June 1, 2016

Hillary says Trump had to be shamed into giving the money he bragged about to charity, while she, "of course," is responsible for "hundreds of millions of dollars" going to veterans.

She said:
I think the problem here is the difference between what Donald Trump says and what Donald Trump does. You know, he's bragged for months about raising $6 million dollars for veterans, and donating a million dollars himself, but it took a reporter to shame him into actually making his contribution, and getting money to veterans’ groups. I, of course, over the course of my life, I've not only donated personally, but I've worked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars over time to help our veterans by what I voted for, what I've worked for.
1. That word, shame.

2. She says "of course" as if we're familiar with her charitable contributions and charitable channeling toward veterans, but I don't know the details. Is the "of course" supposed to foreclose investigation, as if the facts about her are all already so very well known, since she is — of course! — the most vetted candidate for President who ever existed?

3. Vetted.  That word.

4. Since Hillary invited the comparison and made it central to a pointed attack on Trump — you don't have to attack a person over their charitable giving — the press should lay out the comparison for us. How much has Hillary Clinton "donated personally" to veterans groups and how, exactly, has she "worked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars over time to help our veterans by what I voted for"? Does she simply mean that as a Senator she voted for lots of appropriations of government money? And then, on her own, she's made some personal donations? How much?

5. How did Trump get everyone attacking him for making charitable contributions to veterans? It's so weird. And to be talking about shaming him about it... so very weird. Have we all lost our minds? Idea for anti-Trumpites: Trump is dangerous because of his strange power to make other people lose their mind.

6. Perhaps the press — in its dedication to helping Hillary — is luring her into saying things like this quote I'm focusing on. They make her too comfortable. Now, virtually all reporters will try to create a sense of comfort to get an interviewee to open up, and any sophisticated person should be wary, but Hillary knows they support her and want to help her, which makes her vulnerable, despite her intelligence and long experience, to saying things that really can be used against her.

7. Trump, by contrast, knows the press doesn't like him, and he's well-guarded. That irritates them and may lure them into saying too much, especially since they stick together in a like-minded group that's steeping in Trump-hate. Did you watch CNN yesterday afternoon? I did. The talking heads were chattering nonsense about Trump's press conference. They got each other going, as if they were in some therapy group. But it was on television. Television is not your safe space!

98 comments:

damikesc said...

Trump has given about $5.6M to veterans from that event in Iowa. It's not the full $6M yet, but it's also not done yet.

The Clintons give overwhelmingly to their corrupt "charitable organization".

Does SHE really want to open up that can of worms? Trump isn't giving to a "charitable organization" that is more akin to money laundering than actual charity.

JAORE said...

Hilary has bragged she has been open with her tax records. So finding out how much she has personally given should be low hanging fruit.

I'm sure the NYT will assign 20 reporters to dig,Dig, DIG(!) immediately....

JAORE said...

Faint memory bell a-ringing. Didn't Hillary claim a donation of undies lo those many years ago.

Maybe they went to a military cause.

"Death From Above".

damikesc said...

Hilary has bragged she has been open with her tax records. So finding out how much she has personally given should be low hanging fruit.

People learned that in 2007, the Clintons paid more in taxes than Jeb Bush made in his entire life combined.

...just to remind you that the Republicans are the party of the rich or something.

Bob Ellison said...

If you brag about your charitable works, you are lying.

damikesc said...

Always been my view. I cannot stand "charity as PR". If you do charity work, then do the damned charity work. I'm even OK if you admit you do some charity work but don't admit how much you do. Because some celebrities legitimately do WAY more charity work than people really realize.

David Begley said...

There will be ZERO follow-up or investigation about Hillary's claims. And she knows that. Just like her claim that her private email server was allowed by existing State Department regulations. She makes a claim and that's the end of it.

John said...

Looking at bill and hills 2014 tax return just now it says theygace about $3mm to charity on a bit more than $27mm adjustec gross income. Around 10%.

It did not say who the money went to. It refers to a "statement 3" which I don't find. I am on my tablet so didn't look very hard.

Anyone else? Do we know where the $3mm went? Clinton foundation? Sally Anns? Other charities?

John henry

John said...

Tax returns for several years are at hillarys website

John said...

Amen damisek.

See Matthew 6.

John Henry

damikesc said...

Looking at bill and hills 2014 tax return just now it says theygace about $3mm to charity on a bit more than $27mm adjustec gross income. Around 10%.

