens to be one person’s opinion which you agree with.

    The FBI did it’s job. You’re unhappy with the results. Your bias prevents you from accepting the fact that Clinton did not exchange ANY emails with the standard classified headers that were broadly described by the FBI. She did not recognize a more obscure lower level (c) mark in part of three messages. She has apologized for actions and admitted that they were a mistake.

    In the meantime we have another Trump foundation revelation that he not only paid personal bills out of his foundation but he used his foundation to launder income. Both Trump and his campaign continue to sidestep this whole issue trusting that people like you will just give him a pass.

    “This is so bizarre, this laundry list of issues,” said Marc Owens, the longtime head of the Internal Revenue Service office that oversees nonprofit organizations who is now in private practice. “It’s the first time I’ve ever seen this, and I’ve been doing this for 25 years in the IRS, and 40 years total.”

    Why aren’t you calling for the same sort of investigation that you wanted for Clinton?

    There has been no evidence that Clinton enriched herself in any way from her foundation. There are smoking guns all over the place regarding Trump and his foundation.

    If you are willing to disqualify Clinton based on her admission of making a mistake, why are you willing to vote for Trump? The foundation is being investigated by the NY State AG. The campaign said that the $25K bribe to Bondi was an innocent mistake. Trump paid a fine but never admitted that it was a mistake. Are all of the rest of these things simple “mistakes” too? Sorry my friend but you are not holding Trump to the same standard that you hold Clinton and you are unwilling to even talk about it.

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, Here’s what Trump said regarding the rules about laundering money through a foundation.

    “Are you confident that the Trump Foundation has followed all charitable rules and laws?” journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked on a Sunday TV program called Full Measure.

    “Well, I hope so,” Trump said. “I mean, my lawyers do it.”

    The Trump Foundation has no paid staff. The last time it reported spending any money on legal fees was in 2010, when it spent $53 total for the year.

    So the first thing he did here was imply that if there was a problem, it was an error on the part of his lawyers. The second thing he did was lie when suggested that the foundation had lawyers tasked with following the rules.

    So is Trump “too dumb to be our commander in chief” because he doesn’t understand that you have to pay taxes on income that is redirected to your foundation?

    Just using your scale.

    BTW BTW Still waiting for those health records that Trump said he was going to release. When will you start holding him accountable for failing to be transparent in the same ways that you are holding Clinton accountable?

  9. Keith says:

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/

    No sooner did I say it, last night, then someone writes it. You blog is being monitored for my comments. Lol

  10. Keith says:

    And to your most recent comments. Exactly backwards!!!! I respond with the other side because I find it impossible a Christian can be so one sided. As such I can quote proverbs “the Lord detests uneven scales.” What does that mean? In the same way you you judge Trump you must judge Hillary. I have. I don’t see you doing the same.

  11. Keith says:

    You see, you are willing to create a hypothesis about why Trump lies and create a pycological profile. Yet, given Hillarys health , documented, you fail to pay attention to what medical professionals have to say. Now right, wrong or indifferent, both cases are the same. You fail to acknowledge one side and only exploite the other.

  12. Jeff Beamsley says:

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/

    No sooner did I say it, last night, then someone writes it. You blog is being monitored for my comments. Lol

    Being proud of being on the same page with the Moony-owned Washington Times only indicates how deep you are in the right wing bubble.

  13. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The only medical professionals who count are the ones who have examined the patient. Everything else is speculation.

    Both physicians have stated that both candidates are “fit to serve”. If you are going to questions Hillary’s physician, you also have to question Trump’s physician. Where are those medical records that Trump promised to supply BTW?

    Trying to figure out why Trump lies is also speculation, but I didn’t claim that it was anything else. Hopefully we can all agree that he is NOT a normal person. Whether that is bad or good is a matter of opinion.

    BTW at least some of those “medical professionals” that you like to quote are in fact a right-wing hit squad that have been attacking Clinton for decades.

    Orient and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, or AAPS, have been unabashedly anti-Clinton for decades. Contrary to its official-sounding name, the AAPS does not represent hundreds of thousands of physicians like, say, the American Medical Association does. Instead, the small non-profit based out of a medical park in Tucson represents a niche group of fewer than 5,000 members, not all of whom are doctors. While it claims to be non-partisan, even Orient admits the group has a guiding “philosophy,” one that just so happens to correlate with conservative politics on every issue from vaccine mandates to abortion rights to immigration.

    The AAPS says vaccinations cause autism. You think HIV causes AIDS? The AAPS has its doubts. You think indoor smoking bans are good? The AAPS suggested they could be harmful. You say President Obama’s oratorical skills won him the White House? The AAPS thinks he used a “covert form of hypnosis” to win over the public.

    “They’re not a national organization that represents any sort of mainstream physicians,” says Paul Offit, a pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “They’re a political group.”

    In other words they are a very small looney tune group that has managed to gain some publicity because they have posted edited video’s that support a narrative that folks like you eat up. This is confirmation bias that you are just unwilling to accept.

    Here’s the basic strategy that is used by most every right wing group to promote most every conspiracy theory in the conservative tool kit.

