The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Ace Pace]

So for a change, I'll actually take TRRs habit of being very worried. This Wapo article sums up why I think Trump dragging the Overton Window over to conspiracy theories is deeply problematic to the future of U.S. democracy.

How Russia could spark a U.S. electoral disaster

“U.S. investigates potential covert Russian plan to disrupt November elections.” To those unused to this kind of story, I can imagine that headline, from The Post this week, seemed strange. A secret Russian plot to throw a U.S. election through a massive hack of the electoral system? It sounds like a thriller, or a movie starring Harrison Ford.
In fact, the scenario under investigation has already taken place, in whole or in part, in other countries. Quite a bit of the story is already unfolding in public; strictly speaking, it’s not “secret” or “covert” at all. But because most Americans haven’t seen this kind of game played before (most Americans, quite wisely, don’t follow political news from Central Europe or Ukraine), Ithink the scenario needs to be fully spelled out. And so, based on Russia’s past tactics in other countries, assuming it acts more or less the same way it acts elsewhere, here’s what could happen over the next two months:
1. Trump, who is advised by several people with Russian links, will repeat and strengthen his “the election is rigged” narrative. The “polls are lying,” the “real” people aren’t being counted, the corrupt elites/Clinton clan/mainstream media are colluding to prevent him from taking office. Trump will continue to associate himself with Brexit — a vote that pollsters
really did get wrong — and with Nigel Farage, the far­right British politician who now promotes Trump (and has, incidentally, just been offered his own show on RT, the Russian state­sponsored TV channel).
2. Russia will continue to distribute and publish the material its hackers have already obtained from attacks on the Democratic National Committee, George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, former NATO supreme commander Gen. Philip Breedlove and probably others. The point will be to discredit not just Hillary Clinton but also the U.S. democratic process and, again, the “elite” who supposedly run it. As we have learned in multiple countries, even benign private conversations and emails can, when published in a newspaper, suddenly look sinister. Speculation seems ominous; jokes menacing.
Almost any leak of anything is damaging.
3. On or before Election Day, Russian hackers will seek to hack the U.S. voting system. We certainly know that this is possible: Hackers have already targeted voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona, according to The Post, and the FBI has informed Arizona officials that it suspects Russian hacking teams. Possible breaches are being investigated in several other states, and it’s not hard to imagine that many are vulnerable. The U.S. election system is decentralized and in some places frankly amateurish, as we learned in Florida in 2000.
4. The Russians attempt to throw the election. They might try to get Trump elected. Alternatively — and this would, of course, be even more devastating — they might try to rig the election for Clinton, perhaps leaving a trail of evidence designed to connect the rigging operation to Clinton’s campaign.
5. Once revealed, the result will be media hysteria, hearings, legal challenges, mass rallies, a constitutional crisis — followed by confusion, chaos and an undermining of the office of the presidency. Trump might emerge from the process as president after all. He will then go on, as promised at so many rallies, to “lock her up,” and of course to open a broad relation with
Russian President Vladimir Putin, the only foreign leader he seems to truly admire. Even if Clinton remains as president, she will be tarnished. At least a part of the country will assume she is illegitimate, that the elites/Clinton clan/mainstream media stole the election from “the people.”
6. More likely, the hack will fail, or never even get off the ground. But what’s the downside in trying, or even in letting it be known that it was tried? Rumors of election fraud can create the same hysteria as real election fraud. Already, Russia’s propaganda wire service, sputniknews.com, has speculated that The Post’s article on Russian electoral manipulation is a clever plot to “to hide the actual efforts at electoral manipulation” and a “good cover for vote­rigging.” That thought will be tweeted and posted and shared by a whole ecosystem of professional trolls and computer bots, over and over again until it finally shows up on authentic pro­Trump websites.
7. And what’s the downside for Trump? If he wins, he wins. If he loses — then there are all kinds of ways to make money from the “election was rigged” narrative. He could start a media company, focused on the conspiracy. He could start a national movement. He could make movies. He could be a hero. Whatever happens, the political process is undermined, social trust plummets further and the appeal of American democracy, both at home and around the world, diminishes. And that, of course, is the point.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am hardly the only person to find Trump deeply frightening.

Posted yesterday on the Facebook page of prominent Bernie supporter-turned-Clinton supporter and former Clinton Secretary of Labour Robert Reich:

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

Why is anyone surprised Donald Trump thinks Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader than Barack Obama? For Trump, “strong leadership” means authoritarian control. Trump has hailed Putin’s tight control over Russian society. He says, admiringly, Putin has "great control over his country.”

Trump wants the same control over American society as Putin has over Russia. That’s why he says he’ll expand libel laws, so he can control the press. It’s why he says presidents aren’t bound to decisions of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, so he can disregard the courts. It’s why he wants to vastly expand the military. It’s why he said in his acceptance speech “I am your voice.”

If Trump is elected, I wouldn’t be surprised if the House impeached him within his first term, and the Senate confirmed the impeachment. I wouldn’t even be surprised if he refused to leave office, and threatened an armed insurrection. Then he could assume dictatorial control and become his own Vladimir Putin.

What do you think?

Exaggerated? Possibly. Reich is hardly a non-partisan figure. But the fact that serious, politically experienced people who are not (to my knowledge anyway) generally known as fringe conspiracy theorists are even considering these possibilities is frightening in and of itself.

Note: I actually think Reich is being fairly optimistic, in that he seems to imagine a possible Republican Congress being anything other than a rubber stamp for the Donald.