It did not say who the money went to. It refers to a "statement 3" which I don't find. I am on my tablet so didn't look very hard.

Anyone else? Do we know where the $3mm went? Clinton foundation? Sally Anns? Other charities?


$1.8M to Clinton Family Foundation.
Smaller amounts to University of Arkansas, American Ireland Fund, American Friends of the Peres Center.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/half-of-clintons-charitable-giving-in-2014-went-to-their-own-foundation/

Ann Althouse said...

From a July 2015 article in The Atlantic:

"As for charitable donations, the Clintons gave just under $15 million over the eight-year period, which is 10.8 percent of their total income. The vast majority of that — about $14.8 million — went through the Clinton Family Foundation, the vehicle the Clintons frequently use to make personal donations, and another $57,000 went to the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clintons' other donations were to the Nelson Mandela Foundation ($60,000), Humana Challenge ($46,000), the First Methodist United Church ($20,000), Exploring the Arts ($4,100), St. Stephen's Armenian Apostolic Church ($2,500) and the Hot Springs Class of '64, Bill Clinton's high school graduating class in Arkansas ($200)."

Ann Althouse said...

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Michael P said...

Read carefully: "I've worked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars over time to help our veterans by what I voted for...."

Whose money is she claiming credit for spending?

Brando said...

Since "virtue signaling" has been the talk of this year's election, does Trump and Clinton's constant boasting of their charitable work count as "virtue signaling"?

There's something vulgar and distasteful about bragging about your charitable work, particularly when we're talking about two candidates who don't seem to live up to their boasts.

readering said...

I didn't watch the TV coverage but the news on Trump's veterans act is pretty devastating. His handsy campaign manager represented that most of the donations were distributed a long time ago but the checks were in fact dated the same date as the Washington Post inquiry, including Donald's check. Trump claims he wanted it to be non-public distributions but the press detailed mutiple occasions where Trump had very public donations at rallies.

Brando said...

"If you brag about your charitable works, you are lying."

Maybe not lying, but clearly trying to buy admiration.

AJ Lynch said...

Isn't there a 27 year-old media pissant out there who has the time to track and publish a daily running count on the number of questions Trump has answered versus the number Hillary has answered?

exhelodrvr1 said...

A number of years ago, I think it was the editor of Newsweek who said that the media favoritism given to the Democrats is worth about 6 percentage points.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
machine said...

"How did Trump get everyone attacking him for making charitable contributions to veterans?"


because he lied about it...just like he lies about everything--by talking out of his @#*...he is not used to scrutiny.

he is the wrestlemania candidate and he has shown the gop to be rasslin fans.

AprilApple said...

Considering the state of the VA and our many vets who are homeless - If Hillary provided hundreds of millions of dollars to vets - what good did it do?

AprilApple said...

My guess is that she is lying.

Her press (the press) will never uncover her lies.

FullMoon said...

This would have been a good time for Hillary to let someone else do the talking for her..

And, what good is a 200 dollar gift to a high school graduating class? Pizza and beer?

AprilApple said...

Why Trump left this opening is really stupid. He better wise up.

dreams said...

"But it was on television. Television is not your safe space!"

Their bubble is their safe space. Cause all their friends live in liberal places thereby making safe spaces.

Curious George said...

"I, of course, over the course of my life, I've not only donated personally, but I've worked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars over time to help our veterans by what I voted for, what I've worked for."

One thing Democrats are great at, donating other peoples money.

AprilApple said...

but I've worked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars over time to help our veterans by what I voted for, what I've worked for. -hillary

Good Lord she's gross.

Hillary - if you want to take responsibility for failed democrat policies - by all means, do so. The crap sandwich your party has given us over and over with your "votes" - own it, you lying witch.

Saint Croix said...

I, of course, over the course of my life, I've not only donated personally

$10? $20?

but I've worked

said "aye"

to provide hundreds of millions of dollars

seized by the state

over time to help our veterans

"Vote for me! I will take your money, spend it, and brag about how charitable I am."

Is this what they mean by race to the bottom?

"You think you're unseemly and selfish? Ha! I'm way more unseemly and selfish than you are! And dishonest to boot! You're not going to out-unseemly and out-selfish me!"

Brando said...

Not that it will matter to his core supporters who seem to forgive everything, but it makes no sense that a man as rich as Trump (even assuming he's far less rich than he pretends) wouldn't go ahead and make the full, tax-deductible charitable donation that he'd pledged right away. After taxes, how much was he really saving by not putting up the money here? Was that worth giving his opponents a line of attack about stiffing vets, who he counts on for his support (even after his nasty and stupid POW comments from last year)?