    Then there’s the fact that Orient has never actually examined Clinton or Trump. Groups like the American Psychiatric Association have warned doctors against speculating about candidates they’ve never treated. But that hasn’t stopped Orient and her colleagues from aggressively dissecting Clinton’s health through a combination of public records about Clinton’s history of blood clots and concussions, statements made by Clinton associates, and, in particular, YouTube videos.

    Many of these videos are carefully edited to show Clinton purportedly having seizures on the campaign trail or losing her train of thought. Some of them have millions of views. “A lot of people have been taking videos that raise questions,” Orient says. “The ones where she loses her train of thought. She has unusual head motions and eye motions, prolonged inappropriate laughter, and a state of confusion that it takes her a while to recover from.”

    Which videos, specifically? “Look,” Orient says, “it’s all over the Internet.” In her view, that makes it her job to ask questions. “Do you think Americans are supposed to turn a blind eye to the possibility that they’d be electing a commander in chief with neurologic damage precluding her ability to think clearly, who is simply used as a cover for someone unknown to decide weighty matters like war?”

    What’s key here is Orient’s careful presenting of these ideas as questions. She stops short of diagnosing Clinton directly—she couldn’t, of course, without directly examining the candidate herself. But as a physician, Orient’s opinion still seems to carry weight.

    And once she’s talking about it, the media can, too. Because an idea is “being discussed” some outlets will inevitably use that as grounds to cover it. “That passive construction doesn’t acknowledge it’s out there because media organizations are talking about it and putting it out there,” Mnookin says.

    At the end of the day you are left with a handful right wing trash from a biased rag and some looney tune docs in Arizona. And you’re suggesting that I’m the one who has a problem with perspective? I’m the one who is holding you accountable for your claims and so far you have failed to support any of them with facts from credible sources. You’re welcome to keep trying though, but you will ultimately fail because your claims are based on ideology rather than any respect for the truth.

  14. Keith says:

    Correction. They are monitoring my comments.

  15. Keith says:

    And what strategy does the left use? I’m getting weary trying to drag you along!!!!! The exact same one!!!! Sorry I answered for you. The Times has an agenda, see what I posted above. You won’t…how can I show you that both sides are cut from the same cloth when you simply won’t look. I’m NOT defending Trump.. Never have. I’m showing you what you’re doing under the name Christian. ….

  16. Jeff Beamsley says:

    And to your most recent comments. Exactly backwards!!!! I respond with the other side because I find it impossible a Christian can be so one sided. As such I can quote proverbs “the Lord detests uneven scales.” What does that mean? In the same way you you judge Trump you must judge Hillary. I have. I don’t see you doing the same.

    Here’s a simple question.

    In tonight’s debate according to Politifact, Trump lied seven times. Clinton lied once.

    So who was the bigger liar?

    You are delusional to suggest that you are treating Clinton and Trump the same. You are not.

    Here’s just one example.

    You have held Clinton accountable for her actions regarding her foundation. You have said NOTHING regarding Trumps multiple issues with his foundation.

    Please help me understand how your scale is balanced regarding this issue.

    You have held Clinton responsible for the deaths in Benghazi. You have not said anything about the deaths that occurred at the Trump Casino in Atlantic City after he basically eliminated his security staff in an effort to save money.

    If Clinton is responsible for errors in judgement, why isn’t Trump also responsible for similar errors in judgement?

    Please explain to me what I’m missing in evening out the scales.

    You’ve been all over Clinton regarding deletion of emails and her lies regarding what actually happened. The FBI investigated and found none of her actions rose to the level of prosecution. Those are facts.

    In 2004 Trump was involved in a law suit where during the prosecution, his lawyer claimed that the organization did not have a central email server and instead relied completely on personal email. One of the key elements in this case was the claim by party being sued by Trump, that the Trump organization systematically destroyed email evidence.

    Trump settled the case before this particular issue could be decided.

    Looks pretty equivalent to me. Neither was found guilty. Both destroyed emails that some people considered evidence. Both claimed that there was no intent to hide evidence.

    Please tell why you have held Clinton accountable and never said anything about Trump.

  17. Jeff Beamsley says:

    And what strategy does the left use? I’m getting weary trying to drag you along!!!!! The exact same one!!!! Sorry I answered for you. The Times has an agenda, see what I posted above. You won’t…how can I show you that both sides are cut from the same cloth when you simply won’t look. I’m NOT defending Trump.. Never have. I’m showing you what you’re doing under the name Christian. ….

    All fact checking is not biased.

    The NYT was not the only organization who posted a list of the past week’s lies by Trump. You picked one of those lies that you didn’t like and used that to trash the rest. Please find a credible news organization that disputes these various lists of lies and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you. The problem is that you can’t because ALL of the credible news organizations have posted something in the past week documenting the LARGE number of lies that Trump told just in the past week.

    I’m doing my best to defend facts in what is increasingly a fact-free environment. One of Trump’s strategies is to spew so many lies that it just becomes difficult to keep up. He continues to claim, and you’ve defended him, that he was against the War in Iraq, but every credible fact checking source says that is a lie. So which is it? Are they ALL biased, or perhaps the truth is that Trump LIED about his original position regarding the Iraq war.