Also, anyone else hear about Gary Johnson's Aleppo Gate?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... r-question

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson appeared clueless about the Syrian crisis on Thursday morning, asking “What is Aleppo?” during a television interview.

Mike Barnicle, during an interview on NBC’s Morning Joe, asked Johnson: “What would you do if you were elected, about Aleppo?”

Earlier this week activists reported a Syrian government aircraft dropped suspected chlorine bombs on residents in the city, injuring 71 (37 of whom were children), as part of the civil war that has raged since 2011 and resulted in 4.7 million refugees fleeing the country by February 2016. Aleppo, formerly Syria’s largest city, has been the worst hit area during the country’s war.

But Johnson didn’t know what Aleppo was.

“About?” he asked.

“Aleppo,” replied Barnicle.

“And what is Aleppo?” asked Johnson.

“You’re kidding,” responded Barnicle.

“No,” said Johnson.


Barnicle explained that Aleppo is in Syria and “it’s the epicenter of the refugee crisis”.

Trump interview broadcast on Russian propaganda outlet – as it happened
Follow live updates from the 2016 campaign as Donald Trump’s coziness with the Russians makes Republicans uneasy and WikiLeaks releases more documents
Read more
“OK, got it. Got it,” replied Johnson, before continuing to say of Syria: “It’s a mess”, and that the US should join with Russia to diplomatically end the war.

“No one is taking this more seriously than me, I feel horrible,” Johnson said to Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin, who was also a guest on Morning Joe. “I have to get smarter, and that’s just part of the process.”

“This morning, I began my day by setting aside any doubt that I’m human. Yes, I understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict – I talk about them every day. But hit with ‘What about Aleppo?’, I immediately was thinking about an acronym, not the Syrian conflict. I blanked. It happens, and it will happen again during the course of this campaign.

As governor, there were many things I didn’t know off the top of my head. But I succeeded by surrounding myself with the right people, getting to the bottom of important issues, and making principled decisions. It worked. That is what a president must do.”

But Johnson’s highly embarrassing lapse immediately resulted in watchers declaring it the nail in the coffin for his campaign.

“Well, that ends him,” tweeted Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.

“You can look at a map and find Aleppo,” Clinton said during her first formal press conference, in front of her campaign plane on the tarmac in White Plains, New York.

“It was astonishing to watch Gary Johnson effectively end his campaign,” said Rick Tyler, a former top Ted Cruz aide and MSNBC political analyst.

Advertisement

“The little five-year-old boy that was literally on every newspaper was in Aleppo. He absolutely had to know what that is as a candidate for president.”

Tyler said Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had underperformed during NBC’s military forum on Wednesday night – something Johnson could have taken advantage of.

“The opportunity that he blew was astonishing,” Tyler said.

“Here’s Gary Johnson’s chance to say: ‘If you don’t like what you saw last night, I will be honored to receive your vote, and he had an opportunity to perform and is worthy of the vote.

“And now the only question is where do Gary Johnson’s votes go.”

And this is the most credible, serious third party candidate (not that that's saying much).

Still, I don't know if its a good thing if Johnson implodes, as he probably siphons more votes from Trump than Clinton.

[Elfdart]

It would be bad news for Hillary if Johnson goes under. The last few state-by-state polls at this site show Johnson siphoning off enough votes to skew several states Clinton's way:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

For example, this morning's chart shows Clinton ahead 294-244. However, in almost every state listed as "barely Dem", Johnson's support is depriving Trump of the lead:

NV(6) Clinton-42/ Trump-38/ Johnson-6
CO(9) Clinton-41/ Trump-38/ Johnson-8
WI(10) Clinton-43/ Trump-39/ Johnson-4
MI(16) Clinton-43/ Trump-39/ Johnson-6
NC(15) Clinton-43/ Trump-41/ Johnson-8
NJ(14) Clinton-47/ Trump-43/ Johnson-5

Let's suppose that a simple majority (rounded up) of disaffected right-wingers decides to hold their nose and vote for the racist Oompa Loompa. That would give Trump the lead in Colorado, North Carolina and New Jersey -38 electoral votes he would need to win. The other three would be statistical ties, so this margin could get bigger.

It gets worse though:

Among the states listed as "likely Dem", should the overwhelming majority of Johnson supporters decide to hold their noses, several could also go for Captain Combover too:

NH(4) Clinton-44/ Trump-39/ Johnson-7
ME(4) Clinton-44/ Trump-35/ Johnson-12
NM(5) Clinton-39/ Trump-30/ Johnson-21
MN(10) Clinton-42/ Trump-34/ Johnson-8
VA(13) Clinton-46/ Trump-40/ Johnson-4 (Looks like Tim Kaine is John Edwards 2.0, sans charisma.)
PA(20) Clinton-46/ Trump-40/ Johnson-5

I thought Moore was being silly here, but now I think he might be right:

[Mr Bean]

Trumps entire game at this point is turnout. Can he turn out enough of the remnants of the moral majority of the Regan years and can enough college educated whites, minorities and immigrants get really mad at Trump and fail to show up to vote in sufficient numbers to swing it Trumps way. Every time I bring that up that this atypical election will see atypical voter turnouts I've been scoffed at because of course the same solid core of voters come out for both sides every year, and every year after year.

And as I said in the past it may not even be atypical in Trump's favor. Utah by all accounts is so divided Trump will only win by accident. It's not the only state where a strong third party showing could upset the Democratic OR Republican apple cart.