The only purpose I can think of is if he piles on enough mistakes it sort of crowds out the bigger ones. Maybe having the media focus on the charity thing will take their attention away from his pointless attack on Governor Martinez. I'm sure Scott Adams will come out saying this was all part of some genius plan.

tim maguire said...

I've worked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars over time to help our veterans by what I voted for, what I've worked for.

Uh huh. So Hillary's millions for veterans is taxpayer millions, not Clinton millions. This is my shocked face.

rhhardin said...

Shame, L pudor, the root of pudendum.

David Begley said...

Hillary has conducted ZERO press conferences in 2016.

AprilApple said...

Exactly- The Clinton Crime Family is very charitable, with other peoples money.

AprilApple said...

Considering the sad state of the VA - she's taken OUR money and wasted it. She's just another corruptocrat.

Big Mike said...

So she wants to compare what she's donated personally "over the course of [her] life" to what Donald Trump did in a matter of months? Well isn't that just special???

(1) I suspect that she's going to be caught in a lie. The reporters surrounding her are not the only people who can dig into her records.

(2) Yup, that sounds right. It takes a woman a lifetime to achieve somewhat less than what a competent man does in a matter of months. Unless, of course, one is Rosalind Franklin, who should have earned two Nobel prizes for her work, stolen by Watson and Crick, on the structure of DNA and her work on viruses (she died too young) or if one is Marie Curie, who did win two Nobel prizes.

(3) Democrats really are fond of confusing voting for things with accomplishing things. Hence Gore's claim that he "invented the Internet" (he voted on appropriations to expand ARPANET but the real work was done by Vint Cerf) and now Clinton's claim that voting on appropriations for veterans should be regarded as somehow equivalent to personally donating money from one's own pocket to veterans.

(4) Between now and November will it dawn on journalists that they themselves are making Trump voters? If I had not already resigned myself that Trump is going to be the head of the GOP ticket this crap certainly would have converted me.

Hagar said...

Hurrah for Althouse!

dreams said...

Liberals don't give to charity because they help those less fortunate via the government and taxpayer money. They do more harm than good but their objective is to feel good about themselves which is accomplished regardless of the consequences.

Darrell said...

Trump didn't lie about anything. Some of the original phone-in donations were fake or cancelled. The original veteran charities that were going to receive $million+ donations refused the money because it was attached to Trump--that meant other charities had to be vetted. I'm sure Trump didn't bring in extra staff to handle this special project which is separate from his charitable foundation because that would eat into the donations. There is of course no set deadline for all the money being distributed. Hillary had no problem with 911 donations being paid over decades.

Saint Croix said...

Are you sure you want to make the Clinton Charitable Foundation an issue in this campaign?

Trump = gives money to American veterans

HIllary = receives bribes from foreign powers

Darrell said...

F'in Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet because he put together hearings to tax and regulate it. That's innovation for dinosaur politicians like Hillary.

David Begley said...

Big Mike wrote, "Between now and November will it dawn on journalists that they themselves are making Trump voters?"

No. Journalists are clueless; an insular elite.

Big Mike said...

5. How did Trump get everyone attacking him for making charitable contributions to veterans? It's so weird. And to be talking about shaming him about it... so very weird. Have we all lost our minds?

I don't think you've lost your mind, Professor, nor Meade nor I. But as to the how, I think he's figured out how to stand back and let his adversaries blunder all over themselves. He's sort of like the Road Runner in the Warner Brothers cartoons, letting the Wile E. Coyote's elaborate plans backfire. Any minute now Trump is going to say "Meep meep!" and I'll know I'm right.

Brando said...

Hillary taking credit for spending taxpayer money on charity reminds me of another pet peeve--naming some major public project after the pol who steered tax money to pay for it (e.g., the Tip O'Neill tunnel in the Big Dig).

BDNYC said...

Was Hillary's vote ever the deciding vote in enacting the appropriations for veterans? Did she take an active role in shepherding the legislation or sponsor any crucial amendments that ensured the appropriation or made it better for veterans?

It's just an absurd thing to take credit for in the first place, at least as compared to personal charitable giving. If Hillary was just one of 100 votes, and her vote was not decisive, then she needs to just shut the fuck up.

Mike said...