    He also LIED about stop and frisk being unconstitutional. It is true that the Judge who made that ruling was removed from the case. And it is also true that the current Mayor of NY refused to appeal that ruling, but until someone else goes through the appeal process, stop and frisk IS unconstitutional. So why didn’t he just say that? He could have said that it has been held unconstitutional by a lower court but if he is elected he will help come city challenge that ruling. Instead he just lied and said it wasn’t unconstitutional.

    Sorry but isn’t OK that he is unprepared, or poorly informed, or talks off the cuff. At some point even you are going to have to start holding accountable for his lies in the same way that you have held Clinton accountable.

    Once you start doing that, we can have a more rational discussion.

    BTW, yes you are defending Trump. You are uncomfortable because I’ve backed you into a corner and you are having a hard time finding your way out. You may interpret that as being unchristian but I seem to recall that Jesus was pretty hard on the hypocrites that he encountered. So I’m just following his example. Doesn’t mean that I think you are a bad person.

  18. Jeff Beamsley says:

    “Trump repeatedly relied on troublesome and false facts that have been debunked throughout the campaign,” The Post’s Fact Checkers, Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, conclude. “Clinton stretched the truth on occasion, such as when she tried to wiggle out of her 2012 praise of the Trans Pacific Partnership as a ‘gold standard.’ But her misstatements paled in comparison to the list of Trump’s exaggerations and falsehoods. Trump once again asserted that the 2008 Clinton campaign was responsible for spreading the myth that President Obama was born in Kenya, when that is false. He claimed that ‘thousands’ of American jobs will leave the country when Ford shifts small-car manufacturing to Mexico, but no one here will lose their jobs. He also falsely claimed that he was against the Iraq War, when all available evidence demonstrates that he supported it until the rest of the country began to turn against it in 2004. He also once again falsely said he started his business with a ‘small loan’ from his father.” (Here’s a roundup of 23 of the most noteworthy claims that were made.)

    The biggest whopper was when, despite all evidence to the contrary, Trump vehemently denied that he had supported the Iraq War at the outset. Peter Wehner, who has served in three Republican administrations, said Trump “self-destructed” as he baldly lied about his opposition to the invasion. “Mr. Trump not only denied reality; he denied reality that was captured on tape, meaning it’s indisputable,” Wehner writes in the Times. “No matter. He lives in his own make believe world. [And] for Trump to then follow up his tirade by insisting that he has the right temperament to be president shows you how unbalanced he is. The unmasking continues.”

    This is a good summary from the WashPost of the DIFFERENCE between Trump and Clinton last night.

    It is also the fundamental reason why you can’t impose the “balance” test that you are trying to use when covering this issue.

    Trump lied more and used those lies to defend actions that were being called into question. For example, claiming that Ford moving small car production to Mexico was going to cost thousands of US jobs is a lie. Ford makes most of their money making trucks. Truck are all made here and will continue to be made here. NO JOBS WERE LOST. So it IS possible for a company to change their mix of domestic and international manufacturing and not lose jobs.

  19. Keith says:

    YS) You have held Clinton accountable for her actions regarding her foundation. You have said NOTHING regarding Trumps multiple issues with his foundation. Please help me understand how your scale is balanced regarding this issue.

    MR) I’m only pinto g out Hillarys problems as a responses to your what 10 years posting of being only one sided. See to YOU Hillarys faults don’t matter. Show me one critical posting, i,e as this one above where you she he as a caricature. You don’t!!! My posting are for you, not defending Trump! Can’t you see this?

    The New York Times article post lies Trump told. I showed you an example where the Times themselves are being deceptive. Trump merely said his we up with African Americans. THIS IS TRUE. The NYT merely view the comment thought there own premis. I only assume political fact does the same. So does Fox, MSN, NBC, Wash Post. Everyone!!!

  20. Keith says:

    As to Iraq here it is, you decide.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GX35BZgYfWI

    Not like a lawyer, being carefully prepared, saying I never sent or recieved classified emails. Or, last night after staying home and preparing not just for the debate but to be president, saying she never said the TPPC was the gold standard.

    It’s interesting that political fact only found one thing she said that was wrong.

  21. Keith says:

    As to the fact check about Ford. Classic! Trump was taking Hillary apart piece by piece on trade. EVEN THE CNN people agreed on that. Then Trump just keeps talking and then says something he “thinks” but doesn’t know. Will it cost Americans jobs? We let’s use some logic. They are not going to produce the small cars here but in Mexico. Additional jobs, that’s what is being said. Trump however was talking about jobs for us… That was his point. He’s talking to the guys and women of Michigan, Ohio, and Penn at that point. Detail wrong, maybe. Was his point wrong? No. He soundly beat her on trade and jobs.

    Line to to candidates up and ask them to take a test on names places and events, then Hillary wins. Trump is correct to say her judgement is very bad. I believed he repeatedly said she haas experience but it’s bad experience. But please continue to point out the details without context of the bigger picture.

  22. Keith says:

    Did you think Lester Holt was good as a moderator?

Leave a Reply