In that vein, wait till after the debates everything until the debates is just political noise as indicated by Trump's poll recovery. No matter what the man says Secretary Clinton can't keep her lead up. People kept talking like double digits was here to stay, look for slightly positive Trump polls in the future.

And most of all look forward to the complete and utter shit show that will be the debates. It will be glorious and unlike the noise, the debates are perfect for a back and forth meme to be coined and Trump to be destroyed by mass media embrace of a Dean scream moment.

[Ace Pace]

I wonder if the latest Hillary event will go down as similar to Romney's 47%. What an amazing mistake.

"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."

[Terralthra]

Yeah, she made the quintessential mistake: being factually accurate.

[bilateralrope]

Trump has found a way to get credit for donations other people make to charity. Which shows that Trump is still capable of surprising me.


How Donald Trump retooled his charity to spend other people's money

Donald Trump was in a tuxedo, standing next to his award: a statue of a palm tree, as tall as a toddler. It was 2010, and Trump was being honoured by a charity - the Palm Beach Police Foundation - for his "selfless support" of its cause.

His support did not include any of his own money.

Instead, Trump had found a way to give away somebody else's money, and claim the credit for himself.

Trump had earlier gone to a charity in New Jersey - the Charles Evans Foundation, named for a deceased businessman - and asked for a donation. Trump said he was raising money for the Palm Beach Police Foundation.

The Evans Foundation said yes. In 2009 and 2010, it gave a total of $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a small charity that the Republican presidential nominee founded in 1987.

Then, Trump's foundation turned around and made donations to the police group in South Florida. In those years, the Trump Foundation's gifts totaled $150,000.

Trump had effectively turned the Evans Foundation's gifts into his own gifts, without adding any money of his own.

On the night that he won the Palm Tree Award for his philanthropy, Trump may have actually made money. The gala was held at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, and the police foundation paid to rent the room. It's unclear how much was paid in 2010, but the police foundation reported in its tax filings that it rented Mar-a-Lago in 2014 for $276,463.

The Donald J. Trump Foundation is not like other charities. An investigation of the foundation - including examinations of 17 years of tax filings and interviews with more than 200 individuals or groups listed as donors or beneficiaries - found that it collects and spends money in a very unusual manner.

For one thing, nearly all of its money comes from people other than Trump. In tax records, the last gift from Trump was in 2008. Since then, all of the donations have been other people's money - an arrangement that experts say is almost unheard of for a family foundation.

Trump then takes that money and generally does with it as he pleases. In many cases, he passes it on to other charities, which often are under the impression that it is Trump's own money.

In two cases, he has used money from his charity to buy himself a gift. In one of those cases - not previously reported - Trump spent $20,000 of money earmarked for charitable purposes to buy a six-foot-tall painting of himself.

Money from the Trump Foundation has also been used for political purposes, which is against the law. The Washington Post reported this month that Trump paid a penalty this year to the Internal Revenue Service for a 2013 donation in which the foundation gave $25,000 to a campaign group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R).

Trump's foundation appears to have repeatedly broken IRS rules, which require nonprofit groups to file accurate paperwork. In five cases, the Trump Foundation told the IRS that it had given a gift to a charity whose leaders told The Post that they had never received it. In two other cases, companies listed as "donors" to the Trump Foundation told The Post that those listings were incorrect.

Last week, The Post submitted a detailed list of questions about the Trump Foundation to Trump's campaign. Officials with the campaign declined to comment.

Trump and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, have both been criticized during their campaigns for activities related to their foundations.

Critics have charged that the giant Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which employs more than 2,000 people and spends about a quarter of a billion dollars a year, has served as a way for businesses and powerful figures across the world to curry favor with one of America's most powerful families. The Clinton Foundation has also been credited by supporters and critics alike for its charitable efforts.

Trump has claimed that he gives generously to charity from his own pocket: "I don't have to give you records," he told The Post earlier this year, "but I've given millions away." Efforts to verify those gifts have not succeeded, and Trump has refused to release his tax returns, which would show his charitable giving.

That leaves the Trump Foundation as the best window into the GOP nominee's philanthropy.

In the past several days, questions about Trump's foundation have focused on the gift to Bondi's group in 2013. At the time the money arrived, Bondi's office was considering whether to launch an investigation into allegations of fraud by Trump University - accusations that Trump denies.

The investigation never started. Aides to Bondi and Trump say the gift and the case were unrelated. But Democrats have seized on what they see as a clear example of political influence, improperly funded by Trump's charity.

"The foundation was being used basically to promote a moneymaking fraudulent venture of Donald Trump's. That's not what charities are supposed to do," Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton's running mate, said on Friday. "I hope there's a significant effort to get to the bottom of it and find out whether this is the end."

A threadbare operation

Trump started his foundation in 1987 with a narrow purpose - to give away some of the proceeds from his book "The Art of the Deal."

Nearly three decades later, the Trump Foundation is still a threadbare, skeletal operation.

The most money it has ever reported having was $3.2 million at the end of 2009. At last count, that total had shrunk to $1.3 million. By comparison, Oprah Winfrey - who is worth $1.5 billion less than Trump, according to a Forbes magazine estimate - has a foundation with $242 million in the bank. At the end of 2014, the Clinton Foundation had $440 million in assets.

In a few cases, Trump seemed to solicit donations only to immediately give them away. But his foundation has also received a handful of bigger donations - including $5 million from professional-wrestling executives Vince and Linda McMahon - that Trump handed out a little at a time.