When I heard her statement yesterday it immediately galled me. Jesus, if there was ever a walking talking example of the liberal mindset that Rush has been describing for years, this horrible woman is it. She has the nerve to compare Trumps raising of millions in private voluntary donations with her partial participation in extracting involuntary tax dollars and doling them out to bureaucratic brethren of hers. What a contrast! Conservatives believe in private charity because people helping people directly and locally is what works best. Progressives believe that all good things flow from Washington expertise and largess. We couldn't create a clearer real-world contrast id we tried.

But let's unpack this a little more shall we? Funny how all the sudden she wants "responsibility" for a law she didn't write, for funds she couldn't actually allocate, for services that didn't get rendered to our Vets. That's why they are pissed off! That's why there's this VA scandal thing that Hillary is oblivious to. While she was a member of the administration and had influence she didn't do shit. But candidate Hillary -- having a God complex moment apparently -- thinks that she can speak into existence "hundreds of millions" and yet. Where's the result? Did that shorten the illegal double-entry wait lists?

Why is she can "take responsibility" and clearly state her support of vets but she can't do the responsible thing regarding her private server and at least meet with the IG trying to sort it out? Why can't she direct her staff to cooperate? Why did the current and three former SoS agree to IG interviews but herself couldn't be bothered? Is that a privilege she's claiming, to not involve herself in solving the email mystery? What privilege could that be? Because the only assertion I can see is that she wants to avoid incriminating statements.

Hillary really shows the kind of judgement we need in a President!

Luke Lea said...

On one of her campaign web pages Hillary links to legislation she has introduced or supported that help veterans: http://goo.gl/ltUQYW

In particular, four bills:

1. https://goo.gl/fQPxuq
2. https://goo.gl/GXNua9
3. https://goo.gl/v1zoXA
4. https://goo.gl/ngdELE

It's not clear which, if any, of these bills actually passed into law. Maybe somebody can clarify that point?

traditionalguy said...

One test is what a Viking Leader like Trump wants to spend ISIL's stolen oil wealth on when he recovers it after killing them all: The wounded warriors and their dependents.

But Hillary wants to spend it on thousands more Lolita Express flights to Orgy Island for First Man Bill Clinton so he will not interfere with her doing Lesbians on her Private Server in the Lincoln Bedroom closet, without SHAME.

She just doesn't like SHAME. So she demands total secrecy. And "What difference, at this point, does that make."

The poor media are chomping at the bit to run shame Trump Narratives 24/7. They hate this hurry up and wait stuff.

Darrell said...

Here's what Hillary did to help veterans:

Jack shit.

Darrell said...

Oh, and giving the stand-down order in Benghazi that got heroes killed.

robother said...

The devastating comparison would be The Clinton Foundation to this Trump veterans' charity event. How much, if any, has the Clinton Foundation ever given to veterans' groups? And what percentage of Clinton Foundation donations go to any charity (as opposed to administration salaries for Clintons and their political retainers)? For Trump, I would bet that 100% of the funds raised went to the charities directly.

machine said...

"...giving the stand-down order in Benghazi that got heroes killed."


and there you have it rasslin fans...

Saint Croix said...

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders says...

"I don't believe in charities."

Steve said...

It's almost like Hillary doesn't understand the difference between private charity and using governmental power to steer dollars to a preferred constituency. I find that pretty frightening.

Steve said...

robother said...

The devastating comparison would be The Clinton Foundation to this Trump veterans' charity event. How much, if any, has the Clinton Foundation ever given to veterans' groups?

Veterans groups don't have any power to reward the Clintons later. Why would they give them anything?

Freder Frederson said...

How did Trump get everyone attacking him for making charitable contributions to veterans? It's so weird.

No it isn't. Trump boasted that he raised $6 million for veterans' groups. Yet when questioned about it, refused to provide details of where the money went. Only when it was obvious the questions weren't going to go away did he belatedly announce the distribution of the funds (and a good chunk of the distribution was just in the last couple weeks).

The whole thing smells.

Ann Althouse said...

"The whole thing smells."

What's your olfactory impression of the Clinton Foundation?

Mike said...

Freder, six months doesn't sound like a long time to investigate the recipients and disburse funds. Maybe you think it's unreasonable, but Trump is multitasking here. It's not like it was PUBLIC money and resources used for private gain, like the Clinton Global Crime Slush Fund.

Maybe THAT is what you smell stinking it up out there.

CStanley said...

How did Trump get everyone attacking him for making charitable contributions to veterans? It's so weird.