The foundation has no paid staffers. It has an unpaid board consisting of four Trumps - Donald, Ivanka, Eric and Donald Jr. - and one Trump Organization employee.

In 2014, at last report, each said they worked a half-hour a week.

The Trump Foundation still gives out small, scattered gifts - which seem driven by the demands of Trump's businesses and social life, rather than a desire to support charitable causes.

The foundation makes a few dozen donations a year, usually in amounts from $1,000 to $50,000. It gives to charities that rent Trump's ballrooms. It gives to charities whose leaders buttonholed Trump on the golf course (and then try, in vain, to get him to offer a repeat donation the next year).

It even gives in situations in which Trump publicly put himself on the hook for a donation - as when he promised a gift "out of my wallet" on NBC's "The Celebrity Apprentice." The Trump Foundation paid off most of those on-air promises. A TV production company paid others. The Post could find no instance in which a celebrity's charity got a gift from Trump's own wallet.

Another time, Trump went on TV's "Extra" for a contest called "Trump pays your bills!"

A professional spray-tanner won. The Trump Foundation paid her bills.

A rarity among charities

About 10 years ago, the Trump Foundation underwent a major change - although it was invisible to those who received its gifts.

The checks still had Trump's name on them.

Behind the scenes, he was transforming the foundation from a standard-issue rich person's philanthropy into a charity that allowed a rich man to be philanthropic for free.

Experts on charity said they had rarely seen anything like it.

"Our common understanding of charity is you give something of yourself to help somebody else. It's not something that you raise money from one side to spend it on the other," said Leslie Lenkowsky, the former head of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and a professor studying philanthropy at Indiana University.

By that definition, was Trump engaging in charity?

No, Lenkowsky said.

"It's a deal," he said, an arrangement worked out for maximum benefit at minimum sacrifice.

In the Trump Foundation's early days, between 1987 and 2006, Trump actually was its primary donor. Over that span, Trump gave his own foundation a total of $5.4 million. But he was giving it away as fast as he put it in, and by the start of 2007, the foundation's assets had dropped to $4,238.

Then, Trump made a change.

First, he stopped giving his own money.

His contribution shrank to $35,000 in 2007.

Then to $30,000 in 2008.

Then to $0.

At the same time, Trump's foundation began to fill with money from other people.

But in many other cases, his biggest donors have not wanted to say why they gave their own money, when Trump was giving none of his.

"I don't have time for this. Thank you," said Richard Ebers, a ticket broker in New York City who has given the Trump Foundation $1.9 million since 2011.

"No. No. No. I'm not going to comment on anything. I'm not answering any of your questions," said John Stark, the chief executive of a carpet company that has donated $64,000 over the years.

Vince and Linda McMahon declined to comment.

So did NBCUniversal, which donated $500,000 in 2012. Its gift more than covered the "personal" donations that Trump offered at dramatic moments on "The Celebrity Apprentice" - then paid out of the Trump Foundation.

Trump's donations to the Palm Beach Police Foundation offered a stark example of Trump turning somebody else's gift into his own charity.

Tax experts said they had rarely heard of anything like what Trump had done, converting another donor's gift into his own.

"I question whether it's ethical. It's certainly misleading. But I think it's legal, because you would think that the other foundation that's . . . being taken advantage of would look out for their own interests," said Rosemary Fei, an attorney in San Francisco who has advised hundreds of small foundations. "That's their decision to let him do that."

After three years, the Charles Evans Foundation stopped using Trump as a middleman.

"We realized we don't need to do it through a pass-through," said Bonnie Pfeifer Evans, the widow of Charles Evans and a trustee of the now-defunct foundation.

In 2012, the Charles Evans Foundation stopped giving money to the Trump Foundation.

In 2013, according to tax records, the Trump Foundation stopped giving to the Palm Beach Police Foundation.

The police group, which gave Trump the award, did not know that Trump's money had come from somebody else's pocket. It could not explain why he gave in some years but not others - or why he gave in the amounts he did.

"He's the unpredictable guy, right?" said John Scarpa, the Palm Beach Police Foundation's president, before The Post informed him about how Trump got the money. He said Trump's giving wasn't the only reason he got the award. He also could be counted on to draw a crowd to the group's annual event. The amount paid to Trump's club was first reported by BuzzFeed.

The police group still holds its galas at Mar-a-Lago.

Acts of 'self-dealing'

At the same time that it began to rely on other people's money, the Trump Foundation sometimes appeared to flout IRS rules, by purchasing things that seemed to benefit only Trump.

In 2007, for instance, Trump and his wife, Melania, attended a benefit for a children's charity held at Mar-a-Lago. The night's entertainment was Michael Israel, who bills himself as "the original speed painter." His frenetic act involved painting giant portraits in five to seven minutes - then auctioning off the art he'd just created.

He painted Trump.

Melania Trump bid $10,000.

Nobody tried to outbid her.

"The auctioneer was just pretty bold, so he said, 'You know what just happened: When you started bidding, nobody's going to bid against you, and I think it's only fair that you double the bid,' " Israel said in an interview last week.

Melania Trump increased her bid to $20,000.

"I understand it went to one of his golf courses," Israel said of the painting.

The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, according to the charity that held the benefit.

Something similar happened in 2012, when Trump himself won an auction for a football helmet autographed by football player Tim Tebow, then a quarterback with the Denver Broncos.

The winning bid was $12,000. As The Post reported in July, the Trump Foundation paid.

IRS rules generally prohibit acts of "self-dealing," in which a charity's leaders use the nonprofit group's money to buy things for themselves.

In both years, IRS forms asked whether the foundation had broken those rules: Had it "furnish[ed] goods, services or facilities" to Trump or another of its officers?

In both years, the Trump Foundation checked "no."

Tax experts said that Trump could have avoided violating the self-dealing rules if he gave the helmet and the painting to other charities instead of keeping them. Trump's staffers have not said where the two items are now.

The IRS penalties for acts of "self-dealing" can include penalty taxes, both on charities and on their leaders as individuals.

In other cases, the Trump Foundation's tax filings appeared to include listings that were incorrect.

The most prominent example is the improper political donation to the group affiliated with Bondi, the Florida attorney general, in 2013. In that case, Trump's staffers have said that a series of errors resulted in the payment being made - and then hidden from the IRS.

First, Trump officials said, when the request came down to cut a check to the Bondi group, a Trump Organization clerk followed internal protocol and consulted a book with the names of known charities.

The name of the pro-Bondi group is "And Justice for All." Trump's staffer saw that name in the book, and - mistakenly - cut the check from the Trump Foundation. The group in the book was an entirely different charity in Utah, unrelated to Bondi's group in Florida.

Somehow, the money got to Florida anyway.

Then, Trump's staffers said, the foundation's accounting firm made another mistake: It told the IRS that the $25,000 had gone to a third charity, based in Kansas, called Justice for All. In reality, the Kansas group got no money.

"That was just a complete mess-up on names. Anything that could go wrong did go wrong," Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization's controller, told The Post last week. After The Post pointed out these errors in the spring, Trump paid a $2,500 penalty tax.

Donations not received

In four other cases, The Post found charities that said they never received donations that the Trump Foundation said it gave them.

The amounts were small: $10,000 in 2008, $5,000 in 2010, $10,000 in 2012. Most of the charities had no idea that Trump had said he had given them money.

One did.

This January, the phone rang at a tiny charity in White River Junction, Vermont, called Friends of Veterans. This was just after Trump had held a televised fundraiser for veterans in Iowa, raising more than $5 million.

The man on the phone was a Trump staffer who was selecting charities that would receive the newly raised money. He said the Vermont group was already on Trump's list, because the Trump Foundation had given it $1,000 in 2013.

"I don't remember a donation from the Trump Foundation," said Larry Daigle, the group's president, who was a helicopter gunner with the Army during the Vietnam War. "The guy seemed pretty surprised about this."

The man went away from the phone. He came back.

Was Daigle sure? He was.

The man thanked him. He hung up. Daigle waited - hopes raised - for the Trump people to call back.

"Oh, my God, do you know how many homeless veterans I could help?" Daigle told The Post this spring, while he was waiting.

Trump gave away the rest of the veterans money in late May.

Daigle's group got none of it.

In two other cases, the Trump Foundation reported to the IRS that it had received donations from two companies that have denied making such gifts. In 2013, for instance, the Trump Foundation said it had received a $100,000 donation from the Clancy Law Firm, whose offices are in a Trump-owned building on Wall Street.

"That's incorrect," said Donna Clancy, the firm's founder, when The Post called. "I'm not answering any questions."

She hung up and did not respond to requests for comment afterward.

"All of these things show that the [Trump] foundation is run in a less-than-ideal manner. But that's not at all unusual for small, private foundations, especially those run by a family," said Brett Kappel, a Washington attorney who advises tax-exempt organizations. "Usually, you have an accounting firm that has access to the bank statements, and they're the ones who find these errors and correct them."

The Trump Foundation's accountants are at WeiserMazars, a New York-based firm. The Post sent them a detailed list of questions, asking them to explain these possible errors.

The firm declined to comment.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wonder if the latest Hillary event will go down as similar to Romney's 47%. What an amazing mistake.

"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."

As much as people are making that comparison, in what appears to be a desperate bid to manufacture a "47% moment" for Clinton and make Trump President, I don't think its a fair comparison.

Romney basically insulted half of the electorate for being poor.

Clinton insulted half of an opposition group that's not going to vote for her anyway (while defending the other half, but nobody seems to be reporting on that). And frankly, calling only half of Trump supporters bigots is God damn generous. If you support Trump, you are not necessarily a bigot, but you are at the very least willing to turn a blind eye to and enable bigotry, almost by definition.

Apples and fucking oranges.

Clinton's biggest mistake is arguably that she tried to back-pedal and apologize. She's going to be castigated by the Trumpers and their media collaborators anyway- why not show some backbone instead of back peddling and potentially feeding impressions that she's weak and dishonest?

They've moved on now, though, to the new footage of her "stumbling" on camera leaving some event. The vultures on CNN were circling obsessively around it today.

Obviously this is proof that she's not physically fit to be President.

Except, you know, for how FDR fought WWII from a fucking wheel chair.

[Mr Bean]

They've moved on now, though, to the new footage of her "stumbling" on camera leaving some event. The vultures on CNN were circling obsessively around it today.
Obviously this is proof that she's not physically fit to be President.

How about you post the video instead of rolling your eyes?

Except, you know, for how FDR fought WWII from a fucking wheel chair.

In the same way Daniel Inouye was a Senator despite missing an arm. I'm not sure why I have to explain to you the idea of existing conditions and degenerative conditions.