No, what's weird is how we got to the point where an intelligent person who is normally skeptical of political power finds it apt to characterize normal media questioning of a presidential candidate as an attack.

Look, it seems that Trump answered the questions, so good for him. But to imply they shouldn't have been asked is not only idiotic, it's downright frightening.

CStanley said...

So why aren't you demanding investigation and answers from HC about the Clinton Foundation? Of course she should be held to e fire for that! It's obscene that the press hasn't addressed it. But criticizing them for asking Trump about his touted charity fundraising gives them cover instead of demanding that they do their job.

Peter said...

Perception is that the Clinton Foundation is run primarily by and for the benefit of the Clintons; she's got an uphill fight to change that perception.

It's not as if most of us haven't figured out that many charities have become big businesses, in which the production of actual charitable works seem almost incidental.

Legal precedent seems to support this, in that so long as a charity spends at least $1.00 on charity it's not considered fraudulent- no matter how much it buys at inflated prices from for-profit companies owned by those who organized it, or how much it pays insiders for services.

It would help, perhaps, if the public were to do minimal research before mailing a $20. to whoever just mailed a pitch with that ever-popular, pitiable flies-in-the-eyes girl, but for now and the foreseeable future charities will raise money by whatever methods work. And so long as that's so, a sort of Gresham's Law will produce more and larger corrupt charities than efficient, effective ones.

Big Mike said...

I see that Freder is being paid to push the meme that Trump had to be shamed into actually disbursing the money he raised. He cleverly doesn't use the word "shame," but the point is the same. On behalf of my fellow veterans who had much less luck during and following their service than I did, I'm grateful that he raised the money and appreciative that he's disbursing it to organizations that will do some good with it.

Hey, Freder! How about you go ask how much money the Clinton Foundation raised for Haitian relief, how much was actually spent in Haiti, and when was it spent? Come back when you have the answers.

EDH said...

"I, of course, over the course of my life, I've not only donated personally, but I've worked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars over time to help our veterans by what I voted for, what I've worked for."

OPM = Other People's Money.

Hagar said...

Question Trump (or Hillary!) is one thing; the tone of the "questioning" is another.

CStanley said...

What bothers me is that Trump is relying on the public's disgust at the media (especially the conservative public) to trash the whole idea that the press should be holding public figures accountable. I would be cheering it on if he called them out only on really biased and unfair attacks, or calling them out for neglecting to ask questions of Democrats, but he really is going beyond that and acting like it would be correct for them to treat Republicans the way they treat Democrats. Sorry, but no, they should have an adversarial role toward politicians of both parties.

Hagar said...

and the tone of the "Kaffee-klatch" panel discussion following, yet another, which is what seems to have gotten AA's back hair up.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Gotta tell you, it actually makes me angry that you people are going to happily vote for this woman. She's taking credit for tax money that went to veterans. Hey, SHE voted for it, so when MY money is taken and spent on things like veteran care SHE should get credit for it. What a complete piece of shit.

Nevermind that while she was a part of the Obama Administration our VA care tanked...isn't SHE responsible for that, too?

I've made my peace with the fact that Hillary's an awful human being (or at the very least does a killer impression of one). What pisses me off is that half the country will vote for her and a significant portion of that half will be HAPPY to vote her into office. Fuck this.

Brando said...

"What's your olfactory impression of the Clinton Foundation?"

Isn't it possible to find both these people odious? I didn't realize that finding Trump disgusting meant thinking highly of Hillary.

"I would be cheering it on if he called them out only on really biased and unfair attacks, or calling them out for neglecting to ask questions of Democrats, but he really is going beyond that and acting like it would be correct for them to treat Republicans the way they treat Democrats. Sorry, but no, they should have an adversarial role toward politicians of both parties."

That's exactly the problem with his approach to the media. His idea of what is "unfair" to him is "anything critical of him that does not take his BS at face value, even when the BS is obvious" and so instead of an example of actual media bias (which does exist) which could put them on the defensive and play to his advantage, he comes across like an impotent authoritarian screeching that he's not getting constant praise.

If there's a problem with the media it's that they're not adversarial enough--not that they should instead be the PR arm for Trump, or Clinton.

Brando said...

"I've made my peace with the fact that Hillary's an awful human being (or at the very least does a killer impression of one). What pisses me off is that half the country will vote for her and a significant portion of that half will be HAPPY to vote her into office. Fuck this."