Never mind you example FDR literally died in office. Lets all give TRR the slow clap of a man who makes great comparisons. After all Hillary is fine just like FDR who again... literally died in office.

A better comparison funny enough would be Reagan who won re-election despite Alzheimers starting to noticeably affect him in 1984. He at least managed to get through the last stages of the cold war.

[Gaidin]

I wonder if the latest Hillary event will go down as similar to Romney's 47%. What an amazing mistake.

"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."

As much as people are making that comparison, in what appears to be a desperate bid to manufacture a "47% moment" for Clinton and make Trump President, I don't think its a fair comparison.

Romney basically insulted half of the electorate for being poor.

Clinton insulted half of an opposition group that's not going to vote for her anyway (while defending the other half, but nobody seems to be reporting on that). And frankly, calling only half of Trump supporters bigots is God damn generous. If you support Trump, you are not necessarily a bigot, but you are at the very least willing to turn a blind eye to and enable bigotry, almost by definition.

Apples and fucking oranges.

Clinton's biggest mistake is arguably that she tried to back-pedal and apologize. She's going to be castigated by the Trumpers and their media collaborators anyway- why not show some backbone instead of back peddling and potentially feeding impressions that she's weak and dishonest?

She didn't backpedal and apologize. Not for the bigots part anyway. She changed the basket size. Of course, as you say, they're trying to manufacture a 47% moment so...that's how they're presenting it in the news.

[The Romulan Republic]

How about you post the video instead of rolling your eyes?

Perhaps I ought to have posted the video, but it really is a non-issue that a portion of the media is trying to blow into a campaign-ending controversy. Just like the comment about half of Trump supporters being bigots.

In the same way Daniel Inouye was a Senator despite missing an arm. I'm not sure why I have to explain to you the idea of existing conditions and degenerative conditions.

You don't, asshole.

You do, however, have to demonstrate that Clinton's purely hypothetical condition is one that would prevent her from being an effective President, if that is your contention. And then, why it is sufficiently serious that electing Donald fucking Trump (the only other alternative at present) is a lesser evil.

Never mind you example FDR literally died in office. Lets all give TRR the slow clap of a man who makes great comparisons. After all Hillary is fine just like FDR who again... literally died in office.

After serving three terms in exemplary fashion, something Clinton couldn't legally do under our current constitution.

I'd say your attempt to mock my comparisons has backfired rather badly.

And if, God forbid, Clinton did die in office- then we'd get President Kaine. I can think of worse things. He's sure as hell be better than President Trump.

Again, non-issue, manufactured Clinton scandal number 10,000.

A better comparison funny enough would be Reagan who won re-election despite Alzheimers starting to noticeably affect him in 1984. He at least managed to get through the last stages of the cold war.

No, it isn't a better comparison, you idiot. That would only be true if their were evidence that Clinton had mental or cognitive issues comparable to Alzheimers. If that is what you are trying to insinuate, give us a damn source.

[Mr Bean]

So happy to see TRR ignore not only the main point but every single bloody point under the sun.

Okay lets reduce it to fundamentals.

Today Secretary Clinton had a medical issue bad enough (Could be a touch of sun, could be a minor balance issue, could be anything) she had to be manhandled into her transportation, had she not been held up she could have face planted onto the SUV or on the ground. This is not the first time this has happened, it happened in 2012 if you recall (The right wing tried to spin it as her trying to dodge Benghazi inquiringly by malingering) but in 2012 there was no one there to catch her so she face planted and got a concussion.

Secretary Clinton is old, the old are prone to more medical issues and to make your comparison WORSE TRR while FDR died in his third term, his heath was such he nearly died in 1937, 1941, 1944 and did die in 1945. This is not a good comparison, FDR was a great president but in 1944 his doctors were urging him not to run for a third term because they told him he would likely not survive his term. Do you see the bad comparison you have drawn? Has it sunk in of the forty odd presidents you could use with some heath issue why FDR is literally the worst one? The man who was told in 1944 by Navy doctors in private don't run for another term you already nearly died this year let Trumen run the show? FDR is a literal sense in that it's in Navy text books a case of a man ignoring his doctors in order to run for president when they told him privately he would not survive his next four years as American president.

TRR I mentioned Daniel Inouye for a reason, he lost most of his arm in WWII. After recovering from the arm loss he was otherwise heathy for many years. His condition (The arm loss) was not degenerative. Both Regans and FDR conditions were degenerative but at least in Regan's case it did not really start manifesting until his second term. Having a medical condition is fine, having a degenerative condition is problematic. So far we can't rule either way on Secretary Clinton heath, could just be good old fashion heat stroke and that's going to make anyone face plant. But ignoring it is stupid, the media is going to spend the next week talking about it.

[Exonerate]

I'm not a fan of Johnson, but "Aleppogate" is completely blown out of proportion. I have a hard time singling him out when the NY Times had to issue not one, but two corrections on what Aleppo was. And they weren't even put on the spot, they had all the time in the world before their article made print. Then a former ambassador to Iraq makes the same damn mistake and none of the anchors chime in with a correction, which just makes me think that Johnson's lack of knowledge we're supposed to be horrified at is actually commonplace.

I haven't given any credence to concerns about Hillary's health considering that she's younger than Trump (not to mention women tend to live longer and healthier on average), but that footage does make me want to know if it's just a one-off thing due to extenuating circumstances or something we might expect to be recurring.

Jumping back up a bit, the best predictor of support for Sanders wasn't race, but age. NPR:

"Among African-Americans, who are 17 through 29, Bernie Sanders is actually leading that group, 51 to 48 [percent]," he said. "Among 17- to 29-year-old Hispanics, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 66-34."

[Mr Bean]

Update on Clinton
She's going home, also she has refused access to the Press. It's just overheating per her Campaign. People are going to be waiting until she re-emerges publicly.

[Mr Bean]

Since we are past edit time, update part 2 on Clinton
Link with statements
So per Chicago Tribune reporting it was just her recovering from pneumonia, not drinking enough water and overheating.

And no the Press still is not allowed to see her.

[Lonestar]

I'm not a fan of Johnson, but "Aleppogate" is completely blown out of proportion. I have a hard time singling him out when the NY Times had to issue not one, but two corrections on what Aleppo was.

Dude has a brain fart and when it's explained it's in Syria he lays out a plan to try to bring a diplomatic solution and people hit him up for it.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be blunt, what are Clinton's chances of winning after this health story? I'd like to think voters would not be stupid enough to pick American Erdogan over this of all things, but I don't know.

An appearance of weakness or frailty is not a good thing in a Presidential candidate. Personally, I don't think this is in any way disqualifying, because Clinton in a coma would be a better President than Trump, and the worst possible scenario, God forbid, is that we end up with President Kaine (well, no, the worst possible scenario might be Clinton dying before the election but it being too late to get someone else on the ballot, but I don't know what the procedure is in that scenario).

But its close enough that I'm very worried about this.

[The Vortex Empire]

To be blunt, what are Clinton's chances of winning after this health story? I'd like to think voters would not be stupid enough to pick American Erdogan over this of all things, but I don't know.

An appearance of weakness or frailty is not a good thing in a Presidential candidate. Personally, I don't think this is in any way disqualifying, because Clinton in a coma would be a better President than Trump, and the worst possible scenario, God forbid, is that we end up with President Kaine (well, no, the worst possible scenario might be Clinton dying before the election but it being too late to get someone else on the ballot, but I don't know what the procedure is in that scenario).

But its close enough that I'm very worried about this.

Can't know what effect it will have until we see how the polls shift in the next few days.

[Simon_Jester]

If Clinton actually does recuperate from her illness and is demonstrably able to go around campaigning, I don't think this will make much of a dent. The election will still turn on fundamental issues (Dumb Shit Trump says, et cetera).

If it comes to discussing qualification for office... Clinton is old, Trump is also old- one year older. There is little obvious evidence that Clinton is in better or worse health than Trump so far as I know. If I had to bet on one or the other of the two having made poor choices regarding their health in the past seven decades that might impact their life expectancy today... bluntly, I'd bet on Trump being in worse shape, just from the point of view of playing the odds.

Don't get me wrong, Clinton's age is a legitimate point. I myself brought it up against her in the context of her running against younger candidates (e.g. Cruz or Rubio in this election, or Obama in 2008, though she was only 62 then). Hillary Clinton is one of the oldest people to run for the presidency in the history of the office, the only exceptions being Eisenhower (who turned out okay) and Reagan (not so much) and William Harrison (very bad omen).

The age card has been played against other people who looked like they might wind up in the White House in the recent past, too, chief among them John McCain and (indirectly) Dick Cheney. I will note that McCain is still alive and kicking, so in retrospect any concern that his health wouldn't allow him to serve his term in office was badly misplaced. Also, thankfully, it looks like if Obama had somehow lost, we probably would have been spared a Palin presidency. For whatever that's worth.

...

My honest opinion is that "Don't you think she looks tired?" really shouldn't be enough to disqualify someone from elected office, especially when the alternative isn't exactly in the ripe flush of youth themselves, when there is a gross gap in experience, proven competence, proven honesty, and overall character. I'd rather have an old warhorse who drops dead and has to be replaced in an orderly manner with a known candidate we can vet in advance, than a raving lunatic who, Heaven forbid, might serve their full term in office.

[Lonestar]

Everyone is making a big deal about this as if there haven't been plenty of cases of older teenagers/early 20 somethings dropping out of formation because they locked their knees or were "dehydrated"(hungover) in pleasant weather before. But somehow it's worse if a 70 year old geriatric does it.

[Mr Bean]

Everyone is making a big deal about this as if there haven't been plenty of cases of older teenagers/early 20 somethings dropping out of formation because they locked their knees or were "dehydrated"(hungover) in pleasant weather before. But somehow it's worse if a 70 year old geriatric does it.

Once again it's the handling of it not the act itself because Clinton

1. Once they started pulling Clinton out they told the news people not to film it (And they listened)
2. They did not release a statement for some time after and left it to be leaked not said
3. When video is leaked it looks bad
4. They slip her out quietly from her daughters home to go rest elsewhere
5. They announce oh yes she's been sick since Friday with pneumonia and that's the reason for the collapse
6. They have no real good answer on why a sick person was out hugging people instead of resting

90% of this is self inflicted Clinton campaign secrecy.

[cosmicalstorm]

Wasn't sure what to make of the Parkinsons rumors at first.
I thought it sounded a bit like wishful thinking on the behalf of the pro Trump camp.

This development and the pneunomia stuff smells like Damage Control.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37336164

Clinton cancels California trip after pneumonia diagnosis

32 minutes ago

From the section US Election 2016

Media captionFootage has captured Hillary Clinton stumbling after leaving a 9/11 ceremony early

US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has cancelled a campaign trip to California after being diagnosed with pneumonia.