What do you expect? This is the year everyone will be voting for the "lesser of two evils" while fully accepting that both of their choices are evil. We absolutely deserve the lousy government we're setting up for the next four to eight years. Take solace in the fact that these candidates are also pretty incompetent and so can only do so much damage.

tim in vermont said...

I don't get where there is evidence that Hillary is intelligent, not in any significant way, anyways. I think she is a subjective thinker, as it is called in "Women's Ways of Knowing," that she listens to her inner voice and trusts her gut explicitly and any feedback from the outside world that contradicts her gut is ignored or disbelieved. Supposedly 50% of women think this way.

Michael K said...

Freder and machine have got the goods on Trump. Right ?

The whole donation thing came up because he dropped out of a GOP debate when he saw a set up. Instead he said he would hold a fund raiser for vets,

He did. A lot of miney came in. Vet organizations are mostly scams depending on size. The more advertising the more lilely a scam. I have quit contributing to two big ones. You probably know which they are if you follow this stuff.

Trump spent some time "vetting" some smaller organizations and now has sent the money on to them, as shown by the list he presented at the press conference,

Hillary is probably talking about The Clinton Foundation, which is a huge money laundering operation that handles her graft.

The Haitian "charities" are an example of the Clinton corruption machine (sorry machine) which doled out various operations to friends and donors. Even The New York Times writes about it.

In widely read blogs, in protests in Port-au-Prince and outside Mrs. Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, and on popular call-in radio shows in Florida, where primaries will be held on Tuesday, the Clintons have become prime targets of blame for the country’s woes.

Among the litany of complaints being laid at their feet: Fewer than half the jobs promised at the industrial park, built after 366 farmers were evicted from their lands, have materialized. Many millions of dollars earmarked for relief efforts have yet to be spent. Mrs. Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham has turned up in business ventures on the island, setting off speculation about insider deals.

“A vote for Hillary Clinton means further corruption, further death and destruction for our people,” said Dahoud Andre, a radio show host in New York who has helped organize protests against the Clintons. “It means more Haitians leaving Haiti and not being able to live in our country.”


When the Times turns on her it has to be pretty bad.

Marty said...

Althouse says, "Have we all lost our minds?"

Pretty much.

Paddy O said...

Trump is meth for the press. He gets them going, makes life feel exciting, get a lot done at weird hours, but he rots their teeth and makes them hate themselves, and causes them to lose all their friends. They can't stop taking him.

Michael K said...

"Trump is meth for the press."

Good analogy. I expect this to continue to November and even after. It will only stop if it looks like he is being successful as president.

Then he will vanish from the news.

FullMoon said...

Brando said... [hush]​[hide comment]
....... Was that worth giving his opponents a line of attack about stiffing vets, who he counts on for his support (even after his nasty and stupid POW comments from last year)?


Al Franken, 2010
I doubt I could cross the line and vote Republican. I have tremendous respect for McCain but I don’t buy the war hero thing. Anybody can be captured. I thought the idea was to capture them. As far as I’m concerned he sat out the war.


Franken repeated joke to McCain in person, on his radio show. Laughter all around.
Trump showed poor judgement and bad comedic timing in repeating it.

Char Char Binks said...

@Ann Althouse

What's wrong with "vetted"? Is it the word itself you object to? It seems to be a word we got from British politics that caught on here about fifteen to twenty years ago.

I like it; it's useful and concise. It's better to say, "We vetted the candidate." instead of, "We did a thorough background check on the candidate.".

The Drill SGT said...

This Vet remembers clearly the attitude toward the military that was demonstrated by the Clinton's when they moved into the WH in 1993

Bruce Hayden said...

Freder aside, I think that Trump was able to turn lemons into lemonade with those donations. Yesterday, I listened to him reeling off where the money went. I thought it impressive. He was pressed by the media on the subject, and turned it around making himself look generous and patriotic.

Is vetting important? Very. For every legitimate charity, there are probably several scams like the Clinton Foundation. And while we are on that subject, note that almost all of the Clintons "charitable" contributions went to either their personal foundation or their Glbal Initiatives. And, notably, their family foundation gives very little to actual charity. Rather, it appears to operate as a mechanism for them to launder money, where they can take in money from foreign entities, companies, and governments (appearing to often be in return for official favors), and passing it out to their friends, or spending it on 1st class accommodations and travel for themselves and their friends and minions. Notably, both Sydney Blumenthal and Huma Abedilen took foundation salaries while she was Sec of State. She wanted him working for her at the time, and the Obama Administration refused. He appears to have been partially responsible for the chaos that is now Lybia, and indirectly is why she got caught in her email scandal. Huma, not only is Hillary's closest associate and minion, but is also famously married to discrased former Congressman and NYC mayoral candidate Tony Wiener. My guess is that her Clinton Foundation salary was provided to augment her State Dept salary after he was forced to resign his House seat. It would be interesting to see how many others of their cabal have taken foundation money over the last 15 years. As for themselves - how else can they get a tax write off for first class living and travel?