Mrs Clinton was taken ill on Sunday at a 9/11 memorial ceremony, stumbling as she left the event early.

The candidate's team said she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday and given antibiotics, but had become dehydrated at the New York event.

Her doctor said she was now re-hydrated and "recovering nicely".

Mrs Clinton was due to leave for California on Monday morning for a two-day trip that included fundraisers and a speech on the economy.

Her personal physician, Dr Lisa Bardack, said: "Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies. On Friday, during follow-up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia. She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule."


Hillary Clinton waves to photographers after leaving her daughter's home in New York (11 September)Image copyright AP
Image caption
Mrs Clinton waved to photographers after she left her daughter's home in New York

On Sunday, video showed Mrs Clinton being supported by aides as she entered a van to leave the 9/11 ceremony.

She was taken to her daughter's flat nearby and her team said she was "overheated". The candidate re-emerged later on Sunday, telling reporters: "I'm feeling great. It's a beautiful day in New York."

She then left for her home in Chappaqua, New York.


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (C) attends a commemoration ceremony for the victims of the September 11 attacks at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York, 11 SeptemberImage copyright Getty Images
Image caption
Mr Trump also attended the ceremony

Mrs Clinton's Republican opponents have queried her physical fitness. Presidential candidate Donald Trump told his supporters last month she "lacks the mental and physical stamina" to serve as president and to fight the so-called Islamic State.

Mr Trump's team has not yet made any comment on Mrs Clinton's pneumonia diagnosis.
Why is Trump questioning Clinton's health?
Clinton regrets calling Trump supporters 'deplorable'

Last month, Dr Bardack said the candidate was "in excellent health and fit to serve as president of the United States". She made a full recovery from surgery she underwent in 2012 for a blood clot, the doctor added.

The Clinton campaign has accused opponents of pushing a "deranged conspiracy about Clinton's health". Mrs Clinton is 68. Her Republican opponent Donald Trump is 70.


Analysis - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

George HW Bush once vomited on a Japanese prime minister. His son fainted in the White House after choking on a pretzel. Franklin Roosevelt hid his serious health conditions, and John F Kennedy never spoke of his debilitating back condition.

The difference between these men and Hillary Clinton, however, is that her "overheating" episode - the apparent result of a case of pneumonia - comes in the home stretch of a presidential campaign where she seeks to tie Ronald Reagan as the oldest person ever elected to a first term as president.

Then there are the conspiracy theories about her health - some advanced by top Trump campaign surrogates - which will become more frenzied. The campaign's decision to reveal Mrs Clinton's pneumonia diagnosis only after her very visible struggles two days later will certainly complicate matters.

Donald Trump, age 70, is not clear of medical concerns of course. The only information on his health comes from a haphazardly written note from his doctor.

Sunday's episode may keep Mrs Clinton off the campaign trail for a few days, then fade away. People who would otherwise have shrugged off her health rumours, however, are now watching her activity more closely.



What the US press said

Writing in the Washington Post, Todd C Frankel said Mrs Clinton had for years been discreet about her medical history and her discretion a "made it difficult for voters to assess her complete health picture".

NBC News reporters said the incident had "sparked renewed calls for both Clinton and Trump, who are 68 and 70, respectively, to reveal more about their health".

Adam Nagourney, New York Times LA Bureau Chief, tweeted: "Is this hadn't happened, would Clinton campaign have announced pneumonia? One reason why Clinton/Trump should release medical records."

Vox News pointed out that the US has a rich history of presidential candidates being less than clear about their medical histories. "Looking back, we now know a number of past presidents and presidential candidates who have actually been much sicker than the public knew."


What is walking pneumonia?

Mrs Clinton's team say she is suffering with "walking pneumonia" - a less serious type of the lung infection which leaves patients feeling unwell but doesn't usually require bed rest or hospitalisation.

Pneumonia is essentially an infection of the lungs which causes inflammation in the air sacs and fills them with fluid. Symptoms can include a cough, fever, fatigue, chills and shortness of breath.

Anyone can contract pneumonia, although smokers, older people, and sufferers of chronic lung diseases are at increased risk. There are two types - bacterial or viral. Bacterial pneumonia is common and easily treated with antibiotics.

Most people with so-called "walking pneumonia" can recover within a few days. Those with weak immune systems or existing conditions can take weeks to recover, and pneumonia can in some cases be fatal.

[Simon_Jester]

Clinton having problems with self-inflicted secrecy wounds is hardly new.

On the other hand, Clinton has massive secrecy issues in large part because she's been a target of professional scandalmongers for over twenty years, who will outright make up five or ten scandals for every one that even has a basis in reality, then exaggerate that last one out of proportion. Blaming her for this is basically going back and giving Kenneth Starr a cookie for all his 'good work' in the 1990s.

And, again, if you want a candidate who isn't secretive in this election cycle, you're voting third party. I don't know what the record for number of minutes Trump spends with his mouth open without a blatant self-serving lie coming out, but it isn't an impressive record, I'll bet.

[Knife]

Parkinson's? LOL, no. While fainting or stumbling can be Parkinsonian, what she did isn't even close to what it looks like. Let alone the tremors would be too difficult to hide for a campaigning politician.

[Q99]

I note that Trump himself isn't pushing this- likely under realizing, "Hey, this probably *is* a minor bug and if she comes out looking healthy in the debates and swinging, *I* look bad."