Realistically, the Clinton campaign, and all the Dem operatives with bylines (I.e. The MSM) should drop the subject, since if they don't, Trump and his campaign are going to make the Clinton Foundation even more of an issue. My understanding is that they have repeatedly been unable to be properly audited. I expect that we will hear all the way through to the election that a full accounting is imminent, and it will remain just around the corner ntl then, and then be quietly dropped. We shall see.

walter said...

"Trump showed poor judgement and bad comedic timing in repeating it."
Ah..of course. He was just joking. Gotta work on that timing.
Yeah...the presser was entertaining..classic Trump. Basically the extended version of "You're not nice..what about her?"...then never really answering the questions.
It will be great fun to watch the wedding couple shooting their mouths off during the primary.

Chuck said...

The charitable donations are in the tax returns. The Clinton returns have been released. The Romney returns have been released. The Obama and Biden returns have been released.

In that group, Mitt Romney stood out singularly, for the gross amount as well as the percentage of income he donated to charity.

The Trump returns are alone, in their secrecy and opacity.

Dan Hossley said...

Trump's core proposition is that 1) the system is rigged to protect and enrich those already in power at the expense of average people and 2) as an outsider, he will change that. His attack on the press yesterday is consistent with that theme.

The key take away from yesterday's press conference was 1) Trump raised and donated close to $6 million for vets and 2) the press admitted that their questions about it came from the Clinton campaign (questions have been raised).

So they collectively proved Trump's main point. He attacked them and when pressed he let them know that's how it's going to be. As in, "there's a new sheriff in town".

Meanwhile, Hillary is reduced to spreading rumors and hiding under her bed.

Mary Beth said...

There is one veteran-related bill that Hillary Clinton co-sponsored. I only looked for ones she sponsored or co-sponsored. She may want it, but I'm not giving her credit just for voting for something.

Cassandra said...

According to Breitbart via Drudge:

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton have donated $70,000 to veterans and military groups from their personal Clinton Family Foundation in recent years, according to public records.
The list of donations from the Clintons is not comprehensive, but is dwarfed by Donald Trump’s release of a list of 41 groups that identified donations of $5.6 million to veterans groups."

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/01/hillary-clinton-donated-70000-veterans/

Brando said...

"Franken repeated joke to McCain in person, on his radio show. Laughter all around.
Trump showed poor judgement and bad comedic timing in repeating it."

I'll keep that in mind if I ever try to say something nice about Al Franken. The episode really just showed that any Trump supporters who carry on about how disrespectful the Dems are towards Vietnam vets were never serious about it in the first place. I'll grant one thing about Trump--he's managed to expose the true colors of a lot of people on the supposed "right".

"The Trump returns are alone, in their secrecy and opacity."

Most likely because they would show such a low income (or no income) and that'd raise serious questions about his net worth. What other reason could a braggart like Trump have for being so secretive about how much he earned? He said himself he pays as little taxes as legally possible, so it couldn't be embarrassment over paying very little taxes--unless the reason was a net loss for several years.

"So they collectively proved Trump's main point. He attacked them and when pressed he let them know that's how it's going to be. As in, "there's a new sheriff in town"."

I think you're glossing over the fact that: (1) he promised to raise $6 million and donate his own $1 million to a charity; (2) when recently asked about it, he lashed out at the press for having the gall to question him; (3) the press then discovered that he only made the payments after being called on it in late May. So if they hadn't followed up with him, should we believe he eventually would have donated the money? Would you like to buy this bridge I have to sell you?

The press is doing their job--they need to follow up on sleazes like Trump. I'd like them to do the same with Hillary, but Trump shouldn't be getting a pass either.

Char Char Binks said...

At least Franken was JOKING, something he's good at. Trump didn't seem to be joking, but then again, he's not good at it.

Michael K said...

"The press is doing their job--they need to follow up on sleazes like Trump."

I suspect this is one reason why Trump is not, so far, releasing his tax returns. Those who hate him will use any excuse to attack him and those who support him don't care.

Romney released his tax return from 2011, in September 2012, after Harry Reid beat up on him for months,

Trump might do the same. Chuck should try not to get too excited.

Gusty Winds said...

Trump is dangerous because of his strange power to make other people lose their mind.

Win or lose, it's been the best part of the whole campaign.

Brando said...

"I suspect this is one reason why Trump is not, so far, releasing his tax returns. Those who hate him will use any excuse to attack him and those who support him don't care."

When you have underwater approval ratings it may make sense not to keep giving the majority who don't like you reasons to not like you. Right now, his best hope is that enough of the people who don't like him will not like Hillary even more.

Plus, like I said, if the returns showed solid income and low tax rates (like Romney's did) it would help him--partly to draw a contrast with Hillary hiding her Goldman speeches, and partly to stamp out speculation about what embarrassing stuff is in there (not to convince his fans, who would support him no matter what, or his harshest critics, who will still never support him, but those who aren't fond of him or Hillary and will decide this election). Like the Goldman speeches, the only explanation for withholding them is that whatever is in there is worse than what people already assume is in there.

Saint Croix said...

"Hey! Stop giving money to the homeless! Who said you could do that? Where's your license? This is unauthorized use of money that belongs to the state! Police! Police! She's feeding the homeless!"

Feel the Bern

Saint Croix said...

"There is nothing in the federal budget about feeding pigeons in the park. That is not an approved use of bread. We're going to get to the bottom of all this unlicensed charitable activity. In secret! Why is it in secret?! The people have a right to know. You damn secretive pigeon charities aren't going to get away with this. That's our bread!"

Feel the Bern

Saint Croix said...

Donnie: "Bernie and I will debate and raise $10 million dollars for charity!"

Bernie: "What the hell? What's the matter with you?"

Donnie: "Never mind."

Saint Croix said...

Donnie: "I brag about my charity so people will like me."

Hillary: "I brag about my charity that isn't actually charity so people will like me."

Bernie: "I think charity is bad and I discourage it whenever possible. There should be no charity! I really am a crazy old socialist. I am Venezuela waiting to happen. You know the last time I fed a bird? Never! Never! And still the birds fly up to me. Yes, that's right, I have even fooled the birds. No charity for birds, or the homeless, or the vets. My plan is to destroy the banks and the corporations that make you work for a living. Everybody will be poor and desperate. But you'll like me anyway!"

Freder Frederson said...

Freder, six months doesn't sound like a long time to investigate the recipients and disburse funds.

It's not. But that is not how Trump responded to inquiries. If he had said, "We are vetting recipients to ensure the money is well spent, and will announce the distribution when the process is complete", That would have be reasonable. But that is not what Trump did. When asked about the contributions, the response was "none of your business".

Michael K said...

" Like the Goldman speeches, the only explanation for withholding them is that whatever is in there is worse than what people already assume is in there."

Is that why Romney waited so long to release his ?

Come on.

Michael K said...

"When asked about the contributions, the response was "none of your business".

Were you asking about your own contributions ?

If not, fuck off.

Brando said...

"Is that why Romney waited so long to release his ?"

It didn't help Romney to wait, did it? Trump himself criticized the decision at the time (yet another example of Trump post-2015 completely pulling 180s from Trump pre-2015), and it gave the Dems months of opportunity to insinuate that Romney paid miniscule or no taxes (as Reid noted, slimily but correctly, his unfounded suggestion that Romney paid no taxes helped Obama win), and further the notion that Romney was an evil heartless capitalist.

As to why Romney waited so long, I suspect he feared that his 17% effective tax rate would look bad in the election (and Dems did try to make it look bad, though considering his money was mostly capital gains that's not scandalous at all). He would have been better off releasing them earlier, and pointing out that he's paying what's required and still donating to charity, and at the very least end the speculation that he was paying far less. It was one of many mistakes on the GOP side in that campaign.

Michael K said...

"It was one of many mistakes on the GOP side in that campaign."

The biggest was Romney and I say that as a donor who gave him more money than I ever gave any other candidate.

Maybe it's Mormons. All the Mormons I know are the nicest people you would ever want to associate with.

Trump is the anti-Mormon except for the ice cream. I'll bet he drinks coffee, though.

eddie willers said...

Trump is the anti-Mormon except for the ice cream

And the blonde kids.